Holocaust deniers

[Blaphbee]

Blaphee, how can you attack him for posting the source of such information? Any intelligent person knows that the facts presented in any source, are subjective, and many times depedent upon the beliefs of the source.

Not only is this an irrelevant conclusion to make, but it's a sweeping generalization you are applying to a particular situation, in this case, your own belief system, which is not universally shared. This also belies your response to me in the Moderation thread. If facts are subjective - i have no idea where the hell you dreamed up this little notion from - then

a) what's the point of discussion?; and
b) why are you claiming in the aforementioned thread that this knowledge of yours:

If we are guilty of attempting to stem the posting of information contrary to the facts, history, and basic human values,

is objective "fact"? You aren't making sense, and I presume you don't know what you're talking about.

I urge you and other likeminded individuals to make such claims in front of a holocaust survivor or a member of a victims family.

You make an appeal to emotion as your logical retort? You're guilt-tripping me into believing that you're right?

Besides, I already stated that I don't support holocaust denial. Why do you insist that I am? This is a huge ad hom, and you mods asked us not to utilize them in argument.

 

[speed]

Not only is this an irrelevant conclusion to make, but it's a sweeping generalization you are applying to a particular situation, in this case, your own belief system, which is not universally shared. This also belies your response to me in the Moderation thread. If facts are subjective - i have no idea where the hell you dreamed up this little notion from - then

a) what's the point of discussion?; and
b) why are you claiming in the aforementioned thread that this knowledge of yours: is objective "fact"? You aren't making sense, and I presume you don't know what you're talking about.


You make an appeal to emotion as your logical retort? You're guilt-tripping me into believing that you're right?

Besides, I already stated that I don't support holocaust denial. Why do you insist that I am? This is a huge ad hom, and you mods asked us not to utilize them in argument.

Well, this statement did it. Yes, I am guilt-tripping over a holocaust. Does logic apply to a holocaust??? Should I sit back and let people post hateful factless propaganda that only serves to stir hate? Propaganda that would land you in jail in many countries. People that would defend the Nazi's, even if it meant denying six million innocent deaths, plus the countless Germans themselves that died for essentially nothing? Yes, I feel as a human being, I feel I must do something; I feel respecting human life is a fucking objective fact!

And we didnt even close the thread--why? So not to piss off scum like you. Final Product warned The Grimace, who was posting increasingly fact-less propaganda, and you got mad. That was the extent of his moderation.

You're amazing man. I love your argumentation style as well. You raise a hissy fit about a topic you obviously feel strongly about, but always deny, because it provides you with a leg to stand on. Where were you when we closed other threads for the same reasons? Huh? Selective memory I'd say. And why dont you join in the debate, instead of whining about it like a baby?

Finally, if anyone else has a problem with the way things are going, id be happy to turn in my wonderful powers of moderator. Does anyone else wish to browse this forum everyday--a forum increasingly full of hate and wacked out conspiracies theories? A place where it seems half of our threads are in some way tied to anti-semitism and race?

 

[petehis kahn]

I'll honestly come back and argue with you in a couple hours. I'm off to work.

In the meantime, enjoy this video about the attrocities commited by the Allies in Dresden.

Dresden: A Real Holocaust

uhh dresden, the event that has been historically proven to have only killed 25 000, the event that David Irving beat like a massive drum until he was found to have forged evidences and proven that his figures were wrong... an event that was a tragedy no doubt, but was not a holocaust nor was it as bad as I am sure that video will point out

according to the US military
1. The raid had a legitimate military end, brought about by exigent military circumstances.
2. That there were military units, and anti-aircraft defense within a sufficiently close perimeter to disqualify the town as "undefended".
3. The raid did not use extraordinary means to achieve this end, but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.
4. The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.
5. The raid achieved the military objective established without "excessive" loss of civilian life.

The first point has two parts, the first in reference to the American precision bombing of the railyards, which rests on the assertion that there was an exigent military circumstance that made the railyard an important military target, beyond its usual value as a communication centre, and the second that Dresden was an industrial and military target, which would make the attack on the city centre an object of legal military action.

If you want to cry into your little nazi hats about something, there were raids in Japan that took over 100 000 lives.

See if the allies are covering up their actions why only dresden, why not the japan attacks.

Or the horrors of other battles, I think the mass rapes or the various massacres would be a better starting point because I am kind I will give you some names

Canicatti slaughter, Biscari massacre, Dachau massacre, Webling massacre, etc, etc so next time you guys are losing an argument on the holocaust you can go WHAT ABOUT CANICATTI, THAT WAS THE REAL HOLOCAUST or WHAT ABOUT THE MASS RAPES BY THE REDS, THAT WAS THE REAL HOLOCAUST.

I like it when already disproven theories are trotted out, you guys who believe it should have a nice chat to someone like Professor Deborah Lipstadt who is an actual historian, rather than a lunatic after she destroyed David Irving in court the times remarked "History has had its day in court and scored a crushing victory"

have another primary source guys

I can give primary sources forever, I am yet to see one from you deniers

What is Coles academic record, you continue to fail and list it ????

 

[speed]

I like it when already disproven theories are trotted out, you guys who believe it should have a nice chat to someone like Deborah Lipstadt who is an actual historian, rather than a lunatic after she destroyed David Irving in court the times remarked "History has had its day in court and scored a crushing victory"

Facts, history, laws, lives, and basic decency doesnt matter to this degenerate crowd.

 

[petehis kahn]

Blaphee, how can you attack him for posting the source of such information? Any intelligent person knows that the facts presented in any source, are subjective, and many times depedent upon the beliefs of the source.

I urge you and other likeminded individuals to make such claims in front of a holocaust survivor or a member of a victims family.

I am taking my stuff from a Jewish site, which they would claim is biased... but the stuff I am using is historical document available to anyone who knows how to use the history section of their local university library. It is a lot easier for me to get them from the site than take books home and scan than into my computer, but the point remains I am using documents and reports so whilst the site may have its reasons for hosting them, they can hardly be accused of making the documents and reports biased because they are simply reproducing them.

On the other hand the videos that have been posted have been made by people with agendas, they are biased and both are so hold hat in historical circles that whilst I can understand someone who is a nazi wanting to deny it happened I cannot understand how they can keep bringing up Dresden like

A) It matters to the debate

And

B) It actually happened like they said it did.

If they want to argue crazy conspiracy theories I suggest they move into the world of Classics because there is just too much evidence against their opinions.

Like I have said I can and will continue posting primary sources til end of days, they are yet to post one.

I totally agree with you telling them they should say it in front of someone who survived it or say someone like Simon Wiesenthal, well he is an old man now the Simon Wiesenthal of 20 years ago let us say, I think that would be excellent

edit

Oh I forgot that Wiesenthal died late last year, the point stands that I would have liked them to have said this to Wiesenthal the nazi hunter in his day

 

[speed]

I am taking my stuff from a Jewish site, which they would claim is biased... but the stuff I am using is historical document available to anyone who knows how to use the history section of their local university library. It is a lot easier for me to get them from the site than take books home and scan than into my computer, but the point remains I am using documents and reports so whilst the site may have its reasons for hosting them, they can hardly be accused of making the documents and reports biased because they are simply reproducing them.

On the other hand the videos that have been posted have been made by people with agendas, they are biased and both are so hold hat in historical circles that whilst I can understand someone who is a nazi wanting to deny it happened I cannot understand how they can keep bringing up Dresden like

A) It matters to the debate

And

B) It actually happened like they said it did.

If they want to argue crazy conspiracy theories I suggest they move into the world of Classics because there is just too much evidence against their opinions.

Like I have said I can and will continue posting primary sources til end of days, they are yet to post one.

I totally agree with you telling them they should say it in front of someone who survived it or say someone like Simon Wiesenthal, well he is an old man now the Simon Wiesenthal of 20 years ago let us say, I think that would be excellent

Well I am ever so glad to have you posting and standing up against them. You do this board a great favor, and hopefully, the info you produced, will convince other confused impressionable people browsing this forum, that the Grimace's posts, are blatant lies, and the Nazi's were a inhumanly violent destructive regime.

All of the documents you have posted thus far, have been originals. The Allies would have had to manufacture them, for them not to be factual.

 

[petehis kahn]

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/revisionism.html

I will copy and paste it in chunks because it will be easy to read, this is how to be a Revisionist Scholar

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it.

Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?"

Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because . . .

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax.

The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

Now this is all a part of the same topic, but I will still split it up for ease of reading

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense; b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question; c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII; d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.

14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.

16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

 

[Blaphbee]

Keep it on topic and keep it a decent discussion. Ad Homs and insults will not be tolerated.

speed, are you trolling? Your entire post directed to me was another ad hom.

Forgive me for not understanding you. Is this how people react when they're faced with the proper rebuttals to their arguments? speed: go to infidels.org and have a look around at their "logical fallacies" page. You might find it refreshing reading.

Now, I'll respond to your substantial personal attacks below.

 

[petehis kahn]

It is also a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument on the grounds of it being a fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It should be considered wise to not argue from a fallacy as it makes your argument far less compelling, but you should not dismiss an argument because of it.

 

[Blaphbee]

1 - Well, this statement did it. Yes, I am guilt-tripping over a holocaust. Does logic apply to a holocaust??? Should I sit back and let people post hateful factless propaganda that only serves to stir hate?

2 - Propaganda that would land you in jail in many countries.

3 - People that would defend the Nazi's, even if it meant denying six million innocent deaths, plus the countless Germans themselves that died for essentially nothing?

4 - Yes, I feel as a human being, I feel I must do something; I feel respecting human life is a fucking objective fact!

5 - And we didnt even close the thread--why? So not to piss off scum like you.

6 - Final Product warned The Grimace, who was posting increasingly fact-less propaganda, and you got mad. That was the extent of his moderation.

7 - You're amazing man.

8 - I love your argumentation style as well. You raise a hissy fit about a topic you obviously feel strongly about, but always deny, because it provides you with a leg to stand on.

9 - Where were you when we closed other threads for the same reasons? Huh? Selective memory I'd say. And why dont you join in the debate, instead of whining about it like a baby?

10 - Finally, if anyone else has a problem with the way things are going, id be happy to turn in my wonderful powers of moderator. Does anyone else wish to browse this forum everyday--a forum increasingly full of hate and wacked out conspiracies theories? A place where it seems half of our threads are in some way tied to anti-semitism and race?

1 - Being a moderator doesn't require you to censor opinions on a forum that your other moderator has already told me is free-speech oriented. "Freedom within limits" if you weren't already aware, is an oxymoron. Appealing to emotional arguments as you did for the point in contention is not a way to win an argument. "I'd like to see you do it to a survivor's face" is not a logically-constructed argument. It's an argument based on pity, and it is also an ad hom, a tactic which Final Product has told us all not to employ when arguing in a philosopher's forum.

2 - This is another example of an appeal to emotion, not to mention horredous logic; just because most countries would jail someone for saying a certain thing, this does not make that certain thing an untruth. Seven billion people can scream an untruth from the rooftops, and it still doesn't make it true.

3 - Are you forgetting the role the Allies played in bombing the food supply lines? It wasn't just the Nazis, speed. It may be convenient to think so, but as above, it doesn't address the entire scope of the question. Besides, who said these people were innocent? Relativistically, they were parasites upon the German government at the time, which led to their expulsion; conversely, you are telling me now in the modern day that you have no use for "Nazi scum" like me, and I'm sure that you would have no problem seeing me dead for my beliefs. Do you see the double standard, or do I have to point it out in simpler terms?

4 - You just finished telling me that facts are subjective. Which is it? Or is it only when it suits your argument that "facts" become objective?

5 - Another blatant ad hom. Final Product won't be pleased about this. I don't care what threads you close. My issue is with impartial moderation, based on pre-existing biases.

6 - This is a subjective assessment of your own, rather than a factual assessment based upon "objectivity"; reveal your sources that prove his claims false (since the burden is upon you for making the assertion to the contrary), or be labelled a shittalker like Kenneth.

As has already been pointed out, this yet another example of the double-standard/oxymoron in practice - "freedom within limits".

7 - This does not redeem your previous ad homs in any way, but thank you nonetheless, and you aren't so bad yourself, considering.

8 - Unsubstantiated claims, with no proof. Ad hom to boot. Non-responsive. Shall I go on? I'v already told you and Final Product that I do not subscribe to holocaust denial, and that I was actually defending Norsemaiden most out of anyone here, despite my earlier posts being of a general nature directed towards the bias against any point of view that contradicts the opinions of the moderators, who seem to be going on quite a crusade to silence and quell the people who are advancing all these viewpoints they disagree with! This isn't fair moderation; this is censorship. Philosophers (if you flatter yourself to call yourself one) do not cover their ears when differing viewpoints are offered that may potentially rebut their own positions, notr do they tell the offending parties to silence themselves. This is unbelieveable behaviour from anyone, and I question your motives.

9 - Well, maybe some of us aren't around this particular forum often enough that every single salient thread which descends upon these topics is spied out for a "debate" to occur. I fall into this category. I rarely come to this forum any longer due to the charlatanism on display from both users and moderators alike. By the way, this point is yet another ad hom. What is this now, five? Six? In one post? For shame.

10 - Your emotional instability at handling your duties is not my problem; I don't see why I'm being singled out as your scapegoat for this particular debate. Obviously, these are important topics, otherwise they wouldn't be arising in the forum. Why do you want to quell debate on these issues? Are you going to tell me about more of these widely-agreed upon "facts" you keep harping about, which you can't seem to decide if they're subjective or objective?

Again, I sincerely hope this won't be deleted; I'll keep an archive regardless.

 

[petehis kahn]

wow you in your distate of attacking the man certainly attacked the man

have you heard of a word that sounds like a river dwelling african animal

 

[infoterror]

Guys, this topic is playing with fire.

I'll only weigh in by saying that a) democide/genocide are common to war, as sometimes unwanted people don't want to leave and b) read Speer's memoir on this matter, where it's clear that the primary function of unwanteds in Germany was labor -- and that they were worked to the bone, in part because of allied bombing depleting resources.

I don't consider this an important issue. I do consider Blaphbee insightful, but I'm also fond of the moderation here, for the most part. (For the record, I'm only fond of my own moderation on other forums for the most part as well... mistakes were/are made.)

 

[petehis kahn]

Guys, this topic is playing with fire.

I'll only weigh in by saying that a) democide/genocide are common to war, as sometimes unwanted people don't want to leave and b) read Speer's memoir on this matter, where it's clear that the primary function of unwanteds in Germany was labor -- and that they were worked to the bone, in part because of allied bombing depleting resources.

I don't consider this an important issue. I do consider Blaphbee insightful, but I'm also fond of the moderation here, for the most part. (For the record, I'm only fond of my own moderation on other forums for the most part as well... mistakes were/are made.)

You surely don't mean Albert Speer the man who adopted a see no evil hear no evil policy to the holocaust.

He went out of his way to avoid knowledge, so how can it be said that what he says has any kind of validity.

The first point means nothing, doesn't excuse the nazis. The romans destroyed and murdered the entire population of Carthage, still it is irrelevent to this discussion.

Getting back to Speer, his life was saved by his ignorance, so what he says is hardly fact now is it

A film maker Heinrich Breloer once remarked on Speer

"[Speer created] a market for people who said "believe me, I didn't know anything about [the Holocaust]. Just look at the Führer's friend, he didn't know about it either."

 

[infoterror]

I urge you and other likeminded individuals to make such claims in front of a holocaust survivor or a member of a victims family.

Emotion isn't logic.

And since society is pro-Holocaust-mythos, that's like arguing for witches rights in 1682 Salem

There's not even any public debate on this issue, and discussing it critically is illegal in over a dozen Western countries. That tells me there's a rat afoot.

What it is, I'm not sure...

White supremacy isn't my bag. Pan-Nationalism is. Nationalism benefits every race, tribe and local community, and is the only force we have against globalism. The sooner people get over their drama and see this, the sooner humanity has a fighting chance.

As it is now, the end is approaching rapidly... but maybe it's justice to us for listening to stupid people.

 

[infoterror]

You surely don't mean Albert Speer the man who adopted a see no evil hear no evil policy to the holocaust.

