Mass Holocaust grave found in Ukraine

[Jaaaman]

I am posting this story for all of those who still deny that the holocaust ever happened. :(

KIEV, Ukraine - A mass grave holding the remains of thousands of Jews killed by the Nazis has been found in southern Ukraine near the site of what was once a concentration camp, a Jewish community representative said Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_re_eu/ukraine_holocaust

[BoogyMan]

<snark mode on>

Wait a minute Jaaman, Mahmoud told me this was just a myth.

<snark mode off>

[Jaaaman]

<snark mode on>

Wait a minute Jaaman, Mahmoud told me this was just a myth.

<snark mode off>


I posted this thread specifically for him and his ilk... :shy:

[AlonzoMourning23]

We have holocaust deniers here? December is about all I can think of.

Though I get the feeling I'm one of them "holocaust deniers".

[BoogyMan]

We have holocaust deniers here? December is about all I can think of.

Though I get the feeling I'm one of them "holocaust deniers".


Your name is Mahmoud? Who would have thunk it! LOL

[AlonzoMourning23]

Jaaman seems to think this site has multiple holocaust deniers. The comment was directed at jaaman, not you.

[Jaaaman]

Jaaman seems to think this site has multiple holocaust deniers. The comment was directed at jaaman, not you.

I do not believe there are multiple holocaust deniers on this site.

Thank you.

[Saigio]

Jaaman seems to think this site has multiple holocaust deniers. The comment was directed at jaaman, not you.

I do not believe there are multiple holocaust deniers on this site.

Thank you.


Then don't you think that this:

I am posting this story for all of those who still deny that the holocaust ever happened.
loses it's impact here?
If you don't believe that there are a great deal of holocaust deniers, then the comment I quoted above is ineffectual. It also brings up the question of the wording. Unless you think that all the American based forums are being spied on by those that deny the holocaust.

[Jaaaman]

Then don't you think that this:

I am posting this story for all of those who still deny that the holocaust ever happened.
loses it's impact here?
If you don't believe that there are a great deal of holocaust deniers, then the comment I quoted above is ineffectual. It also brings up the question of the wording. Unless you think that all the American based forums are being spied on by those that deny the holocaust.

I was speaking even to the lurkers and visiters that come to this site that are holocaust deniers. What's so hard to comprehend in my OP here?

[BoogyMan]

I was speaking even to the lurkers and visiters that come to this site that are holocaust deniers. What's so hard to comprehend in my OP here?


I knew immediately what you meant Jaaman. It was pretty clear. Thanks for posting this.

[Jaaaman]

I was speaking even to the lurkers and visiters that come to this site that are holocaust deniers. What's so hard to comprehend in my OP here?


I knew immediately what you meant Jaaman. It was pretty clear. Thanks for posting this.


Thanks Boogy...

[jafar00]

The Red Cross are Holocaust deniers too by the looks of it.

No Evidence Of Genocide
One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report:
"In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims.
Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 ... In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the
S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp ..." (Vol. III, p. 83).
Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the
Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15th, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (Inter Arma Caritas,
p. 78). By October 2nd, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people
throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.
In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied
Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime
nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with
whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is
concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus
epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff) - Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities.
Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take
action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol. III, p. 594).

http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_factual_holocaust_red_cross.pdf

[Labrocca]

Yeah we currently don't have any anti-semetic members that I am aware of. Why bother to deny the Holocaust when it's more fun to say that 9/11 was an inside job by Bush and Co. I believe conspiracy theorists like to work on one conspiracy at a time.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The Red Cross are Holocaust deniers too by the looks of it.

No Evidence Of Genocide
One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report:
"In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims.
Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 ... In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the
S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp ..." (Vol. III, p. 83).
Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the
Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15th, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (Inter Arma Caritas,
p. 78). By October 2nd, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people
throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.
In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied
Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime
nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with
whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is
concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus
epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff) - Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities.
Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take
action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol. III, p. 594).

http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_factual_holocaust_red_cross.pdf


Well don't I look stupid now :rolleyes:. Last time I'll ever claim we don't have holocaust deniers here.

RED CROSS CALLS ITS PASSIVITY ON HOLOCAUST MORAL FAILURE
The Red Cross handed over 60,000 pages of World War II-era documents to Israel on Tuesday and a top official acknowledged the organization's ``moral failure'' in keeping silent while the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews.

``Very clearly, the ICRC's activities with regard to the Holocaust are sensed as a moral failure,'' said George Willemin, director of archives for the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross.

``The ICRC admits - yes - that it has kept silent with regard to the Holocaust, and I would say that this is the heart of the moral failure,'' he added.

Willemin spoke at a modest ceremony at Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial institute, which received the documents.

The Red Cross has in the past apologized for ``all possible omissions and mistakes made'' during the war years, but Willemin's statement was the most explicit acknowledgment by a Red Cross official that the organization could and should have done more.

The documents, photographed on 30 reels of microfilm, cover every aspect of the Red Cross' work relating to the Jews, hostages and political detainees.

The documents include reports from field workers about mass deportations and killings of Jews, rulings by the organization and its governing bodies, orders to field workers, and correspondence with Nazi Germany and the Allied governments.

Among the facts they reveal is that the Red Cross discounted reports of a mass murder of Polish Jewish prisoners that took place at Lublin, Poland, in 1940, a Yad Vashem statement said.

The ICRC told the World Jewish Congress in August 1940 that ``following a thorough investigation by the German Red Cross representative,'' the Red Cross had concluded the reports were unfounded.

The release of the documents raises anew the question of whether the Red Cross should have made public what it knew about the Holocaust and spoken out against it.

Red Cross officials have said that if they had done so, the Nazis would have retaliated by stopping the organization from helping Allied prisoners of war.

There were fears that ``the work we were doing, probably quite well, with respect to the POWs would have been jeopardized by being too outspoken about the Nazis, with dire consequences for those we were helping, without helping those we were not helping,'' ICRC spokesman Kim Gordon-Bates told The Associated Press.

In addition, he said, there was concern about compromising the neutrality of Switzerland, where the Red Cross was based.

Swiss historian Jean-Claude Favez, speaking Tuesday at Yad Vashem, said the Red Cross in effect became a tool of Swiss foreign policy.

Favez, whose book ``The Impossible Mission?'' details the role of the Red Cross during the war, said the organization's fears that intervening on behalf of the Jews would have jeopardized its aid to Allied POWs were probably exaggerated.

``The Germans had as much interest in the protection of their own soldiers in Allied prison camps as was the converse,'' he said.

Gordon-Bates said the Red Cross has spoken out in the past when it was clear that doing so would help victims, but he said it was not clear that was true in World War II.

``Morally, we should have spoken out,'' he said. ``Practically, would it have helped?''

But Favez said that if the Red Cross had condemned the Nazi genocide of the Jews, the Allied governments might not have rejected calls to bomb the railroads leading to the death camps.

``The passivity of the ICRC and the `victory first' policy of the Allies were mutually supportive,'' Favez said. ``They share the guilt.''


http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1997/vp971008/10080475.htm

There are times for speaking, and times when one would prefer to remain silent.


Words fail us before these images, which reflect both infinite suffering and depths of horror and cruelty, just as words fail us when we visit the sites where memories of persecution and genocide are preserved: Theresienstadt, Mauthausen, Bergen-Belsen, Ravensbrück, Buchenwald, Auschwitz ...


What these images convey, first of all, is the boundless suffering of the persecuted, whose tragic itinerary started with race laws and ghettos and ended in extermination camps, leading from social exclusion to despoilment, hunger, cold, humiliation, deportation, the torment of the camps and, finally, death.


What these images also drive home is the particular cruelty of the persecutors, their absolute contempt for human life and the total perversion of moral values that is evident in their organized killing.


And as a staff member of the International Committee of the Red Cross, one is of course forced to come to terms with the failure of an organization whose mandate is to protect and assist war victims.


Was failure avoidable or not? This is the question that immediately comes to mind in our dialogue with the past.


It is a question that leads to many others: what did the ICRC know of the genocide? What action did it take? What did it attempt? What could and should it have done to try to stop the genocide? How has it faced up to its past?


Unfortunately, documentary evidence is incomplete and leaves room for uncertainty. Some conclusions can nevertheless be drawn from the works of historians, in particular the book by Jean-Claude Favez (The Red Cross and the Holocaust, Cambridge University Press, 1999).


What did the ICRC know? We hardly know how the ICRC obtained its information. Still, there is no doubt that senior ICRC officials had become aware of the genocide by the summer of 1942. When questioned by United States Consul Paul Squire on 7 November 1942, Carl Burckhardt, a distinguished member of the Committee, confirmed the existence of an order issued by Hitler intended to make the Reich "Judenfrei" or "free of Jews", in the terminology of Hitler's Germany. Burckhardt added that since there was no place where they could be resettled, this could only mean one thing.


Faced with this prospect, what did the ICRC do, or attempt to do?


First, it tried to monitor the plight of the persecuted by tracing missing family members and seeking news of deported persons from the German Red Cross.


The ICRC delegation in Berlin also made representations of a general nature concerning the fate of hostages and deportees, and letters were addressed to the president of the German Red Cross. But it is known of course that the German Red Cross was itself under Nazi control and that its main leaders took part in the persecution and genocide.


The ICRC also did its best to send relief items to people in concentration camps and other victims of Nazi persecution. After many difficulties, food parcels were delivered to some camps and ghettos.


A number of ICRC delegates, such as Friedrich Born in Hungary, Georges Dunant in Slovakia, Vladimir de Steiger and Robert Kolb in Romania and René Henry in Bulgaria, were able to exploit the tiny margin of tolerance that still existed in the satellites of the Reich to provide a minimum of protection for victims of persecution and to spare some of them the ordeal of deportation.


Finally, during the last part of the war, the ICRC took advantage of the dismantling of the Nazi power apparatus to introduce delegates into certain concentration camps and participate - in an admittedly limited way - in rescuing the survivors.


These actions are not negligible, since every life saved is priceless, but they cannot obscure the fact that, overall, the ICRC's efforts were a failure.


That they amounted to failure is undeniable, since the principles guiding the ICRC's work had never been so outrageously flouted. Millions of men, women and children died after a terrible ordeal without the ICRC being able to do anything to save them.


Yet the failure was, above all, that of the ICRC's inability - or unwillingness - to fully recognize the extent of the tragedy that was unfolding, and to confront it by reversing its priorities and taking the risks that the situation demanded.


To what extent is this failure attributable to the ICRC itself? After the war, criticism of the ICRC focused mainly on the issue of public condemnation. Should the ICRC have denounced the genocide? In what way? And by addressing whom?


The ICRC itself raised this question.


In the summer of 1942, alarmed by the drift towards total war, the ICRC had considered launching an appeal on the conduct of hostilities.


The proposed appeal singled out four points that appeared particularly serious:

the expansion of aerial bombing raids directed against civilian population centres;
the tightening of the blockade;
the deportation, hostage-taking and massacres of civilians;
the fate of prisoners of war not protected by the 1929 Geneva Convention.
The draft was the subject of a written consultation and then examined by the Committee in plenary session on 14 October 1942. In the end, the ICRC decided against launching the appeal.


Why? What emerges from the exchange of correspondence in the written consultation, and also from the minutes of the session of 14 October 1942, is an impression of helplessness. Even the members of the Committee who declared themselves most clearly in favour of an appeal recognized that it would change nothing, that the ICRC would be unable to stop the march to the brink. The fear of compromising activities that the ICRC was actually able to carry out on behalf of prisoners of war certainly played a role, as did less avowable motives such as the fear of causing embarrassment to the Swiss authorities. The intervention of Federal Councillor Philip Etter, who was also a member of the Committee, certainly helped to tip the scales against launching the appeal, in accordance with the wishes of the Federal Council.


The ICRC thus chose the path of confidential representations to the authorities of the Reich and its satellites, but carried them out mainly through its delegations. It was not until the summer and autumn of 1944 that key ICRC leaders became involved in efforts to help victims of Nazi persecution through high-level representations. The criticism of Jean-Claude Favez, who observed that the ICRC "did not take the supreme risk of throwing the full weight of its moral authority into the scales on behalf of these particular victims" (The Red Cross and the Holocaust, p. 282), cannot be refuted.


As Favez further remarked, "the question may therefore be asked why between, on the one hand, the aid operation, derisory from the point of view of the victims, [...] and on the other the public appeal, a weapon of last resort perhaps which the ICRC [...] felt it could not use, no diplomatic initiative was launched that was both worthy of the drama being enacted before everyone's eyes and based on a precise calculation of risks, such as a protest letter to Hitler or Himmler, or better still a mission by Huber or Burckhardt to Berlin or Berchtesgaden" (Ibid., p. 279).


Even more than the absence of public condemnation, it is, in my opinion, the timidity of the confidential representations that weighs most heavily against the ICRC.


What lessons did the ICRC draw from this failure?


Several can be mentioned:

from a legal point of view, the work that led to the adoption of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war;
from an ethical point of view, the adoption of the declaration of the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, building on the distinguished work of Max Huber and the late Jean Pictet, in order to prevent any more abuses such as those that occurred within the Movement after Hitler rose to power in 1933;
on a political level, the ICRC's relationship with Switzerland was redesigned to ensure its independence;
with a view to keeping memories alive, the ICRC accepted, in 1955, to take over the direction of the International Tracing Service where records from concentration camps are maintained;
finally, to establish the historical facts of the case, the ICRC invited Jean-Claude Favez to carry out an independent investigation of its activities on behalf of the victims of Nazi persecution, and gave him unfettered access to its archives relating to this period; out of concern for transparency, the ICRC also decided to give all other historians access to its archives dating back more than 50 years; having gone over the conclusions of Favez's work, the ICRC acknowledged its past failings and expressed its regrets in this regard.
Nevertheless, the photographs displayed here carry us back to a reality on which words - even the strongest words - have no purchase.



http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/6ayg86

[Uncle]

Firstly, I would like to ask exactly What is a 'holocaust denier'? (and) What defines a 'holocaust denier'? It seems to me that anyone who questions the historical, (hysterical? magical?) number of 6 million jEws murdered by Germans automatically earns the dubious honor of being known as a 'holocaust denier'. Of course that also makes them 'anti-semites'.

Unfortunately the posted article has expired and is unaccessible. But its lead in does beg me to ask, how/who was the determination that first, these were all jEwish remains? Secondly, were they jEwish by race or religion? Thirdly, why did the original poster not use a non-biased source, (i.e. "once a concentration camp, a jEwish [spelling edited by myself] community representative said Tuesday")?

[bobbylien]

I guess I would like to ask you why you feel the need to question those figures. I'm sure they aren't really accurate but you certainly can't ignore all of the evidence to backup the fact that there was a mass extermination of the Jews in Europe during WW2. Do you dispute that?

[Uncle]

I guess I would like to ask you why you feel the need to question those figures. I'm sure they aren't really accurate but you certainly can't ignore all of the evidence to backup the fact that there was a mass extermination of the Jews in Europe during WW2. Do you dispute that?

By "mass extermination of the jews", do you mean a preplanned design of genocide? Or do you simply mean that a large number of jews died in Europe during WWII?

Do you believe an actual "holocaust" was perpetrated upon the jews by Nazi Germany and that approximately 6 million jews were murdered?

[bobbylien]

I believe they were targeted for elimination along with other groups. I'm not quite sure how many were killed but I am willing to believe that the number was possibly exaggerated to some extent. Do you believe that there was no plan by Nazi leaders to eliminate the Jews?

[Professor]

Based on what you are posting now I wouldn't peg you as a Holocaust denier. You are simply looking at the truth and questioning it. That's not denying it.

I would define "mass extermination" as the widespread killing of the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Medically and Mentally Ill, Catholics, political prisoners, and anyone else they pleased.

To me a "holocaust denier" is someone who refuses to acknowledge the holocaust and the efforts the Nazis took to carry out their mass extermination.

I don't think you can call the Red Cross "Holocaust deniers." They did reporting during the war that found no evidence because the Nazis hid the it. You can't fault them very much for that.[hr]ETA:

This is an excerpt from the book Schindler's List. I would never want to live there.

"Plaszow was no a simple case, for it's dead lay everywhere around it. In the enthusiasm of the spring of 1943, bodies- notably the bodies of those killed in the ghetto's last two days- were thrown randomly into mass graves in the woods. Now Department D [of the Nazi Government] charged Amon [Goeth, the commander of the concentration camp Plaszow] with finding them all...Amon would not succeed in his intention of removing all the bodies from the woods. Some thousands more would be found in postwar exhumations, and today as the suburbs of Cracow close Plaszow in, bones are still discovered during the digging of foundations."

[Uncle]

I believe they were targeted for elimination along with other groups. I'm not quite sure how many were killed but I am willing to believe that the number was possibly exaggerated to some extent. Do you believe that there was no plan by Nazi leaders to eliminate the Jews?

No I do not believe there was a plan by Nazi leaders or anyone else to exterminate jews during WWII. Also I think the "six million" number of jews supposedly killed in the so-called "holocaust" is a gross exaggeration.

Professor: Schindler's List is a novel based very loosely on facts. Thomas Keneally wrote the book as fiction and it is indexed by the Library of Congress as such.

[Jaaaman]

No I do not believe there was a plan by Nazi leaders or anyone else to exterminate jews during WWII. Also I think the "six million" number of jews supposedly killed in the so-called "holocaust" is a gross exaggeration.


There is much written history to contend that Nazi leaders did plan to exterminate the jewish populations as they came across them. You are dead wrong sir. :shy:

[Uncle]

"There is much written history", as you say. Ever hear the term, "To the victor goes the spoils?" History is written by the victor and that is one of the spoils, to write or rewrite history to fit the victors agenda.

Written history is not evidence. Evidence is factual and is provable, (just as history should be written, but seldom is). Where is the factual, proved evidence that Nazi leaders planned a genocide against jews? Show me this evidence. Thank you.

[Professor]

"There is much written history", as you say. Ever hear the term, "To the victor goes the spoils?" History is written by the victor and that is one of the spoils, to write or rewrite history to fit the victors agenda.

Written history is not evidence. Evidence is factual and is provable, (just as history should be written, but seldom is). Where is the factual, proved evidence that Nazi leaders planned a genocide against jews? Show me this evidence. Thank you.


You just said no evidence is good enough for you. Evidence or facts have been manipulated by the "victors" so we can't use them. So can we only use the sources you like to prove a point? Those aren't facts, that's justification through propaganda.

[Newscaster]

You have a problem here. There are holocaust deniers who will swear up and down that the murders of 6 million Jews and millions of other people never happened. But then you have other who say, ""Oh, I believe it happened." Then they shrug their shoulders and wander off to play video games or some other time waster just so they dont have to think about the holacaust. These people are just as bad as the deniers because even as they admit it happened, they either do nothing to make sure it doesnt happen again or they stand by and watch, saying "It's nopt my fight." and they allow it to happen and to top it off, they complain that Jews wont allow the subject to drop. They are what are called "enablers". Their inaction paves the way for it to happen again.
So the number of deniers is no that important. The presence of even one is important. Sit down and have a chat with those who survived the holacaust and maybe you will understand why we dont allow the subject to drop. I have 23 such reasons including aunts, uncles and cousins who I never got to meet.

[Uncle]

"There is much written history", as you say. Ever hear the term, "To the victor goes the spoils?" History is written by the victor and that is one of the spoils, to write or rewrite history to fit the victors agenda.

Written history is not evidence. Evidence is factual and is provable, (just as history should be written, but seldom is). Where is the factual, proved evidence that Nazi leaders planned a genocide against jews? Show me this evidence. Thank you.


You just said no evidence is good enough for you. Evidence or facts have been manipulated by the "victors" so we can't use them. So can we only use the sources you like to prove a point? Those aren't facts, that's justification through propaganda.[/b]

No, I said, evidence is factual and is provable.
If evidence does exist, then where is it? Who has it and why isn't it accessible to the rest of us?



You have a problem here. There are holocaust deniers who will swear up and down that the murders of 6 million Jews and millions of other people never happened. But then you have other who say, ""Oh, I believe it happened." Then they shrug their shoulders and wander off to play video games or some other time waster just so they dont have to think about the holacaust. These people are just as bad as the deniers because even as they admit it happened, they either do nothing to make sure it doesnt happen again or they stand by and watch, saying "It's nopt my fight." and they allow it to happen and to top it off, they complain that Jews wont allow the subject to drop. They are what are called "enablers". Their inaction paves the way for it to happen again.
So the number of deniers is no that important. The presence of even one is important. Sit down and have a chat with those who survived the holacaust and maybe you will understand why we dont allow the subject to drop. I have 23 such reasons including aunts, uncles and cousins who I never got to meet.
I have two uncles who died in that war. They died as warriors and I never got to meet them either. But over 60 million people (with some estimates reaching above 75 million) died in WWII and the majority of those deaths were civilians. So I am not going to whine about my uncles when there are those who lost entire families. (Where is their ''holocaust'' museums? Where are their reparations?) It is a fact that the majority of this countries people know the 6 million number, but very few know the 60 million number. What makes the inflated 6 million more valuable than the diminished 60 million? Shouldn't there be museums that honor all of the dead and not just the jewish dead? "Never again!" is the jewish cry. But it is only a self-serving cry because the "Never again!" is only for their people and not all of the innocent victims of one of the worlds greatest atrocities. There is no business like "Shoah" business.

I would love to take this debate to the Debate Off section if there is anyone here who would have the nerve to face me on it. To make it really interesting and fair, I would be willing to give my opponent 7 posts to my 5.

[Newscaster]

Uncle, there is a very great difference between a warrior who dies in battle and unarmed civilians who are led to the slaughter. A soldier carries a weapon, has a purpose in being where he is and may even have volunteered (enlisted). But they carried out their role as soldiers, killing the enemy where they foiund him and doing their best not to be killed themselves. The six million Jews and the mother millions of civilians who died in WW2 carried no guns, had not volunteered for anything and to a great extent were either far too old or far to young to be a part of any army. Their deaths cannot be considered combat death. Their death were murder, pure and simple.
It is a tragedy that your uncles did not survive the war but this is not about military deaths. This is about the holacaust and you know as well as I the deaths being discussed.
As far as holacaust museums or reparations......did anyone stop the Russians, or the Poles or the Dutch or other national or ethnic groups from establishing efforts to remind the world of what happened so it would never happen again.
Do you point fingers at Jews for their fund raising efforts simply because they are Jews or because they did it first. Do people criticize Jews because they wont let the issue die away?
Do you criticize them because they refuse to become victims any more and instead, have become a force to be reckoned with? Or maybe, do you see in yourself evidence of the kind of people we still have to deal with?

[micfranklin]

No I do not believe there was a plan by Nazi leaders or anyone else to exterminate jews during WWII. Also I think the "six million" number of jews supposedly killed in the so-called "holocaust" is a gross exaggeration.

I'm guessing you failed all your history classes in school right? Prove to me that the Holocaust didn't happen and that 6 million Jews and other classes of people didn't get slaughtered during WWII.

[Newscaster]

Mr Uncle doesnt believe there was a Nazi plan to exterminate Jews. Well, Mr Uncle is, what is commonly called......"A moron." Mr Uncle calls the death of the six million "an exaggeration." If thats the case, those six million people must have all left their homes, businesses, jobs and families to go off an hide somewhere.
Well, Mr Uncle, if they didnt die in the holacaust, where the hell are they? And who are those people whose bones were found in mass graves? Martians? And what about the countless documents, eye glasses, gold teeth, rings, and other items of value, found in huge piles in storehouses at the various concentration camps. And who were those emaciated people staring out at liberation troops from behind barbed wire fences? Traveling salesmen?
Anybody in this day and age who can dispute the stone cold facts surrounding the holacaust is about as dumb as they come but in addition, they are as cruel as they come. They are emotionless pieces of trash who have screwed up their own lives, have no future and who need someoine to blame it on....so, why not blame it on millions of death people.
The freaking Nazis themselves have admitted there was a holacaust and they confessed to being a part of it.......but Uncle knows better and so does December. They know better than the troops who were there and saw the aftermath of the holacaust. They know better that the people who were fortunate to survive and to tell the world what happened. They know better than the German Government that has mandated the teaching of the holacaust in schools so that German young people can understand what happened and make sure it doesnt happen again.

No Uncle, there was indeed a Nazi plan to exterminate Jews. The Nazi's were very good record keepers and those records are just now being opened for the first time after years of storage in US Army file cabinets. These files contain the names of the victims, information about them, their location in the camps and the day they were gassed and burned. And as extra proof......they tattooed registration numbers on their arms....tattoos still visible today.
Uncle, I wish to congradulate you on a singular accomplishment.......all by yourself, you have proven yourself to be dumber than dirt. And the 23 relatives I lost in the camps send similar thoughts your way, including 6 cousins who died at the hands of the Nazi while still under the age of five.

Lets drop the insults. You can refute the silly holocaust-denier premise without name calling

[lily]

Shouldn't there be museums that honor all of the dead and not just the jewish dead?

You really need to get out more if you don't know about the thousands of memorials for the dead soldiers of WW2.

[Newscaster]

Uncle, the museums in memory of those who died in the holacaust are not government funded museums. They are paid for thru private donations and it is the donors who decide who will be remembered. But I have been to several such museums and shrines, some of them paid for by Jews. The museums mention all those who died at the hands of the Nazis but when it is a Jewish backed memorial, the six million will be in the forefront whether you approve or not.
No one has ever prevented the Russians, the Poles, the Gypsies, or any other private group from establising its own or similar memorials. If they dont have the urge to build a memorial of their own, dont blame Jews who do feel a continuing connection to dead relatives and wish to honor them even in death.
When you attack Jews for remembering murdered relatives, all you achieve is showing yourself up to be to be as I mentioned earlier......a moron.[hr]Lily, there are memorials all over Europe in memory of troops from many countries, who died in WW2 and many of them are government sponsored memorials. Mr Uncle simply has no clue what he is talking about. Chances are he knows very little about WW2 and the Nazis and all the things that went on between 1934 and 1945.

[Uncle]

Here is your answer to all of your insults, etcetera: http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=6742

[Uncle]

My challenge must be in review as it hasn't appeared yet.

[Truth_and_Power]

"There is no business like "Shoah" business."

Where did you first hear this phrase? Talking with your buddies about jewish financial hegemony and how they subvert anything they're allowed into? Maybe you heard it out back after a 'meeting'?

[Newscaster]

Truth & Power....... so what would you call it? Bigotry or jealousy?

[Uncle]

Newscaster and micfranklin: Check your PMs. Let's see if you have anything but insults to bring to this topic.

[Professor]

"There is much written history", as you say. Ever hear the term, "To the victor goes the spoils?" History is written by the victor and that is one of the spoils, to write or rewrite history to fit the victors agenda.

Written history is not evidence. Evidence is factual and is provable, (just as history should be written, but seldom is). Where is the factual, proved evidence that Nazi leaders planned a genocide against Jews? Show me this evidence. Thank you.


You just said no evidence is good enough for you. Evidence or facts have been manipulated by the "victors" so we can't use them. So can we only use the sources you like to prove a point? Those aren't facts, that's justification through propaganda.

No, I said, evidence is factual and is provable.
If evidence does exist, then where is it? Who has it and why isn't it accessible to the rest of us?


Some of the issues with lack of evidence are the Nazis themselves. Though they kept extensive records as the war ended and they knew they were going to get caught they tried to cover their tracks by burning evidence such as their paper trail. Another issue is privacy. For the sake of example, let's say your grandmother was raped. And someone wants the facts about it, even a detective to try to figure out who. Can you see how this could be painful for her, to relive it? Some women who go through that situation might want to keep it private and quiet. Others might want it out, for their own reasons. But it is their choice, and there are laws protecting their privacy. It is the same with Holocaust victims.

There is a project the compile a lot of remaining Nazi documents. This is the thread about it: http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2588


I have two uncles who died in that war. They died as warriors and I never got to meet them either.


OT, out of curiosity where and in what part of the armed services did they fight? My grandfather was stationed in the Pacific and fought in the Navy.


I would love to take this debate to the Debate Off section if there is anyone here who would have the nerve to face me on it. To make it really interesting and fair, I would be willing to give my opponent 7 posts to my 5.


You are also free to challenge someone.

[micfranklin]

Newscaster and micfranklin: Check your PMs. Let's see if you have anything but insults to bring to this topic.


I sent you a PM, no threats in there from me:)

[Uncle]

micfranklin has accepted my challenge. However Newscaster, (strange since he lost so many family in the aleged "holocaust") has declined. What I am looking for is 2 people to debate, (allowing them each 5 posts, for a total of 10 as opposed to my only having 5,). Maybe you would be willing to step up Proffesor and aid micfranklin. Of course this will be bending the Debate Off rules a little. But I think the Admin would allow it, seeing as I am the one with the most to lose.

[Jaaaman]

I'll step up to the challenge...

[Professor]

OT but...

First, Uncle and Jaaman I'd like to wish both of you luck on the debate.

Second, I don't think Uncle should be allowed to debate more than once person at a time. I also think his opponent should be given the same amount of replies as he is. This will keep it fair, so the victor will have won on fair grounds.

Back to the thread...

Much of the reason there are more memorials in the form of museums, books, movies, et cetera from the Jews has to do with money and education. As a culture they value education. A better education leads a better paying job. That better education can also help you write your book, direct your film and put together your exhibit, website, et cetera.

