Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

Sure, those were evil also, particularly for North American natives.

Ah, no. Nice sock. Also, evil requires religion?

BTW: this is a narrow point but Germans are Anglo-Saxons. Sort of the original model, if you follow me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By that logic your home, your town, and all the innocent people in your vicinity are subject to invasion, destruction of property, kidnapping and mass murder - and it has nothing to do with evil?

Well if it's not clear to you, then you should have no problem with being victimized.

Bullshit. Hitler's designs were on the Rhineland, not for space, but out of a depraved sense of humiliation by the French.

Blame-shifting is the mark of the pathological personality type.

It's a well known fact that Hitler was a psychopath. And your point is?

No, you are not right in your thinking, and you are not addressing people that could be distinguished as Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, or any other ancestry.

The Nazis not only painted themselves as evil, they left an indelible scar on the history of the world for which they alone are guilty. Your blame-shifting is characteristic of their criminal minds.

No, it has nothing to with religion, either, just mass murder and mayhem. There is no sense of a disembodied demonic force, since here the evil is understood to mean the deliberate guilty minds which perpetrated the worst crimes in history.

 

So you have reached the conclusion that because the west does not "remember" similar atrocities committed, those committed by the Nazis are somehow less atrocious? This is a non-sequitur. A brutal act is not diminished just because someone else did it first.

You touched on it right there. Had cameras been around at the time, Hitler and his National Socialists would not be alone on the stage. (Not that they should be now, given what Stalin during the same era.) Cameras weren't around, sadly, but even if they were, it would not make the Nazis any less notorious.

Uh-oh. We have another Nazi apologist in our midst. You of course in this love letter to your Fuhrer and Fatherland are guilty of the very same thing you say you hate in the rest of us: selective memory. Sure, the Nazis were really good at what they did, but the Allied war effort was just as brave on the homefronts, just as dedicated, and just as efficient. But I know it would be impossible to get an old patriotische dog such as yourself to admit that the Germans were outmanned and outgunned, choosing instead to cling to the fantasy that the Nazis really were better than everyone else.

Oops! Looks like we found out who's really got a case of competitive envy!

 

If we're speaking chronologically, then, you'd agree that the original model was the Britsh Empire? Or are we going back as far as the early invasions of Briton, during which Celts were subject to, yawn, ethnic cleansing?

You don't seem to understand that a Holocaust denier is only as much of a hypocrite as your average Western liberal. But unfortunately for them they make the same mistake as the Nazis... by announcing their intentions. Better to keep quite about that, and instead conceal your goals behind feel-good rhetoric and advertizing representations of an idealized future.

You mean like Americans?

116,000 civilian deaths in Iraq... is that enough to qualify as a holocaust?

What you're really upset about my dear is the fact that the Nazis lost. THAT was their greatest crime. Isn't that the same reason Hitler eventually disowned his own people... beleiving they should be condemned because of their failures?

I don't believe in such a thing as 'evil', as I do not believe in the existence of 'good', except as an immature and naive way of explaining human action. One can witness on this thread the pathetic hypocrisy it leads to.

As for the 'systematic killing' argument, it's arguable whether the Nazis showed greater humanity to their victims by using industrial methods than western colonists, who wiped out entire villages of American Indians and gave out blankets infected with deadly diseases and watched them suffer and perish over several centuries.

Perhaps the Nazis were acting quite humanely when they designed the gas chambers, encouraging people to think they were simply going for a shower rather than being executed, and so avoiding all the terror and trepidation that would normally accompany such an experience - allegedly. The same cannot be said, however, for the way the British and Spanish behaved in the New World.

There is no completely objective perspective from which to make claims or accusations regarding who is responsible for what atrocity. You, along with everyone else here, are as much steeped in blood and guilt as any Nazi of the Third Reich. It's only the chronological factors which prevent you from seeing this clearly, and the fact that today the minds of the sheeple are so dulled, so insensitive and lazy, that they must be conditioned with photographic imagery and primed with liberal dogma so that they can bleat "genocide!... Nazi!...terrorist!" on cue.

Consider, for example, a film crew following the early exploits of European settlers to Australasia, the treatment of the native inhabitants being met with howls of derision and incredulity by the liberals of Sci-Forums sitting on their asses in Europe, calls for NATO air strikes and ground intervention and a cessation to the colonization, resulting in Australia not existing as it does today. Not only can one not imagine it, but one wouldn't want it. Even die hard liberals such as yourself.

Why, though, is a question you would have to answer yourself. I'd be interested to hear the answer though.

 

My point is that the West is BUILT upon the very ideology that you decry as Nazism. It's only the language difference that allows you to treat what happened in Germany as something alien and perverse.

As I already explained, lebensraum simply means 'living space' in English.

Nazi is the common English short form of Nationalsozialismus, meaning 'National Socialist'.

Get over it.

 

So now we're equivocating the systematic murder of 6 million Jews to the collateral deaths of citizens in war?

Case closed.

 

Oh please. The west was built upon the ideals of democracy and equality, not expansionism. All cultures seek to increase their property and their wealth, so to say the west was built on that is no more accurate to say that Nazi Germany was. Clearly, there are very different ideologies at play here.

And we do not absolve ourselves of the horrors inflicted during that expansionism, but do not forget that we also recognize the difference between displacement and systematic murder--and that is not reducible to a difference in language.

 

Oh sure... and Pol Pot was only a gardener tending his plants.

No. The ideologies were identical, simply separated by slightly different languages and cultures and two groups in competition with each other... but from the same family tree.

