Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie?

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 18 May 2014 21:00 #421

  • KoreBolt
  • KoreBolt's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Chwilio am y gwirionedd, a bydd yn gosod i chi am ddim.
  • Posts: 546
  • Likes received: 458
Robert J Newman is a traitor to humanity for writing that vicious jew hatred...pretty much asking people to murder David Cole... a true revisionist.

You know David Cole is credible when he gets JDL hate against him. Maybe JDL Agents have threatened him since and hence why he is now David Stein......
- KoreBolt

Conspiracy Theorist - A derogatory term used to intimidate critical thinkers and truth seekers. It's not a conspiracy theory if we can prove it. Why can't they answer all our vital questions?
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Orangeaid, Seaic

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 18 May 2014 21:09 #422

  • Oracle
  • Oracle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Futurist & Anthropogenist
  • Posts: 3971
  • Likes received: 3235
KoreBolt wrote:
Robert J Newman is a traitor to humanity for writing that vicious jew hatred...pretty much asking people to murder David Cole... a true revisionist.

You know David Cole is credible when he gets JDL hate against him. Maybe JDL Agents have threatened him since and hence why he is now David Stein......

Very likely.

These organisations are terrorist organisations, in the spirit of the Cheka.

Reminds me for criminal terrorist Felix Dzerzhinsky, which the Stasi had a unit named after him.
The thugs who shot at us at the inner German border.
The resident shill announced
blue_tackler wrote:
please make my profile inactive, I no longer want to have any connection to this forum.

yet he is trolling further. :facepalm:

blue_tackler wrote:
the lice are only going to jump onto other typhus victim

Prime example of holocaustianity mental issues, clinically insane, and utterly ill informed, a danger to public health if this dude was working for CDC.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Orangeaid

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 18 May 2014 21:11 #423

World War II Never Ended for Germany – It remains occupied to this day (Part 1)


We have all been conditioned to believe that WWII ended with the defeat of Germany and surrender on May 7th/8th of 1945, and that Germany as “liberated”. But is that really the case? NO. The victors (the ALL LIES) and the colonial government of the occupiers merely pretend that this is the case and have promoted and sold it as such. In the absence of formal recognition for the German Reich and any peace treaties, some 50+ countries which declared war against the German Reich are officially STILL at war with Germany today. They could simply resume hostilities against Germany at any moment, without any new declaration, or permission from the UN Security Council.
The official story states that, in 1945, on…

May 7th: Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Allies at the Western Allied Headquarters in Rheims, France at 2:41 a.m. In accordance with orders from Reich President Karl Dönitz, General Alfred Jodl signed for Germany.

May 8th: A ceasefire took effect at one minute past midnight; V-E Day in Britain, and…

May 8th: Germany surrendered again unconditionally to the Soviet Union army (at their insistence, in a separate ceremony hosted by the Soviets. This was also in accordance with orders from Reich President Karl Dönitz, General Wilhelm Keitel signed for Germany. Also….

May 8th: In accordance with orders from Reich President Karl Dönitz, Colonel-General Carl Hilpert unconditionally surrenders his troops in the Courland Pocket.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_II_(1945)

“The surrender documents included the phrase, “All forces under German control to cease active operations at 23:01 hours Central European Time on 8 May 1945.” At Stalin’s insistence, on 8 May, shortly before midnight, Field Marshal General (Generalfeldmarschall) Wilhelm Keitel repeated the signing in Berlin at Marshal Georgiy Zhukov’s headquarters, with General Carl Spaatz of the USAAF present as Eisenhower’s representative. At the time specified, World War II in Europe ended.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flensburg_Government

There was, however, NEVER any comprehensive “peace treaty” between the government of German Reich and the Allies as a whole, nor with any of the individual nations which had declared war on Germany. The only country (of the Allied nations) not still at war with Germany is the Soviet Union, as it no longer exists, but which did sign off on it’s jurisdiction / subjugation of the GDR/DDR in 1990, allowing for the merger with the FRG/BRD. More on this later.

But “the Reich is gone!” you say? “It was destroyed!” No, Germany’s military was defeated and they surrendered. The physical terrain of Germany was destroyed, conquered and occupied, and the population subjugated, because the allies would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender ie. no negotiated peace settlement. From a German perspective and any honest historical view, it was an armistice, in anticipation of a honourable peace treaty between the warring parties.

“An armistice is a situation in a war where the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, since it might be just a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and statium, meaning a stopping.

A truce or ceasefire usually refers to a temporary cessation of hostilities for an agreed limited time or within a limited area. A truce may be needed in order to negotiate an armistice. An armistice is a modus vivendi and is not the same as a peace treaty, which may take months or even years to agree on. The 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement[1] is a major example of an armistice which has not been followed by a peace treaty.

The United Nations Security Council often imposes or tries to impose cease-fire resolutions on parties in modern conflicts. Armistices are always negotiated between the parties themselves and are thus generally seen as more binding than non-mandatory UN cease-fire resolutions in modern international law.

The key aspect in an armistice is the fact that fighting ends with no one surrendering.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice

The German Reich itself did not surrender, did not liquidate itself, and never ceased to exist as a legitimate legal entity, nor was it offered a peace treaty, and none was signed.

Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz



The 3 branches of the German military forces capitulated in 1945, but the government itself did not surrender it’s authority to govern, to act, and to negotiate on behalf of the German people. The Reich did not abolish itself!

