• 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.
The point is that there is an emotional jargon to go with the Woo-locaust. And "holocaust survivor" is one of the terms. The point is that soldiers who really did risk their lives in that war and survived, never came back to their countries and referred to themselves as survivors.

Er,.... Then why does the phrase "world war 2 survivor" turn up 1500 hits on Google?

Most people here think that the people from Auschwitz who displayed a tattoo on their forearm had greater hardships than front-line German and Soviet soldiers.

That's right. They did.

Guess what: the people with the tattoos likely spent the war working for IG Farben in Monowitz.

.... because they were the ones who had lucked out and NOT gotten selected for random gassings during the war.

The ones who worked for IG Farben for a while and then went to the gas chambers didn't survive which is why they're not showing you their tats.

They probably got enough to eat the entire time.

... because the ones that died of starvation aren't around to show your their tats.

Ditto the ones who died of diseases such as typhus.

When Auschwitz was evacuated in January 1945, and they were transferred to Belsen and Buchenwald, that is when the starvation started to happen, in February, March, April.

Except that the starvation is well-documented to have happened from the start.

You lose.
 
"The Holocaust" is an event and word the Jews themselves created.

Wrong on both counts. The word was created by the Greeks.

And the event, by the Nazis.
 
Last edited:
90% of the Holocaust Deniers are Neo Nazi/White Supremists. The other 10% are some extreme Libertarians( it's fits in with there extreme Isolationism and belief that US entry into WW2 was wrong) and the usual gang of idiots who will support any crazy idea that makes them look "Daring" "Anti Establishment" and "Edgy".

When did you do this survey?
 
Actually, there's something more... silly about the holocaust denial.

It's not just the love of Hitler. It's that it came to almost be a synonim for the anti-Israel crowd.

But here's the funny thing: Hitler and the higher ups in the NSDAP actually planned to create a Jewish state and move the Jews there, before finally going with the "Final Solution". Don't think some particular love of them, but basically the idea was one huge ghetto.

The best known variant is probably the Madagascar Plan, though Palestine was considered too at various moments. Madagascar was the preferred variant because of its being an island and they'd be prevented by the sea from coming back.

Really, the key to understanding it all, is that the Nazis wanted the Jews removed from German society. Genocide was an option, but not the first one considered seriously and in a way not a purpose in itself.

(In fact, ironically, none other than Himmler seems to be against genocide in this quote from 1940, "However cruel and tragic each individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best, if one rejects the Bolshevik method of physical extermination of a people out of inner conviction as un-German and impossible.")

Anyway, the key idea was that the Jews had to go. They can jolly well be somewhere else, just as long as they're not _here_.

In fact Wannsee and the "Final Solution" only happened when it became clear that Germany will never be in a position to do that.

Anyway, Nazi Germany actually planned to create a sort of a Jewish state. A puppet state, make no mistake, but the plan still was to let it largely self-govern (as was largely the case with the ghettos too), and only nominally answer to a German governor.

And again, Madagascar was the preferred variant only because they wanted to prevent the Jews from coming back. If you told Hitler or Himmler or Rademacher (the guy in charge of planning the Madagascar deportation) that you could just let some millions go to Israel and they'll actually want to stay there, they'd have even paid the relocation costs. They were planning to pay for the Madagascar move anyway.

So it's kind of ironic to see the lemmings rush to the defense of Hitler, yet use it as a rallying ideology against something that Hitler himself would have and _had_ approved of, and which was an official directive and had a planning committee at least from 1940 to 1942 :p

ETA: I mean, seriously, in 1940 Himmler discussed his proposal with Hitler of sending the Jews "to a colony in Africa or elsewhere" and Hitler responded that the plan was "very good and correct."

I mean, WTH?

Of course, that would require actually knowing history.

Hmm, ok, so I answered my own question. Never mind ;)

In you opinion, or anyone else's, if Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews by letting them leave Germany before the war, then why was he so determined to kill all of them during the war?
 
In you opinion, or anyone else's, if Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews by letting them leave Germany before the war, then why was he so determined to kill all of them during the war?

you know, for a man who hated Jews, Hitler really did make it quite expensive for Jews to leave Germany. How many thousands of Marks did it cost to leave?
 
Last edited:
Guess what: the people with the tattoos likely spent the war working for IG Farben in Monowitz.

