ok some book i saw tried to refute the holocaust, i think the evidence is pretty strong in favor of that it did happen,where do you get bone heaps, and skeletal bodies, the local thrift store?
Printable View
ok some book i saw tried to refute the holocaust, i think the evidence is pretty strong in favor of that it did happen,where do you get bone heaps, and skeletal bodies, the local thrift store?
the deniers say it was an epidemic of typhus that did the damage....so what were the ovens for, making pies?
I used to know a chap (now deceased) who was in the BUF* in the 30s and he maintained until he died it was a hoax perportrated by the Allies...just why they should do this when the war was clearly won remains a mystery.
*Here
Not more holocaust denial, pleeeeease...
It's getting bloody tiresome, ain't it? The evidence is extremely strong, thousands of people who managed to survive the death camps has testified for it, many, many Germans testified and said it was there and it did happen, there are the ovens, the bone mounds... I mean, revisionist history is fun, but not everything has to be revised.
No, it is illegal in Germany!:ballchain:
Seconded, for the exact same reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
I do not mean to question the original posters intentions and I think his question is valid, but we have done this, been there. We have also discussed all the secundary questions such as the wisdom of laws against Holocaust denial, the motives of deniers, the reason why historiography is and must be constantly revised and updated.
Well Rosacrux its the pinnacle of democracy and freedom of speech when its very convinient to people labelling others as "nazis" without themselves having any evidence just OPINIONS and forcing the silence of those that have a different opinion.
Holocaust denial is ILLEGAL in many countries like GERMANY and of course ISRAEL. Also if anyone states that he s facing trial before a Israeli court no matter where he did the statement.
We all know how the Israelis capitalised on the Holocaust industry, and that toghether with their obsession with shutting mouths of denial raises some serious issues.
The second Leuchter Report is quite interesting...
Hellenes
Edit: Point proved.
While the Israeli state is extremely good at pulling that card out when something or somebody goes against them, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Brother Hellenes, you are no doubt aware of the Forum rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Examples of objectionable messages include, but are not limited to: [..] Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.Thank you for removing the direct Leuchter link, Brother Hellenes.
If you feel that such views can stand up to scrutiny, I suppose you can take them to the Backroom.
:bow:
I didnt expect to have my point proved so fast....Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Thank you.:bow: :bow: :bow:
Hellenes
Yeah - I'm really looking forward to have Leuchter's "theories" discussed in the Backroom ...Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Thanks, Adrian :brood:
~;)
Sorry to impose on you, Brother Ser Clegane. This is your call, not mine. Such are the burdens of moderation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
But whom am I telling that?
:bow:
Don't worry - I would also consider Leuchter to be a Backroom topic - just not one I would personally like (too frustrating, as you will not see anybody give one inch of ground in such a discussion - considering the topic this rather leads to unpleasant exchanges)Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
i have read Mein Compf (curiosity) and i must say that judging simply on what the crazy bastard wrote in his book i have no doubts he probably went through with it and thats with no evidence at all.
btw it was a crappy book~D
The holocaust can’t be denied for the simple fact the Nazi never denied it. They said it wasn’t me but he (Hitler, Himmler and others who commit suicide if possible), the courageous supermen, but they never try to play this card.
People who try to deny it have the burden of the proof. They have to give the bills for concrete, wires and wood for the barracks. They have to give evidences, named the general in charge, provide the names of the companies hired to build the camps by the allies. They of course can’t, so they spread rumours, allegations etc…
Just read Speer, the only Nazi with remorse and main architect of Hitler, and that is enough.
Leuchter Report is as accurate as saying the Earth is Flat.
It has been totally ripped apart by eye witness accounts and forensic science.
Faurisson once made a logic argument that we could not know that the Holacaust had occurred since only personal experience is true knowledge and no one had personal experience of the death chambers to relate.
Fancy solopsism is you ask me, and inane, but some folks will use anything to bolster their own prejudiced views on some subjects.
Well there are always the guys who actually poured the Zyklon B down the tubes to the chambers, and those who pulled the victims out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
May I have the link of Leuchter report as PM please.. (it was removed since it was illegal being false, wasn't it ?)
You can't argue weather it happened, but you can argue over the number of dead.
Estimates range from as low as 200,000 to up to 20 million.
