|
|
|
But where is the conscience of the 1917 revolution and the gulag? Simon Weisenthal has passed away in his sleep at home in Vienna. He was 96. Today’s obit pages will lead with his passing. Everybody will have something important to say about justice and guilt and those damned Nazis. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, leads the pack. He is quoted in the Telegraph saying, “I think he’ll be remembered as the conscience of the Holocaust. When the Holocaust ended in 1945 and the whole world went home to forget, he alone remained behind to remember. He did not forget. He became the permanent representative of the victims, determined to bring the perpetrators of the history’s greatest crime to justice.” Weisenthal himself said, “When history looks back I want people to know the Nazis weren’t able to kill millions of people and get away with it. Speaking purely for myself, I want people to know that there is a certain inflation in what we “know”, hammered into public consciousness - and conscience - by the incessant repetition of statements such as Hier’s. History’s greatest crime? Debatable. Comments:2
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:31 | # “substantial EVIDENCE” not “estimate” in the above. Sorry! 3
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:48 | # Martin, (Rhetorical Questions) Just wondering if you think Germany, 60 years after the war, should still be forking over money to Israel for the crimes - real and invented - of the Nazi regime? Do you think the US needs a taxpayer funded Holocaust temple ( er uh Museum ) in nation’s capital where school children are sent in the droves to be inculcated with guilt - and which memorializes a crime to which their nation was not a part? I think we have our battlefields (Gettysburg, Shiloh) and cemetaries(Arlington), we don’t need to worship at Jewish ones. For just 2% of the population this tribe has a lot of pull. Chutzpah! 4
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:59 | # All: If you have not watched this video about Auschwitz by David Cole (Jewish) then please take the time to download it and view: http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html Note: User Name: visitor 5
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:18 | # Don’t know why America shouldn’t have a Holocaust Museum (though, to be serious, I think it should memorialize the Soviet, Chinese and Turkish atrocities too.) For one thing, a lot of Americans, even now, lost close relatives there, which is probably still today less true about the Ukranian and Chinese massacres (though maybe it is true about the Armenian.) American schoolchildren get fed appalling rubbish about the tyrannous regime of George III, as do the American people as a whole in State of the Union addresses. Interestingly, the Civil War battlefields of Antietam and Fredericksburg, less than 100 miles apart, look at the conflict from precisiely opposite viewpoints. All historians are propagandists; that’s why parents need to spend a lot of time with children and show them where they are being led astray. I am never prouder than when my son denounces something he learned in school as “left wing rubbish” even if I do occasionally have to correct the nuances. 6
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:26 | # > I think it should memorialize the Soviet, Chinese and Turkish atrocities too. You left out Cambodian, and Rwandan atrocities. Why don’t we just turn the US into a giant Disneyland of atrocity museums? 7
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:30 | # BTW Martin, In all the atrocity accounts: Cambodian, Rwandan, Soviet, Chinese, Ukranian… why is the Jewish incident known as “THE” Holocaust? (Again Rhetorical) 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:48 | # Jews also support holocausts, but slow ones. It was the 1965 immigration bill that inaugurated the race-replacement Holocaust we now find ourselves in here in the United States. In support of the passage of that bill were four decades of intense lobbying effort by Jewish groups who considered the dilution of the traditional white-Euro Christian race of this country highly desirable for the Jews (those same Jewish groups have, on the contrary, always worked strenuously to oppose the dilution of the traditional Jewish race through intermarriage). There are fast holocausts and slow ones. The Rwandan, Cambodian, Armenian, and Jewish genocides are examples of fast ones. The near-extermination of the American Indians, and the Jewish-supported 1965 Immigration Holocaust Act are examples of slow ones. Fast or slow, the end result is the same: the elimination of a feared or disliked race. Jewish hands are not entirely clean in this regard. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:18 | # Jews do not exactly behave like saints toward their ethnic rivals/enemies once they’ve gotten into their hands the power to harm them. Jews in the U.S. started agitating for ethnic dilution—i.e., race-replacement—of white Euro Christians as long ago as the 1880s. The 1965 Immigration Holocaust Act was merely the culmination, in a way, of that eighty-year effort. (To make it go a little faster, Jews also engineered the “Diversity Lottery” in the 1980s—yes, it turns out that was mainly a Jewish intiative.) Soviet communism and the communist systems in Eastern Europe were very heavily Jewish and, not coincidentally, very heavily anti-Christian and many were the atrocities and holocausts that took place in the anti-traditional-Christian direction, with Jewish communists in the perpetrator role. Jews are not as innocent as they make themselves out to be. They are as ruthless as everyone else when they have to power to be. The Holocaust Museum should maybe include some of the anti-Christian holocausts inspired/ordered/guided/aided-and-abetted by Jewish communists from 1917 on? Yes, holocausts should be remembered, in the hope they never happen again. That includes ones carried out by Jews or with heavy Jewish collaboration. Jews are people like anyone else in that when they get power into their hands they are liable to be ruthless in pursuit of what they see as their interests. They are not saints. 11
Posted by Guest on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:20 | # As long as scholars are imprisoned for researching the “Holocaust” it is incumbent upon freedom loving people to ask WHY? 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:29 | # Don’t know why America shouldn’t have a Holocaust Museum Absolutely, Martin - if a majority-gentile, city planning committee agree. In principle, Jewish people should be allowed to buy land and put up any number of museums ther like as normal commercial ventures. You know: “Step right up folks. Take a trip through time. See the Angel of Auschwitz in his laboratory of evil ...” If they don’t step right up, that’s it folks. Shalom. Naturally, there is no reason why they should step right up. In particular, the state in the form of teachers has no business making sure they do, no business hauling their tender charges along to the Great Gentile Guilt Machine. That’s thought control. Unacceptable. You see, just as the Nature-denying Harvard professor Noel Ignatieff insists that “whiteness” is a construct (as opposed to the healthy consequence of being of European stock), so “The Holocaust” is an extremely skilfull and well-funded construct as opposed to historical truth. The truth is not very nice in this case, for sure. But it isn’t quite the same in detail as “the construct”. There are said to be certain striking dissimilarities. Our children have no way of hearing about these because “the construct” has triumphed totally, and any attempt to dispense with it and seek facts is instantly demonised. Our children can scarcely see through all the fog that their forefathers acted honourably towards Jews and owe them absolutely nothing - not a thing and certainly owe NO guilt towards them. (They probably do not even owe them domicile until Jews frankly confront their own culpability for the excesses of Communism and the vast machine of Third World immigration to the West). While they are in confession mode they might also own up as to what degree the Holocaust industry exists outside Germany to extract obscene volumes of cash from the gentile host, and still more precious power in the form of psychological control. 13
