Holocaust Denial

[Marnixvdb]

Darryl,

see this for a thorough examination into the evidence whether the gas chambers in Dachau were actually used.

Conclusion:
"Neither the reports by the U.S. Army, Father Hess nor Sack prove conclusively that the homicidal chamber was used to kill people. Until further evidence is discovered, historians will have to conform themselves with the knowledge that it was technically possible to have murdered human beings with poison gas in that room, and that the room, some 16x16x12ft high, was designed for the exclusive purpose of carrying out such a grim task. This circumstance does not free the perpetrators of their crimes. No matter in what manner the tens of thousands of unfortunate people in Dachau lost their lives, they were murdered as surely as if they had been placed in a gas chamber and asphyxiated with hydrogen cyanide gas. The intentional destruction of human life by whatever means is still murder. It is quite sufficient, for the moment, to demonstrate that the Nazis intended to use a homicidal gas chamber in Dachau, and that they designed, built and equipped such a chamber in the Dachau Concentration Camp."

Dachau was a camp in Germany and is often referred to by the revisionists. There is plenty evidence that the gas chambers were actually put in use in the camps outside of Germany (such as Auschwitz). There are a lot of in depth articles on the site on this theme, go read it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This Zundel guy hasn't heard of google, I guess...
(image)

[/ QUOTE ]
The Holocaust revisionists'/deniers' argument (and it's partly plausible) is that most, if not all, of the discovered gas chambers were used to fumigate the inmates on account of the typhoid epidemic (which has been, indeed, medically documented to have broken out in various camps).

Again, I say, SO WHAT?

IMHO, there is no need to discuss this too much. Even if the revisionists' "technical" arguments turn out to be mostly kosher (pun intented), i.e. even if the gas chambers were mostly used for medical purposes, the killing machine made up of the camps in Treblinka, Mauhausen, Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, Maidanek, Dachau and so many other places of infamy, was operating through many means: shooting, starving, gassing, choking, hacking, "medically epxerimenting on", etc etc.

It all amounted to treating human beings as physical bodies and no more, i.e. treating people as good either for a day's work or for a "medical experiment". This is tantamount to murder - and, on the scale that the murder was perpetrated upon the Jews and all those other unfortunates in WWII, to a crime against humanity.

* * *

The film Judgement At Nuremberg, 1961, (somewhat wearing its heart on its sleeve, by today's standards) is required viewing for those seeking a quick way to understand the moral outrage.

The German non-Nazi judge Jannings (Burt Lancaster) who is a defendant in a trial with other German judges, for helping the Holocaust process by sending innocent German civilians to the camps on account of being sick or deficient, or sending them to forced sterilisation under the same eugenic laws, forms an unspoken bond with the tough, honest, stand-up American judge (Spencer Tracy - as if needed to be said).

The German is otherwise impeccable in his morality and politics, yet he obeyed the laws that were proclaimed by the Nazis and sent people to the camps or to sterilisation. After he is found guilty, he seeks a private audience with the American judge. He states that he does not care about the judgement, but only of the American's personal opinion, seeing as he is someone who moral authority the German respects.

"Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come. Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. YOU must believe it, YOU MUST believe it."

The American judge, played of course with superb understatement and authority by Tracy, burdens the German with an even greater weight than he thought. Tracy responds "Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."

[Peter666]

"This is why I am curious as to what Peter's intentions are with his persistent claim that the those who died in prison camps because of the Nazis' crimes are not victims of first degree murder."

And where did I say this? This is proof that when it comes to the Holocaust, logic and unemotional objectivism go out the window.

I was making the point that not all murder is first degree murder, and in the case of the Holocaust we have to question the motives of the hierarchy of the Nazi's involved to determine the level of their crimes.

And yet, when somebody brings up the Holocaust, like Pavlov's dogs there is an immediate judgment made that all Nazis are the incarnation of evil and to even question this is some sort of betrayal of humanity.

With the right kind of media propaganda, the vast majority of people will unthinkingly say yes to whatever the authority wants them to do. Modern man has the same mentality as Nazi Germany.

[Peter666]

It is Gamblor who brought up legality in trying to denounce the Nazis, not me.

[zipo]

>>I responded by pointing out that your whole post (which you placed as a response to mine) is full of platitudes. <<

You keep asserting this, and yet you have not provided a single specific example. Of course, you are pointedly refusing to provide a specific example because your contention is not supportable. I am enjoying watching you wriggle and squirm in a desperate attempt to avoid this issue - so simply, if you are indeed something more than a mere troll, provide specifics. Put up or shut up.

