Evidence that the Holocaust DIDN'T happen?

Hitler conqured most of Europe.

there was no defensive reason to do such a thing.

the German people accepted this decision by Hitler.

and they suffered for it.

 

Children, today's assignment is to prove a negative. Good luck.

 

Answer this question. Have you listened to these two speeches of Hitler's?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Adolf+Hitler:+Explains+Reasons+For+Invading+Poland&sm=12
http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Adolf+Hitler:+Explains+His+Reasons+For+Invading+The+Soviet+Union

 

lol

are you suggesting Hitler was justified in brutally conquering Europe?

 

There are two separate issues here. One is whether Hitler was telling the truth, or lying to the people to get them to support him in those speeches. The other is what the German people and soldiers were thinking during the war. I'm dealing with the latter one now. The former one can be dealt with separately.

You've heard his speeches. You know what the German people were thinking. They (maybe mistakenly) thought they were defending their territory and righting old wrongs.

Americans are taught that Hitler told the German people that they should conquer Europe to expand Germany's territory and the people said, "Good idea. Let's do it."

That has been exposed as a lie by those two speeches of Hitler's. Do you recognize that the US government lied to the American people about what the German people were thinking during the war? Do you think American sources can be trusted?

I think what I'm asking you is pretty clear now. Please answer my questions now.

 

what's your point?

 

The point is that you seem to trust official American sources of information. I'm giving you proof that American sources of information can't be trusted. I want to know if the issue I brought up has swayed you. After having listened to those two speeches of Hitler's, do you still trust American info sources?

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=336026&page=8&p=1063496389#post1063496389

 

Well, fully realizing that this thread asks the impossible (i.e. to prove a negative), let me submit this picture as evidence:


Exhibit A.

Now, many of you are probably saying, "there you go. Evidence FOR the holocaust". But what does "The Holocaust"TM mean? It means that Nazis intentionally killed millions of Jews, right? They gassed them, they shot them, because the whole country went insane and regular people became monsters in a few years time.

But take a close look at the picture. The emaciated bodies, ribs prominent through the skin. What would you surmise was the cause of death? Poison gas? Gunshot? I submit that these people look like they starved to death. Now why is that any different? Because, consider the situation: Germany is in a state of total war, and in war supply lines get bombed. When your food stocks are low due to disrupted supply lines, who do you feed, your soldiers, or your slaves?

So when the Allies show up and see these starved bodies, and journalists take pictures of them, do they just say "Whoops! Collateral damage!" and take responsibility for starving the people they were ostensibily trying to save? Well, that wouldn't go over very well. BUT, if you were to paint your enemy as the most evil people to have ever lived, and "if only we'd gotten there sooner", well now that's a narrative you can live with. Right?

 

Good post fifthofnovember. Mark Weber explains that in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...Mark+Weber+on+the+Montel+Williams+Show+&sm=12

 

And how exactly does your post excuse the casual brutality that the Germans inflicted on the Jews and other Untermenschen?Besides they had already decided the answer to the 'Jewish problem' in Sept. of 1942...before food shortages

 

"who do you feed, your soldiers or your slaves?"

disgusting how these people apologize for and excuse Nazi atrocities.

 

My post wasn't attempting to excuse anything. It was merely answering the call of the OP to provide evidence. And "answering the Jewish problem" could mean deportation, say, to Poland. Not necessarily a mass slaughter.

Disgusting how you can only attack the person, not address the post. War is hell. I don't apologize for or excuse that. It just is. CYA is a much more likely scenario in the real world than Captain America and the Justice League vs. the demonic cartoon bad guys from hell.

 

I am tall, therefore I am not short. Happy?

Likewise if it is demonstrated Jews were transitioned to the Soviet Union and that there is no evidence for mass killings, the obvious corollary is that the Holocaust didn't happen.

In fact you can prove a negative just as well as a positive and this is a common misconception.

 

Well, prove away then. Of course any evidence you offer will be dismissed as anti-semetic (which is why I chose the picture that I did, hard to call that anti-semetic). And if they can't dismiss the evidence, they will just attack the poster.

 

the bottom line is that the Shoah or Holocaust is something that is highly proven as fact. While there are plenty of people who try to make excuses or find ways to obfuscate facts it is a simple fact that during the Nazi era there was a systematic attempt to destroy the Jewish people and used death camps among other things to do it. To simply disregard the facts and write one's own is simply hateful.

What is funny is the there is a class of people who seem to see every major event in history as being false. I am not sure what to say about that.

 

baseless claims from obsessive Jew-haters, is poor evidence.

 

Miami, New York, Encino....No shortage of Jews there.

 

that's where the missing 5.4+ million Jews are?

prove it.

 

Good God.

 

Hey Ronstar

I asked you a question in post #82.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=336026&page=9&p=1063496493#post1063496493

I'm still waiting.

I've never seen it proven. Show us where it's been proven.

Here's some stuff you should check out.
http://www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=18054
http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/21.html
http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Former+Religious+Jew+On+Holocaust+Myths&sm=12

Also. I'd like to hear you respond to the question that Ronstar has been avoiding for seven pages.

 

aww.....you mad bro?

 

http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

How To Be A Revisionist Scholar
By Michael Philips. First-Published: January 3, 1996 (alt.revisionism)

Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile, you may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's easy.

For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it. Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron." You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?" Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because...

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax. The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile:

a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense;
b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question;
c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII;
d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.
14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

15. Alternatively claim that:

a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing;
b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and
c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.
16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

 

That's just hypocrisy. All of those fallacies and more are committed more often by holocaust promoters.

Please demonstrate where those arguing against the holocaust have done the things above, otherwise it is just slander.

 

you deny the Holocaust, and yet at the same time call for genocide against the Jewish people.

how ironic.

 

Where?