Calling what happened in the New World simply a 'displacement' is odious in the extreme... and in conflict with all the historical evidence. But I respect your right to do so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not here to make absolute judgements about so-called good and evil humans... who have no existence outside of genetic and mimetic circumstances, unless you are a bible thumper of course.

 

But that's exactly your argument. According to you, Hitler was just expanding the Fatherland's resources.

You say that, but you don't demonstrate it. How is the Final Solution similar to the Iraq War, for example? You called it a holocaust before, so let's hear it.

It wasn't simply a displacement, but that was the core purpose of it. Contrast that to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, which was an orchestrated attempt at genocide, and you have an rotten apples-to-rotten-oranges comparison.

Of course you are. You've absolved the Nazis for doing what you claim comes naturally, and vilified other cultures for their own, often lesser, crimes. This is Nazi apologist BS at its worst.

 

Racial hatred exists and probably always will; Hitler picked Jews and others because of crazy insane. He might have modeled concentration camps off the British - I don't recall - but you can find earlier examples here: the Spanish in Cuba, specifically.

Not sure why the displacement of the Celts earned a yawn.

 

Instead of purging...why not spilt the thread...and start a "Discussion" thread. If the formal debate doesn't happen..it can be moved to "conspiracies".

I would hate to see classic lines like "...Holocaust deniers should be dragged by their pubic hair to the concentration camps....." get sent to oblivion.

 

I disagree....it made me almost spit out my coffee this morning...and gave me a wonderful mental image of a dude in a Hitler moustache getting dragged by his pubes...kicking and screaming. Good times...good times.

While James may be the only one interested in a formal debate, others have shown an interest in regular ole informal debate. It's just why I suggested a split, instead of a purge, to give the informal debaters, and commentators a place to voice their opinion.

 

Thanks for the split, Trippy.

 

That's precisely what he was doing, expanding German power and influence, eradicating Germany's enemies. That the eradication took a different form to what went on in the New World does not make it unique. The British and the Spanish were doing exactly the same thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is the above image of an Iriquois tribesman any different to that created by the Nazis, showing Jews as rats or money grabbing bankers?

Is there any truth to the image?

I asked if it was a Holocaust, I did not determine it as such. It is the arrogant liberals on this forum who think they are in a position to do that. Look at the broader picture... the expansion of Anglo-Saxon culture by war and economic mechanisms... their complete domination of the modern world... the largest Reich (empire) in history. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that there would be huge numbers of civilian casualties in that war, just as they could have told you of the phantom nature of WMD. That the West went ahead and invaded means they condemned those people to die, as sure as if they had herded them into gas chambers.

They could have stayed out and today 126,000 Iraqi people would still be alive.

126,000

Displace is simply a euphemism for exterminate, for mass murder. That you use this tactic in defence is no different whatsoever to the strategy of any Holocaust denier.

Consider:

I've not absolved the Nazis of anything. Their major crime seems to have been, as already mentioned, being over efficient. If they had strung out the Holocaust over a few centuries, as the Anglo-Saxons did, no one would have batted an eyelid. In fact, Jews have been persecuted in Europe for thousands of years, and elsewhere, so nothing new there. The question is what's the big deal this time? The answer is the speed and quantity at which they were dispatched, and this is always the first thing liberals blurt out when going on a righteous rampage, that vitaly important six million figure.

Oh, and of course that the Nazis were the spawn of Satan. Let's not forget that, it's important to this discussion, possibly even more so than the numbers.

After x number of genocides, Holocausts, massacres and ethnic-cleansings, the whole thing becomes a little passe. Anyone with an axe to grind can find some atrocity to paint himself as the ultimate victim.

------------------------​

What if it was six million Iraqi civilians dead? Must it all be written down officially before you believe it?

What happened to all the American Indians? Oh, according to Dawg they were simply 'relocated'... to their graves.

You're quite right, I wouldn't. Not all the time, at least. But who knows, you might like it. A totalitarian state needn't be oppressive for those it is designed to serve. Singapore is a model society.

I hold my hand up to ignorance of the subject. Whenever someone pontificates about it all I hear is hypocrisy and double-speak.

There's mass murder going on every moment of every day inside your body, without which you would, ironically, be dead. That's the situation you are being asked to face here. Without the colonization of Australia and the extermination of the Aborigines you would not exist. It is the policy of lebensraum which has given you, your family, and millions like you, life.
Is this not PRECISELY what Darwin observed amongst the animals... and are we not animals?

Would you deny Darwin's genius on this, a science forum, simply to pay lip service to a pathetic and corrupt political doctrine that has had its day?

That's interesting, and somewhat nieve. The Jews also hold some responsibility for their destiny, regardless of the perceived outcome, just as the Native Americans do and the rest of us as well.

Why don't you apply the same emotional reasoning to the animal kingdom as you do to humanity? What do you think happened to all those extinct phenotypes... they simply vanished as a result of changing climate and geographical conditions? How perfectly comforting!

What people intend rarely happens the way they expect it. Reality does not conform to our wishes and desires, but we see on this thread many who wish it did.

I love it.

You can go through your whole life never having to accept your involvement in anything. Whenever you're confronted by something uncomfortable or threatening, there's always that handy liberal reasoning, neither here nor there, standing on the sidelines, feigning indifference and aloofness, which absolves you of all responsibility.

We should shout it louder, and stamp our feet as we march down sunny boulevards with the fresh-faced youth... "fascists out!', 'fascists out!'. We are innocent and pure. The sheep must be protected... by the very same forces they decry.

How wonderfully childish.

(By the way, I love the fact this has been placed in the conspiracy theory section.).