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:30 | # Butz is a professor of electrical engineering, not a historian, and it shows. The fact that one doesn’t think the Holocaust should be the be-all and end-all of 20th Century historical knowledge doesn’t mean that one should support fantasies denying it altogether. The evidence, from victims, perpetrators and sites, is overwhelming and the scale is verifyable from demographic data. If you’re over 35 and haven’t met Jewish people whose close relatives died in the Holocaust, you’ve been living in the Heartlands too long. Let’s keep the discussion rational, guys. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a racist fantasy, too. 14
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:40 | # Guessedworker, our posts crossed. If you’d lived over here as long as I have you’d realize that ALL American museums are largely fantasy worlds constructed by the politically correct (some of them no doubt Jewish but by no means all.) Museums and historical sites delaing with the American Revolution are fantasy, those dealing with the Civil War are fantasy (Geoff will no doubt back me there!) and those dealing with WWII are fantasy—all American schoolchildren know that WWII started in December 1941, for example. Those dealing with ethnic groups, whether Jewish, African American or Native American, are even more extreme in their disregard for historcial truth (I enjoyed the fairy tales in the Museum of the American Indian, but made sure my son knew they were fairy tales.) Maybe the solution is to set up the Museum of British Settlement, detailing the benefits of the old Empire, the existing democratic structure of 18th Century Britain, the superior scientific and cultural achievements of British over French or Spanish Imperialism, the freeing of the slaves in the British colonies 32 years before the US did it, etc. Of course, that WOULD get you thrown in jail! 15
Posted by Guest on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:04 | # Argumentum ad hominem by the “Holocaust” supporters will not distract truthseekers from wanting to know <BIG>WHY</BIG> they imprison researchers of history. <big>[url=“http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html”]Chemical and Technical Aspects 16
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:20 | # Historical research and making up racist fantasies out of thin air are two very different things (I’ve no idea why Dr. Butz was imprisoned, if you say he was.) Butz’ claim for example that the Nazis were using Zyklon B for de-lousing can only be described as insane—is he claiming it was cheaper than flea powder? We’re all welcome to like or dislike Jews, blacks, Asians or Iroquois. We are also welcome to believe that Holocaust memorialization is overstated, unbalanced, and fed by an unpleasant political agenda. However denying overwhelming volumes of evidence and personal recollection is the action of a madman, not a researcher. It should not be encouraged, and will not add credibility to this site if we do so. 17
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:26 | # But Martin, in most of Europe reaching conclusions that differ from the “official history” and “official historians” are criminal offenses. If you were a professional historian would you ruin your career by investigating this chapter of history? The reason Butz and others, who are not historians by training, have investigated this affair is because historians won’t investigate it for fear of fines, imprisonment, and having their careers ruined. Both Poland and Germany have stiff sentences for questioning the holocaust - and both are central to the investigation. In your airy dismissal of those who defy the Establishment and its laws, Martin, you are adopting their technique. You’re showing yourself to be all too much the “respectable conservative”. 18
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:29 | # I’m PROUD of being respectable, it is the ultimate Conservative virtue, the glue that holds society together. I also don’t see why it isn’t just as easy to fire Butz from a Chemical Engineering professorship as from a History one if the “Establishment” doesn’t like his views. In reality, if he wishes to debunk the Holocaust, I’m sure the Univesrity of Riyadh would offer him a very eminent professorship indeed! The key to intellectual honesty is to accept well authenticated truths even when they contradict your view of the world. The academic left are intellectually dishonest in the extreme, but so are holocaust deniers. Standards of research are themselves an important Enlightenment Conservative virtue. 19
Posted by Truth Be Told on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:07 | # Martin, “fact that one doesn’t think the Holocaust should be the be-all and end-all of 20th Century historical knowledge doesn’t mean that one should support fantasies denying it altogether.” Right, something was done by the Third Reich to Jews then, but what, exactly? To make it short, nearly all agree that: 1) most Jews were imprisoned in camps, like the US, Britain, Japan, Italy, the USSR and most everyone else did to their enemy aliens during that war. 2) A phone call from your correspondant to the Wiesenthal Center in LA a few years ago revealed that their revised # of dead Jews from Hitler was 2-3 million. 3) Demographic data I have seen shows a post-WW2 total net population increase of Jews in Israel and other nations like the US or Australia, that would not be possible if 2-3 million had perished, let alone 6 million. If you have different data, please advise. 4) Germany was then and is now a food-importing nation. As the Reich shrunk and food supplies dropped, the camps were the last to get fed, resulting in famine and lowered disease resistance for inmates. 5) Crowd diseases like typhus and cholera spread fast in such conditions, and these were probably the main killers of inmates. 6) Zyklon-B is a relatively mild pesticide, still sold under this name, used in ‘showers’ to fumigate inmates and kill parasites to stop disease. It is fatal only in huge doses. Cyanide or dioxin work faster. 7) Habeus corpus, produce a body. If 2-3 million Jews were killed, along with millions of other non-Jews, and their bodies cremated, this would require millions of tons of fuel. Germany was and is a fuel importing nation, especially in a war, and there are no records of the trains needed to carry the millions of tons of coal/wood needed to put the evidence up in smoke. None. This last point is the strongest, to me, as it is a discussion regarding a set equation of fuel needed to cremate a corpse, the means for its transport, and any records of such involved. Some things are debateable, and some are not. German engineering is excellent, but a fuel-less oven is still on the drawing board. “The evidence, from victims, perpetrators and sites, is overwhelming and the scale is verifyable from demographic data.” I beg to differ. 20
Posted by Guest on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:09 | # I have taken note of the call for supression of this subject by the “Holocaust” supporter. Shutting up people is what the Commisars are best at, no genuine conservative shuts people up, imprisons people, ruins their lives, assaults them. Holocaust Revisionism in One Easy Lesson
21
