View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby ProfWag » 24 Feb 2014, 06:09

FatFreddy wrote:
That list you posted is just second-hand info and it doesn't make the info in the above video go away. I hate to say this but you are being less-than-objective.

If the above video is by Robert Faurisson, then you are referring to someone who is a denier. His views are extremely controversial and many of them are based on his own interpretations and lack of belief in the overwhelming evidence presented to him.
As such, the info in the video does go away if you believe virtually everyone in history rather than him. You are putting your faith in someone who may be dishonest himself. Hell anyone can write and say what they want, doesn't make it true.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby FatFreddy » 24 Feb 2014, 06:09

BS. Not interested.


In a debate you're supposed to analyze the other person's evidence and explain why it's wrong. I hate to say this but your response would get you laughed out of the debing hall.

This cybercafe I'm at is about to close so I won't be able to post again until tomorrow.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby ProfWag » 24 Feb 2014, 08:39

FatFreddy wrote:
BS. Not interested.


In a debate you're supposed to analyze the other person's evidence and explain why it's wrong. I hate to say this but your response would get you laughed out of the debing hall.

This cybercafe I'm at is about to close so I won't be able to post again until tomorrow.

You've obviously never been in an actual debate. You are not allowed to bring in outside material but rather you are to use your own reasoning. To show videos and tell me I'd lose is showing you are uninformed on debating. You've never once, in any forum that I'm aware of, provided your own thoughts. Until you do, you lose every debate. In any event, I'm not going to debate you or especially youtube on this subject.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 24 Feb 2014, 16:02

[T]he Holocaust denial movement bases its approach on the predetermined idea that the Holocaust, as understood by mainstream historiography, did not occur.[8] Sometimes referred to as "negationism", from the French term négationnisme introduced by Henry Rousso,[14] Holocaust deniers attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Koenraad Elst writes:

Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941–45, also known as the holocaust (Greek: complete burning) or the Shoah (Hebrew: disaster). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted.[15]

Attempts at concealment by perpetrators

See also: Sonderaktion 1005 and Posen speeches

Members of a Sonderkommando 1005 unit pose next to a bone-crushing machine in the Janowska concentration camp in occupied Poland (Jun 1943 – Oct 1943)

April 12, 1945: Generals Eisenhower, OhNo Bradley and George S. Patton inspect, at Ohrdruf forced labor camp, an improvised crematory pyre

Historians have documented evidence that as Germany's defeat became imminent and the Nazi leaders realized they would most likely be captured and brought to trial, great effort was made to destroy all evidence of mass extermination. Heinrich Himmler instructed his camp commandants to destroy records, crematoria, and other signs of mass extermination.[16] As one of many examples, the bodies of the 25,000 mostly Latvian Jews whom Friedrich Jeckeln and the soldiers under his command had shot at Rumbula (near Riga) in late 1941 were dug up and burned in 1943.[17] Similar operations were undertaken at Belzec, Treblinka and other death camps.[16] In the infamous Posen speeches of October 1943 such as the one on October 4, Himmler explicitly referred to the murder of the Jews of Europe and further stated that the murder must be permanently kept secret:

I also want to refer here very frankly to a very difficult matter. We can now very openly talk about this among ourselves, and yet we will never discuss this publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30, 1934, to perform our duty as ordered and put comrades who had failed up against the wall and execute them, we also never spoke about it, nor will we ever speak about it. Let us thank God that we had within us enough self-evident fortitude never to discuss it among us, and we never talked about it. Every one of us was horrified, and yet every one clearly understood that we would do it next time, when the order is given and when it becomes necessary.

I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people.[18]

In 1945, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, anticipated that someday an attempt would be made to recharacterize the Nazi crimes as propaganda and took steps against it:

The same day[19] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never been able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain however, that I have never at any time experienced an equal sense of shock.

I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that "the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda". Some members of the visiting party were unable to go through with the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton's headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and the British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.[20]

Eisenhower, upon finding the victims of the death camps, ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He wrote the following to General Marshall after visiting a German internment camp near Gotha, Germany:

The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to "propaganda."[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby FatFreddy » 25 Feb 2014, 05:32

The Above doesn't make this go away.

