Well, what do we have here?

Sorry, folks, for me dopping by just now the fun seems to be over in this thread.
Here in good ol' Germany, where we used to kill Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and everyone else we could get our hands on, discussions like these take place very rarely. Our parents and grandparents were witnesses of the days 60 years ago and though we are at the moment recovering from decades of collective shame, everybody knows what has happened between 1933 and 1945.

First of all, the Revisionist are always asking for proof that they know it doesn't exist. A nice gesture, I'd say, because there wouldn't be much to argue about if they didn't. But none of them mentions the proof that does exist.

Second, it might be true, that the number of 6,000,000 is somewhat exaggerated. But do ya know something? It doesn't matter.

It makes no difference, whether the Nazis killed 6 million or just 4,5 million. It's not important if 100%, 80% or 60% of the dead had actually been gassed, shot or strangled. The main subject about the time from 1933 - 1945 is that a modern society, which one would have called civilised, used all of it's industrial techniques to create a machinery of death that never had been and never will be seen again in the memory of mankind.

It is one thing to debate on scientifical facts, but usually the path of the Revisionists' arguments leads to other statements in order to make the Nazi deeds seems less abominable and more harmless. "It actually wasn't that bad" is one of the most dangerous quotes related to the Nazi regime.

I applaud your words!

Though I'm not so sure it never will happen again...
There hasn't been one day of peace since

I'm afraid a massmurder of this scale will happen again in the future
Maybe not when we are still alive, but humanity has the nasty tendency to repeat it's mistakes and not learn from the past.
Unfortunately

**Taps fingers**

Still waiting on answers to my questions as well as a reply to my answers..... I do not really expect any though...

If you do get one, much like 'Jeopardy!' you can expect it in the form of a question.

From what I remember in school, it wasn't just rank-and-file Jews that were rounded up, but anyone with Jewish ancestory. If your grandmother was born to a Jewish family, though she may have been raised Christian and never stepped foot inside a synagogue in her life, that was enough for the Nazi's to haul you off.

Because mass execution with rifles is far more obvious and likely to cause riots in the camps then simply and quielty using poisonous gas.

Lets for arguments sake say that all of the dead in concentration camps did die of typhus, then this is because the nazi war machine segregated them into a disease incubation area and then fialed ot provide them with the basics of sanitation and health care which allowed the to proliferation of the disease.

Now the piles of dead boes, massive piles of about 200/300 bodies in about 50 mounds across the camp form the footage i've seen is hideaous enough.

Anne Frank died of disease (Teburculosis I beleive) but just ebcuase one girl didn't get gassed does not counteract the weight of first hand account evidence form Allied soldiers.

EL

what proof? and dont bring me a photograph of some kids in clogs, because I can show you photos of fairys at the bottom of the garden.


but it does matter, because since the war the jews have siphoned off billions if not trillions of dollars in so called compensation money, which I might add was their original purposes fo making the cock and bull story up.

here's the Rudolph Report, it answers all your questions:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html#toc

Trouble is you either wont or can't read this report for fear of offending your PC sensibilites, and thats irrepspective of any truth written theirin.

but why bother putting them in camps, why not just round them up where they are i.e. as in the Polish ghettos and just shoot them all on the spot. What's the point in building such an expensive elaborate camp?

just listen to yourself, your saying that modern doctors who recommend quarantine for TB cases are guilty of persecution and attempoed genocide.

Further still, the jews had declared war on Gemany in 1933, and under the Geneva convention jews under occupied German soil could be rounded up and put into camps as legitimate POW's.

The Germans forced them to do some work in the camps because thats how life goes, if you dont work, you dont eat. Trouble is jews dont like doing work, and this is one of the main things they gruble aabout, the fact that they had to carry their own weight, for a change, instead of living off the backs of others.

yes, and so are the mounds of people who have recently been buried in the Tsunami disaster, but does anyone accuse the Indonesians, Indians, Sri Lankans of genocide? no, so why accuse the Germans of mass-murder when they couldnt do much about the Typhoid epidemics in the war?



"In March of 1945, nine months after she was arrested, Anne Frank died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen. She was fifteen years old."

check out this comment on the Anne Frank center website:

http://www.annefrank.com/1_life.htm

The point is why is the diary of Anne Frank important? truth is its not. This girl died of Typhus, like thousands of others, and up until the 1990's her story was told to the public as 'Anne Frank died in the gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen".

Why change the story, simple because Anne Frank died of Typhus, and their was no gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen, the story is a load of rubbish.

I want you to answer my questions. Not dodge them by shoving me a link to an obscure book.

Thanks.

Unless you question history, how can you ever understand or come to know history? That's the whole point of being a historian, or an archeologist, or a pelaontologist, to question history, and to find out from actual physical / forensic evidence what the truth is. You say that it's not right to question the 'Holohoax', and then you say it happend, which contradicts your first tenet because unless youv'e questioned the 'Holohoax' how do you know it happend?

still, NO SINGLE HISTORIAN, OR EYE-WITNESS OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS PROVIDED FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF THE 'HOLOHOAX'. The only evidence you and your thousands of historians / eye-witnesess have got is forged documents, suggestive photos and statements made by people under torture, or by people who have lied to make a profit.

are you an expert on cremation now? the question you ask concerning total cremation or partial is not for me to answer. You have made the accusation that millions of people were cremated by the Nazi's in the 'Holohoax', so you tell me whether they were cremated totally or partially?

...and then we can decide on the time, fuel and temp etc. I will not pretend to be an expert in the field of cremation, and as usual I will refer you a general website which details cremation in detail:

http://www.cremation.org/

If you dont like this website, then you find a website a cremation society of your own and refer to it.

see this proves my point that you seem to be a complete idiot.

* - COAL IS FUEL - *

A Fire requires 3 things: a fuel, oxygen, and heat. A coal fire will get its heat intially from burning paper, or tinder to heat some of the coal to a combustiable temp. From then on a coal fire only needs coal to keep it burning, in short, COAL IS FUEL. Other example types of fuel include: OIL, COKE, GAS, WOOD, PAPER, TINDER, AND NUCLEAR. Thats why power stations are called: Nuclear Fuel Power Stations, or Gas Power Stations, or EVEN COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS.

http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/frame/main.html


again, youre making the accusations so you tell me what fuel they used to cremate them bodies.

The jews have said on most of their 'holohoax' websites that the bones of previous victims were used as fuel to keep the furnaces going. This is incorrect, primarily because BONES DO NOT BURN AND HENCE THEY CANNOT BE USED AS FUEL, that why when people are cremated the bone fragments are ground up and scattered, or handed back to their love ones. Again check a cremation society website, anyone of your choice, and thats exactly what they will confirm.


once again---if you tie 3 bodies together they will not burn quicker than one body. The reason why is because bodies do not combust by themselves, i.e. THEY REQUIRE FUEL TO BURN. So for 3 bodies tied together you will need 3 times the amount of fuel used for one body.

As I have said, I am not expert on crematoriums which is why I have consulted crematorium experts and I have sought their opinion on building the alleged crematoriums at Auschwitz. So far, no crematorium expert has surfaced to confirm that such equipment cn be built and used, in fact, the opposite has occured where crematorium experts REFUTE the existence of such facilties, only, these people are few in number because liberal facists and 'jewish supremacists' criminals happen to go around beating them up.

well I agree with the Revisionists, and I would say such furnaces at Auschwitz would require hours and hours of down time for maintenance. However, and I said before many times i'm not a crematorium expert, ( and I dont think you are either for that matter ) which is why we should refer to creamtorium experts and asked them what they say about maintaining crematoriums.

Also, again, you are making the accusations, so you tell me how much maitenance time was needed?



if all this above is true, then the question's I have which relates to the fuel situation, are:

where did all the fuel come from? and
what fuel was used to keep such a huge contraption running?

Quote:

#8- No. I built the forced labor camp to ease problems with the economy why would I build something that not only takes maintenance but operators as well. I could easily enough have those same laborers dig graves and bury the dead.

see, you just prove my point. If the Germans had a plan to exterminate the jews ( as you alledge ), then why would the Germans construct such an elaborate camp and logistics network to do such a thing. As you have said above, it is much easier to shoot people and then bury them where they were. What's the point in transporting people hundreds of miles by train to their deaths?

In fact, here's another ridiclous claim. As far as I know, many people were transported from Auschwitz in the winter of 1944 to new camps in Germany i.e. Ravensbruck. Why would the Germans transport people back into Germany, when they had already decided they were going to kill them? what's the point?

Quote:

#9-Why fumigate them when you are going to burn them. It also takes a little while to build ovens capable of dealing with large amounts of bodies. Were the germans than prescient?? I would dig large pits and dump the bodies in them and burn them. Regardless of such they would have survived were they not interred in the camps. The situation was brought upon them by the German authorities and as such the responsibility for the deaths lie with them. Simple induction.

errrr not so, otherwise you would have to lay the blame for the AIDS epidemic in S.Africa firmly on the the S.African government. And while your at it, remember the Tsunami, as the American Earthquake center knew about the earthquake before the tsunami hit the shores of Sri Lanka, you would have to blame them for not preventing the deaths of over 200,000 people. Your logic is flawed, how can you prevent an event before you know of the event? it's like predicting someone is going to have a heart attack next week and yet how can you know someone will have a heart attack next week?

Quote:

#10-Regardless both methods suffice. Buried in a communal pit filled with lime or burned solves the problem.

now, lets assume your right, and that they buried many of the victims. If the figure of 6 million is to be also taken as correct, then the numbers of people buried in those so called mass graves must be at least half this figure. So, if we was to go to the sites at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, etc. then we would be able dig up the remains of over 3 million people. The problem here is that apart from a few dozen mass graves containing probabley less than approx. - 50,000 bodies in total, no evidence has been provided of the remaining 5,950,000 bodies or burnt remains.

As I said previously, BONE FRAGMENTS DO NOT BURN, so if 6 million were killed their must be literally tons and tons of BONE FRAGMENTS underneath the camps. So far examinations of the camps have provided ZIP PROOF of any such large amounts of bone fragments. Now, again as youre making the accusations, you provide FORENSIC PROOF of the BONE FRAGMENT remains for 6 million people.


Here's another question, if I mixed HCN gas and Oxygen together would it explode?

Once again an adult discussion is disintegrated due to your need to provoke me with childlike insults. You do not seem to be able to hold a debate without throwing out the random insult or two. I have given you several chances to reconcile yourself and attempt to hold a conversation without the name-dropping but you do not seem to be able to withhold from doing it.

I do thank you for answering my questions but I do not think I will be replying at this time due to your incessant need to insult and act like a child. You really need to understand that this forum does not allow personal provocation nor insults within any forum. You will end up being Warned and ultimately banned if you continue in this habit.

When you think you can debate without the need for the personal insults please say so within this thread or send me a PM and we can pick up where this has left off.

whats's the point in debating with someone who thinks -

'COAL IS NOT A FUEL'

Ridiculous, and it proves my point that you must be living on Mars or something not to know that 'COAL IS A FUEL'. Remember being taught about the steam age, engines were driven by steam pressure. The pressure was created by heating water which created steam. To heat the water they used COAL, or COKE. Also, have you ever heard of a COAL FIRE? this is a fire which uses COAL as its fuel??????? OMG.

I see so many posts here from antis concerning the holocaust, and they appear to have their own set of rules for debating so I just wanted to get them straight in my mind.

I'd appreciate any assistance in this.

1.) Any source that says anything that opposses that 6 million died is an unreliable source.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/sho...1&postcount=191

2.) 6 million people were gassed to death, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and even if an anti were to concede that the figure was any other figure than 6 million all that means is that 6 million jews were gassed to death.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/sho...07&postcount=11

3.) To dispute the holocaust is a sin, and proves you to be evil, even if an anti agrees with any statement made that contradicts the approved 6 million figure.

4.) There is an over whelming body of evidence to prove that 6 million people were gassed to death, and this evidence is so over whelming that an anti only need say this fact, and need never present it.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/sho...06&postcount=30

5.) The fact that there is no proof of Hitler ordering the gassing of 6 million jews is proof that he did.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/sho...06&postcount=30

6.) Any flawed sources, no matter how exposed, are still viable sources, as long as they support the official figure of 6 million jews being gassed to death.

7.) It does not matter that millions of innocent people, civilians and military died during the war, they are irrelevent, and the jews that died, what ever figure you claim, are far more important.

8.) If your argument is beginning to wane then it is perfectly reasonable to make false claims about censorship on this site.

9.) Facts are largely irrelevent, the important thing is that 6 million jews were killed, whether this is true or not.

10.) Every anti has an aunt/mother/uncle, who has a number tattoed on his hand, this is proof that every jew was killed in the war.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/sho...890&postcount=1

Another one is: After being shown all the evidence for the 6 million figure being a huge exagerration, and not being able to think of an argument against it, they will often start saying that it "doesn't matter."

"It doesn't matter whether 6 million or 6 thousand Jews were gassed, it was still evil, so what's the difference?"


OMG

....and last but not least, the incredible statement:

'COAL IS NOT A FUEL'

OMG - OMG - OMG - OMG - OMG

Once again please let me know when you are willin gto debate as an adult rather than like a child.

An adult rationalizes. A child only considers thier opinion.

By the way you have proven my hypothesis by answering that question. I asked you--- Does coal burn by itself or does it need "Fuel"--- you answered--- COAL IS FUEL--- that is correct. You decided to make your own assumptions based on my question. You know that coal is fuel. Because it is carbon. The human body is also carbon and is also a fuel. Thank you. Have a nice day.