[Newscaster]

Mr Uncle, I do not have to debate to prove to myself or to anyone else what I know or think I know. I dont have to take a position based on the idea of a man who has been discredited for years, namely, Frank Weltner, the author of Jew Watch, a bigoted, anitsemitic website that has been touting Nazi theory for years. I dont have to do any of those things because I was alive when I all happened and I warch as my family mourned when we got the news of the death of family members. I dont have to be lectured to by a know nothing who does not understand Jews, Jewish thinks or anything related to Jews.
Mr Uncle, I dont know how much of an education you have had, how much world travel you have done and frankly, I dont care and thats another reason I have no desire to waste time debating idea that have been proven bodus for decades.
So, if you have found someone who will waste time with someone like you, thats fine. Have a good time but there is no way you will drag me into is and no, my rejection of your challenge is an indication that you have won.....anything. You see, despite your warped ideas, Jews of the world are still here and we will continue to be here and we will continue to be a driving force in the world and you sir, one day, will fade away.[hr]Quoting myself)
So, if you have found someone who will waste time with someone like you, thats fine. Have a good time but there is no way you will drag me into is and no, my rejection of your challenge is an indication that you have won.....anything. You see, despite your warped ideas, Jews of the world are still here and we will continue to be here and we will continue to be a driving force in the world and you sir, one day, will fade away. )
Sorry, just a few typos.
Corrections: there is no way you will drag me into this.....
No, my rejection of your challenge is NOT an indication that you have won....anything.
Have a nice day.

[crimzonsol]

You see, despite your warped ideas, Jews of the world are still here and we will continue to be here and we will continue to be a driving force in the world and you sir, one day, will fade away.


Here, Here

[Uncle]

Mr. newscaster:
You claim a loss of several of your bloodline in the so-called "holocaust", but yet you have nothing that gives credence, or gives evidence too, such ever happening. You think, (or want others to think) that it happened based upon nothing more than the simple words: It happened and anyone who says different is anti-semitic.

Call me anti-semitic and I will call you anti-Christian. I will also call you a liar, a user, a coward, an agent of Satan. Your days on this earth are numbered. Shove your Talmud up your Jesus hating asses. Fuck jews.

Hugs and kisses,
Uncle

Uncle........I am giving you one warning and that is only because I'm not sure what you mean by your days on this earth are numbered. Threats of any form will not be tolerated.

[Newscaster]

Uncle, I don't call tem my bloodline......they were and still are my family. You probably dont know much about families. There is plenty of evidence popinting to the loss of those family members and what group of people perpetrated that loss. But, you will never see that evidence because you are not worthy.
Do I call you anti-semitic? Yes, I certainly do. But there are other adejectives that describe you, least of all POND SCUM. You can call me anti-Christian or any other name you care to use. It makes no difference because you are not worth my expending energy to answer back. But I will say this.....you are trash of your own making. You have not achieved anything worth while in your life and you have the mistaken belief that strutting like a puny little Nazi gives you status but it doesnt. It just proves to everyone around you how little you are worth and how little every one else values you. Now, like a good little stormtrooper....take a hike.

[Deadshot]

Mr. newscaster:
You claim a loss of several of your bloodline in the so-called "holocaust", but yet you have nothing that gives credence, or gives evidence too, such ever happening. You think, (or want others to think) that it happened based upon nothing more than the simple words: It happened and anyone who says different is anti-semitic.

Call me anti-semitic and I will call you anti-Christian. I will also call you a liar, a user, a coward, an agent of Satan. Your days on this earth are numbered. Shove your Talmud up your Jesus hating asses. Fuck jews.

Hugs and kisses,
Uncle



Doesn't this post really tell you all you need to know about Uncle and his feelings about the Holocaust. "Shove your Talmud up your Jesus hating asses. Fuck jews." Uncle there is no reason to have this attitude here, or anywhere. But by having said attitude it makes whatever you say about the Holocaust not only suspect, but extrememely prejudiced.

I think when you bring up your disbelief in the Holocaust again and someone like me, a new poster, see's it I'll simply reference them to this post. That way they will not make the same mistake that I did, in assuming that you really wanted a scholarly or a simply lay-men's debate upon the Holocaust. Instead you are simply an anti-Semite who does not wish to accept the findings of history so as to exist in your own little hate filled world.

Sad really, I pity you.