Demjanjuk had a SS tattoo. He is charged with killing 27,000 people...with camp tattoos. How is this working for IG Farben?

They probably got enough to eat the entire time.

Here is a table of prisoner food in all concentration camps.
http://www.air-photo.com/english/ration.html
That's 1100 to 1400 calories a day for camp inmates. A "worker" needs 2260 calories a day. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4371695.
The above calculations explain the attitude of the SS-men, who regarded any prisoner who survived in the camp for several months as a thief who stole food. http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpol10.htm#Food Rations


When Auschwitz was evacuated in January 1945, and they were transferred to Belsen and Buchenwald, that is when the starvation started to happen,

You made this up and this is a complete fabrication.
 
In you opinion, or anyone else's, if Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews by letting them leave Germany before the war, then why was he so determined to kill all of them during the war?

1) Read Mein Kampf from 1925 to see Hitler's own words on why he dosn't like Jews in 1925

2) When the war started he was unable to transport Jews anywhere and indeed had extracted the exit fees from the last jews who had left. Despite labour shortage he chose to execute the entire remaining population and would have done so if the war had not ended.
 
Jews and others died in the camps but it was not "The Holocaust". "The Holocaust" is an event and word the Jews themselves created.

Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." We still use the word "caustic" in English. So it's a Hebrew word is it?
 
In you opinion, or anyone else's, if Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews by letting them leave Germany before the war, then why was he so determined to kill all of them during the war?

I'm not sure I see the problem.

First of all, he seemed to simply hate Jews and consider them the source of all evil in Germany and the world. (Though he had some very unique ideas of good and evil, I must say. Gengis Khan killing women and children was good, egalitarian ideas he attributed to the Jews were evil.) Both killing them and deporting them were solutions to the same "problem".

In fact, technically, before Wannsee the Madagascar Plan or other deportation ideas were occasionally called the "final solution" too.

Second, I don't think that the killing them is really an idea that started in 1942. The idea of gassing a few thousand Jews is in Mein Kampf, almost 20 years before Wannsee, and in a 1939 speech he does mention the total annihilation of Jews in Europe.

Also, the same Himmler who was speaking against Genocide in 1940, had no problems with exterminating Poles at the same time. You know, just so you don't get the idea that he was some kind of humanitarian.

I think that the extreme negative reaction even in Germany to the earlier eugenics programs, and the international (and internal) reaction to the Kristallnacht had for a while given everyone the idea that mass-murder would be very very unpopular. Also, in 1940 Hitler was still hoping to ally with Britain, and to keep the USA out of the war. Britain had very much lost all sympathy for Germany with the Kristallnacht, and the USA he thought to be controlled by Jews. Hence while suddenly they were speaking publicly of genocide as being un-German and against their inner convictions. (Though, again, there was a genocide of the Poles going on at the very same time.)

Briefly, like good psychopaths, they were just saying what they thought everyone wants to hear.

Third, the Madagascar Plan already had a dose of genocide built in. Madagascar had a population of 25,000 at the time, and was considered able to support about 40,000 people if all usable land were turned into agriculture land. Tops 60,000. They planned to deport a few _millions_ there. So it was already genocide, just disguisable as something less horrible to the public.

At Wannsee basically they just figured out that they can just as well keep some extermination camps secret.

Fourth, again, they _hated_ Jews. Sure, they still wanted them away, but they still wanted to milk them of all the money and property first. Hence the taxes that Parky mentioned. And in the Madagascar Plan, really the plan was to first confiscate all their property and deport them basically with just the shirt on their back. At any rate, the last thing an anti-semite of that calibre, one convinced that the Jews got rich by exploiting the good Germans, would want, is to let them take those ill gotten gains (by Nazi rationale, not mine) over the border.

Fifth, they didn't want those to end up being work force and manpower to Germany's enemies. You don't just hand over a few million people during a war, so they end up used against you. ETA: or at least not without getting something back.

Basically a colony or puppet state under German control, that was ok. Just handing over a few million people to the UK or USA, that was a whole other deal.

At any rate, when said colony became obviously unfeasible as a way to remove them, they simply fell back on plan B: kill them all.
 
Last edited:
Just to add one thing: Hitler had some very... special ideas about how the world is run (by Jews.)

He actually thought that he could use the Jews in Germany and Poland as, basically, hostages to force the world to give him what he wants. See that 1939 speech for example, because the idea is there very clearly: if the world fights back, I'm killing the hostages.

Hostages for what, now that changed a bit over time. At one point he wanted money for them, at other points he thought he could pull, basically, a "stand back, coppers, or I'm shooting the hostages", and so on.

But, at any rate, an idea that was very explicitly circulated when they were planning that colony in Madagascar or elsewhere, was that they'd still be Germany's hostages to ensure the cooperation of the USA.

What happened in 1942 really included a dose of just that: they started killing the hostages, to spite the world who had ignored their demands.

For example, this is what Goebbels wrote: "Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence."

He had warned those supposed Jewish world leaders to stand back or he kills the hostages, they didn't stand back, so now he's killing the hostages.

(Incidentally, it also offers an insight into psychopathy when it continues: "We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives." He was holding the Jews responsible for the war in the _East_? O.o I mean, wth, at least technically Britain and France had declared war on Germany in the west in defense of Poland, but the war against the USSR in the east was started by Germany. How does he manage to blame the Jews for starting _that_ conflict?

But of course, pyschopaths can never take personal blame for anything. Someone else _has_ to be to blame.

And make no mistake, that isn't a speech to anyone. That is Goebbels's private diary. He doesn't have to lie to anyone. But apparently he really manages to genuinely believe that the Jews are to blame for the war against the USSR.)
 
Last edited:
alleged "holocaust"........................................... you :rule10 :rule10 :rule10 :rule10 :rule10 :rule10 :rule10 :rule10 :rule10
 
Just to add one thing: Hitler had some very... special ideas about how the world is run (by Jews.)

He actually thought that he could use the Jews in Germany and Poland as, basically, hostages to force the world to give him what he wants. See that 1939 speech for example, because the idea is there very clearly: if the world fights back, I'm killing the hostages.

Hostages for what, now that changed a bit over time. At one point he wanted money for them, at other points he thought he could pull, basically, a "stand back, coppers, or I'm shooting the hostages", and so on.

But, at any rate, an idea that was very explicitly circulated when they were planning that colony in Madagascar or elsewhere, was that they'd still be Germany's hostages to ensure the cooperation of the USA.

What happened in 1942 really included a dose of just that: they started killing the hostages, to spite the world who had ignored their demands.

For example, this is what Goebbels wrote: "Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence."

He had warned those supposed Jewish world leaders to stand back or he kills the hostages, they didn't stand back, so now he's killing the hostages.

(Incidentally, it also offers an insight into psychopathy when it continues: "We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives." He was holding the Jews responsible for the war in the _East_? O.o I mean, wth, at least technically Britain and France had declared war on Germany in the west in defense of Poland, but the war against the USSR in the east was started by Germany. How does he manage to blame the Jews for starting _that_ conflict?

But of course, pyschopaths can never take personal blame for anything. Someone else _has_ to be to blame.

And make no mistake, that isn't a speech to anyone. That is Goebbels's private diary. He doesn't have to lie to anyone. But apparently he really manages to genuinely believe that the Jews are to blame for the war against the USSR.)

Of course, the Nazi worshippers pretend to believe that, from 1933 to 1945, "destruction" means "relocation to somewhere else".

They pretend to believe that the man they worship did not want to eliminate what he saw and they still see as the greatest threat ever to their Aryan utopia.

Well, maybe I´m wrong, and the Nazi worshippers are indeed idiotic enough to actually believe that crap, but it seems obvious to me that they the biggest bunch of bald-faced liars since their hero, Adolf "Only this one more concession, and I will never make demands again" Hitler.
 
Well, yes, but my point is kinda this: if they want to think Hitler was good, and Hitler was just trying to relocate the Jews somewhere far away... it doesn't make much sense to also be against Israel, does it? I mean, ok, now they're relocated. Right?
 
Well, yes, but my point is kinda this: if they want to think Hitler was good, and Hitler was just trying to relocate the Jews somewhere far away... it doesn't make much sense to also be against Israel, does it? I mean, ok, now they're relocated. Right?

No, Hitler would have been appalled at the idea that anyone would encourage -- allow -- the creation of an explicitly Jewish sovereign nation.

The idea he had was to get a "known" troublemaker far away in a position where he could make no more trouble. We do that today with criminals -- if someone is holding up passers-by on the corner near my house, I'll call the police and have him removed from my environment (hopefully to prison). And I want the prison both to be well-guarded and far away ("not in my back yard") so that his criminal impulses are kept under control.