But isn't the usual figure somewhere around 11 million? ~6 million Jews, ~3 million Gypsies and ~2 million various.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
Its actually quite interesting, if you read up on it, many of the aspects held up as "proof" are easily explained as well.
The strongest evidence is the testimony of Germans themselves, which makes the whole holocaust denial movement untenable, although convincing arguments have been forwarded.
You know, if one assumes the Holocaust didn't happen it'd be really interesting to know in exactly what circumstances those large chunks of concrete were clawed off the ceilings of the gas chambers, and by whom...
You can't argue weather it happened, but you can argue over the number of dead.
Estimates range from as low as 200,000 to up to 20 million.
Euh, to organise the systematic killing of entire populations, even if the minimal figure you give would be right (and it isn’t, for only the concentration camp of Strutoff, in Alsace, the estimate victims are around 5 000) would be still an crime. And it was a small camp. Just the forced labour killed more than that. If you add the extermination camps, the extermination commando and the retaliation against civilians, you reach bigger figures instantly…
And it not only the Nazis from Germany, but you can add the victims killed by their allies (Croats, for example).
if one assumes the Holocaust didn't happen: They will have to give and explain how and who built Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdaneck, Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen etc, with the orders, the organisation(s) which built the camps, the invoices, the planning etc… And why, Germany was defeated…
Quite interesting is saying that the holocaust is just OPINION followed by a signature that reads:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
'The Hellenic genocide...it's cover-up made the Holocaust possible'
:laugh4: hellenes just reached the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Well done fellow brother ellin!
~:eek: isnt it flat...you lier i dont want to hear this kinda stuff...bleugh how can you deny that the earth is flat...i saw my dad fall off it with my own 2 eyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
:hide:
6 to 12 million is what I usually hear. 6 million jews, 4 million catholics, 2 million assorted. 6 million poles usually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Stranger, I hate to break it to you, but I think your dad might have just taken a dive into the grand canyon.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
And anyone who really thinks the holocaust is refutable (Hellenes, I'm looking at you), I would really appreciate you explaining why there are huge wings of my family tree that are simply cut off around 1941-45. I am talking about dozens of people. Did they all just get lost? ~:rolleyes:
You don't mention gypsies at all, which were the second largest single group targeted and indeed 3 million were killed... They were also 'unwanted'. Is it really that unknown??? I guess they didn't have some sort of political lobbygroup to work their agenda afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
What do the Catholics have to do with it? I mean the French are Catholic, the Poles are Catholic too amongst many ofther Catholic Nations that were at War with Nazi Germany...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
The Haulocaust was not a religious crime, it was an enthnic crime, the Jews were targeted for their ethnic identity as were the gypsies...besides...Italy was an Ally of Nazi Germany and last I checked Italy is catholic.
All in all this Terrible War made more than 50 Million dead.
I always understood it that Catholics weren't targetted but an awful lot of them were killed too, dissenters in Poland, etc etc.Quote:
What do the Catholics have to do with it?
Yep, three quarters of my family just disappeared. Like that. They were taken away by the German proxy government for a leisurely vacation on the shores of the Badensee, and then tyfus erupted.
Please. Do not insult me any further. ~:rolleyes:
While it seems silly to quible, I thought the Poles edged out the Gypsies in the race for second place on the Nazi unwanted/subhuman list?Quote:
You don't mention gypsies at all, which were the second largest single group targeted and indeed 3 million were killed... They were also 'unwanted'. Is it really that unknown??? I guess they didn't have some sort of political lobbygroup to work their agenda afterwards.
The Poles were seen as slavs, who were indeed quite low on the 'Nazi unwanted/subhuman list'. The same could be said about the 'Russians', who, as far as I remember, were also slaughtered by the Germans (I think they killed more russian civils than pole ones).Quote:
While it seems silly to quible, I thought the Poles edged out the Gypsies in the race for second place on the Nazi unwanted/subhuman list?
Now, I'm wondering if Kaiser's statement about Catholics was just a mistake, or yet another way to claim that everyone bash catholics for no reason ~;)
The Jews were also targeted because Hitler and Goebbels picked up on the 'fact' that many Jews held high-pay/high-respect jobs above pure Germans. Jews were doctors, university professors etc. whilst members of "the master race" were working in factories or other dingy jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
The Gypsies and the Jews were seen as 'parasites' who were to be eradicated; their casualties are therefore the heaviest. Then there were the 'inferior races', such as Slavs and Africans, followed by the 'muddled Aryans' such as the French, Brits, etc. and finally the 'Aryan race' itself.