The last ‘official’ Head of State was the President, Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz. The military documents of surrenders (mentioned above) were signed on the order of President Dönitz who was appointed to that position by Adolf Hitler (who was the Commander in Chief) in his last will and political testament, and gave him the power. At no time prior to the war was Hitler not seen as the legitimate head of state in Germany. Hitler had not abolished the Weimar constitution either, which provided for the positions of both Chancellor and President. justice4germans.com/2013/07/22/world-war-ii-never-ended-for-germany-it-remains-occupied-to-this-day-part-1/
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. – Marcus Aurelius
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Oracle, PFIZIPFEI, Seaic, KoreBolt

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 18 May 2014 21:28 #424

  • Oracle
  • Oracle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Futurist & Anthropogenist
  • Posts: 3971
  • Likes received: 3235
Watch these two videos and put them into context with Ukraine, because it is all about this peace treaty we are fighting for. A peace treaty would raise border issues across eastern europe, since reunification was only partially achieved, East Germany is missing. Hence the russian think tanker talks also rubbish.
However, the first interview was released by RIA novosti precisely at the 20th anniversary of the "reunification", as reminder for the "western partners" about "Germany as a whole", as they call it.





Current international politics are like utterly bad comedy. Putin makes the Sudetenland 2.0, and both call each other "nazi". Its not russian kindness, but self preservation. They need us, and we need temporarily russian (missile) protection, until we can handle ourselves again.
The resident shill announced
blue_tackler wrote:
please make my profile inactive, I no longer want to have any connection to this forum.

yet he is trolling further. :facepalm:

blue_tackler wrote:
the lice are only going to jump onto other typhus victim

Prime example of holocaustianity mental issues, clinically insane, and utterly ill informed, a danger to public health if this dude was working for CDC.
Last Edit: 18 May 2014 21:35 by Oracle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Return of Zorro, KoreBolt

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 18 May 2014 21:54 #425

  • Oracle
  • Oracle's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Futurist & Anthropogenist
  • Posts: 3971
  • Likes received: 3235
What makes the whole situation so incredibly dangerous, is that both US and Russia have a first strike policy.
The Russians have it in response to the "missile shield" which is a first strike enabling system.

In regard to current developments, I bet, the Russian Mr Fenenko would revise his 3 year old statement, and considered a full reunification along a peace treaty. You signed a contract with the devil decades ago, dear russians :chuckle:
The resident shill announced
blue_tackler wrote:
please make my profile inactive, I no longer want to have any connection to this forum.

yet he is trolling further. :facepalm:

blue_tackler wrote:
the lice are only going to jump onto other typhus victim

Prime example of holocaustianity mental issues, clinically insane, and utterly ill informed, a danger to public health if this dude was working for CDC.
Last Edit: 18 May 2014 21:59 by Oracle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 00:35 #426

  • Seaic
  • Seaic's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1910
  • Likes received: 2150
Short, but a good one.

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 20:40 #427

Oracle wrote:

Cognitive dissonance again, eh?

Nah that would be something like supporting Hitler despite the evidence that he was a complete cunt & attempting to cover up for his crimes because of your bizarre love for him. Did you lack a father figure in your childhood?
Who is "we" again? The crew in the ADL bunker? You do realize, that you are on this forum pretty much alone with your extremist judeophile views?

There's nothing Jewish about my views. There's clearly something extremely paranoid about yours.
As you know, the Bolsheviks were in fact in majority jews at the very top of this terrorist organisation, who murdered about 60 million in Eastern Europe. It is a fact, that jews are perpetrators. 80% of the Cheka/NKVD commissars and butchers were jews.
As one can see in Ukraine currently, jews are perpetrators, from Vitoria Nudelmann Kagan(ovich) to Timoshenko, Klichko to Jazeniuk. All jews. And this stupid red haired spokesperson(better say puppet with a haircut) for the zion war department is married to Cass Sunstein.

I adopt one of your silly catch words, and call you an irrational jew lover.

Amazing that Jews are so capable of being at the forefront of capitalism and being behind Bolshevism isn't it?
They really are an awfully powerful creed with superhuman abilities.
/
What proportion of the population of nazi Germany were Jewish that they were able to reek such havoc?
Was it about 1%? That must be extremely embarrassing for Germans. No wonder they decided to start butchering people. :roll:

Your style smells of the ignoramus Turdwave.

I've seen him wipe the floor with you lot enough times as well.
You know for yourself, that you cannot win this battle without the censorship and repression machinery you heavily depend on to spout your party line.

There is no battle. Just a bunch of idiots getting excited over nothing.

The thing that caught my eye about it was really the subject that it partially addressed: the idea that there is such a thing as a ‘good jew’. (1)

This really is scraping the barrel.
Coz he's a dedicated swallower of fascism
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 20:51 #428

PFIZIPFEI wrote:
On that cab driver video there are many good comments, although the video was uploaded by CBS and they seem to not delete them.
In these comments I came across this link and thought to post it here because we already talked about this subject on this thread before and because of the many photos:


Adolf Hitler and the Army of Mankind

Before you begin to mount feeble accusations of 'hater' and 'racist', let's get a few things straight. Many countries fought on the side of Nazi Germany in WW2, including several non-white ones. One of Germany's primary allies of the 'Tripartite Pact' (signed on September 27, 1940) was not white, Japan. In fact, when the USA declared war on Japan the next year Germany honored the Tripartite Pact and declared war on the United States.

Indians, Asians, Arabs and blacks not only fought on the side of Nazi Germany, but also wore the eagle and swastika on their breast. Dozens of countries volunteered to the elite Waffen SS, including many non-whites of a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. In fact, it was the largest multi-racial fighting force in history! Not to mention also the most religiously diverse as well.

