76200 Hits
It's the only crime against humanity , it tops the list.These are two different things. Nobody says it's the only crime. Maybe it doesn't top the list by some criteria you may set, but that's not the point. Argueing about the severity of human crimes and comparing them against each other is a perverse and inhuman thing to do and I'm glad that children and teenagers aren't trained or told to do these kinds of comparisons.
Let's not argue about how to quantify the amount of racism, because I don't feel like this would be a useful discussion.
there was no "industrialised" genocide but i can't talk about it more due to repressive laws in my country
My family visited auschwitz birkenau, even the people working there and making the visite told them the truth.Oooookay, so you're on your track to denying the holocaust now? I initially thought you were just inarticulate, but it turns out you're a lunatic.
I actualy love history books/literature/paper.And let my guess, by pure coincidence, all those are written by anti-Zionist, holocaust-denying lunatics like you. If you're searching for a case of brainwashing, than take a good look at how they made you believe that there wasn't abundance of evidence available for the Nürnberger Prozesse and that there is a law restricting research on WW2.
But as I said I'm ready to be given a lecture with undeniable proofs that those gas chambers were real.I'm really sure that there a countless of lectures given regularly all over the world by experts on this topic. Why wouldn't there? Go to a university and hear a lecture about it? Go read a book full of evidence written by a respected historian? Are you seriously claiming that you tried to look for this kind of stuff and couldn't find any? I can't possibly believe this.
The Jews were (...) taken to the cellar and across the ramp into the back of a gas van holding from 50-70 people each (Opel Blitz) and up to 150 (Magirus). When the van was full, the doors were shut and the engine started, pumping fumes into the rear compartment.[15] After about 510 minutes, the victims were killed by asphyxiation. Witnesses heard their screams as they were dying. The vans full of corpses were driven 4 km (2.5 mi) to the forest Waldlager camp, to previously excavated mass graves.
The SS-Sonderkommando "Lange" was supplied with three gas vans, assigned by the RSHA in Berlin, for killing mass numbers of victims. (...) On June 5, 1942 inspector Becker wrote to Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff in RSHA that, by using just three vans on the Eastern Front (the Opel-Blitz and the larger Saurerwagen), without any faults, they were able to "process" 97,000 captives in less than six months between December 1941 and June 1942.[7]
"I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries."
Can you really not point me to some direction instead of throwing a huge list of sources ? You seem to have been convinced, so there has to be one or two sources in particular that I should check to spare some time ?Are you serious? You want one or two sources that will educate you very quickly and with all the necessary facts neatly presented about how millions of people were killed in dozens or even hundreds of places all over Europe? Either you put in an effort yourself to find out whether your doubts are correct or you should really believe the community of historians and their scientific work using the insane amounts of evidence and eye-witnesses.
Why, seriously why, should there be any incentive to lie about the efficiency of certain methods of murder? What would be the adventage of convincing the public that a large amount of deportees was killed in gas chambers instead of being shot, or starved to death, or numerous other means of murder? Why would historians, to this day, keep up this lie? What could this possibly change?
I just stumbled accross other prominent historians that happened to question the existence of gas chambers
I don't see what kind of benefits it gave to Robert Faurisson to make a 70 minutes video explaining why he has, during his research at various concentration camps, come to the conclusion that there was no evidence of said gas chambers and, on the contrary, various evidences that it just can not be possible (or at the very least, very unlikely since the risks are higher than the "gain" if I can even put it like that lol).
The third option would be that he is actually right when claiming that Hitler never ordered or intended genocide. That however, is, impossible.
and wether I like it or not, he does raise some questions.Why do you care about the questions he raises? Why would you give a fuck about this asshole who uses semantics in order to deny the holocaust? I really don't get it.
What I'm concerned about isn't that part of the documentary however. We've been talking about gas chambers .
Why are you so keen to isolate some random part out of the speech of this asshole? Because it confirms to some of your beliefs? This confirmation is completely worthless if it doesn't come from a decent human being. It is even alarming that your beliefs are confirmed by this fuckwit. Why the hell am I even explaining this?
Why do you care about the questions he raises? Why would you give a fuck about this asshole who uses semantics in order to deny the holocaust? I really don't get it.
Because that's the whole point of this documentary ?How do you know what the actual motive behind his "documentary" is? You don't.
Can you not just refute his argumentsIf you insist, I'll refute one argument of him claiming that Hitler didn't intend genocide.
Basically he has documents, he confronted them and pointed out the flaws. Given his credentials in criticizing documents I think it's fair enough.At first look, this may sound fair enough. But you have to look at the big picture. There's thousands of documents about WW2. There are conclusions the scientific community has reached by considering them as a whole. What can Faurisson do in order to rattle these conclusions? Well, he obviously can't look at the evidence as a whole. Instead, he can handpick some of the pieces of evidence which are, by coincidence, or due to ambiguity, suitable for his claims and rhetorical arguments.
The problem is you keep using that argument that he's alone.It wasn't my intention to use this argument. He is the only person you have mentioned, that's why I focused on him. I was under the impression that he was the best example you could give as a reason for your doubts about the use of gas chambers. As you hopefully know, however, he even denies the holocaust in its entirety.
Heck, it's even against the law to even try to show a different angle.Not in all countries, so this argument is moot. Example. The possibilities are there. Yet, there is noone who has ever successfully demonstrated "a different angle". Maybe that's because that would mean to get rid of the evidence documenting the murder of millions of people?
Who wants to go to prison and pay amends just to be spat on in the street ?This is a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it.
It would take some blind monkey to not see the evidence of the holocaust.Ok, so you just said that Faurisson is a blind monkey. And all the other people who have fueled your doubt about the gas chambers are blind monkeys (unless you give me a counter example). Why the hell do you care about the "questions" and "criticizm" and "conclusions" of those people? It doesn't make ANY sense.
Can you please stop associating my doubts toward gas chambers to a denying of holocaust ?No. In order to legitimize your doubts, you have so far only refered to informationen provided by people who deny the holocaust. The connection is there, it is obvious, and it should be obvious to you.
Because someone has bad intentions doesn't mean all of what he says is definetly wrong. The same analysis could be done from someone who desperately wants the gas chambers to be true. It is intellectually healthy to have both, that's all.You just said that it is "intellectually healthy" to "desperetaly want the gas chambers" to be a lie because of having "bad intentions". I strongly disagree with this. It is one of the most unethical ways of using any intellectual efforts I can imagine.
Because someone has bad intentions doesn't mean all of what he says is definetly wrong.No, but it means that everything he says and considers is very likely to be biased and that all the conclusions he reaches are based on bad intentions, thus making them incredibly likely to be wrong.
You did not answer me entirely.And because I didn't exactly say what you wanted me to say, you can just ignore it? This is no way to have a discussion.
But you haven't explained to me how can so many bodies be burned in so little time (e.g.) amongst other fishy stuff I don't understand about gas chambers.What fishy stuff? Where did you hear about this fishy stuff? As we know by now, it comes from holocaust deniers.
Maybe the answer is simple, and the outcome can seem logical at last.And maybe it isn't? Maybe the holocaust deniers have put in thousands of hours of work into creating tough-to-answer questions, using ambiguous pieces of evidence, creating false evidence, twisting words and facts, and pretending to know stuff they actually don't. I consider all these tactics to be very likely.
(...) even excluded him from the scientific discourse?
Interviewer: Do you think that the National Socialist regime committed crimes against the European Jews?The guy lies through his teeth throughout the entire interview. He repeats arguments and examples already mentioned in his books and articles, and which have repeatedly been proven to be false. It is genuinely baffling to me that any relatively intelligent adult who is able to do a minimum of research on the topic would fall for his lies, especially given to extensive scientific literature devoted precisely to the systematic refutation of the claims of deniers such as Faurisson.
Dr. Faurisson: That regime did not pursue, with regard to the Jews, any criminal policy. [...]
