i heard all the stories from my grandmother who was a prisoner and saw the pain in her eyes. I find holocaust deniers to be nothing more than self delluding bottom feeders who have pure hatred for the Jewish people
share[deleted]
And in reply to MovieMasters95, you have to be new to Earth yourself because no matter what we believe EVERYONE on this Earth has the right to exist- Even people who don't understand humans-like you!
sharemy grandmother lied about the whole thing. exactly! problem solved. well done!
shareYour grandmother being in a concentration camp isn't proof that they gassed Jews.
"We'll be alive but like a nightmare. You drink blood, you won't wake up from nightmare."
she almost got sent to one herself my antisemetic friend and her little sister was shot in the head right in front of her eyes by an SS. Im happy to debate this topic with you any time any place. just say the word. but you deniers hide behind anononymity and troll internet forums to spread your hatred towards the world. Its because you are lonely cowards and like to blame others for your own problems and inadequacies. Very sad and i can only hope that natural selection weeds people like you out of society.
shareNo point in trying to reason with a guy who has already declared he thinks Jews are liars.
Part of the problem Holocaust deniers have online is that they're torn. They know that if they come out as this guy did, letting it all hang out about how he hates the Jews, then he's got nowhere to go. He's just another racist troll on the net, like the guy who started another thread on this movie with an antisemitic caricature in ASCII art.
But if they do the other thing -- the one where they try to pretend they're just normal average people who have been shocked to discover some Interesting But Strange New Things about the Holocaust (which always turn out, on examination, to be retreaded neo-Nazi lies from half a century ago), then they can't really do what they came here to do, which is to hate on the Jews in a public forum, because as soon as they do, they're over in category one, just another racist troll on the net.
They want to look normal and mainstream, and they also want to be raving racists, and they can't do both. Poor little Jew-hating trolls.
I'd be willing to debate with you, providing it's a civil conversation. But looking at your post, I know that civility behind your computer monitor isn't possible, why would you decide to be civil face to face? I'd likely be yelled at. I'm not afraid to talk to people about this. I've done so many times. And I do so without being rude.
You call out others who hide on the internet, then resort to being the troll you complain about what with words like: "Its because you are lonely cowards and like to blame others for your own problems and inadequacies. Very sad and i can only hope that natural selection weeds people like you out of society."
Sounds like neo-Nazi rhetoric. Would you be brave enough to say that outside the internet yourself? Or would you be kind, because you'd be afraid someone might actually debate you civilly?
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
What happened to all the 10-100,000's of infant babies that arrived that these "work" camps... I wasn't aware infants could "work"
Nobody denies that people died at the camps. Revisionists like myself just don't believe in the whole gas chamber story or the supposed plot to wipe out all the prisoners.
"Brother, life's a bitch...and she's back in heat."
Then can you tell me what you think happened to the thousands, and thousands of infants that arrived at these camps? And do you deny Babi yar?
shareThen can you tell me what you think happened to the thousands, and thousands of infants that arrived at these camps?
So for the babies that didn't die from fever, where were they held, these camps had no daycare??
shareA person in the Shoah Foundation video mentioned daycares...
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
The nazis cared enough to have daycare's for jewish infants, over 10yrs?.. While they crammed their parents and families into wooden bunks, often three to one bunk in the freezing cold?
If it was a "work camp" wouldn't they need to nurture the health of the adults to work rather than nurture thousands of infants who are useless as workers?
10 years? Where did you get 10 years? The camps in question weren't there for more than 5 years. And you do know that the prisoners weren't in the camps forever, right? The Nazis did release prisoners back into society.
I'm not the one who stated that they had day care. I'm just conveying it. I've watched quite a few videos on this matter, and that's where I heard that from. But one needs to view revisionism videos in order to find that, at least that's where I found it.
There are some Jews that claim that the camps weren't as they've been stated as having been. Look at youtube videos on the subject and you'll probably find what I saw. But they are long videos, and go into great detail. Be warned.
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
The camps were built in 1933.. So for arguments sake 1935-1945 = 10yrs... Anyways, that doesn't really matter lets say it was two years of slave labour. That's a lot of babies to take of, and money and resources to care and watch jewish/homosexual/gypsy/russian/retarded babies.. I didn't know the nazis had such a big heart for babies, while they crammed their workers into frozen barracks with disease rampant.