"Robert Faurisson: The Problem Of Gas Chambers - (Le Probleme Des Chambres a Gaz)."
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... %22+&sm=12

The Dachau Gas Chamber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nY6T46aGA#t=1474

Auschwitz - Why The Gas Chambers Are A Myth
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... Myth&sm=12

ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... UST+&sm=12


I might as well just post stuff that I find to share with the viewers. Here's some more.

The Holocaust Unveiled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2g7ydp9 ... 75F767A878

I haven't had time to watch the first one on the list. I've only looked at a few of the short ones. They looked pretty good.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby ProfWag » 25 Feb 2014, 07:44

FatFreddy wrote:The Above doesn't make this go away.

If the people who are behind the videos are full of shit then "poof," it just went away. Unfortunately, you haven't done your homework on the people behind the videos. People can say anything they want on videos and people, such as you, appear to believe anything.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Feb 2014, 15:51

OK, I've reviewed some of the many youtubes posted by FF with very little explanation -- apparently asking everyone to watch numerous 30 min - 2 hr videos substitutes for making any kind of cogent argument.

There are some good points about the design and feasibility of alleged large scale gassing and cremation operations, for instance. FF has done a particularly poor job of mounting any argument or making any point whatsoever, he just continually posts very long youtube video links and demands everyone watch them end to end.

However, it might be possible to adduce the following ideas from FF's posts as a kind of synthesis of what we reasonably know from photos etc vs what we might have been told to believe:

- Nazi concentration camps seem like pretty awful places, and they were designed to hold ppl they didn't like -- POWs, other ethnicities and races, and particularly Jewish ppl. Ppl in the camps were used as labour in nearby factories for the war effort, and so on. It's possible the crematorium facilities were simply used to dispose of camp mortalities from illness, based on the size of the facilities, some facilities were used for pest control, and so on. It appears the Allied claims of throughput may just not have been possible.

- Hitler had particularly targeted Jewish ppl in his writings in Mein Kampf, and in his treatment of Jewish ppl right through the 1930s when he gained power. a form of ethnic cleansing was proposed throughout via a long series of harassments.

- this then calls into question the size of the Holocaust itself, without disputing that the Nazis (in a spirit common in much of Europe at the time) had decided to place various groups into concentration camps, including POWs.

- we are left to wonder then what 'the final solution' might be, if it were not mass extermination. Mass deportation, perhaps? Mass deportations definitely also occurred over borders of neighbouring countries.

- David Irving makes a case against Churchill and others in terms of superpower rivalry and individuals' own financial positions in terms of how the war was started, prosecuted and 'sold'. Regardless of the fact that Neville Chamberlain actually prosecuted the war first as PM, and that there had been rumblings all the way through the 1930s, appeasement, rearmament, and so on.

- various postings of Hitler's speeches suggest that Hitler was only interested in re-uniting German speaking ppls for their own good, and to act as a barrier against Russia. The Allies have characterised this as a ploy where world or European domination was really the main aim, derived from Prussian delusions of grandeur and Hitler's own megalomania. Certainly a completely re-united Germany consisting of Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland would have had a considerable impact in enlarging an already large superpower to over 80 million ppl, a lot of ppl at that time -- e.g. the popn of the US in 1939 was 131M ppl, Russia 170M ppl, not including territories, France 50M, UK 46.5M. Certainly a large, organised, determined, militaristic country of over 80M ppl would give immediately surrounding countries cause for concern.

- why would Hitler need to raise an army of 7M ppl and spend a fortune on weapons development just to gain a small concession in Poland? including U-boats to sink shipping in the Atlantic, tens of thousands of planes, infantry and guns, etc etc. Of course the terms of the Treaty of Versailles after WWI prevented the Germans from raising a large standing army, the Prussians had a history of militarism, and so on.

