• 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.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
kageki said:
The numbers don't add up because the people that died in gas chambers weren't registered and not included in the death books. The causes were primarily typhus so if there wasn't a typhus epidemic then the death toll would be a lot lower.

So you are still left with the question of the exact death toll. They initially established 4 million at IMT so you wonder how they could have been so wrong.
Click to expand...
.
So, how many people in the Death Books were noted as having died from typhus, and how many from other causes? No, you won't be capable of doing the leg work so here it is: The Death Books document ~69,000 death certificates. ~2,000 of those listed typhus as the cause of death.

Epic Fail.

And the transcripts from the IMT are online -- can you point us to exactly where they "established" the four million?

Again, you won't be bothered to do the leg work so here's the answer: they didn't, so another Epic Fail.
.
 
TheRedWorm said:
So you are finally admitting that the nazis knowingly sent people to their death for absolutely no reason whatsoever?
Click to expand...

All that was said was "to send people to the camps".

There were some reasons in the context of war.
 
kageki said:
Camp and death are according to you the same word. Interesting.
Click to expand...

"You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing."-Lord Melchett. Have you ever answered a question in your life?
 
Last edited:
kageki said:
All that was said was "to send people to the camps".

There were some reasons in the context of war.
Click to expand...

What reason?

What reason is there for murdering Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Freemasons and so on "in the context of the war"?
 
kageki said:
Camp and death are according to you the same word. Interesting.
Click to expand...


What do you call a camp that you send someone to knowing they are very likely to catch a serious illness and die? A death camp, maybe?
 
kageki said:
The numbers don't add up because the people that died in gas chambers weren't registered and not included in the death books. The causes were primarily typhus so if there wasn't a typhus epidemic then the death toll would be a lot lower.

So you are still left with the question of the exact death toll. They initially established 4 million at IMT so you wonder how they could have been so wrong.
Click to expand...

Ok so you admit that people were killed in gas chambers. Please explain why they were killed in gas chambers and why they weren't registered? I'm just very confused at your argument.


The reason they were so wrong is probably that the vastness of the number of bodies they were finding blew their mind. In addition they were finding piles and piles of items that belonged, they thought, to the deceased.

Apparently lice were a huge problem. So you do have to wonder why they had piles of clothes that they were delousing instead of burning.

In the simplest off the cuff interpretation I could see them believing the piles of clothes were stacked up to be burned not deloused. They may have simply thought it was one example of many things already destroyed.

And the vast piles of bodies in pits etc probably blew everyones mind. I do not think it's that big of a deal that the numbers were vastly exaggerated until it was looked at carefully.

Ex. On 911 when I watched the twin towers fall me and many colleagues at work gasped out "Tens of thousands of people just died Oh my god!" The end result was "only" 3,000 or so. I remember actually being surprised so few people died. On the other hand when the Tsunami hit I remember not really being able to grasp the number of people who had died because it was so huge. When you are looking at large numbers of deaths and bodies that need to be disposed of, it can **** with your mind.

The reason I keep asking you to think of the numbers that died MONTHLY is that it is a ridiculously huge number. If 1.1 million people died in the camp over a series of 4 years or so, this means that about how many died each MONTH

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_Auschwitz_established

There are 12 months in a year. Let's take 4 years and say it's roughly 48 months. Let's make it 50 months to keep it nice and simple for the math and lets even out the 1.1 to 1 million.

1 million divided by 50 equals
20,000 people died each month on average.

So I ask you again. If you are running a camp and each month 20,000 people are dying what would you do if you were running a work camp? If you were running a prison camp and 20,000 people died each month what would you do? What would any sane logical person do? They'd contact the people in charge and say "We have a major problem here."

Let's look at what one of your sites says about Auschwitz

The Red Cross Report is of value in that it first clarifies the legitimate circumstances under which Jews were detained in concentration camps, i.e. as enemy aliens. In describing the two categories of civilian internees, the Report distinguishes the second type as "Civilians deported on administrative grounds (in German, "Schutzhäftlinge"), who were arrested for political or racial motives because their presence was considered a danger to the State or the occupation forces" (Vol. 111, p. 73). These persons, it continues, "were placed on the same footing as persons arrested or imprisoned under common law for security reasons." (P.74).
Click to expand...

Let's say these prisoners were considered a "threat to the state." They are sent to the camps and 20,000 people a month are dying because they can't run the camp properly. Disease has taken over. The camp is experiencing massive deaths. Even if you didn't CARE that the people were dying, the consequence of that many deaths a month poses huge health risks to the people RUNNING the camps, let alone the people in the camp barracks.

So from a logical point of view you would tell them to stop sending more prisoners because you couldn't handle it. Do you agree?

