Holocaust deniers.

What are holocaust deniers in reality?

  • The reality of the people who have become insane through their hate.

    Votes: 13 12.3%
  • The purposely distorted reality of people who are driven by their hate.

    Votes: 61 57.5%
  • Historians that want a balanced account of history.

    Votes: 18 17.0%
  • The truth.

    Votes: 14 13.2%

  • Total voters
    106

pussygalore

Member
Aug 18, 2001
198
0
16
Toronto
It was a poor attempt at humor. You said there was an untimely end to the war.
I said, untimely is Hitler having a heart attack after 6months. Meaning he died in shortly after the war began."

Oh and I just spent time researching his heart attack :eek: " You see I take everything you say seriously!



In fact he apparently did have one in September 1944.
 

pussygalore

Member
Aug 18, 2001
198
0
16
Toronto
What do you mean they didn't last that long? Why not?
You say people didn't last 5 yrs, yet the killing process took 5 yrs.
If when the camps were liberated, all the camps had survivors, well then that was a pretty failed attempt to eradicate over 5 yrs""

Kathleen,

It was not an exact science like FIFO. Children and elderly and sick in some cases spent a few hours, those who could work stayed alive longer.
I suspect if Hitler/Himmler etc. had said stop the trains a few months before closure of a camp there would not have been any survivors in that camp.
Have you never had that awful feeling of being unable to keep up with the workload assigned.
Also when the camps were liberated the camp staff had left suddenly in most cases in the face of the Russians.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Kathleen said:
What do you mean they didn't last that long? Why not?
You say people didn't last 5 yrs, yet the killing process took 5 yrs.
If when the camps were liberated, all the camps had survivors, well then that was a pretty failed attempt to eradicate over 5 yrs""
I meant that individuals didn't last that long, they were murdered, or died from starvation and disease, and simply replaced with new arrivals. For any one person to last five years in any camp, whether it was built for labor or extermination, would have been extraordinary. I thought my point was obvious.
 

pussygalore

Member
Aug 18, 2001
198
0
16
Toronto
Kathleen,

POW's were generally treated by the German armed forces in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

The population in the camps under debate were kept alive as long as able to work in factories or in some cases within the camp. They were needed as a vast number of the able bodied German males (and near the end of the war teenagers) were in the German armed forces.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
DonQuixote said:
Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia.
His best divisions, his most competent officers
were slaughtered on the Eastern Front. The
German cause was lost on the steppes of Russia.
The German defeat was inevitable because of his
flawed decisions. One bad leader dooms a nation.
And he wasn't even German.
And Stalin wasn't Russian, although he pretended to be, Steel Man indeed. Even those in his inner circle must have privately laughed about that. We should consider ourselves lucky that such leaders are victims of their own megalomania, and inevitably self-destruct. Long as the next one doesn't take the whole planet with him. Hopefully Hitler is as close as we'll get.
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
lenharper said:
No one in their right mind could think that the victims of the Holcaust were BUYING THEIR OWN tickets to the labour camps. I can see it now, a family of Jewish folks -- I'd like six one way tickets to Treblinka please, oh and is the half price special for kids still on?

Jesus man, what are you smoking? This has got to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read.
Jesus yourself, I guess stupidity has no race, read my freaking post, it says

No one in a right mind (in this case the German government) will buy a two-way tickets even for himself when one is not sure about the time of the return, considering those were labor camps this is even less admit able!
Meaning, the return tickets were not an issue regardless of who had to purchase them when their purchases presented as an evidence!
Get it?!
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
cyrus said:
Jesus yourself, I guess stupidity has no race, read my freaking post, it says

No one in a right mind (in this case the German government) will buy a two-way tickets even for himself when one is not sure about the time of the return, considering those were labor camps this is even less admit able!
Meaning, the return tickets were not an issue regardless of who had to purchase them when their purchases presented as an evidence!
Get it?!
This is getting a bit silly. My point was this. Documents show that railways were paid to deliver millions to various camps. No return fees were ever paid. The people stayed there. When the Allies showed up at the camps, only a fraction of those sent remained. Get it?
 

pussygalore

Member
Aug 18, 2001
198
0
16
Toronto
Kathleen,
It is not so much they "kept them alive"- it is more they did not kill them.
Perhaps I am splitting hairs. A subtle difference perhaps.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Kathleen said:
Point is, near the end, the ones in the camps, looked like their captors.
You're going to have to explain this to me. The people barely alive at the end looked nothing like their captors, most of whom had already fled.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Kathleen said:
If he fled in 1939, I'd say he wouldnt even know Genocide, or have been witness to one. But that is going on my definition of the term. The terms I looked up tell a much more differant description, and I'm not sure why.

Seeing as how he created the term, and this term from your link came up - Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Having read that, I am blown away, and do apologize. Even had he fled in 1939, if this is his creation of Genocide, then he was certainly witness to one. I will also not speak of someone unless I know their character better.

Were Genocide adopted a new, or differant meaning, I'd like to know. Genocide (as per the dictionary I used) claims something pure evil - the attempt at removing an entire race.
But the term you provide, the original, claims a greatly tuned down version. Like to say ' someone who causes another race harm'.
It was written as such because intent is a very important point. In murder of an individual, it is clear whether the homicide was successful or not, and so, attempted murder carries a lesser charge. In genocide, I don't believe there has ever been a culture wiped out entirely. For instance, there are many Native Americans living today here in the US, but I absolutely consider the acts by the US government an attempt at genocide. It doesn't have to be a success ultimately, for it to be categorized as genocide.
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
Asterix said:
This is getting a bit silly. My point was this. Documents show that railways were paid to deliver millions to various camps. No return fees were ever paid. The people stayed there. When the Allies showed up at the camps, only a fraction of those sent remained. Get it?
Yes!
Able Jews (men, women & teens) were the main source of free labor / slaves to run the war factories & rebuilt what was destroyed,
These laborers were to free up the German manpower to fight the war on the front line, (the master plan when it came to Jews & the purpose of the camps) however at the end everyone was starving including the germans so the number of dead Jews increased dramatically during the last years of the war!
 
