The Holocaust is Overrated

Yeh but whats so Special about Holocaust? Why is it taught soo much without the recognition of other horrific atrocities that have taken place in history?
Is Jew blood more special than black,white, muslim Etc…

Reference to the Holocaust does not dismiss the cruelty of other events, but what makes the Jewish Holocaust in Europe so evil is that a nation did this to it's own citizenry under the auspecies of a civilised code of social policy.

It was a so called civilised society which created laws to legitimise the slaying of innocent people.

I have relatives from Cambodia where they lost all their relatives to Pol Pot. That is the nearest modern equivalent.

The slaughter of Sebrinica was similar, but none save Cambodia came close to the ruthless abuse of a civil code of laws to justify mass murder.

The rape of Nanking by the Japanese was an act of war by one ethnic group against another. Same for Bosnia Herzegova.

In fact the rape of Nanking did lead to trade boycotts and eventually in July 1941 an oil embargo against Japan.

When you say what was done to the Chinese by the Japanese, was ignored by the west that is not historically correct.

The west sacrificed many millions of young men over Japanese attrocities, but was very slow to intervene in Germany.

I don't think the Holocaust is overrated.

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
reply to post by Apolon

 

Yea. I actually thought the debate was over, because people were proving my point. There is a subconscious programmed response to certain topics that terminates further thought on that topic. The Holocaust is one of them. Another is the topic of whether or not the government is good. Another is the topic of "conspiracy theories". What the guy just said a few posts before is basically another example of this. I still don't know why there is this programmed response against the Holocaust, but the reasoning behind my other examples of programming is quite clear.

Lone Weasel's article can also support the idea of government programming of impressionable school children.

"I am a child. Program me!" - Bruce Haack

The post by Myrdyn certainly suggests an inadequate education, whether or not is was programmed....

I guess to some extent any topic taught in any school is by its very nature programmed. For example, the history text book I was taught from at school I have no doubt was the same text book that many schools around the UK used. The teaching was fairly didactic - in that you completed the exercises set by the book and were therefore led to think about answers prompted by the question. In other words, if you were asked to compose an essay-based answer on the suffering of Jewish people during the Holocaust, that's all you would research, and all you would study.

I still maintain that such direction is more likely to come from "innocent" (as in, not sinister) practicalities. The source material maybe more prevalent from the Jewish side of the story but more importantly is also more amenable to children of a school age - Anne Frank, etc.

The reality is that most of the material is based on mainstream historical authorities. Challenging people to think about alternative history, or indeed the alternative theories behind any subject at all - is, or ought to be, the domain of university education. It was certainly a feature of mine.

LW

reply to post by LoneWeasel


Yes, but does it not seem like Holocaust education is a bit over the top? There is no historical event that delivers an emotional reaction as the Holocaust. What about the US-backed genocide at East Timor? Most Americans would ask East who? It happened at about the same time as Cambodia and is of the same scale, but it has garnered almost no media mention. Noam Chomsky actually did a case study on this in his book Manufacturing Consent.

I am saying that the emotional response to the topic of Holocaust has been either purposefully or unintentionally created because of the oversaturation of Holocaust education throughout the years. Like I stated before, extremely scary and horrible stories are told to us about the Holocaust since early elementary school, and I remember Anne Frank's Diary was especially traumatic and memorable for me when I was in fourth grade, and I went along with it until I began to learn about the other "unmentioned" atrocities. I put it in quotes because I do not mean it is literally never mentioned. I am merely asserting that no other single historical event, maybe other than WWII itself, is talked about as much as the Holocaust.

I am also pointing out the anchoring of the term Holocaust with "Jewish suffering". You may not perceive it the same way, but I guarantee you, if you were to ask everyone in the world to say the first thing they think of when they hear "Holocaust", most would either answer "Jewish suffering" or something along those lines, and a smaller majority would likely answer "Nazi". No matter what, the connection between "Holocaust" and "Jewish suffering" is there and is plain as day.

But that doesn't make sense, as Jewish deaths, now purported to be 6 million, makes up roughly half of the 12 million that were killed in the Holocaust. To associate Holocaust with Jewish deaths is to ignore all the rest; the millions of Polish who have died, etc.