Posted by scaredycat on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:27 | # Today’s lunchtime TV obits for Wiesenthal (whose account of his own wartime experiences has been curiously variegated over the years) included the following factoids and implications: (1) The Nazis planned to exterminate every Jew on earth. (Including North Africa, the USA, the Danish ones who were allowed to flee to Sweden, the Hungarians whom Himmler tried to barter?) Implication: That is why the Holocaust ((C) World Jewry, all rights reserved) is a uniquely awful crime and it is monstrous to mention the deaths of mere gypsies, Armenians, Rwandans, Ukrainian kulaks etc etc in the same breath, since Jews are the Chosen People, dammit. (2) Simon Wiesenthal was not out for revenge, only justice. Implication: That’s why he didn’t bother with any mass murderers other than Nazis (mainly Germans) because justice for Jews is the highest goal of mankind. (3) Adolf Eichmann was the “architect” of the Final Solution and his capture the crowning achievement of SW’s career. Implication: A man who was so obscure that he was mentioned only as a footnote in most pre-1961 histories was illegally kidnapped, tried and illegally executed (Israel boasts of having no death penalty) because he planned the Final Solution. I look forward to reading the encomia for the man/men who dedicated their lives to tracking down the killers of the 100,000,000 human beings who died unnatural deaths under the largely Jewish-inspired political system known as Communism. I look forward to visiting the solemn shrines of remembrance, and seeing the show trials of elderly commies apologising on TV in glass booths. But I suspect I’ll have to wait a wee while. 22
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:42 | # A couple of things. I would suspect the truth is somewhere in between the “revisionist” version and the Jewish version. The relentless droning on this subject has essentially indoctrinated the masses to believe the Jewish version. The biggest problem I have is the illegality of even questioning some facts about it. Even if the Jewish version was 100% correct, this draconian and totalitarian control of the subject makes people suspect it. As we all know, the best way to appease people is to be transparent about a subject. As we also all know, the truth is not what they want. Continued guilt and extortion is more in line of what they truly want. As an aside, what is the true belief of people here about the Protocols? Martin mentioned they are a lie. I have never looked into them too deeply and am curious if others here have and what they found out. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:59 | # Are they a lie? You don’t know any experts in calculating probability do you, Kub? 24
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:22 | # The Protocols It is interesting that Martin, the fierciest critic on MR of Holocaust <u>Revision</u> (not Denial) was the first to refer to the “Protocols”. Nobody else referenced that publication. Martin does so employing the usual, pre-loaded frames and memes of “denier” and “racist.” This is not balanced, even if the Protocols are, as claimed, a concoction of the Tsar’s remarkably prescient Secret Service. It is yet again - suspiciously enough - a vilification since it makes anybody who might want to research the Protocols appear sick and demented in advance. Is that part of the “Anglo-Saxon” tradition of free speech and debate, or (PS: I do want to be clear: the Protocols have been shown to be a forgery.) Kub, just do a search on google. You’ll find the information on the Protocols. 25
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:34 | # Good points, both of you. My take on the protocols is simply this, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Again, they may not be 100% true, but definitely not 100% false either. That’s why I never had the inclination to thoroughly delve into their validity. Why waste the time? 26
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:38 | # (PS: I do want to be clear: the Protocols have been shown to be a forgery)- Geoff Really? How so Geoff? 27
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:50 | # I’m a holocaust skeptic, or a holocaust agnostic if you prefer. The evidence, from victims, perpetrators and sites, is overwhelming and the scale is verifyable from demographic data. Then the evidence for alien abduction is convincing too. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find the idea that one needs testimony, confessions, and census data (census data!) to prove six million deaths occured to be a preposterous one. (Historically, jews have been as resistant to the head count as any people with which I’m familiar) Six million corpses, or six million corpses worth of remains, are what I need to prove six million murders. Given jewry’s intelligence, education, wealth, and obsession with the alleged crime, I find it hard to understand why there’s been virtually no effort in this regard, when presumably it could settle the case. The idea of gas chambers is itself flawed. They’re inefficient, and Germans are not. If you’re over 35 and haven’t met Jewish people whose close relatives died in the Holocaust, you’ve been living in the Heartlands too long. The idea that we have to rely on tribal lore for evidence of six million murders, rather than forensics, is preposterous. Butz’ claim for example that the Nazis were using Zyklon B for de-lousing can only be described as insane—is he claiming it was cheaper than flea powder? As far as I know Zyklon B was a delousing agent. I’d be fine with being proven wrong here. Butz is a professor of electrical engineering, not a historian, and it shows. History isn’t like other disciplines. Academic works in the field are written more for the layman than in others, and the layman participates far more in history than in any other field. History is everyone’s business. ~~~~ The Protocols are fraudulent. They’re written in a manner totally inconsistent with their supposed authors, and totally consistent with someone trying to approximate their supposed authors. In other words, the plot is fine but the diction, tone, and voice are all wrong. As for holocaust museums and monuments in America with taxpayer money, they make about as much sense as the MLK statue at Westminster Abbey, I suppose (i.e., not much). How about the French putting up museums and monuments to American emancipation all over France with taxpayer money? Others have mentioned the stink that naturally rises from “racial vilification” and “holocaust denial” laws. 28
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:55 | # As a side note, and to answer a question no one has asked (who was worse in 1944, the Commies or the Nazis?): why did roughly a million Soviets take off their uniforms and join the Wermacht? 29
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:07 | # Jews are people like anyone else in that when they get power into their hands they are liable to be ruthless in pursuit of what they see as their interests. They are not saints. As far as I can tell, jews aren’t people like anyone else in this regard. One of the reasons they played such a prominent role behind the Iron Curtain was precisely their ruthlessness in dealing with “the other.” I take a more sympathetic view of all this than other WNs. I see the role jewry played behind the IC as analogous to the role it played in medieval Europe; kings used jewry as an elite middleman between themselves and their subjects. Jews were capable, and they were psychologically far more ready to exploit the natives than native elites were. A similar paradigm seems to hold for eastern Europe after WWII. The mystery is where to draw the line between jewish power and jewish utility. I don’t see this as unambiguously as my fellow WNs do. In other words, the kings had a role here too. Much the same seems to hold for contemporary America. 30
