Holocaust Denial

[Darryl_P]

I think his intentions are to get the facts straight when there are so many powerful entities who have distorted them for so long.

I'm no expert on the Holocaust but I'm pretty damn good at logic and I do understand what first degree murder is.

If it's true that the purpose of keeping the prisoners was mainly to get free labor out of them, then the purpose of the camps was not to kill them. If you kill someone without that being your intention then you are not guilty of first degree murder. It's really not that hard and so I don't see the point of bringing in all the legal gobbledygook, although I did get a chuckle from the Canadian code getting copied here.

The only point worth debating, and the crux of it all, is what really happened at the camps, what were the Nazis' genuine intentions etc. Trying to show off by how much legal mumbo jumbo we've packed into our state-obedient, non-independent-minded heads is less than constructive if our goal is to come closer to finding the truth.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's true that the purpose of keeping the prisoners was mainly to get free labor out of them, then the purpose of the camps was not to kill them.

[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn't the sole purpose and many camps had several functions. Almost all (if not all) were designed to dispose of the inhabitants when they were no longer useful at the whim of a few men.

[ QUOTE ]
If you kill someone without that being your intention then you are not guilty of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Intentionally putting someone in a situation from which there is slim to no hope of escape/life and often times being directly responsible for the death is first degree murder. And even if you don't believe they're first degree, the sheer number and methods of people being killed wipe out any mitigation of guilt from the murders not being first degree.

[ QUOTE ]
The only point worth debating, and the crux of it all, is what really happened at the camps, what were the Nazis' genuine intentions etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then please, debate. What were the Nazis' intentions?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
[Intentionally putting someone in a situation from which there is slim to no hope of escape/life and often times being directly responsible for the death is first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you don't know in advance that it will lead to death. First degree murder requires pre-meditation of the intention to kill. The key question is what the Nazis true intentions were.

I'm not in any position to debate the issue because I never studied the subject, but the revisionists' position seems fair and believable to me. Is there any part of it which you consider not believable? If so, which part?

Here is a summary.

What I am saying is that P666's statement that the Nazis did not commit first degree murder is consistent with his version of the facts. If you want to show that the Nazis did commit first degree murder, then you are better off debating the facts of what went on at the time rather than talking about the definition of first degree murder.

I realize that it was Gamblor who mostly talked about that but since you endorsed it I figure I could reply to your post just the same.

You guys seem to regard US (or Canadian) law as some sort of sacred scripture or gospel. For the definition of a legal term that was coined in the US it may be, but for a broader scale debate like this Holocaust issue, it is tangential at best.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in any position to debate the issue because I never studied the subject, but the revisionists' position seems fair and believable to me. Is there any part of it which you consider not believable? If so, which part?

Here is a summary.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've got to be kidding. That "summary", in an age where you can link to other sites with actual evidence, is a terrible piece of evidence. It's blatantly contradictory. First it says that the Holocaust should be called the Jewish Holocaust (which is wrong because many other "undesirables" were rounded up and killed too) and then goes on to say that the Holocaust wasn't really the Holocaust but just the Germans helping the Jews move out of Europe. I'll take what most credible historians think over a few crackpot anti-semites think, thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to show that the Nazis did commit first degree murder, then you are better off debating the facts of what went on at the time rather than talking about the definition of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can I show whether Nazis committed first degree murder without first agreeing to what that means? Besides, my first post in here said that if what the Nazis did wasn't blatant first degree murder (and many are guilty of that), then it was depraved indifference at the least, which is still murder. And because of the scale of the murders it is far, far worse than just a few planned out murders. I don't understand the obsession you and Peter have with this "first degree" stuff. It makes litle difference when you consider the vastness of it all.

[Darryl_P]

How about the part about no evidence of gas chambers? That's a pretty strong statement which should be easy to disprove, if untrue. Is there any evidence of gas chambers that you know of?

The issue of first degree murder is important because if it's not, then it diminishes the holocaust as the number one "crime against humanity" of the 20th century, as many media outlets have tried to portray it while pretending to be 100% objective.

Truly objective media would focus on murderous regimes in proportion to the number of lives exterminated. Using this benchmark, Stalin's Soviet Communists are by far the number one serial killer of the 20th century, followed by Communist China, with Hitler and his Nazis coming third.

An innocent bystander who gets his info. from the media, however, is left with the impression that Hitler was by far the number one bad guy and from all objective accounts this is simply wrong. Working on trying to correct this gross error is a noble pursuit IMO.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How about the part about no evidence of gas chambers? That's a pretty strong statement which should be easy to disprove, if untrue. Is there any evidence of gas chambers that you know of?

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


Demolished by the Nazis as they fled...


Guess how long these took to find? According to google, it was .36 seconds.

[ QUOTE ]
The issue of first degree murder is important because if it's not, then it diminishes the holocaust as the number one "crime against humanity" of the 20th century

[/ QUOTE ]
The Final Solution is the evidence of first degree murder. Individual Nazis who took part in it are culpable for bringing it to be either by actively participating in it or doing nothing to stop it (depraved indifference). I won't get into an argument over whether it was the "number one crime against humanity in the 20th century", because there's no point to doing so.

[ QUOTE ]
Truly objective media would focus on murderous regimes in proportion to the number of lives exterminated. Using this benchmark, Stalin's Soviet Communists are by far the number one serial killer of the 20th century, followed by Communist China, with Hitler and his Nazis coming third.

[/ QUOTE ]
So...maybe we should all just say "Weeeelllll, Hitler wasn't really that bad. Stalin was worse." See how stupid this is? All three dictators are all the some of the most awful people to walk the earth.

[ QUOTE ]
An innocent bystander who gets his info. from the media, however, is left with the impression that Hitler was by far the number one bad guy and from all objective accounts this is simply wrong. Working on trying to correct this gross error is a noble pursuit IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Drop the media-phobia. If you aren't getting your information from personal interviews, you're getting it from some sort of medium.

[Darryl_P]

In the first picture I can't see anything which resembles a gas reservoir or pumping apparatus, and in the second I see what could be someone's neglected garage.

My info. comes from travelling, looking around, talking to people about their own experiences, and reading peoples' own personal accounts in books and/or on the internet. Sure, the books and the internet are technically media, but you have to know I'm talking about organized networks with paid editors and not just physical media which do nothing more than physically transmit data.

Ah, ok, now I see the first of the three pictures after the edit. That one is interesting.

[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."

[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 ]
Darryl,

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

[/ QUOTE ]