He went out of his way to avoid knowledge, so how can it be said that what he says has any kind of validity.

The above is not a logical statement. First, I disagree with your assessment of Speer; there's no data for it. Second, his statement has more validity than that of someone who was not inside the Reich

 

[petehis kahn]

Historically he avoided being hung by saying he was ignorant to what went on in the camps, that he was never shown.... it is perfectly logically to suggest that the man avoided being executed by being ignorant, therefore any knowledge he has on the topic is simply not valid.

According to interviews after his imprisonment, as well as his memoirs, Speer adopted a "see no evil" attitude towards the Nazi atrocities. For example, through one of his friends, Karl Hanke, he learned of Auschwitz and the large number of deaths taking place there. He then purposely avoided visiting the camp or trying to get more information on what was taking place. In his autobiography, he claims that he had no direct involvement or knowledge of the Holocaust, although he faults himself for blinding himself to its existence. He certainly was aware, at least, of harsh conditions for the slave labor and some critics believe that his books understate his role in the atrocities of the era. Newly released documents suggest that Speer knew a lot more about the atrocities than he was telling, but hard evidence for that remains very thin.

 

[petehis kahn]

There's not even any public debate on this issue, and discussing it critically is illegal in over a dozen Western countries. That tells me there's a rat afoot.

Well I would say the tons and tons of historical documents pretty much stifle any debate

Ereignismeldung UdSSR, No. 101, October 2, 1941 (The Good Old Days - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 67):

Einsatzgruppen C
Standort Kiev

In collaboration with the group staff and two Kommandos of Police Regiment South, on 29 and 30 September 1941, Sonderkommando 4a executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev.

woops another bit of evidence, source in brackets.

all I ask for is primary sources from the deniars point of view, would you guys like me to keep giving primary sources forever

 

[infoterror]

Well I would say the tons and tons of historical documents pretty much stifle any debate

You mean like the tons and tons of documents settled this part of the evolution debate?

I don't trust most of those sources, but then again, as you can see from above, my position on this isn't for/against.

I haven't seen you around the forum before. Is this a pet issue for you?

 

[infoterror]

If you want to meet some deniers:

http://www.ihr.org/
http://www.revisionists.com/
http://www.codoh.com/

And you could ask these two dudes, but they're in jail for what they said about the Holocaust:

http://www.zundelsite.org/
http://www.fpp.co.uk/

 

[Norsemaiden]

Pethis Kahn posted a document where an SS physician on duty in Auchwitz signs that he saw"the dropping of Zyklon B into simulated exhaust vents from outside the gas chamber" and he says "After three to five minutes, death could be certified, and the doors were opened as a sign that the corpses were cleared to be burned."

While Zykon B/cyanide is very efficient to kill people,( indeed it is used, on Leucher's recommendation, by the US to excecute prisoners to this day) the physician's account is IMPOSSIBLE.

"You just can't do that [within 30 minutes]. The gas clings to surfaces, needs to be neutralised not just ventilated, and there would be enough residual there to easily kill more people, possibly from simple contact. Talk to somebody who works in a petrochemical plant about how you treat cyanide compounds and gasses to get some idea of the absolutely necessary precautions required". http://www.hisoriography-project.com/misc/ar/gas_chambers.html

Cyanide is more toxic than mustard gas or nerve agents according to the CIA. If Hitler was into gas then he could have used gas against the allies. Germany could have used Zarin in the war. All the chemistry had been published in the 1900s and Hitler (wrongly) assumed the allies would have read these German papers. Hitler had been gassed himself during the WWI and didn't want to repeat the horrors of that in the next war.

Fred A Leuchter is THE world expert on using gas for excecution. If zyklon B/cyanide is used heavily, it eventually turns the walls blue, which Leuchter immediately noticed in the delousing chambers. But the alleged gas chambers did not have this tell-tale deposit and indeed had no detectable cyanide apart from a miniscule amount consistent with a one-time delousing. http://www.natall.com/national-vanguard/assorted/prussian.html

Also, I don't think using Jewish sources is any less biased than using revisionist sources. It is better to find something which is neither, ideally.