Not that I agree or disagree with this guy, but he does bring up some points of debate. He's not saying the Holocaust didn't happen, he's saying there weren't gas chambers. Any thoughts? I suggest reading this entire thing and THEN giving your opinion.

1. The physical evidence -- the rooms themselves. This has to be the starting point. If you could go to Auschwitz and find a room that was obviously a gas chamber, then there would be no such thing as revisionism. That would settle the matter once and for all. The problem is, when you go to Auschwitz and look at the room that is supposed to have been a gas chamber, you find a room that is obviously not a gas chamber. That's why revisionism is possible. That's why revisionism is necessary.

Please click here to see pictures of the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
The basic fact in the whole subject is that the room that is supposed to have been a gas chamber isn't a gas chamber.
If I were teaching Psychology 101, I would use this as a paradigm case of beliefs governing perceptions. Some people look at those pictures and see a gas chamber. Others look at the same pictures and see a morgue. This is like that experiment where everybody in the room says the red pencil is longer, and the experimental subject, whose eyes tell him the green pencil is longer, is afraid to contradict the group.

My eyes tell me that the green pencil is longer, and I'm going to say so, even if it's illegal to say it (especially if it's illegal to say it): the very idea that people were gassed in that room or any such room is absurd on its face.

2. The gap in the documentary record. If there were documents covering the whole sequence of events, then there would be no such thing as revisionism. The problem is, the documents one would expect to find do not exist. We have documents relating to every aspect of the war, including every aspect of the Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. It is not possible to gas six million people, or to do anything else involving millions of people, without leaving a paper trail. If the gassing happened, there would be thousands of documents to verify it, starting with the planning stages and continuing throughout the course of events. But no such paper trail exists.

3. The gap in the photographic record. If there were photographs of the whole sequence of events, including photographs of piles of corpses in gas chambers, then there would be no such thing as revisionism. That would settle the matter immediately. The problem is that no such pictures exist.

We have photographs of every aspect of World War II, including every aspect of the Holocaust, except for the gassing of the Jews. There are photographs of Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz, photographs of Jews in the camp, and photographs of bodies in mass graves, but there are no photographs of anyone being gassed.

To summarize the first three reasons: if we had the same kind of evidence for the gassing of the Jews that we have for real historical events (i.e. for events that actually happened), then everyone would acknowledge that there were gas chambers, and there would be no such thing as revisionism.

4. The testimony of witnesses doesn't prove that there were gas chambers. There are three points that need to be made about witnesses.

a. The witnesses are not unanimous. Some witnesses didn't say anything about gas chambers.

For example, Jan Karski wrote a report in the fall of 1942 in which he stated that he visited the camp at Belzec to investigate rumors of extermination. He said the Jews were being killed by electrical shocks in a room with a metallic floor. In 1944, he published a book in which he said that the Jews were being loaded into wagons filled with quicklime and left to die outside the camp. Neither the article nor the book says anything about gas chambers. Now, of course, the official history of Belzec says nothing about electrical shocks or wagons filled with quicklime. We are supposed to believe that the Jews at Belzec were killed in gas chambers. But Jan Karski, who was there at the time (so he says), said nothing about gas chambers.

b. Witness testimony about gas chambers doesn't stand up under examination.

One of the witnesses who is quoted as an authoritative source is Dr. Miklos Nyiszli, the supposed author of Auschwitz, a Doctor's Eyewitness Account. There really was a Dr. Nyiszli. He was a Hungarian doctor. He was sent to Birkenau (not Auschwitz), where he worked in the pathology lab under the infamous Dr. Mengele. After the war, he testified at the Nuremburg trials. He died in 1949. The book was published in 1951. Throughout the book, the author says he was in Auschwitz. He says there were four crematoria at Auschwitz. In fact, there was one crematorium at Auschwitz, and four at Birkenau. Obviously anyone who was there would know that. Anyone who was there would know which camp was which. At the end (page 206), when they are evacuating in January of 1945, the author says,

We left, filled with the feverish sensation of liberation. Direction: the Birkenau KZ, two kilometers from the crematoriums.

