General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[Saggy]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same.

Israel has been under siege for decades. Sure, the Palestine situation is horrible, and will take a lot of working out, but the notion that Zion appointed Trump as POTUS in order to do....something jewish, is beyond bonkers. As some would have it, our every waking moment is directly controlled by these Zionists.

Think about the logistics of that, for a brief moment. Now say Holy Spaghetti Monster.

If you've like a factual account of how the Jews control the US political process there is no shortage of documentation, a good place to start is Paul Findley's book 'They Dare to Speak Out', Findley was a long term Illinois R congressman who happened to travel to the ME and discovered the Palestinians. In the first chapter of the book he details how the Jews went after his congressional seat, the remainder of the book tells how they went after other politicians, including Fullbright, Percy, McClosky, et. al.

If you don't like reading, just have a look ...

 

[marplots]

If you've like a factual account of how the Jews control the US political process there is no shortage of documentation, a good place to start is Paul Findley's book 'They Dare to Speak Out', Findley was a long term Illinois R congressman who happened to travel to the ME and discovered the Palestinians. In the first chapter of the book he details how the Jews went after his congressional seat, the remainder of the book tells how they went after other politicians, including Fullbright, Percy, McClosky, et. al.

If you don't like reading, just have a look ...

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/VnlozWS.jpg[/qimg]

OK, I had a look. What am I supposed to be seeing? Are all those people Palestinians discovered by Findley on his trip to the Middle East?

Hang on, this is pareidolia, right?

 

[Hans]

OK, I had a look. What am I supposed to be seeing? Are all those people Palestinians discovered by Findley on his trip to the Middle East?

Hang on, this is pareidolia, right?

Saggy seen influence as 'control'. Other influence isn't seen as controls as he is mind controlled by Zionist Israelis.

 

[carlitos]

So that's who discovered the Palestinians. Good for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[abaddon]

If you've like a factual account of how the Jews control the US political process there is no shortage of documentation, a good place to start is Paul Findley's book 'They Dare to Speak Out', Findley was a long term Illinois R congressman who happened to travel to the ME and discovered the Palestinians. In the first chapter of the book he details how the Jews went after his congressional seat, the remainder of the book tells how they went after other politicians, including Fullbright, Percy, McClosky, et. al.

If you don't like reading, just have a look ...

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/VnlozWS.jpg[/qimg]

Wow. Paul Findley discovered the palestinians. All on his lonesome.. What an eyewatering claim.

 

[Axxman300]

The irony is that antisemitism is based on propaganda and mind control...such as it is...

 

[CaptainHowdy]

OK, I had a look. What am I supposed to be seeing? Are all those people Palestinians discovered by Findley on his trip to the Middle East?

Hang on, this is pareidolia, right?

That's a picture of Netanyahu addressing the United States Congress if I'm not mistaken. It's an example of the close relationship between the US government and Israel. It supports the point that Saggy is trying to make. It doesn't single-handedly prove his point but it supports it.

Personally I think it's even better at showing how monumentally stupid this "Russia interfered with the US elections" conspiracy theory really is. As Oliver Stone pointed out to Stephen Colbert on the Late Show last week, Israel interferes with the United States government all the time but nobody ever bitches about that.

 

[Mondial]

I am amused by Hitler huggers who scream about "Free Speech"; and scream outrage at the top of their lungs about the horrors of using the courts to attack their speech and yet have few to no problems about using the courts to attack other people's speech.

You are implying guilt by association. To say that anyone who supports freedom of speech for holocaust revisionists is a nazi sympathiser or neo nazi is a lie. Doug Collins was a journalist in Canada who supported free speech for holocaust revisionists most notably Ernst Zundel. He was not a "Hitler hugger". The opposite is the case. In WW2 he was in the British army and fought the Nazis -
http://codoh.com/library/document/2728/
http://codoh.com/library/authors/1468/

 

[marplots]

That's a picture of Netanyahu addressing the United States Congress if I'm not mistaken. It's an example of the close relationship between the US government and Israel. It supports the point that Saggy is trying to make. It doesn't single-handedly prove his point but it supports it.

Ah, thanks. Like a donor meeting.
I wish Saggy had given some context, cite or caption.