Eh, it's not like they didn't have a rich tradition to draw on. (European) Christians were loathing and occasionally persecuting Jews already by the Early Middle Ages, and things didn't really change overmuch (aside from lynchings going out of fashion eventually, probably due to better law enforcement by the central authorities which usually didn't want the hassle) until Adolf & The Boys went so overboard in their antisemitism it's pretty much been beyond the pale ever since.
In any case they didn't even need to invent most of the half-assed excuses. The groundwork had been made long before already - read Eisner's interesting little graphic novel about the "accords of the Elders of Zion" to get some idea.
Or the estimated 7 to 21 million Russian civilians that died at the hands of German Einsatztruppen, for that matter...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Yes but many of those were part of other specifically targeted groups. Meaning, the Russians weren't per se prosecuted, they were treated extremely harshly but a coordinated effort to kill the Russians as a people wasn't meant to happen outright as the Germans 'needed' a working class of inferiors in their Lebensraum. That a very large percentage of these 'inferiors' were expected to die (and did) is a part of the general treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
The same is true for the Poles. The German leadership (and thus nazism) didn't really se the Poles as a unified group only that they were a conglemorate of 'inferiors' and some 'superiors' (mainly in north near Danzig/Gdansk), thus many of the Poles would be put into the Jewish and Gypsie groupings.
So my point of the Gypsies being the second largest targeted group comes from whom the Nazies themselves meant was a group.
Of course both Poles and Russians were larger in numbers, and indeed had the two highest casualties of nations. But we must understand that there were a whole lot more Russians and Poles than either Jews or Gypsies. In terms of percentage the Jews lose (I really don't want to say 'win') with the Gypsies close behind them. That is of course within the areas the Germans had control over directly, but even if it was worldwide the Jews would still rank in the worst, while the Gypsies would likely be considered to have fared better than Poles.
But again, these two groupings (ethnic groups and national groups) overlaps greatly. So I guess it all boils down to that.
Well, I don't like Gypsies ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Also, while Catholics were not targeted for they're religion, they were targeted for various other reasons (dissenters, intellectuals, etc.)
Also, slavs were about in the middle of Hitler's list. It was something like
That's an approximate list of what I remember from a lecture I saw once, it may be a bit off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Hitler's Hit list
I can see where you are going Kraxis, but I don't really care that percentage wise the Jewish group suffered more. What I do care about is that 6 million jews died but that many, many more Russians died.
It's almost like saying that one Dutchman equals 60 Chinese people, because there are many more Chinese they are individually worth less.
Holocaust denial?
Absurd. PERIOD.
.
This is a racist remark and has no place here. I kindly ask you to edit it out as a fellow orgah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
.
No it is not... It just proves that the Jews were targeted directly, while the Russians were to an extent victims of very harsh circumstances. What happened in Russian was not ethnic cleansing, it was irregular and at times random killing but on a very broad scale. In case of the Jews and Gypsies there was nothing irregular or random about it. The crosshairs were onto them, and again, many of the killed Russians were part of these two groups or politically connected with the Soviet regime (a third large group).Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
Besides, the 'Russians' are in fact, Russians, Ukranians and Belorussians, with a sprinkle of Caucasians.
If the Germans ha killed the same percentage of those people as they had killed Jews then it too would have been ethnic cleansing.
You can draw an analogy to a kid walking into two flowerbeds. In a smaller one he tramples it all, making sure each and every flower is destroyed. In the other much larger one he walks through whipping a cane about him. There he destroyed many more flowers because of the expanse of the flowerbed, but he never set about systematically destroying that flowerbed.
.
Also, the victims in Russia weren't ethnically all Russians. All kinds of people living under the soviet administration suffered the same. After the Germans were defeated and repelled, Stalin held true ethnic cleansing and forced migration operations at the west part of the empire. Crimeans are the most well known yet not only victims.
.