Dr. Nyiszli didn't leave Auschwitz and go in the direction of Birkenau. He was already in Birkenau. This is just the most glaring impossibility in a book full of impossibilities. This book was not written by Dr. Nyiszli. It couldn't have been written by anyone who was there. And yet this book is cited as one of the most authoritative witness statements.

If you read only one book about the Holocaust, that book should be Auschwitz, a Doctor's Eyewitness Account. Let them give you their best shot. Use your own judgment. Is this book an eyewitness account, or not?

c. Witnesses by themselves don't prove anything.
Suppose a hundred thousand witnesses claim that something happened. Does that mean it happened? There are probably a hundred thousand people who have "seen a UFO" at one time or another in the last fifty years. Does that mean there are flying saucers in the sky? There are hundreds of people who say they have not only seen UFOs, they have been in them. They have been abducted. They will tell you in vivid detail about their experience, and they have no obvious motive for lying. Does that mean it happened?

Go back and look again at the "gas chamber" - if someone says he saw people being gassed in that room, does that mean it happened?

5. The fact that standard reference books can't be trusted. In the summer of 1995, when I was a novice in this subject, I went to a debate between Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, and Mark Weber, a revisionist. It was supposed to be a debate, but actually it was what Michael Shermer calls a "meta-debate." Dr. Shermer tried to pretend that there was nothing to argue about. However at one point he did condescend to say something about the evidence. He said that if anyone really wants to look at the evidence for the gas chambers, the place to look is Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, by Gutman and Berenbaum, especially the article by Pressac.

It probably never occurred to Dr. Shermer that anyone would actually read the book, but I did. I searched all over Los Angeles for this book, and finally found it at the UCLA bookstore. I read Pressac's article, including the footnotes. Many of his assertions about gassing are not documented at all. When Pressac does give footnotes, they can't be checked out. Most of them are of the form "Oswiecim, BW 1/19" or "Moscow/October Revolution, 7021-108-32, 46."

However, there is one exception. Pressac says, on page 234,
The first gassing in crematorium IV did not go well. An SS man, wearing a face mask, had to climb a little ladder to get to a "window," then open it with one hand and pour in the Zyklon B with the other. This acrobatic routine had to be repeated six times. When the gas-tight doors were opened to evacuate the gas, it was noticed that the natural aeration was ineffective; a door had to be cut immediately into the north corridor to get an air current flowing. [143]
The footnote for this paragraph is:
143. Auschwitz Album (New York, 1980), photo 112.
This can be checked out. The Auschwitz Album is out of print and hard to find, but at least one doesn't have to go to Poland or Russia. Eventually I found a copy in a library, and eagerly looked up photo 112. This photo has nothing to do with the paragraph quoted above. In fact, none of the photographs in the Auschwitz Album has anything to do with that paragraph.
In other words, the only footnote I was able to check turned out to be bogus.

As far as I know, the Auschwitz Album is not available online. (Since writing this I have discovered that part of it is available here.) I'm not going to scan photo 112 and post it here. This is left as an exercise for the reader. Do you care if the gas chamber story is true? How much do you care? Enough to go to the library and check out footnotes? What Michael Shermer is counting on is that almost no one will do this.

What I'm counting on is that a few people will. It only takes a few, in the beginning. At every university, I hope at least one student or professor will care enough about academic honesty to look up photo 112, and then will have enough courage to speak up. Make no mistake, it does take courage. Consider what happened to David Cole and other revisionists.

More information about Pressac and his footnotes can be found on the Dead Footnote page. I have added some new and somewhat ironic comments to this page in October of 2004. It's not as simple as I thought - and yet it's simpler, in a certain sense.

6. The fact that Hitler declared his intentions openly, and the Nazis committed atrocities openly. Conventional historians account for the lack of photographs and documents by claiming that the Holocaust was so secret that no photographs were ever taken, and no incriminating documents were allowed to exist. This is supposed to have been true even when the Final Solution was in the planning stages, as far back as 1941.

Hitler talked about exterminating or annihilating the Jews on many occasions. For example, here is a sentence from Mein Kampf. (This is from page 338 of the Houghton-Mifflin hardback edition. Other references to extermination may be found on pages 169 and 679.) Hitler wrote,
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.

We are supposed to believe that Hitler announced to the world that the Jews would be annihilated, and at the same time went to great lengths to maintain the pretense that they were not being annihilated. The intention was declared openly, but the act itself was so secret that the Nazis never even discussed it among themselves. This is nonsense.

On page 679 he said this:
If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: twelve thousand scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of millions of Germans, valuable for the future.

At that point the "secret" was already out. Having broached the idea of gassing the Jews in Mein Kampf, it would make no sense for Hitler to pretend it wasn't happening, if he actually did it. But there is no other reference to gassing in anything else he ever said or wrote. We have voluminous records of everything Hitler, Himmler, and the other Nazis said in public, and much of what they said in private, and there is no mention of gassing anywhere, even on occasions when they were talking about getting rid of the Jews.

We have a transcript of a speech (the Poznan speech) in which Himmler addressed a private meeting of the senior officers of the SS. Even if he didn't want to mention gassing publicly, he would feel free to speak plainly at a private meeting of the SS. (He would have to speak plainly at some point. They would have to discuss it among themselves. You can't do anything without saying what you are doing.) But he said nothing about gassing, even though he was talking about sending the Jews to concentration camps. He did not say "I am now referring to the gassing of the Jews, to the Ausrottung of the Jewish people." On the contrary. What Himmler said was,
I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the Ausrottung of the Jewish people.
In another private meeting (in 1941), Hans Frank mentioned the idea of killing the Jews with poison gas, only to dismiss it:
We cannot shoot these 3.5 million Jews, nor can we poison them, yet we will have to take measures which will somehow lead to the goal of annihilation...
Even at the Wannsee conference, nothing was said about gassing.

In 1941, the Nazis were winning the war. War crimes trials were the last thing on anybody's mind. (In fact there was no such concept until 1945. War crimes trials had not been a standard part of wars in the past.) The Nazis had no reason to create an illusion for posterity. They thought they were going to be posterity. They thought they would never answer to anybody for what they did. And yet we are supposed to believe that even in 1941 they were looking ahead to a postwar era in which it would be necessary to cover up their actions.

The Nazis were not shy about killing people. They committed atrocities openly. They flaunted it. We have pictures of Nazi soldiers shooting Jews in cold blood and laughing about it. These pictures were not taken surreptitiously by someone else, they were taken by the Nazis themselves. But we are supposed to believe that the gas chambers were so secret that no photographs were ever taken.

We are also supposed to believe that it would be possible to cover up an action involving six million people.

The gassing scenario is supposed to have gone like this: a trainload of Jews arrives at Auschwitz. They are separated into two groups, those who are fit for labor and those who are not. The latter group is taken to the crematorium right then. First they go to the undressing room, where they take off their clothes. Then they are led into another room, which is supposed be a shower room, or a delousing room. When they are in that room, they are locked in and gassed. A few minutes later the guards go in and drag the bodies out and take them to the ovens to be cremated.

If six million Jews were gassed, this scenario must have been repeated thousands of times. Do the math. This must have happened at least twelve thousand times, at several different camps, over a period of several years. This macabre scene is something a photographer would give his right arm for, especially since naked women were involved. But supposedly it was forbidden to take photos, so no photos were ever taken. This is nonsense. Prison guards are a law unto themselves. You can't stop them from taking pictures. Ask Lynndie England - and her many fans and imitators who think it's all a big joke. Gallows humor existed in 1943 just as much as it does in 2004.
If the gassing scenario happened at all, let alone thousands of times, there would be photographs. But there are none.

There are no photographs of anyone being gassed because nobody was gassed.

Summing up Arthur Butz is one of the great pioneers in this subject. He made the essential point that this has to be a simple thing.

If you are considering the question whether there is an elephant in your basement, you don't have to go down there and look around with a magnifying glass. You don't have to construct a long, involved argument to settle the question. If the elephant is there, he is obviously there, and if he is not there, he is obviously not there.

Likewise, the question of whether six million Jews were gassed cannot be an obscure question. It has to be obvious, one way or the other. That's why I began my argument with the physical evidence, the rooms themselves. Once you see that the room isn't a gas chamber, everything else falls into place. Of course there is no documentation of gas chambers. How could there be? Of course there are no photographs of anyone being gassed. How could there be? It's not a gas chamber!
http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04g_gas.html

Interesting...I guess my first question would be, "If there weren't any gas chambers at Auschwitz, why did people say there were?"

If I were to answer this question with a Neo-Nazi bias, I would most likely say, "To make the Holocaust appear that much more dramatic. And to create even more sympathy for the Jews"

Do you know if any Nazis said they "saw" it, because then my response would be blown out of the water. This guy does mention that there was a few people who were not Jewish who said they saw it, but he seems to refute them giving a valid eye account. Hmmmmmm

Jeez, there's a lot there, but as a 'veteran' of this stuff I'll make a small start...
Please click here to see pictures of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. It is a reconstruction of what is alleged to be the first/prototype gas chamber, as is accepted by all (sane) sides. Whether anyone died in the original is open to debate, the allegation being that the victims were gassed in a red building and a white building on the edge of the Birkenau comlex, then in four gas chambers attached to the four Crematoria. We have photographs of every aspect of World War II,....Do we f***! Silly thing to say.
It is not possible to gas six million people, or to do anything else involving millions of people, without leaving a paper trail....Schoolboy error. NOBODY claims that the Nazis gassed six million Jews. Got it? NOBODY!
The Jewish death toll in what we now call the Holocaust is about 5 million. The Zionist fanatic who had the court case with David Irving says 5.1 million, and Norman Davies - who upsets certain Jews with nearly every utterance on the subject - says no serious estimate has brought the total under 5 million.
About 2 million were killed almost in situ in the East in the mass shootings (or burnings) by the Einzatsgruppen, a la Babi Yar near Kiev (David Irving himself admits that 1.7m is realistic), over a million died in the Ghettos, on forced labour sites, and in Concentration camps - leaving about 2 million dying from the extermination camp policy, including those who died on the way, a potentially huge number died on the trains and arrived very dead, and many others were shot or died of typhus while working in the extermination camps.
We are supposed to believe that Hitler announced to the world that the Jews would be annihilated, and at the same time went to great lengths to maintain the pretense that they were not being annihilated. The intention was declared openly, but the act itself was so secret that the Nazis never even discussed it among themselves. This is nonsense. Hitler announced several times that they could be annihilated, if they didn't behave themselves.
Hitler wanted the atrocities kept secret from THE PUBLIC - that's why there were no extermination camps on German soil and why they spent considerable effort moving the intended victims across France and Germany, or Hungary and Slovakia etc, to be despatched out of sight in the extermination camps.
We are also supposed to believe that it would be possible to cover up an action involving six million people. He's coming out with his gassing six million crap again..
Dr. Nyiszli. He was a Hungarian doctor. He was sent to Birkenau (not Auschwitz), where he worked in the pathology lab under the infamous Dr. Mengele. After the war, he testified at the Nuremburg trials. He died in 1949. The book was published in 1951. Throughout the book, the author says he was in Auschwitz. He says there were four crematoria at Auschwitz. In fact, there was one crematorium at Auschwitz, and four at Birkenau This is also idiotic - the author doesn't even know that Birkenau is the legandary Auschwitz extermination camp and thinks Auschwitz and Birkenau are different places.. Auschwitz 1 was built to imprison Poles and work them to death. Auschwitz II - Birkenau was the extermination camp, built to kill Communists, Gypsies, Ukrainian Nationalists, Poles, USSR POWs, Jews etc. All 'gas chambers at Auschwitz' references refer to Auschwitz II - Birkenau. Auschwitz III was the tyre factory.
Birkenau was the biggest part of the Auschwitz camp system, for f***'s sake.
The gassing scenario is supposed to have gone like this: a trainload of Jews arrives at Auschwitz. Auschwitz II Birkenau, you dickhead.
If six million Jews were gassed, And he's doing it again... Likewise, the question of whether six million Jews were gassed cannot be an obscure question. It's a retard's question, as all non-retards know that six million Jews being gassed is a nonsense - one thing all sides agree on (except the idiot who wrote the above)

The author has no f***ing idea what he's on about, and is aiming the article at the (hopefully few) who know even less.

they did gas jews with Zyklon-B. look that up. And the gas chambers didnt look like gas chambers because they wanted the jews to think they wre going into to showers to be deloused. Hitler never announced the "final solution" to the world, he didnt even announce it to the german people. THey even tried to keep it secret from the jews in the camps, hence the "showers". And Spartak is right, they didnt GAS 6 million jews. The gasing came around towards the end, before that they killed a few million with bullets and hanging and all sorts of ways. Once the fianl solution was decided on it was clear they needed a more efficient way of killing them. I would ask this guy if he is saying they didnt gas them, but also saying the holocaust did indeed happen, how did they kill so many people in short a time?

Originally posted by Travh20
And the gas chambers didnt look like gas chambers because they wanted the jews to think they wre going into to showers to be deloused. Hitler never announced the "final solution" to the world, he didnt even announce it to the german people. THey even tried to keep it secret from the jews in the camps, hence the "showers".
Why would they care if the Jews knew they were going to be gased, Trav? You say they were "tricking" the Jews into thinking it was a shower, but why would the Nazis take so much effort to try and trick them, when they were openly killing them on the streets and laughing about it? Why were they taking pictures of them kicking, beating, and shooting the Jews, but not taking pictures about them gasing the Jews? It just dosen't make sense as to why they'd hide gasing but not all the other crimes they did.

Originally posted by Travh20
And Spartak is right, they didnt GAS 6 million jews. The gasing came around towards the end, before that they killed a few million with bullets and hanging and all sorts of ways.
I don't think that proving the point of, they didn't "gas" 6 million Jews means anything. Yes, that blows some of his points out of the water, however, there are other points that still need to be looked at with an open mind. Going on about how he's wrong about the Nazis gasing 6 million Jews won't refute anything else he's written, it just proves one small point of his wrong.

And Hitler did talk about how the Jews needed to be annihilated, openly and the Nazis followed accordingly.

Why would they care if the Jews knew they were going to be gased, Trav? You say they were "tricking" the Jews into thinking it was a shower, but why would the Nazis take so much effort to try and trick them, when they were openly killing them on the streets and laughing about it? Why were they taking pictures of them kicking, beating, and shooting the Jews, but not taking pictures about them gasing the Jews? It just dosen't make sense as to why they'd hide gasing but not all the other crimes they did.
Have you read any of the novels written by those who lived it? The most popular being Night by Elie Wiesel. The point was to avoid panic and mayhem after they just arrived. They split them in half to break their spirits, but they didn't inform them what would actually happen to either half, keeping them thinking that they would ruin their chances of ever seeing each other again if there was an uprising. Then they gassed and cremated the worthless half and sent the rest to work. This was at Auschwitz(the entry point, mind you). Since I don't know of any survivors that would ever wish to think about what happened ever again, we don't have very good primary accounts of what happened at Auschitz's death camp.

I don't think that proving the point of, they didn't "gas" 6 million Jews means anything. Yes, that blows some of his points out of the water, however, there are other points that still need to be looked at with an open mind. Going on about how he's wrong about the Nazis gasing 6 million Jews won't refute anything else he's written, it just proves one small point of his wrong.
Incorrect. His argument was that if they didn't mass gas them then they wouldn't have had enough time to massacre 6 million Jews(and a couple million more for othe reasons). From a logistical standpoint(without any real number data, mind you) I would agree that trav and other's argument is correct. I cannot see any possible way that they could have killed that many in such a short time without ways to mass murder them easily. Gassing is easy. Not all of the bodies were burned. There were mass graves where millions were buried.

And Hitler did talk about how the Jews needed to be annihilated, openly and the Nazis followed accordingly.
Not the whole truth. Hitler blamed a lot on them claiming that they were bad for the survival of Germany and the Aryan race, but a lot of what the Germans did they did autonomously.

The point was to avoid panic and mayhem after they just arrived.
But, how much mayhem can a group of Jews who have been starved, put in horrible conditions on the trains, create? I guess it's not so much that I disagree with what you're saying, I just find this topic interesting...so I'll most likely keep asking dumb questions, to the replies I get.

Incorrect. His argument was that if they didn't mass gas them then they wouldn't have had enough time to massacre 6 million Jews(and a couple million more for othe reasons). From a logistical standpoint(without any real number data, mind you) I would agree that trav and other's argument is correct. I cannot see any possible way that they could have killed that many in such a short time without ways to mass murder them easily. Gassing is easy. Not all of the bodies were burned. There were mass graves where millions were buried.
Well, although you make a good point, here are some other points I found online...against what you have to say...this is a person I found on a forum who wrote this...interesting read, Blib.


This is why you want us to "admit" the systematic murder of six million Jews in specially constructed gas chambers really took place. You want us to believe:

*There were pits where babies were thrown in, with a constantly burning brazier...even though the water table is only 50-70cm under the ground or the fact that bodies can't be burned in pits for lack of oxygen.

*The smoke from the crematoria created clouds which "blocked out the sun," even though crematoria are by design supposed to be smokeless.

*That on one day alone, 24,000 Jews were gassed and cremated, even though ceaseless Allied air surveillance revealed no such activity on the ground.

*That Jews were gassed with insecticide, died instantly from this, and were afterwards removed -- by soldiers wearing no gas masks, even if it takes hours to die from inhalation of Zyklon-B.

*Most of all, you want us to believe that "six million" jews died in six years, even though any scientist will tell you that for that many people to be murdered by gas and then cremated would not be physically possible even if the gassings were to have taken place twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

I don't think his points are very strong, but it's something to think about.

Originally posted by Overdose
I don't think that proving the point of, they didn't "gas" 6 million Jews means anything. [/B] It is incontrovertible proof that the author knows jack shit about his subject - how can you 'think' (if that is the right word) that the author's total ignorance 'doesn't mean anything'?

Originally posted by Spartak
This is also idiotic - the author doesn't even know that Birkenau is the legandary Auschwitz extermination camp and thinks Auschwitz and Birkenau are different places.. Auschwitz 1 was built to imprison Poles and work them to death. Auschwitz II - Birkenau was the extermination camp, built to kill Communists, Gypsies, Ukrainian Nationalists, Poles, USSR POWs, Jews etc. All 'gas chambers at Auschwitz' references refer to Auschwitz II - Birkenau. Auschwitz III was the tyre factory.
Birkenau was the biggest part of the Auschwitz camp system, for f***'s sake.

Auschwitz II Birkenau, you dickhead.

Calm yourself Spartak...not everyone can be as knowledgeable as you on the subject of death camps. I believe the term "Auschwitz" has come into the popular usage arena, and while not technically correct, it is acceptable to refer to the conglomeration of camps as Auschwitz.


The author has no f***ing idea what he's on about, and is aiming the article at the (hopefully few) who know even less.

That's probably true.

Originally posted by Spartak
It is incontrovertible proof that the author knows jack shit about his subject - how can you 'think' (if that is the right word) that the author's total ignorance 'doesn't mean anything'?
I'm not saying he isn't ignorant about that part of his "essay", I'm saying that just because he's wrong on that does not make his theory 100% incorrect. Jeez, settle down...

Originally posted by Overdose
I'm not saying he isn't ignorant about that part of his "essay", I'm saying that just because he's wrong on that does not make his theory 100% incorrect. Jeez, settle down...
But his entire essay is about the 'gassing of six million Jews' and his apparent multiple orgasms about the unlikelyhood of it happening - when no-one with a vaguely human mother thinks it happened anyway.
It doesn't make it '100% incorrect', it makes it 100% worthless - if anyone on here knows less about the Holocaust than this retard they really should consider suicide.

Revisionism is unfortunately still a very widespread theory. Those people who claim to be just interested on history precisely target "open minded" people like you, Overdose. Don't get caught by their trick. Their political agenda ultimately is always the same : antisemitism and fascism.

A quote from another text by this guy :
"Like most people, I grew up believing that Nazism was a Very Bad Thing. When I was in the 9th grade, my world history teacher gave me an extra credit assignment - read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and write a report on it. I did. That was a pretty stiff assignment for a 9th grader, but I read the book all the way through. It never occurred to me that my teacher might be misinformed, or that mainstream historians such as William Shirer might be lying. I accepted what they told me.

Since then I have discovered that what happened in Germany in the Hitler era was very different from what they tell us. On this page I am going to present some of the facts that my world history teacher should have taught me. This is what every 9th grader should know about Nazi Germany.

The modern world is turning into a nightmare on many levels - economic, political, cultural, and ecological. National Socialism may or may not be a viable alternative. "

How ironic it's you who brings this topic, since you'er obviously the antithesis of this kind of person. The last time revisionist posts were ween on this forum, theye were written by the worst member Allforums ever had, Tentmaker.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Revisionism is unfortunately still a very widespread theory. . Some are playing 'Devil's advocate' and questioning the veracity of certain claims about the episode, and I honestly believe that some good has come from some of it.
The sillier stories about 4,000,000 killed at Auschwitz, or Jews being melted down into soap (some idiots even gave a funeral service to a bar of soap - and this rightly invited derision), and many fabricated stories from 'survivors' of 'gassings' at Belsen, where in fact no gassings took place.

Unfortunately, it is possible to fill entire websites with false claims about the Holocaust, but there is certainly enough evidence from many different people of many different nationalities to justify describing the genocides as historical fact.

The problem with the author of the above is that he is arguing against a version of the Holocaust which is too extreme and ridiculous even for the most fanatical propagandists.

It's like saying "Where's the evidence that the Hiroshima bomb killed ten million people - so there was no Hiroshima bomb!"

Very well said, spartak. A survivior of Auschwitz lives in my own home town. She was the only survivor of her immediate family--all otheres were "eliminated" by the guards and workers at Auschwitz ( and don't you love the sign that was above the camp? "Work will set you free." Yep, they were "set free" all right)-- anyway--no, she did not "see" her family being killed.... but one day they were there, and the next, they weren't.
Don't anyone tell this brave lady that these stories are untrue! And what does it matter exactly how they died? It's always been my understanding that most of the inmates were starved or died from disease. They are just as dead.

Historian Norman Davies called the term 'Holocaust' an unhistorical term for an all-too historical event. It is difficult to define what we mean when we use the term.
Is it right to say 'The Jewish Holocaust' when possibly 3,000,000 USSR POWs and 600,000 Romanies may have died in similar or identical circumstances?
The worst extermination camp of WW2 was not run by the Nazis, but their allies the Croats. Do the several thousand Jews who died there count as Holocaust victims? Probably, but the 600,000 Serbs are rarely mentioned as such, and Himmler even suggested Germany break with Croatia as they gave the Nazis a bad name.
Jews rounded up in Odessa and sent to the next world by Romanians? Yes. But what about Jews killed in Romania by Romanians, without any prompting from Berlin?
The first 'death sentence' for groups of people by the nazis that we have proof of is an order to kill Ukrainian Nationalists, and many went to the extermination camps, but few 'Holocaust histories' mention this episode.

And so on.... Very difficult part of history to understand.

I used to go to a "revisionism" website pretty often and argue with the "historians" there. One thing that always started a riot was the suggestion that they were anti-semitic. They claimed they were purely historians.

But in other places on their site, they would feature atrocities done to Palestinians by Israel. Now what would be the common link between denying the Holocaust and citing "Israeli atrocities"? Hmmmm.

Anyone who wants to believe the revisionists has a trace of that anti-semitism. They'll deny it, but it's there.

Originally posted by Brooks
I used to go to a "revisionism" website pretty often and argue with the "historians" there. One thing that always started a riot was the suggestion that they were anti-semitic. They claimed they were purely historians.

But in other places on their site, they would feature atrocities done to Palestinians by Israel. Now what would be the common link between denying the Holocaust and citing "Israeli atrocities"? Hmmmm.

Anyone who wants to believe the revisionists has a trace of that anti-semitism. They'll deny it, but it's there.
The David Irving website has had such content. I think he has gone a bit mad, because he used to be a brilliant historian, as even many of his 'enemies concede (btw the free pdf book on Nuremberg is excellent), but his speeches became more and more 'unrealistic' and then anti-Israel stuff began to appear.

It is ironic that those who wish to deny the deliberate genocide are often those who would probably willingly have participated in it, given the chance.

I have seen racist assholes on sites like that. Liberty Forum is beyond ridiculaus.

However seeing as how Elie Wiesel was mentioned and zionism so connected to the events (Israel and WW2) it is interesting to look at Elie himself.

"Wiesel is often quoted as saying that “the opposite of love is not hate ; it is indifference.” He has devoted his life to carefully crafting articles and speeches about oppression, genocide, and man’s inhumanity to man. Yet when asked about the oppression and dehumanization of Palestinians by Israel, he “abstains” and dismisses the subject claiming “I cannot say bad things about Jews,” or “Such comparisons are unworthy."
http://www.peuplesmonde.com/article.php3?id_article=222

I also suggest checking out pages like Jews against Zionism.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

They have many quotes by Rabbis saying they don't care how many jews are murdered so long as they get Israel. They even colluded with hitler to 'break the back of the british' in Israel.

"Ben Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." Ibid., p.149."
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm

Jews against zionism (pictures and a link to website full of links)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jews_against_zionism.html

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Zionists care nothing about jews. They only care about Israel and would gladly arifice them all to hold onto said land.

Orthodox Jews see Israel as Blasphamy. Isreal was suppossed to be given by god, not britain and America. To accept such is comparing britina and America to god and hence blasphamy.

orthodox jews see israel as blasphemy? Like if a fiery chariot doesnt come out of the sky and give it to them they wont accept it? where do you get this shit dude? There are many orthodox jews living in israel. Sometimes I think you just make shit up.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I have seen racist assholes on sites like that. Liberty Forum is beyond ridiculaus.

However seeing as how Elie Wiesel was mentioned and zionism so connected to the events (Israel and WW2) it is interesting to look at Elie himself.

"Wiesel is often quoted as saying that “the opposite of love is not hate ; it is indifference.” He has devoted his life to carefully crafting articles and speeches about oppression, genocide, and man’s inhumanity to man. Yet when asked about the oppression and dehumanization of Palestinians by Israel, he “abstains” and dismisses the subject claiming “I cannot say bad things about Jews,” or “Such comparisons are unworthy."
http://www.peuplesmonde.com/article.php3?id_article=222

I also suggest checking out pages like Jews against Zionism.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

They have many quotes by Rabbis saying they don't care how many jews are murdered so long as they get Israel. They even colluded with hitler to 'break the back of the british' in Israel.

"Ben Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." Ibid., p.149."
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm

Jews against zionism (pictures and a link to website full of links)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jews_against_zionism.html
It's a sad footnote in the history of terrorism that some of those Jews who decided to be terrorists in Palestine against the British were meek, obedient little sheep under Stalin and/or Hitler.

The gypsies, Roma, are hardly ever mentioned and they were put into the camps as well they also have never got comp money for their suffering those campus of death.