Wrong Planet.

[IlluSionS667]

Do my sources matter? I believe you will just say they are propaganda spread by the allies after the war.  I could look some up later if you want but like I said does it matter

Yes it does. As I said before, my viewpoints are the result of years of research. For such research, I try to use sources from a variety of perspectives and analyse the arguments use for each perspective before I make up my mind. In the case of the Holocaust myth, this includes contemporary English sources, contemporary Sovjet sources, contemporary Polish sources, contemporary Jewish sources, contemporary German sources, contemporary French sources and post-war sources from both orthodox and revisionist perspectives. Only this way you can filter away the propaganda and find the naked facts. Unless your source is someone like Eugen Kogon or Daniel Goldhagen (their publications are so way off they're almost surreal), I see no reason to ignore it.

[odeon]

Like I said : when I state something as fact, I provide a few arguments for them and give links where you can find irrefutable evidence for those arguments. For everything I label as "proven beyond reasonable doubt", I can provide sources that do prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Just don't expect my to summarize an academic work of 500 pages in a single post. Anyone who is open to it, can buy or download the relevant works and read them for themselves.

Academic works such as those by Dr Konrad? 

I was thinking first and foremost of sources like Kevin MacDonald and Israel Shahak on topics like Jewish culture and its conflict with gentile culture, a source like Norman Finkelstein on the Holocaust Industry and the abuse thereof by ancient aliens and sources like David Hoggan and Harry Elmer Barnes on the topic of WW2 history and the fate of the Jews during that war.

By the way, I noticed that you thusfar haven't even attempted to provide a single argument against the arguments of Graf in the article I posted earlier on the Jewish population losses during WW2. Your entire argument on the  Jewish population losses during WW2 has thusfar consisted of copy-pasting death rates without a single mention of how they were obtained.

I'd urge you to read What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews? from the Nizkor Project. Plenty of proof there, and many interesting explanations, such as this one (re the Goebbels diaries):

Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.)

In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?

As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.

[odeon]

He hasn't physically hurt people, has he? If you as a foreigner or immigrant commit a violent crime against white people due to their ethnicity you can get away with far less than 5 months, at least in Europe.

Er, no. Not here, in any case.

[TheoK]

I don't think so. Look at those rape cases that I linked to. Some of them were freed and some got away with 3 and 2 months respectively.

[The_Chosen_One]

Do my sources matter? I believe you will just say they are propaganda spread by the allies after the war.  I could look some up later if you want but like I said does it matter

Yes it does. As I said before, my viewpoints are the result of years of research. For such research, I try to use sources from a variety of perspectives and analyse the arguments use for each perspective before I make up my mind. In the case of the Holocaust myth, this includes contemporary English sources, contemporary Sovjet sources, contemporary Polish sources, contemporary Jewish sources, contemporary German sources, contemporary French sources and post-war sources from both orthodox and revisionist perspectives. Only this way you can filter away the propaganda and find the naked facts. Unless your source is someone like Eugen Kogon or Daniel Goldhagen (their publications are so way off they're almost surreal), I see no reason to ignore it.

When der Fuehrer says
We is der master race
Heil Pfft
Heil Pfft
Right in der Fueher's face..... 

[IlluSionS667]

I'd urge you to read What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews? from the Nizkor Project. Plenty of proof there, and many interesting explanations

Nizkor is far from new to me. All of that so-called proof has already been debunked by Holocaust Revisionists decades ago.

I don't see how you can take that Nizkor page seriously. They even defend the silly claim that lampshades were made of Jewish skin and soap was made of Jewish fat, even though these claims have been dropped from the status quo as obvious propaganda since the late '70s.

Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million

The actualy 1939 number was much lower, because the 11 million figure ignores the many Jews who had fled the German sphere of influence to eg. Anglo-Saxon countries, Palestine or Sovjet Russia. This is explained in greater detail in the article by Graf that I posted earlier.

In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?

The Goebbels diaries were private diaries published only after WW2, which leave some room for doctoring of certain passages. Nevertheless, there seems to be disagreement among Holocaust Revisionists on whether of not the diary is entirely authentic. While some dispute their authenticity, various Holocaust Revisionists stand by their authenticity and use a different approach. To quote Graf again :

a) The Goebbels diary passages of 27 March 1942

For 27 March 1942, there is an entry in the diaries of NS Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels (22), according to which a "rather barbarous procedure, not to be described in detail here" was being applied to the Jews. 60% of the Jews were liquidated, while only 40% could be used for work.

Revisionist researchers are not unanimous on the authenticity of the Goebbels Diaries. Staeglich considers them forged in whole or in part, while Irving and Faurisson believe in their authenticity. We refrain from expressing an opinion and refer to the entry of 7 March 1942, in which Goebbels states that the Jews must first be concentrated in the East; eventually, they could be sent to an island, perhaps Madagascar. This entry is in crass contradiction to the entry made twenty days later. Goebbels, an irreconcilable enemy of the Jews, may, in writing his diaries, have risen to an even more intense hatred of them, and in doing so, may have brought fantasies to paper which were in no way reconcilable with his earlier notes. This passage is therefore no proof of the occurrence of the extermination of the Jews; it is at best the most forceful indication that the exterminationists can produce, an indication which is nevertheless contradicted by a whole slew of watertight, irrefutable revisionist evidence.

As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.

David Cole was very supportive of the Holocaust Revisionist point of view and his infamous film about Auschwitz leaves no doubt about that. He retracted his views only because he and his family received threats from the Jewish Defense League. Considering Faurisson at one time had been hospitalised due to an attack by Jewish extremists, he knew he shouldn't take such threats lightly.

[Christopher McCandless]

I did. But most of the best humour evolved in the 60's, a full 15 years after the war ended. By that point it had very little to do with allies, and more to do with the German language structure and phraseology , which constricts the development of humour. It is why most German comedy is incredibly slapstick.

I understand how language structure and phraseology can limit the use of puns, but can you explain how it limits other types of humor? For example, I don't see how sarcasm (a very popular type of humor today) can be limited by language structure and phraseology.

The German style is very robotic when compared to other languages, so more empathsis is based on what you say, rather than how you say it, limiting the scope for sarcasm somewhat.

[odeon]

I'd urge you to read What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews? from the Nizkor Project. Plenty of proof there, and many interesting explanations

Nizkor is far from new to me. All of that so-called proof has already been debunked by Holocaust Revisionists decades ago.

I don't see how you can take that Nizkor page seriously. They even defend the silly claim that lampshades were made of Jewish skin and soap was made of Jewish fat, even though these claims have been dropped from the status quo as obvious propaganda since the late '70s.

I don't see how you can take that revisionist bullshit seriously. Nizkor and others have very effectively debunked all of their so-called proof ages ago.

Hey, waitaminute, are you back to your usual style of unsubstantiated claims again? For a second I imagined you would at least try something different.

/waiting for the word "irrefutable" now 

Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million

The actualy 1939 number was much lower, because the 11 million figure ignores the many Jews who had fled the German sphere of influence to eg. Anglo-Saxon countries, Palestine or Sovjet Russia. This is explained in greater detail in the article by Graf that I posted earlier.

Perhaps you should read Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews for a detailed breakdown of the figures.

In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?

The Goebbels diaries were private diaries published only after WW2, which leave some room for doctoring of certain passages. Nevertheless, there seems to be disagreement among Holocaust Revisionists on whether of not the diary is entirely authentic. While some dispute their authenticity, various Holocaust Revisionists stand by their authenticity and use a different approach. To quote Graf again :

a) The Goebbels diary passages of 27 March 1942

For 27 March 1942, there is an entry in the diaries of NS Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels (22), according to which a "rather barbarous procedure, not to be described in detail here" was being applied to the Jews. 60% of the Jews were liquidated, while only 40% could be used for work.

Revisionist researchers are not unanimous on the authenticity of the Goebbels Diaries. Staeglich considers them forged in whole or in part, while Irving and Faurisson believe in their authenticity. We refrain from expressing an opinion and refer to the entry of 7 March 1942, in which Goebbels states that the Jews must first be concentrated in the East; eventually, they could be sent to an island, perhaps Madagascar. This entry is in crass contradiction to the entry made twenty days later. Goebbels, an irreconcilable enemy of the Jews, may, in writing his diaries, have risen to an even more intense hatred of them, and in doing so, may have brought fantasies to paper which were in no way reconcilable with his earlier notes. This passage is therefore no proof of the occurrence of the extermination of the Jews; it is at best the most forceful indication that the exterminationists can produce, an indication which is nevertheless contradicted by a whole slew of watertight, irrefutable revisionist evidence.

Hey, he likes the same phrases as you do. There's that word again. As for the debunking of this one, I urge you to read Nizkor.

...the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."

Joseph Goebbels, March 6, 1942

"The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."

Joseph Goebbels, March 27, 1942

"Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated."