You yourself mentioned the diseases, yet they cared for some but didn't care for others, and actually released some without any concern for the world press?
Where did they go back into nazi occupied Poland?
Have you ever heard of Babi yar?
I've got this guy on ignore, but from your responses it sounds like he's flailing against the core problem Holocaust denial has as a would-be category of history -- an inability to explain even a fraction of what actually happened in its entirety as well as historians do, instead piling up some odds and ends and dribs and drabs that they think supports them (if you pour on enough anti-Semitic speculation) but only if you're ignoring everything else.
shareThis guy had me rolling on the floor laughing when he said the camps had daycares, and actually released some prisoners :P
The only daycares they had were for children 2-5 who were experimented on in sadistic ways, and the only that were released were the ones that liberated by the allies.
Well, remember, Hitler was the one of the greatest friends the Jews ever had. So says David Irving, so it must be true. I'll bet ol' Adolf volunteered evenings at the Jewish day care. Such a guy!
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxFEtbawPCk&t=4s
10 minutes 50 seconds into the video.
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
That's propaganda.. Plus they were children, I'm asking where were the thousands of infants that arrived in the trains?
shareI put this hater on IGNORE.
shareThat's propaganda.
Everything is propaganda. I have nothing more to add to this discussion. I've given you your answer, whether you care or not.
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
What about Babi yar?
shareI don't know much about that, if anything at all, sorry.
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
You spoke about those camps that were open since the Nazis took power, Dachau. Those were for political prisoners, not Jews. Neither were they for whole families.
1933-1942, the latter being when the supposed death camps were being turned into death camps. At the times before that they weren't camps of families being placed there for murder, but for prisoners. Individuals whom were placed under arrest, but not those whom were shipped with their whole families. That didn't occur until they were unsettling whole families and taking them to camps. So, it was from let's say '41 or so that they had to begin rounding up families.
None of this is 100%. It's just me answering to the best of my knowledge the question presented to me. And I know you weren't looking for any kind of answers from me, you were looking to make a naive person look stupid. But can you answer me this: if whole families were being rounded up, what did they do with babies before they started exterminating?
HD Historic Stock Footage NAZI DEATH MILLS - CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-6CchE1NqI
Pay attention to 4:20. That'll show you that infants were indeed at the camps. But what this propaganda film neglects to mention is that if the Holocaust contains any truth, the infants wouldn't have been alive still...
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
I saw another revisionist video about Majdanek. It used to be well known as a death camp that exterminated 2 million Jews, but was later found that there were many inconsistencies. The death toll was reduced to 78,000 dead.
There were baby crib bunks found in the barracks at the camp. That is where the Jewish babies likely slept. Denial that there was no place for babies in camps is ridiculous. If there weren't where would the gentile political prisoner's children be kept?
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
You know, of all the bogus arguments that Holocaust deniers try to proffer, this one always struck me as one of the dumbest.
The number six million "keeps coming up" because that's how many Jews the Nazis killed. Duh. There were also, no big coincidence, about six million Jews in Europe during WWI. But Holocaust deniers apparently think that numbers can only be used once. If you say that there are four wheels on your car, you can no longer say there are four legs on your table, because the number's already used up. Sorry, folks, we're fresh out of four, you'll have to use a different number.
But HOW CAN IT BE, then, that there were FOUR Beatles? Isn't that fishy? Well, Skippy, the Talmud of the Evil Jews tells us that... blah blah blah. And here's a link to a white-power YouTube video to bring it all home.
Holocaust denial. Dumb, racist, and proffered by dumb racists.
Thank you for your excellent reply, ZortMcFleen!
share[deleted]
If there were 6mill in Europe at the time of WWI (the video Russia tho, not Europe), and 6mill killed during WWII, wouldn't the Jews be all but gone?
It's been said that if the Nazis killed millions of Jews, there'd be thousands of Jews in Israel instead there are 6 million in Israel. Don't know if that's true.
I think that the Jews deserve a place of their own. But it's also been said that they have slaughtered a lot of people to secure their new land. Like I said, not sure if that's true, either, but if it is, it's not a good deal for those whom they've killed...
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
The same 6 million dead Jews was being quoted in papers during the 1st WW, as well as even before the 2nd WW was over. That number was being instilled in the minds of the world before the camps were even a thought in anyone's mind.
That isn't to say that 6 million didn't die. That's just to say how skeptical some are in that number, the reasoning for it isn't that hard to understand.
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...
Holocaust denial an "intellectual tradition"? Nope. Holocaust deniers have been trying to disguise the neo-Fascist origins of their anti-Semitic movement as long as there has been Holocaust denial. This is how you get Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zündel, who insisted he was just an ordinary guy with no particular axe to grind - and then turns out to have written "The Hitler We Loved and Why."
And, as the Irving trial showed, what do you get when you look closely at "revisionist scholarship"? A big thick anthology of Holocaust denier lies, distortions, and expressions their anti-Semitism. Your thirty-eight little pamphlets aren't worth the paper they would be printed on if anybody actually bought them.
Historians don't "reply" to Holocaust deniers for the same reason physicists don't "reply" to people who claim to have invented perpetual motion machines. "Revisionist" scholarship is like flat-earth scholarship, with a dose of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory thrown in. Irving tried to ride the tide to make himself some dough off the dumb. The tide ended up riding him.
To describe the handbooks as "little pamphlets" indicates scant knowledge of them. In fact many are substantial books - at least as regards length. The latest is Carlo Mattogno's Curated Lies - The Auschwitz Museum's Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (2016). As for the quality of the content, Mattogno has been studying the holocaust for over 30 years. We are to believe that historians, including those at the Auschwitz museum, will not reply to Mattogno because they don't want to give him credibility. The problem with that is that anyone can look up the sources on the internet and see who has the better of the argument. Hence the desperate efforts to censor the internet, which Lipstadt to her credit opposes. The refusal to integrate the writings of its critics makes holocaust studies an academic outlier. Physicists would have no problem explaining the effects of friction on motion for example.
shareSomething can be slickly produced yet still full of crap, and the Holocaust denial pamphlets you're talking about are a perfect example. Slick production is useful for convincing very stupid people that the content is somehow legit. But the content ends up just being another recycling of the same neo-Fascist lies that have always been the anti-Semitic bread and butter of the Holocaust denial charlatans from the first days they crawled from the sieg-heil swamp.
What do you get if you add footnotes to neo-Fascist crap? Footnoted neo-Fascist crap.
What do you get if you put neo-Fascist crap on the Internet? Neo-Fascist Internet crap.
What do you get if you call neo-Fascist crap a "handbook"? A "handbook" of neo-Fascist crap.
Holocaust historians "integrate the writing of its critics" all the time. It's what historians do. But Holocaust denial isn't "criticism"; it's a bug-eyed anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, with a tiny following that's been trying for half a century to mainstream it and failing hilariously year after year - not because of some big Jewish lock on academia, but because Holocaust denial is so obviously so freaking wrong. Just because Mattogno has spent thirty years barking up the wrong tree doesn't make it the right tree, or make what he does anything nobler than barking. And Holocaust historians are perfectly correct to ignore them.
In other words, straighten up and fly right if you want actual historians to pay any attention to you. But what do you call a Holocaust denier who suddenly starts paying attention to the actual evidence of the Holocaust, and puts away the flimflam and the legerdemain and the movement's core grounding in anti-Semitism? You call him a former Holocaust denier.
Clearly this is a film after your heart, as Professor Lipstadt said much the same thing in 2000. It is pretty clear though that more has happened in revisionism since 2000 than adding footnotes to or rebranding previous work. There have been use of former Soviet archival material, detailed studies of cremation technology for example. The label "fascist" covers ideas of political authority and community that will not be eliminated by simple abuse - but that is a whole other question.
shareWhile I'm at it, here's a recent example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045115/Nazi-invasion-London-EXPOSED-World-s-Holocaust-deniers-filmed-secret-race-hate-Jews-referred-enemy.html
The attendees were given instructions: look for the man carrying the book by Mosley -- founder of the British Union of Fascists -- and wearing the BUF pin in his tie. And as you can see, they gathered quite the gaggle of white-power, neo-Nazi types.
Just another demonstration that Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and blackshirted neo-Fascism are joined at the hip.
It's almost funny that Holocaust deniers still try to hide it. But that's because Holocaust deniers go quite easily into two kinds: the ones who are loud about their anti-Semitism, and those who try to play their anti-Semitism down at least in public forums.