It is a tragedy, but it should not be associated with any specific racial group.

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
reply to post by LoneWeasel

 

Yes, but does it not seem like Holocaust education is a bit over the top? There is no historical event that delivers an emotional reaction as the Holocaust. What about the US-backed genocide at East Timor? Most Americans would ask East who? It happened at about the same time as Cambodia and is of the same scale, but it has garnered almost no media mention. Noam Chomsky actually did a case study on this in his book Manufacturing Consent.

I do agree with this point - in fact even the Cambodian massacres were not given the level of attention they deserved. Of course, there is an even more pressing need to address the very real and current threat of genocides taking place as we write. Most current apathy towards modern genocides happening in, for example, Darfur, is generated by political expedience. It's politically and economically expedient (or so it is apparently believed by our governments) to send the troops in to Iraq, but not to sort out despotic ethnic cleansing in the Sudan.

I've given you the example already of how the USHMM is devoting a significant proportion of its energies to campaigning to prevent current genocides. The link, by way of refreshment, is here. This is an organisation that I suppose falls broadly into the field of Jewish-suffering-emphasis that you draw attention to. But the fact is it's a much more vocal and honest campaigner against atrocities in the world that are going on now than either the UK or US governments - and THAT's the scandal and the shame, in my book. Isn't it also evidence of the absence of a campaign to stop attention wandering from the Jewish suffering?

I am saying that the emotional response to the topic of Holocaust has been either purposefully or unintentionally created because of the oversaturation of Holocaust education throughout the years. Like I stated before, extremely scary and horrible stories are told to us about the Holocaust since early elementary school, and I remember Anne Frank's Diary was especially traumatic and memorable for me when I was in fourth grade, and I went along with it until I began to learn about the other "unmentioned" atrocities. I put it in quotes because I do not mean it is literally never mentioned. I am merely asserting that no other single historical event, maybe other than WWII itself, is talked about as much as the Holocaust.

The reason I disagree with your point is that I don't see any evidence of any emotional engineering happening. I've explained my feelings about the Anne Frank material and its kin half a dozen times in this thread - perhaps we must agree to disagree, because where you see conspiracy I see expediency and practicable application of source material. I don't argue that "unmentioned" historical atrocities are undertaught - but I don't see that as a result of any deliberate campaign to bury that history, so much as the fact that, for example, a catalogue of Russian deaths in the second world war is not as amenable to school children as Anne Frank's diary. How we address that imbalance is certainly a pertinent question, but to my mind it would be folly to start doing so on the basis of a supposed campaign of Jewish-inspired suppression.

It's interesting that you concede that the generic subject of WWII gets as much attention as the specifics of the holocaust. We still use the term "post-war" to refer to events after 1945, when the reality is the UK and US have more or less constantly been engaged in warfare ever since, of course. But that's the kicker, isn't it - this was a global conflict, its events had a global reach - the holocaust was arguably the most "important" example of devastation in the entire war, precisely because it was inspired by a policy of removing a race from the face of the globe - which brings us to your next point:

I am also pointing out the anchoring of the term Holocaust with "Jewish suffering".

But that doesn't make sense, as Jewish deaths, now purported to be 6 million, makes up roughly half of the 12 million that were killed in the Holocaust. To associate Holocaust with Jewish deaths is to ignore all the rest; the millions of Polish who have died, etc.

This is an argument that is often repeated - but I have to say I find it to be a slightly crude one. It may be that the majority of deaths in the holocaust were not Jewish, but the largest single group of people who died were. Surely that's the simple reason why the largest single voice of memorial, anguish and loss after 1945 also came from the Jewish race?

It is a tragedy, but it should not be associated with any specific racial group.

The reality is that it was a tragedy whose inspiration came from a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing - and that the principal enemy to the Nazi Reich was seen as Jewish people. That's why the holocaust has come to be associated with Jewish suffering - not because of a Jewish campaign to "claim" the word - but as a response to the specifics of the Nazi campaign to rid the world of its principal enemies. There's no doubt that other ethnic and cultural groups were also targeted, and there's no argument from me that they shouldn't be remembered - but the LAST people that should get the blame for the lack of adequate study, debate and memory now are the group of people that were made into the principle targets of that horrific regime.