- we are being asked to believe that Hitler 'having' to invade Poland, Belgium, France and then go on to try to take England, was just an unfortunate escalation of his desire to reunify a couple of minor German speaking areas surrounding Germany, and that being thwarted in that aim he had little choice but to declare total war on everyone who wasn't fascist at the time, including exhausting the entire population of Germany in brutal warfare if required, and that clearly there was no other diplomatic option open to him nor were negotiations possible -- despite several attempts at coups by senior officers hoping to indicate that the Nazis were a group separate from the rest of the German population who could rebel against them and form a new govt, such as the famous Claus von Stauffenberg attempt.

- the counter-proposal to the above was that Hitler and the Nazis were extremely cunning, chess masters in politics, and had successfully concocted ways of annexing territories without having to go to war up until Poland. however, by the time they wanted to annexe parts of Poland, they were facing threats of war from surrounding superpowers, the violation of the agreement of Munich, and so on -- but they didn't believe the other superpowers had an appetite for war, that they would fold and wimp out at the last minute if they kept encroaching on other countries -- their excuses and pretexts would continue to work.

- that as the German war effort ran out of resources in 1945, concentration camp members were progressively starved as scarce resources went to others leading to the pictures that we see at the end of the war.

Questions for further research:

- how many of the German troops and POWs etc in the camp deny mass extermination efforts involving gassing and cremation or any other method took place? Credible witnesses?

- what of the 'Lebensraum' discourse? Just how much room did the Nazis think they needed? What was the aim of this discourse? Did they want to annexe further territories to the west or east?

- what of the 'final solution' rhetoric? what did it mean?

Points to ponder:

- against this we have the fascist system of govt as a rather unattractive manifestation of capitalism and totalitarianism. the 'ein volk, ein fueher' type slogans really point to the notion of believing in a benevolent dictatorship, involving also big business, over any notion of individual agency and democracy = the right to participate in decision-making. probably not a good way to go. as Churchill pointed out, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried".

- the fanatical goose stepping and heil hitlering and stiff saluting and apparent dedication to purpose would scare any other superpower.

- the invasion of Czechoslovakia and particularly the manipulation of Slovakia seem highly questionable. The Nazis had no compunctions about enslaving the people of their new territories and conscripting them into the Nazi project. These actions, along with the next step, annexing parts of Poland, would be enough for any other League of Nations cluster to want to stop the Nazis at that point in terms of violation of international law around sovereign territories etc.

- of course if Hitler was genuinely only concerned about attacks from Russia from the east, there are other ways he could have handled it responsibly and diplomatically. although Germany was oppressed by the terms of reparation particularly from France, they could have negotiated with the other western European superpowers as a kind of horse trade, swapping operating as a kind of dam against communism for their reparation debt, but controlling the level of rearmament, co-operating with Britain and France in stationing troops in the east of the country, and so on. To take the path Hitler took was completely unnecessary. Further, it does not seem any such negotiations or policy formulation was entered into, it was just German reunification, fascism, payback against France, and so on, which seems like an attempt at world domination to me. further, the Germans realised they would have to seize valuable oil assets in the middle east and north Africa and so on, triggering the desert war in north Africa and an attempt to obtain middle eastern assets.


So given the Socratic thesis (largely unstated by FF, left to infer) + anti-thesis (victors' account of events) = synthesis, while I don't accept that Hitler was just trying to re-unify Germany, altruistically head off the Russian threat to Europe, and get on with his life, and that instead he victimised ethnic minorities, had an insane Aryan supremacy ideology, conducted a large number of false flag exercises, was a master of propaganda and misleading the ppl of Germany, and ran cruel and vicious concentration camps, it is possible the Holocaust did not place as it is often presented -- that 6M did not die, although certainly many hundreds of thousands were rounded up and put into concentration camps and treated extremely badly, often individually to the point of death, and that this occurred in every territory the Germans invaded.

FF seems to be making the further case, a la David Irving, that in fact Britain and in particular Winston Churchill, had reasons to start a war by provocation and diplomatic maneuvering that Germany had no intention of getting into, in other words, fascist Germany was innocent, and the Allies were guilty -- of something. Whereas the ethic cleansing and scapegoating and annexing and violations of human rights of the Nazis was perfectly OK.