 

[Loss Leader]

A thread regarding the Holocaust has been merged into this one. Do not start Holocaust-related discussions outside of this thread. Doing so may bring further moderator action.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Mondial]

You accept "they did it too" as a valid defence?

I was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and double standards of the tribunal -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053

 

[Mondial]

Proof by "it seems quite obvious" - um, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Laughing Mexican Guy -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=smkyorC5qwc

 

[tinribmancer]

A thread regarding the Holocaust has been merged into this one. Do not start Holocaust-related discussions outside of this thread. Doing so may bring further moderator action.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

There's another Holocaust denial Part III thread started by shaggy.

 

[Mondial]

So, this one instance proves this was a show trial? Just this one?

How about the fact the Soviets couldn't pin Katyn on the Germans?
How about the Soviets wanting to hang everyone but the others refused? How do you explain the fact that there were acquittals?

Don't get me wrong, Nuremberg was flawed. But a show trial? No, I don't think so.

The Soviets were ready to pin the Katyn massacre on the defendants. They even came up with a so called "forensic report" which "proved" their guilt -
www.cwporter.com/k1.htm
Before the trials started Churchill said to Stalin that they should just shoot the top ten thousand German officers. He refused saying that then the world would say we were afraid to try them. Stalin saw the political usefulness of such trials.
The Nuremberg tribunal was supposed to be a step forward in international law - in other words all countries being treated equally under the law. But this has not been the case. The countries that sat in judgment at Nuremberg have never tried their own soldiers, sailors and airmen even though they committed numerous war crimes in WW2 and since -
http://codoh.com/library/categories/911/

 

[Mondial]

Documents discovered showed that Germany had drawn up an execution list for Britons in the event of a successful "Operation Seelowe". The Black Book had such dangerous people as Noel Coward, Robert Baden-Powell, Bertrand Russell and David Low. These would have gone ahead without even a "show trial". There is no moral equivalency between Nazi Germany and her enemies in the West.

The largest act of ethnic cleansing in European history was when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe 1944-50. This had the support of the US and Britain - Churchill/Attlee and Roosevelt/Truman backed this series of events.
www.exulanten.com/massacre.html
www.hellstormdocumentary.com
Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. Can you explain how handing half of Europe over to Stalin and allowing massacres as described above is in keeping with the stated aims of this document ?
http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/

 

[Nessie]

The largest act of ethnic cleansing in European history was when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe 1944-50. This had the support of the US and Britain - Churchill/Attlee and Roosevelt/Truman backed this series of events.
www.exulanten.com/massacre.html
www.hellstormdocumentary.com
Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. Can you explain how handing half of Europe over to Stalin and allowing massacres as described above is in keeping with the stated aims of this document ?
http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/

Its called politics, there is never a prefect solution, especially when stuck between a rock and a hard place and war breaks out.

The Western Allies ended up with the Soviets because the Nazis ended up fighting both. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Plus, a point that is ignored by denialists, Nazi Germany could launch a full attack the UK, the Soviet Union could not. The Soviets only became a genuine attack threat to the UK in the 1950s once nuclear weapons could be fired on the UK. Otherwise, the Soviets would have faced the same problems Napoleon and Hitler faced, a huge supply chain across hostile territory. Even then, instead of being at the gates of London, they are at the Channel. The Soviet navy could never mount a successful invasion of the UK.

Roll forward to 1945 and post war Europe, it is lie to claim half of Europe was handed over. Half was occupied by the Soviets as they defeated the Nazis to the east. The rock had been defeated and now the British and Americans faced the hard place. There was nothing they could do about Soviet activity in the area they occupied. It is another lie to claim the western Allied allowed massacres. They had no say and were in no position to now fight the Soviets, especially after all sides gained nuclear weapons.

 

[Nessie]

I have been suspended from RODOH again, as it collapses due to the lack of moderation, which means threads have become unreadable and very repetitive.

That demise has been because the denialists there have had to resort to tactics in lieu of evidence. By that I mean, instead of letting them play at being experts reviewing the evidence for the Holocaust, they are being pressed to present evidence to back up their beliefs.