What's with the body cremation average time ?I guess you overlooked this:
What's with the frail doors ?The Auschwitz gas chambers were blown up. There aren't any doors left to talk about. Maybe Fergussion is able to show a wooden door at some random place here or there, but that doesn't prove that there were no gas chambers.
The numbers vary with every research and those fluctuations are often counted by the 100.000's...So what? The estimated extent of the genocide is estimated by respected, expert scientists to lie between 4 to 7 millions. It's not easy, or even possible, to prove which of these numbers is correct. The uncertainty is perfectly fine. But it is horribly wrong to say that, given this uncertainty, a number below 1 million might be equally probable (as holocaust deniers do). Do you agree?
In conducting the Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments themselves violated international law. For one thing, their treatment of the German defendants and the military prisoners who testified violated articles 56, 58 and others of the Geneva convention of July 1929. /23
Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews, acknowledged that "There are also Holocaust documents that are outright falsification and some that purvey myth rather than historical fact." /54
The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. /3 Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was, however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.
Allied prosecutors used torture to help prove their case at Nuremberg and other postwar trials. /72
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has cited the case of Jupp Aschenbrenner, a Bavarian who was tortured into signing a statement that he had worked on mobile gas chambers ("gas vans") during the war. It wasn't until several years later that he was finally able to prove that he had actually spent that time in Munich studying to become an electric welder. /75
Conclusion:
Very few of those who glibly refer to "all the Nuremberg evidence" as proof for the Holocaust extermination story are familiar with either the real nature of this "evidence" or the character of these trials. On closer examination, solid documentary or forensic evidence of a wartime German policy to exterminate Europe's Jews proves to be elusive. As we have seen, the evidence that has been presented consists largely of extorted confessions, spurious testimonies, and fraudulent documents. The postwar Nuremberg trials were politically motivated proceedings meant more to discredit the leaders of a defeated regime than to establish truth.
We do not need trials or "confessions" to prove that the Katyn massacre or the postwar deportation of Germans from eastern and central Europe actually took place. By comparison, the Holocaust story does not claim just a few isolated massacres, but a vast extermination program taking place across the European continent over a three-year period involving several governments and millions of people. The fact that the Holocaust story must rely so heavily on highly dubious testimony evidence and trials staged in a historically unparalleled atmosphere of hysteria, intimidation and propaganda demonstrates its inherent weakness.
Das Institute for Historical Review (IHR) ist eine pseudowissenschaftliche Organisation. Das IHR wird von vielen führenden Geschichtswissenschaftlern als die weltweit führende Organisation der Holocaustleugnung angesehen.
I'm sorry, I will not read through all of this, but I will say this:
What is the purpose of what ? I've said there is something fishy about gas chambers and people went crazy about it, so we kept talking about my doubts and how I should not doubt because holy fuck the holocaust DEWD.
How is he not credible in your own eyes ? He's de facto not credible because he's been dubbed a holocaust denier.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Nazis killed 6 million jews?
I only need to skim through the wikipedia page of Dieudonné or Manuel Valls of whom I know pretty much everything to know it's first of all a very usefull propaganda tool.aaand the conspiracy theories begin...
(...) and left them starve to deathNope, that's not even close to the extent of what they did. The exploitation of making them work till death, the torturing, the gruesome medical experimentation and the mass-murder are all well documented.
there was no "industrialised" genocide
You should not ask this question because asking it is already reprehensible and illegale.He didn't cast doubt on it, which would be illegal, he asked whether you agree. He is fine. I am fine. You, however, have again avoided answering the question.
As for the topic of the gas chambers, not only did i said nothing about itPlease, say something about it and show us your wealth of knowledge or fuck off.
If you tolerate this, you might as well have no sanctions for anything ever.
Radicals and racists
Don't point your finger at me
I'm a small town white boy
Just tryin' to make ends meet
Don't need your religion
Don't watch that much TV
Just makin' my livin' baby
Well that's enough for me