The only reason that they would continue to send people to these camps is that they did not care that they were dying. AND if you send MORE people to the camp it stands to reason that you are sending them there expecting them to die.

Why is this hard for you to understand?


Your evidence shows that they were documenting deaths and aware of the problem.



TheRedWorm said:
If typhus was such an epidemic, WHY DID THEY CONTINUE TO SEND PEOPLE TO THE CAMPS?
Click to expand...


This ^^^^ Take a second to think about this.

kageki said:
Wouldn't they have sent them there anyways?
Click to expand...

Why would they have sent them there anyway? It makes no sense what you are saying. You are rounding up people and sending them from their homes to certain death. What kind of sense does that make unless you didn't care if they were going to die?

Even if you take out the original "master plan" idea and just go on the facts and the realities that unfolded, it is pretty clear that they were sending these people to almost certain death.

Why did they do that?


Take it completely out of history and look at it in a modern way. If at Abu Gharib prison thousands of prisoners started dying each month what do you think would happen? How did it look to the world when those prison photos came out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

Do you really think that the US could get away with 20,000 deaths a month in Abu Gharib and nothing would be examined? It is an impossible number. I don't think you are really thinking about how many dead bodies we are talking about.
 
Last edited:
If there weren't any deniers on this forum, how much discussion would there be of the Holocaust?

I can only find 275 threads via the search engine which even mention the word 'Holocaust' out of 163,658 on the entire forum.
 
Saggy said:
No difference between homicide and accidental death? Statements like this are beyond comment and could not be made by a thinking person.
Click to expand...

If you put people into a concentration camp for no other fault than what they were born as, feed them a starvation ration, and then put them to hard labor, you would have to not be a "thinking person" to conclude that most, if not eventually all, of these people will die.

This is murder, plain and simple.
 
Dogzilla said:
They didn't. They went into lock down mode when typhus was raging in the camps. Read one of those book thingys.
Click to expand...


Really. What is lock down mode. Suggesting we read the "book thingys" is not the same as providing a source.

When did they lock down Auschwitz? I bet that is real news to the world and historians.

Of course it shows that this would be a normal and logical course of action. So what month was Auschwitz locked down, and if so when did they open it again since people were continued to be sent.
 
truethat said:
Ok so you admit that people were killed in gas chambers. Please explain why they were killed in gas chambers and why they weren't registered? I'm just very confused at your argument.


The reason they were so wrong is probably that the vastness of the number of bodies they were finding blew their mind. In addition they were finding piles and piles of items that belonged, they thought, to the deceased.

Apparently lice were a huge problem. So you do have to wonder why they had piles of clothes that they were delousing instead of burning.

In the simplest off the cuff interpretation I could see them believing the piles of clothes were stacked up to be burned not deloused. They may have simply thought it was one example of many things already destroyed.

And the vast piles of bodies in pits etc probably blew everyones mind. I do not think it's that big of a deal that the numbers were vastly exaggerated until it was looked at carefully.

Ex. On 911 when I watched the twin towers fall me and many colleagues at work gasped out "Tens of thousands of people just died Oh my god!" The end result was "only" 3,000 or so. I remember actually being surprised so few people died. On the other hand when the Tsunami hit I remember not really being able to grasp the number of people who had died because it was so huge. When you are looking at large numbers of deaths and bodies that need to be disposed of, it can **** with your mind.

The reason I keep asking you to think of the numbers that died MONTHLY is that it is a ridiculously huge number. If 1.1 million people died in the camp over a series of 4 years or so, this means that about how many died each MONTH

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_Auschwitz_established

There are 12 months in a year. Let's take 4 years and say it's roughly 48 months. Let's make it 50 months to keep it nice and simple for the math and lets even out the 1.1 to 1 million.

1 million divided by 50 equals
20,000 people died each month on average.

So I ask you again. If you are running a camp and each month 20,000 people are dying what would you do if you were running a work camp? If you were running a prison camp and 20,000 people died each month what would you do? What would any sane logical person do? They'd contact the people in charge and say "We have a major problem here."

Let's look at what one of your sites says about Auschwitz



Let's say these prisoners were considered a "threat to the state." They are sent to the camps and 20,000 people a month are dying because they can't run the camp properly. Disease has taken over. The camp is experiencing massive deaths. Even if you didn't CARE that the people were dying, the consequence of that many deaths a month poses huge health risks to the people RUNNING the camps, let alone the people in the camp barracks.

So from a logical point of view you would tell them to stop sending more prisoners because you couldn't handle it. Do you agree?

The only reason that they would continue to send people to these camps is that they did not care that they were dying. AND if you send MORE people to the camp it stands to reason that you are sending them there expecting them to die.

Why is this hard for you to understand?


Your evidence shows that they were documenting deaths and aware of the problem.






This ^^^^ Take a second to think about this.



Why would they have sent them there anyway? It makes no sense what you are saying. You are rounding up people and sending them from their homes to certain death. What kind of sense does that make unless you didn't care if they were going to die?

Even if you take out the original "master plan" idea and just go on the facts and the realities that unfolded, it is pretty clear that they were sending these people to almost certain death.

Why did they do that?


Take it completely out of history and look at it in a modern way. If at Abu Gharib prison thousands of prisoners started dying each month what do you think would happen? How did it look to the world when those prison photos came out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

Do you really think that the US could get away with 20,000 deaths a month in Abu Gharib and nothing would be examined? It is an impossible number. I don't think you are really thinking about how many dead bodies we are talking about.
Click to expand...


So we're all in agreement that nobody was gassed but lots of people died from disease?
 
Wroclaw said:
If you put people into a concentration camp for no other fault than what they were born as, feed them a starvation ration, and then put them to hard labor, you would have to not be a "thinking person" to conclude that most, if not eventually all, of these people will die.

This is murder, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Do you have any, ya know, evidence thingy that everybody sent to a concentration camp was guilty of being born what they were and nothing else?

How many calories a day constitutes a "starvation" diet and what was the average daily calories provided?

What exactly is "hard labor" and what evidence do you have that everybody was put to it?
 
Dogzilla said:
So we're all in agreement that nobody was gassed but lots of people died from disease?
Click to expand...

How they died is irrelevant. We keep saying this to you and you keep ignoring it.

You say the camp was shut down or locked down because of the Typhus. Fantastic. When and for how long?
 
Dogzilla said:
Do you have any, ya know, evidence thingy that everybody sent to a concentration camp was guilty of being born what they were and nothing else?

How many calories a day constitutes a "starvation" diet and what was the average daily calories provided?

What exactly is "hard labor" and what evidence do you have that everybody was put to it?
Click to expand...


Ok so let's take a look at this. You are using extreme language throughout the statement and it renders it pointless.

Everybody..........well not "everybody" I'm sure there were people that got caught up in the mess. History has born this out repeatedly.

Was guilty............how are they "guilty." That's a bit weird. Are you perceiving it as a indicator for selection to be sent to the camps YEP. The same way Japanese were sent to internment camps in the US. Of course they aren't going to say it's because they are "Japanes" but that they are at war with the Japanese. Think about that for a second. According to your argument, it wasn't that the Japanese were Japanese, that was the problem. It was rather that they came from a country that had attacked the US. If Korea had done it, they'd have rounded up the Koreans. I f the Germans had done it, they would have rounded up the Germans......etc

True.

But the end result was that Japanese were rounded up. And so even if the intention wasn't anti Japanese........the reality of what occurred is that Japanese were rounded up. This is also true of the Jews. The pleading for "that's not what the intention was" doesn't change the fact that this is what the result was.

Nothing else............well again we're going back to the rationalization that the Japanese could be "potential spies." Were some of the Japanese potential spies. I'm sure. But the rest that were rounded up were rounded up on a suspicion. Not a reality. The rest of the Japanese were not spies.

Take the Jews, some could be considered enemies of the state. But for what reason?

Also since you asked, yes please let us know how many calories were provided for the inmates in Auschwitz.
 
Dogzilla said:
Do you have any, ya know, evidence thingy that everybody sent to a concentration camp was guilty of being born what they were and nothing else?
Click to expand...

Any person deported with the reason being that they were Jewish meets the above request.

Unless you are really going to dispute that Jews were not deported into the KZ system because they were Jewish.

Are you arguing that? That a different reason was commonly given?

How many calories a day constitutes a "starvation" diet and what was the average daily calories provided?
Click to expand...

This took all of two seconds to find:

Whereas according to the standards of the Physiological Commitee of the Section of Hygiene of the League of Nations a hardworking man ought to receive in 24 hours about 4,800 calories and an average working man more than 3,600 calories, the prisoners at Auschwitz were getting at most from 1302 up to 1744 calories for 24 hours! 1744 calories daily represent a little less than the basic conversion of food into energy of a grown man, or in other words a little less than the amount needed by a man resting in a lying position, covered and motionless. A man who works, nourished in such a way is burning up his own tissues in order to cover the amount of energy expended. This inevitably results in the wasting away of his organism in a manner dangerous to life.
Click to expand...

OK?

What exactly is "hard labor" and what evidence do you have that everybody was put to it?
Click to expand...

You're joking.

If you don't intend to be serious, I don't understand the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom