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 FatFreddy » 27 Feb 2014, 00:54

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.

That's what the video says.

ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST - Widescreen (full)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dxsVSzL4HE
(2:34:30 time mark)

You don't 'have to' take over Belgium, Denmark and Holland to keep the iron flowing.

This is a very dogmatic statement. We don't know what kind of aggreements they had with France and England.

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?


That's second-hand info which may be true or lies. It's certainly not proof.

You people are still ignoring this info.

"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

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



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 people post second-hand info and consider it proof that your arguments reflect reality. The Red Cross report is second-hand info. Why don't you consider that to be proof that your arguments are wrong?
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31






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

Postby FatFreddy » 27 Feb 2014, 01:08

FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

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

Postby FatFreddy » 27 Feb 2014, 01:18

I just found this online book.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/2001/HW_Web.pdf

David Irving

Hitler’s
War
and The War Path

I tried to order this at a bookstore about six months ago and the clerk was aghast that I'd be interested in a book such as this.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

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

Postby FatFreddy » 27 Feb 2014, 01:40

Here's an online book I read a little over a year ago.
http://www.whitehonor.com/ZweitesBuch.pdf

I don't remember all of the details but I did save some important quotes.

(excerpts)
----------------------------------------
The sword was the path breaker for the plough. And if we want to talk about human rights
at all, then in this single case war has served the highest right of all: it gave a Folk the soil which it wanted to
cultivate industriously and honestly for itself, so that its children might some day be provided with their daily
bread. For this soil is not allotted to anyone, nor is it presented to anyone as a gift. It is awarded by Providence
to people who in their hearts have the courage to take possession of it, the strength to preserve it, and the
industry to put it to the plough.
Hence every healthy, vigorous Folk sees nothing sinful in territorial acquisition, but something quite in keeping
with nature. The modern pacifist who denies this holy right must first be reproached for the fact that he himself
at least is being nourished on the injustices of former times.
-----------------------------------------
The Folkish State, conversely, must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make
Germans out of them some day. On the contrary, it must muster the determination either to seal off these alien
racial elements, so that the blood of its own Folk will not be corrupted again, or it must without further ado
remove them and hand over the vacated territory to its own National Comrades.
-----------------------------------------
Only a conscious Folkish race policy would be able to save European
nations from losing the law of action to America, in consequence of the inferior value of European Folks vis-àvis
the American Folk. If in place of this, however, the German Folk, along with a bastardisation systematically
conducted by Jews with inferior human material and a lowering of its racial value as such caused thereby, also
lets its best bloodbearers be taken away by a continuation of emigration in hundreds upon hundreds of
thousands of individual specimens, it will slowly sink to the level of an equally inferior race, and hence to that
of an incompetent and valueless Folk. The danger is especially great since, because of the complete indifference
on our side, the American Union itself, inspired by the teachings of its own ethnologists, has established special
standards for immigration. By making entry to American soil dependent on definite racial prerequisites on the
one hand, as well as on the definite physical health of the individual as such, bleeding Europe of its best people
has, indeed, perforce been legally regulated. This is something which our whole so called national bourgeois
world and all its economic politicians either do not see, or, at least, will not hear of because it is unpleasant to
them, and because it is much cheaper to pass over these things with a couple of general national phrases.
-----------------------------------------
Thus
she will again want a great merchant fleet, she will want coaling stations and bases in other parts of the world,
and finally she will want not only international sales markets, but also her own sources of raw material, if
possible, in the form of colonies. In the future such a development will necessarily have to be protected,
especially by maritime means of power.
-----------------------------------------

If he really wrote this book, it looks like he did have imperial ambitions.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Feb 2014, 05:21

FatFreddy wrote:
You don't 'have to' take over Belgium, Denmark and Holland to keep the iron flowing.

This is a very dogmatic statement. We don't know what kind of aggreements they had with France and England.


