


	Articles \| Forums \| Polls \| Quotes \| Who's Online \| Store

"No matter the question time will explain it all." - cryptictruth

Latest:Wyote

Fears with Aging

Main -> Social Awareness -> Politics and Current Events | NewPosts

Problems for the Holo-Myth

USER

THREAD

34 Posts / 55M

33yrs

Siegfriedson

Problems for the Holo-Myth [+ favourites]

The Holocaust consists of three basic elements:

(1) Approximately six million Jews were deliberately killed.

(2) These killings were part of a state sponsored program on the part of the Third Reich whose ultimate goal was the total eradication of the Jewish people.

(3) The bulk of these murders took place in special death camps where the principal mechanism of execution was the homicidal gas chamber that utilized Zyclon B, a commercial pesticide whose active ingredient was hydrogen cyanide.

Listed below are some of the ''problems" I have with the Holocaust. Should these be cleared up, it would go a long way toward my accepting it.

1) Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on? Elie was a prisoner for several years; other Jews survived even longer. Most of these ''survivors'' were ordinary people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have exploited for their war effort. There was no logical reason for them to be kept alive.

2) Why is there no mention of the Holocaust in Churchill's six volume History of the Second World War or the wartime memoirs of either De Gaulle or Eisenhower or any of the other lesser luminaries who wrote about the Second World War? Keep in mind all these were written years after the war ended and thus after the Holocaust had been allegedly "proven" by the Nuremburg Trials.

3) What were an inmate infirmary, an inmate swimming pool, and a brothel doing in Auschwitz if in fact it was a "death camp"?

Continued:

http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/dec03-06.html

SITE ADMIN

2866 Posts / 94M

28yrs

Decius

1) The survival of a number of Jews does not have any relevancy on the number that died. Similar would be stating that because a number of regular turkeys survived Christmas that there indeed was no Christmas dinner.

2) I have no information on these "memoirs" and do not know whether there is or is not any mention of Jews in them. However, it is plausible that because very little was done to prevent the Nazis from killing Jews that many of the allies would focus elsewhere. Additionally, most nations suffered such catastrophic losses themselves that perhaps the focus was on them. Either way, the same argument as the first stands: If no one mentions turkey at Christmas dinner, then that does not mean that turkey was not eaten.

3) Nazi death camps were not just death camps - they were work camps. Jews were used to exterminate other Jews and maintain the death camps. Therefore, maintaining incentives to keep working despite the horrible working conditions would increase efficiency - and as history has proven, the Nazis were all about efficiency.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

34 Posts / 55M

33yrs

Siegfriedson

quote:
1) The survival of a number of Jews does not have any relevancy on the number that died. Similar would be stating that because a number of regular turkeys survived Christmas that there indeed was no Christmas dinner.

I believe there is a relevancy, and that the parallel you draw with turkeys is not valid. Poultry farmers do not want to slaughter each and every turkey to totally eradicate them, as mainstream historians claim was the Germans' goal with the Jews. Second, given the overall operational efficiency of the Third Reich and the ruthless, systematic functionality of the supposed gas chambers, there wouldn't have been literally millions of Holocaust survivors after the war if the Nazi policy had indeed been to liquidate them en masse.

quote:
2) I have no information on these "memoirs" and do not know whether there is or is not any mention of Jews in them. However, it is plausible that because very little was done to prevent the Nazis from killing Jews that many of the allies would focus elsewhere.

Sorry, but if Churchill took the "Holocaust" story seriously he would have included it in his magnum opus. Of course he would have wanted to further demonize his Nazi adversaries.

quote:
Additionally, most nations suffered such catastrophic losses themselves that perhaps the focus was on them.

You raise an interesting point. Every student knows how to respond when asked how many Jews died in the Holocaust: "Six million". But the same people have no idea what the answer is when you ask them how many Frenchmen, Russians, Britons, Germans, etc. died in the Second World War. That is because Jews have collectively exploited their suffering in WWII for their advantage. Take a look at Prof. Norman Finkelsteins "Holocaust Industry":

http://www.rense.com/general24/kud.htm

http://store.noontidepress.com/contents/en-us/p55.html

quote:
3) Nazi death camps were not just death camps - they were work camps. Jews were used to exterminate other Jews and maintain the death camps. Therefore, maintaining incentives to keep working despite the horrible working conditions would increase efficiency - and as history has proven, the Nazis were all about efficiency.

And if they were all about efficiency, then there would have been very few survivors, as I have already mentioned.

The notion of a combination death/work camp doesn't hold up and raises an interesting paradox. If the Jews were needed badly as laborers, why kill them? But if their primary purpose was to be killed in the camps, why do so when there was a huge manpower shortage?

The Germans, if their aim was to destroy every Jew, would not have bothered with "incentives". There are thousands of examples of so called "survivors" who had been over 50, sick, young, or were mothers. In fact, Auschwitz did have medical facilities for sick Jews, allowed Jewish births, and in 1945 the SS gave inmates the option to retreat with the SS or wait for the advancing Soviets....most chose to leave with the SS! And why would the German camp personnel allow Jews to have babies in Auschwitz if there was an 'extermination' policy for all who couldn't work? If Auschwitz were a camp established for "extermination", why bother to put tattoos on people, cut their hair, delouse them and their clothing and feed and house them if they were just going to be "gassed" and burned in the crematoria? And provide hospital care?? This makes no sense to me.

I am not saying that there were no instances of cruelty and that conditions in the camps weren't deplorable in 1945. What revisionists claim, in summary, is this:

1) The Jewish Holocaust is but one of many "Holocausts" even in the twentieth century;

2) THE METHOD: There were no gas chambers and no attempt by the Germans to methodically exterminate Jewry, expulsion being very different from extermination;

3) THE NUMBERS: The common figure of six million is too large by 500% at least;

4) World War II was a slaughterhouse of unprecedented proportions for everyone involved -- not just Jews, who made up perhaps 2% of the total fatalities;

5) THE PLAN: There was no Hitler order to exterminate Europe's Jews. There is no documented instance of any state-sponsored plans to exterminate the Jews.

34 Posts / 55M

33yrs

Siegfriedson

Why is debating the Holocaust a taboo?

It is perhaps human nature for some of us to question historic events, this might simply be because it is an interesting subject to discuss, or because some of the facts do not appear to add up.

Take the JFK assassination for example, could one lone shooter really have done it? We are asked to believe the government's version of events, but they won't release records that could prove it. What do they have to hide?

Many believe the 9/11 'attack' was an inside job, and there is certainly evidence to suggest that the official explanation is questionable. But once again, information is withheld and there is surprise when people become suspicious.

Unfortunately, some feel that the 'Holocaust' is a special subject that can not be debated in any shape or form, and should be accepted without question. Surely, if people have doubts, isn't it better to discuss these openly and try to convince them with the facts, rather than gag them? If something happened in a certain way, why be afraid of doubters if the truth is on your side?

Continued:

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/news/070713_People_fear.php

.

Problems for the Holo-Myth


<<<	PAGE:	1	>>>
1ST <-15 <<>> +15> END

A1 F1 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16