The Holocaust is Overrated

Originally posted by intrepid

I didn't say Asians weren't involved, notice my reference to Pearl Harbor. Where was the "Asian theater" as far as the west was concerned, aside from Japan? That didn't start until 1950 but that's a different war.

The Asian theater is known as the Pacific Theater, which very much involved the west.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Beachcoma



Excellent list! Also you restated my questions much more clearly and less offensively; bravo.





[Mod Edit: Please use the 'Reply to' feature rather than posting unnecessary large quotes. Please see Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote and Noticing an increase in large quotes in thread replies... Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 19/1/08 by JAK]

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I love how people here always start claiming some type of agenda.

Yes. Lets talk about agenda's shall we?

Lets look at your version of all this eh, from your thread entitled

"The Holocaust was carried out by the Allies, not the Nazis! (Hypothesis)" - formerly titled as "Indisputable proof" - (Lots of quotes here Mods, but they are needed for context)

Using your own words benign.psychosis

Your initial premise;

We will not let that divide-and-conquer red herring distract us here. We will not be walking down a single path, as they want us to. For our purposes we will accept that something did happen, and what is public knowledge of it is a gross exageration.

Your "hypothesised" take on it;

Many take advantage of the situation and try to steal what little supplies are left from the military personel. They are executed at gun point - it is the only justice here. Photographs are taken as evidence.

Disease begins to spread faster. The infected must be killed, and their bodies burned in order to save the healthy body of internees. Those that die of starvation are put in mass graves and covered. Photographic evidence is taken.

You pause for a second. You question your treatment there. You begin to question what you saw. You begin to realize the truth. Where they really trying to exterminate us?

Your subsequent conclusion;

The holocaust was causal epidemic created by the allied forces. The allies didn't want the dirt on their hands, so they let lose the propaganda machine. The graves, the bodies, the gas - it was all there. They propaganda machine only had to apply a context.

Other things you have written;

"Death camp" is simply what the place was called in that specific web page - it has as much meaning as the phrase "Station Wagon." They are both nonsense and have nothing to due with reality.

For those who think they are somehow proving a point by posting the ravings of people in the camps: Stop it.

Why the gas chambers? You tell me.. I have probably 200 knives in my house, poison, an axe, a few guns.. does that prove I'm a killer?

It worked better than he had intended and the power of the label revved the societal engine of Jewish persecution harder than thought possible - and so he was left with no choice but to round up Jewish people and have them placed in labor camps for their protection.

Nah, I find it odd that people view the Nazi's as such extreme monsters - monsters that keep accurate records even. They kill Jews and make lampshades from their skin - but lie? Never!

Someone is going to have to show me actual proof that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews.

Where were we....oh yes, agenda's. Is there an agenda in all that stuff you wrote?

I'd say so.

I'd say there's quite a large agenda in your writing wouldn't you?

reply to post by neformore


Well gee, I don't know what to say! Thanks for the shrine!

That's alot of quotes, from another thread, even. I know you think it's wrong to question the Holocaust, or even dish up an alternative scenerio thought experiment, but that doesn't make people racist, hate jews, or turn into neonazis - no matter how much it just irks the daylights of of you!

Of course, you've done exactly what I had predicted the typical conspiracy loony would do. Once someone admits that they don't have an agenda, people still think they do, no matter what is said. It is very irrational behavior.

Many people are brave enough to question the status quo, such as the OP - even in the face of all the racist accusations and agenda peddling. I wonder if you could do it? Do you have the tenacity? I don't think you do, and that is why you are trying to side swipe the topic with talks of agenda and racism - you've gone so far as to put the spotlight on me entirely, and I am not even the OP of the thread, nor the topic - yet, you have turned it into such because you have no other options. You no longer have the ability to debate or converse rationally, so you throw around accusations to try to prove a point and discredit someone all together.

You apparently, are not brave enough to question the status quo; you find it repulsive that someone would - hence quoting so much from an entirely different threat that I - not even the OP - started that highlights my alternative scenerio.

I really don't see how this relates to the OPs stance on how the Holocaust is overrated anyway, or towards an agenda that he still somehow has even after he says he does not have one. Perhaps you can explain?

Or do you just have an obsession with me?

Oh, BTW, I also consider Hitler to be one of History's greatest public speakers!

[edit on 19-1-2008 by benign.psychosis]

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I know you think it's wrong to question the Holocaust, or even dish up an alternative scenerio thought experiment, but that doesn't make people racist, hate jews, or turn into neonazis

Doesn't it?

Why do it then?

I wonder if you could do it? Do you have the tenacity? I don't think you do, and that is why you are trying to side swipe the topic with talks of agenda and racism - you've gone so far as to put the spotlight on me entirely.

Me? According to some posters on this board because of things I've written in other threads I'm anti-semitic, a muslim appeaser, anti-american, delusional and many other things.

and I am not even the OP of the thread, nor the topic - yet, you have turned it into such because you have no other options. You no longer have the ability to debate or converse rationally, so you throw around accusations to try to prove a point and discredit someone all together.

Hmm. Who wrote them? I just compiled them together. You talked about people having agendas, I just highlighted yours. Its called making a case using documented evidence which, as I've already found out, is something you don't understand, because you dismiss it.

And no, your not the OP of the thread. How astute of you to notice that. You are a contributor to it, an instigator so to speak, one who bleats out how people have an "agenda" as a clever diversionary tactic while you promote your own. Classic propaganda technique. I just like exposing things like that. Call me cynical. Call me a bastard for doing it. Thats life.

You apparently, are not brave enough to question the status quo; you find it repulsive that someone would - hence quoting so much from an entirely different threat that I - not even the OP - started that highlights my alternative scenerio.

Highlights your agenda.

I really don't see how this relates to the OPs stance on how the Holocaust is overrated anyway, or towards an agenda that he still somehow has even after he says he does not have one. Perhaps you can explain?

Sure.

You said this

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I love how people here always start claiming some type of agenda.

I'm just showing yours. Not hard to comprehend really. Fits right into the topic if you ask me, I mean, here you are, making all those quotes about the Holocaust on the other thread and in turn advocating it not being taught as prominently on this one. You set your stage, I'm just highlighting it for anyone who reads this thread and not the other one to set your thoughts in proper context. It would be unjust and unfair to the casual thread reader do otherwise really.

Or do you just have an obsession with me?

Me? I study language, and propaganda, and the machinations of such. You like to try and use it to your own ends. I also like to try and understand why people will go to certain extents to hide their own beliefs by trying to insinuate that other people are wrong in theirs. You seem to revel in doing that.

Oh, BTW, I also consider Hitler to be one of History's greatest public speakers!

Its a pity he was a coward without the power of his convictions to stand trial for his crimes then. Maybe he could have talked his way out of it?

Originally posted by neformore
I'm just highlighting it for anyone who reads this thread and not the other one to set your thoughts in proper context. It would be unjust and unfair to the casual thread reader do otherwise really.

That say's it all right there.

Typical [Mod Edit] grasping for an agenda, telling other people what they *really* mean when they type - and to top it off you have a skewed messiah complex toward the "casual reader".

You're even so prejudiced, that every word I say can be traced back to a thread I made about the holocaust!

I have to be honest... at first, it was annoying, but now I just pity you.





[Mod Edit: Insult removed. Please see
Courtesy Is Mandatory and A Word About Politeness. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 19/1/08 by JAK]

reply to post by benign.psychosis


Who's attacking who here?

You're the one calling me and the other people who disagree with you " typical conspiracy loons".

I just quoted what you'd written to ensure we get the correct context.

As for

every word I say can be traced back to a thread I made about the holocaust

Well yes, it can. That was the point.

You strung out the rope and then you hung yourself with it. So much for your proclaimed non-agenda, huh?

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by benign.psychosis

 

Who's attacking who here?

You're the one calling me and the other people who disagree with you " typical conspiracy loons".

Disagree? This is not a disagreement:

Me: You know, I really like vanilla ice cream.
You: No you don't! You are hiding your belief that you actually hate vanilla ice cream! You have an agenda! You must want something!

[Mod Edit] Seriously. It's one matter to interpret what the president of Iran said, or what Bush meant when he mentioned a New World Order. You can post what you think it means, and argue with other people about it. He's not here to explain himself.

But when you have the person here, right in front of you, on your computer monitor telling you what they actually mean, actually interacting with you, telling you that you have come to the wrong conclusion... you still deny it and claim that it is not the truth.

You are being stubborn, irrational, biggoted, and beyond silly.

So much for your proclaimed non-agenda, huh?

See.. still, you are actually trying to convice me that I am hiding some type of belief and that I have an agenda when I've explicitly told you I do not. You are creating an artificial context created from snippets from multiple threads and demanding that I adhere to your personal interpretation of what I post. It is *not* normal behavior.

I wonder if you write to poets and argue with them what their poems really mean?

What is beyond irrational, is that you can come to an interpretation of what I have previously posted, yet... somehow... you just can't fit what I am telling you right now in that interpretation. It's called cherry-picking, which allows you to create your own false context. You seem to have become a slave to it. Most conspiracy theorists do.

Not everything is some type of cover up. Not everything is a conspiracy. I am not "hiding" any beliefs. I do not have a "secret" agenda that you can "expose". You are not about to "discover" or "reveal" anything "secret" about a "hidden conspiracy" of "secret beliefs."

If you read this and thought "I'm not falling for that!" then I respectfully suggest that you should seriously see a psychiatrist.

Really, I don't know what else to say. I am actually worried about your behavior.




[Mod Edit: Insult removed. Please see
Courtesy Is Mandatory and A Word About Politeness. Thank you - Jak]




[edit on 19/1/08 by JAK]

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
But when you have the person here, right in front of you, on your computer monitor telling you what they actually mean, actually interacting with you, telling you that you have come to the wrong conclusion... you still deny it and claim that it is not the truth.

You wrote the stuff, didn't you - or are you saying that you didn't? I mean - its there on the screen, right? Under your user name.

You wrote it and yet are trying to deny the context it was written in?

Denial appears to be your forte, doesn't it?

Maybe the Allies wrote it for you.

reply to post by neformore


Hitler actually was one of the greatest public speakers in the same way Django Reinhardt was one of the greatest guitarists. It's just how it was. Have you seen him give a speech? Have you seen how riled up the people were? How do you think he went from a nobody to one of the most powerful man in Europe? Jew-hating? It's called charisma. Now saying that he was a great public speaker doesn't mean you are saying that he is a great person. Everyone has positive and negative traits, but for some reason it is anti-semitic to attribute positive traits to Hitler even though he does have those traits. Just because he killed himself doesn't make him a coward. It was definitely pretty brave to launch that blitzkrieg and take out half of Europe. It all depends on how you look at him.

You can say Mao was evil for starving all those people, but then again, you can still say that he was an excellent leader in that he pulled the Chinese people together and industrialized the nation. Same could be said about Stalin. Though he killed massive amounts of people, he still accomplished more than most Russian rulers. Now, I'm not saying that all these people are not bad, but I am saying that they are all misconstrued in Western culture as being pure evil. Try reading about them from a different perspective (say a Russian book about Stalin, or a Chinese book about Mao), and maybe it will open your mind a bit.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
But when you have the person here, right in front of you, on your computer monitor telling you what they actually mean, actually interacting with you, telling you that you have come to the wrong conclusion... you still deny it and claim that it is not the truth.

You wrote the stuff, didn't you - or are you saying that you didn't? I mean - its there on the screen, right? Under your user name.

You wrote it and yet are trying to deny the context it was written in?

Denial appears to be your forte, doesn't it?

Maybe the Allies wrote it for you.

I wrote that stuff, but the problem lies in your interpretation of what is posted. It certainly can not be my fault in failing to make it clear, because I have repeatedly said that your interpretation is wrong, after the fact.

It's impossible for me to make it clear to you because you have already reached an irrational conclusion and your mind is not open to reason.

Here's one of the problems:

You wrote the stuff, didn't you - or are you saying that you didn't?

Did I say anything along that lines of, "I DIDN'T WRITE THAT?"

No, I didn't say that. Yet, you are somehow confused and bewildered by your irrational interpretations that you seemingly lack the ability to pinpoint any particular point that is posted, and instead you dynamically shift from cherry-picked point to cherry-picked point in an attempt to... I don't know, argue for the sake of it?

In the end, you still say that I am denying something! I can't believe it!

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
It's impossible for me to make it clear to you because you have already reached an irrational conclusion and your mind is not open to reason.

Sorry, benign, but it's not irrational at all. It's perfectly well-reasoned. The poster has read what you have said elsewhere and come to the conclusion that you have an agenda other than the spirit of pure enquiry. I agree with that conclusion.

I think that describing perfectly valid source material from survivors of the holocaust as "ravings" is absurd. I think your contention that the allies were responsible for the holocaust is idiotic. The reason that I think this way about your assertions is because they systematically ignore all the evidence. The cause of the holocaust is simply not a matter of debate. You may as well say the sun is made of cheese. Perhaps you do.

The evidence for the adoption of the so-called final solution as a policy towards the predominantly Jewish prisoners at Auschwitz, Belsen and the rest is there in the minutes of the Wansee conference in 1942. You can question the authenticity of those minutes if you wish - but it's hard to see why or how unless you have some evidence of any unreliability. You would also have to argue against the content of Himmler's 1943 speech at Posen, Hitler's own speeches and writings warning of the impending annihilation of the Jews, the content of the Aktion Reinhard and the testimony of literally hundreds of eyewitnesses - including both survivors and the poor wretches who first entered the camps after the war had ended.

In the light of that, the reader of your posts is left to question what other motive might be inspiring such ill-informed, inflammatory material to be spoken of with such confidence. To come to the conclusion that you have an agenda other than a spririt of pure enquiry is hardly irrational. Indeed I would suggest to you that it is consistent with your own words, your own style of argument, and your own presentation of absolutely nothing by way of evidence for the nonsensical assertions you make.

For those who plough through this drivel hoping for some sort of real questioning of holocaust history, there are lots of real issues still worth debating that unfortunately get lost in the sort of codswallop being spouted here. Certainly whether or not the allies could have done more to stop the slaughter prior to 1945 is one of them. The merit of the current US President's suggestion that "we should have bombed them" is another. The weight given to the holocaust over other genocides before and since is certainly another. But who was responsible is not one of them.

Hitler was indeed a good public speaker. And a fairly incompetent military strategist. And an idiot. And insane. The last three things in that list contributed to the fact that he ended up in a ditch, on fire. His debating style wasn't much use to him then.

LW

Reply to LoneWeasel

The cause of the holocaust is simply not a matter of debate

Now saying that is ‘absurd’.

Of course it’s still a matter of debate. Some people don’t wana follow ‘the holocaust history’ being taught Blindly. If people feel they need to question it and do more research on it than they should be Encouraged,Not prisoned or labelled anti semite.

Than you hear stories like this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which makes you think is something being hidden?

So much for the ‘Freedom Of Speech’.

reply to post by LoneWeasel


He was insane, but I don't think he was an idiot. He was too good at what he did.

Neformore:
"[the reason the Holocaust deserves more attention and is taught more is because]
- The documented actions of the Nazi's prior to the outbreak of war that set the stage
- The physical evidence of the death camps
- The surving witness testimony
- The records compiled by the Nazi's of their actions."

On the Japanese atrocities there are:
- The documented actions of the Japanese prior to the outbreak of war that set the stage
- The physical evidence of the death camps, sex stations, and lots of other horrors
- The surviving witness testimony
- The records compiled by the Japanese of their actions.

There I answered your original answers as to why it is not accurate.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by italkyoulisten]

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
There I answered your original answers as to why it is not accurate.

Actually, what you did was present a rather poor parody. But thats your perogative.

As I stated, the holocaust is the most accessible atrocity to the west.

And while the Japanese atrocities did indeed occur and the evidence you cite is there those particular atrocities didn't happen to occur slap bang on Europes doorstep, in "Western" culture, right under everyones nose, did they?

People make use of information thats more readily available to them. Thats human nature.

I think you'll find Beachcoma has covered that with his post about how what we refer to as "The Holocaust" is barely covered in Asian countries.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
It's impossible for me to make it clear to you because you have already reached an irrational conclusion and your mind is not open to reason.

Sorry, benign, but it's not irrational at all. It's perfectly well-reasoned. The poster has read what you have said elsewhere and come to the conclusion that you have an agenda other than the spirit of pure enquiry. I agree with that conclusion.

It's well reasoned to cherry pick what someone says, taking what you want, to come to a conclusion, while ignoring whatever else the person says, because it does not fit into your conclusion?

That is not reason. That is Psychosis, and it is not of the benign type.

I'll make this short and sweet because nobody wants to read threads this long in this style, with no links to news articles, or new information. It's just an opinion thread.

Kay, I'm not a fan of anyone who think Holocaust education should be toned down. It should be toned up. It is the largest scale genocide in all of history, which makes it magnified and easier to study, and yet we did not learn our lesson (Darfur).

3 million this and 3 million that died, and 6 million Jewish people died. Go ahead and count 6 million pennies. It's a ton harder than counting 3 million. There are a lot more Polish, Chinese, Korean people than Jewish people in the world. Plus, these people come from a countries with a government and armies, and Jewish people are Jewish based on their religion. They have no real government to back them up. Look at the Middle East right now, really, Jews are defenseless. They just want a home. They are a very small minority in world religions, give them a break.

Everyone wants to cry for their race or gender or ethnicity or religion. Sometimes, though, you really have to feel sorry for the little guys, even if you took a blow, too.

I'm not Jewish. I do know a hell of a lot of Holocaust survivors. In all honesty, they deserve... their families deserve... the right to educate about what happened SPECIFICALLY AND MOST SEVERELY to them.

Have you ever been to the Holocaust museum in DC? You should go, like right now. So you know what you're talking about.

As an aside- most European history textbooks these days aren't aimed solely at the trials of the JEWS during WWII but all other cultures as well. Gosh, they aren't biased, why are you?

[edit on 1/19/2008 by ravenshadow13]

Originally posted by kangjia57
Reply to LoneWeasel

The cause of the holocaust is simply not a matter of debate

Now saying that is ‘absurd’.

Of course it’s still a matter of debate. Some people don’t wana follow ‘the holocaust history’ being taught Blindly. If people feel they need to question it and do more research on it than they should be Encouraged,Not prisoned or labelled anti semite.

Than you hear stories like this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which makes you think is something being hidden?

So much for the ‘Freedom Of Speech’.

I think the treatment of the person in the case you've quoted was pretty foolish. I don't think holocaust deniers should be publicly denegrated in this way, because I don't think their beliefs merit publicity. You can study and debate the authenticity and reality of the holocaust if you wish - I'm certainly not going to stop you, am I? And nor would I suggest you be locked up for doing so. Any more than I would suggest John Lear be locked up for some of his more outrageous allegations.

On the other hand, it's my suggestion that you would be wasting your time. There just isn't a satisfactory case for questioning the validity of the allied version of holocaust events. Your statement that it is taught "blindly" is just nonsense - it's taught in precisely the opposite way - with a huge weight of evidence to back it up, and with nothing substantive to contradict it.

The OP's point (and the OP can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to have wanted to decrease the amount of study that went into the holocaust - on the not wholly unreasonable basis that it was hogging the limelight, so to speak, in relation to the countless other genocides committed before and since.

I disagree that reducing the amount of study on one genocide will lead to a rise in awareness of others. So in fact I wholeheartedly agree with you that more study should go into the holocaust - different angles, different approaches, different questions - the works. I don't fear an anti-semite agenda in such questioning because I'm certain that more study will lead to more, not less sympathy for the poor wretches who suffered at the hands of an evil, insane, Nazi regime.

What I do fear is the perpetuation of anti-semite myths by people who offer no evidence for their claims. I view them as attention-seeking fools, not serious historians, because serious historians have long ago dismissed the absurd and ill-informed anti-semitic rantings that have been offered up by deranged holocaust deniers under the guise of "alternative theories". All theories, however alternative, rely on evidence to be worthwhile. If I theorise that the sun is made of cheese, I cannot be upset if people suggest I am foolish if I offer no evidence to back me up. If you can show me a shred of evidence that has not been categorically debunked to suggest that there is merit in the arguments put forward by benign psychosis in his peculiar "hypothesis", I will respect your point of view more. Until then, I'm afraid, I respect it very little, not that I suppose my respect to be of any value to you.

As for you, psychosis, you can call it "cherry-picking" if you like - I call it "quoting". Perhaps readers can make their own minds up by reading the posts in question. They're not hard to find, you appear to have adopted a "carpet bombing" approach to this topic on ATS. "Carpet idiocy", some might call it.


LW

I haven’t delved too deeply into this thread…..but what I can understand from the op…is that the holocaust is mainly viewed upon what happened to the Jews compared to what happened in Asia with the Japanese killing people just like the Nazi’s did, only in greater numbers in deaths…..

Well, all I can say to that is…….that’s probably true......I mean….there’s only something like 14 million Jews in the whole world…..and yet everyone knows them……you could say they’re a celebrity religion…..there are more Mormons than there are Jews….but hardly anyone knows a thing about them……I couldn’t imagine a time in the world in the future when Israel or something about the Jews aren’t discussed on the local news….to do with war or what ever…. where a Jewish person could ask a random person on the street what they know of Jews and they say “what’s a Jew?” Not going to happen……

the holocaust in europe of the "those not fit to live" in the minds eyes of hitler and his friends was i believe another continuation of the inquisitions of the "holy" roman empire. hitler and rome and its image were allies.

for those that think it was no big deal or over-rated or have a hate on for others it would be justice for such ones to be on the receiving end of the next holocaust which is bound to come associated with a ww3 which i believe is inevitable looking at the situation ongoing in the middle east right now.

i dont wish this on anyone but world leaders insist on repeating the same mistakes over and over again.