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:16 | # In that vein, I should add another point. It was raised by some revisionist or other if memory serves, and I find it a very important one. In competing for resources and survival, what exactly makes violence morally inferior to exploitation? Take medieval Europe as an example. Over long periods of time, jews (in collaboration with native kings) exploited and oppressed their hosts. Over short periods of time, their hosts exploded in rebellion and committed violence against their exploiters. What makes the jewish behavior here morally superior to the non-jewish behavior? History tells us that the jews were victims here and the non-jews were villains. I see it differently. Each people used the means natural and open to them. The sainthood bestowed on jewry via jewish apologia should be examined. 31
Posted by Winston Smith on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:30 | # The thing that is most improbable to me is the idea of using gas chambers. Why invent an expensive Rube Goldberg device to kill people with the inherent problems of herding them etc, when a simple bullet that costs 50c and virtually no capital investment will do the same job? Drama? 32
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:49 | # Winston: Drowning them in elevators would’ve been as dramatic as gas chambers, but far more efficient as one can handle a drowned corpse immediately, unlike a gassed corpse, and water is free unlike gas. Also, drowning takes less time than gassing (judging by the accounts of gassing I’ve read, which admittedly are few). This brings up another subject, that of extermination methods that are no longer popular, like electrified floor plates, electrified water rooms, and other lurid tales that are no longer popular in orthodox holocaust circles. 33
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:52 | # Also, if mass extermination was the goal, why the pitifully inadequate cremation facilities? Ever taken a look at the ovens that prisoners were supposedly shoved into, alive and kicking, around the clock? They don’t look designed for the task, the doors are too small for guards to be reasonably asked to push unwilling people through them all day long, day in, day out. The whole story just makes no sense to me. The whole story just defies common sense at every turn. 34
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:13 | # The whole story just makes no sense to me. The whole story just defies common sense at every turn. And the one thing the Nazi’s did not lack in was efficiency and common sense. So, to me, this discussion is valid and thought provoking. It troubles me to no end that we could face imprisonment in certain geographical areas just for this discussion. 35
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:27 | # A thought just occurred to me. Why intern anyone marked for death? Why not put him on a train, murder him en route, and dump his body (or ashes) somewhere near the eastern front? You’d get plausible denial this way, as you could always blame it on the Reds. Also, I have a request for the history buffs here. I’ve read that the holocaust narrative didn’t emerge until the 60s. Is that true? Is it true that the Nazis carried out the systematic murder of ten million people*, the lion’s share belonging to one of Europe’s most intellectually elite populations, right under the noses of the great powers of the world, and none knew about it? How is that possible, if true? If not, what are the alternative possibilities? *Let’s keep in mind that six million is the number claimed for jews; the total is significantly higher. This goes for my questions about corpses above; we need ten million or so corpses worth of remains, not six. 36
Posted by Phil on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:25 | # Martin, I agree with much of what you have said here about the Holocaust (though not all of it). I am not inclined to defend the Nazis or their historical record. BUT, I think there is one point about the Holocaust that needs to be made here. Beyond the arguments about whether the Holocaust story is true, there is a fundamental point underpinning the whole exercise. And the fundamental point is that it is another weapon in the arsenal of those who wish to destroy the west. It is a powerful tool for inculcating guilt about “Racism” or “Bigotry” which is then used for the purposes of destroying the West permanently through mass immigration. The way it works is this: The holocaust was the worst crime in history, The Holocaust was caused by racism and/or bigotry. Therefore all racism and bigotry could cause another Holocaust. Therefore, all racism should be abolished. One way to achieve that is by <u>tolerance</u>. Opposing mass immigration from non-white Nations is “Bigoted” and/or “Racist”. Tolerating immigration is “enlightened”. So as we can see, from being an event that must be remembered by a people as unique (it was without a shadow of doubt the worst pogrom against Jews in the history of mankind), it becomes this tool for the universal eradication of all “racism” from the West. From there it’s a slippery slope to the hell that many American cities have become and then to the utter destruction of the West. So the Holocaust is no longer simply an event which men remember as a signpost for one of the descents of civilization into savagery but as that <u>unique</u> event for all mankind which teaches us a unique lesson about the West: that the West and the white man is permanently and irredeemably stained with bigotry and the way to end all bigotry is by ultimately destroying the white man. In the end, that conclusion is inescapable. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre may not say that in so many words but that is indeed the subtext. To not stand up against that subtext is to surrender for posterity all that belongs to us as a people. Speaking as an Englishman whose family fought gallantly in World War II, I can only watch with some dismay as the Holocaust has now become a tool against the supposed “racism” of the English - this despite the fact that this has been the most philo-semitic nation in Europe since the early years of enlightenment. So I won’t take this opportunity to pay tribute to Simon Wiesenthal. His project has metamorphosed into something that threatents the very survival of what is mine. May his soul rest in peace. 37
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:04 | # When I hear someone whine on about the Holocaust I ask them these questions: - How many Americans died in WWII? I have never been told the number in response to that question. YET, the number <u>Six Million</u>, <u>Six Million</u>,<u>Six Million</u>,<u>Six Million</u>, through media conditioning may be the most well known number in the World! I wonder what other “facts” we have been conditioned to believe? 38
Posted by Phil on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:13 | # I should add here that my position on the Holocaust is the same as Svigor’s and I do consider myself an agnostic. Given the fanaticism of the promoters of the Holocaust industry and the most shrill advocates calling for the destruction of all freedom of speech in Europe (an effort which has been successful in a large section of the European continent), no thinking man would uncritically swallow the official story whole. Martin, Even though your comments on this thread have been the most sympathetic towards Jewish victims of World War II, merely saying that the real figure of victims could be 4 million as opposed to six million would be enough to land you in prison in France or Germany. If that does not send a chill down the spine of even “respectable” conservatives, I don’t know what will. 39
Posted by Truth Be Told on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:17 | # Svigor, “the holocaust narrative didn’t emerge until the 60s. Is that true?” The Oscar winning, classic film Stalag 17 from 1953 mentioned fumigation rooms for killing parasites, but nothing I recall about extermination or crematoria. The Hoax started later, perhaps as a distraction to cover complicity in the Soviet Gulag. The best defense is a good offense. 40