Commando Extraordinaire Otto Skorzeny describes the diverse nature of the Waffen-SS in his 1975 memoirs '...from 1942 European soldiers from many lands and peoples could be found: Albanians, Bosnians, Britons, Bulgarians, Cossacks, Croats, Danes, Dutch, Estonians, Finns, Flemings, French, Georgians, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Norwegians, Romanians, Russians, Serbs, Slovakians, Swedes, Swiss, Ukrainians, Walloons, Armenians, Byelorussians, Hindus, Kirghizes, Tartars, Turkmen and Uzbeks served under their own flags in the Waffen-SS. Almost all of these peoples were represented in my unit.'

The Germans did not segregate their troops. Blacks, Asians, Arabs and Whites all fought and lived and died side-by-side. A sharp contrast to the American and British treatment of non-whites that fought for them. These unfortunate troops were often used as cannon fodder and not even allowed to fight with white troops. The black servicemen of America were even experimented on! The Japanese Americans who volunteered for the U.S. military were fighting for a country who had interned their families in concentration camps.


Read more and see the photos: www.mourningtheancient.com/truth.htm

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

-Mein Kampf
Coz he's a dedicated swallower of fascism
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 21:21 #429

Wrong again AR. Gun control in National socialist Germany is based mainly around myth. Everybody likes to link Adolf Hilter with Gun control, but it's all lies. Far from banning private ownership, the national socialists encouraged and facilitated the keeping of private arms, and actually reversed draconian laws which were enacted by the previous government of the Weimar republic. National Socialist firearms legislation was in fact very liberal.



Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945

by William L. Pierce

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, "You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms," or, "The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns."

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: "All in favor of gun control raise your right hand." A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany's National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists -- or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the "Nazi" brush: the whole spirit of Hitler's government was starkly different from its portrayal by America's mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.

The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character. www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. – Marcus Aurelius
Last Edit: 19 May 2014 21:57 by Return of Zorro.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, PFIZIPFEI

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 22:27 #430

Zorro wrote:
Wrong again AR. Gun control in National socialist Germany is based mainly around myth.

How can I be wrong about something I didn't talk about? :conf: & where have I previously been wrong?

Everybody likes to link Adolf Hilter with Gun control, but it's all lies. Far from banning private ownership, the national socialists encouraged and facilitated the keeping of private arms, and actually reversed draconian laws which were enacted by the previous government of the Weimar republic. National Socialist firearms legislation was in fact very liberal.



Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945

by William L. Pierce

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, "You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms," or, "The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns."

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: "All in favor of gun control raise your right hand." A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany's National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists -- or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the "Nazi" brush: the whole spirit of Hitler's government was starkly different from its portrayal by America's mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.

The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character. www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

This seems a very dubious article. Laws were passed in 1938 prohibiting gun ownership by Jews.....
which makes this a bit :facepalm:
Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews,

But gun control wasn't really an essential element for Hitler to succeed given that he had 400,000 soldiers in a private army, the police & the regular army all under his control.
Weapons were generally seized from 'enemies' such as Jews when their homes were ransacked.
Coz he's a dedicated swallower of fascism
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 22:58 #431

  • voxvot
  • voxvot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 112
  • Likes received: 164
Hello AR, sorry I missed your response until now.

I said in the post you are responding to...

"Whatever their estimation of the usefulness of their evidence, they did, nevertheless, provide evidence"
Android Replicant wrote:
I believe it's called negative evidence.
Which is partly why it's insubstantial

I disagree that this is "negative evidence". Negative evidence is the assertion that because none of the evidence that one would expect to corroborate a proposition has been uncovered, the proposition in question is negated.

Germar Rudolf presented actual evidence, in the form of a forensic study. Rudolf also disclosed a lot of surprising information about the use, reason for use, and extent of use of Zyklon B in the camps. How many people knew anything about the extensive sanitary precautions implemented by the Germans, for example in the "sauna" complex? I didn't know about this, but Rudolf's report put this into the public domain. Even if you do not accept Rudolf's report as evidence, it is at least information that clearly indicates an alternative Auschwitz .narrative. What I don't see is any indication that by stating this I am presenting "negative evidence".
AR wrote:
What was not known to you is irrelevant. People tend not to know things until they find out I guess

That's true, but the existence of active measures being taken to prevent people from finding things out operating in conflation with active measures to promote one particular narrative, is indicative of an agenda being propped up by propaganda and force. The average man in the street knows nothing about bee keeping, nor does he know much about standard revisionist arguments, but not for the same reason.
AR wrote:
To dispute the notion of the gas chambers you will need to dispute the testimonies of Hoss, Stark, Tauber & Broad

All of these testimonies are credibly disputed on on all of the well known revisionist websites. Type these names into CODOH, or IHR and you will find many, many reasons presented that if correct completely discredit these witnesses. In the two failed Canadian prosecutions of Ernst Zundel, prominent eyewitnesses performed very badly. Zundel was never tried for a third time in Canada, but was deported to Germany, where truth is no defence, and there could be no cross examination of eyewitnesses.
AR wrote:
Each of the Krema were slightly different & some started out with one purpose and were then adapted to be gassing centres. Krema 2 & 3 had been designed as morgues initially. Morgue 1 of Krema 2 had been used as a gassing centre according to Hoss, Stark, Tauber & Broad

I have no reason to believe that these witnesses are any more reliable than the Zundel trial witnesses, and I've read the revisionist responses to these arguments, which seem to be relevant; what do you disbelieve about the rebuttals?
AR wrote:
Additionally, there was no forthcoming evidence from Rudolph about his propositions of what he thought the gas chambers actually were. There was simply no other corroborating evidence.... no eyewitnesses, nowt

I'm not trying to score a cheap point, but hat does seem to be "negative evidence", besides, two major installations are clearly designed as morgues. This is verified by documents and plans.
AR wrote:
You're entitled to your beliefs & I respect your ability to present your argument without all the usual shite that's flung at me.
So many here seem to think for some reason that holocaust denial is totally cut & dried & there is zero proof that it happened. Clearly quite the reverse is the case but they're extremely selective about which evidence suits them

