Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Holocaust, tragedy, or Zionist lie.


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Turner

I know, I know......If members find this repetative, or repulsive please ignore this thread, or ask Andy to remove it.

Rather than continue to take poor old Saddams thread of into the deep woods of controversy,I thought we could continue our discussion here Gentlemen. Perhaps Sid Walker, as he now admits, believes that the halocaust either, didnt happen, or was, grossly over played for Zionist ends would care to begin the debate by enlightening us with his, no doubt, reliable sources.

as you can see a little gentle sarcasm is allowed, but please, no name calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
I know, I know......If members find this repetative, or repulsive please ignore this thread, or ask Andy to remove it.

Rather than continue to take poor old Saddams thread of into the deep woods of controversy,I thought we could continue our discussion here Gentlemen. Perhaps Sid Walker, as he now admits, believes that the halocaust either, didnt happen, or was, grossly over played for Zionist ends would care to begin the debate by enlightening us with his, no doubt, reliable sources.

as you can see a little gentle sarcasm is allowed, but please, no name calling.

And while we are about it, lets not forget Hitlers other victims of the consentration camps, Gypsies, Communists, trade unionists, the mentally, and phsysically ill, homosexuals, free masons, Slavs, prisoners of war. all of whom were slaughtered in their millions. Unless thats all a Zionist lie as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know......If members find this repetative, or repulsive please ignore this thread, or ask Andy to remove it.

Rather than continue to take poor old Saddams thread of into the deep woods of controversy,I thought we could continue our discussion here Gentlemen. Perhaps Sid Walker, as he now admits, believes that the halocaust either, didnt happen, or was, grossly over played for Zionist ends would care to begin the debate by enlightening us with his, no doubt, reliable sources.

as you can see a little gentle sarcasm is allowed, but please, no name calling.

And while we are about it, lets not forget Hitlers other victims of the consentration camps, Gypsies, Communists, trade unionists, the mentally, and phsysically ill, homosexuals, free masons, Slavs, prisoners of war. all of whom were slaughtered in their millions. Unless thats all a Zionist lie as well.

Stephen, I don't know why you bother responding to Sid Walker's foul calumnies. The Holocaust is just about the best referenced historical fact we have.

Worst possible to response to holocaust deniers is to grant them the status of a legitimate position in a rational debate ... you'd do more good offering assistance to Sid in your professional capacity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know......If members find this repetative, or repulsive please ignore this thread, or ask Andy to remove it.

Rather than continue to take poor old Saddams thread of into the deep woods of controversy,I thought we could continue our discussion here Gentlemen. Perhaps Sid Walker, as he now admits, believes that the halocaust either, didnt happen, or was, grossly over played for Zionist ends would care to begin the debate by enlightening us with his, no doubt, reliable sources.

as you can see a little gentle sarcasm is allowed, but please, no name calling.

Dum de dum, hey what's this?

Nice shiny suicide hook, delectable worm dangling tortuously, invitingly, deliciously......HOT DOG!!!!

Hang on a minute. There's something strange here. That worm looks familiar. So do those fishermen, wearing the same old battered fishermen's hats. Hmmm.

I'm outta here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In principle, Stephen, I accept your challenge to discuss the topic of this thread here in this forum, as you suggest.

It's not clear to me, though, whether such a discussion is really welcome in the forum.

Mark suspects a baited trap. He’s a crafty old fish and may well be right.

A clear ruling from the moderators would be helpful.

If I understand his position correctly, John Simkin accepts in broad outline the veracity of the official version of the Holocaust. He does not, if I understand correctly, hold the view that debate on the topic should never happen anywhere – but prefers that it isn’t debated extensively on this Forum.

I respect John's views and his right to steer the forum in the way he sees fit.

That’s why I haven’t initiated threads on the topic. This forum, in my opinion, already serves various useful purposes. The role I find most valuable is that it facilitates informed and occasionally enlightened debate about important contemporary issues and historical topics of the last generation or so. It contains, most notably, voluminous discussion about the murder of JFK. By contrast, this Forum's coverage of World Wars One and Two - or ancient history, for that matter - is quite limited.