Joseph Goebbels, April 29, 1942

"There is no explicit reference ... to liquidation of Jews."

"Revisionist" David Irving, April 22, 1988, as quoted* on the web site of the "revisionist" Ernst Zündel

(from Nizkor)

As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.

David Cole was very supportive of the Holocaust Revisionist point of view and his infamous film about Auschwitz leaves no doubt about that. He retracted his views only because he and his family received threats from the Jewish Defense League. Considering Faurisson at one time had been hospitalised due to an attack by Jewish extremists, he knew he shouldn't take such threats lightly.

Ah, of course. When you can't change what he said, you need to convince people that it was the threats that made him stop.

Do you know how many times Ken McVay has been threatened without giving up?

[IlluSionS667]

The German style is very robotic when compared to other languages, so more empathsis is based on what you say, rather than how you say it, limiting the scope for sarcasm somewhat.

Interesting

I don't see how you can take that revisionist bullshit seriously. Nizkor and others have very effectively debunked all of their so-called proof ages ago.

Nizkor consciously misrepresents or ignores Holocaust Revisionist arguments but hardly refutes them.

Hey, waitaminute, are you back to your usual style of unsubstantiated claims again? For a second I imagined you would at least try something different.

I've already given you various links and posted various quotes, including a full article by Graf. You barely responded to ANY of the arguments provided, so why should I continue to do an effort?

Perhaps you should read Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews for a detailed breakdown of the figures.

Perhaps you should read Graf's Giant with Feet of Clay - Raul Hilberg and his Standard Work on the Holocaust that gives a detailed analysis of Hilberg's classic work and the many flaws it contains.

Hey, he likes the same phrases as you do. There's that word again. As for the debunking of this one, I urge you to read Nizkor.

There's Nizkor again. What a joke....

Ah, of course. When you can't change what he said, you need to convince people that it was the threats that made him stop.

Do you know how many times Ken McVay has been threatened without giving up?

Your Ken McVay has very powerful allies supporting his disinformation, wheras David Cole was just a young guy who turned his people (Cole is Jewish) against him for speaking the truth.

Excerpts from a letter posted on the JDL site:

What is a David Cole? Is it a sickness? Is it a mental disease? Is Cole merely a human parasite who clings to his ardent Nazi supporters and friends who back his ideas whole-heartedly? After all, this Cole mania that the media have played on, don't you think it's time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society.

Just as we must get rid of this monster, Cole, we must also get rid of the word "revisionism" from our vocabulary. This awful word and Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers...

JDL wants to know the location of Holocaust denier David Cole, pictured above. Anyone giving us his correct address will receive a monetary reward. Contact us through e-mail immediately if you have information leading to the current location of David Cole.

[odeon]

The German style is very robotic when compared to other languages, so more empathsis is based on what you say, rather than how you say it, limiting the scope for sarcasm somewhat.

Interesting

I don't see how you can take that revisionist bullshit seriously. Nizkor and others have very effectively debunked all of their so-called proof ages ago.

Nizkor consciously misrepresents or ignores Holocaust Revisionist arguments but hardly refutes them.

Funny. I was just about to say something like that, only it was about you, Dr Konrad and friends. You should stop, though, because you make our last kook look pale in comparison. I think Flo wants his title back.

Hey, waitaminute, are you back to your usual style of unsubstantiated claims again? For a second I imagined you would at least try something different.

I've already given you various links and posted various quotes, including a full article by Graf. You barely responded to ANY of the arguments provided, so why should I continue to do an effort?

Perhaps you should read Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews for a detailed breakdown of the figures.

Perhaps you should read Graf's Giant with Feet of Clay - Raul Hilberg and his Standard Work on the Holocaust that gives a detailed analysis of Hilberg's classic work and the many flaws it contains.

See http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/05/jrgen-graf-is-liar.html where Nick Terry proves Mr Graf is a liar.

Hey, he likes the same phrases as you do. There's that word again. As for the debunking of this one, I urge you to read Nizkor.

There's Nizkor again. What a joke....[/quote]

I'm afraid it's not a joke. McVey rather effectively picks apart your arguments. You people should be used to it by now.

Ah, of course. When you can't change what he said, you need to convince people that it was the threats that made him stop.

Do you know how many times Ken McVay has been threatened without giving up?

Your Ken McVay has very powerful allies supporting his disinformation, wheras David Cole was just a young guy who turned his people (Cole is Jewish) against him for speaking the truth.

That's the standard accusation from you and your ilk, when faced with someone who won't back down. Defamation is apparently not such a bad thing when you are the people doing it. McVey's financing his work himself, and by contributions from the public.

Excerpts from a letter posted on the JDL site:

What is a David Cole? Is it a sickness? Is it a mental disease? Is Cole merely a human parasite who clings to his ardent Nazi supporters and friends who back his ideas whole-heartedly? After all, this Cole mania that the media have played on, don't you think it's time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society.

Just as we must get rid of this monster, Cole, we must also get rid of the word "revisionism" from our vocabulary. This awful word and Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers...

JDL wants to know the location of Holocaust denier David Cole, pictured above. Anyone giving us his correct address will receive a monetary reward. Contact us through e-mail immediately if you have information leading to the current location of David Cole.

For the record, I do not condone that sort of thing, at all. The truth should be enough--you guys don't have a leg to stand on, really.

But you know that's the kind of thing McVey's been getting used to for the past ten years or more.  Now, let me hear that you don't approve of the death threats McVey's been receiving, either.

[GalileoAce]

*yawn*

[Parts]

*yawn*

Hi GA how's the weather over there this is getting a bit off topic huh? :lol:

[renaeden]

It's raining. Quite a lot. I walked to the shops and got caught when it started pouring. It is supposed to be the same tomorrow.

[IlluSionS667]

Nizkor consciously misrepresents or ignores Holocaust Revisionist arguments but hardly refutes them.

Funny. I was just about to say something like that, only it was about you, Dr Konrad and friends.

You're the pot calling the kettle black.

See http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/05/jrgen-graf-is-liar.html where Nick Terry proves Mr Graf is a liar.

So Terry thinks he can debunk Graf's entire work by pointing out to a single footnote Graf supposebly missed in the 1991 German edition? Even if Terry is correct (since I don't own a copy of that edition, I can't verify it), it's pretty much the weakest attempt to debunk a revisionist work I've encountered thusfar. Terry can definitely do better than that.

Nevertheless, this is typical for Terry. Terry is actually the Holocaust historian I've discussed with in the past and he probably knows me as one of his toughest adversaries in Holocaust debate. At one point he became so desperate in trying to prove the existence of gas vans (one of his areas of expertise) that he mistranslated various German documents to use those translations as proof. Terry's main activity appears to be spending many hours a day on internet forums and blogs misrepresenting or ignoring revisionist arguments in combination with character assassination in a pitiful attempt to debunk Holocaust Revisionism. In spite of his education as a historian, he completely fails to oblige to scientific methods and  when his other arguments have been debunked. Adding all this to his status as a Charles H. Revson Foundation Fellow when he worked at the USHMM writing his disinformation on the Einsatzgruppen, he fits the criteria of a conscious disinformant. It's quite an interesting leap from his former career as a thrash metal journalist.

His friends Andrew Mathis, Sergey Romanov and Roberto Muehlenkamp with whom he runs both the Holocaustcontroversies blog and the RODOH forum are equally pathetic, by the way. Terry is possibly the least obnoxious of the bunch, however that doesn't say much.

I'm afraid it's not a joke. McVey rather effectively picks apart your arguments.

You should really get into comedy. At least Terry is smart enough not to leave the Jewish lampshade and Jewish soap story for what it is, as pretty much every historian has accepted this was mere propaganda. But no.... MyVey is so stubborn to even mention those as facts, which totally destroy his credibility.

That's the standard accusation from you and your ilk, when faced with someone who won't back down. Defamation is apparently not such a bad thing when you are the people doing it. McVey's financing his work himself, and by contributions from the public.

The public = rich and powerful ancient alien individuals and organisations.

But you know that's the kind of thing McVey's been getting used to for the past ten years or more.  Now, let me hear that you don't approve of the death threats McVey's been receiving, either.

McVey is a dirtbag disinformant, which makes makes me strongly object to him as a person. Yet, I also object to threatening people. The Holocaust myth should be openly debated in academia between orthodox historians and revisionist historians. It should not be something left to legislators, internect activists and dangerous political radicals (whether Jewish supremacist or white supremacist).

[odeon]

I wouldn't even mention the phrase "scientific method" if I were you. You and your Nazi friends are not too big on that sort of thing, as proven again and again you, Rudolf and his "nyms", Graf, et al. 

But anyway, since this is going nowhere except filling the server with your worthless bullshit, I'm ignoring you from now on. I will leave your continuing presence on the Internet up to your ISP, and your presence here up to our host.