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

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


It says evacuation to the east, which coincides with the real Hitlers orders, yet you claim, for some reason, that this is all code. And then you accuse me of twisting and revising history?

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

It says evacuation to the east, which coincides with the real Hitlers orders, yet you claim, for some reason, that this is all code. And then you accuse me of twisting and revising history?

No, because those people were told that they were being evacuated to the East, they turned up in the extermination camps with their suitcases - and they were promptly stripped naked and gassed. I don't see how this can be clearer. "Evacuation to the East" was a lie intended to make them more docile, more malleable. The Nazis built extermination camps. They did not build settlements. Where, therefore, did those people go to and what became of them? Where are the new towns, new villages, new settlements? There aren't any. They went into the camps and they never came out of them, except as ashes. Those were Hitlers orders - to kill them all. This isn't anything new, this isn't controversial. Historians agree on this, the documents creating the dreadful machinery of death agree on this, the orders transporting the people to the camps agree on this. And yes, you are twisting and revising history. I might also ask you to go away and do some basic research on this, because you seem to be deeply ignorant of a lot of matters around this subject.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


The thing is the workers/prisoners had to be so docile as to be literally sheep. Some versions claim the prisoners did know the shower was really a gas chamber, so what is the point of speaking in code? And all holocaust survivors talk about the crematorium oven and the smoke being from their families bodies, this they learned as soon as they arrived at the camp, so again any code pretense becomes pointless. And so, with this knowledge, why didnt the six million fight back? Didnt they think it odd they thought they were getting work but had to shave their head bald? Get naked, men, women, andchildrn, and that is not a cause of alarm? Or outright violent rebellion? The lesson of the holocaust, if true, is: fight back, dont get on the train shave your head get naked, and go into the chute, fight back.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

The thing is the workers/prisoners had to be so docile as to be literally sheep. Some versions claim the prisoners did know the shower was really a gas chamber, so what is the point of speaking in code? And all holocaust survivors talk about the crematorium oven and the smoke being from their families bodies, this they learned as soon as they arrived at the camp, so again any code pretense becomes pointless. And so, with this knowledge, why didnt the six million fight back? Didnt they think it odd they thought they were getting work but had to shave their head bald? Get naked, men, women, andchildrn, and that is not a cause of alarm? Or outright violent rebellion? The lesson of the holocaust, if true, is: fight back, dont get on the train shave your head get naked, and go into the chute, fight back.

You write all that with a huge weight of hindsight. Besides, there were revolts in the camps, at Treblinka and Sobibor - but those happened amongst the workforce, who had time to plan. Your average new arrival, with no time to plan anything again the heavily armed guiards, could do nothing, even if they suspected what was about to happen. Let's also remember that this was time of lice, typhus and other disease. A 'shower' would have made a kind of sense to them.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I think the disease came afterwards after allied bombings wrecked supply lines. Cause think about it, they did have a shower and haircut yet disease still spread? And if disease was so rampant, why waste resources on gas chambers and tons of coal or wood. Just dont give showers and disease will take care of the problem. However, these 'evil' germans did the opposite, they actually tried to protect the prisoners from lice and typhus. Oh those evil Germans!

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

I think the disease came afterwards after allied bombings wrecked supply lines. Cause think about it, they did have a shower and haircut yet disease still spread? And if disease was so rampant, why waste resources on gas chambers and tons of coal or wood. Just dont give showers and disease will take care of the problem. However, these 'evil' germans did the opposite, they actually tried to protect the prisoners from lice and typhus. Oh those evil Germans!

You are now, either wilfully or through ignorance, twisting my words. They expected a shower of water. They got instead a shower of Zyklon-B capsules, or they got exhaust fumes, depending on the camp. The disease of typhus by the way comes whenever you can't shower, can't clean your clothes and then get exposed to someone with lice. The German soldiers in Stalingrad had typhus.
Not sure where you're going with the Allies bombing the supply lines, other than an attempt to blame them for the disease. No. The worst typhus epidemics hit the concentration camps at the end. The vast majority of deaths in the Holocaust were in the extermination camps and were from the showers of Zyklon-B and exhaust fumes in 1942-1944. By the end of 1944 even Himmler could see that things were going very badly and that it might be time to destroy as much evidence as possible. Fortunately they failed. The eyewitnesses in particular were very detailed.
Oh and by the way the German didn't give a toss about the prisoners, but did act on typhus epidemics in Auschwitz and I think Belzec in 1942 because they needed the guards to stay alive.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

It says evacuation to the east, which coincides with the real Hitlers orders, yet you claim, for some reason, that this is all code. And then you accuse me of twisting and revising history?

No, because those people were told that they were being evacuated to the East, they turned up in the extermination camps with their suitcases - and they were promptly stripped naked and gassed.

I think that sometimes we forget how powerful, psychologically, it was to strip people naked. How dehumanising it was, and therefore how easy, when this was done, that it was to control people. Nowadays, our social mores, our style of dress, is far less constrained than it was at the time of the Second World War. Only a couple of decades prior, women were still wearing clothing that ran from neck, to wrist, to ankle. No flesh on show. It must have been humiliating to have been stripped for these people, especially in front of their children, and the men. The Nazis must have considered this, not only as a means of humiliating their victims, but as importantly, as a means of controlling them.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Not sure where you're going with the Allies bombing the supply lines, other than an attempt to blame them for the disease.

Also, as I recall, when both Britain and the US were petitioned to bomb Auschwitz they refused on the grounds that it was beyond the range of their bombers. If they couldn't bomb Auschwitz, then surely they couldn't have bombed the supply routes either, and certainly, as has been testified, the Red Cross were using air drops to send supplies to many of the camps, but those supplies were snapped up by the guards and never distributed to those within the camps. So it would seem that even when supplies were made available, the camp personnel were far too corrupt to share with those who needed it most...which in itself, beyond all other accusations against them, shows willful neglect.

Just checking this supply line business...and as I suspected, we (the Allies) didn't start hitting supply lines until mid December 1944. And then with very limited success. I'm not sure why the supply line argument keeps coming up, but we didn't have the capability, in terms of airborne accuracy to hit supply lines, and most of our bombers were therefore deployed as 'morale destroyers', carpet bombing cities and industrial centres. Supply lines were pretty much out of the reach of bomber command. The first successful attack against communications systems, similarly, didn't occur until March 1945!

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Sorry but ive heard holocaust survivors say they went into the showers expecting to be gassed but then nothing happened. I even remember movies that feature that in the plot line. So you can oretend like I am twisting away but its the facts. And Ive heard survivors say thry were told IMMEDIATELY upon entering the camps that their families are up in smoke.

reply to post by Biliverdin


You're right that women were more modest at the time, so all the more reason to doubt the mass nakedness. People at the very least would have suspected something was up. But at this point the holocaust story becomes nonsensical: did they die immediately off the trains, then how did they live long enough to starve themselves? Or did they survive and be forced to work, thereby making it impossible not to hear stories of murder. They had the facts, they did not fight back. I only hope that does not happen in america.

reply to post by Biliverdin


So if the guards stealing the supplies caused massive starvation and disease, why wasnt that the main means of genocide? What was the point of gas chambers if you could just starve people over the winter, which was done by the soviets. So knowing this, the Germans still decided to employ gassings? I wont even ask then how they could have lived long enough to contract disease, or why were so many survivors.

reply to post by filosophia


It could be true that they intentionally starved prisoners, but if it was systematic genocide, prisoners would not exist long enough to need supplies. So what were they, death camps or work camps, and it cant be both, because then the workers would have at least staged a revolt. They had shovels to dig holes, fire from the ovens, at the very least inform their fellow prisoners of the plot.

This article
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Says bombing auschwitz was physically impossible until 1944.

Auschwitz was liberated jan 27 1945. So they could have bombed in the beginning of 1944 and by 1945 the prisoners would have starved to death.

reply to post by Biliverdin


Ah so you admit the allies did bomb supply lines, but not till mid december 1944. Auschwitz was liberated jan 27 1945, in less than a month, disease and starvation could have killed millions, or at least hundreds of thousands.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Ah so you admit the allies did bomb supply lines, but not till mid december 1944. Auschwitz was liberated jan 27 1945, in less than a month, disease and starvation could have killed millions, or at least hundreds of thousands.

Certainly hundreds of thousands could have died of starvation in that time, had the supply lines to Auschwitz and the other concentrations camps been damaged. However they had not. And besides, that would not explain the hundreds of thousands that had died of starvation prior to that time anyway. The only thing that explains that, is if the inmates of the concentration camps had been systematically starved and worked to death. Am I right in understanding that you think that that is an acceptable way to murder people, but that gassing them is not? Is that your issue?

So with that in mind, you think it is okay to round up people, for use as slaves, to with-hold basis rights, such as clean water and food, to deny them proper health care, and to keep them in cramped filthy conditions, whereby disease thrives, and to allow them to succumb to those conditions? That is acceptable to you?

Your quite able to accept that the Germans allowed millions to starve to death but not that they may have attempted to expediate the death of some of them. Interesting.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

You're right that women were more modest at the time, so all the more reason to doubt the mass nakedness. People at the very least would have suspected something was up. But at this point the holocaust story becomes nonsensical: did they die immediately off the trains, then how did they live long enough to starve themselves? Or did they survive and be forced to work, thereby making it impossible not to hear stories of murder. They had the facts, they did not fight back. I only hope that does not happen in america.

How then do you explain the thousands of pictures of naked men, women and children being lined up and shot? Not all of them were stripped naked, it depended very much on the circumstances at the time, if you were to read some of the accounts of those who committed the murders, you would realise that.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.uk...

And where were the people supposed to go? When they escaped? Many did of course, a number of partisan bands operated in the forests, but only so many had the opportunity to get away, and those that did were hunted down, and large groups therefore were far more vulnerable than individuals. Often, such as in the Ukraine, the none-Jewish populations aided and abetted the Nazis. In Hungary and Romania, the local Fascist groups began rounding up the Jews even before the Nazis arrived.

www.osaarchivum.org...

www.zionism-israel.com...

Just because you refuse to consider the evidence, does not mean it does not exist.

dagmar.lunarpages.com...

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Ah so you admit the allies did bomb supply lines, but not till mid december 1944. Auschwitz was liberated jan 27 1945, in less than a month, disease and starvation could have killed millions, or at least hundreds of thousands.

Except that Auschwitz had stopped gassing people in November 1944 and was being shut down in preparation for being demolished. The vast majority of killing had occurred by now. Belzec was closed in 1943, Chelmo in January 1945, Sobibor in 1943 and Treblinka in 1943. They were designed to kill. They did it very well. People also died in the concentration camps, especiall;y at the end of the war, when the Nazis were losing, Germany was being overrun and they were running out places to send their prisoners. Starvation, mistreatment and disease killed thousands. However, millions had already died - in the gas chambers.

reply to post by Biliverdin


I never said it was okay to round up and shoot people, I said it was more effective. So why go through the ridiculous gas chamber story of transporting/hair shave when a gun shot is more effective, or starvation even more effective than that.

Some of those pictures show victims with hair, and clothes, so were only select prisoners given a haircut and stripped naked?

The other thing is, the soviets were murdering people at the time. Some of the photos say jewish victim in USSR, well 1)how do I know from a blurred photo this is definitely a jew? 2) how do I know from a picture of dead bodies who did it?

Since the katyn massacre is a soviet crime blamed on nazis, they have a history of blaming massacres on nazis. That is a fact, and so it is proper to question all these death photos because a picture of dead corpses do not show who or what killed them.

reply to post by Biliverdin


The germans did give them some health care: a shave and haircut to prevent disease. They were prisoners of war, so if you say the camps were bad regardles of what happened, I will say the same about japanes prison camps in america.

You say I should be ashamed whenever someone is denied food and water. Okay you admitted allied bombing killed thousands through starvation when they attacked supply lines. So...aren't you ashamed?