Considering that the holocaust narrative originated in a prosecution, and that the principle method of prosecuting a case involves selecting evidence favourable to your case, my opinion is that the reverse of your conclusion is nearer the truth.
AR wrote:
and when demands of further inquiry into arguments that aren't scientific in the first place be taken into consideration aren't met for some reason that only serves to further that conclusion that there is a huge conspiracy that's been calculated by sources such as, survivors, key nazis, armies, doctors & a variety of other witnesses with documents to support it....
plus speeches by various nazis (which exist on tape) saying they are wiping out the Jews, laws enacted against Jews, lots of violence perpetrated against Jews by nazis, wiping out of the mentally ill, wiping out Gippos, & a myriad of other circumstantial evidence count for absolutely nothing.

All of this falls into the category of evidence for the prosecution, we are now beginning to hear the case for the defence and the overriding impression is that the exterminationists are terrified of that case falling into public knowledge. Why?
We've been through the T-4 nonsense on a now infamous DIF thread. Lumping together many varieties of inconclusive evidence under the umbrella of one narrative does not bolster the credibility of that evidence, nor does it sum to a conclusive whole, anymore than assembling eleven talentless football players results in the creation of a capable football team; it's Van Pelt's "convergence of (crap) evidence" fallacy all over again.
AR wrote:
Anyway, back to the point about the chemicals.... neither of us knows enough about it but if you're getting information from that idiot & academic fraud Rudolph I'd be very skeptical of it. But if you seriously think there is a case for this a research paper should be drafted & presented to the appropriate institutions for review. Nobody stops anybody doing that, HD laws or not

Rudolf ended up in jail for years. Zundel was jailed for five years and he committed no crime in any country with HD laws; no one is safe from persecution from the holocaust lobby, any chemist who favorably replicated Rudolf's research would be committing career suicide at the very least. Circumstances that are not really conducive to open investigation.
AR wrote:
Nobody has to 'prove' anything about the holocaust. This was the point that van Pelt made. What's been provided as evidence is sufficient for it to be written in history & meet various other criteria, and it has been studied and revised in depth by people qualified to do so & people not qualified to do so. What holocaust deniers want with their negative evidence is irrelevant. They can keep their views....That's the way it goes.... nobody really gives a shit about them & everyone thinks they're a cunt.

"Nobody has to prove anything about the holocaust" is the point that Van Pelt asserted. If you are going to claim that history is verified by assertion, you must realize that the assertion that will dominate will be the assertion of the powerful. Might is right is not a valid principle for determining historical fact.
Last Edit: 19 May 2014 23:18 by voxvot.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 23:20 #432

After the publication of the papal encyclical in March 1937, Catholic resistance was completely confinedto the actions of individual representatives of the church. One of the best known critics of the Nazis was Clemens August von Galen, Bishop of Münster
(1878-1946)
. In the following sermon of August
3, 1941, he protested publicly against the so called euthanasia program. The killing of the disabled at the hands of the state also prompted him to file murder charges
.
Galen’s influence and popularity among the Catholic population made him a considerable
security risk for the Nazi regime, which sought to shut him down but was afraid of public unrest,
as the following governmental correspondence illustrates. Goebbels eventually prevailed in the
matter and Galen went unchecked. General public outrage over the euthanasia program along
with the vociferous protests of church representatives, in which Galen played
a major part, prompted Hitler to suspend the T4 Action, although the murder of patients continued on a
decentralized basis.
.
I. Excerpt from
Bishop
von Galen’s Sermon (August 3, 1941)
[
. . .
]
I am reliably informed that in hospitals and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being
prepared of inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national community”
and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly thereafter killed.
The first party of patients left the mental hospital at Marienthal, near Münster, in the course of this week.
German men and women! Article 211 of the German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms:
“Whoever kills a man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death.” No
doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men and women, members of our
families, from this punishment laid down by law the patients who have been selected for killing
are removed from their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then given as
the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the relatives and the criminal
police are unable to establish whether the patient had in face been ill or what the cause of death
actually was. I have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the office of
the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Conti, no secret is made of the fact that a large number of
mentally ill persons in Germany have already been killed with intent and that this will continue.
2
Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that “anyone who has knowledge of an intention to
commit a crime against the life of any person ... and fails to inform the authorities or the person
whose life is threatened in due time ... commits a punishable offence.” When I learned of the
intention to remove patients from Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State
Prosecutor of Münster Provincial Court and to the Münster chief of police by registered letter, in
the following terms: “According to the information I have received it is planned in the course of this week (the date
has been mentioned as 31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital
at Marienthal, classified as “unproductive members of the national community,” to the mental
hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally believed to have happened in the case of patients
removed from other establishments, they are to be killed with intent.
Since such action is not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under article 211 of the German Penal
Code ranks as murder and attracts the death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance
with my obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps should at once be
taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings against the authorities planning their
removal and murder, and that I may be informed of the action taken.”
I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police. I had already
written on 26th July to the Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the
running of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care and for cure,
protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect. And I am now told that 800 patients have
already been removed from the hospital at Warstein.
We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be
killed.
Source of English translation: “Sermon by the Bishop of Münster, Clemens August Count von
Galen, on Sunday, August 3, 1941, in St. Lambert’s Church, Münster, in Beth A. Griech

germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English82.pdf
-

How on earth can you people stick up for this regime?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
:conf:
Coz he's a dedicated swallower of fascism
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 19 May 2014 23:44 #433

  • voxvot
  • voxvot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 112
  • Likes received: 164
Android replicant wrote:
How on earth can you people stick up for this regime?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

200,000 lives are extinguished by abortion every single year in the UK. In most cases the reason is inconvenience, in at least 3,000 cases the reason for the termination of life is the same as the reasons that qualified T-4 mercy killings. A life of mental confusion, frustration, pain and suffering is a burden, a painless death is a kindness in these extreme cases.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 20 May 2014 00:54 #434

voxvot wrote:

I said in the post you are responding to...