Some complain that the burden of proof is being reversed. But fact is, you can prove that mass gassing or shooting did not take place, if it were true. I can prove that the British did not gas and shoot those Germans, Austrians and Italians they interred on the Isle of Man during WWII.

Furthermore, if mass gassing and shooting did not take place, then there MUST HAVE BEEN mass transits away from camps such as TII and Sobibor and places such as Babi Yar and Ponary. Then, those people MUST HAVE BEEN accommodated somewhere. Favourite by denialists is to suggest that was in the Russian east. But, the evidence shows ghettos were being emptied there as well and the Soviets found abandoned or virtually empty camps, even Auschwitz. The Nazis themselves boasted about how places such as Estonia had become Judenfrei.

The tactics in lieu of evidence include; a mass spamming of the NAFCASH challenge. Posts which just copy and paste previous posts to create the impression questions have already been answered. Posting links, which go to links or threads from CODOH so as to again create the impression evidence is being presented. Links to opinion pieces by other denialists, as if that is expert opinion. Outright lying questions have been answered. Constant attempts to switch the debate back to the "believers" having to evidence mass gassing or graves and denial they need to evidence mass transits and resettlement.

Pressing them on proving there was no mass killing and instead there was mass transits and survival has helped to tip some, such as Eric Hunt and BRoI into admitting they do not believe in denialist claims any more. They accept not being able to evidence mass transits and survival at all, means, as much as they are doubtful about some of the evidence for mass gassing and shooting, it must have happened. So, if any of you can face it, please help and demand denialists evidence their beliefs. Even if it just makes them very uncomfortable, it helps to chip away at those beliefs.

 

[Jeffk 1970]

The Soviets were ready to pin the Katyn massacre on the defendants. They even came up with a so called "forensic report" which "proved" their guilt -
www.cwporter.com/k1.htm
Before the trials started Churchill said to Stalin that they should just shoot the top ten thousand German officers. He refused saying that then the world would say we were afraid to try them. Stalin saw the political usefulness of such trials.
The Nuremberg tribunal was supposed to be a step forward in international law - in other words all countries being treated equally under the law. But this has not been the case. The countries that sat in judgment at Nuremberg have never tried their own soldiers, sailors and airmen even though they committed numerous war crimes in WW2 and since -
http://codoh.com/library/categories/911/

Katyn is irrelevant, the British and US wanted nothing to do with it so the Soviet attempt died.
Also, the Soviets wanted to hang everyone, the US, British and French wanted nothing to do with it.

Just as an aside, I'm not impressed by Porter or CODOH.

 

[Jeffk 1970]

The largest act of ethnic cleansing in European history was when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe 1944-50. This had the support of the US and Britain - Churchill/Attlee and Roosevelt/Truman backed this series of events.
www.exulanten.com/massacre.html
www.hellstormdocumentary.com
Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. Can you explain how handing half of Europe over to Stalin and allowing massacres as described above is in keeping with the stated aims of this document ?
http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/

Any sympathy for the Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Yugoslavs, etc. that were also expelled after the war?

 

[Border Reiver]

The largest act of ethnic cleansing in European history was when over 10 million Germans were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe 1944-50. This had the support of the US and Britain - Churchill/Attlee and Roosevelt/Truman backed this series of events.
www.exulanten.com/massacre.html
www.hellstormdocumentary.com
Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. Can you explain how handing half of Europe over to Stalin and allowing massacres as described above is in keeping with the stated aims of this document ?
http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/

We call it practical reality - reclaiming Eastern Europe from the Soviets in the wake of WWII was simply not going to happen.

The Soviet military in Eastern Europe was large, well equipped (and less and less so with Lend-Lease). The Western Allies were not in a position to sustain further warfighting - the peoples were tired and simply not numerous enough to start another huge war. As an example of overstretch, Canada had about 1/2 of all men of military age (18-40) in some form of uniform by 1945 - and the rest were generally in protected jobs such as farming, steel production, mining, lumber and fishing. Getting more men was problematic, and would have resulted in larger social unrest then was already occurring.

And the newly liberated countries of Western Europe were simply too devastated by the war to have contributed much to any war to expel the Soviets.

There was no practical way to give effect to the entirety of the Atlantic Charter.