Calling all Debunkers, and anyone who thinks Holocaust Denial is offensive, debunk this!

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Okay so imagine america creates death camps, do they A) Secretly plan out the operation, killing witnesses and even internal agents if needed, or B) do the entire operation by word of mouth, and then give all the responsibility to doctors and generals. As if generals just get up one day, wage war, then inform their leader of their exploits. It is just too ridiculous. Hitler can not be a sole dictator if mengele and himmler and goebbels were the real masterminds and executioners of the holoxaust. For the sake of posterity, please at least call the holocaust a democracy of nazis, because this whole hitler as a dictator is ridiculously contradictory.

I don't understand your point. Why do you imagine that the two are mutually exclusive? Hitler told them to get rid of the Jews. They got rid of the Jews. They did as they were told. Clearer? Hitler didn't want the details, he wanted the job done. They did the job.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

So rather than arguing the facts, you report what you can't accept? LOL.

P.S. Quoting my rather large post and then responding with two lines indicates you did not really read what I wrote, maybe a quick skim at best.

P.p.s And I predicted you would insult my intelligence and insult my research. Thanks for being predictable, I am now more sure of my righteous battle.

edit on 4-8-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

Research? What research?

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Ah, so you are admitting the Holocaust is about 'maximizing publicity' as opposed to a solemn and dignified search for truth. Interesting.

Just because the ball point pen was patented does not mean ann frank could have gotten one. Earlier pens leaked and did not properly work until after her diary was written. As to the claim of colored pencils, I wonder where she got all these colored pencils in a concentration camp. But that is just speculation, the fact is her diary was edited, so what kind of diary gets edited? The core content of the diary may be true, but it was edited, as you say, to 'maximize publicity' after all her diary is probably the most famous diary ever written. The point being, the holocaust is more about publicity than truth.

She didn't have any biros in that concentration camp - and even if she did, she wouldn't have been able to write anything, because her diary was back in Holland. She died in that concentration camp by the way. Congratulations, you have once again done no research, you've just repeated a load of lies from other people.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Ah, so the death camps also had to churn a profit

So Hitler wants jews dead, but only if he can make some money on the side LOL. Of course the camps would cost a lot, probably millions of tons of wood and coal to burn all those bodies. I guess that is why they had to make mattresses of jewish hair and sell old shoes...and yet, the shoes are still piled up at auschwitz. Please elaborate on the whole death camps need to make a profit.

Sorry missed this one...what do you think that the slave labour was doing?

There were quarries, building projects, factories, etc. Auschwitz was built entirely with reclaimed materials, it cost nothing to initially set up, and it's initial purpose was to take advantage of gravel pits, which were harvested by the prisoners, and then shipped back to the Reich, where more slaves were used to incorporate that material into the major building projects going on there.

And, as I have already stated, much revenue was obtained by outsourcing the surplus labour to private enterprises such as IG Farben, both as experimental fodder, and as straightforward supplementation of the workforce. The SS was an industry and a major source of revenue for Berlin. Plus, given the level of corruption, they were effectively able to line their own pockets too. Himmler's personal wealth, at the time he surrendered, was estimated to be approximately $10 million. If you google 'Maison Rouge', you should be able to find information with regard to a meeting that took place in Strasbourg that was organised, as it became certain that the Germans were not going to win the war, to discuss what was going to be done to channel out the profits of those who had benefitted from the slave labour, both privately, and as a result of back handers to those in the SS for their support to private industry and corporations. Most of Himmler's money, came not from the camp system, but from his 'Circle of Friends' who paid for his complicity in their profiteering from the Nazi regime.

There is a whole wealth of conspiracies to be looked at in terms of the financing of the Nazi state, but sadly, all anyone ever wants to do is deny the holocaust

And there lies the real conspiracy

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by neformore

 

The general flow of ats is not participating in this discussion. It is the same users who have an agenda to support the holocaust. So it is not a very fair or open discussion. It is belittling and censorship. You are pushing it into the corner and saying 'okay have a fair discussion. You still can, it will just be in the corner away from the grown ups.'

Since I have your attention, why was this not placed in the hoax forum? Why did a new category have to be created, where ninety percent of the threads are about gallactic federation of light, and one thread with over fifty stars about the holocaust? I think ats is unfairly discriminating against holocaust discussion. Until this thread is moved, I will not respond any longer, so that users can see my last post and not have it buried further.

edit on 5-8-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

I do not have an agenda. I do however have a degree in history, and a grandfather who helped to liberate Bergen-Belsen, something that scarred him for life. I also have, god help me, a need to educate people when they talk about things that they obviously know nothing about.

Originally posted by filosophia
The general flow of ats is not participating in this discussion. It is the same users who have an agenda to support the holocaust. So it is not a very fair or open discussion. It is belittling and censorship. You are pushing it into the corner and saying 'okay have a fair discussion. You still can, it will just be in the corner away from the grown ups.'

In other words, unless you get the audience you want to feed off to push your ignorance, you aren't interested, because you don't have the power of your convictions without an audience to feed off.

Oddly, Hitler didn't have the power of his convictions either

Originally posted by neformore
Oddly, Hitler didn't have the power of his convictions either

Did he not? How so?

(And I think that the phrase is 'courage of his convictions')

reply to post by Biliverdin


He poisoned his dogs, shot his wife through the head and then took poison at the same time as shooting himself through the head, rather than face the allies.

Epic fail for the thousand year Reich, and epic fail for his view of the world as well.

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

He poisoned his dogs, shot his wife through the head and then took poison at the same time as shooting himself through the head, rather than face the allies.

Epic fail for the thousand year Reich, and epic fail for his view of the world as well.

He did see it all the way through to the end though, so can be said to have had the courage of his convictions. And, Churchill was oft quoted, that he too would have blown his own brains out, had it turned the other way.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

He poisoned his dogs, shot his wife through the head and then took poison at the same time as shooting himself through the head, rather than face the allies.

Epic fail for the thousand year Reich, and epic fail for his view of the world as well.

He did see it all the way through to the end though, so can be said to have had the courage of his convictions. And, Churchill was oft quoted, that he too would have blown his own brains out, had it turned the other way.

Yes, but even right at the end the farting little madman somehow thought that he could win.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Yes, but even right at the end the farting little madman somehow thought that he could win.

I think it was Churchill that was excessively flatulent, if we're going to get personal. And, I don't think Hitler was quite as deluded towards the end as legend and myth would have us believe. It is true, that following the attempt on his life, that he had changed and was considerably impaired, both mentally and physically. But according to Freytag von Loringhoven, he was rather resigned to his fate, and knew that the war was lost, that he had failed, and he only waited until reports that the Red Army was upon them, and then it was his intention to commit suicide. In that respect, he did what any leader should do, and never deserted his post. I don't think that there is anything in Hitler to truly be admired, but given that, therefore there is no necessity to make him anymore than he was. While Goring, Bormann and Himmler ran, he at least had the good grace to remain with his people and to some extend share their fate. He was a monster certainly, but as usual, the truth wills out, and we now know, that he attempted to make peace, and that the agenda of many was the total destruction of Germany. That was ably and horrifically achieved, so one can presume, that Hitler was not the only monster in that game of war, who saw loss of life as little more than collateral damage.

Originally posted by Biliverdin
I think it was Churchill that was excessively flatulent, if we're going to get personal. And, I don't think Hitler was quite as deluded towards the end as legend and myth would have us believe. It is true, that following the attempt on his life, that he had changed and was considerably impaired, both mentally and physically. But according to Freytag von Loringhoven, he was rather resigned to his fate, and knew that the war was lost, that he had failed, and he only waited until reports that the Red Army was upon them, and then it was his intention to commit suicide. In that respect, he did what any leader should do, and never deserted his post. I don't think that there is anything in Hitler to truly be admired, but given that, therefore there is no necessity to make him anymore than he was. While Goring, Bormann and Himmler ran, he at least had the good grace to remain with his people and to some extend share their fate. He was a monster certainly, but as usual, the truth wills out, and we now know, that he attempted to make peace, and that the agenda of many was the total destruction of Germany. That was ably and horrifically achieved, so one can presume, that Hitler was not the only monster in that game of war, who saw loss of life as little more than collateral damage.

Hitler also had a problem with flatulence, due to the anti-gas pills and other 'medicines' that his quack of a doctor, Morell, kept giving him. By the end of the war the man was a physical and mental wreck.

reply to post by neformore


I decided to change my mind, regardless of the bias of the moderators, I am going to keep telling the truth. This thread is pushed into the corner but you still act like rabid dogs, so I have no choice.

You mention how I have no audience, once again you are being a hypocrite since this thread is not in the flow of general conversation.

You also mention hitler as not having an audience either. Interesting how you are comparing me to hitler. On one hand you have to kill six million people to be as evil as hitler, on the other hand all you have to do is defend hitler, or no not even since I am not nor have ever defended Hitler, you just have to go against the sacred holocaust myth, then you get compared to hitler. Kind of funny.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Ah yes, Hitlr had gas problems, as if that is somehow relevant historical fact. Maybe Caligula had a pimple on his butt. You know Obama had digestion problems once as a young man, maybe we should obsess on that. The amount of dirt thrown at Hitler is ridiculous, he was a closet gay, he had stds, he farted. He was an occultist, a drug user, I mean who cares first of all, and secondly how can all these contradictory things be ttue? If Hitler was gay, why would he holocaust gays? Duh

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by neformore

 

I decided to change my mind, regardless of the bias of the moderators, I am going to keep telling the truth. This thread is pushed into the corner but you still act like rabid dogs, so I have no choice.

You mention how I have no audience, once again you are being a hypocrite since this thread is not in the flow of general conversation.

You also mention hitler as not having an audience either. Interesting how you are comparing me to hitler. On one hand you have to kill six million people to be as evil as hitler, on the other hand all you have to do is defend hitler, or no not even since I am not nor have ever defended Hitler, you just have to go against the sacred holocaust myth, then you get compared to hitler. Kind of funny.

What truth? You keep citing sources that are flat-out wrong, you refuse to listen when people refute those sources and you keep looking for some kind of sense out of what was an act of criminal lunacy. We are talking about Hitler's mind here, a mind that was twisted with some very unpleasant hatreds and delusions with regards to race and religion. Hell, he even thought that the USA's agriculture was in a shocking state based on some old pictures of what might have been the Oklahoma dustbowl. Yes the Holocaust makes no sense. But then hatred on this kind of scale, to set it all in motion, is in itself nonsensical. And it happened.

reply to post by Biliverdin


I agree with most of what you said, except that suicide is desertion. But you even say Hitler tried to make peace, yet he is still a monster. How can a peaceful monster exist? The common response is well anyone who did the holocaust is evil. Right, but what if he was framed for that? I can hear the pro holocausters foaming at the mouth when I say this, so Ill say it again: what if he was framed, and it was all soviet atrocities. I first started to question the holocaust before questioning the hitler myth, so even before having sympathy for hitler, I knew the holocaust stoty could not possibly be true.

P.s. I apreciate your actual arguments and facts as opposed to some on here who only say foolish things like 'research, what research yuk yuk yuk.'

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

I agree with most of what you said, except that suicide is desertion. But you even say Hitler tried to make peace, yet he is still a monster. How can a peaceful monster exist? The common response is well anyone who did the holocaust is evil. Right, but what if he was framed for that? I can hear the pro holocausters foaming at the mouth when I say this, so Ill say it again: what if he was framed, and it was all soviet atrocities. I first started to question the holocaust before questioning the hitler myth, so even before having sympathy for hitler, I knew the holocaust stoty could not possibly be true.

P.s. I apreciate your actual arguments and facts as opposed to some on here who only say foolish things like 'research, what research yuk yuk yuk.'

But he wasn't framed, it wasn't the Soviets. The Soviets had their own camps, but they merely (!) used them to work people to death in. The Germans built the first concentration camps in 1933. They built the first extermination camps in 1942, after they sent the Eisatzgruppen through the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belorussia and European Russia, shooting up to a million Jews - just for being Jews. There is more than enough proof to show that the Germans committed these terrible crimes long before the first Soviet troops set foot on German soil. Besides - we have the Enigma decrypts and other proof via signals.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I dont believe in hitlers race theories but I dont see how that is relevant to the facts. There was no zyklon b residue in the gas chambers, the most famous holocaust victim ann frank didnt even die in a gas chamber but by typhus, meaning typhus was the real 'evil dictator' not Hitler who gave no written order for a holocaust and the cruelties were carried out by underlings. The pictures of the dead bodies, those famous pics that people say proves the holocaust, proves disease killed them. This does not change based on hitlers state of mind. Plus, you are assuming you know someones subjective state of mind you never met. How can that be I wonder, obviously because you believe hitler killed six million. I dont, which is where we differ.

By the way, you claim that Hitler tried to make peace. Can I ask, based on his previous track record, who in his right mind would have taken his word that he was going to be a good boy and play nicely with the world?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Soviets setting foot on german soil has nothing to do with deaths in poland, like the katyn massacre, committed by the soviets, blamed on the nazis. So even mainstream history has an example of a soviet massacre blamed on the nazis, and yet you say the nazis could not possibly have been framed. Ha! Well I differ.