It's the only crime against humanity , it tops the list.
Let's not argue about how to quantify the amount of racism, because I don't feel like this would be a useful discussion.
i agree but that's not what I do, that's what sionist are doing.
there was no "industrialised" genocide but i can't talk about it more due to repressive laws in my country
My family visited auschwitz birkenau, even the people working there and making the visite told them the truth.
I actualy love history books/literature/paper.
As many others have given proof to in this thread there is sufficient evidence, documentation and scientific research about the topic.
But as I said I'm ready to be given a lecture with undeniable proofs that those gas chambers were real.
The Jews were (...) taken to the cellar and across the ramp into the back of a gas van holding from 50-70 people each (Opel Blitz) and up to 150 (Magirus). When the van was full, the doors were shut and the engine started, pumping fumes into the rear compartment. After about 5–10 minutes, the victims were killed by asphyxiation. Witnesses heard their screams as they were dying. The vans full of corpses were driven 4 km (2.5 mi) to the forest Waldlager camp, to previously excavated mass graves.
The SS-Sonderkommando "Lange" was supplied with three gas vans, assigned by the RSHA in Berlin, for killing mass numbers of victims. (...) On June 5, 1942 inspector Becker wrote to Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff in RSHA that, by using just three vans on the Eastern Front (the Opel-Blitz and the larger Saurerwagen), without any faults, they were able to "process" 97,000 captives in less than six months between December 1941 and June 1942.
"I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries."
Can you really not point me to some direction instead of throwing a huge list of sources ? You seem to have been convinced, so there has to be one or two sources in particular that I should check to spare some time ?
Why, seriously why, should there be any incentive to lie about the efficiency of certain methods of murder? What would be the adventage of convincing the public that a large amount of deportees was killed in gas chambers instead of being shot, or starved to death, or numerous other means of murder? Why would historians, to this day, keep up this lie? What could this possibly change?
I just stumbled accross other prominent historians that happened to question the existence of gas chambers
I don't see what kind of benefits it gave to Robert Faurisson to make a 70 minutes video explaining why he has, during his research at various concentration camps, come to the conclusion that there was no evidence of said gas chambers and, on the contrary, various evidences that it just can not be possible (or at the very least, very unlikely since the risks are higher than the "gain" if I can even put it like that lol).
The third option would be that he is actually right when claiming that Hitler never ordered or intended genocide. That however, is, impossible.
and wether I like it or not, he does raise some questions.
What I'm concerned about isn't that part of the documentary however. We've been talking about gas chambers .
Why are you so keen to isolate some random part out of the speech of this asshole? Because it confirms to some of your beliefs? This confirmation is completely worthless if it doesn't come from a decent human being. It is even alarming that your beliefs are confirmed by this fuckwit. Why the hell am I even explaining this?
Why do you care about the questions he raises? Why would you give a fuck about this asshole who uses semantics in order to deny the holocaust? I really don't get it.
Because that's the whole point of this documentary ?
Can you not just refute his arguments
Basically he has documents, he confronted them and pointed out the flaws. Given his credentials in criticizing documents I think it's fair enough.
The problem is you keep using that argument that he's alone.
Heck, it's even against the law to even try to show a different angle.
Who wants to go to prison and pay amends just to be spat on in the street ?
It would take some blind monkey to not see the evidence of the holocaust.
Can you please stop associating my doubts toward gas chambers to a denying of holocaust ?
Because someone has bad intentions doesn't mean all of what he says is definetly wrong. The same analysis could be done from someone who desperately wants the gas chambers to be true. It is intellectually healthy to have both, that's all.
Because someone has bad intentions doesn't mean all of what he says is definetly wrong.
You did not answer me entirely.
But you haven't explained to me how can so many bodies be burned in so little time (e.g.) amongst other fishy stuff I don't understand about gas chambers.
Maybe the answer is simple, and the outcome can seem logical at last.
(...) even excluded him from the scientific discourse?
Interviewer: Do you think that the National Socialist regime committed crimes against the European Jews?
Dr. Faurisson: That regime did not pursue, with regard to the Jews, any criminal policy. [...]
What's with the body cremation average time ?
What's with the frail doors ?
The numbers vary with every research and those fluctuations are often counted by the 100.000's...
In conducting the Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments themselves violated international law. For one thing, their treatment of the German defendants and the military prisoners who testified violated articles 56, 58 and others of the Geneva convention of July 1929. /23
Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews, acknowledged that "There are also Holocaust documents that are outright falsification and some that purvey myth rather than historical fact." /54
The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. /3 Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was, however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.
Allied prosecutors used torture to help prove their case at Nuremberg and other postwar trials. /72
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has cited the case of Jupp Aschenbrenner, a Bavarian who was tortured into signing a statement that he had worked on mobile gas chambers ("gas vans") during the war. It wasn't until several years later that he was finally able to prove that he had actually spent that time in Munich studying to become an electric welder. /75
Very few of those who glibly refer to "all the Nuremberg evidence" as proof for the Holocaust extermination story are familiar with either the real nature of this "evidence" or the character of these trials. On closer examination, solid documentary or forensic evidence of a wartime German policy to exterminate Europe's Jews proves to be elusive. As we have seen, the evidence that has been presented consists largely of extorted confessions, spurious testimonies, and fraudulent documents. The postwar Nuremberg trials were politically motivated proceedings meant more to discredit the leaders of a defeated regime than to establish truth.
We do not need trials or "confessions" to prove that the Katyn massacre or the postwar deportation of Germans from eastern and central Europe actually took place. By comparison, the Holocaust story does not claim just a few isolated massacres, but a vast extermination program taking place across the European continent over a three-year period involving several governments and millions of people. The fact that the Holocaust story must rely so heavily on highly dubious testimony evidence and trials staged in a historically unparalleled atmosphere of hysteria, intimidation and propaganda demonstrates its inherent weakness.
Das Institute for Historical Review (IHR) ist eine pseudowissenschaftliche Organisation. Das IHR wird von vielen führenden Geschichtswissenschaftlern als die weltweit führende Organisation der Holocaustleugnung angesehen.
I'm sorry, I will not read through all of this, but I will say this:
What is the purpose of what ? I've said there is something fishy about gas chambers and people went crazy about it, so we kept talking about my doubts and how I should not doubt because holy fuck the holocaust DEWD.
How is he not credible in your own eyes ? He's de facto not credible because he's been dubbed a holocaust denier.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Nazis killed 6 million jews?
I only need to skim through the wikipedia page of Dieudonné or Manuel Valls of whom I know pretty much everything to know it's first of all a very usefull propaganda tool.
(...) and left them starve to death
there was no "industrialised" genocide
You should not ask this question because asking it is already reprehensible and illegale.
As for the topic of the gas chambers, not only did i said nothing about it
If you tolerate this, you might as well have no sanctions for anything ever.
Sieg Heil /O
Radicals and racists
Don't point your finger at me
I'm a small town white boy
Just tryin' to make ends meet
Don't need your religion
Don't watch that much TV
Just makin' my livin' baby
Well that's enough for me