NEW Revisionist Video

[Balsamo]

Anders said

Let's have some more fun with Balsamo

Ok, my post was not meant to be a serious one.

The warden replied earlier

Can you show documents proving those are supermarket clothes?
Can you show doctors performing autopsies in the area at the time?
Can you show shipments of mannequins being made to Dresden at the time

I found it funny, really. A good answer to my non sense.

And all i can say is "i can't". I could, of course, say that those documents were stored in the burnt building where those piles of clothes were stored.

hanover
There is not a single reason to doubt the genocidal, illegal mass murders of civilians at Dresden, or the countless other intentional illegal bombings of German civilians by the Allies. The cities and towns that were targeted contain cemeteries full of these corpses.

Right...and nobody denies it. Though a similarity with the Holocaust is the dispute on the number of victims. IIRC, the range goes from 35.000 to 250.000!

But let's put things straight. I was reacting ONLY to the picture. And i will remind you that there are plenty of pictures showing massacres supposed to represent the Holocaust. Which most of the time are rejected as fake or for whatever other reasons. But the main arguments against those pictures seems to be "A picture proves nothing".

So i had fun applying the same logic regarding the pictures posted by mister Berg (from Roberto).
- YES DRESDEN WAS BOMBED to ashes.
Here we have the historical facts.

But what does the pictures shows?

Imagine that there were indeed a Revisionist movement not denying the bombings (the obvious historical fact) but the impact on the population and the number of victims.
How do you think there would react to this picture? That is what i tried to do. And i am quite surpised the way you folks reacted with so much passion! And it illustrates the main problem in the debate...too much passion, preconcieved believes, ideologies, political stands, and because of that...double standards in adressing, in this example, a PICTURE...And yes, you find this bias on both side.

that nazism evilness does not make the USA good, that communism killed people and failed economically does not make our capitalist system good neither, etc. A crime does not erase a crime.
this is not the way i see things anyway.

To get back to the Warden's reply

Can you show documents proving those are supermarket clothes?
Can you show doctors performing autopsies in the area at the time?
Can you show shipments of mannequins being made to Dresden at the time

very pertinent.
And it could be applied to the debate on the Reinhardt "delousing" and "transit" camps, don't you think?
- documents that proves that those hundred thousands sent to those small camps were, once cleaned, sent elsewhere ? Anyone ?

What mister Berg shows is not any better that any video clip showing pictures of Belsen victims with some Albinoni adagio. Only the music is different. And what a music! You can imagine the "singer" with the svastika tattoed on its breast! Not a very good choice, imho. And the message is what ? People starved in India because the Empire needed the ships to protect its core Island and so the Holocaust of the nazi oppenents never happened? And he used what pictures ?

i would like to remind him that NO ONE denies the famine in Bengal, nor its causes, and NO ONE denies the killing of German civilians...No one denies the dramatic massacres in Liberated France which are called "Purges" in which 30.000 french people suspected to have collaborated one way or another were just killed! No one denies the massacres of Germans civilians in "liberated Prussia"...
But by using some methods of denying everything unless it's is proven by the ID of the killer, the autopsies with official stamps of the victims, a pictures of the deed, a death certificate to confirm all the above. ONE CAN DENY EVERYTHING, even the OBVIOUS.

To conclude, I just don't see the point using other"s crimes to deny another one.

[gbrecht]

I'm saying the Germans should have stayed the hell out of Russia.

Not trying to pick on you Seven but again I think there is some things you don't know. As most historians will tell you, the main reason Germany declared war on the Soviet Union was a preemptive strike. The Soviets had been building up their western front for years. Massive supply depots, air bases, connecting railways to these military locations all in preparation to be used as jump off points for an attack into Europe. The Nazis had spies in the SU, and had occasionally sent recon planes to overlook the situation. Everything they saw, every bit of intel the German government received, pointed to the Russians planning to attack. In fact Russian historians will again tell you that the Germans probably attacked Russia about a year or two before the SU would've attacked Germany.

The whole reason Stalin was so eager to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was that it gave him time to build up his military in preparation for an attack on Germany. In 1941 the Soviets were stationing thousands upon thousands of troops on the Western front, another sign that they didn't plan to abide by the pact for much longer. This was the reason why the Germans captured a million troops in a few weeks at the start of the war. The German plan to effectively back stab the Soviets was only a preemptive measure for an inevitable conflict.

The fact that Soviet soldiers hid in cities wasn't really the issue, but the fact that most of the time they wouldn't let the majority of civilians out of a city like Leningrad or Stalingrad when the German army was coming. You can't blame Soviet EVIL in a time of war and call it German atrocities. Even the Germans let Jews come back to Germany with them to get away from the Soviets, where as the Soviets didn't even allow their own civilians to retreat from a place like Stalingrad or Leningrad. They forced them to stay, even though it was difficult to get supplies into these places to feed these people.

[Cloud]

very pertinent.
And it could be applied to the debate on the Reinhardt "delousing" and "transit" camps, don't you think?
- documents that proves that those hundred thousands sent to those small camps were, once cleaned, sent elsewhere ? Anyone ?

As you probably already know, few documents about the AR camps have survived. Even if we had documents that clearly described them as transit camps, exterminationists would simply argue that "they functioned as both transit and mass murder camps" or that "'transit camp' is a code word or euphemism to hide the fact that mass murders were taking place at those locations." And the documents that describe the Birkenau morgues as "leichenkeller" do not faze you in the least, so why do you want documents that refer to the AR camps as transit camps? By reasoning as you do, anyone can be an exterminationist.

[SevenUp]

Not trying to pick on you Seven but again I think there is some things you don't know.

Well, I'm actually glad to get a chance to give my opinion on the inevitable whining of the revisionists about the suffering of the noble Nazis. And their total indifference to the fate of the Russians.

I think there is some things you don't know. As most historians will tell you, the main reason Germany declared war on the Soviet Union was a preemptive strike.

Again, I don't know most things, but I have been following a thread on another forum where a fellow is making a great case for just this idea, but to claim 'most historians' buy it is laughable. And, I don't buy it. And, it ignores that Hitler had been writing about invading Russia for 20 years, for crying out loud. The fact is Germany invaded Russia and it was unprovoked. Wasn't it the case that his generals advised him that it was a big mistake? Thinking back, even when Hitler contemplated invading Russia in Mein Kampf, he realized only a fool would try to fight simultaneous wars on the western and eastern fronts. He forgot. He invaded, and got what he deserved. There is a saying, Russia is never as strong as she looks, Russia is never as weak as she looks. Hitler learned the hard way. Millions of 'innocent' Germans suffered and died senselessly, millions more Russians suffered and died senselessly.

[Anders]

So Balsamo lied about claiming to see mannequins in that photo. Interesting (and funny) how he's backpedaling now. How pathetic.

Balsamo

So i had fun applying the same logic regarding the pictures posted by mister Berg (from Roberto).

Telling lies and then backpedaling isn't "applying logic"

Balsamo

And it illustrates the main problem in the debate...too much passion, preconcieved believes, ideologies, political stands

No Balsamo, "The main problem" is that there is no proof for the nonsensical claims of exterminationists.

Balsamo

And it could be applied to the debate on the Reinhardt "delousing" and "transit" camps, don't you think?
- documents that proves that those hundred thousands sent to those small camps were, once cleaned, sent elsewhere ? Anyone ?

What "debate?" No one is "debating" the nonsense of the exterminationists on the subject of the Reinhardt camps. We're waiting to see the proof of the claimed mass murder of 2 million people. Would you care to show us the proof of that fantastic claim Balsamo?

Balsamo

But by using some methods of denying everything unless it's is proven by the ID of the killer, the autopsies with official stamps of the victims, a pictures of the deed, a death certificate to confirm all the above. ONE CAN DENY EVERYTHING, even the OBVIOUS.

With regard to the Reinhardt camps Balsamo, no one is waiting for ID's of the "killer," or autopsies or official stamps of the "victims" or death certificates (though pictures of the claimed "deed" would be nice!) What we're waiting for is proof of the claim that 2 million people are buried at 4 very small, precisely known locations in 54 “huge mass graves”.

Would you care to show us the proof of these “fraudulently alleged 54 huge mass graves" Balsamo?

It is a historical fact that not one of the 54 fraudulently alleged “huge mass graves” of Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka has ever been proven to contain so much as - 1 / 1,000 of 1 % - of the alleged buried bodies, and not so much as one single person has ever been proven to have died by means of poison gas in a homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor or Treblinka.

There is no "debate" here Balsamo. You are a denier of historical facts and a believer and spewer of nonsense. The “fraudulently alleged 54 huge mass graves" aren't just claimed to exist, they are claimed to have been proven to exist.

Now lets see this so-called proof Mr. "applier of logic."

[The Warden]

And all i can say is "i can't". I could, of course, say that those documents were stored in the burnt building where those piles of clothes were stored.

You could say anything, however, proving it is another story. You'd have to get past the fact that documents are generally recorded in a minimum of two places though. What you call nonsense is very indicative of the baseless claims of Hoaxters. When the proof can't be provided, it turns into immediate hypotheticals and endless what-ifs. But the fact remains, no facts remain.

To get back to the Warden's reply

Can you show documents proving those are supermarket clothes?
Can you show doctors performing autopsies in the area at the time?
Can you show shipments of mannequins being made to Dresden at the time

very pertinent.
And it could be applied to the debate on the Reinhardt "delousing" and "transit" camps, don't you think?

I've seen no evidence to show they were anything more than delousing and transit camps, so no... I don't think so.

- documents that proves that those hundred thousands sent to those small camps were, once cleaned, sent elsewhere ? Anyone ?

Yet no evidence to show the remains are there.

To conclude, I just don't see the point using other"s crimes to deny another one.

You mean like using "denial" to justify the original lies being denied?

[gbrecht]

Again, I don't know most things, but I have been following a thread on another forum where a fellow is making a great case for just this idea, but to claim 'most historians' buy it is laughable. And, I don't buy it. And, it ignores that Hitler had been writing about invading Russia for 20 years, for crying out loud. The fact is Germany invaded Russia and it was unprovoked. Wasn't it the case that his generals advised him that it was a big mistake? Thinking back, even when Hitler contemplated invading Russia in Mein Kampf, he realized only a fool would try to fight simultaneous wars on the western and eastern fronts. He forgot. He invaded, and got what he deserved. There is a saying, Russia is never as strong as she looks, Russia is never as weak as she looks. Hitler learned the hard way. Millions of 'innocent' Germans suffered and died senselessly, millions more Russians suffered and died senselessly.

20 years? Hitler wrote about this in Mein Kampf, and he never spoke about Russia specifically, only that Germany needed living space for its burgeoning population. He wrote MK after WW1, well before WW2, after Germany lost much of it's territory.

The Germans knew the Soviets were preparing for an attack into Europe well before Poland fell. Another thing most people don't realize about events prior to Barbarossa was that the German Government offered Poland many different treaties, even some including defensive pacts in regards to an attack by the Soviet Union into Poland. All the Poles had to do was relinquish Danzig and a small strip connecting East Prussia with Germany, sign the Defensive Pact, and things would have been very different. There were even treaties offered to Poland which would have had the Autobahn system completed into Poland to help relations in regards to all this former German territory.

The old explanation that the Soviets moved most of their troops to the front only after Barbarossa began is complete bullshit. They had already stationed the troops long before, which is something you don't do with a country you are supposed to have good relations with and a non-aggression pact. Germany captured over a million troops in the first few weeks, troops on the border with Germany, which had been there and been a majority long before Germany organized it's three army groups there.

Hitler had effectively won the war in the west, only after this did he even consider a preemptive strike on the SU. I don't think in the long run he thought the Americans would support the Soviets so much, the ONLY reason the Soviets defeated the Germans. If you want specific info on this, there are several great books by Russian and German soldiers to explain. The USA gave absolutely MASSIVE amounts of resources, materials, jeeps, tanks, aircraft, fuel etc. to the Russians after the Lend-Lease Act.In Hans Ulrich Rudel's book he actually explains how he destroyed more American jeeps and trucks than Russian trucks. The USA was the major reason Germany lost the war in general, but a big reason they lost to the Russians.

Furthermore, Hitler and many Germans believed the Bolsheviks were evil, and can you argue this? More Russians died by the hands of their own government than died in WW2. A Jewish Revolution took over control of Russia after 1917, not a peoples revolution.

[Moderator3]

Balsamo,
You're repeating yourself. Others have raised specific points which you fail to address. You know the guidelines.
M3

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

I am appalled but not at all surprised by what SevenUp wrote. His views are all too typical of what many, probably most, Americans firmly believe. Those beliefs support my harsh opinion of America and Americans in general. They really are criminally insane and extremely dangerous--a menace to the entire world.

I just saw a video interview with a prominent Ayn Rand Institute philosopher, Leonard Peikoff, which shows what is really going on behind the scenes in the lunatic asylum. O'Reilly actually comes across as a voice of reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

[gbrecht]

It was Jewish interests that pulled America into the war, the reason Germany lost, not that they invaded Russia. Without America's support the USSR would've easily fallen to the German Wehrmacht and Waffen SS. I really don't think when considerations for Barbarossa began they had expected America to intervene so aggressively. America sent Britain dozens upon dozens of destroyers, planes, etc. as well as everything else I've already explained previously.

My point is not that Russia would have attacked within a year or two 100% positive, but that is what Hitler and certain generals in the Wehrmacht believed. How can argue that it was a mistake? Are you saying that all this military build-up on the German-Russian border, and even prior to that, the build-up along the Polish border, was a purely defensive measure? We all know from history that the Bolsheviks had plans to conquer Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and they went through with all of them. Are you saying they would have stopped there? How do you know this, that they were going to abide by the M-R Pact? It is known, again, to any WW2 historian, that after the agreement, and the attack by Germany, and then occupation of East Poland by the USSR, they continued their previous production of these military bases, and erected even more within Polish territory. Including new airbases, upgrading Polish Airbases, etc. etc. If on the odd chance you are correct and they weren't planning on declaring war on Germany within a few years, I would be surprised.

[Balsamo]

Balsamo,
You're repeating yourself. Others have raised specific points which you fail to address. You know the guidelines.
M3

Sorry
I thought that for once i have asked something that was never adressed. From there, except by the Warden, no effort has been maid to understand the point i wanted to make, so i repeated myself without any further results (except as already said with the Warden).
I think the best would be to start another topic on the subject which was mainly the double standards used when considering proofs, and in this case a single picture.
Never mind

[Moderator3]

To everyone,
We're trying to allow a bit of expansion here, given the video's content, but this thread is going much too far afield from the original post. Either stay on-topic or have your posts deleted.

Also, to Balsamo:
See above 'To everyone'. And, we encourage you to start threads on any 'Holocaust' related topic, or post to those of interest which may already exist.
Thanks.
M3

[Reinhard]

I compare Stalingrad to Dresden and Hamburg for the following reason - for the people in any of these towns, dead is dead.

What an argument is that? (Yes, it's obviously true, dead is dead).

There were many more Russians that died than Germans. If I were a Russian that survived that war, and had seen my family, friends, and countrymen die, I would at least want to equalize those numbers, by slaughtering Germans, 'innocent' or otherwise.

Well, how was it or is it then in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia? Many more inhabitants of these countries killed by the US forces than US servicemen kiled, weren't they?

The point is, you completely disregard the rules of warfare. Stalingrad and Leningrad were in the frontline. Heavy fighting was going on there between ground troops of both sides.

By the way, the Allies firebombed and completely destroyed the French city of Caen in June and July 1944, killing thousands of their "allied" French civilians, when this city was in the frontline after the invasion in Normandy on June 6th, 1944. They did exactly the same to the civilian population of this French town, what you accuse the Germans to have done to the heavily defended enemy town of Stalingrad in 1942!

And you compare this destruction of an enemy town in the fighting zone to the firebombing and complete annihilation of cities hundred of miles away from the frontlines, such as Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

I'm saying the Germans should have stayed the hell out of Russia.

I wont't go into that, because it will be regarded here as "off topic". I had written a year or so ago some long comments to a thread dealing with this topic and this thread has been deleted. So I won't use much time for dealing with this topic here again. But I'd like to point out that you are completely wrong with your assumption. The German attack was not unprovoked. Germany had every reason to feel threatened (and certainly much more reason than the US to feel "threatened" by Afghanistan or Iraq) by the Soviet Union in 1941. And it is certain that Stalin was preparing an attack on Germany at that time, which was most certainly planned to start in the same year, probably not later than in a fortnight after the German attack on June 22th (not within a year or two as gbrecht supposed).

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_4/deathride.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7zVLfjWzmE

[SevenUp]

I compare Stalingrad to Dresden and Hamburg for the following reason - for the people in any of these towns, dead is dead.

What an argument is that? (Yes, it's obviously true, dead is dead).

It is really the only argument that counts. If it eludes you, I can't explain it.

There were many more Russians that died than Germans. If I were a Russian that survived that war, and had seen my family, friends, and countrymen die, I would at least want to equalize those numbers, by slaughtering Germans, 'innocent' or otherwise.

Well, how was it or is it then in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia? Many more inhabitants of these countries killed by the US forces than US servicemen kiled, weren't they?

The point is, you completely disregard the rules of warfare. Stalingrad and Leningrad were in the frontline. Heavy fighting was going on there between ground troops of both sides.

I don't disregard anything. I understand your argument perfectly. Your argument is it was against the rules. LOL. I think it's bogus. The first and most important 'rule of war' is to win. No country will 'follow the rules' if it means losing a winnable war. To argue otherwise is idiotic IMO. The allies wanted to win the war. Can you imagine that? Beyond that, there is vengeance, again, if I were a Russian, and the Nazis had invaded my country, I would do my best to destroy every city in Germany, until they got the hell out of Russia.

I'm saying the Germans should have stayed the hell out of Russia.

I wont't go into that, because it will be regarded here as "off topic". I had written a year or so ago some long comments to a thread dealing with this topic and this thread has been deleted. So I won't use much time for dealing with this topic here again. But I'd like to point out that you are completely wrong with your assumption.

It is not an assumption, and I think I gave a convincing argument in a post that was deleted. You'll notice that gbrect backed off his assertions in his response, which was not deleted. I won't repeat the argument, complete with documentation.

[Reinhard]

Your argument is it was against the rules. LOL. I think it's bogus. The first and most important 'rule of war' is to win. No country will 'follow the rules' if it means losing a winnable war. To argue otherwise is idiotic IMO. The allies wanted to win the war. Can you imagine that?

I'm not really surprised to hear stuff like that from an anglo-american. Your countries have always behaved like that and obviously will continue to behave like that until you are stopped by someone of your sort. I really hope I will see that in my lifetime.

So, what is the point of making international agreements such as the Hague conventions, if you are not willing to "follow the rules" anyway. Makes no sense to me.

Do you really think, not bombing Dresden meant "losing a winnable war"? The war was over by that time in February 1945!

Do you really think, not nuclear bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 meant "losing a winnable war"? What a nonsense.

These bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes for which the allied politicians and commanders deserved "death by hanging" Nuremberg style.

So, in your opinion, Germany should have behaved like that in summer 1940 and annihilated London in order not to "lose an winnable war"? Let's write that down here.

Beyond that, there is vengeance, again, if I were a Russian, and the Nazis had invaded my country, I would do my best to destroy every city in Germany, until they got the hell out of Russia.

The Russians destroyed Dresden? How many German cities were firebombed by the Russians? Were it the Russians in July 1943 in Hamburg? What a nonsense.

Moreover, as I said in my last posting, you herewith gave the islamistic "terrorists" (your lying statesmen called them "freedom fighters" when they killed German soldiers in WW II in Russia, Yugoslavia, France, Norway and Italy) the best justification they can imagine for killing soldiers of the US-Army.

I'm saying the Germans should have stayed the hell out of Russia.

I wont't go into that, because it will be regarded here as "off topic". I had written a year or so ago some long comments to a thread dealing with this topic and this thread has been deleted. So I won't use much time for dealing with this topic here again. But I'd like to point out that you are completely wrong with your assumption.

It is not an assumption, and I think I gave a convincing argument in a post that was deleted. You'll notice that gbrect backed off his assertions in his response, which was not deleted. I won't repeat the argument, complete with documentation.

I don't know what you have written, but I do know what my studies have learned me. And I will not back off!

I know what Orwellian manipulation and falsification of history has taken place after the German defeat by the allied victors in order to blame all guilt on Germany and make themselves to "innocent victims". That someone like you continues that falsification does not really surprise me.