Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Thunder]

Not according to those, you know, pesky historians who have studied the subject.

Millions? Really?

more than 1 million people were killed at Auschwitz. its a fact.

 

[kageki]

could you guys for once in your freaking lives make an argument that does NOT rely on negative evidence, and is thus not logically fallacious?

It may not be "logically fallacious", but I just found it curious since they specified working to death and starvation and that the use of gas chambers is a method of such magnitude that it seemed reasonable to have specified that as well. We can set that aside though.

It is also interesting to note that the deliberate executions were in reference specifically to the "infirm".

 

[TSR]

It is also interesting to note that the deliberate executions were in reference specifically to the "infirm".

.
But nothing in the language suggests exclusively to the infirm, but let's run with *this*: it's okay, in your book, to execute someone just because they are sick is nothing to be concerned about? And did you notice the part that says they were left to die of exposure?

You didn't specifically condemn or even mention this, so by your standards these are both okay.

Got any answers yet?
.

 

[truethat]

The right to reparations is not a universal right as you appear to think but rather dependent on there being a powerful "victim" and a wealthy "perpetrator"

So an Arab who lost his house in Jaffa will never receive reparations ("perpetrator" is wealthy, "victim' is powerless)

A Finn who lost his home in the Soviet Union will not receive reparations ("victim" is not powerful enough, "perpetrator" not wealthy enough)

A Jewish person will not receive reparations for lost property in Eastern Europe ("victim" is powerful, but "benefactor" or "perpetrator" is not wealthy enough)

A German person will not receive reparations for lost property or internment in the Eastern Europe or USSR ("victim" is weak, "perpetrator" is not wealthy enough)

A Jewish person will however receive reparations from German companies - despite the fact that modern companies drew no financial gain from that labor - how does IG Farben have any benefit from construction in Oswiecim? Since most of Germany was sent back to year zero in 1945, the economic miracle is in large part created since then Here the amount of compensation will depend on the power of the "victim". So a Jewish person will get greater compensation than a non-Jewish person working in the same camp, because they wield greater power.

A Jewish person will also receive reparations from Swiss banks, for the simple reason the "victim" is powerful, and the "perpetrator" is wealthy.

Personally I have nothing against Jews seeking reparations, and obviously confiscated property should be restored, but it should be recognised it will be when hell freezes over before they pay any to those whose property that took in Palestine.

Well my husband is from Cyprus and many of his family friends have received reparations for the take over on the Turkish side?

So if you have no problem with Jews seeking reparations then that's that.

You are mixing two different countries and issues. Jews received reparations from Germany.

If Palestinians don't receive reparations from Israel what does this have to do with Germany giving reparations to Jews?

What do those Jews have to do with the ones in Israel? The only way it makes sense is if you lump all the Jews together as one "nation" or entity.

Also you skipped the question about the pogroms against the Jews. I would suggest that even if the original intention wasn't a final plan, I can certainly see why it would be perceived that way.

Jews were rounded up for being Jewish, they were singled out for being Jewish. The same way the Japanese were in the US. Are you also suggesting that there was not a systematic singling out of Japanese in the US?

If Koreans, Chinese and other Asians were dumped in with the Japanese, do you suggest this then changes the fact that Japanese were rounded up for being Japanese?

I guess you still haven't answered the question I posed earlier.

What difference does it make?

Seems to me what you really are taking an issue with is the idea that Jews get to wear a "victim" card for being "Jewish." But unfortuantely that's exactly what happened. Intentions aside and "final plan" aside, it doesn't change the fact that large numbers of Jews were rounded up for being Jewish and killed.

I would suggest a comparison is something like this

Say you kidnap the son of a wealthy individual and your intention is to ask for ransom. You don't really intend to harm the guy. But when you do, you make a mistake and the man dies of a heart attack. You can argue until you are blue in the face that your "plan" wasn't to kill the guy, just to ask for money. But it doesn't change the fact that if you hadn't put your plan in motion the man would probably still be alive. Therefore if you are convicted for kidnapping and murder, you can't complain later that you are being persecuted for a false interpretation.

Do you see the reasoning behind that? Yes it might not be the "reality" of what went down from an intentional plan, but it is the reality of the result. Splitting hairs over what you intended to do is really nonsense at this point. Basically you did a bad thing to an innocent victim.

 

[kageki]

This only makes things worse for you, I'm afraid. You wrote, very clearly, 'I did not know Auschwitz was a labor camp'. Full stop. Now you try and backpedal and say you didn't know this at high school? So freakin' what?

Either your ignorance persisted up until the time when TSR corrected you, or you were being dishonest in acting as if it was somehow unknown or not generally understood that Auschwitz was both a labour camp and a site of extermination.

Ignorance or dishonesty, take your pick. I'm not fussy.

Well it is still true either way. I didn't know it was a labor camp at one point, but do you honestly believe yourself that I didn't know right until a couple minutes ago?

I wasn't being dishonest either. If I as a "regular joe" didn't know then by all means I think it is reasonable to think that it's not generally known that Auschwitz was a labor camp.

You want to talk about ignorance? How many people do you think know that Zyklon B was a disinfectant?

I hope you also realize that a scant sampling of the internet is not even remotely close to what I consider the public at large and that's to understand that your "research" was also restricted to english. That some people don't know how to use a computer or even afford one and many others that do know how to use the internet, but don't post. How about also that it's now a crime in some countries? That I still stand by that most people do not know many other details about the Holocaust such as that Auschwitz was a labor camp.

 

[TSR]

Not even Birkenau was designed for mass murder, nor did it function purely as a mass murder camp.

.
Quite right, I should have written "had buildings designed for mass murder."

But the point about K's (and indeed every denier who posts here's) abysmal ignorance of the actual history involved stands.
.

 

[truethat]

snip
This is utter nonsense.

It really isn't. The religious sanctity of the land is a huge part of the problem. I will compare the situation in Israel to the situation in Cyprus. Because the land is Israel is considered a "holy land" this creates a different dynamic about the whole issue.

Do you deny that Jews consider Israel the land given to them by God? Do you deny that Jerusalem is considered a very important religious imago mundi? Surely you aren't denying that a large part of the problem with the situation with Israel/Palestine has to do with the religious implications?

If not then explain why Cyprus which has many of the same issues has not turned into the same problem?

 

[kageki]

.
But nothing in the language suggests exclusively to the infirm, but let's run with *this*: it's okay, in your book, to execute someone just because they are sick is nothing to be concerned about? And did you notice the part that says they were left to die of exposure?

You didn't specifically condemn or even mention this, so by your standards these are both okay.

Got any answers yet?
.

It pretty much does suggest exclusivity. If they were executing children just because of being children then again it would be reasonable to have specified that.

Is it ok? Off course not. The whole point of the discussion is if it happened. I realize that you have a hard time understanding this.

 

[truethat]

It pretty much does suggest exclusivity. If they were executing children just because of being children then again it would be reasonable to have specified that.

Is it ok? Off course not. The whole point of the discussion is if it happened. I realize that you have a hard time understanding this.

The evidence shows that it happened. What you are arguing is if that was the "intention."

What I think many are saying is that it doesn't matter if it was the "intention" it is what actually happened.

Look at it another way. If you round up a group of people and they are sick, and you put them in a camp and work them until they die. At what point are you responsible for noticing that they are dying?

If your intention is not to kill people, but they start dying in the hundreds of thousands, and wrap your mind around that. Take the results of the Tsunami in Thailand. 230,000 people die. The decay from the dying created huge health issues that threatened the others. You start cleaning this up and it's magnitude is staggering.

Are you suggesting that the Nazi's didn't really understand that this is a huge number of people dying? Are you suggesting that they get to play the "ignorance" and "not what we intended" card all the way through 10 million people?

 

[TSR]

How many people do you think know that Zyklon B was a disinfectant?

.
That would be a grand total of none, because it wasn't.

It was a pesticide.

Do you understand the difference, or do you prefer to keep digging that hole deeper?
.

I hope you also realize that a scant sampling of the internet is not even remotely close to what I consider the public at large and that's to understand that your "research" was also restricted to english. That some people don't know how to use a computer or even afford one and many others that do know how to use the internet, but don't post. How about also that it's now a crime in some countries? That I still stand by that most people do not know many other details about the Holocaust such as that Auschwitz was a labor camp.

.
In which countries is using a computer or posting to forums a crime?

And those that do not know that it was a network of camps which included facilities for mass murder ...




wait for it ...








wait for it ...






simply don't care.



Most people, I would dare say, don't know that King Tut's original name was Tutankhaten, and only later changed to Tutankhamun or that he married his sister. This doesn't change that these are facts, nor does it mean that charming gold and lapis lazuli death mask is a fake.
.

 

[TSR]

It pretty much does suggest exclusivity. If they were executing children just because of being children then again it would be reasonable to have specified that.

.
But if they had, and it had been specified, that doesn't exclude the possibility of executions for other reasons.

English isn't your native tongue, is it?
.

Is it ok? Off course not. The whole point of the discussion is if it happened. I realize that you have a hard time understanding this.

.
There no doubt in a rational, informed mind that it did, but let's run with *this*: why don't you think that the declaration is strong evidence that it did?

What evidence can you offer to support the delusion that it did not?
.

 

[kageki]

The evidence shows that it happened. What you are arguing is if that was the "intention."

What I think many are saying is that it doesn't matter if it was the "intention" it is what actually happened.

Look at it another way. If you round up a group of people and they are sick, and you put them in a camp and work them until they die. At what point are you responsible for noticing that they are dying?

If your intention is not to kill people, but they start dying in the hundreds of thousands, and wrap your mind around that. Take the results of the Tsunami in Thailand. 230,000 people die. The decay from the dying created huge health issues that threatened the others. You start cleaning this up and it's magnitude is staggering.

Are you suggesting that the Nazi's didn't really understand that this is a huge number of people dying? Are you suggesting that they get to play the "ignorance" and "not what we intended" card all the way through 10 million people?

What evidence shows what happened exactly?

It still does matter the intention because the understanding of that intention directly relates to "what actually happened" and the point is again if it happened and what exactly.

Can you explain the exact of cause of death for all that died in Auschwitz? Don't you think 1.1 million is even more staggering?

 

[kageki]

.
That would be a grand total of none, because it wasn't.

It was a pesticide.

Do you understand the difference, or do you prefer to keep digging that hole deeper?

Then:

How many people do you think know that Zyklon B was a pesticide?

 

[truethat]

What evidence shows what happened exactly?

It still does matter the intention because the understanding of that intention directly relates to "what actually happened" and the point is again if it happened and what exactly.

Can you explain the exact of cause of death for all that died in Auschwitz? Don't you think 1.1 million is even more staggering?

I'm not getting you, 10 million is more staggering than 1.1. What is the number you are referring to.

I'm still not understanding why it makes a difference to you. You keep bringing up Israel which has nothing to do with what happened in Germany.

It may have resulted in people looking the other way when the Israeli army committed atrocities against the Palestinians, but that has nothing to do with what happened during the holocaust. If happened in tandem then maybe I could see your point, but the situation in Israel began AFTER WW2.

Can I explain the exact cause of death for all that died in Auschwitz? In a word, no, but in a nutshell "Poor planning and managment, lack of resources"

Ok lets say it is that.

It still doesn't change the fact that millions of Jews were rounded up for being Jewish and put in camps that were running on "death."

What difference does it make if they weren't intending to target Jews?


I posted the example about the kidnapping which I think is a good way of explaining it.

Here's another

If I round up "medical drains" on society and send them to a camp. Among those I have large numbers of diabetics. The diabetics begin dying rapidly because of the food issues. At the end 4 million diabetics died.

Does it change the fact that they died, because they were diabetic? Is it suddenly not a culpable act because none of the Nazi's realized the danger in the situation?

At what point do we get to change the train tracks to lead the carriage to "Not guilty?"

 

[truethat]

Then:

How many people do you think know that Zyklon B was a pesticide?

Let's take this. Sugar is not intended to kill. But using the diabetic situation, if I dump tons of sugar into the camp food, knowing that it is going to kill them, can I then say "Well it was just sugar? Did you know that? Sugar, harmless little sugar. Wow I put sugar their food. That's not a bad thing now is it?"

If I put a bunch of people in a room and dump in a pesticide to kill the lice, and the whole room drops dead. Then I do it again and again and again and each time claim, "I only was trying to kill the lice, it's not my fault they all died"

Can you see why someone would think you were full of ******

 

[TSR]

Then:

How many people do you think know that Zyklon B was a pesticide?

.
Everyone who cares about the matter, and who makes an effort to educate themselves on the matter (which you apparently really don't nor have.)

Your turn: What difference does what the vast majority of people who don't or haven't make in terms of what really happened?

Most people don't know all of the details of how the Internet actually works. Does this mean we aren't having this conversation?

Speaking of which, I notice you ran from specifying in which countries the use of a computer or the posting to forums is a crime.

As did everyone else, which is why we're pointing and laughing.
.

 

[angrysoba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfGDFgdmdvo

 

[kageki]

Also you skipped the question about the pogroms against the Jews. I would suggest that even if the original intention wasn't a final plan, I can certainly see why it would be perceived that way.

Jews were rounded up for being Jewish, they were singled out for being Jewish. The same way the Japanese were in the US. Are you also suggesting that there was not a systematic singling out of Japanese in the US?

Well actually it is accepted that the ORIGINAL intention wasn't a "final plan".

That it can be PERCEIVED that way is entirely understandable and that is also precisely the reason that a controversy exists. The question is IF it happened.

Let me ask you this:

What do you think about eugenics? Do you ASSUME murder? Then you would be wrong. Eugenics was about sterilization first and foremost. That is not to say that sterilization is ok, but sterilization is sterilization. It is not murder.

No one is denying persecutions or deportations. It's about the exterminations.

 

[kageki]

Let's take this. Sugar is not intended to kill. But using the diabetic situation, if I dump tons of sugar into the camp food, knowing that it is going to kill them, can I then say "Well it was just sugar? Did you know that? Sugar, harmless little sugar. Wow I put sugar their food. That's not a bad thing now is it?"

If I put a bunch of people in a room and dump in a pesticide to kill the lice, and the whole room drops dead. Then I do it again and again and again and each time claim, "I only was trying to kill the lice, it's not my fault they all died"

Can you see why someone would think you were full of ******

You didn't actually answer the question, but you know that.

They dumped in that pesticide room full of clothes. The reason for the haircut was because of lice. Another thing I wasn't told in high school.

 

[Saggy]

It really isn't. The religious sanctity of the land is a huge part of the problem.

The 'religious sanctity' of the land? Try the racism of the Jews. The Jews want to exclude all non-Jews from Palestine, that is the problem for sure in the middle.

They created the holohoax to do it. They started telling holocaust lies is 1906, the New York Times was full of holohoax articles during World War I, but these lies evaporated. You can read about them in 'The First Holocaust, Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During World War I' by Don Heddesheimer. As the Amazon review said, before it was pulled, "I guess they would call it 'Chutzpah', to publicly use the same big lie twice within the span of twenty or so years."