Why The Holocaust Must Be Questioned

[ImpWizard]

And yet I did nothing but. (snip)....

Still trying it, I see.

Sorry but I won't quote your snide excuses and continuing personal attacks either.

 

[Drinking Cap]

It's pretty easy to find out that information yourself.

So typical. You state an opinion and no facts to go with it. Here's a tip for you, sparky. Check the date of the Geneva conventions.

And, Lovelynice more than likely put you on ignore before you mentioned Midway Island. It's still only an error by a 3 instead of 2 anyway. Great. She said 1943 instead of 1942.

No, Lovelynice replied to my posts after Midway. But again, you miss the point. Writing 1943 instead of 1942 changes the entire point of that post which was that the Japanese did pretty well in the Naval war because they held off the American Navy until 1943, not losing a single battle. But if her only mistake was that she wrote 1943 until 1942, isn't it two IQ points short of being a total fucking idiot to point out that the Allies didn't win a Naval battle until 1942 when the War itself only started in December of 1941?

Again, the Pacific War is not the subject of this thread. I might be sounding like a broken record, but I'll mention it again. This thread is about the Holocaust - evidence one way or another. If you have nothing to add that that little debate, then you really shouldn't be on the thread.

Threads can go off on tangents. If you don't like it, complain to the moderator.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Also, for what it's worth, if you can't see how pointing out that someone's knowledge of WW2 history is terrible at best is relevant to a discussion on the Holocaust, well, then maybe you shouldn't be in the thread.

 

[unculbact]

Yes, then they denied it afterwards. I kept a copy.

I've never seen this document before. Meine Deutsch is nicht so gut, but I'm able to follow it. It's fascinating.

Again, Lovelynice got it right, information is being withheld. No wonder they don't want historians peeking into this archive.

 

[ImpWizard]

Also, for what it's worth, if you can't see how pointing out that someone's knowledge of WW2 history is terrible at best is relevant to a discussion on the Holocaust, well, then maybe you shouldn't be in the thread.

3 instead of a 2. That is such a MAJOR DEAL with you isn't it? Is that the ONLY thing that you have to display your profound intelligence with?

So typical. You state an opinion and no facts to go with it. Here's a tip for you, sparky. Check the date of the Geneva conventions.

She also mentioned international law, btw, and you really should check those dates yourself. If you have facts in disagreement with what is stated, then post them. It's off-topic anyway.

No, Lovelynice replied to my posts after Midway.

Yes, 33 minutes later she replied with a 500+ word post. No telling whether she saw your mention of Midway or not. She could've been too busy typing. I guess she has more mental focus than you do.

She didn't waste over a dozen posts on a tirade of personal attacks like you did. Very disappointing Drinking Cap, I used to have a higher regard for you. That's all I will say further on the matter.

Threads can go off on tangents. If you don't like it, complain to the moderator.

If I don't like it, I just stop responding to your off-topic posts. That's what most people do. I've mentioned it enough times already that you are off-topic, so you can consider yourself informed when people stop responding to you until you get back to the subject of the thread. Some even will put the other person on 'ignore' for awhile. It's generally effective. From now I will ignore any posts of yours which are off-topic. If you wish to keep masturbating to yourself with bullshit, excuses about your bad behaviour, and otherwise continue to look like you haven't a clue about the topic of the thread, go ahead.

 

[ImpWizard]

I've never seen this document before. Meine Deutsch is nicht so gut, but I'm able to follow it. It's fascinating.

Again, Lovelynice got it right, information is being withheld. No wonder they don't want historians peeking into this archive.

A lot of the Jewish holocaust propaganda sites like to pretend that this document doesn't exist. The International Red Cross is more quiet about it, apparently they're trying to avoid being attacked by Jewish lobby groups.

 

[Drinking Cap]

3 instead of a 2. That is such a MAJOR DEAL with you isn't it? Is that the ONLY thing that you have to display your profound intelligence with?

Again you ignore how it changes the entire basis of the post. Typical.

She also mentioned international law, btw, and you really should check those dates yourself. If you have facts in disagreement with what is stated, then post them. It's off-topic anyway.

But again can't quote which international law. If you have a point to make about it being in violation of a law, you should be able to back it up with specifics. Even you don't have any facts to back up your statement.

She didn't waste over a dozen posts on a tirade of personal attacks like you did. Very disappointing Drinking Cap, I used to have a higher regard for you. That's all I will say further on the matter.

Imagine how disturbed I am that the holocaust-deniers of the board hold me in less esteem than they used to.

From now I will ignore any posts of yours which are off-topic.

More "last word" syndrome. When I ignore people, I don't make a big show of announcing it.

 

[miles]

F

I am not a historian as you evidently are. My field is Psychology .

You're a psychologist Krastner? Tell us more.

 

[Lovelynice]

If we had found a convenient,complete, virginal, pristine, record of Hitlers walk down anti-semite street...
then
I might have been a little suspicious.

Yet you aren't even slightly suspicious as to the COMPLETE LACK of ANY original wartime German documents that support the Holocaust claims.

ZERO.

NADA.

ZILCH.

Nor is there even a single autopsy report of a cyanide-gassed body in a mass grave. NONE.

 

[Lovelynice]

If I don't like it, I just stop responding to your off-topic posts. That's what most people do. I've mentioned it enough times already that you are off-topic, so you can consider yourself informed when people stop responding to you until you get back to the subject of the thread. Some even will put the other person on 'ignore' for awhile. It's generally effective. From now I will ignore any posts of yours which are off-topic. If you wish to keep masturbating to yourself with bullshit, excuses about your bad behaviour, and otherwise continue to look like you haven't a clue about the topic of the thread, go ahead.

I assume then that since you ignored his post afterwards that he still couldn't stay on the topic

 

[ironstorm]

another hate white people thread?

 

[Shamanskiss]

coughs politely

when the War itself only started in December of 1941?

1939 actually (shit used an emot)

sorry couldn't resist that little date moment.

 

[Shamanskiss]

stop it Miles....

You're a psychologist Krastner? Tell us more.

he said psychology was his field , he didn't really say he operated as a practitioner.
I think you might have misunderstood that 'hunting license' comment.

Krastner simply made the kind of statement people Manson, Dahmer, Sutcliffe, West, Berkowitzc, Bundy, Gacy, Chikitilo...might well make.
Psychology was their field too.
They all felt they had 'hunting licenses ' too.

 

[Shamanskiss]

hey krastener

Once again you connect. When I was a kid there were a lot of Jewish merchants in town and then the saying were that Jews loved their money. Their money was their religion. If you wanted to hurt them ...you went after their money. Then I didn't have the slightest interest in their money but now it seems like a good idea. It's called divestment.

psychoanalyse your post man..

Christ, run a little transactional analysis over that and , well...
Oh Dear Me.
It's not called divestment...Oh No.

 

[miles]

he said psychology was his field , he didn't really say he operated as a practitioner.
I think you might have misunderstood that 'hunting license' comment.

Krastner simply made the kind of statement people Manson, Dahmer, Sutcliffe, West, Berkowitzc, Bundy, Gacy, Chikitilo...
Psychology was their field to.
They all felt they had 'hunting licenses ' too.

Misunderstand krastner? One of Lit's most brilliant scribes?

 

[unculbact]

1939 actually (shit used an emot)

sorry couldn't resist that little date moment.

He was talking about the Pacific War, there's been a lot of imprecision about that.

If you measure the conflict from when the first antagonists engaged each other, technically, World War II begins in 1937.

And looking at old copies of LIFE Magazine, it wasn't called World War II, at least in the media, until December of 1941, which is not only when the U.S. officially got involved, but also when the Japanese and their eastern Allies engaged other Western powers, which elevated it to a global conflict, with parties in the North, South, East and West hemispheres engaged.

By another measure, while there were still plenty of neutral parties, it's only from 1941 that you can say that the global economy, including the economies of neutral countries, pretty well become dedicated to the global war effort.

From 1937 until 1941, news articles and political statements, and not just in the U.S., referred either to "The War In Europe" or "The War In China", indicating that, in the public mind as well as possibly in reality, the two wars were still regional conflicts.

 

[Shamanskiss]

Nope...

He was talking about the Pacific War, there's been a lot of imprecision about that.

If you measure the conflict from when the first antagonists engaged each other, technically, World War II begins in 1937.

And looking at old copies of LIFE Magazine, it wasn't called World War II, at least in the media, until December of 1941, which is not only when the U.S. officially got involved, but also when the Japanese and their eastern Allies engaged other Western powers, which elevated it to a global conflict, with parties in the North, South, East and West hemispheres engaged.

By another measure, while there were still plenty of neutral parties, it's only from 1941 that you can say that the global economy, including the economies of neutral countries, pretty well become dedicated to the global war effort.

From 1937 until 1941, news articles and political statements, and not just in the U.S., referred either to "The War In Europe" or "The War In China", indicating that, in the public mind as well as possibly in reality, the two wars were still regional conflicts.

it was a little transatlantic joke.

The Second world war started in 1939, because that's when the British
recognised a state of war, and mobilised its response . I am 'British'. Our role in WW2 commenced 1939,
not in Russia, nor in Ethiopia/Abyssinia, not in Spain , etc. It would have been the Second World War, whoever joined in, whenever they joined in , from 1939.

Discussion of definitons of 'World' war, would be a waste of space. It was not a war between worlds, it was not a war where every country on the planet was involved in an aggressive role.
Thus I tend not to do a pedantic take on the term.

 

[Lovelynice]

another hate white people thread?

Kawaii !!!
(sorry couldn't resist - it's my Japanese side coming out)

 

[Lovelynice]

He was talking about the Pacific War, there's been a lot of imprecision about that.

If you measure the conflict from when the first antagonists engaged each other, technically, World War II begins in 1937.

And looking at old copies of LIFE Magazine, it wasn't called World War II, at least in the media, until December of 1941, which is not only when the U.S. officially got involved, but also when the Japanese and their eastern Allies engaged other Western powers, which elevated it to a global conflict, with parties in the North, South, East and West hemispheres engaged.

By another measure, while there were still plenty of neutral parties, it's only from 1941 that you can say that the global economy, including the economies of neutral countries, pretty well become dedicated to the global war effort.

From 1937 until 1941, news articles and political statements, and not just in the U.S., referred either to "The War In Europe" or "The War In China", indicating that, in the public mind as well as possibly in reality, the two wars were still regional conflicts.

1937 is the common year for the beginning of WW2 by consensus recently on Wikipedia.

We don't really define the major wars as beginning at the points where those of the time period saw it. Like WW1, which was well under way before people started referring to it as the Great War.

 

[Shamanskiss]

Which outbreak of hostilities is that

1937 is the common year for the beginning of WW2 by consensus recently on Wikipedia.

We don't really define the major wars as beginning at the points where those of the time period saw it. Like WW1, which was well under way before people started referring to it as the Great War.

actually using as a kicking off point.?

 

[Shamanskiss]

YOu really think a cat smoking is

Kawaii !!!
(sorry couldn't resist - it's my Japanese side coming out)

cute ??

 

[Shamanskiss]

You are a naughty girl, telling such whopping fibs

1937 is the common year for the beginning of WW2 by consensus recently on Wikipedia.

We don't really define the major wars as beginning at the points where those of the time period saw it. Like WW1, which was well under way before people started referring to it as the Great War.

Wilipedia ( if we accept it as the oracle of all matters) doesn't say that at all,
does it ?

What it actually says is...

"World War II, also, The Second World War, or WWII, was the global military conflict that took place between 1939 and 1945. World War II was the largest and deadliest war in history.
The war began between Germany and the Allies. Germany was later joined by Italy, Japan, and others, jointly known as the Axis."

It then states on a seperate section, relating to war in the far east, but not specifically the Second World War.

A war had begun in East Asia before World War II started in Europe.

You were really bad there.
None of that even hints at any kind of consensus,
it certainly doesn't propose it.
Infact, it totally contradicts it by using the terms World War 2 then stating the '37 hostilities were BEFORE WW2....i.e. predating WW2.

Just because you spot a date roughly coinciding with how you fancy viewing a thing doesn't mean you have any form of consensus, common , general, or otherwise.

Numbers a bit of a problem ?

Bet I end up on ignore.

 

[unculbact]

Wilipedia ( if we accept it as the oracle of all matters) doesn't say that at all, does it ?

Our Lovelynice may not have been completely accurate, but her errors are nothing compared to this article, which is inaccurate to the point, and well beyond the point, of deliberate deception.

The war began between Germany and the Allies.

1. The war, IN EUROPE, began between Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia and the Soviet Union on one side, and Poland on the other. While it may shatter continental illusions, Europe is not the center of the universe, and any conflict that arises there is not automatically a World War. When it began, it's accurate to say most of the world hardly cared.

2. This article plays fast and loose with the term "Allies". From 1939-1941, it would not be out of line to call the Soviet Union an ally of Germany. After 1943, Italy was one of the "Allies". France, during the occupation, was hardly one of the "allies", and was engaged in conflict with Britain in Syria, French possessions near Labrador, Algeria and the Caribbean. Croatia was a German ally, Serbia one of "the Allies". Bulgaria, late in the war, was one of the "allies", but was a silent partner with Germany for most of the war, and even engaged in it's own war with Serbia, one of the "allies".

"Who" the "Allies" were is a matter of "when". I'll come right out and say this article is damnably deceptive about that. The "Allies" were hardly a unified bloc, which is the impression the article gives. They were a loose coalition, with members entering - and leaving or being kicked out, like the Polish Government in Exile in 1944 - at different times.

Germany was later joined by Italy, Japan, and others, jointly known as the Axis."

1. There were no "others" in the axis. Hungary, Romania, Finland, Croatia and Slovakia, all German allies were never part of the "Axis". In fact, Italy allied with the Serbs in a minor war against Croatia, at the same time a Croatian battalion was fighting at Stalingrad.

2. Germany was hardly "joined" by Japan. While a signatory to the Axis pact, Japan launched it's war for it's own reasons, and considering the level of cooperation between them, I'd be reluctant to call Japan an "ally" of Germany. Finland is usually described as a "co-belligerent" with Germany, and that description seems to fit the Nazi/Japanese relationship better.

And again, the article is deceptive. It suggests that the Allies were a unified bloc from the beginning, with other parties joining Nazi Germany at later dates. To the best of my knowledge, the last party to join the "Allies", Bulgaria, signed on about 2 weeks before the war ended.

It then states on a seperate section, relating to war in the far east, but not specifically the Second World War.

LOL, which I'll claim as proof of the Eurocentrism of the article. If the war in China - it wasn't in "the Far East", it was in CHINA - isn't the start of the Second World War, neither is the 1939 Franco-British declaration of war on Germany! That declaration, at the time it was made, hardly resulted in a global conflict, in fact, until May of 1940, the conflict wasn't even pan-European! But reading this article, you'd never know that.

A war had begun in East Asia before World War II started in Europe.

It could also have stated that war was between China (one of the "Allies") and Japan, (one of the "Axis"). There was more action in the "Far East" - a border war also started between Japan (an "Axis")and the Soviet Union (an "Allie") shortly before the war with Poland, one of the reasons why the Soviet Union was two weeks late in invading the eastern half of Poland.

None of that even hints at any kind of consensus

Nor at accuracy. Lovelynice didn't chose the best article, but I'm not going to beat her up about that. In fact, I'm glad she steered me to it, it's hilariously stupid.

 

[Shamanskiss]

Unculbact

Our Lovelynice may not have been completely accurate, but her errors are nothing compared to this article, which is inaccurate to the point, and well beyond the point, of deliberate deception.

It could also have stated that war was between China (one of the "Allies") and Japan, (one of the "Axis"). There was more action in the "Far East" - a border war also started between Japan (an "Axis")and the Soviet Union (an "Allie") shortly before the war with Poland, one of the reasons why the Soviet Union was two weeks late in invading the eastern half of Poland.
.

What exactly is your point ?
An article's inaccuracy is of sublime irrelevance to the point that was being made and challenged.
A deliberate misquote, not a simple innacuracy, had been used in a manipulative fashion.
Whether that source is reliable as a chocolate watch in a heatwave is not
even vaguely relevant.
My attitude was plainly stated where I bracketed a comment regarding wilkipedia's oracle status, somewhat disdainfully.

I am disappointed in you. Being supportive of such a blatant misuse, not to mention an incompetent ,bungled, misrepresentation, casts further doubt on your veracity.

Eurocentric ?. OR might that be too much politically correct faffing about in an attempt to add false validity and 'fair mindedness' to your whole stance.
Bear in mind that , not just Britain and the Commonwealth nations entered the war, the Chinese and Japanese were somewhat involved . The mix of races and nations represented by the Commonwealth ,as well as the 'empire', probably represents a broader spectrum of 'involved world parties' than the rest put together.. That in itself makes 1939 the start of a totally non-eurocentric war.

The Sino-Japanese war, indicated as a possible start point for WW2 in 1937,did not see the deployment of wide ranging foreign armies. There was a 'Russian' presence in the form of 'white Russians' in small numbers, mainly as advisers. But, these were not an import of foreign military assistance, rather they were refugee carry-overs from the influx of fleeing 'whites', post-revolution. Equally, even the famous Flying Tigers, were not an 'American' military presence, so much as 'contract' flyers.

Even economic involvement would not qualify the conflict as being a pan-world affair, as that economic flux had been ebbing and flowing for decades. Oddly most of China's materiel apparently tended to be of German origin until they sorted out home production. This, whilst Germany was , at least nominally, identifying as an ally of Japan.

(note to lovelynice; the Nazis were screwing Japan just as much as UK and US interests were, even more, as they were doing it whilst pretending to be sympathetic to Japanese Imperial interests, and negotiating the Tripartite pact signed in Sept 1940. Even that was a con by Hitler,{and yet another massive faux pas, or fuck up in more honest terms, as his main aim of alliance with Japan was to use them as a counterfoil to discourage the USA getting involved in Europe, by creating clear and valid threat in the east that was supposed to deter the US from contemplating any European involvement}. Have you any grasp of Nazi ethnic attitudes and beliefs. This IS NOT a dig, or an attack, I seriously think you need to contemplate where the Japanese would have featured in the Hitler list of Racial purity. He was sending slavs to camps, how the hell do you think he would have dealt with 'orientals'. If you are in any doubt, research a little on how German planters etc often tended their locals in the East Indies.The overall strategy Hitler envisaged was meant to see the world, not Britain , on its knees. Part of that was Hitler's obsession with ,often odd, 'super-weapons'. If the Nazis had developed the A-bomb, Japan would probably have ended up dealing with a hell of a lot more than 2, and there wouldn't have been any argument or debate, conscience or remorse ,before or afterwards. Hitler gambled that Japan would neutralise any American threat. He also assumed that should the US enter war against the Axis, that the Pacific conflict would so drain BOTH military forces that his victorious armies would be in a position to dictate terms to the exhausted US and Japan. As far as Hitler was concerned the Japanese armed forces were expendable pawns.)

However, when we get to september 1939;

Canada Is not in Europe,
Australia is not in Europe,
New Zealand is not in Europe'
The 'Far East' ( all those little places and islands either involved or mobilising, consolodating or being reinforced,that you seem to discount as 'people'. The far east is not just China and Japan) is not in Europe.
China is not in Europe.
Japan is not in Europe.
Various chunks of Africa are not in Europe.

All of these , and more, were actively aligned,involved and mobilised by the end of '39.

As small as it is Nepal (bless them always) declared war on Germany sept'39, and offered as many Gurkha troops as we could manage.
Nepal is not Europe.

Troops were operating as on a war footing, from many nations, not just europeans,, in all hemispheres, from 1939,
These troops were not all British army, they were also of sovereign commonwealth states, having made seperate declarations of War.

Japan may have been our enemy at that point, but Japan was still a major player....Eurocentric ?... Really.....
China ?

I think you tripped on your own rug there. You seem to be trying to say it couldn't be a world war until the USA was involved. Are you sure a little burst of 'Amerocentrism' didn't cloud your view .

As for your comment on it 'not being pan-european in 1939'. You would be one of the few who thought it was ever pan-european. There were several European nations who maintained neutrality. The Swiss , 'Irish' , and Spanish being the most notable and lucky in that respect. There were one or two that saw their neutrality stomped on weren't there ? Portugal, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, all declared neutrality. As did Luxembourg, and Holland at one point. Didn't get some of them very far did it, infact wasn't it all but one got the full benefit of the Nazi occupational abattoir..

The Northwestern 'hemisphere' was already involved in the war in 1939.
Remember that neighbour to the North, Canada 'eh'.

 

[Drinking Cap]

1939 actually (shit used an emot)

I was referring to the war in the Pacific between the United States and Japan, not WW2 as a whole.