LW

Majority of People see that part of history used exclusively to gain sympathy and reparation to israel and of course private pockets.
As kissinger once stated and besides him some other israeli politicians:
Holocaust is the best thing that happened to Jews. Of course he meant for pigs like him and other zionist pigs.
He should have repeated that in the face of some real Jews who lost members of their families or in the face of Slavs.
zionists brough Hitler in power and started WWI and WWII and managed to push US into every single conflict ever started even dough US was never attacked or threatened in any of them.
List goes on and this exlusive teaching is just one small peace of zionist agenda amongst so many bigger ones like forbiding to debate genocide in many european countries.
Excuse me for saying but isn't that totalitarian and medieval law and not one based on democratic values of asking and demanding answers where they are due?
Also, the single worst loss of lives in one Nation is by Far Russian and Polish, followed closely by Yugoslavs. Jewish deaths are not even close in numbers and real number is hovering around 600.000 which is still staggering by any standard but far of 60.000.000 Russians and similar events.
Did you know that after 40+ years they finaly changed memorial stone outside Auschwitz which stated : Here died more than 4 Million People mainly Jews....
In late '90's they finally changed it to over million People died here...
Tell me how come finale number of Jewish People killed in a WWII is still cited 6 million if they agreed that Auschwitz total was around million and not all Jewish but Slavs mainly and Gypsies.
Doesn't that fact alone speaks volume of their deceit and will to obuse their OWN People just for oney and power gain!?
Take a look in a white house and tell me the name of every single one of the most influential people there apart from bush who is a muppet.
Yes, that is right. ALL the most powerful positions are entirely ocupied bu zionists and they are using it for exterminations of us all ultimately.
Hugo Chavez is next after Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, Germany... Countries who never attacked or threatened US are being destroyed while holocaust of Palestinians is going unpunished by US and UN because WHY?
I'll let you finish that sentence.

You are very intelligent person that much is obvious, but your inability to see the facts in the face is astonishing and it doesn't add up!?

Regards!

Originally posted by Apolon
As kissinger once stated and besides him some other israeli politicians:
Holocaust is the best thing that happened to Jews. Of course he meant for pigs like him and other zionist pigs.

zionists brough Hitler in power and started WWI and WWII and managed to push US into every single conflict ever started even dough US was never attacked or threatened in any of them. List goes on and this exlusive teaching is just one small peace of zionist agenda amongst so many bigger ones like forbiding to debate genocide in many european countries.

Rubbish. What "zionists" brought Hitler to power? How did "zionists" start WWI? Who are these "zionists"? Are absurdities like these the "facts" you accuse me of ignoring? Where is your evidence?

In which and how many countries in Europe is debating genocide forbidden?

Also, the single worst loss of lives in one Nation is by Far Russian and Polish, followed closely by Yugoslavs. Jewish deaths are not even close in numbers and real number is hovering around 600.000 which is still staggering by any standard but far of 60.000.000 Russians and similar events.

We've looked at this time and again in this thread. No one has argued that Russia did not suffer by far the biggest loss in WWII. The holocaust is singled out as an event because it was a policy-driven attempt by the Nazis to exterminate what they perceived to be their enemies. Not in or as a consequence of battle, but by deliberate extermination in death camps. Any school study of world war II, which even italkyoulisten acknowledges is, as a generic subject, studied in as much detail as the specifics of the holocaust, will teach you about the losses sustained by Russia. They are appalling, but they do not relate directly to this debate.

Did you know that after 40+ years they finaly changed memorial stone outside Auschwitz which stated : Here died more than 4 Million People mainly Jews....
In late '90's they finally changed it to over million People died here...
Tell me how come finale number of Jewish People killed in a WWII is still cited 6 million if they agreed that Auschwitz total was around million and not all Jewish but Slavs mainly and Gypsies.

I'm afraid you've got yourself in a tangle with your figures here, Apalon. Auschwitz was not the only place that people died - here's a map of concentration camps for a start. The camps at which Jewish people were systematically killed were Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Majdanek, Chelmno, Sobobor and Maly Trostinets. Then there are Einsatzgruppen killings in the occupied Soviet territories, the deaths in other concentration camps and Polish ghettos, and killings in Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Italy and Norway. 6 million represents the overall figure for Jewish deaths. About 1 sixth of those occured at Auschwitz.

I am basing all my statements above on the census study work of Lucy Dawidowicz

As far as I have read, Auschwitz alone was responsible for around 1,100,000 Jewish deaths and 140,000-150,000 Polish victims. Around 25,000 losses occurred at Auschwitz from among gypsy communities. I don't claim this to be absolutely precise, or definitive, but as I understand it is generally perceived by the vast majority of historians to be as conclusive as we are ever going to get. If you have other figures you regard as more authoritative - I wish you'd show both me and Wikipedia the evidence, so that we can amend those numbers. My Auscwitz-specific figures are based on the respected work of Franciszek Piper. What about you? Can you demonstrate Piper to be wrong? Where do you get your numbers?

Take a look in a white house and tell me the name of every single one of the most influential people there apart from bush who is a muppet.
Yes, that is right. ALL the most powerful positions are entirely ocupied bu zionists and they are using it for exterminations of us all ultimately.

No, that is completely wrong. If you seriously want me to believe that Condoleeza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Charles Conner, Alphonso Jackson, Dirk Kempthorne, Mary Peters, Michael Mukasey, Samuel Bodman, or in fact anyone else at all, at or connected with the Whitehouse, has a primarily zionist agenda - you MUST provide evidence. Not just state your conviction as if it were fact.

You are very intelligent person that much is obvious, but your inability to see the facts in the face is astonishing and it doesn't add up!?

I don't like the implication in the phrase "doesn't add up". What are you suggesting? You haven't offered any facts for me to ignore - only assertions you portray as facts.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. If you haven't any of your own, at least engage properly with mine. Argue with my use of Piper as an authority - argue with my promotion of the USHMM - do ANYTHING; at the moment what you're doing isn't debate, it's a diatribe.

LW

Yeah, none of the Jewish staff are on a payroll from Oil and pharmaceutical companies etc..
Also their intentions are so clear and are obviously doing their best to prevent further wars and israeli genocide over Palestinians.
Further to number of Jews in a US politics since a dawn of time till today..
Name me some names of prominent advisers or speech writers of Arabic, Slav, Latino American, native Indian, Pakistani or People of other religious group in white house please.
Reason they are American or plainly Jewish (American) doesn't concern you obviously. It does concern everyone else luckily and more and more People will know who they truly represent thanks to this last Bastion of Democracy we call internet.
This is from pro-Jewish run magazine so it is not Arabic, Russian or Bangladeshi post. So, we should take it definitely as not anti-jewish or whatever people like to label someone who dare to speak against israeli genocide over others.

"After appointing Joshua Bolten to be the White House chief of staff, US President George W. Bush nominated another Jewish staffer, Joel Kaplan, to serve as Bolten's deputy, putting him in charge of the daily policy planning.

The fact that White House policy is now in the hands of two Jews is not seen as significant by activists in the American Jewish community.

"He is simply appointing the best people for the job," said Nathan Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. Another Jewish activist added that he "wouldn't read too much into it."

Bolten, who first served as head of the Office of Management and Budget, was the first Jewish member of Bush's cabinet. Ever since Bush took office, there has been a custom of opening cabinet meetings with a brief prayer and so, before his first cabinet meeting, Bolten's assistant contacted Diament and asked for help in finding a Jewish prayer for the security and well-being of the cabinet members. The Orthodox Union provided him with the text in English and in Hebrew and Bolten read it aloud at the next cabinet meeting.

Bolten and Kaplan will probably be the most prominent Jewish members of the Bush administration, but not the only ones. Apart from Bolten, there is another Jewish cabinet member, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and there are other Jewish senior staff members, including Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and White House staffer Jay Lefkowitz.

In the past year, several Jews who were holding senior posts in the administration have left, among them deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense Doug Feith, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and political adviser Ken Mehlman, who now heads the Republican National Committee.

Yet the policy of the administration has little to do with the religious beliefs of the staffers. "The president sets the policy goals and it is now the job of Josh [Bolten] and Joel [Kaplan] to help achieve these goals," said Noam Neusner, who served as the liaison to the Jewish community in Bush's White House from 2002-2005.

Other Jewish activists, both Republican and Democrat, agree that the nomination of Bolten and Kaplan have no affect on policy.

For Republicans, there is still a feeling that Bush does not receive the credit he deserves from the Jewish community. "We have Israel's best friend and it still hasn't changed the way the Jewish community sees him," said Fred Zeidman, a close friend of Bush and chairman of the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. "I keep hoping that one day our community will see the light and support President Bush."

Neusner recalled that in the Bush White House there was always great respect for religious practices of the staffers and predicted that this policy would remain now that Bolten is running its daily operations.

One tradition likely to go on is the reading of the Purim megilla led by Chabad Rabbi Levi Shemtov, which attracts many of the Jewish staffers.

The relatively small number of Jews in Bush's cabinet became an issue largely due to the comparison with his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The former administration had such Jewish cabinet members as Robert Reich, Robert Rubin, Sandy Berger, Lawrence Summers and Madeline Albright and State Department officials Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Aaron Miller.

"I don't support this idea of bean counting," said Jay Footlik, who was Clinton's liaison to the Jewish community. He sees the fact that the former administration had many Jewish members as significant to the policy the president had in regard to the Jewish community. According to him, the reason Jews were so visible in Clinton's administration was merely a result of the community being "drawn to public involvement and political activity."

reply to post by Apolon


quote:you say:i am an athiest,shouldn't you say,G-D bless all of us?

a partial answer ----conspiracy wise:
jehu the son of hanani the seer went out to meet righteous king jehoshaphat of judah(after he had been trying to help wicked king ahab of israel fight a battle against ramoth-gilead) and says:should you help the wicked and love those who hate Yahvah and so bring wrath on yourself from Him?(2 chronicles 21:2)

and also: in 2086 bce G-D (Yahvah Elohiym) started to work with abraham.
He told abraham:go forth from your country,and from your relatives and from your fathers house,to the land which I will show you;and I will make You a great nation,and I will bless you,and make your name great;and so you shall be a blessing;and I will bless those who bless you,and the one who curses you I will curse.and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.now abraham was 75 years old when he departed from haran(genesis 12:1-4)

you and "all of us"could be blessed but you are speaking in a manner to deny yourself from being blessed (as was abraham by his obedience and respect for His Creator)and instead by your behavior you are cursing yourself by showing hatred towards the G-D of abraham --------Who could not lie --by blessing those that curse abraham.

why should G-D bless those that hate Him?do you feel like going out of your way to help those that hate you ?

LW, after you cited when I quoted kissinger saying that holocaust is biggest Jewish business you omitted next sentence when I said he should have repeted that in from of Jews who lost someone or Slavs for instance.
Then you wnt for the next sentence that zionist installed Hitler in power.
That is lovely out of context copy and paste.

Here what some Jewish guy writer wrote about it:

""Since the Second World War, Jews have been treated with silk gloves. Without Auschwitz, there would be no Israel."

- by Nathan Goldman, the Founder of Israel as quoted from Paris Match, December 29, 1979

The "Holocaust" has given Israel a tremendous psychological advantage over the Gentile world, particularly America and Germany. By exploiting the guilt complex instilled in non-Jews, they have obtained:
# Over $65 billion in aid from Germany.
# Over $55 billion in aid from America. Israel, a prosperous country, receives $3.2 billion, (or $8 million a day) in foreign aid - more than any other country.
# The 45,000 Jewish immigrants from Russia have the highest annual quota after Mexico. They enter as "refugees" without having to prove persecution! As "refugees" they are automatically entitled to full welfare benefits not subject to welfare reform cuts.
# Nonstop holocaust brainwashing in schools, TV, movies and books has placed Israel and organized Jewry above criticism! "

Next evidence easily proven if you dig just a little you will find photos of post war memorial stone with a figure of 4 million and new one which states 1 million in front of Auschwitz. Obviously that fact alone proves thay manipulate figures and facts just for moneay and power gain.

"The Jew L.P. Beria headed the Soviet NKVD secret police from 1938 to 1953. In 1945, he announced that they had discovered a "holocaust" of six million Jews. This conveniently occurred only in camps in Poland! Beria would not allow any outside investigators to examine these sites. The Jewish-owned New York Times reported in 1945 that Soviet Russia supplied the figure of four million Jews having been put to death, "in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." However, in July of 1990, the Polish government reduced this figure to 1.1 million and it was accepted by Jewish groups. Despite this evidence, the "official figure" of six million dead was not lowered to three million! "

Next on agenda! Hollywood made apparently 600 movies about Jews and their suffering. Name few that shows suffering of some other ethnic group!

"Why doesn't the film industry or news media produce documentaries about the numerous true holocausts of Gentiles during this century such as:

The Soviet Holocaust of Christian Russian Kulak farmers. (1924 - 1930) - 15 million exterminated!

The Holocaust of the Ukranian farmers, (1930- 1933) - 7 million starved to death.

The Holocaust of Russian political prisoners, (1919 - 1949) - 12 million perished.

The Pol Pot Communist Holocaust in Cambodia (1975) - 2.5 million slaughtered.

Armenian Holocaust by the Turks, (1915) - 1.5 million people

Serbian Holocaust by Croatians in Jasenovac concentration camp during WWII - 700.000+ People killed

Bear in mind that the Jews are the only racial group with an organization like the World Jewish congress which wields fearsome power!"

Apolon that was extremely coherent and well written. Nice info. I had no idea that they had changed the 4 million to 1 million nor that Hollywood has made 600+ Jewish suffering movies. I knew they made a lot but 600+?!

If what Apolon brought up doesn't indicate purposeful manipulation of the public through emotional anchoring I don't know what will.


Oh yea I think I read a while ago about David Icke (though I'm no fan of his nor have I read his work) being persecuted by the World Jewish Congress trying to deem him an anti-Semite for his conspiracy theories. I think they were trying to claim that when he said "reptilian" he really mean "Jews" hahahaha. Or maybe Icke was onto something they were trying to cover their asses?

But yeah the World Jewish Congress has the power to completely and utterly discredit ANYONE simply by labeling them an "official" anti-Semite.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by italkyoulisten]

Is this serious? There's a very specific reason for the Holocaust being so notable in Western history and it has little to do with any conspiracy.

1) For the last 50 years WWII has been the seminal moment in American history. It all but created the "America" mythos that the world is only now getting loose from. It's known as the "Good War"; it got the US out of depression and into the realm of a superpower and leader of the Free World; virtually everyone in the nation played some part in the war effort and if they didn't, they were made to believe so. So everyone in the country for a long time viewed themselves as how they related to that very important war. It created suburbs, for Christ's sake, of course anything that happened during it would be more notable than things that did not.

2) Americans for the most part were not in China during World War II. Not to the extent they were in Europe. As opposed to Germany, where they not only were in vast numbers, but also responsilbe for actually finding many of the camps themselves and seeing them firsthand. These people went on to be the historians, the schoolbook publishers, the teachers of succeeding generations. And you'd think they'd pay as much weight to something that they and their peers/associates didn't see, in a place the vast majority had never been- and had not even known someone who had been? That would be the wierd thing that deserved looking into, not paying alot of attention to something many had seen in a place many more had been.

3) It happened in Europe to white people. Most of the US' population then, as now, was white and from Europe. But back then even more so. Of course they'd pay more attention to events that had occured there than they would to events that took place in a location that most of them had no ties to.

I understand you guys like conspiracy theories and almost want to believe you're being tricked/fooled/used/manipulated because otherwise there's no one (or at least no one person) to blame for all the things you see as wrong. But those three points pretty much cover why you hear alot about the Holocaust and not alot about other genocides. It has very little to do with Jews other than the fact that many were white and resided in Europe. I know it hurts to face it, but there it is.

To show how big anti-something I am, may I just say that my favorite movie of all time is Ben-Hur (Juda) with Charlton Heston.
Not because of a historical massive inaccuracies but because of sheer scale of events and those remarkable horse races. Of course good acting by Heston and others is a another good point.
However, while ago I was puzzled to find out the astonishing amount of money that went into making that spectacle, and when you think outside the cage of a big screen and look at a time when was made ( late '50's) you realize why was so important for some People to do it!
israel was given to them less then 10 years earlier and public was still aware of terrorist actions behind it.
Logical thing was to build another powerful movie depicting suffering of yes you got it right, Jewish people yet again!
Today that movie would ruin the Hollywood if they attempted such endeavor again. No money was spared.
In the movie there was constant suffering of Jews and there was only one good Arab in all that massive land giving uneducated People subconscious message that israel existed well before Jesus era and they are the ones who always lived there etc..
No mention of others like Palestinians and Palestine, God forbid such a truth finding a way onto a big screen.
WE ALL here have proven that we are not anti-Muslim, Serb, Chinese, Russian or Jewish.
Or we want is a truth co come out whatever that might be. I can handle it, but can they?
Truth would ruin governments and bring down entire most influential families on this Earth.
I have no problem with that. Looking forward to it in fact.

reply to post by Apolon


A simple question: Poland 1931 census -more then 3100000 Jews. Poland 1945 - about 300000 Jews, some from other areas. Population shrunk more then 1000 percent.
Polish population with all its suffering had no such change.
This is WW2.
In WW1 Jewish population had no such change.
What happened to those people?
Maybe it was due to Jewish censors? (equivalent to lying censors, as Jewish media always lies)
Maybe they all magically vanished one day? Maybe they all immigrated to Nazi Germany that welcomed Jews at that time?

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by kangjia57

 

It should be taught. All of our mistakes, missteps and atrocities should be studied and remembered. The more we know about our mistakes, the less we'll repeat them. Or so I hope.

With regards to why is one more prominent than the others in our history books? Well, the easy answer is the holocause was a big part of a world war whereas these other atrocities were and are atrocities contained within a nation or region not resulting in a global conflict. It doesn't make it better but it does explain why darfur doesn't garner more attention.

I disagree that the holocaust should be taught. Human atrocities should be taught and the Holocaust should be mentioned and referred to. The reason I say this is even the "crusades" and the "Spanish Inquisition" have been taught for centuries and it has not made a damn bit of difference in deterring anything, including the Holocaust.

So what's the point in focusing on the Holocaust? I say its propaganda and it created a nation/country based on religious beliefs and the only other occurrence of its kind in history was the creation of the Vatican- and not much good has ever come from that..... oh never mind.

There are some lessons to be learned from the holocaust- its a pity they will never be learned no matter how many holocausts we live through- the current one underway in America is no exception either.

Yeah, the current "Holocaust" we're experiencing here in America is the worst yet! It's so horrible!!

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


those figures done by Rosenthal and others should be taken with pinch of salt of course.
No side either winners or losers wrote 100% accurate figures. Either way they haven't been all exterminated if that's what you are implying. People do run away from regimes that are oppressive you know!
We know for certain that Hitler gave them amongst others ultimatum to move out and take some limited amount of money and possessions.
We've had that same problem on Kosovo when Albanian population made a run for Macedonia and Serbian proper to save them selfs from NATO onslaught.
Of course acurate TV media on the west saw that not as a run for a life from massive carpet bombing campaign and shelling depleted uranium and cluster bombs but as a Serbian attempt to "exterminate" undesirables.
We now know that extermination never took place but fight with terrorism and fight for simple preservation against NATO did take place.
It is not as you moron presidents say but as we report it.
Do I have to be so blatant in saying it aloud that way! How do you know politician is lying? He's lips are moving.
DOn't forget that "independent media" doesn't exist mate!
People runed away from Nazi to London, Swiss, Yugoslavia, Greece, America...
You will find majority of former Jewish population right here in London. I've meet personally lots and lots of Jews of Polish descendants who fled Germany and Austria in WWII.
Just because they are not residing there doesn't meen they've been massacred.
Leave that for zionist run propaganda to pass on some different stories.

reply to post by Apolon


So as i suspected, the answer is - Polish figures are changed by Jews.
But this way any info that does not fit into agenda will be - Jews falsificated it. Great logic. Solid.
About 3 million Jews dissapered. Hell,they all migrated to London?
Never heard of dramatic rise in Jewish population in England.

Why this was not the case in Polish-USSR war? Jews were persecuted and killed, but stayed in Poland. Why this weird decline during Hitler and co'? I think that this a Jewish conspiracy- blood-thirsty lying Jews killed their own.
Since you are trying to change the written history (which might be wrong but still needs to be proven as such) - can you show in numbers where this people are? It is about 3 millions.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

"So as i suspected, the answer is - Polish figures are changed by Jews.
But this way any info that does not fit into agenda will be - Jews falsificated it. Great logic. Solid.
About 3 million Jews dissapered. Hell,they all migrated to London? "

Again I would like to point out that you are using word Jews have changed an numbers where I keep drooling all the time about idiotic ZIONISTS!
You always trying to put and twist your words into someone else's mouth.
That is a sign of extremely bad character just to be clear on that!

Only proof that something stinks in all that Holocaust story repeted all over and over and... is simple FACT that memorial stone laid in front of teh Auschwitz read: Here lies MORE than 4 million People MAINLY JEWS....

Now was changed WITHOUT objections to around million PEOPLE died here....

Now, you tell me is it possible to make mistake in dozens perhaps? Yes, I think it is but not likely because Germans were punctual to the extreme with numbers and documents, names etc.
To make "mistake" in MILLIONS and to say MAINLY Jews is a hypocrisy of highest magnitude and done deliberatly by WHOM? You answer that please.
Expecting answeer on that very specific question if you don't mind.
Thank you.

I do not need glasses yet - this is what i read in your post:

The Jew L.P. Beria headed the Soviet NKVD secret police from 1938 to 1953. In 1945, he announced that they had discovered a "holocaust" of six million Jews. This conveniently occurred only in camps in Poland! Bria would not allow any outside investigators to examine these sites. The Jewish-owned New York Times reported in 1945 that Soviet Russia supplied the figure of four million Jews having been put to death, "in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." However, in July of 1990, the Polish government reduced this figure to 1.1 million and it was accepted by Jewish groups

I understand that you are using a source, but it appears you trust this source. And this source is not hiding behind any "Zionist" shield.
Which shows its good character?

As for grim numbers: Soviet government ,with its utmost Zionist (not Jew ) Stalin (who really loved Jews....in 1953) stated 4 million dead. All nationalities. Not only Jews.
Since then the number is going down. And 1.million are also ALL the nationalities. Not only Jews. I suppose you do not accept the claim that 90% of those were Jews. How much then? You are aware that this is not the only Nazi concentration. camp,just the deadliest.
As for number of victims (Jews in this case) - it is easy to calculate. X Jews before the war. Y Jews in the end. X-Y=Z (number of dead). It is not connected to Auschwitz list. So how this enormous number of people disappeared, i ask? Where are for example Polish Jews? 3 millions of them, i add.
The one thing upon which i agree with you - Holocaust is used for cheap political/financial games. But it does not mean that it did not happen. People were and then they are gone. Plus Final Solution stuff. Plus recorded treatment of Jews by Nazis. Kind of self - explaining.
But all these facts are Zionist-made.

"The one thing upon which i agree with you - Holocaust is used for cheap political/financial games. But it does not mean that it did not happen. People were and then they are gone."

Well, thank you finaly! That's what we are saying! Not that Genocide didn't happened, but not on that scale and not exclusively to Jewish People.
Also the fact that atrocities are being prostituted by israeli ministers and political fractions are sickening.
That is all our argument.