I wouldn't exactly call it racist. A context was not given so it is hard to say where he was going with it. Gypsies have had a nomadic lifestyle by choice (as best I understand it.) They have also tended to be at the fringes/gray areas of legitimate activities, and often into the criminal realm. Resenting their traditional association with such illegal activities is a valid reason to dislike them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
In the U.S. there is a similar group known as the Irish Travellers. They run all sorts of scams. If someone says they dislike such people, I agree with them. I dislike them as well.
Disliking a group based on their voluntary actions is not wrong. Annihilating them or imprisoning en masse is.
.
Quite large number of gypsies have been living settled for so long time over here. Many of them, in a way or other, are involved in criminal activities, many of them aren't. Now, most of the crime scene in Turkey uses kurd immigrant youths in their bottom ranks and administered by a veriety of scum with varying ethnic and regional backgrounds. That gives nobody the right of spreading hatred against kurds or people from a certain region. It's like saying "I don't like Jews" because Israel is a terrorist state or "I hate Germans" because Hitler was a mass murderer.
Anyway, you get the point. Saying "I don't like criminals" is one thing but bashing a certain ethnic group based on their prejudiced infamy is definitely racisme.
.
And I can honestly say that I have loathed Palestinians as a group because they have been so actively involved in embracing terrorism as a guiding philosophy. However, there has been a shift in their course (as I predicted when the big rat died), so that feeling toward them has subsided somewhat. (Don't get me started on Nigeria. ~:joker: ) It is not racist to condemn a group for their voluntary actions, even though in cases like this it has to do with their culture.
If a culture can't seem to get along with others, it should expect repercussions and open displays of dislike. It doesn't mean one has to condone racist methods for dealing with the problem.
This has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, private behaviour, etc. it has to do with their *continuing* public actions toward others and a culture which ingrains an antisocial predatory approach. I will freely condemn that. It is not racism to do so.
Your calling the Jews a terrorist state is amusing. It is primarily jealousy of the Jews that seems to drive anti-semitism. If Arab/Persian/Islamic states and peoples would accept that Israel has a right to exist, the whole problem could be resolved overnight. The ball has been, and is in their court. ~:handball:
.
I'm not. I have nothing against Jews or any other ethnic or regional group because I'm not racist. Israel is a terrorist state, which was founded by terroristic means, and has been practicing state terrorisme over its own non-Jewish population and the people in the regions it forcefully invaded, ever since. That there are other terrorists in the world doesn't clear this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Pakistan has 162.5 million population and a wide range of ethnic groups. It's truly amazing that you know each and every one of these people to the point of knowing their guiding philosophy is terrorisme. That makes you superhuman. Somebody might worship you. That is of course granted that you haven't tagged all those 162.5 million people as a whole, based on facts or assumption that there have been terrorists amongst them, which would make you a racist.
We all know you aren't, are you?
.
Pakistan, what are you talking about?
As for the central issue, I don't buy into the idea of labeling everything racism when voluntary aspects of contemporary or current issues are being discussed. Your attitude toward Israel would easily fit such a profile. Calling Israel a terrorist state IS ignorant racism. However, if you say you don't like Israelis I don't have a problem with that. If you say you don't like Israeli's and that they should be annihilated, chased out of their country, etc. then, yes, I have a problem with it.
Germans were racist thugs in the Nazi era. Japanese were the same in the same time frame. They got over it, their actions and attitudes changed. Serbia had a similar approach for a time, and they seem to be getting over the fever. And then there is Turkey and its own history...well, let's not discuss that one here. I can point back to things Americans did in our earlier history with similar horror.
This idea that you have to speak for every last person when condemning the PREVAILING cultural attitude of a time is bogus. (With that sort of flawed reasoning one can say you can't say you dislike convicted murderers.) You see, racism doesn't care so much about people's actions, but instead focuses on their ethnicity, religion, etc. Racism at its core doesn't really care what the people are doing, it thinks of them as inferior simply because of the way they were born. The more generic international definition that some like to quote ignores this basic truth, and waters down the definition of racism by extending it to a point that it is a meaningless concept.
.
Pakistan? :inquisitive:
I shouldn't have been doing this here at this time.
Anyway...
https://img29.imageshack.us/img29/55...2dhorse5iv.gif
.