How can you say 'We don't know what kind of aggreements they had with France and England' when they are a matter of extremely public record?

Apart from the very obvious fact that no-one can just take over other sovereign countries without extreme provocation, especially after the formation of the League of Nations as a precursor to the United Nations, ref the 'Treaty of Versailles':

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

Some significant violations (or avoidances) of the provisions of the Treaty were:
  • In 1919, the dissolution of the General Staff appeared to happen; however, the core of the General Staff was reestablished and hidden
  • In March 1935, under the government of Adolf Hitler, Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles by introducing compulsory military conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces.
  • In March 1936, Germany violated the treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
  • In March 1938, Germany violated the treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.
See also the Locarno Treaties of 1925.

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

Note that the territories of Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia etc were in play throughout this time -- WWII was just a continuation of WWI, French Marshal Ferdinand Foch—who felt the restrictions on Germany were too lenient—declared (quite accurately), "This is not peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."[88]

It has been argued (for instance by historian Gerhard Weinberg in his book "A World At Arms"[106]) that the treaty was in fact quite advantageous to Germany. The Bismarckian Reich was maintained as a political unit instead of being broken up, and Germany largely escaped post-war military occupation (in contrast to the situation following World War II.) In a 1995 essay, Weinberg noted that with the disappearance of Austria-Hungary and with Russia withdrawn from Europe, that Germany was now the dominant power in Eastern Europe.[107]

The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms that Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion Marks.[108] Eventually, even under the "cruel" terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany′s economy had been restored to its pre-war status.

Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany′s eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. Barnett asserts that its post-war eastern borders were safer, because the former Austrian Empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states, Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, and the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany. In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the Treaty "much enhanced" German power.[109] Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never have disrupted the peace of Europe again.[110] By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".[111]

The British historian of modern Germany, Richard J. Evans, wrote that during the war the German right was committed to an annexationist program which aimed at Germany annexing most of Europe and Africa. Consequently, any peace treaty that did not leave Germany as the conqueror would be unacceptable to them.[112] Short of allowing Germany to keep all the conquests of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Evans argued that there was nothing that could have been done to persuade the German right to accept Versailles.[112]

Germany was not pacified or conciliated, nor permanently weakened. The problems that arose from the treaty would lead to the Locarno Treaties, which improved relations between Germany and the other European Powers, and the renegotiation of the reparation system resulting in the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, and finally the postponement of reparations at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. The reparations were finally paid off by Germany after World War II.

Peukert noted that because of the "millenarian hopes" created in Germany during World War I when for a time it appeared that Germany was on the verge of conquering all of Europe, any peace treaty the Allies of World War I imposed on the defeated German Reich were bound to create a nationalist backlash, and there was nothing the Allies could have done to avoid that backlash.[114] Having noted that much, Peukert commented that the policy of rapprochement with the Western powers that Gustav Stresemann carried out between 1923 and 1929 were constructive policies that might have allowed Germany to play a more positive role in Europe, and that it was not true that German democracy was doomed to die in 1919 because of Versailles.[114] Finally, Peukert argued that it was the Great Depression and the turn to a nationalist policy of autarky within Germany at the same time that finished off the Weimar Republic, not the Treaty of Versailles.[114]

In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a "Carthaginian peace", a misguided attempt to destroy Germany on behalf of French revanchism, rather than to follow the fairer principles for a lasting peace set out in President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which Germany had accepted at the armistice.