"Whatever their estimation of the usefulness of their evidence, they did, nevertheless, provide evidence"
Android Replicant wrote:
I believe it's called negative evidence.
Which is partly why it's insubstantial

I disagree that this is "negative evidence". Negative evidence is the assertion that because none of the evidence that one would expect to corroborate a proposition has been uncovered, the proposition in question is negated.

It's called negative evidence because of its findings.
Germar Rudolf presented actual evidence, in the form of a forensic study. Rudolf also disclosed a lot of surprising information about the use, reason for use, and extent of use of Zyklon B in the camps. How many people knew anything about the extensive sanitary precautions implemented by the Germans, for example in the "sauna" complex? I didn't know about this, but Rudolf's report put this into the public domain. Even if you do not accept Rudolf's report as evidence, it is at least information that clearly indicates an alternative Auschwitz .narrative. What I don't see is any indication that by stating this I am presenting "negative evidence".

He's not a reliable witness. Anybody who creates a network of self-referencing faux-academic credentials to make their work seem plausible destroys their credibility entirely. You can't have it both ways & say which witnesses are or aren't reliable to fit the theory. But there is absolute proof Rudoph was a fraud.
His information has been disputed & he wasn't able to provide any corroborative evidence to his assertions. So yeh there's an alternative Auschwitz narrative based on very little.
That's true, but the existence of active measures being taken to prevent people from finding things out operating in conflation with active measures to promote one particular narrative, is indicative of an agenda being propped up by propaganda and force. The average man in the street knows nothing about bee keeping, nor does he know much about standard revisionist arguments, but not for the same reason.

I'm sure there are many further reasons why HD isn't popular. It doesn't tend to help the cause on forums like this when everybody just constantly bangs on about Jews.
As far as I'm aware, a particular narrative is portrayed as a true representation of events based on the known evidence as far as history is concerned.
There can never be any absolute 'debunking' of the gas chambers because of the amount of evidence that supports it, but even if numbers of Jews killed were revised down considerably it would have little impact on how the world works.

All of these testimonies are credibly disputed on on all of the well known revisionist websites. Type these names into CODOH, or IHR and you will find many, many reasons presented that if correct completely discredit these witnesses.

Are there any qualified professional people that question their evidence?
& if so do you have any links?.

In the two failed Canadian prosecutions of Ernst Zundel, prominent eyewitnesses performed very badly. Zundel was never tried for a third time in Canada, but was deported to Germany, where truth is no defence, and there could be no cross examination of eyewitnesses.

The Canadian trials failed on technicalities. Canada refused to grant him citizenship due to his dealings with neo-nazi groups.
He kinda destroys his own credibility by mentioning that his books on nazis in the hollow earth are just 'entertainment'.

I'll have to come back to the rest later.
Coz he's a dedicated swallower of fascism
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 20 May 2014 08:58 #435

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20381
  • Likes received: 7951
The Substitute Religion of the Holocaust

Bishop Williamson
Dinoscopus
April 4, 2014





Bishop Richard Williamson

Two months ago a self-declared atheist celebrated in France his 85th birthday, to whom all theists of the true religion owe a serious debt of thanks, because in today’s world of lies Professor Robert Faurisson has been a powerful defender of truth. I for one might wish that many more believers in the true God would have his intelligence and honesty in discerning the truth, and his courage to tell it.

For instance, whether or not it is a historical fact that there were six million victims of gassing in gas chambers of the Third Reich, Prof. Faurisson insists on treating it as a historical question to be settled by the facts and scientific evidence, and not by emotion and legislation – what could be more reasonable ? And yet on this particular question a mass of our contemporaries will not listen to reason. Are their minds still functioning ? Our warm gratitude goes to the Professor for bringing an excellent and scholarly mind to bear on a historical question as a question of history and not of something else.

Something else ? Again, whether or not the Six Million are a historical reality, it is the Professor who states that they have in any case acquired the status of a secular religion. Does it take a supposedly irreligious man to discern what serves as the main religion of our times ? I might wish a few more Catholics would have the gumption to see and say what is today’s main rival to their true religion. Here is a very brief overview of an article written on the subject in 2008 by Professor Faurisson:–



Professor Robert Faurisson

The Six Million constitute a lay religion with its own dogma, commandments, decrees, prophets, high priests and Saints: St Anne (Frank), St Simon (Wiesenthal), St Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its temples and its relics (bars of soap, piles of shoes, etc.), its martyrs, heroes, miracles and miraculous survivors (millions of them), its golden legend and its righteous people. Auschwitz is its Golgotha, Hitler is its Satan. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Veshem monument.

It is a new religion that has enjoyed a meteoric growth since World War II. It has conquered the West and is setting out to conquer the world. Whereas the progress of scientific thinking in our consumer society has weakened the grip of all the classic religions by making people more and more sceptical as to the truth of religion’s stories and the promises religion holds out, the new religion prospers to the point that anybody caught denying its basic dogma is branded as a “Revisionist”, is cast out of the community, and is treated like only heretics used to be treated. It is in effect a religion, and it is today a major instrument, and, one might say, the popular religion of the godless New World Order.


The Professor argues that this success can be attributed to its resorting to the consumer society’s own techniques of advertising and selling. Here I think he does lack the religious perspective. Surely the apostasy of the once Christian nations is the main explanation. Christ is God. When God is pushed out, he leaves behind him a huge void which must be filled by something. The promoters of the new religion have by their history a matchless instinct for the fabrication of substitute religions. But be that as it may, I would invite believers to pray for the unbelieving Professor so that he may collect the divine reward which, humanly seen, he deserves for the heroic services which he has rendered to the truth.

Kyrie eleison.

www.dinoscopus.org/%C2%A0
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Return of Zorro

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 20 May 2014 09:32 #436

Allied Gun-Grabbers: Operation Tallyho, Germany,1945

Operation Tallyho: The Biggest Gun Grab in History





500,000 U.S. Troops searched ALL homes in the biggest gun raid in history, seizing some 80,000 weapons. After spending 6 years fighting the against the New World Order agenda, 15 million Germans offered no more resistance to the tyrannical globalist agenda.

Their nation, and the rights and freedoms they had fought so long for were gone!

Oh, and you thought that Hitler was the “gun-grabber” and that he had disarmed the citizens? The TRUTH is Hitler had made it easier for citizens to obtain and maintain firearms. He was NOT part of the “New World Order” as Alex Jones and so many other fearmongering “patriot radio” show hosts would us believe. National Socialism was the SOLUTION to the Capitalist / Bolshevik “New World Order”. It was “government of people, by the people, and for the people”. Hitler was not a brutal dictator who ruled with an iron fist, such as the despotic, murdering, gun-grabbing Soviet leader Stalin, nor a lying democratic swindler, such as Roosevelt or Churchill, who waging war by false pretence, costing nearly 60 million lives, for the sake of a few, and their NWO agenda.

NO, he did NOT “burn down the Reichstag” to seize power and invoke the “enabling act.” NO he did NOT use a “false flag operation at Gleiwitz as a pretext to invade Poland”. And NO, he did NOT seek war or want to “take over the world”. Hitler, more than anyone else, wanted and sought PEACE, and he worked constantly to prevent war!

It’s time the world figured this out.

To free your minds from years of programming, please read my previous posts, watch “Hitler’s War – What the Historians Neglect to Mention” and check out my extensive links section for a FREE re-education at home, in your spare time ;-) justice4germans.com/2013/03/26/allied-gun-grabbers-operation-tallyho-germany1945/
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. – Marcus Aurelius
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 20 May 2014 15:07 #437

  • voxvot
  • voxvot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 112
  • Likes received: 164
AR wrote:
It's called negative evidence because of its findings

I'ts not a major point necessarily, but I'm sure you are in error about what constitutes "negative evidence". Look up Wikipedia.
AR wrote:
He's not a reliable witness. Anybody who creates a network of self-referencing faux-academic credentials to make their work seem plausible destroys their credibility entirely. You can't have it both ways & say which witnesses are or aren't reliable to fit the theory. But there is absolute proof Rudoph was a fraud.
His information has been disputed & he wasn't able to provide any corroborative evidence to his assertions. So yeh there's an alternative Auschwitz narrative based on very little

Being German there was good reason for Rudolf to disguise the authorship of his studies. He overstepped the mark, I agree, by using his own studies under pseudonym to substantiate studies published under his real name. What you are missing is that whilst Rudolph may be a "fraud" the veracity of his studies cannot be determined by an analysis of hischaracter; to do this is a clear case of fallacy ad hom.

Disputing a study is not the same thing as refuting a study. As far as I can see there is nothing unscientific about his general methodology and he explains his conclusions very logically. It's pretty hard for him to respond to exterminationist critique from a prison cell.
AR wrote:
I'm sure there are many further reasons why HD isn't popular. It doesn't tend to help the cause on forums like this when everybody just constantly bangs on about Jews

I don't know if this forum has a "cause"; does it? The alternative to "banging on about Jews" is to regard them as the passive flotsam of history. IMO that's a dehumanizing and patronizing point of view. The Jews are and were a clever, industrious and capable people who often enjoyed high social standing and even constituted a social elite among non-Jewish populations. It's wrong to confront a cartoon caricature?
AR wrote:
As far as I'm aware, a particular narrative is portrayed as a true representation of events based on the known evidence as far as history is concerned

It seems to me that, in fact, a lot of the evidence is selected and has been badly scrutinized or authenticated.
AR wrote:
There can never be any absolute 'debunking' of the gas chambers because of the amount of evidence that supports it, but even if numbers of Jews killed were revised down considerably it would have little impact on how the world works

Why are gas chambers unique in the history of the world in that their existence, or non-existence, is not determined by evidence, and science.
AR wrote:
Are there any qualified professional people that question their evidence?
& if so do you have any links?

That's called the "genetic fallacy" . If a janitor claims that water boils at around 100 degrees at sea level, that claim is not true or false simply on the basis of his lack of formal qualifications in the field. Becoming an "expert" is just a mater of passing exams, it doesn't make you magically right about everything you opine about. I think that "expert" status takes second place to simply being right. Jan Van Pelt was an acknowledged professor of architecture who had never designed or constructed as much as a garden shed, or a chicken coop: he was an "expert" on Auschwitz who had never even visited Auschwitz. On the other hand, Fred Leuchter, was not an "expert" on execution chambers despite having successfully designed and built execution chambers. It's all about having that magical little red scroll, isn't it? Seems more like shamanism than education to me.
AR wrote:
The Canadian trials failed on technicalities. Canada refused to grant him citizenship due to his dealings with neo-nazi groups.
He kinda destroys his own credibility by mentioning that his books on nazis in the hollow earth are just 'entertainment'

This is just more guilt by association. I don't care if he believed that the moon was made of blue cheese, it would have nothing to do with his claims about the holocaust.

Further to your previous post which asserts the primacy of eyewitness testimony, why is the eyewitness testimony that relates to the Auschwitz gassing any more credible than the eyewitness testimony to steam execution?

The victims now realize their doom is near. At the entrance to the death house the No. 1 chief himself drives them to cells, freely using a whip. The floor of the cell (steam chamber) is slippery. Some fall and are unable to rise because of the pressure of those behind. Small children are flung over the heads of women. When the cells are filled they are closed and sealed. Steam is forced through apertures and suffocation of the victims begins. At first cries can be heard but these gradually subside and after fifteen minutes all is silent. The execution is over. When the trap door is opened to let the bodies drop down they fall in a compact mass, stuck together by the heat and steam. Cold water is sprayed on them with a hose after which the grave-diggers pile the corpses on a platform like the carcasses of slaughtered animals…At times not all the victims can be squeezed into the death cells at once, and those remaining are kept near the house of death.

8 August 1943 New York Times


Why is the Auschwitz testimony any more credible than the testimony about camps located on German soil?
Military Police Service Copy
Circular Letter No.31/48 Vienna,1 Oct 1948
10th dispatch

1. The Allied Commissions of Inquiry have so far established that no people were killed by poison gas in the following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its satellite camps, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Theresienstadt

In those cases, it has been possible to prove that confessions had been extracted by tortures and that testimonies were false.

This must be taken into account when conducting investigations and interrogations with respect to war crimes.

The result of this investigation should be brought to the cognizance of former concentration camp inmates who at the time of the hearings testified on the murder of people, especially Jews, with poison gas in those concentration camps. Should they insist on their statements, charges are to be brought against them for making false statements

I'm not trying to pretend to have expert knowledge of the subject, or to have a extra sensory perception about what really happened during WWII, but I'm not seeing any conclusive rebuttal of the revisionist POV. In fact, I'm just seeing a lot of bluster and bullying, why should intimidation lend credibility to a hypothesis?
Last Edit: 20 May 2014 15:10 by voxvot.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 20 May 2014 15:29 #438

voxvot wrote:
Android replicant wrote:
How on earth can you people stick up for this regime?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

200,000 lives are extinguished by abortion every single year in the UK. In most cases the reason is inconvenience, in at least 3,000 cases the reason for the termination of life is the same as the reasons that qualified T-4 mercy killings. A life of mental confusion, frustration, pain and suffering is a burden, a painless death is a kindness in these extreme cases.

Didn't you mention you thought T4 was a myth?

I'm not sure abortion & T4 are completely comparable. Both scenarios remove consent from individual life yet in the case of abortion the choice is usually down to the parents, whereas in the case of T4 it removes consent entirely from individuals or carers and subjugates it to the will of the state.
People who live in a state of 'mental confusion' may be entirely happy; it's difficult to assess if they don't have the capacity to reveal their feelings. Plus T4 took out the deaf & the blind, which while they might be fairly severe disabilities, plenty of people can live a happy and full life regardless. It did reveal more of a mental illness about the people who implemented these policies though; fascination with racially pure and perfectly healthy gene pools which were set and measured by their own decree and imagination. Slight control issues, to say the least.
Coz he's a dedicated swallower of fascism
Last Edit: 20 May 2014 15:33 by Android Replicant.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 20 May 2014 16:15 #439

  • voxvot
  • voxvot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 112
  • Likes received: 164
I don't think that it was a myth. I think that T-4 was a progressive medical policy introduced for essentially benign purposes.

It had nothing to do with eugenics.

It was not a National Socialist inspired policy.

It had nothing to do with race.

Hitler sanctioned it at the request of the medical establishment based on a petition by the parents of a severely disabled child.

Abortion is not the same as euthanasia I agree, however both procedures entail the termination of life; that's what an abortion is called, a "termination" isn't it? The point is that our present democratic society terminates 3,000 lives a year on the basis of the same criteria used historically in Germany, and terminates a further 197,000 lives, a high percentage of which are terminated for nothing much more than the fact that these lives were considered to be inconvenient to the life bearers.

To be honest, although I stand by all of the points about the essentially humane rationale for T-4, it doesn't seem unlikely that it morphed into one of these horrible medical fads, like the lobotomy craze (obviously worse), that exceeded all rational justification. I have no evidence of that, I just think that it's not unlikely, however, whether that is the case or not, T-4 has nothing to do with National Socialism except that it emerged conterminously with that particular government.
Last Edit: 20 May 2014 16:17 by voxvot.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

What if everything you were taught about World War II was a lie? 20 May 2014 16:55 #440

voxvot wrote:

I have no reason to believe that these witnesses are any more reliable than the Zundel trial witnesses, and I've read the revisionist responses to these arguments, which seem to be relevant; what do you disbelieve about the rebuttals?

Post them up.
AR wrote:
Additionally, there was no forthcoming evidence from Rudolph about his propositions of what he thought the gas chambers actually were. There was simply no other corroborating evidence.... no eyewitnesses, nowt
I'm not trying to score a cheap point, but hat does seem to be "negative evidence", besides, two major installations are clearly designed as morgues. This is verified by documents and plans.

That's kinda how things get proven though. If you have evidence that provides a negative forensic result, it then requires further evidence to assert what did actually happen to have any significant value.

AR wrote:
You're entitled to your beliefs & I respect your ability to present your argument without all the usual shite that's flung at me.
So many here seem to think for some reason that holocaust denial is totally cut & dried & there is zero proof that it happened. Clearly quite the reverse is the case but they're extremely selective about which evidence suits them
Considering that the holocaust narrative originated in a prosecution, and that the principle method of prosecuting a case involves selecting evidence favourable to your case, my opinion is that the reverse of your conclusion is nearer the truth.

I'm was referring to people who have reached that conclusion is if it's absolute. Deniers tend to aim for the gas chamber angle because it's one of the weaker elements of the 'official narrative' because there isn't a great deal of documentation therefore arguments can be put forward that are inconclusive to convey an element of lingering doubt. Basing a conclusion over some doubt in the narrative and replacing it with an ongoing theory of endless coverups, Jews & international cooperation of professionals probably isn't the best formed conclusion.

There are obviously a few different perspectives as to what did happen in the realm of denial, ranging from Aushwitz being nothing more than a holiday camp to around 300,000 being killed. There was obviously something totally wrong about concentration camps in the first place. Subjugating people based on their ethnicity as slaves & people getting killed via various methods, as well as any considerations of diseases at the camps because the inmates had poor living standards and conditions doesn't exactly set a good scene in the first place.

What fascinates me much more than HD is how Germans, (which at the time were considered relatively culturally and technically on a par with Britain at the time) suddenly felt compelled to follow the orders of the state and commit what are inhumane acts irregardless of how many people died as a result. Anti-semitism had been rife in German areas & throughout most of the Christian world and can be traced back to the stories of Jesus. Even in times where Jews had been driven out of regions for considerable periods of time anti-semitism was still part of culture despite Jews not having any influence on it whatsoever, and the level of antisemitism often coincided with times of economic hardship as a scapegoat was always an easy and lazy unintellectual excuse. This dogmatic repeating due to an inherent Christian bias in the Western world obviously culminated in what the nazis did and ultimately the creation of Israel.
AR wrote:
and when demands of further inquiry into arguments that aren't scientific in the first place be taken into consideration aren't met for some reason that only serves to further that conclusion that there is a huge conspiracy that's been calculated by sources such as, survivors, key nazis, armies, doctors & a variety of other witnesses with documents to support it....
plus speeches by various nazis (which exist on tape) saying they are wiping out the Jews, laws enacted against Jews, lots of violence perpetrated against Jews by nazis, wiping out of the mentally ill, wiping out Gippos, & a myriad of other circumstantial evidence count for absolutely nothing.
All of this falls into the category of evidence for the prosecution, we are now beginning to hear the case for the defence and the overriding impression is that the exterminationists are terrified of that case falling into public knowledge. Why?

Can you provide some examples of this?
We've been through the T-4 nonsense on a now infamous DIF thread. Lumping together many varieties of inconclusive evidence under the umbrella of one narrative does not bolster the credibility of that evidence, nor does it sum to a conclusive whole, anymore than assembling eleven talentless football players results in the creation of a capable football team; it's Van Pelt's "convergence of (crap) evidence" fallacy all over again.

A thread full of armchair right wing conspiracy theorists on DIF doesn't fill me full of confidence.

A 'convergence of evidence' is again just how stuff works. Would you base a balanced conclusion on a variety of evidence or just one piece of evidence that provides a result that doesn't prove anything?
AR wrote:
Anyway, back to the point about the chemicals.... neither of us knows enough about it but if you're getting information from that idiot & academic fraud Rudolph I'd be very skeptical of it. But if you seriously think there is a case for this a research paper should be drafted & presented to the appropriate institutions for review. Nobody stops anybody doing that, HD laws or not
Rudolf ended up in jail for years. Zundel was jailed for five years and he committed no crime in any country with HD laws; no one is safe from persecution from the holocaust lobby, any chemist who favorably replicated Rudolf's research would be committing career suicide at the very least. Circumstances that are not really conducive to open investigation.

I think is was because he had carried out the experiment with the intent of disproving the holocaust.
However, I'm sure the relevant experiments could be conducted without that intent, and then used as a reference.
Courts will only hear evidence from expert witnesses as long as they are fully qualified to do so, and if they have a duplicitous character then the court can discount that evidence. That fucks Rudolph up.

AR wrote:
Nobody has to 'prove' anything about the holocaust. This was the point that van Pelt made. What's been provided as evidence is sufficient for it to be written in history & meet various other criteria, and it has been studied and revised in depth by people qualified to do so & people not qualified to do so. What holocaust deniers want with their negative evidence is irrelevant. They can keep their views....That's the way it goes.... nobody really gives a shit about them & everyone thinks they're a cunt.
"Nobody has to prove anything about the holocaust" is the point that Van Pelt asserted. If you are going to claim that history is verified by assertion, you must realize that the assertion that will dominate will be the assertion of the powerful. Might is right is not a valid principle for determining historical fact.

That wasn't the claim I made. It was a point made by van Pelt which I agree with; in summary, historians and other professions owe nothing to continuously prove deniers as being wrong, particularly given their malignant intent. Determining historical principles are entirely undermined by many HDers who are simply just altering the whole of recent history to suit their favoured political view of the nazis, and replacing it with vastly unfounded theories of Jews being both perpetrators & fake victims, and falsifiers of history by enormous and nefarious collaboration. & this goes back to what I was saying above.... historical accounts of Jews being the devil incarnate etc, seemingly the result of old fables presented as a religious dichotomy; the rejection of Christ or the acceptance of Christ.
Coz he's a dedicated swallower of fascism
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 250 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 192 - Raised
( £ 140 GBP )
donation thermometer
56%
Most Recent Donation $122 USD
4th January 2021
Bitcoin Address: bc1q0kazqya0nurfxtunxv807vm0m8852nnrrk8mj8
 
Ethereum Address: 0xe69915c80dd75df19f438d556267e04f932f057d
 
More Info: Donation options for TZ
 

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.