By the way:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3575274/Police-investigate-Holocaust-denial-leaflets-plastered-Scottish-universities-Hitler-s-birthday.html
That you?
EU countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany etc condemn Nazis but don't even have freedom of speech in their own countries. Italy is the latest to have a law against holocaust revisionism. Why are they so afraid of open debate ? What have they got to hide ?
The Holocaust Handbook Series -
http://codoh.com/library/series/1187/
"Why are they so afraid" blah blah blah.
They aren't afraid of it. They just know what everybody knows but, apparently, you: it's anti-Semitic hate speech dressed up as imitation scholarship.
hate speech dressed up as imitation scholarship.
It's a disturbing world we live in.
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.
[deleted]
one of the reasons the Nuremberg trials were held was to document events that were so incredible it was feared that future generations wouldn't believe they actually occurred.
shareThat 90% of Holocaust deniers are bigoted Anti Semites should tell you something. The other 10% are the morons who will support any idea if it's "Daring","Edgy",and "Anti Establishment" enough.
shareThat's the propaganda version of events. The real reason for the Nuremberg tribunal was to deflect attention from Allied war crimes against the Germans -
www.hellstormdocumentary.com
A lot of prominent people realised what happened at Nuremberg was a show trial
including US supreme court justice Harlan Stone who referred to them as a "sanctimonious fraud" and a "lynching party" -
http://codoh.com/library/document/2369/
You know, there's a certain kind of personality that says, just because I can link to someone saying it somewhere on the internet, it must be true. Holocaust denial is made for people like that.
shareI am very disturbed to see some people in this thread saying everyone has the right to exist. The Holocaust denier no longer has this right. His existence means hatred of all unlike him, and he will do what he can to eliminate those who are unlike him. This statement that the Holocaust denier has a right to live is a notion that I don't like very much. Does the Nazi that tear a Jewish child limb from limb with his own hands and his evil brute force have such a right to live? Does the Nazi that puts a pistol to the face of a Jewish child and pull the trigger has a right to live? Nazis are everywhere today and they are killing Jews everywhere!
shareThis statement that the Holocaust denier has a right to live is a notion that I don't like very much. Does the Nazi that tear a Jewish child limb from limb with his own hands and his evil brute force have such a right to live?
VVolfySnackrib, I've noticed two distinct narratives in your posting. In the one dated September 11th, you claim that Holocaust deniers do not have the right to exist. In the following dated September 16th, you clearly are one of those deniers. You can check the original posts yourself as I've provided a link to both...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/board/nest/258314651?p=2&d=261311055#261311055
VVolfySnackrib September 11th:
I am very disturbed to see some people in this thread saying everyone has the right to exist. The Holocaust denier no longer has this right. His existence means hatred of all unlike him, and he will do what he can to eliminate those who are unlike him. This statement that the Holocaust denier has a right to live is a notion that I don't like very much. Does the Nazi that tear a Jewish child limb from limb with his own hands and his evil brute force have such a right to live? Does the Nazi that puts a pistol to the face of a Jewish child and pull the trigger has a right to live? Nazis are everywhere today and they are killing Jews everywhere!
VVolfySnackrib September 16th:
What Holocaust supporters don't want you to know:
Some of the previously believed "facts" of the Holocaust includes turning Jews into soap, taking the skin from Jewish babies and making lampshades out of them, Nazis apparently shrunk Jewish heads, and Eichmann says there was a permanent fountain of blood coming out of the ground where Jews had been shot.
Know what? Despite what we were told, Betsy Ross didn't sew the first American flag. There! By Holocaust denier standards, I have just proven there was no Revolutionary war.
By the way, you're a pretty foul creature.
Actually, you're kind of on the right track. From a quick wikipedia search:
"However, there is no archival evidence or other recorded verbal tradition to substantiate this story of the first American flag, and it appears that the story first surfaced in the writings of her grandson in the 1870s (a century after the fact), with no mention or documentation in earlier decades.[5]"
By Revisionist standards, yes, we should be largely skeptical of the claim that Betsy Ross sewed the first American flag because there exists no substantial evidence beyond the level of word-of-mouth or myth.
Yet, just like the Holocaust, the idea that Betsy Ross sewed the American flag is incredibly important, and so if we advocate that she did not, we would be considered heretics and "antiAmericans" just because we seek the truth.
Love your post, delta_sixtwo.
Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...