Is FF likely to actually take up the questions above and explain further? Or just post more links to vids?

Is this thread supposed to be some sort of test of scepticism vs pseudoscepticism, by the way? Or a test in comprehension in fathoming FF's cryptic posts?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby FatFreddy » 26 Feb 2014, 01:51

- why would Hitler need to raise an army of 7M ppl and spend a fortune on weapons development just to gain a small concession in Poland? including U-boats to sink shipping in the Atlantic, tens of thousands of planes, infantry and guns, etc etc.

The Germans might have anticipated having to deal with a much bigger problem so they played it safe. This is perfectly plausible.

- we are being asked to believe that Hitler 'having' to invade Poland, Belgium, France and then go on to try to take England, was just an unfortunate escalation of his desire to reunify a couple of minor German speaking areas surrounding Germany, and that being thwarted in that aim he had little choice but to declare total war on everyone who wasn't fascist at the time, including exhausting the entire population of Germany in brutal warfare if required, and that clearly there was no other diplomatic option open to him nor were negotiations possible -- despite several attempts at coups by senior officers hoping to indicate that the Nazis were a group separate from the rest of the German population who could rebel against them and form a new govt, such as the famous Claus von Stauffenberg attempt.


You seem to be trying to mislead the viewers who haven't watched the videos by misrepresenting what they say. According to this video...

Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to Mention
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... tion&sm=12

...Germany offered France and England a peace in which they would leave Poland except for the parts that used to be Germany and was turned down. British and French soldiers were amassing on the border with Germany preparing an invasion. Maybe Germany's invasion of France was a preemptive strike. England was trying to block the flow of badly needed iron from Norway. Maybe, in order to keep the iron flowing, Germany had to take over Belgium, Denmark and Holland. Maybe Germany wouldn't have done that if England hadn't tried to block the flow of iron.

There's still the issue of the evidence put forth in these videos.

"Robert Faurisson: The Problem Of Gas Chambers - (Le Probleme Des Chambres a Gaz)."
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... %22+&sm=12

The Dachau Gas Chamber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nY6T46aGA#t=1474

Auschwitz - Why The Gas Chambers Are A Myth
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... Myth&sm=12

ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... UST+&sm=12

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... vil+&sm=12
BUCHENWALD A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil


Then there's the Red Cross report.

http://www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic ... 36&t=18054
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
No Evidence Of Genocide

One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report: "In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 ... In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp ..." (Vol. III, p. 83).

Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15th, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (Inter Arma Caritas, p. 78). By October 2nd, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.

In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff) - Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities. Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol. III, p. 594).
-----------------------------------------------------------

You pro-official version people are simply ignoring this stuff. It's pretty obvious that you're being less-than-objective to say the least.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby Misha » 26 Feb 2014, 07:13

FatFreddy wrote:
- why would Hitler need to raise an army of 7M ppl and spend a fortune on weapons development just to gain a small concession in Poland? including U-boats to sink shipping in the Atlantic, tens of thousands of planes, infantry and guns, etc etc.

The Germans might have anticipated having to deal with a much bigger problem so they played it safe. This is perfectly plausible.

- we are being asked to believe that Hitler 'having' to invade Poland, Belgium, France and then go on to try to take England, was just an unfortunate escalation of his desire to reunify a couple of minor German speaking areas surrounding Germany, and that being thwarted in that aim he had little choice but to declare total war on everyone who wasn't fascist at the time, including exhausting the entire population of Germany in brutal warfare if required, and that clearly there was no other diplomatic option open to him nor were negotiations possible -- despite several attempts at coups by senior officers hoping to indicate that the Nazis were a group separate from the rest of the German population who could rebel against them and form a new govt, such as the famous Claus von Stauffenberg attempt.


You seem to be trying to mislead the viewers who haven't watched the videos by misrepresenting what they say. According to this video...

Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to Mention
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... tion&sm=12

...Germany offered France and England a peace in which they would leave Poland except for the parts that used to be Germany and was turned down. British and French soldiers were amassing on the border with Germany preparing an invasion. Maybe Germany's invasion of France was a preemptive strike. England was trying to block the flow of badly needed iron from Norway. Maybe, in order to keep the iron flowing, Germany had to take over Belgium, Denmark and Holland. Maybe Germany wouldn't have done that if England hadn't tried to block the flow of iron.

There's still the issue of the evidence put forth in these videos.

"Robert Faurisson: The Problem Of Gas Chambers - (Le Probleme Des Chambres a Gaz)."
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... %22+&sm=12

The Dachau Gas Chamber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nY6T46aGA#t=1474

Auschwitz - Why The Gas Chambers Are A Myth
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... Myth&sm=12

ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... UST+&sm=12

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... vil+&sm=12
BUCHENWALD A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil


Then there's the Red Cross report.

http://www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic ... 36&t=18054
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
No Evidence Of Genocide

One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report: "In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 ... In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp ..." (Vol. III, p. 83).

Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15th, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (Inter Arma Caritas, p. 78). By October 2nd, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.

In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff) - Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities. Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol. III, p. 594).
-----------------------------------------------------------

You pro-official version people are simply ignoring this stuff. It's pretty obvious that you're being less-than-objective to say the least.


Have you guys read Robert Jay Lifton's book - "The Nazi Doctors?" Lifton indeed illustrates that the biggest killer in the camps was the typhus outbreaks. My question to you folks is this. If Aucschwitz-Birkenau's gas chambers have been tested for "Prussian-Blue" and no ferrous ferric oxide was found whatsoever and only the small the small "crematoria" which contained vast residues of this gas which leached through the stone then what are we to make of it. It is my understanding the smaller crematoria was used to fumigate the clothes of the prisoners against typhus. FatFreddy, check me for accuracy. I am going off of memory. Also, will someone please show me pictures, if possible, the huge amount of coke which would be needed to burn the bodies. As far as I know there are no allied photos of this.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby ProfWag » 26 Feb 2014, 08:48

Misha wrote: Also, will someone please show me pictures, if possible, the huge amount of coke which would be needed to burn the bodies. As far as I know there are no allied photos of this.

Concerning Robert Faurisson whom Fat Freddy references:

"As reasoning, Faurisson complained that he found few war-era photographs of gas chambers in archives. In 1974, one Frenchwoman who survived Auschwitz wrote a trenchant public letter, ironically apologizing to Faurisson for not bringing her camera along when she was deported."
http://blogs.forward.com/the-arty-semite/157012/denying-robert-faurisson/
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby ProfWag » 26 Feb 2014, 09:20

Misha wrote:Have you guys read Robert Jay Lifton's book - "The Nazi Doctors?" Lifton indeed illustrates that the biggest killer in the camps was the typhus outbreaks.

Misha, I want to read this book but haven't done so yet. Could you clarify that Lifton said typhus was the "biggest killer" or only that it was a "big killer." (Note the difference?)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Feb 2014, 10:03

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote: Also, will someone please show me pictures, if possible, the huge amount of coke which would be needed to burn the bodies. As far as I know there are no allied photos of this.

Concerning Robert Faurisson whom Fat Freddy references:

"As reasoning, Faurisson complained that he found few war-era photographs of gas chambers in archives. In 1974, one Frenchwoman who survived Auschwitz wrote a trenchant public letter, ironically apologizing to Faurisson for not bringing her camera along when she was deported."
http://blogs.forward.com/the-arty-semite/157012/denying-robert-faurisson/

so what is the testimony of the one Frenchwoman in full? and presumably many thousands of others still alive who would be able to verify also? is there a whole bunch of testimonies on public record that were taken back in the late 1940s as part of the trials and so on? although this is 70 years old now.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Feb 2014, 10:17

FatFreddy wrote:
- why would Hitler need to raise an army of 7M ppl and spend a fortune on weapons development just to gain a small concession in Poland? including U-boats to sink shipping in the Atlantic, tens of thousands of planes, infantry and guns, etc etc.

The Germans might have anticipated having to deal with a much bigger problem so they played it safe. This is perfectly plausible.

- we are being asked to believe that Hitler 'having' to invade Poland, Belgium, France and then go on to try to take England, was just an unfortunate escalation of his desire to reunify a couple of minor German speaking areas surrounding Germany, and that being thwarted in that aim he had little choice but to declare total war on everyone who wasn't fascist at the time, including exhausting the entire population of Germany in brutal warfare if required, and that clearly there was no other diplomatic option open to him nor were negotiations possible -- despite several attempts at coups by senior officers hoping to indicate that the Nazis were a group separate from the rest of the German population who could rebel against them and form a new govt, such as the famous Claus von Stauffenberg attempt.


You seem to be trying to mislead the viewers who haven't watched the videos by misrepresenting what they say. According to this video...

Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to Mention
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... tion&sm=12

...Germany offered France and England a peace in which they would leave Poland except for the parts that used to be Germany and was turned down. British and French soldiers were amassing on the border with Germany preparing an invasion. Maybe Germany's invasion of France was a preemptive strike. England was trying to block the flow of badly needed iron from Norway. Maybe, in order to keep the iron flowing, Germany had to take over Belgium, Denmark and Holland. Maybe Germany wouldn't have done that if England hadn't tried to block the flow of iron.

There's still the issue of the evidence put forth in these videos.

"Robert Faurisson: The Problem Of Gas Chambers - (Le Probleme Des Chambres a Gaz)."
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... %22+&sm=12

The Dachau Gas Chamber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nY6T46aGA#t=1474

Auschwitz - Why The Gas Chambers Are A Myth
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... Myth&sm=12

ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... UST+&sm=12

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... vil+&sm=12
BUCHENWALD A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil

You pro-official version people are simply ignoring this stuff. It's pretty obvious that you're being less-than-objective to say the least.


I'm not attempting to mislead anyone. I could understand if many readers hadn't watched the many very long videos you keep posting links to without explanation or preface.

"Maybe, in order to keep the iron flowing, Germany had to take over Belgium, Denmark and Holland."

You don't 'have to' take over Belgium, Denmark and Holland to keep the iron flowing. Remember Germany was bound by the Treaty of Versailles at that point in time. You don't have to take over anyone. If you are attempting to look like a compliant country who learnt their lesson from WWI, why would you take a massively militant stance with an army of 7M, and keep invading country after country? Every single invasion is a sovereign violation of international law. They were still on the hook to pay back $100,000 for every person killed in WWI, and just adding to the bill. They also strongarmed the leaders of Czechoslovakia and so on. In other words, they were amassing territory in exactly the same way that communist Russia was amassing territory, and they had a fascist 'benevolent dictatorship' model to go with it.

Iron isn't 'badly needed' if you're not taking an aggressive war machine stance to the world over supposedly repossessing some paltry territories. Smacks of pretexts to me.

And you don't 'play it safe' by creating an army of 7M people against the Treaty of Versailles and start annexing Austria, Czech, Poland etc, that is playing it extremely dangerously, and running a huge risk of repercussions.

The smart playing it safe thing to do would have been to withdraw completely from Poland, or never annexe it in the first place. Smacks of empire building and expansionism to me. 'Give us back a single port or we will start WWII' seems to be the message. Do you see a need in Germany to annexe anyone now, or create more 'Lebensraum', or get access to iron? They suddenly don't seem to need to achieve it through warfare, they seem to be able to live happily in the rather ample land mass they already have.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Feb 2014, 12:28

Here's an account of some gas chambers in Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, in the east of Poland or in the soviet union. Can FF rebut this?

The intention of this article is to provide a brief description of all the gas chambers constructed at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka death camps constructed by the Nazis, as part of the Aktion Reinhard murder programme, during 1941 and 1942 in the General Government.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... mbers.html

But then there's the question of Nazis seeking to euthenase anyone with a disability or who might be a bit feeble or a burden or something with 'Aktion T 4'. Is that also fictitious?

This poster (from around 1938) reads: "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

The guys in the wikipedia article all look like cold-eyed psychos to me.

Is all this untrue? Or has every single quote and letter been fabricated and forged by the Americans after 1945?

Hitler was in favour of killing those whom he judged to be "unworthy of life". In a 1939 conference with health minister Leonardo Conti and the head of the Reich Chancellery, Hans Lammers, a few months before the euthanasia decree, Hitler gave as examples of "life unworthy of life:" severely mentally ill people who he believed could only be bedded on sawdust or sand because they "perpetually dirtied themselves", or who "put their own excrement into their mouths, eating it and so on".[27]

Both his physician, Dr. Karl Brandt, and the head of the Reich Chancellery, Hans Lammers, testified after the war that Hitler had told them as early as 1933, at the time the sterilisation law was passed, that he favoured killing the incurably ill, but recognised that public opinion would not accept this. In 1935, Hitler told the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr. Gerhard Wagner, that the question could not be taken up in peacetime: "Such a problem could be more smoothly and easily carried out in war", he said. He intended, he wrote, "in the event of a war radically to solve the problem of the mental asylums".[28] The initiation of war also provided Hitler with the possibility of carrying out a policy he had long favoured.

This issue assumed new urgency in wartime according to the Nazi regime. People with severe disabilities, even if sterilised, still needed institutional care. They occupied places in facilities which, during war, would be needed for wounded soldiers and people evacuated from bombed cities. They were housed and fed at the expense of the state, and took up the time of doctors and nurses. The Nazis barely tolerated this support in peacetime. Few supported care for such people in wartime, especially in the last years of World War II when conditions overall were so terrible in Germany. As a leading Nazi doctor, Dr. Hermann Pfannmüller, said: "The idea is unbearable to me that the best, the flower of our youth must lose its life at the front in order that feebleminded and irresponsible asocial elements can have a secure existence in the asylum".[29]

[...]

Brandt and Bouhler soon developed plans to expand the programme of euthanasia to adults. In July 1939, they held a meeting attended by Dr. Leonardo Conti, Reich Health Leader and state secretary for health in the Interior Ministry, and Professor Werner Heyde, head of the SS medical department. This meeting agreed to arranging a national register of all institutionalised people with mental illnesses or physical disabilities.

The first adults with disabilities to be killed by the Nazi regime were not Germans, but Poles. The SS men of Einsatzkommando 16 cleared the hospitals and mental asylums of the Wartheland, a region of western Poland which was earmarked for incorporation into Germany and resettlement by ethnic Germans following the German conquest of Poland. In the Danzig (now Gdańsk) area, some 7,000 Polish inmates of various institutions were shot, while 10,000 were killed in the Gdynia area. Similar measures were taken in other areas of Poland destined for incorporation into Germany.[51] At Posen (occupied Poznań), hundreds of patients were killed by means of carbon monoxide gas in an improvised gas chamber developed by Dr Albert Widmann, chief chemist of the German Criminal Police (Kripo). In December 1939, the SS head, Heinrich Himmler, witnessed one of these gassings, ensuring that this invention would later be put to much wider uses.[52]

The idea of killing "useless" mental patients soon spread from occupied Poland to adjoining areas of Germany, probably because Nazi Party and SS officers in these areas were most familiar with what was happening in Poland. These were also the areas where Germans wounded from the Polish campaign were expected to be accommodated, which created a demand for hospital space. The Gauleiter of Pomerania, Franz Schwede-Coburg, dispatched 1,400 patients from five Pomeranian hospitals to Poland, where they were shot. The Gauleiter of East Prussia, Erich Koch, likewise had 1,600 patients killed. In all, more than 8,000 Germans were killed in this initial wave of killings. These were carried out on the initiative of local officials, although Himmler certainly knew and approved of them.[53]

The official programme for killing adults with mental or physical disabilities began with a letter from Hitler issued in October 1939. The letter charged Bouhler and Brandt with "enlarging the authority of certain physicians, to be designated by name, in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgement, are incurable, can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."[54] The letter was backdated to 1 September to provide legality to the killings already carried out,[55] and to link the programme more definitely to the war, giving it a rationale of wartime necessity.[29] This letter, which provided the sole legal basis for the programme, was not a formal "Führer decree", which in Nazi Germany had the force of law. Hitler deliberately bypassed Health Minister Conti and his department, who were held to be insufficiently imbued with National Socialist ruthlessness and who might have raised awkward questions about the legality of the programme. He entrusted it to his personal agents Bouhler and Brandt.[56]


Image

Then there was 'racial hygiene':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene

The solution in every instance seemed to be the desire to eliminate non-compliant ppl in order to 'save money' etc. Does FF insist this is all 'mainstream thinking' and that the Nazis and eugenicists etc never said any of this, never implemented any of it, that the whole thing never happened? Note that 'political dissidents' were also deemed to be defective and unworthy of life. No wonder everyone saluted so quickly and enthusiastically.

The German eugenicist Alfred Ploetz introduced the term Rassenhygiene in his "Racial hygiene basics" (Grundlinien einer Rassenhygiene) in 1895. In its earliest incarnation it was concerned more with the declining birthrate of the German state and the increasing number of mentally ill and disabled in state institutions (and their costs to the state) than with the "Jewish question" and "de-Nordification" (Entnordung) which would come to dominate its philosophy in Germany from the 1920s through the second World War.

In Nazi propaganda the term "Race" was often interchangeably used to describe and mean the "Aryan" or Germanic "Übermenschen" which was said to represent an ideal and pure master race that was biologically superior to all other races.[1] In the 1930s, under the 'expertise' of eugenicist Ernst Rüdin, it was this latter use of "racial hygiene" which was embraced by the followers of National Socialist ideology, who demanded Aryan racial purity and condemned miscegenation. This belief in the importance of German racial purity often served as the theoretical backbone of Nazi policies of racial superiority and later genocide. These policies began in 1935, when the National Socialists enacted the Nuremberg Laws, which legislated racial purity by forbidding sexual relations and marriages between Aryans and non-Aryans as Rassenschande (racial shame).

A key part of National Socialism was the concept of racial hygiene and during their rule the field was elevated to the primary philosophy of the German medical community, first by activist physicians within the medical profession, particularly amongst psychiatrists. This was later codified and institutionalized during and after the Nazis' rise to power in 1933, during the process of Gleichschaltung (literally, "coordination" or "unification") which streamlined the medical and mental hygiene (mental health) profession into a rigid hierarchy with National Socialist-sanctioned leadership at the top.

Racial hygienists played key roles in the Holocaust, the National Socialist effort to purge Europe of that is Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Serbs, mixed race, black people, homosexuals, trans people, political dissidents, the mentally retarded and the insane.


So if the above is true, we have established that Hitler and the upper echelons (at the very least) of the Nazi party were psychopaths and cold-blooded killers. Psychopaths have certain traits such as lying, feeling nothing for others, using others as utilities and experiencing no remorse. But FF wants us to accept simultaneously that Hitler's cosy speeches to the ppl were therefore honest speeches from the heart and he was incapable of duplicity or telling a lie re annexing Austria, Czech, Poland, or his other ambitions for a universal fascist regime not only in Europe but throughout the world? Apart from their rather odd eugenic and racist tendencies.

The Odessa massacre never occurred in 1941?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Odessa_massacre

The numerous Babi Yar ravine massacres never occurred?

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

The Aktion Erntefest massacre never occurred in 1943?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_Erntefest
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Were We Told the Truth about World War 2?

Postby ProfWag » 26 Feb 2014, 19:24

SydneyPSIder wrote:so what is the testimony of the one Frenchwoman in full? and presumably many thousands of others still alive who would be able to verify also? is there a whole bunch of testimonies on public record that were taken back in the late 1940s as part of the trials and so on? although this is 70 years old now.

That was just a little tongue in cheek comment about why there may not be a lot of photos of the gas chambers. It's healthy to see that someone who actually lived through it could still have a sense of humor.
This following article is a well written and referenced commentary on bodies from the Holocaust that could help explain why deniers aren't always using complete facts:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests