Please Convince Me

[steve]

Hi All,

I will be right up front.

I believe, due to being involved with this topic for 4 years now, that the so-called "Holocaust" is a Big Lie.

Sure, I admit there were camps, deportations, deaths (there was a war, after all, and diseases, etc.), even some bitter attitudes that may have caused the murders of many Jews. (But, probably more Germans were murdered in that fashion than Jews.)

Anyway, since I now am fairly certain there were no gassings, no plan, and certainly no 6e6, I start to wonder if I am premature in feeling so certain about it.

So, what I would like, is for a believer to tell me why he believes in the H.
Certainly, if anyone is reading this board, that person has been exposed to the revisionist viewpoint. But, he still claims to believe. I honestly do not know if such a person is lying, or, if it is possible he has a good reason for still believing.

To keep this from getting unwieldly, let's focus on Auschwitz, the cornerstone of the H. Try to keep it as simple as you can. Showing me 1000 documents will seem like an attempt to overwhelm, and obfuscate the issue.

So, let's hear it, beliver. Now is your chance. I will try to start from square one. Why do you believe the Germans gassed almost 1 Million people, mostly Jews, at Auschwitz?

Steve

[Malle]

Steve,

Please don't hold your breath while you are waiting!

[Sailor]

Why do you believe the Germans gassed almost 1 Million people, mostly Jews, at Auschwitz?

Maybe the question should have been:

Why do you not believe the Germans gassed almost 1 Million people, mostly Jews, at Auschwitz? (Just asking)

fge

[Hannover]

Sailor wonders:

Why do you not believe the Germans gassed almost 1 Million people, mostly Jews, at Auschwitz? (Just asking)

That's rather like asking someone why they don't believe in voodoo after that person has asked a voodoo believer why they believe in voodoo.

- Hannover

[steve]

Sailor,

You say:

"Maybe the question should have been:

Why do you not believe the Germans gassed almost 1 Million people, mostly Jews, at Auschwitz? (Just asking) "

Remember, I'm not addressing my request for debate to the revisionists. I'm addressing it to the believers.

Steve

[max]

That's rather like asking someone why they don't believe in voodoo after that person has asked a voodoo believer why they believe in voodoo.

No. The Holocaust is an established historical fact in historiography, like so many other historical events. So it's rather like asking someone why they don't believe in the battle of Stalingrad. A justified question.

[Hannover]

I noticed that Max offers nothing in the way of a specifc reply to Steve, revealing.

I know no reason to question the battle of Stalingrad, it doesn't defy science, logic, and rational thought as the "holocaust" as alleged does.

Withcraft and the Salem Trials were "established historical events/historiography" too....much like a flat earth was once part of established academia, as was an earth centered solar system.

We have the 'holocaust' as alleged literally unable to defend itself against scrutiny, therefore Jews demand laws which make scutiny illegal. That in itself shows the fragility of the myth.

As I have done repeatedly, I challenege Max to start threads with specific points which he feels support his belief in the "holocaust" as alleged. What is he afraid of?

- Hannover

[steve]

Max,

Hannover pretty much said what I wanted to, but, I'll elaborate somewhat.

Surely you must admit there has been many 'Historical Facts" that have subsequentially been proven wrong. Meaning that the claim that the H is an historically proven fact does not make it so.

Also, you must surely admit, that at least on the surface, the revisionists present strong arguements. (Though, it seems the best arguements for the non-existence of the Big H are furnished by the H Peddlers themselves).

So, it seems more than reasonable to doubt the gas chambers, 6 Million, plan of genocide, (not to mention tangos of death, jumping buckets of muscle, etc.).

So, for the benefit of all out there, especially the ones who are unsure, I am offering a chance to have a down to earth, fair, discussion to see why each of us (the believers and the doubters) believe the way we do.

You claim to believe. So, tell me why. Start with any specific reason. (but stay on Auschwitz) We'll go from there. If I doubt your claim, I'll say why. We have all the time in the world. I'm not a Holocaust expert. But, I'm interested in it. And, I already admitted, I do not believe the standard story at all.

Ok, your move.

Steve

[Scott]

That's rather like asking someone why they don't believe in voodoo after that person has asked a voodoo believer why they believe in voodoo.

No. The Holocaust is an established historical fact in historiography, like so many other historical events. So it's rather like asking someone why they don't believe in the battle of Stalingrad. A justified question.

Not exactly. In historiography we don't really have "established historical facts" like Stalingrad and the Holocaust. These are not monolithic facts--not unless there is some authority orthodoxly dubbing them so--which would bring us into the realm of theology, Orwellianism, or "canon law," instead of historiography. "How historians write history" is actually more like categories of accepted information: Apples, Oranges, the Holocaust, Unicorns, Voodoo, Zebras and Zoroastrianism. No monoliths there, but one can either believe in standard or prevailing views or not. And, hearing those justifications would be an interesting exchange.