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:32 | # However denying overwhelming volumes of evidence and personal recollection is the action of a madman, not a researcher. It should not be encouraged, and will not add credibility to this site if we do so. Questioning mass opinion is madness?* http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-12-katrina-poll_x.htm
One wonders how these numbers will shake out once our media masters have had a decade to indoctrinate us as to the truth. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46387
I say denying jewry’s preexisting anti-non-jew animus is madness. Imagine being g-d’s chosen, superior to all, eternally innocent and persecuted (for mystical reasons), and then subjected to the concentration camps by the filthy goyim. I think a great many jews would be willing to say whatever their interviewers wanted to hear, particularly given their historical predisposition towards regarding history as weapon first and record second. Let’s remember the allies weren’t going ‘round looking for contradictory stories (a rule that holds right up to the present day), they were looking for “just war” material. Also remember that the record contains a great deal of “eyewitness testimony” that embarrasses today’s crop of orthodox historians. Why exclude it? Where does one draw the line, and who gets to draw it? How about Elie Wiesel? Where does his “eyewitness testimony” (and testimony like it) fit in? I say taking the (carefully selected) word of the same group that runs Hollywood (and creates “Bizarro World,” where truth is neatly inverted) at face value is madness, as is so taking coerced confessions. At least one holocaust revisionist was himself an internee. I can’t recall his name. *Yes, opinion is different than eyewitness testimony, but obviously there’s no bright line separating the two, at least not in any way relevant to the context of my point. 41
Posted by Phil on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:37 | # At least one holocaust revisionist was himself an internee. I can’t recall his name. Robert Faurisson I think. 42
Posted by Truth Be Told on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:40 | # Svigor, “Ever taken a look at the ovens that prisoners were supposedly shoved into, alive and kicking, around the clock? They don’t look designed for the task, the doors are too small for guards to be reasonably asked to push unwilling people through them all day long, day in, day out.” Yes, on a visit to Dachau in 1985. The two ovens shown to us had small doors about 18 inches width. The idea of passing a corpse thru this is implausible. However, again, a phonecall to Herr Wiesenthal’s center revealed that they claim all such group extermination efforts took place in only 6 main camps, of which Dachau was not one. They were Treblinka, Auschwitz, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, & Maly Trostenets. These were, of course, mostly destroyed during the fighting, and several had their facilities admittedly ‘rebuilt’ by the Soviets. An ‘official’ timeline reveals that these camps were all located in Poland or points east, and were not allegedly in high gear until the alleged ‘Final Solution’ authorization of the Wannsee conference of 1-1942, then were out of business by about 11-1944 after the Battle of Warsaw. This yields about 34 months to kill all Jews, as well as homosexuals, communists, unionists, gypsies, Slavs and others involved. Let us remember that the Reich suffered an acute labor shortage during the war, and that not only is hard evidence of mass extermination very tough to find, but, much evidence of prisoners laboring for the war effort is easy to find. In short, prison labor was worth much more to the Reich alive than dead. To paraphrase the late Desi Arnaz of the I Love Lucy show, “Mr. Wiesenthal, ‘choo gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do!”. 43
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:40 | # Truth Be Told, that brings up another point; why does the standard narrative of WWII steadily move towards a more iconic, more jewish one as time goes on? Why is the demonization of Germany a function of time? Postwar films on the subject grow steadily less flattering towards Germans as time goes on. Why is that? Viewed through a judeocentric lens, the WWII films and television programs of the 50s and 60s are downright anti-Semitic. More to the point, what about TBT’s point, which is certainly not limited to one film? 44
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:43 | # In short, prison labor was worth much more to the Reich alive than dead. That’s another excellent point. The supposed Nazi obsession with murdering their slaves en masse makes still less sense in this light. 45
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:46 | # Don’t know why America shouldn’t have a Holocaust Museum…. From a legal standpoint, it violates the First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts. 46
Posted by Phil on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:54 | # From a legal standpoint, it violates the First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts. How? 47
Posted by ren on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:02 | # Another good revisionist vid 48
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:22 | # Phil, It violates the Establishment Clause in the same way that a public memorial of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection would. 49
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:29 | # Phil, The Holocaust is a religious event. Whether some or all aspects of that event actually occurred is irrelevant to First Amendment jurisprudence. From Rabbi Jacob Neusner:
50
Posted by Truth Be Told on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:39 | # Ben, Apparently you’ve given this some deep thought beyond the nuts and bolts history of what happened and when, or the current free speech hypocrisy. Are you Jewish, and, if so, a rabbi or scholar? Just Wondering… 51
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:56 | # No, but I wish I had taken some of Prof. Neusner’s courses when I was in college. It turns out that my sense of his reputation at Brown underestimated the esteem accorded him by the Jewish community. 52
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:03 | # In principle, Jewish people should be allowed to buy land and put up any number of museums ther like as normal commercial ventures. Phil, I should clarify that I was speaking of Holocaust museums sponsored by Congress. I agree with Guessedworker’s point stated above. 53
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:11 | # The truth is not very nice in this case, for sure. But it isn’t quite the same in detail as “the construct”. There are said to be certain striking dissimilarities. Our children have no way of hearing about these because “the construct” has triumphed totally, and any attempt to dispense with it and seek facts is instantly demonised.—Guessedworker This is very well said. History has been mythologized and transformed into dogma. 54
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:14 | # I don’t hold with holocaust denial; while I suspect that 6 million is an overestimate, I see no substantial estimate for less than 3-4 million. I don’t hold with Holocaust “denial”, nor do I credulously accept the story proffered by the side that possesses a monopoly on story-telling. I shall continue to reserve judgment. 55
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:28 | # To our hosts: is the new image Crac de Chevaliers? 56
Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:41 | # Indeed it is. In this age it is hard to believe that the French were crusaders par excellence.
57
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:43 | # We are also welcome to believe that Holocaust memorialization is overstated, unbalanced, and fed by an unpleasant political agenda. However denying overwhelming volumes of evidence and personal recollection is the action of a madman, not a researcher. But for me, who was not there at the time, all of the evidence is hearsay. Or double hearsay. Or triple hearsay. Or… you get the point. And it all emanates from parties (the allied governments and the Jewish community) with monumental biases and a history of telling monumental lies. Regarding the Holocaust, these parties have made prior inconsistent statements; they have recanted prior allegations; they have refused to allow access to archival material that may, or may not, contain exculpatory information; they imprison and otherwise persecute those who disagree. You speak of “overwhelming volumes of evidence”, Martin, but whence comes its credibility? The closest I have come to cutting through the layers of hearsay was a visit to Buchenwald. (Technically, my understanding that the premises had served as a Nazi Lager was itself based on hearsay.) But Buchenwald is instructive: Nobel Peace Prize recipient Elie Wiesel states that Buchenwald had gas chambers and that 10,000 were sent to their deaths every day. Wiesenthal said there were no gas chambers. Wiesel: 10,000 killed every day ? 58
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:55 | # Nazi’s killing their slaves - illogical to be sure. But all govts act contrary to their long term interests at one time or another. Germany for instance never mobilised the female workforce the way Britain & the US did. Even childless women and those with grown up offspring were quite likley to stay at home while unwilling slaves were rounded up across Europe - mad, but thats what happened. Im sure Ive read somewhere that the rate of sabotage and vandalism by slave workers, certainly in aircraft manufacture, more than outweighed any benfit from employing them. Would you want to test fly a high performance aircraft built by slaves who hated you? I know I wouldnt. Ive read accounts of new built planes literally falling apart on take-off. As I said mad, but the regime was happy to go along with it. There seems to ba an assumption that the Nazi regime was a monolith but we enough about Hitler’s methods of divide and rule to know thats not true. 59
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:10 | # Indeed it is. I love castles (and all things medieval), back when I had a decent ‘Net connection I used to collect reference photos of them. I wish I kept more organized image archives; if I did I’d whip a few doozies out for you. 60
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:11 | # It was raised by some revisionist or other if memory serves, and I find it a very important one. In competing for resources and survival, what exactly makes violence morally inferior to exploitation? This is not from a “revisionist”; it is from Goldwyn Smith (1823-1910), a professor at Cornell University:
61
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:11 | # I’d bet Crac de Chevaliers was pretty intimidating when in full repair and painted. 63
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:45 | # The way it works is this: The holocaust was the worst crime in history, The Holocaust was caused by racism and/or bigotry. Therefore all racism and bigotry could cause another Holocaust. Therefore, all racism should be abolished. One way to achieve that is by tolerance. It is fascinating to see the propaganda machine cranking up in this regard even before the Holocaust began. While the Holocaust is marked as beginning with the Wannsee protocols (January 1942) that turned a policy of persecution into a policy of extermination, the “tolerance” meme was being injected gratuitously into Hollywood features in 1940, which is the year that Theodore Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish”, calling for extermination of the German nation, was published. “Tolerance” was a theme of the British-produced “49th Parallel” (1941), an overt work of propaganda. http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/ThisMonth/Article/0,,102771|102772|87966,00.htm But it also managed to work its way into “Knute Rockne, All-American” (1940). Rockne appeared before Congress and preached about the virtue of “tolerance”, apropos of nothing. 65
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:54 | # “1940, which is the year that Theodore Kaufman’s ‘Germany Must Perish,’ calling for extermination of the German nation, was published.” (—Ben, just above) I didn’t know there was such a book. I just looked up <u>the reader-reviews</u> at Amazon.com in order to get an idea of the book’s contents: they are instructive and unsettling. So, Jews aren’t as innocent as they’re apt to make themselves out to be: there are Jews who openly advocate genocide, and apparently no lack of Jews who applaud them. Hans Morgenthau, one of Roosevelt’s advisors and a Jew, favored doing away permanently with the German race after 1945 by forcibly dispersing the entire German population thinly among other races where they wouldn’t be able to marry other Germans and so would die out as a race, while repopulating the territory of Germany with other peoples. This, then, was a Jew calling for genocide. When I first read that many years ago it shocked me to the core, I must say. It still does whenever I think of it. These Amazon reviews of this man Kaufman’s book which I’m just finding out about at this moment shock me even more because he was even worse than Morgenthau: he apparently was advocating, as one of the reviews notes, forced sterilization of all German men up to age 65 and so on (women too, as it notes). Things aren’t black and white, with Jews either good or bad and Germans either good or bad. Both groups are made up of just ordinary people with ordinary people’s defects but there’s a tribal war going on in which each side, when it has the power to do so, advocates really pommeling the other side, trying hard to “give as good as it got” last time it was the victim of the other’s aggression. The problem is, there’s no policeman to stop it, so each side has to slug it out as best it can because no one can be counted on to help it, if the other side gains the upper hand. 66
Posted by AD on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:54 | # The way it works is this: The holocaust was the worst crime in history, The Holocaust was caused by racism and/or bigotry. Therefore all racism and bigotry could cause another Holocaust. Therefore, all racism should be abolished. One way to achieve that is by tolerance. Opposing mass immigration from non-white Nations is “Bigoted” and/or “Racist”. Tolerating immigration is “enlightened”.-Phil It is from the above point alone that we should view the Jewish holocaust(unless we’re Germans or Jews).It would be better to accept the 6 million figure,and question what that implies.Instead of the ‘cure’ being open borders, we should say that the Jewish holocaust teaches us that multi-ethnic societies are to be avoided at all costs. 68
Posted by Andrew L on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:06 | # I have to agree with some here, I’m all Memoriald out, It would not matter what memorial it is, 9-11, anything, The 5th column nutters will fabricate anything to deny it’s happenings, But one memorial I would Worship , if all those 5 th column subscribers rested in peace under one and a bloody big memorial it would be.Worth celebrating for all time. 69
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:37 | # Andrew, you brought a smile to my face. But an early political burial of the liberal elite and an honestly written history of their deeds will suffice for me. 70
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:23 | # ben, I had not heard of Rabbi Neusner or his Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption. Frankly, I do not see how it can be taken seriously. It bespeaks of a self-justification and self-pity that, for me, completely defies explanation. What nourishment is to be got from a “religion” that does not proceed from and lead to truth revealed in the human heart through stillness and humility? Worldly ethnocentricity taken to religious ends is altogether different from, say, the sacredness that peoples attach to their homelands. That is a healthy love and such sacredness as people may feel in that respect marks only the qualitative value of their attachment, not a steepling religious faith. But Neusner? Quite amazing, and it is supported by Jews of the usual high intelligence, I presume. 71
Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:21 | # Maybe ‘dlg’ should come now and disabuse us of all these unpleasant facts, in particular the comments by Ben and Fred above regarding Theodore Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish”. How about in a previous thread where Brooks and Rabbi whats-his-name advocate forced integration of white neighborhoods with blacks? Eerily quiet on these subjects, he is. I don’t know why, however I am utterly shocked at the Kaufman book, which is STILL around. Where’s the left and their faux indignation for genocide when you need them? 72
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:22 | # Randy, the Wiesenthal article was interesting, and unsurprising—while I object to holocaust denial, his organisation has always seemed to me thoroughly intellectually dishonest, a typical product of the Left. The Kreisky quote was particularly interesting, Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, who I met once (I worked for an Austrian bank for a time) was a good solid citizen, albeit a social democrat. Incidentally, three hearty cheers for General Ante Gotovina, the man who rescued Croatia from occupation, and is now being hunted down by the appalling International Court of Justice. Carla del Ponte is now accusing the Catholic church of hiding him; she may well be right, but they aren’t about to give him up. Hopefully more frothing in impotent rage for the international left and the EU. Here’s the Gotovina fan club website: 73
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:00 | # Until some knowledgeable soul can answer all the questions, Martin - instead of merely lock up the questioners - it is Holocaust Scepticism (or Skepticism if you are American!) not Holocaust Denial. 74
Posted by Tournament of Champions on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:24 | # Morgenthau, one of Roosevelt’s advisors and a Jew, favored doing away permanently with the German race after 1945 by forcibly dispersing the entire German population thinly among other races where they wouldn’t be able to marry other Germans and so would die out as a race, while repopulating the territory of Germany with other peoples. What is surprising is that the Morgenthau plan, coauthored by Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White (Weiss) was approved at various times by Stalin, Rooselvelt, Attlee, and Truman. 1. Race Replacement- ethnic cleansing of Germans from the Ruhr, Silesia, Makes me wonder if Ben Freedman was right. 75
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:37 | # The Morgenthau plan was also backed by the non-Jewish but evil Keynes; it was more of a Commie plot than a Jewish plot. Just remmeber that all the international instiutions of the postwar world were designed by Communist spies—Wolrd Bank and IMF by White and the United Nations by Alger Hiss. 76
Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:44 | # > The Morgenthau plan was also backed by the non-Jewish but evil Keynes Not only evil but a sodomite. Generally sodomites will throw their lot in with any group that will protect their “peculiar desires.” BTW, Communism is a Jewish inspired and predominantly directed political movement, especially pre 1939 communism, look at this graph: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html (Scroll Down) 77
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:15 | # I had not heard of Rabbi Neusner or his Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption. Frankly, I do not see how it can be taken seriously. It bespeaks of a self-justification and self-pity that, for me, completely defies explanation. GW, it is not *his* Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption. His discussion is descriptive, not prescriptive; he too finds such a Judaism spiritually wanting. 78
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:29 | # GW, If you run a google search for “Neusner” and “preeminent”, you will get a sense for the importance of his views. While the alumni magazine of my alma mater (where Neusner was a professor while I was a student) is modest enough to call him “one of the world’s preeminent scholars in Judaic studies”, Kevin MacDonald is willing to recognize him as “the preeminent scholar of the Jewish religion”. 79
Posted by JB on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:10 | # Martin Hutchinson: huh ? You are not the one who decides if you’re respectable or not, the media and the socio-political elite does. And if the majority of your own people has the wrong “ideas” and its future is threatened then being respectable and refusing to confront or offend them is a vice. Besides do the destructive ideologues and groups who are attacking the West allow you to debate them ? Are they for or against freedom of speech ? Being ‘respectable’ means accepting your enemies’ terms and concepts. When there’s very few things left to conserve and so many things we have to rebuild I don’t see the point of being a “conservative” anyway 80
Posted by JB on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:13 | # Svigor: Paul Rassinier The revisionists have never said nobody died in the camps but that the official Holocaust story (mass extermination) is a fable. I have never seriously studied this topic though but the fact that jewish groups everywhere want to outlaw Holocaust revisionism is a sign that the official story is most probably a load of BS. The truth needs no law to support it
81
Posted by Phil on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:13 | # Martin, The word “denial” creates a straw man. No one here (as far as I know) denies that Jews died in enormous numbers in the Second World War in concentration camps that were built by the Nazis. The only areas where there is doubt (or people have reasonable cause for doubt) are: 1. The actual death toll (and most here believe that it was less than 6 million - though how much less is a matter for some speculation although there is evidence that shows that the 6 million figure is clearly inaccurate by some margin). 2. The use of Gas Chambers (even those Historians that stand by the Gas Chamber story admit that by far the greaest cause of deaths were not gassings but starvation and disease in the closing months of the war). 3. Whether there was a German masterplan to exterminate European Jewry (I am inclined to believe now that there probably was an intention but this again is subject to some debate - although perhaps not as much as the last two questions). That, in sum, constitutes the fundamentals of my scepticism. And I shall remain a sceptic. I do believe (and this has been corroborated by many Jews as well) that the Holocaust has now become an enormous money spinner for self-interested Jewish organizations (many of whom do not actually have the best interests of Jews at heart). And given the fact that there are so many interested parties involved, I am not willing to swallow the official storyline whole (when the Official storyline itself has also changed so many times in the past). So call me a denier if you will but those are my thoughts on the subject. 82
Posted by JB on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:17 | # Fred Scrooby: they’re the same everywhere : Start hiring minorities, PS warned
Whites need not apply
83
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:37 | # Phil, I would not regard your view on the holocaust as remotely equivalent to a denial, simply a healthy insistence on establishing the true facts and not being swept away by media spin and self-interested emotionalism. I too agree that 6 million is probably about twice the true figure, and that a relatively small proportion of the number killed were actually killed by gas poisoning. Equally, from the time of Kristallnacht in November 1938 intelligent British Conservatives had come to regard the Nazis as little better than the Soviets, and marginally even more dangerous because of Hitler’s expansionism (Britain should not have intervened in Eastern Europe without US military support, but would have had to confront Hitler later even if she hadn’t.) Holocaust denial, in the strict sense, should not be illegal (free speech) but is somewhat dangerous, at least in Germany/Austria. However, skepticism is certainly in order, and indeed one prominent skeptic, though mostly about the Croatian holocaust equivalent, was the late great Franjo Tudjman (in 1971, when a professor of History, between being a general and being President). Tudjman demonstrated conclusively that the allegations of 600,000 murders by the Ustashe wartime Croatian government werre a Communist fantasy concocted by Tito, the true figure being 60,000 at most. Tudjman was imprisoned twice by the Communists for his views, thus acquiring double the freedom-fighting credentials of the wimpy Vaclav Havel. 84
Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:43 | # Lets pull a frame on Martin, You are in denial about the Holocaust. You cannot face the facts, you will not read the evidence. You are a denier. Martin is a holocaust denier. 85
Posted by Phil on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:00 | # Geoff, Let us agree to disagree in a civil manner and as gentlemen (if there are disagreements between you and Martin). There is no need for angry recrimations or accusations against anyone. Martin, That is very well put. Given the fact that the vast majority of deaths (not only Holocaust deaths) occured in the East, scepticism is certainly in order. I mean we know now what savagery Soviets engaged in during WWII and then covered it up only to be discovered much later. If you ask me honestly, as monstrous as the Nazis were, our perception is defined by the fact of their defeat and the fact that the winners chose to write history and emphasise it in a certain way. As we have agreed before the Soviets were more murderous but they won WWII and so history does not judge them in as harsh a light. The BBC regularly runs glowing tributes of the worst monster in history in the shape of “Chairman” Mao. It makes Mao look almost noble. What worked in Mao’s favour was that his “movement” triumphed and the truth of the horrors of his regime never emerged until much later (and even when they did, the Liberals in the West never talked about it at all). And in the same vein, there have been other genocides - such as the Turks killing more than a million Armenians and we think of Attaturk as a noble man today. So I think history is what the winners say it is. And the greatest monsters in our minds are the ones who lost the crucial battles of history. 87
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:12 | # You are in denial about the Holocaust. You cannot face the facts, you will not read the evidence. To be fair, I must say that Martin’s comments regarding Kreisky’s comments on Wiesenthal indicate that he read well into the piece that both I and “Randy” linked to in this thread, which does not deal directly with the facts of the Holocaust Story but does deal with the credibility of one of the main story tellers. That does not suggest an aversion to evidence. 88
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:21 | # 2. The use of Gas Chambers (even those Historians that stand by the Gas Chamber story admit that by far the greaest cause of deaths were not gassings but starvation and disease in the closing months of the war). You may be surprised to hear that the orthodox history now attributes more deaths to carbon monoxide than to Zyklon B, by a margin of more than 2 to 1. See, e.g.: http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.html Scroll down to “Timeline”. 89
Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:22 | # > That does not suggest an aversion to evidence. Well, we can just overlook those comments about “racist fantasies” and “holocaust deniers,” which were used to hang a stone around anyone’s neck that questioned too much. But I do admit to being an Iroquois denier. 90
Posted by Phil on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:23 | # You may be surprised to hear that the orthodox history now attributes more deaths to carbon monoxide than to Zyklon B, by a margin of more than 2 to 1. Interesting. 91
Posted by Guest on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:28 | # > Posted by JB on 09/21 at 08:17 PM The “White” slots in government, private sector employment will be reserved for Jews with everything else going to “visible minorities”. MacDonald’s documentation of the assault upon the White majority over one hundred years’ time is devastating. There have been links posted here for anyone to read for themselves and to draw their own conclusions. As far as the forbidden, in many nations, research into the “Holocaust”, A plan by National Socialist Germany to commit genocide? There is no evidence of such. One can believe the same folks who deliberately destroyed the White homelands of Europe and America or one can examine the evidence for him/herself. Only one side puts people in prison for daring to examine history. 92
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:54 | # Not true; both the Nazis and the South African government (before the liberalizing PW Botha) were quite happy to lock you up or even knock you off if you argued with them. I don’t think the jury’s yet in on the present lot; they certainly haven’t done more damage than Hitler and Stalin so far though it’s not impossible that in the end they will prove to have done so (1930s Mark II, plus immighration and PC past a tipping point.) I am however skeptical of this claim. 93
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:45 | # I don’t see your distinction Martin. Could you clarify? 94
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 03:41 | # I was referring to Guest’s comment that only one side locks you up for arguing. Not true; freedom of speech or indeed any other sort of freedom are a myth under authoritarians of left or right, who are in any case largely the same people. Such authoritarianism can and indeed does coexist with “democracy” it is generally a fuction of large andf inept government. 95
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:50 | # Ah, okay, from your second paragraph I though you were expanding beyond the point about free speech and into generalities. Post a comment:
Next entry: And it’s only geography for thirteen year olds
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:29 | #
By far Hiostory’s most stylish villains, though, you have to admit. My father was there as a student for the summer of 1939 (left September 1!) and used to go misty eyed from time to time (ze uniforms….ze music…. ve vere so young!)
I don’t hold with holocaust denial; while I suspect that 6 million is an overestimate, I see no substantial estimate for less than 3-4 million. That however puts it well south of Stalin or Mao in the scale of genocide, possible even south of Turkey, if you add its various Armenian horrors togethr. The difference is that whereas Stalin massacred Ukranian farmers, who had no voice, Hitler went after the urban, clever, intellectual and internationally linked. It is therefore understandable that Hitler’s crimes got a higher worldwide profile.
Not #1, no. But #3-4 crime of the 20th Century is still quite frightful enough to commemorate and take steps to avoid repeating.