Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

Totally incorrect. You want to look up why it was called the Third Reich. You'd do better to look at the history of the Holy Roman Empire and how it lost territories over time, especially due to the Napoleonic wars.

What Hitler was more likely doing was fantasising about reinstating the Holy Roman Empire with himself as Emperor. (Obviously that didn't work out so well for him, should of stuck to street painting.)

You don't know much about the history of the country either do you? The Angle's weren't the only people to invade the lands prior, in fact the Roman empire was one of the worst invaders, removing indigenous people when they didn't see eye-to-eye. Just look how the supposed eradicate the Iceni [A Celt tribe] (doing so left the territory open to Angle's after the Romans has raided as much of the resources as they could afford)

Incidentally "Evil" isn't derived by how something looks, it's derived by what acts a person, group or country commits and might be deemed by a person, group or country with a counter perspective.

Nazi's weren't portrayed "Evil" because of just the holocaust, they did far worse things. For instance who do you think started the Battle of Britain with their bombing runs? (And incidentally not all of their targets were military bases, by the end of the war they were purposely aiming at population centres in an attempt to cripple peoples resistance) They used V1 rockets as well, while we might have retaliated with our own air raids we didn't use rockets in return, not necessarily down to our tech level being lesser, but our understanding of both how inaccurate they were and how civilian causalities would of been high.

The Gestapo also had a habit of rounding up anyone they thought was a collaborator, traitor or coward and shooting them. A fear tactic to make sure that people did as they told them. This meant that some of the people that fought for the Nazi's were actually press-ganged into it for fear that their families would be rounded up and killed if they refused. (The proof of this is I had two great uncles that had to fight on the Russian front or there sisters would be raped and their Austrian family's exterminated)

This is just Nazi operations to their own people, when you start looking towards people they weren't trying to have command over then their respect for human life became ever decreasing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can we bring the banhammer down yet? This is nauseating.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately there is some very misinformed people out there that have a habit of spreading their misinformation while believing it's accurate. banning them will never get them to see sense, in fact all they'll end up doing is identifying the ban as being some sort of conspiracy to silence them rather than just being due there particular view being just so ridiculous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you ban yourself from the topic? Some people here believe we have the right to hotly debate issues freely.

 

A debate requires two counter positions, of which they are seen as neither being correct or incorrect.

It's hardly a debate in regards to the logic used for Holocaust denial, it's more to the point that its Correct that the Holocaust happened and intellectually dishonesty, blind-stupidity and ignorance merged with four measures of trolling about how it didn't.

Really it's one of those "Stop flogging a Dead Horse" topics.

 

This a response to Steampunk from the anti-semitism thread, which was closed:

No--this is what you said:

Don't know where that last part comes from, or what it has to do with anything--I am simply suggesting that you lack a coherent direction and you go about these things in a very haphazard fashion.

I'm not going to point you towards any "scientific proof," rather I'd simply suggest you look into pretty much any critique of Faurisson for what you seek. (Personally, I'd recommend Lyotard's The Differend for a slightly different sort of approach, but it ain't very "science-y") I think this will illuminate the absurdity of your questions.

 

Sure. Print is so dead.

Right, because shovels and earth were passe back then, too.

 

Here's a couple then:

So why are they confused or possibly lying? I note the possibly.

 

I don't believe anyone is claiming that 6 million were gassed at Auschwitz. That was, afterall, just one stop on the world tour.

BTW - I can't provide empirical evidence that I had breakfast this morning. Yet, my stomach is full.

 

It's called a library - look into it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You know how this goes:

X saw them go into a room. X saw them removed from the room, in a non-living state. But X didn't see them being gassed.

And the only way for X to have witnessed anyone being gassed would be for X to have been there, being gassed as well. 'Course, then X couldn't testify to having seen anything.

 

Though this is kinda interesting:

Lest you follow the usual formula (in my post above), I'm a trifle confused about your claim about believing nothing without empirical evidence.

I mean, suppose someone comes forward today and states that they witnessed the gassing first-hand, you seem awfully convinced that they are wrong--already--by stating that you will "show how they are confused or possibly lying."

So are you admitting to an irrational bias here?

 

Precisely. Although you could have testimony of the use of gas - which we have (Hoss and Fritzsch, for example). It rapidly becomes an exercise in reductive silliness. You know what's going on. I know what's going on. Barring some enthusiastic affirmation from the subject, the point of the exercise seems pretty clear.

And the purpose thereof, of course, is barely adulterated evil. Is this why so many people died not so long ago? So that the cockroaches could scurry?

 

Instead of debating the obvious, we should ask, just what kind of "scientific evidence" would make him accept the truth...

If he really wants videotapes, hundreds of eyewitnesses and tons of DNAs for everything, then half of history never happened.* Nevertheless, there are still tons of the above mentioned type of evidences around for the Holocaust, so debating this topic is a wonderful exercise in FUTILITY....

*Did Genghis Khan really killed 40 million people? Maybe it was 4-5 only, a dozen tops....

P.S.: When wrestling with a pig, you seldom get an orgasm, or something like it.

P.S.S.: I have been to Dachau, so can I be called as an eyewitness???

 

Genghis Khan only killed two people, and one of them was a dog. I can prove all the rest were lying or maybe mistaken.

 

Yeah, this exercise is absurd on so many levels.

In the other thread, I remarked that Steampunk seems to be posturing himself as some sort of cross between a typical Jule's Verneian dilettante/Renaissance man and Borges's Funes, the memorious; but his bizarre contortions of what he considers "logic," along with his pseudoskepticism--which at one moment appears more a scientific, or empirical, skepticism, while at another appearing more akin to a philosophical skepticism--kinda remind me more of Werner Herzog's depiciton of Kaspar Hauser's "instructors":

A Problem of Logic

The rules of one discipline do not always automatically transfer neatly to another discipline, and scoring rhetorical "points" is not the same attaining knowledge or establishing facticity. And a "scientific thinker" (which SP claims to be) does not have to "experience" absolutely everything with his "own senses" (SP's professed criteria for certainty in knowledge), lest everyone would be too busy re-inventing the wheel and "experimenting" with apples to even broach such topics as Auschwitz.

 

I could give a damn what he takes from the experience! Who says this has to be a teaching tool? I want him gone so I don't have to say that a website I frequent is caters to Holocaust-denying Nazi apologists!

How about we stop worrying about educating the terminally ignorant and start protecting the site from garbage like this?

 

"If you don't like it, stay out of it."

 

The historical facts of the Holocaust have been revised several times due to provable inaccuracies and outrageous falsifications. Not just deniers have been behind the revisions, the people supporting the Holocaust have revised initial claims. More claims have been debunked, but not in the minds of those who practice blind, unquestioning support.

I didn't ask for DNA to prove the Holocaust, I asked for, but did not demand, DNA to be used to authenticate an alleged diary of the Auschwitz camp director. You are building arguments that never existed and attributing them to me. Take responsibility for your exaggerated paraphrasing intended to a build a strawman because the real argument is too tough for you.

Furthermore, you don't have one link to a survivor who is an eyewitness to the gassings that is properly interviewed about the gassings as to obtain a eyewitness proof the gassings occurred. I've been looking for these for a while now. I'm ready to believe, but you people have not produced.

If someone is studying to gain some expertise in Trigonometry, they don't blindly accept a calculators functions, they will be intrigued to learn how the original tables were built. They will get their hands dirty and rebuild the wheel of proof to corroborate what others have done. The are not trying to prove something, they are seeking a more authentic understanding. Expertise so-to-speak. The interesting thing is no scientific proof was ever offered of the gassing at Auschwitz, so no wheel is being re-invented. In fact, the model is being built slowly by revisionists (who seem to be the only one's concerned with accuracy). Models have took every effort to include even the most outrageous claims. Those outrageous ones have slowly dropped, but still models fails to support those popularly accepted claims because physical impossibilities of those claims. To prove this, you as well any here cannot provide a link to a scientific model demonstrating the science of the gassings at Auschwitz.

That's not my argument. Strawman.

I have always been open to the many people claiming they were eyewitnesses to the gassing process. I've watched several videos of their eyewitness testimony. Where their stories fail is when they begin their details concerning the entire process. They all surprisingly say things that are physically impossible, which creates a situation where their testimonies are not acceptable as evidence. Perhaps you can provide just one proper interview that doesn't have these physically impossible claims.

You are not going to point to a scientific proof becuase you don't know what you are talking about and because one doesn't exist. A little childish game,

I know something you don't know, and I'm not going to show you

Instead you offer admittedly non-sciency studies. Face it it, you have blindly accepted things, jumped on the bandwagon of belief and condemnation because you find it much more easy. When you are asked to establish one link to a scientific proof in the age of the Internet, you fail.