Holocaust debate graphics / Informative pictures

[Lamprecht]

Does any one have good graphics / images that you use to help you in debates? I didn't see a thread about this

I have a few:

extermination-camp-map (1).jpg (232.81 KiB) Viewed 2785 times

holocaust-debate-points.jpg (299.46 KiB) Viewed 2785 times

Also check/use this thread, for images of ridiculous "Holocaust" testimonies:

The Most Ridiculous Testimony
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7033&start=45

[Hektor]

Does any one have good graphics / images that you use to help you in debates? I didn't see a thread about this

I have a few:

extermination-camp-map (1).jpg
....

The first map contains errors.

Sachsenhausen, for example, was "liberated" by the Red Army.

[flimflam]

Not only do I have graphics, I have arguments to to with them. I think images are a great way to illustrate and document holohoax points in debate, see http://www.holohoax101.org

[Lamprecht]

Inspired by this thread:

ONE PICTURE = 1000 WORDS
viewtopic.php?t=2651

*** THE GREAT GAS CHAMBER TRAFFIC JAM ***

download/file.php?id=2190

[Lamprecht]

No Nazi ever denied the "Holocaust" ... Wrong!

download/file.php?id=2229

Read more:

"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
viewtopic.php?t=12287
and:
quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Nazis never denied 'holocaust' / WRONG
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165

[cold beer]

holocaust-debate-points.jpg

Why would any revisionist offer up the notion that jews were persecuted?
I would not not be caught dead endorsing this meme/graphic of whatever we want to call it.

[Lamprecht]

Why would any revisionist offer up the notion that jews were persecuted?

Ask Germar Rudolf, who said:

"First of all, because of false representations by the media, it is necessary that we first clarify what Holocaust Revisionism does not maintain:
– it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;"

http://vho.org/Intro/GB/Brochure.pdf or http://vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html

Also the graphic is just a styled form of this table on Germar Rudolf's website:

http://germarrudolf.com/en/germars-view ... visionism/

Claims About Holocaust Revisionists Fact
They deny that Jews were persecuted WRONG. They do NOT deny this

[cold beer]

Why would any revisionist offer up the notion that jews were persecuted?

Ask Germar Rudolf, who said:

"First of all, because of false representations by the media, it is necessary that we first clarify what Holocaust Revisionism does not maintain:
– it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;"

http://vho.org/Intro/GB/Brochure.pdf or http://vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html

Also the graphic is just a styled form of this table on Germar Rudolf's website:

http://germarrudolf.com/en/germars-view ... visionism/

Claims About Holocaust Revisionists Fact
They deny that Jews were persecuted WRONG. They do NOT deny this

Your answer is a link to someone else's view?
These are people who find themselves in a position where they are seen as pseudo spokesmen, seem to think this is prudent diplomacy.
I think not only is it a huge mistake, but a betrayal to their own race.
It's akin to Mark Weber offering up the existence of mass graves in the east, site unseen.
They were put in camps because they declared war!

[Lamprecht]

Your answer is a link to someone else's view?

You asked why a revisionist would claim that Jews were persecuted. Germar Rudolf has published many revisionist books, and claims Jews were persecuted.

It's akin to Mark Weber offering up the existence of mass graves in the east, site unseen.

Not sure what you're referring to here, but revisionists do admit the Einsatzgruppen existed, for reasons such as anti-partisan warfare, including killings of certain Jews in association with this, but that there were no genocidal plans and no genocidal killings, and no policy to "kill any and every jew you can find"

They were put in camps because they declared war!

The argument is not "What happened to jews was unprovoked"
Certainly, what happened to Jews was largely a response to and result of their own behavior.

The point of this graphic:


Is to explain to people who are new to revisionism that we do not deny that Jews were put into camps, or that Nazis had anti-Jewish policies.

The average person has a cartoonish understanding of "Holocaust denial" and literally assumes "Holocaust deniers" believe:
- Every testimony by jews in the camps, or soldiers that liberated them is made up
- The camps are completely non-existent or made up
- Nazis didn't even have anti-Jewish beliefs, and did not want Jews out of Germany
- If they accept that "Deniers" acknowledge the existence of camps, believe that they "deny" the crematoria or forced labor of inmates
- The photos of piles of bodies are totally fake

For me, it is very aggravating to have to explain over and over again that "deniers" acknowledge the existence of camps, that the Nazis did have "anti-semitic" policies, beliefs or whatever, and that people died [from starvation and disease, mostly in the last few months] in the camps, along with the millions of civilian deaths during WWII (deadliest war in world history). It saves a lot of time, using that image to clarify.

From the CODOH about page:

What We Believe
... We understand perfectly well that the Hitlerian regime was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews and others.

https://codoh.com/about/

[cold beer]

You asked why a revisionist would claim that Jews were persecuted. Germar Rudolf has published many revisionist books, and claims Jews were persecuted.

Germar Rudolph is a who not a why.
The minute you start offering up "jew persecution" on a plate you lose your audience., because the false image of jew persecution drives their holohoax beliefs and you feed it.

[Lamprecht]

You asked why a revisionist would claim that Jews were persecuted. Germar Rudolf has published many revisionist books, and claims Jews were persecuted.

Germar Rudolph is a who not a why.
The minute you start offering up "jew persecution" on a plate you lose your audience., because the false image of jew persecution drives their holohoax beliefs and you feed it.

By implying there were no Nazi policies aimed against Jews (justified or not) you're losing all of your credibility.

Hence, why the CODOH about page says: "the Hitlerian regime was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews and others"

[cold beer]

By implying there were no Nazi policies aimed against Jews (justified or not) you're losing all of your credibility.

Hence, why the CODOH about page says: "the Hitlerian regime was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews and others"

It's not a matter of "justified or not" when you use the word persecuted.
Q: Do you know what the definition of persecuted is?
A: subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs

By using the word persecuted YOU are proclaim9ng that what happened to the jews was completely without justification.
You're not saying the jews suffered consequences of a war they incited along with millions of others.
What you're saying isn't even in the same ballpark.

Were the jews put in camps on the basis of their race or religion or political beliefs?
Is that the reason, yes or no?

[Lamprecht]

cold beer:

Q: Do you know what the definition of persecuted is?
A: subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs

By using the word persecuted YOU are proclaim9ng that what happened to the jews was completely without justification.

Did individual Jews who did not specifically do anything against the Reich put into camps? One could argue that both Germans and ordinary Jews were victims of the behavior of the Jewish elite. Also, nothing in the definition you provided says anything about "justification" at all.
A believer will point to, say, Anne Frank, and say "What did SHE do, specifically?" or some other Jew who didn't do anything specifically.
Keep in mind that the USA also interned people based on ethnicity alone.

Also, I would like to emphasize once again that "persecuted" is not my specific or original claim, and I have cited both CODOH and Germar Rudolf stating that Nazis persecuted Jews. Doubtless many other revisionists will admit that Jews were "persecuted" even if they acknowledge that it was not unprovoked.

Were the jews put in camps on the basis of their race or religion or political beliefs?
Is that the reason, yes or no?

It depends on the individual Jew. Some were criminals and interned for that reason. Some were interned because they were Jews. Most Jews actually left Germany by the time World War II started.

Were American citizens of Japanese descent put in camps on the basis of their race/ethnicity? Yes or no?

[cold beer]

Did individual Jews who did not specifically do anything against the Reich put into camps?

Yeah sure.
Same was true for all groups involved in the war.
You'll never hear a jew say they persecuted Germans.

Also, nothing in the definition you provided says anything about "justification" at all.

Oh I'm so sorry, I apologize profusely.
Up until now I've never encountered anyone who had the expectation that in addition to the meaning of the word, the logical use of a word should be spelled out in it's entirety as part of it's definition.
I'm not sure how publishers of dictionaries would even go about that, it would be a huge undertaking to hold every reader's hand to that extent.

A believer will point to, say, Anne Frank, and say "What did SHE do, specifically?" or some other Jew who didn't do anything specifically.

Seeing revisionists use "persecution of jews", contributes to this very basic fact of war getting morphed into a fictional 'holocaust'.
Why take this fact of war and describe it as persecution in the case of jews and jews only?
It isn't done otherwise and therefore it helps promote the claim of unique suffering.

Doubtless many other revisionists will admit that Jews were "persecuted" even if they acknowledge that it was not unprovoked.

Gee i hope it isn't many others, I'd like to think of them employing some basic common sense.

Some were criminals and interned for that reason. Some were interned because they were Jews. Most Jews actually left Germany by the time World War II started.
Were American citizens of Japanese descent put in camps on the basis of their race/ethnicity? Yes or no?

That sounds like a perfectly logical argument AGAINST offering up that whole persecution theme.
But nevertheless for some odd you're committed spreading it!
Why?
Based on what you've said, your reasoning is that particular revisionists of stature use it, so you think it must be a good idea!
As if their 'stature' defines them as infallible.

[Lamprecht]

Did individual Jews who did not specifically do anything against the Reich put into camps?

Yeah sure.
Same was true for all groups involved in the war.

Then you do not deny that some Jews were persecuted by the 3rd Reich. That's good, because if you said something like: "No jew was ever persecuted by the Third Reich" people will ask some silly question like: "Do you deny that World War II also happened? HA!"

You'll never hear a jew say they persecuted Germans.

A poor metric. You'll rarely hear a Jew admit that the religion of Judaism is based on racial supremacism. You point out the "Chosen people" concept and they will say other religions have the same idea. You point out that it's based on bloodline, not faith, and they will counter saying that people can and have converted to Judaism. You counter with quotes from top rabbis who explicitly state gentiles are sub-human or inferior, and they will say that's merely their own opinion.
The fact of the matter is that most people believe the "Holocaust" but have no idea what "Holocaust deniers" actually allege. Like I said, their understanding is deliberately obfuscated. The picture exists, and is used, to try to fix some of these errors in understanding. So people understand that revisionists mainly disagree that:
- Jews were exterminated
- Jews were gassed
- 6 million Jews died

Also, nothing in the definition you provided says anything about "justification" at all.

Oh I'm so sorry, I apologize profusely.
Up until now I've never encountered anyone who had the expectation that in addition to the meaning of the word, the logical use of a word should be spelled out in it's entirety as part of it's definition.
I'm not sure how publishers of dictionaries would even go about that, it would be a huge undertaking to hold every reader's hand to that extent.

If you tell a random person "HItler never persecuted Jews, it never happened, not one jew was persecuted by the third Reich!" they will think you are denying actual events which did take place, rather than saying "What happened to jews was a response to their behavior"
And that is the 'logical use of a word' - you're communicating with other people, so the idea is to transfer ideas and concepts to them. Maybe your goal is to exonerate certain ideologies from 8 decades ago, I don't know.

The "Holocaust" is a collection of events, rather than one singular event. So saying "I think the Holocaust is a hoax" to regular people, they will often misunderstand your position. In fact, by most standards, the average person uses "Holocaust" term with the contextual meaning "The overall treatment of Jews by the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s" and those same average people probably couldn't name you 5 different death camps without consulting the internet.

A believer will point to, say, Anne Frank, and say "What did SHE do, specifically?" or some other Jew who didn't do anything specifically.

Seeing revisionists use "persecution of jews", contributes to this very basic fact of war getting morphed into a fictional 'holocaust'.
Why take this fact of war and describe it as persecution in the case of jews and jews only?
It isn't done otherwise and therefore it helps promote the claim of unique suffering.

Nobody said it was only Jews who were persecuted. The CODOH about page says:
"We understand perfectly well that the Hitlerian regime was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews and others. We understand many peoples, European Jews among them, experienced unfathomable tragedies in Europe during World War II."

You seem to understand it as a concession that the treatment of Jews was somehow immoral or unjust in every instance. I am not even in the business of ascribing "Good" or "evil" to actions taken 8 decades ago, but rather understanding them.
I don't see it as contributing to any fictional "Holocaust" claims, just explaining to someone:
"You know, us 'Holocaust deniers' do not deny that Jews were deported to concentration camps, encouraged to leave Germany, kicked out of the media and academia. So there's no reason for you to bring up those events to 'prove the Holocaust occurred' because, alas, "deniers" concede the existence of these events!"

Gee i hope it isn't many others, I'd like to think of them employing some basic common sense.

You seem to be the only one that denies that any Jews were persecuted.

That sounds like a perfectly logical argument AGAINST offering up that whole persecution theme.
But nevertheless for some odd you're committed spreading it!
Why?
Based on what you've said, your reasoning is that particular revisionists of stature use it, so you think it must be a good idea!
As if their 'stature' defines them as infallible.

I said why. To clarify the position of "Holocaust deniers"

You seem to think, a Jew, let's call him Moshe, was simply minding his own business in 1940s Netherlands and one day got a knock on his door and the SS sayid"come with me, jew" and he gets sent to a concentration camp, does not fit under the umbrella of "Jewish persecution". Why? I think you would say, because the "Final Solution to the Jewish question" policy was a direct response, and reaction to, the behavior of Jews as-a-whole. Meanwhile, in actual use, virtually all "persecution" in history has been a response, no matter how justified, to something that actually (or supposedly) happened.

In contrast, my belief is that when you go to someone who knows very little and says "No Jew was ever persecuted by the Nazis!" they will think that you're denying that Moshe here ever was sent to a camp. They will assume that you're denying the existence of the internment camps, the Nuremberg Laws, that Jews were forced to wear yellow stars, and all the other silliness they continue to scream about.

I do not think the word "persecuted" carries with it the implication that the treatment of Jews was totally unprovoked, nor am I attempting to ascribe any sort of stamp of approval. The whole point is to start of the debate with:

- Don't bother posting pictures of Jews in camps, or piles of bodies, or laws passed against Jews by Germany. I don't claim these events didn't occur
- Please post proof that Jews were gassed
- Please post proof that 6 million Jews were killed
- Please post proof that there was a Nazi policy to exterminate all Jews

I've debated the Holocaust enough and had to respond to "But what about photos of dead bodies?" and "Are you saying Auschwitz didn't exist?" that I like to use that photo to clarify the position.

If you want to get irritated by the word "persecution" (used by CODOH and also Germar Rudolf, and doubtless many others) that's your issue.