Last edited:

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
DonQuixote said:
Partially true. In addition to Jews, the Germans employed captured
Poles, Ukrainians and other groups. Since their men were in
uniform they needed all the help they could get not only in
factories but also on farms and other labor intensive jobs.
They used every resource they could get. They already lost
a generation in WW I. The universal conscription of WW II
resulted in a desparate need for labor.
Actually the majority of able Jews (men in particular) were not sent to camps but moved around to work at various hard jobs on at hoc basis. A lot of escapees came from these groups.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
cyrus said:
Actually the majority of able Jews (men in particular) were not sent to camps but moved around to work at various hard jobs on at hoc basis. A lot of escapees came from these groups.
Well, the Nazis weren't completely stupid. They took advantage of any able bodied or skilled person they could until they were no longer useful. The old, infirm, and young were often the first to die.
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,738
396
83
The Keebler Factory
DonQuixote said:
Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia.
His best divisions, his most competent officers
were slaughtered on the Eastern Front. The
German cause was lost on the steppes of Russia.
The German defeat was inevitable because of his
flawed decisions. One bad leader dooms a nation.
And he wasn't even German.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Hitler's fascism always focused on taking the east. It's not like he could ignore the Soviet Union; that was the raison d'etre for the Nazi cause. And the fate of the German armies was anything but inevitable. Take away one exceptionally bad winter and the war in the east could have been over in 1941.

As for Hitler not being German, again a common misconception. Austrians technically weren't German. Neither were those living in the Sudetenland. But they were all a part of the Greater German Reich. National Socialism wasn't about being from Germany; it was about being German. As in, of Germanic blood. Thus, in Hitler's Germany, someone from Austria or the Sudetenland was as German as someone from Berlin.

As for one bad leader dooming a nation, that's meaningless since that same bad leader built Germany into a world superpower from the depths of depression and impotency. Hitler was even Man of the Year and on the cover of Time magazine (before the war, obviously).
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
The bottom line is that things are not the way they seem. Manipulation is the name of the game. Control the Media & Financial institutions then you control the hearts & the minds! ;)
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Keebler Elf said:
As for one bad leader dooming a nation, that's meaningless since that same bad leader built Germany into a world superpower from the depths of depression and impotency. Hitler was even Man of the Year and on the cover of Time magazine (before the war, obviously).
Good lord. Hitler was in the process of bankrupting Germany, and was spending money he didn't have. The German government was taking in half as much as it was spending by 1939. Hitler didn't want to invade Europe in 1939, the original plan was for five years later. He felt he had to because the Nazi economic polices, and their go-it-alone nearly non-existant international trade, meant they needed to loot the rest of Europe to survive.

Being on the cover of Time magazine as Man of the Year, is not recognition of good deeds. It is recognizing the person so honored had a major impact in the world, which the good folks at Time have pointed out many times. For perspective, Stalin was also so awarded. Twice.
 

handsome sugardaddy

New member
Apr 16, 2005
486
0
0
Asterix said:
And Stalin wasn't Russian, although he pretended to be, Steel Man indeed. Even those in his inner circle must have privately laughed about that. We should consider ourselves lucky that such leaders are victims of their own megalomania, and inevitably self-destruct. Long as the next one doesn't take the whole planet with him. Hopefully Hitler is as close as we'll get.
I'm afraid that we have one in our midst........Georgie boy is one dangerous dude.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Kathleen said:
Darn UFC isn't on until 10pm :mad:

Two current links I came upon on the net while fact finding.

This one I found a comical, and harmless. HITLER BEATS BLAIR IN POLL

This other link is from a couple days ago. This is exactly what I was refering to when I said victims continue to use the Holocaust and play on the hearts of people, and won't let this event rest.
A man is fighting cancer, but its not his first battle. He survived the holocaust. The news story doesn't just mention the event, they go into great details, and show a long graphic video.

Have a look at the article, and the video: Survivor in every sense of the Word

The story claims this man survived 6.5 years in Auschwitz. Again 6.5 years.
I've had a couple here say most didn't last months, yet this man lived for six and a half yrs in a camp that was only open 5yrs. I'd imagine this has to be a typo of the news.

The tale of 'knocking a baby's head off' was also a little much. If such an story can't be supported, it shouldnt be printed.

From that article
"The toughest job I had to do in my life," says Harry. "They gave me the job to stay out in front of the gas chamber and try to make people believe they were going to take a shower.

Not one single photo of a gassing, no body shown to be gassed, and rooms that could never possibly be used for such. But here a man was in the unique situation to not only spend more time in a camp then it was open for, he was given the very rare duty to work in front of a chamber.
Kathleen,
As DQ said, let it go. Millions of documeted people went to the camps who didn't survive. Whether their captors watched them die from gassing, or starvation, or disease, doesn't matter. The intent was clear and the outcome clear. It is only unique in history because it was so well organized and on an unprecedeted scale. There are certainly many other instances of genocide. My confusion is why you refuse to admit that this was one.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
handsome sugardaddy said:
I'm afraid that we have one in our midst........Georgie boy is one dangerous dude.
Agreed. Although I'm pretty sure he's American. Not too sure on the authenticity of the Texas thing though.
 
Toronto Escorts