>>I took it to imply that I am an anti-semite. <<

I asserted no such thing in this thread. Again, if you can refute this, provide an example of where called you an anti-semite. It seems that I struck a very raw and tender nerve of yours here. Again, put up or shut up.

>> It was not me who brought Israel into the forefront of this thread, which is about the Holocaust.<<

You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel. Please point out a single instance in this thread in which I related the holocaust to israel. Put up or shut up.

Of course, I don't really believe that you will address the substance of these issues and provide examples to back up your assertions. I have pointed out how the claims and assumptions you have made about my remarks in this thread are unreasonable, irrational, and unsubstantiated.

You won't provide specifics, because you can't support your arguments and claims with facts. All you can do is obfuscated, divert, and duck the facts.

The real question is - are you interested in genuine discussion, or are you nothing more than a troll? I would say 'put up or shut up' again, but I know trolls will neither shut up, or provide specific examples and facts to back up their arguments.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep asserting [that my whole post is full of platitudes] and yet you have not provided a single specific example.

[/ QUOTE ]You want a "single specific example"? Didn't I tell you to choose any phrase, at random, from your thumbsucker of a post? Here, I'll do it for you. Pick an integer from 1 to 10... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ] You are imagining things. This never happened.

And then on the basis of your hallucinations, you are throwing around insults. Then you backtrack away from the insults.

You are something else.

What I did accuse you of, is that for you anyone who says something "bad" about Israel or the Jews, ends up being accused of anti-semitism.

[ QUOTE ]
>>I took it to imply that I am an anti-semite. <<

I asserted no such thing in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do spin yourself around some more; it's higly entertaining.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Darryl,

see this link for a thorough examination into the evidence whether the gas chambers in Dachau were actually used.

[/ QUOTE ]

[zipo]

>>You want a "single specific example"? Didn't I tell you to choose any phrase, at random<<

More twisting, squirming, and ducking. The more I crank up the heat, the faster you dance - hilarious. You claim my earlier posts were full of platitudes. Offer up one - just one - any one - and we'll compare it to the dictionary definition of 'platitude' you provided earlier and see if it holds up to your characterization.

But you won't. Because you can't. Because you would humiliate yourself when it became clear after all your dodging, ducking, and squirming that you simply can't back up your words. That's the real reason you won't provide a clear example.

OK, get ready for another flogging. Earlier I wrote:

"You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel."

You replied to that specific quote in your last post:

" You are imagining things. This never happened."

I submit a quote from your earlier post #4188240 in this thread:

"But the way I see things, you are incapable of reasoned argument and a prime example of that deficiency is your reflexive reaction to anyone who dares dispute "what's best for Israel" : He or she is an anti-semite."

Try and squirm out of that one lol.

[andyfox]

"The only injustice was the eviction of all those jews 1500 years ago, before there even were any 'Arabs'. More importantly, there has been a continuous significant Jewish community in Israel since the dawn of history. The move of the european jews there was immigration, not colonization. Those people did not set the arabs to work in their fields or force on them slave labour, they simply created their own communities independent of the existing arab communities."

1) 1500 years ago is a long time to remedy an injustice, is it not? And how can it be the "only" injustice when hundreds of thousands of native lost their homes in 1948?

2) Why the e of quotation marks for "Arabs"?

3) There were Jews at the dawn of history? In any event, the vast majority of the population of Palestine at the start of Zionism (I mean Herzl's Zionist) was not Jewish. It was Palestinian.

4) Of course Zionism was colonization. It was advertised as a colonial enterprise by the founders of Zionism from the get-go.

5) There is plenty of evidence to contradict your rosy picture of the impact of Zionism on the natives. One doesn't have to rely on Arab propaganda, one can read Ahad Ha'am or other early Zionist settlers, Jabotinsky, Buber or other Jewish sources from a variety of political perspectives.

[andyfox]

"The real question is: of those who died, how many were deliberately murdered, and how many died of different causes such as typhus?"

What difference would this make? Was not the intention of the camps to rid Germany of its "parasitic" Jewish population? The American Indian holocaust was mostly effectuated through disease. We do not, however, excuse deliberate extermination because of this, do we?