History of the Holocaust

That son of a bitch Leuchter did no real scientific investigation, he's a hack and a liar. There's a movie about him that exposes his fraud.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, Fred Leuchter.

The first man? In 1964?

And all from Wiki.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no good-faith, respectful way for you to create a thread with the premise that the Holocaust is an open question, amenable to original analysis by yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Correction: there is no way to discuss the Holocaust or its attendant holocaust or even ask questions about it, in a modern setting.

But then the question remains, why is this subject so non-amenable to discussion? Why is it so sensitive? Some people got persecuted, this has happened many times in human history, so why is this one such a big deal, is one question I would like to be able to ask, without the usual vitriol being directed at the question.

Is it OK to question the reasons people anywhere are persecuted, and what the rationale behind persecution and oppression might be? If it is, why is the Jewish case not OK to ask about?

For instance what's wrong with asking why the Jewish state was founded, and what part the Nazi persecution played in this? Isn't there a more or less direct connection? What would the odds be for a modern day Israel if the Holocaust hadn't happened, for instance?

Pointing out the blindingly obvious, "hey, it happened", doesn't address the issue underneath: why did it mean they got a "homeland" given to them, to do with as they pleased? Or is it the case that the Holocaust played no part in its establishment?

 

So far, in my opinion, the papers, in particular regarding the Holocaust, presented by the IHR, although superficially compelling, do not stand up to rigid scrutiny. Minor discrepancies in the record are identified, given to experts to validate or corroborate, and then blown out of all proportion in the face of utterly overwhelming contrary evidence.

 

That would be true, if there was such a premise. There isn't.

The premise is, what do we know of the Holocaust and what are the sources that have led to this knowledge?

The premise is an a priori acceptance of the standard narrative and a desire to take a look at what is the basis for it.

The premise is that many people may have doubts about the Holocaust because it has become taboo to ask questions and this in itself is a disservice to the victims.

I will attempt to control the direction of the thread as much as I can. James will probably take care of the rest.

Indeed. For example, there was an allegation that the Diary of Anne Frank was not written during the war because it contained ball point pen notations and ball points were not in existence until after the war. When examined it was found that the ball point notations were loose sheets of annotations added by an historian [?] who had inserted them in the diary after the war and were not pages of the diary at all

So yes, there is a wide gap between fact and opinion.

Which is why it would be best to stick to the actual sources rather than opinions about the actual sources.

 

(http://yale.edu/gsp/publications/Holocaust.doc)

Read this paper as a basic outline, and then follow the footnotes for further research and study. Most notably the seminal work - "Dimension des Völkermords" - Wolfgang Benz - condensed and translated into English as - "The Holocaust: A German Historian Examines the Genocide".

 

So why in your own source (Which I somehow doubt you even read) does it say the following statements:

Numbers nearly identical to every study that doesn't withstand "rigid scrutiny".

 

No, the question that needs to be asked is, is it necessary for any person who asks a question about the holocaust to be treated as a denier?

e.g. if I were to ask, how many children were involved in the Stolen Generation?

Would you doubt if I believed this happened?

The fact is that after almost 50 posts, no one [except Straw Dog and spidergoat] has simply come forward and provided any responses without assigning motive to the asker. And I am still waiting for any direct responses from the ones who have much to say about why the question is being asked but little to provide in the form of responses.

It is this attitude which creates doubt in the peoples minds. This is not just true for the holocaust it would also be true if I asked the same questions of the Tasmanians or the Native Americans and it was treated the same way

i.e. what do they have to hide? So my question is, do YOU doubt it happened as they say? Do YOU have doubts that the questions can be answered or that there is any evidence for the numbers and motives and methods? If not, what exactly are you worried about?

 

hitler stated in his book "mein kampf" that he would exterminate the jews.
he had the will and the means.
the only real questions concerns the numbers.

This letter, marked Secret, is thus one of the important links in the chain leading directly from the murder by gas of mentally and physically handicapped German citizens to the murder by gas of Jews behind the Eastern Front. It is especially valuable because, unlike most communications regarding the Final Solution, it refers to gassing using that word, rather than a euphemism.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/

and this:
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/resour...nt/DocBelz.htm


And, finally, there are the words of the Fuehrer himself. In Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

in September, 1942, Hitler recalled:

In my Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939 [above, wrong date here], I have spoken of two things: first, that now that the war has been forced upon us, no array of weapons and no passage of time will bring us to defeat, and second, that if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan peoples which would be exterminated but Jewry.

 

Thats good, I was not aware of these letters.

One of your links led me to this one here, on reliability of witness testimony:

So they used corroboration from multiple victims and perpetrator testimonies.

 

That reminds me I must go shopping. I need juice and fire-lighters.

 

haha

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Many talking weasels may have doubts about your convictions.

The only question in my mind is how long you can last until you resume posting links to hate sites.

 

Probably the same talking weasels who wouldn't pay for a subscription to see the paper from the original site and wouldn't believe you without evidence they could check for themselves.

And not for the first time, I am not surprised by what doesn't get moderated by the same overzealous moderators in threads like this.

 

I think you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. What is your point?

 

Well, accessibility proof is a de facto requirement in establishing said proof.

Though, this "weasel" actually defended you the last time it came up for debate. It won't happen again.

~String

 

ja, revenge is sweeeet!