I feel no need – and have no reason or cause - to push the forum into a relatively new direction.

As for Andy, his wishes really aren’t entirely clear to me. Sometimes he seems to prefer the Holocaust isn’t debated. Other times he raises the topic himself.

My one request is that if a ruling over permissible topics is forthcoming, it applies to all.

Natural justice suggests that either everyone on the forum may refer to 'The Holocaust' and state their opinion about 'The Holocaust' and its historical and contemporary significance - or the topic should not be mentioned by anyone.

It wouldn't be conducive to fair and enlightened discussion if some viewpoints enjoy free expression, while others may only be vilified and are denied right of reply.

Now, should such a discussion proceed, Stephen, as you have proposed, I believe a most important starting point would be defining terms.

Crucially, what exactly is meant by 'the Holocaust'? Are we all using the term in the same way? Is it used consistently to refer to the same set of phenomena, or not? A lot of confusion and potential disagreement may be avoided by defining terms at the outset.

While it is doubtless a useful debating tactic for some to claim that there are only two essential possibilities – Holocaust 'acceptance' or Holocaust 'denial' - in reality, many nuances of belief and uncertainty are possible.

After all, the term 'Holocaust' was not widely used to describe the events of that time until later, after the events had already occurred.

Unlike "the Moon", or "Australia", or "JFK's head", the Holocaust is quite a complex term. It was coined after the event and refers to a plethora of historical phenomena. The veracity of some events typically encompassed by the term is not contentious at all. In other cases, it's highly contentious.

This becomes clearer once one begins to look at specifics.

In earlier times, closer to the end of World War Two, claims were widespread in Allied and Zionist propaganda that Germans made soap out of fat derived from the bodies of Jewish bodies – and lampshades out of Jewish skin. These claims – it seems – are no longer made by anyone. They are now ‘denied’ by all concerned - ‘Acceptors and ‘Deniers’.alike.

Similarly, there is no disagreement (as far as I'm aware) about propositions such as “Hitler held stronng anti-Jewish views” or “the Nazis interned large numbers of Jews in concentration camps” or “conditions in the German-run concentration camps were appalling towards the end of the War” (for the record, they were lousy in Japanese internment camps as well - I presume no-one 'denies' that).

Key areas of remaining disagreement include the following:

1/ The existence of homicidal gas chambers.

The claim is made – and seems to be central to ‘Holocaust Acceptance’ - that gas chambers were used by German authorities for mass murder of human beings.

Do ‘Holocaust Deniers’ deny that the German authorities built, maintained and used gas chambers in the concentration camps? No! (At least, I know of no author who ever claimed that.)

Debate surrounds the use – not the existence – of German gas chambers.

Everyone - ‘Acceptors’ and ‘Deniers’ alike - agree that some gas chambers were used for delousing ooperations, employing the now-notorious Zylon B.

The post-war victors' orthodoxy is that some gas chambers were used for killing humans – especially Jews – by the millions. That is disputed by 'Deniers'.

However, even in this case, the ‘orthodox’ position is not truly stable.

For example, I understand that is no longer claimed - even by ‘Acceptors’ - that homidal gas chambers on German soil were used to murder internees. So even on this relatively straightforward issue, the orthdox claim has shifted somewhat. In earlier orthodox accounts, there were allegations that homicidal gas chambers were used within Germany. These allegations have been dropped.

Contemporary ‘Acceptors’, seem to believe that by far the largest number of homicidal gassings were carried out at Auschwitz. That’s interesting, if for no other reason than what it implies about the uncertainty of the overall estimate of deaths. The official Polish Government estimate of internee deaths at Auschwitz – as portrayed on the official plaque at the entrance to that grizzly tourist attraction - has been revised downwards by several million over the last two decades.

2/ The number of Jewish deaths in German custody.

Orthdox scholars such as Hilberg suggest the true number is just over five million. Other commentarors argue for signifiantly higher numbers.

Peter Lemkin on this forum, for instance, claimed that seven million is more accurate figure (if I recall correctly, he said he had "no doubt" about that total).

Six million Jewish deaths seems to be the estimated total most commonly used by ‘Acceptors’. This total was first cited very close to the events in question. It's use has been remarkably stable over the decades since, despite the previously mentioned sharp downward reductions in certain individual camp mortality estimates.

Six million, I understand, is the estimate with which one must concur be in compliance with the law, in jurisdictions where this issue is subject to court determination and free debate is illegal (illegal, that is, except for 'Acceptors' - I'm unaware of moves by the organized Jewish lobby to incarcerate Raul Hilberg in a German or Austrian jail).

3/ The existence of a deliberate plan by the German authorities - sanctioned the Nazi leadership - to carry out mass murder of Jews on a massive scale.

Ah yes... this is close to where the most recent spat on this forum began.

Now we all KNOW, don't we, that the Nazi leadership and notably Adolf Hitler himself had a comprehensive plan to exterminate European Jewry, using homicidal gas chambers and other means? It's obvious, isn't it?

What's more, the existence of this plan PROVES that Hitler - and the Nazis - were uniquely evil. Because of this evil, muderous plan, the Hitler and the Nazis must have been far, far worse than the 'Allies', who (it must be admitted) on occasion ordered wholescale slaughters such as Dresden and Nagasaki. Sure, the Allies had to be tough to win the war - because we were facing the ultimate evil. But we, God bless us, never, ever had a dastardly masterplan to exterminate an entire group people out of spite and irrational, unprovoked hatred.

The recent eruption occurred when I made the rather mild comment that I never seen any real evidence that such a 'genocidal' plan existed.

It's true that in earlier times, I had little doubt this evidence existed. So many prominent people claimed that Hitler aimed to kill all the Jews under his control. I assumed they had sound evidence for that claim.

Now... let's just say I’d like a show of cards, if that's OK? Just to clear the matter up.

Stephen Turner implied it's a very easy matter to prove; I asked him to produce evidence.

Then Colby & co arrived and a storm in a teacup broke loose... again.

Perhaps we shouldn't ask for evidence on this particular matter?

Perhaps it's really a matter of (compulsory) religious belief - not historical fact?

Perhaps only one kind of belief should be permissible on this matter?

If that's the basic proposition, let’s be up front about it.

The mods need simply post a pinned note stating that questions should never be asked about The Holocaust because the truth is self-evident - and the only conceivable reason for asking questions and seeking evidence is evil intent.

If, however, we agree that the events of the Second World War remain within the domain of history - as opposed to State-enforced religion - my request for evidence stands.

Stephen Turner’s alleged that Hitler condemned “millions to death” in “purpose built gas chambers”

Where is the evidence for that, Stephen - evidence as opposed to unsupported assertion?

As a child, I was often a troublesome brat during Religious Instruction classes (note the term ‘Instruction’ – I imagine/hope the important topic of religion is introduced to schoolchildren in a more enlightened manner these days).

Anyway, when we were ‘instructed’ on some of the improbable tenets of orthodox Christinaity, I often made a nuisance of myself by asking the teachers for evidence. It got me into lots of trouble.

I’m older and uglier these days, but the essential tiresome brat persists (that, perhaps, we can all agree about).

When someone doesn’t or won’t give me a straight answer to a reasonable question, but instead applies heavy psychological pressure and claims “it says so in the Scriptures!” or “it’s a divine mystery!” or “how dare you question that!” or “you don’t need evidence for that – it’s self-evident!” I don’t find them – or their cause – in the least persuasive. It makes me want to quit their Church and seek out free-thinking people, who are bold enough to ask rational questions and expect honest and rational answers, even if the most honest answer, at that time, is “I don’t know”

Enough from me for now.

When it's clear that free debate on this topic is welcome on this forum – and that we all agree the issue of Jewish suffering during World War Two is historical in nature (as opposed to a matter of religious belief) - I'll be most willing to participate further.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
In principle, Stephen, I accept your challenge to discuss the topic of this thread here in this forum, as you suggest.

Stephen Turner’s alleged that Hitler condemned “millions to death” in “purpose built gas chambers”

Where is the evidence for that, Stephen - evidence as opposed to unsupported assertion?

Well Sid it all depends on what you will except as evidence, but how about.

All Holocaust survivors, in their thousands, upon thousands whose testimony of enforced ghettoisation, mass transportation to the death camps, in such apalling conditions that many did not survive the train journey, of being "sorted" upon arrival into either, Men-Women children, or those physically fit to labour, and those unfortunate souls who were not, of daily life in the camps with its routine humilliations, savagery, tourture, experimental enforced surgery and starvation, the utter brutality of the Nazi warders, and the frequent periods of mass extermination by means of the gas chambers. Thousands upon thousands of dovetailing individual stories, all of which you must prove false.

Or how about.

The liberating Allied forces, and their collective testimony as to what they found in the death camps, testimony in the hundreds, of mass graves, mountains of rotting corpses that the Nazis did not have time to plough under, starving, emaciated survivors who told them stories of such inhuman horror that all returned to civilian life changed men, and the physical nature of the camps them selves with their cavanous gas chambers that, in truth could have only one possible fuction, mass murder on an industrial scale (de-lousing my eye) hundreds upon hundreds of dovetailing individual stories, all of which you must prove false.

Then there's

The indivdual documentation of the Holocaust. Thousands upon thousands of documents, and punch cards used in IBM tabulating machines. Docments that reveal how the Jews, and other enemies of the Nazi state were locate, their treatment, transportation, and the implementation of the final solution, many from the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination. Documents which betray the beaurocratisation, and beastiality of this particular madness. all of which you must prove false, or forged.

And finally, if the Nazis didnt exterminate them, just where did these millions of Jews, Slavs, Communists, Trade Union members, Gypsies, Homosexuals, those suffering from a psychiatric condition and Free-Masons disappear to. Perhaps a multi faith rapture?

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In principle, Stephen, I accept your challenge to discuss the topic of this thread here in this forum, as you suggest.

Stephen Turner’s alleged that Hitler condemned “millions to death” in “purpose built gas chambers”

Where is the evidence for that, Stephen - evidence as opposed to unsupported assertion?

Well Sid it all depends on what you will except as evidence, but how about. .....

The indivdual documentation of the Holocaust. Thousands upon thousands of documents, and punch cards used in IBM tabulating machines. Docments that reveal how the Jews, and other enemies of the Nazi state were locate, their treatment, transportation, and the implementation of the final solution, many from the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination. Documents which betray the beaurocratisation, and beastiality of this particular madness. all of which you must prove false, or forged.

And finally, if the Nazis didnt exterminate them, just where did these millions of Jews, Slavs, Communists, Trade Union members, Gypsies, Homosexuals, those suffering from a psychiatric condition and Free-Masons disappear to. Perhaps a multi faith rapture?

Steve.

Stephen, I've highlighted the part of your post that refers to my challenge.

That's what I'm asking for.

You suggest there are a lot of these documents (thousands?).

How about one?

One original, genuine, verifiable document that "reveals... the highest levels of the Nazi leadership urging the camp comendants on to greater efforts of extermination."

Just one will do. Two if you have spare time.

Thanks in anticipation...

Incidentally, I think you'll understand if I request documents that pertain to alleged mass murders carried out inside the concentration camps. You will strike a decisive blow for your cause if the documentation you adduce also refers to (and thus shows German foreknowledge of) homicidal gas chambers.

The reason for those limitations is that no-one - as far as I can establish - disputes that a number of Jews were executed by German soldiers and SS during World War Two.

To 'prove' the claim you originally made the documentation produce really should relate to mass poisining in concentration camps.

As you claim to have a very large amount of documentation from which you may choose, I presume this should not present you with difficulties.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Sid, in light of peter's post I think we should continue this discussion by P/M. I will send the documents you request by the start of next week. I am heartily sorry for any offence I have inadvertantly caused. Andy perhaps its beter if you remove this thread..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid, in light of peter's post I think we should continue this discussion by P/M. I will send the documents you request by the start of next week. I am heartily sorry for any offence I have inadvertantly caused. Andy perhaps its beter if you remove this thread..

I disagree, Stephen. If the documents exist to prove the holocaust, they should be cited on this thread. I am by no means an expert on this topic, but as a young adult I knew a man who'd worked in a camp carrying bodies and had testified in several trials against guards that he'd worked under. It is unthinkable to me that he was part of a vast conspiracy to deceive the public.

There was a film a few years back starring Kenneth Branaugh in which the meetings of German officials were re-created. These were the meetings in which the final solution was agreed upon. The events depicted were purported to have been confirmed by contemporaneous notes taken by one of the participants. Do holocaust deniers believe these notes are a fraud?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter –

Your post and the ire it expresses are quite well taken but they are directed at the wrong person. Steve as you are well aware has always disputed Sid Walker’s long debunked crap. He has never indicated he though such idiocy was in the least bit likely. You’re anger and condemnation should be directed at Walker and PERHAPS his ‘defense attorney’ Mark Stapleton. IMO (and as someone with a similar family history) I think you owe Steve an apology.

I also see little value in debating this issue here but for different reasons. Apparently only one member of this forum believes this nonsense and he is extremely unlikely to ever change his mind no matter how much evidence is produced.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter –

Your post and the ire it expresses are quite well taken but they are directed at the wrong person. Steve as you are well aware has always disputed Sid Walker’s long debunked crap. He has never indicated he though such idiocy was in the least bit likely. You’re anger and condemnation should be directed at Walker and PERHAPS his ‘defense attorney’ Mark Stapleton. IMO (and as someone with a similar family history) I think you owe Steve an apology.

I also see little value in debating this issue here but for different reasons. Apparently only one member of this forum believes this nonsense and he is extremely unlikely to ever change his mind no matter how much evidence is produced.

Len

Thanks for this enlightening insight into your thinking, Len.

As Sid's 'defense attorney', I have just one thing to say--I was unaware that he was on trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No obviously he isn't on trial which is why I used quotation marks, but you have in effect been acting that capacity here; you keep "sticking up"* for him. You even tried denying he was a Holocaust denier AFTER he admitted it, after you finally figured out the obvious you changed your tune to, 'yes he's a Holocaust denier, but that's OK'.

* Perhaps I should have called you his "stick-up man"

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No obviously he isn't on trial which is why I used quotation marks, but you have in effect been acting that capacity here; you keep "sticking up"* for him. You even tried denying he was a Holocaust denier AFTER he admitted it, after you finally figured out the obvious you changed your tune to, 'yes he's a Holocaust denier, but that's OK'.

* Perhaps I should have called you his "stick-up man"

Too late.

You referred to me as Sid's 'defense attorney', so you obviously believe a trial is taking place.

Your clarification was weak and unconvincing.

You've goofed up---once again.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No obviously he isn't on trial which is why I used quotation marks, but you have in effect been acting that capacity here; you keep "sticking up"* for him. You even tried denying he was a Holocaust denier AFTER he admitted it, after you finally figured out the obvious you changed your tune to, 'yes he's a Holocaust denier, but that's OK'.

* Perhaps I should have called you his "stick-up man"

Too late.

You referred to me as Sid's 'defense attorney', so you obviously believe a trial is taking place.

Your clarification was weak and unconvincing.

You've goofed up---once again.

Grow up and stick to the topic of the thread please gentlemen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...