The idea of sending him and thousands like him off to found the sovereign nation of Criminaltopia would be ludicrous. (Yes, we can put a Mafia Don in as President, and he can pass laws mandating that people pay into his protection racket!)

For "criminal" read "Jew." In fact, for thousands of years that's exactly what Europeans had done with their Jews, on a smaller scale -- they were herded into "ghettos" where they were kept both far away and under tight control so they couldn't affect the proper Christian population. This obviously hadn't worked on on that scale -- the Jews were still able to create their international banking conspiracy from within their ghettos -- but by putting the the ghettos all the way in Madagascar or something (and making Europe Jew-free) their influence could be minimized.

... as long as Madagascar was kept under tight enough wraps.

That's also what happened in the American South; recalcitrant slaves from Missouri and Tennessee were sold "down South" (typically to Louisiana), which would typically eliminate the trouble by working them to death in malaria-ridden indigo and sugar plantations. But it got them out of the northern slave holders hair and off their farm. But the idea of shipping them instead to Haiti would have been ridiculous.
 
I dunno, it seems to me like if I merely want some criminals out of my neighbourhood -- as opposed to other notions like "revenge" or "punishment" or "teach them a lesson" -- that's really it: I want them out. If they'd rather go to some Crimetopia country instead of being kept in jail with my tax money, I for one would be all for it.

To some extent we do this already with those we can ship out, namely criminal immigrants who didn't get their citizenship yet. We revoke their visa and ship them right back to their countries.

Of course, in a modern country you can't do the same with your citizens, but I think that the Nazis didn't have the same problem.

But, of course, nothing was that simple with the Nazis anyway. I don't think even Hitler knew exactly what he wanted, or even have some coherent version of exactly what the problem is.
 
I dunno, it seems to me like if I merely want some criminals out of my neighbourhood -- as opposed to other notions like "revenge" or "punishment" or "teach them a lesson" -- that's really it: I want them out. If they'd rather go to some Crimetopia country instead of being kept in jail with my tax money, I for one would be all for it.

The notion involved is "protecting society" or "public safety." The problem is that we aren't protecting society if we merely throw our troublemakers over the fence. It's not that I want the criminals out of my neighborhood. I want them out of circulation (which prison solves nicely, in theory). I want the prison out of my neighborhood because the prison itself is a risk -- prisoners can escape.

To some extent we do this already with those we can ship out, namely criminal immigrants who didn't get their citizenship yet. We revoke their visa and ship them right back to their countries.

... only if we feel confident that those immigrants will be handled properly by their home countries. If not, we have a tendency to lock them up right here. We just saw a case like that yesterday; we are locking up Ahmed Ressam for more than twenty years rather than simply shipping him to Algeria.

And, yes, the term "public safety" came up in the Ressam decision. It's not safe to allow him on the street even after 22 years, even in Algeria, which is why the court vacated his original sentence and is scheduling a re-sentencing hearing, one that is expected to produce a 50 or 60 year sentence.

The idea of sending him instead to become the foreign secretary of Criminaltopia, for some reason, never entered the judges' minds.
 
I really don't think that the Nazis cared much about the "public safety" of the rest of the world, or they wouldn't have offered to hand over the same persons to other countries (who would presumably set them free) in exchange for a big loan. I mean, really, they did exactly that.

So I don't think you can apply modern justice ideas to it that verbatim. You'd probably be appaled if your government offered to hand over Ressam to whichever country wants to pay his ransom. But obviously Hitler had no such trouble with that idea.

The only factor which was explicitly mentioned in those discussions, one which I mentioned before, was that they shouldn't be able to come back and "infect" Germany again. Hence preferring Madagascar because of the ocean around it. But really any other form of staying away seems to me like it would have been just as acceptable.
 
When dealing with the alleged "holocaust" (see www.holocaustdenialvideos.com and www.codoh.com ) most people would be familiar with stories of tattoos used for identification purposes. But are concentration camp inmates with tattoos proof of mass murder or are they just another holocaust sob story? www.cwporter.com/tattoo1.htm
There are two other articles, also by Carlos Porter, on the subject of tattoos in the concentration camps www.cwporter.com/tattoo2.htm and www.cwporter.com/tattoo3.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom