Can't We Have an Even-handed Discussion About the Holocaust?

I suppose that since everything I am about to recite is based on many years of reading, watching movies... not videos... much of my interest and study goes back well before YouTube and videos... that some may try to refute the information I am sharing.

Fact... and it is fact... there are movies... black and white movies and stills and photos before there was computer generated pixels and manipulation... good old fashioned honest to God pictures of German Nazi soldiers and their allies... be they Nordic, French, Czech, etc... allies never the less... labeling and tagging and seperating and humiliating Jews and Christians and gays and handicapped and elderly and many select groups.

There are diaries and ledger books meticulously kept in German fashion of how many Jews it takes to produce how many weapons or widgets of war... how much they need to be feed and how much or how little attention they need before they die and then how much can be gained from each fallen prisoner... from hair for pillows and gold fillings and their clothes and spectacles and shoes and so forth... right down to the penny... or in this case German Mark...

We have countless eye witness accounts of the camps... the dead bodies... the stench and rot... intentional or not... deliberate or opportunistic... they died.

I have personally talked with soldiers... American and German... and their accounts of the persecution and abject horror will break the heart of any decent soul.

We have accounts by soldiers of many different armies finding mass graves and partial graves and trenches and holes and ravines of executed on purpose mass killings of Jews, Poles, Kozaks, French, etc groups.

There are many numerous accounts recorded with pride by the soldiers and SS and Nazis themselves of murdering mass numbers of civilians and Jews and other "inferior" groups.

Now... that being said... if the Gays want to make issue of the persecution suffered at the hands of the Nazis... so be it. The same for the Poles or Russians or elderly or handicapped... so be it.

BUT.. the Jews did make issue of it. The Allied soldiers that found the camps validated their making issue of it. The disappearance of entire Jewish populations in regions and provinces from countries with German recorded census records... the Germans loved records... that show a massive and significant decline in Jewish populations... indicate that the historical accounts are correct.

There are more than a few notes and reports from Wermacht officers upset that supply trains were delayed because the shipment of Jews... they noted it was Jews... held up the arrival of vital troops and supplies along the fronts.

Everything I am telling you is based on books and documentaries and personal accounts from over 30-40 years of study. I can not go back and find a book from 20 years ago... so don't ask.

But all of this information is out there... and if you do a total study of WWII... you will see in passing... the inferences from Generals and troops that the SS held up supplies so jews could be shipped. Troops needed for fighting partisans were declined to "exterminate" Jews and other "weaker" groups.

Instead of looking to the "experts" after the fact... I suggest looking at the words of the actual participants and witnesses and even those that were fighting at the front... even Guderian, Rommel, Manstein, and others... all argued with Hitler and Himmler and the hierarchy of Nazis about transporting troops and the blemish the camps were putting on the German peoples and the Fatherland.

Some historians compare the concentration camps of WWII to the Andersonville POW camp in georgia in the US Civil War. And judging from the OP, the argument made to defend Southerners and the Andersonville camp is the same one made to defend the intentions of the Nazis and their camps... the deaths were unintentional and even at times accidental.

Andersonville POWs starved due to lack of medicines and food... the same fate that many of the Southern guards also faced due to lack of provisions and supply and lack of support and infrstructure.

I contend this argument can not be used in relation to the German Nazi camps. The executions and deaths of millions.. primarily but not solely Jews was intentional and deliberate... not accidental.

And I contend further that the Germans were primarily responsible for these acts. we can include danes and Swedes and Czechs and Lithuanians and Russians of Nordic descent... but it was primarily the German Nazis that put on the show,,, everybody else was a supporting cast member.

Records and evidence from the germans themselves reveal that the initial execution of jews and peoples was to be by bullet, but it was not efficient and cost effective... so "other means" were chosen.. primarily gas... made by familiar names... like Bayer... who produce aspirins... and a host of agricultural toxins and poisons used as herbicides and pesticides...

As I recently heard on a tv program.... World War 2 started...... in 1919. The Treaty of Versailles was impossible to continue for Germany. And frankly, empires rise and fall. The Ottoman Empire fell after WW1 despite having been around for centuries. The Austro-Hungarians, the Swedes, the Poles, the English, Spanish, French, Roman, Greek..... it goes on and on. The minutiae of what and when, the smaller stuff, the names, dates...... it only matters for a while. Human nature goes on, wars go on, politics go on...... we can argue all sorts of points and causes and harm and insult done, but we will never know the whole truth.... not even the players at the time knew the whole truth. Too many players, too many situations, too many things not witnessed or no witnesses left, and for that matter, a group of people observing the same accident tend to describe it differently than each other. People have their own perspective and biases, conscious and unconscious. Yes, the winners tend to write the history books but from what I understand.... in Japan, the history of WW2 is written far differently than in the US., so there goes that theory! Anyway..... truth is subjective. We know a great many people were killed in concentration camps and Jews had a hard time of it during the war and a large part of the rest of history. As have the gypsies, the mentally retarded, other religious groups.... all were victims during the war. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes. Do we have all the facts? Nope. Is there much point in arguing it out? (shrug)

reply to post by Studenofhistory


After studying WW2 with no emotional feelings I have arrived to the same conclusions as you. I am not jew or german I only want the truth. I would like to know your opinion in the events in antarctica and hitler's corpse. Thank you.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
what I found out from british historian David Irving.

David Irving is NOT a historian! Why do you ignore this -

"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian".

^ Evans, Richard J.. "David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial". Holocaust Denial on Trial. Emory University.

and this

The judge summarized his findings as follows: “ Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.[4][64] ... therefore the defence of justification succeeds.[5] ... It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants

Irving v Lipstadt (2000), Paragraph 14.1

Is that in the history books (except for David Irving's)? No.

The reason for that is David Irving is a proven liar....

I read about Ernst Zundel's trial in Canada where a forensic expert gave evidence

he was not a forensic expert.... en.wikipedia.org...

I watched a video of David Irving

a proven liar...

nothing Irving says can be taken as a fact!

Originally posted by spoor


David Irving is NOT a historian!

I'd like to add the following caveat: David Irving once was a historian, and not a bad one at all. It's just that at some point, he consciously decided to become something entirely else, somewhere at the end of the 70's.

Some stuff he published before that phase should be considered more or less valid, normal historical research.

reply to post by jaxnmarko






Very well said...

Just read through the thread and was forming an opinion when i came to your post which

was in essence my exact thoughts!

As i get older i realise there is nothing more true than 'the truth is subjective' ...you only

have to see that 12 people (a jury) sitting through the same case seeing the same witnesses

evidence etc. rarely come to a 100% verdict prior to deliberation, and how the stronger

personalities can influence and sway the opinions of the undecided.

It is now 70 years since the end of ww11 and as time passes witnesses and testimonies

become 'second hand' on passed down information and like 'chinese whispers' will change

and become distorted.

As time passes it is inevitable that we will get further from the 'truth' its time to learn from

the mistakes of the past and solve the problems of the future as there are MANY that need

to be solved...

reply to post by Studenofhistory


All war is deception as Sun Tsu said, and so deception and disinfo is one of the tools
in the top drawer.

Don't expect human nature to change just because you ask them to.

The media is full of lies and phony stories and manufactured consent.

The corporations are full of lies for various reasons and agendas, and
same for the governments of the entire world.

Goldman Sachs man now runs Italy ???? Greece ??? ROFL ...

Don't like how the NWO is being run and your actually in a position
to do something about it or have a large audience ???

Then you end up like JFK, RFK, MLK, and Breitbart.

End of story...

You are reading the works of "Historian" David Irving a well known revisionist and Holocaust denier.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
So what IS the truth? it seems to me that if an entire ethnic group, including all future generations, is going to be accused of being inhuman monsters, then that's an extraordinary allegation and needs to be supported by extraordinary evidence. So far I haven't found that extraordinary evidence. I've found allegations, some of them even predating the war itself, that millions of jews were being systematically killed and I've found lots and lots of lies. I know they're lies because most of them are mutually exclusive so they can't all be true. Based on everything I've read, heard or seen to date, this is what I think is most likely what really happened.

"I do not want to see the allies defeated. But I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed. Englishmen are showing the strength that Empire builders must have. I expect them to rise much higher than they seem to be doing." - Mahatma Gandhi

"We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents" - Mahatma Gandhi


"Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived...He had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made." - John .F. Kennedy

More: www.youtube.com...

A point to point rebuttal of some points that I disagree with in the OP

So the entire Blitz with thousands of civilian deaths on both sides could have been avoided if Churchill had backed down but he wasn't as popular early in the war as he would become later and it's Irving's contention that Churchill wanted German bombers to bomb English cities so that the English would rally around him. Is that in the history books (except for David Irving's)? No.

This is quite a trivial fact: Churchill could have ended the war by surrendering and accepting the Nazis conditions. Any war can be ended by someone accepting to have lost. Why should Churchill have done so? By the time that the Blitz was in full swing Churchill had reason to believe that they would win the war thanks to American help, which was not yet official, but in the making.
What you are saying is that the Blitz could have been avoided if Churchill would have just thrown the white towel.
I think that is as uncontroversial as historical claims get, every historian would agree.
The pertinent question is rather: Should he have surrendered? Why should he have done so? I’d wager to say that history proved him right.
As to your claim that this is not in the history books: That’s simply hogwash. I picked out a random book from my shelf (Joachim Fest, Hitler, about as mainstream as one can get) and it doesn’t omit the fact that the first large-scale bombings came from the British side.
You are the very first person I have ever seen that supposes that this has been deleted/ omitted from history books.

Maybe I'll have some more time later on. Although I think that the substance of your points pertaining to the holocaust have already been adequatly dealt with by other posters.

Funny

Why is it when any other ethnic group gets massacred nobody questions it?

But the Jews?

They are all over it!

A lot of these threads lately..

All of them made by pop histotians quoting dubious sources who themselves had their own non impartial agenda without objectivity.

I personally view some of these posts as a way of rehabilitating Hitler and rewriting the fact that he was nothing more than satan incarnate.. The undertone of some peoples writing is displaying glorification of this vile person and his stinking nazi party and a disguised hatred for Jews which is not fooling ANYONE..

In fact, I feel violated just reading some of these threads even subconsciously sickend by the dark between the lines text of the writers..

I wont be participating again..

Ongoing

I was also surprised to learn that after Hitler's armies had defeated the Polish military and occupied the western part of Poland, which included the the area that was German territory prior to WW1 and was occupied almost entirely by ethnic Germans, Hitler offered to withdraw from all Polish territory except for the part occupied by ethnic Germans in exchange for peace. The British and French said no deal. Those two countries declared war on Germany because of treaty obligations to protect Poland. Who also attacked Poland and ended the war in complete control of Poland? The Soviet Union. Did the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union. Heck no! So much for guaranteeing Polish sovereignty.

The question of whether parts of Poland were “occupied almost entirely by germans” is a tricky one. It all depends on how far back you go in history. I think we can both agree that the territorial concessions demanded from Germany after the First World War were catastrophic. If a right to re-conquest can be derived from such a simple observation, I would argue against. But this is mostly a normative point.

What is not normative, though, is your claim that Hitler wanted peace on the basis of the status quo ante on October 6, 1939. This is simply not true. What is true is that Hitler, prior to the Polish offensive, offered Poland milder terms if they wouldn’t fight and just give in: In that case, he promised that all he wanted was the Polish corridor (or at least the free passage of germans through that corridor) and the city of Danzig. It is indeed an intriguing question of what would have happened if the Poles had accepted. My view: As a rule, Hitler never stood to the promises he made through diplomacy; I have no reason to believe that he would have played this one straight – it definitely would have been unusual to him to stand by his diplomatic assurances.

What Hitler offered to the Allies on October 6 was peace on the basis of the gains made in Poland: If Britain would accept “Grossdeutschland”, that means, Germany including the Polish annexations he would not continue to make plans for a Western offensive against the allies.

But guess what? Even before the Allies answered his “proposals” of October 6., Hitler had made up his mind. The documents make clear that at the very time that Hitler was publicly declaring his willingness to sue for peace on the basis of annexing parts of Poland, he was trying to convince and push his generals into an offensive in the West. It is common knowledge that Hitler wanted the offensive in the West to start in 1939, by the time it started in May 1940 it had been postponed more than 20 times. So much for his peaceful proclamations; all the while he was telling his generals that there would be no peace and demanding from them to prepare for an offensive.

So, long story short, it is not true that 1. Hitler offered to evacuate all of German-held Poland as a condition for peace (the gains made were to be kept) and 2. While Hitler was proclaiming his peaceful intentions, he was all the while ordering the preparation of the Western offensive, which, due to metrological and logistical problems couldn’t start as early as he wished: namely, right after Poland was subdued.

Originally posted by johnsaber


"We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents" - Mahatma Gandhi

Goes a long way in demonstrating the utter stupidity that Gandhi's geopolitical worldview consisted of. I've no respect for the man as a interpretor of geopolitical events, though I admire his political activism in India.

Also, he had some nasty things to say about Sikhs, which I find offensive. And his overall comments on the plight of the Jews (the others went unmentioned by him) are kind of disgusting, what with all his talk about how good a "collective suicide" by the Jews would be.

As has been my stance in every thread I posted in before: History is not black and white. It comes in myriad forms of grey. There's no heroes, only people, all of them with faults just like us. Many Asians (and others) were willing to drive out the Devil (Colonialism) by allying themselves with Belzebub (Fascism).

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
So, long story short, it is not true that 1. Hitler offered to evacuate all of German-held Poland as a condition for peace (the gains made were to be kept) and 2. While Hitler was proclaiming his peaceful intentions, he was all the while ordering the preparation of the Western offensive, which, due to metrological and logistical problems couldn’t start as early as he wished: namely, right after Poland was subdued.

Hitler did though make the offer to withdraw from Poland in August 1940 in what is known as the Weissauer Peace Offer delivered to Victor Mallet via Swedish intermediary, Dr Ekeberg from Dr Ludwig Weissauer. While Hitler did insist that Germany should retain Czechoslovakia, it only stipulated that a Polish state be established. According to Mallet, Hitler wished to restore sovereignty to all the occupied territories and that he had no interest in the internal affairs of any of those countries, with the exception of Czechoslovakia. Hitler reiterated that his primary goal was to re-establish relations with Britain and he would make whatever concessions would facilitate that end.

Britain's response to the proposal was that these discussions should end with immediate effect and that no compromise could be reached with Germany. Reginald Leeper, Head of SO1, however advised Churchill that if indeed Hitler was being genuine in his wish for peace with Britain, that this could be exploited. It appears that other than Weissauer, only Hess and Haushofer were aware of this peace attempt. And bear in mind, that it was Hitler himself that called off the British invasion despite much protestation from the Wehrmacht who felt assured of it's success. Realistically, at that time, had the Germans invaded, we would have been hard pressed to adequately defend ourselves, until we got the US on board, we were inadequately short on military resources.

In the Weissauer offer, Hitler stated that the British Empire should remain intact, however, instead, Britain chose to exchange Imperial resources for military ones, therefore illuminating that it was Britain's position in Europe, and not as an Empire, that was important at that point in history. It is an odd set of affairs, and indicates deeper issues of an economic and geopolitical nature, namely the prevention of a single European power gaining control of the 'World Island' or 'Geographical Pivot'. Instead of accepting Hitler's offer, and allowing stability to return to the European, the British chose to allow the war to continue, largely because they knew that once stability had been regained, that Germany would continue it's expansion East and gain control of the World Island (see Halford Mackinder). This is what was to be avoided at all costs.

What Churchill then did, quite brilliantly, was allow Germany, particularly Hess and Hitler, to believe was that if they attacked Russia, then they would join them in accord. And thereby, with a rare show of long term planning, Britain effectively prevented either power from gaining control of Eurasia. With one stone, David slay two Goliaths.

Originally posted by Biliverdin


Hitler did though make the offer to withdraw from Poland in August 1940 in what is known as the Weissauer Peace Offer delivered to Victor Mallet via Swedish intermediary, Dr Ekeberg from Dr Ludwig Weissauer. While Hitler did insist that Germany should retain Czechoslovakia, it only stipulated that a Polish state be established. According to Mallet, Hitler wished to restore sovereignty to all the occupied territories and that he had no interest in the internal affairs of any of those countries, with the exception of Czechoslovakia. Hitler reiterated that his primary goal was to re-establish relations with Britain and he would make whatever concessions would facilitate that end.

I hadn't thought of the Weissauer Peace offer, in fact, I haven't read the name Weissauer in years :-)

I'm completely blown by how sophisticated your answer was. Haven't had such a reply in years on ATS ;-)

You are quite right, of course.

But my criticism still stands: All through this period, Hitler was pushing his generals for a Western offensive. This kind of contradicts his peace stance in my book.

And bear in mind, that it was Hitler himself that called off the British invasion despite much protestation from the Wehrmacht who felt assured of it's success. Realistically, at that time, had the Germans invaded, we would have been hard pressed to adequately defend ourselves, until we got the US on board, we were inadequately short on military resources.

I'd have to disagree with that though. I'm most familiar with the german side of the story, some of the british details you provided I didn't quite remember.

But what I do remember is that the Generals were totally opposed to Operation Seelöwe, going so far as openly telling Hitler that it wasn't possible.

And I would still wager that Seelöwe was impossible. I do not see how it could have been achieved, US ressources or not.

In fact, from the literature that I have read, I'd say it was completely opposite to what you just portrayed: Hitler insisted on Seelöwe, the generals opposed, and the whole story was rendered moot by the failure of the German air campaign against Britain.

What is defintiely true, though, is that Hitler (at least for a long time before the 40's) would have accepted almost any kind of deal with Britain that would have granted him an open hand in the east.

With the rest of your well-written reply, I totally agree.

What I am unsure of, and quite unconvinced of, is that Hitler ever sincerely considered not occupying Poland for good. A pull-out from Poland would have been strategically catastrophic in light of the Soviet presence there, considering that the Attack on the Soviet Union was the ground pillar of Hitler's strategic plans.

Also, in light of the plans made for the east by his underlings, I do not see any possibility of Germany pulling out of Poland.

Polish territories had a strategic role to play in the eastern offensive that was irreplacable. That is the strategic argument.
The long-term argument would consist in the observation that Poland, or at least major parts of it, were an integral part of all long-term plans for the east made by the Nazis.

It is for those reasons that I cannot convince myself of the genuiness of the offers made from October 6 on.



Edited to add: In your opinion, how do you reconcile the idea of the Nazis de-occupying Poland with what was envisioned in the Generalplan Ost?

How do you reconcile the annexation of Warthegau, Danzig-Westpreußen, Ostoberschlesien with Hitler's supposed intention of giving back all of Poland? I just don't think this can be reconciled.

Also, Himmler's big day came on October 7th, one day after the peace speech. As informed as you come over in this thread, I suppose you're familiar with this (you know, Festigung des deutschen Volkstums and all that #). Is this really to be made congruent with the idea that Poland was ever to be de-occupied.?

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
David Irving, who became famous for his meticulous research

funniest thing ever - david Irving and "meticulous research" do not belong together - remember this?

Irving's reputation as an historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books.[3] The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism",[4] and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".

www.guardian.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Let's discuss the facts and leave the emotion behind, okay?

You using David Irving as a source just shows that you are not interested in facts!

reply to post by spoor


in a system such as this as the OP pointed out..

Not only is it illegal to question the Holocaust, defense lawyers are not even allowed to present factual evidence to support their client's claims and at least one defense lawyer has been sent to jail for doing exactly that.

that exists in the world today..

source

Sylvia demonstrates that the Court's procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as "abuse of Court procedure," which is a criminal act.

why would you expect anything less from the from High Court Judge Charles Gray's ruling against Historian David Irving?

this speaks directly to the OP's point of..

Can't We Have an Even-handed Discussion About the Holocaust?

as in, the fact is the world can not even have an even-handed court case..

excellent thread btw.. great discussion on both sides so far.. really fascinating historical details on both sides..

You can't debunk someone's assertion by assassinating their character. That's absurd.

Anyways, consider the garbage taught as fact in history...
It's almost always bias in favor of someone or some agenda or another.

It seems to me the best way to find truth in history is to take all conflicting claims and lay them side by side, then use your own personal judgement in relation to various facts, to determine what you believe is the best middle ground or gray zone.

History is supposed to be about balancing positive and negative aspects. If one focuses exclusively on one polarity they are risking becoming bias in their beliefs.

Originally posted by spoor

Irving's reputation as an historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books.[3] The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism",[4] and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".

I can call anyone names.

But how does this dispute any of his particular claims?

Character assassination tactics are a red flag revealing weakness in one's substance of debate.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


The debate isn't whether or not it happened, but, what the actual facts are concerning it, it is labelled as a "Holocaust", no one denies that people died in the camps, but it was much more than a holocaust, it was state sanctioned murder of many "Types" of people, and racial profiling was used to intern more than one race.
The camps and their history have been re-written for dissemination to the popular masses, we are lead to believe that the "Holocaust" is the most terrible aspect of the second world war in europe.
When in truth, many many people suffered the onslaught, the "Holocaust" should just be a chapter in the book, not the entire book.