Kraxis,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I do not agree. The 'vision' of the Nazis saw Russia (or at least the European part) as a German colony. Hitler did not want to kill all Russians because he thought he needed some as slaves. But he wanted to reduce their number significantly, so the German masters could easily control them.
And the Germans did a lot to reach this target. I guess I heard that the Ukrain lost the highest percentage of its pop in this war (25% I guess). And think of all the Russian prisoners that were killed or died of hunger.
I already mentioned that. That the Nazis (I think it is time to use that term rather than Germans) wanted to 'weed' out a bit in the Russian population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
But as Göring I think said, the reduction would come on its own when the Germans took over and 'redirected' the foodstuffs and he had no trouble with that.
So while the Nazis had no problems at all with killing Russians there wasn't a specific effort made to destroy the Russians as a people. I still like the analogy of a careless child that ruins all around him simply because he can and it is fun, but doesn't directly think that it needs to be done.
That is the essential difference.
And you two... STOP! Not only is it off topic it is also a foolish discussion here. It belongs in the Backroom! Please do not resond any further.
I can't see why we can't deny the Holocaust but we can hide the genocides comitted by the Russian army in the First World War or the racist policy of France at the end of the nineteenth century. There ware anti-Jewish laws in the middle ages but no one wants to hear about them.
Hungarian troops during the Second World War killed over five thousand romanians in northern Transylvannia.
Russian troops deported to Syberia over 35000 romanian ethnics.
Italian fascists brutally ocupied Ethiopia.
People have chosen to commemorate The Holocaust just because of the body-count. Josef Stalin had a plan for a Holocaust of his own but he died before he could put it into practice. People remember the Holocaust because of the body-count, not the suffering. Is there any worth denying it. No, the Holocaust is remembered because of the figures(6000000 jews). We never see a Rroma Holocaust memorial or a rroma holocaust holiday, yet they died in concentration camps along with the jews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
Every single nation got a good spanking at some point. Every country faced some kind of ethnical/regional/religious cleaning, and I don't think any of these could compete with the Holocaust, even the 'Romanian Genocide' you're speaking about.
Furthermore, in 1939, there was no such thing as Israel, and Jews were an important part of Europe and US population, unlike Romanians, Armenians, Caucasians, etc. Of course, the lobby factor is really playing here, but still, no genocid had an impact similar to the Holocaust, even in the early post-WWII.
Now, with the possible exception of Gulags and Asian (Chinese and Cambodian) workcamps, I don't think you could find some kind of place where people suffered nearly as much as they did in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Indeed. There have been insults all around in this thread. Can it be locked now, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Also, the Holocaust wasn,t about the ethnic crap. Jews ware one of the most powerfull ethnicities in post-WW1 history. Hittler tried to kill the Jews because he wanted to mug them, not because there ware ethnic purges to be made. Remember the head of the Reichsbank who melted the golden teeth of those murdered in concentration camps. The Holocaust was a murderous mug carried on a huge scale. Hittler and the Nazi's ware common thieves, the ethnic and racial crap ware just a pretext for robbing people.
I'd have to say it's more than that. The Jews have been persecuted innumerable times through history for numerous reasons, often including money. The Nazis were doing far more than seize Jewish wealth. They were trying to eliminate them from existence. Extermination is a lot more extreme than theft and has different motives, though taking Jewish money was surely a side-effect of the program.
Ajax
Kraxis: you agree though, that eventually the whole Russian population would have to make place for German settlers? The killings on the eastern front would only have been the beginning of the end then. The Germans even had special SS units, Einsatztruppen, to kill Russians (or slavs in general) at the eastern front. 7-21 million civilian casualties seems a bit much for collateral damage and occasional massacres by grunts just for fun doesn't it? I don't see why it wouldn't qualify as ethnic cleansing.
Much of those casualties would have been due to the way both the Germans and the Red Army simply didn't bother to care about the civilians one bit - so the poor buggers got to watch high-intensity urban combat and suchlike from point-blank range with predictable results.
Did you know, when the Germans collapsed in Stalingrad the Soviets were rather surprised to find out thousands of civilians had somehow survived in those utterly blasted ruins for the whole time ?
Since when are Gypsies an ethnic group?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Roma are, but Gypsies are a group of people who roam the countryside stealing from people. Most basically, at least. Hungarian nobles used to carry around daggers in there sleaves so that if a gypsie robbed them of their purse, they could stab the gypsies arm and get their money back.
If Greg sees a problem with the post, I'll edit it, this is his part of the Org. But I myself do not, nor do I see how it's rascist. Therefore, I shall not remove it. Sorry, Mouza.
Gypsy is the name we have given the Roma. Just like we call Hungarians that while they call themselves Magyar.
Since when are Gypsies an ethnic group?
Since people started slaughtering them because of their ethnicity , that might be a clue , but I doubt you will get it .
Perhaps you might look at the Nazis worries about maintaining the ethnic purity of the 230,000 Saxons in Transylvania as they were in close proximity to one and a half million Rumanians , a million Maygars and 100,000 gypsies . Oh but Gypsies are not an ethnic group are they~:rolleyes:
Perhaps you might want to learn a bit about Osteuropaforshung or the PuSte or NODFG if you wish to learn of the holocaust or nazi theories of racial purity/superiority .
Can the holocaust be denied ? I wonder what David Irving is thinking in his jail cell right now ~D ~D ~D
Hrm...I thought that Roma and Sinti were ethnic groups that made up the Gypsies, and that "Gypsie" was not an ethnic group in itself :saint:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Given that all Gypsies are the offspring of Indian migrations there might have been an ethnic split along the line, but from that to totally different ethnic groups is a rather large gap. It would be similar to talking about differences between Danes and Swedes as we are talking about either two different tribes from the Punjab or people who split some 600-800 years ago from each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
.
Kaiser,
There is an ages old misconception that Gypsies are from Egypt (hence Gypsy, bastardized from Egyptian; in Ottoman Turkish they were also nicked Kıbtî (قبطی), which actually means "Coptic". They're actually of Indian origin.
.
They're also been getting the boot to the head at least as thoroughly as the Jews relative to the amont of time in question, but it doesn't seem like despising them stopped being acceptable...
Someone whose opinion I value highly once drily commented that the Gypsies (or Rom, or whatever name you now use for them) just might be about the only major ethnic group in the world with a reasonably legit claim to an "innocent victim" status.
Well it is true that they have a long and wide history of petty theft and scams, but in general they have been less than dangerous as they have always been dispersed and few in numbers. They couldn't have been a danger to anybody but those who are careless with their valuables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
So innocent is perhaps a bit too long out, but they are best candidates for that title.
The Russian tzar Nicholas II's regime also promoted anti-semitism before the interbelic period. There was a russian anti-semitic period before the third reich. Why don't we call him along with Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain anti-semitic.
Because they didn't have the political power to carry on a large-scale genocide. Because the Inquisition and the Russian Imperial Age are long forgotten, because they happened a long time ago.
The Inquisition and the ethnic purges of the Tzar's army had an equivalent impact as the Holocaust. If a greater genocide occured in the twenty-first century I'm sure the Holocaust will be forgotten.
The Holocaust sets a target for the future psihopatic nationalists. An example is the massacre of Kurdish civilians by Saddam Hussein. If he hadn't been stopped by the Gulf War and The Iraq War the numbers might have reached those of the Holocaust and the means of extermination ware the same ( poison gas and machine gun fire).
They ware genocides in history with evan a greater impact, according to the world population of that time like the distruction of Carthage, the afro-american slave trade, the invasions of the mongol horde, the Inquisition, the viking raids etcetera.
And btw, in Transylvania the ethnic majority is Romanian.
I would not compare the viking raids to the holocaust.
Kalle
Yes, I think "innocent" is not the most correct terminology considering background, but also as you have said they couldn't really pose a national threat. Seems to me it was just more of the obsessive approach to "ordered society." Nomadic types don't fit at all, so the simple ruthless Nazi calculus was to dispose of them wholesale. The dipsersed nature matches that of the jews as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Too true. The The whole world faced the Holocaust, not just the Jews(though they've strangely monopolized the word).Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar
Denying that it happend is like denying that man has been on the moon or that Elvis is dead.
It's sometimes hard to face reality, but sometimes your favourite heroes are ultimately villains, and the losing side. Genocide has been a part of Human history even before history, and it will still be. It happened just 10 years ago in Rwanda, and could be going on even as we read this in numerous countries on a different scale.
The weight behind the Holocaust Lore is just heavier because of the industry that keeps feeding us different sides about it. What was so markedly significant about the Nazi German extermination program of Jews and other 'undesirables', is the industrialization of the process. It was a killing industry that alienated the participants so much from the process, that many of the perpetrators didn't feel any guilt, but we all feel that such a huge crime cannot pass unpenanced, so we're still at it today. That it happened to Jews is only important to the Jews. That it happened to millions of people is important to all of us.
Of course it can be denied. Why one would chose to do so I just don't get. If they weren't killed where did they go, we seem to have a modest number of jews that never returning home.
Oh well David Irvine is pleading guilty to the charges and going to face sentancing , But.....
he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, 'I've repented. I've no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I'm not a stupid man.'
"He said, 'I fully accept this, it's a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ."
My my we seem to have a modest number of jews that never returning home.
Is that what your Neo-nazi websites are saying now Frag ? a modest number~:rolleyes:
I think Fragony's use of the term "modest" was meant to be sarcastic hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Quite comfortable insulting me from your pc isn't it? Let's make a little rule, don't say anything you wouldn't say in real life, and thrust me you wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Both good points to which I agree fully. The big question that automatically rises in my brain when seeing this is: why would someone want to try to deny the holocaust? There's absolutely nothing that supports the view that claims it didn't happen at all. It's generally hard to estimate death tolls in genocide affairs which the guilty have tried to hide from the public, but it makes no political or ideological difference whatsoever whether it was 6 million or 20 million or whatever... A nazi would benefit in no way from showing, if it would be possible to do so, that the death toll would be a few percent below the most popular estimates. Likewise, an opponent to nazism wouldn't benefit from being able to raise the death toll by some percent. The point of interest for practical reasons is whether it existed or not (if anyone tries to build factory-like facilities for killing, the psychological climate of society and civilization has obviously been a failure), but the non-existence of the incident can never be proved because the existence has been proved (unless you're a solopsist). If proving a smaller death toll would be possible it would still not give neo-nazis any more power or more support because of it... The only reason I can see for someone to try to deny the holocaust or change the death toll estimation, is to make money personally, by selling his books. And indeed, didn't the first post in this thread say exactly that - the guy in question was about to release a book he wanted to sell? It's just another example of tasteless scandal press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
That is actually a very interesting issue. Different deniers have different reasons, of course, but in nearly all cases they reflect the sorry state of 20th century man, the homo ideologicus who turned his personal experiences and preoccupations onto large, all-encompassing world views. This led to the sort of blatant inconsistencies we see reflected in the minute details of Holocaust denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
There are neo-nazi deniers who claim all at the same time that (1) there was no Holocaust, (2) that the Holocaust was the well-deserved fate of the Jews, and (3) that the Holocaust was the work of Jews infiltrating the nazi hierarchy.
There are 'honest' deniers who claim that the Holocaust could not have been committed because that would be too horrible to comtemplate.
There are anti-Communist deniers who claim that the Holocaust was a cover-up for the Communist strategy to eliminate all non-Communists in the German 'work camps'.
There are anti-Zionist deniers who will, in one and the same breath, claim that (1) the Holocaust never took place and (2) Israel is exterminating Palestinians in the exact same way as the Germans exterminated Jews during the ... Holocaust.
The entire history of the political and propagandistic abuse of the Holocaust by Jews and non-Jews is fascinating because of the insights it produces into the twisted ways of human reasoning and behaviour. On the one hand there is a sense of guilt among non-Jews upon which Jewish groups and the Israeli government have capitalised. On the other hand there is tremendous envy from other minorities or historically oppressed people that the nazis had to choose the Jews, of all peoples, to exterminate and thus turn into martyrs.
The best explanation for these twists and convolutions, I think, is the fact that nobody in their right mind is able to gauge the true extent of this nazi crime. In fact I believe that most deniers are 'honest' in their motives. Their fake claims and ahistorical ploys serve to escape from the truth, to walk away from the facts instead of having to acknowledge the depth of human depravity that they represent.
About the Nazis never wanting to deny the Holocaust, I think I read and saw on TV that they tried to hide it by destroying big camps like Auschwitz and by killing all the people who survived.