[Sailor]

I divide the group of Holocaust believers into several groups:

1. There are those who believe in the Jewish Holocaust, because they were taught in school, they watched it on TV many times. They simply believe it. They are probably the majority of believers, they don’t think much about it, they don’t want to debate the Holocaust.

2. Then there are the true believers. They will not debate. For them to debate the Holocaust is probably like debating whether the sun rises in the east or not: a waste of time.

3. There are other believer groups, like the German edition, who practice a kind of “Selbstgeißelung” (self-flagellation), a strange ritual leading to some sort of spiritual enlightenment with almost orgasmic fulfillment. They should see a shrink.

4. Or there are those who hate Germans and anything that can possibly be directed against Germans, well, that is ok with them. One cannot talk with these people unless one finds a few more millions of people killed by Germans here or there. They are “Vollidioten” (idiots).

5. And there are believers who like to debate it. Why? I am not sure. Maybe they want to convince the non-believer of their point of view, or maybe they want to convince themselves, or maybe try to strengthen their own convictions.

The Holocaust is an established historical fact in historiography, like so many other historical events

Historiography = the study of the techniques of historical research

History = an account of what has happened.

Are you mixing those two up maybe? Which historical research technique was used in the case of the Jewish Holocaust?

Leopold von Rank was a German historian who lived two centuries ago and established an accepted research technique for historians. Revisionists complain that his method was not used, but that in the case of the Jewish Holocaust story anti-German world war two horror propaganda was used and shoved down the throat of the German people in 1949 as self-evident facts, as untouchable history which cannot be questioned, which is taboo.

Historians who try (and tried) are in deep dodo.

Writes M. Weber about German history Prof. H. Diwald and his book “Geschichte der Deutschen” (History of the Germans):

Although it became an immediate best-seller in Germany -- unusual for a heavy 760-page work of history -- Dr. Diwald quickly learned what happens to even a prominent and reputable scholar who dares to cast doubt on a politically sensitive chapter of official history. As a result of the appearance of these two pages in a book written by a reputable historian and issued by a respectable publisher, that Diwald called "the problem of 'Auschwitz'," which had been quietly simmering among academics and Holocaust revisionists, suddenly burst into public attention. Quickly acceding to pressure from powerful groups, including boisterous protests from Jewish groups, sales of the first printing of 100,000 copies were immediately stopped, and a new edition with a hastily rewritten and "acceptable" section about the "final solution" was quickly substituted.

I have his book, yes the illegal edition, which I treasure very much.

fge

[steve]

There are other type of 'believers':

The one that must, deep down inside, realize that the H is nonsense.
But, can't bring himself to accept that his own people (ie, Jews) could be so capable of lying in such a blatant, shameless, fashion. Also, these 'believers' love to be part of a group that has been 'eternally perscuted'. The H gives them some type of immunity in this world today.

The other types are the Wiesels, Wiesenthals, Foxmans, Vrbas, etal, who are just flat out liars. Of course, every single one of them knows full well what the Hoax is all about.

Anyway, if I am indeed wrong, I again am requesting a down to earth discussion as to why any of you out there believe the Germans gassed many Jews at Auschwitz. It is a strong claim. Let's hear you back it up.

Steve

[Dan]

As a result of the appearance of these two pages in a book written by a reputable historian and issued by a respectable publisher, that Diwald called "the problem of 'Auschwitz'," which had been quietly simmering among academics and Holocaust revisionists, suddenly burst into public attention.

When you get a chance, could you post those two pages?

Thanks

[Samantha]

Steve, just one remark here. You have my total sympathy. I understand how you feel. I remember that turning-point moment when I ceased to Believe, but oh the problems it brings along! "Am I the only sane person on earth?" "Who were the good guys, then?" Then the repercussions of The Holocaust (tm) having not happened, on our whole view of 20th century history, are almost unthinkable. Really sometimes I'd rather just believe...

[Hannover]

No one says that nothing "happened".

Revisionists do not accept:

- the alleged murders of 6,000,000 Jews & the alleged murders of 6,000,000 others
- the fantasies of 'gas chambers
- nor the 'state planned genocide of Jews'

What happened was the desire of the Germans to throw the Jews out of Europe; many were deported to work camps and confined to 'ghettos' in anticipation of resettlement after the war.

Hannover

[Samantha]

Rephrase: "that it didn't happen the way they say". I'm not gonna say the Nazi camps were any fun but whose camps ever were?

The Holocaust as taught in schools is the superlative most disgusting crime ever committed, basically assuming in many people's minds the justification for Nazi Germany to be wiped off the face of the earth and vilified for the rest of time.

Lacking this great moral sense of outrage, it's clear that the Allies committed a worse crime, destroying a civilization that had a lot going for it, whose citizens were happy, and imposing another gov't on them without their consent. La.

My opinion, argue with me as you will :-)