See also:

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

Motivations of territorial aggression and counter aggression are as old as tribal societies, but the instance of revanchism that gave these groundswells of opinion their modern name lies in the strong desire during the French Third Republic to regain Alsace-Lorraine - which France had held since the time of King Louis XIV in the 17th century and which were taken away in the Treaty of Frankfurt, following Emperor Napoleon III's crushing defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 (despite the fact that for most of its history Alsace-Lorraine was governed and populated by Alemannic Germans).[1]

Georges Clemenceau, of the Radical Republicans, opposed participation in the scramble for Africa and other adventures that would divert the Republic from objectives related to the "blue line of the Vosges" in Alsace-Lorraine. After the governments of Jules Ferry had pursued a number of colonies in the early 1880s, Clemenceau lent his support to Georges Ernest Boulanger, a popular figure, nicknamed Général Revanche, who it was felt might overthrow the Republic in 1889. This ultra-nationalist tradition influenced French politics up to 1921 and was one of the major reasons France went to great pains to woo Russia, resulting in the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 and, after more accords, the Triple Entente of the three great Allied powers of World War I: France, Great Britain, and Russia.

French revanchism was one of the forces behind the Treaty of Versailles, which regained Alsace-Lorraine for France, linked the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria with the World War I with Germany and extracted reparations from the defeated powers. The conference was not only opened on the anniversary of the proclamation of the Second Reich, the treaty also had to be signed by the new German government in the same room, the Hall of Mirrors.

A German revanchist movement developed in response to the losses of World War I. Pangermanists within the Weimar Republic called for the rightful reclamation of the property of a German state due to pre-war borders or because of the territory's historical relation to Germanic peoples. The movement called for the re-incorporation of Alsace-Lorraine, the Polish Corridor and the formerly Austrian Sudetenland (see Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia). This irredentism had also been characteristic of the Völkisch movement in general and of the Alldeutsche Verband (Pan-Germanic League), which had been a motivating factor behind German unification in 1871.

Finally,

Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders condemned the treaty. Politicians of the Weimar Republic who supported the treaty, socialists, communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion as persons of questionable loyalty. It was rumored that Jews had not supported the war and had played a role in selling Germany out to its enemies. Those who seemed to benefit from a weakened Germany and the newly formed Weimar Republic were regarded as having "stabbed Germany in the back". Those who instigated unrest and strikes in the critical military industries on the home front or who opposed German nationalism were seen to have contributed to Germany's defeat. These theories were given credence by the fact that when Germany surrendered in November 1918, its armies were still on French and Belgian territory. Furthermore, on the Eastern Front, Germany had already won the war against Russia and concluded the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In the West, Germany had seemed to have come close to winning the war with the Spring Offensive earlier in 1918. Its failure was blamed on strikes in the arms industry at a critical moment of the offensive, leaving soldiers with an inadequate supply of materiel. The strikes were regarded by nationalists as having been instigated by traitors, with the Jews taking most of the blame.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby FatFreddy » 27 Feb 2014, 21:44

You people keep ignoring my videos and now you're ignoring the Red Cross report. Here it is again.

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).
-----------------------------------------------------------

Please address this.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

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

Postby pwil » 28 Feb 2014, 06:33

I find these statements by the ICRC very interesting as well.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ust_denial


Hitler promised to annihilate the Jews and make them pay for the deaths of German soldiers in WW1 in many public speeches.
Just because a written order was never found doesn't mean that the Jewish genocide never happened. I haven't found any evidence of any autopsies containing any cyanide. But I also haven't found any evidence of any autopsies to disprove that there was any.

Do you really believe that the German Nazis treated them fairly in these camps and was willing to give them their own territory to live and run any way they want as long as they were segregated from any other European civilizations? To live peacefully amongst themselves. That is what you try to show what the ICRC says. Really? Seriously?
pwil
 
Posts: 45
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 00:10

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

Postby ProfWag » 28 Feb 2014, 20:08

FatFreddy wrote:You people keep ignoring my videos and now you're ignoring the Red Cross report. Here it is again.

http://www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic ... 36&t=18054
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------

There's a whole book on it, Fred, that discusses in length how deniers completely misrepresent the ICRC report. You're reading information that is totally false and misrepresented. Perhaps you should read it before you spout out incorrect information that you really don't know anything about.
Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust—The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Free Press, 1993, ISBN 0-02-919235-8
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby FatFreddy » 02 Mar 2014, 02:42

There's a whole book on it, Fred, that discusses in length how deniers completely misrepresent the ICRC report. You're reading information that is totally false and misrepresented. Perhaps you should read it before you spout out incorrect information that you really don't know anything about.
Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust—The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Free Press, 1993, ISBN 0-02-919235-8


You'll see here that he's photographed the pages of the actual Red Cross report to thwart propagandists who try to make people think he's misrepresenting it.
http://www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic ... 36&t=18054

Hitler promised to annihilate the Jews and make them pay for the deaths of German soldiers in WW1 in many public speeches.

This may or may not be true. If all you do is say it, how do we know you're not lying?

We'll have to see an actual video of such a speech to prove it as it's possible to put bogus texts online.

I haven't seen all of his speeches. If you see one in which he says such things, please post it.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... eech&sm=12

Don't forget the videos that you pro-official version posters are lamely playing down.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

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

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Mar 2014, 18:52

Once again, it's a battle of 'the documents' -- which documents or films or treatments etc should we believe?

This piece talks about the large number of death certificates signed and the fact that there were relatively few deaths due to typhus, whereas revisionists say it was all about the typhus. Most of them say due to 'heart failure', etc. Also, a lot of ovens were ordered. A lot of Soviet POWs were dying similarly, around 70% according to this account.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/

So are these numbers fabricated? What was 'the final solution' supposed to be about, if not extinguishment? And what of the 'special actions'? Why intern every minority, given that they were not a military threat to Germany simply because they were a minority, but rather didn't sit with the Nazis bizarre racist and eugenicist outlook?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

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

Postby pwil » 02 Mar 2014, 20:52

Instead of making everyone watch a bunch of youtube videos, I post you this in regards to Hitler's "proposed answer" to the Jewish population.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm
pwil
 
Posts: 45
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 00:10

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

Postby Misha » 02 Mar 2014, 22:21

SydneyPSIder wrote:Once again, it's a battle of 'the documents' -- which documents or films or treatments etc should we believe?

This piece talks about the large number of death certificates signed and the fact that there were relatively few deaths due to typhus, whereas revisionists say it was all about the typhus. Most of them say due to 'heart failure', etc. Also, a lot of ovens were ordered. A lot of Soviet POWs were dying similarly, around 70% according to this account.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/

So are these numbers fabricated? What was 'the final solution' supposed to be about, if not extinguishment? And what of the 'special actions'? Why intern every minority, given that they were not a military threat to Germany simply because they were a minority, but rather didn't sit with the Nazis bizarre racist and eugenicist outlook?


http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012/ ... ay-typhus/
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

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

Postby pwil » 02 Mar 2014, 23:30

Although his speeches, letters, and conversations about eradicating the Jews is not proof alone of the genocide, it shows that Hitler isn't as much of a good guy that you seem to portray him as to be. I delivered my last post because you asked to see some anti Semitism in his own words.
pwil
 
Posts: 45
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 00:10

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

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2014, 01:07


Considerin that Bergen Belsen was a camp where sick people were sent, it makes sense that a lot of people died of typhus while there. As such, to use it as evidence that Jews died because of typhus instead of gas chambers is extremely misleading. Additionally, before swearing by this blog, we might want to dig a little deeper into the honesty of the blogger...
http://samuraimohel.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/is-scrapbookpages-com-a-holocaust-denial-site/
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby FatFreddy » 03 Mar 2014, 04:48

Although his speeches, letters, and conversations about eradicating the Jews is not proof alone of the genocide, it shows that Hitler isn't as much of a good guy that you seem to portray him as to be. I delivered my last post because you asked to see some anti Semitism in his own words.

If we don't have a video of his actually saying those things, we don't know whether the stuff is bogus, or real. Try to find a speech of his in which he says something fascist here.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... eech&sm=12

I'm not saying there isn't anything there. I haven't watched all of them.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron