Through long and lonely nights, I watched many a documentary on Youtube, many a which would never be aired on TV, due to their controversial view on history. Unfortunately, I came to realize that there are liars or just deluded folks out there, so it's difficult to know what's the truth.

But the one BIG thing that I realized is that the victors write the history books and paint themselves as morally superior and in a great light, when the truth is rather grey. Everything they do is justified to them and that's rarely challenged, because when it is, there is a brutal lash back.

Britain and France get a pass for declaring war on Germany because they invaded Poland. But they did not declare war on Russia, who also invaded Poland. Perhaps Britain and France were looking for war against Germany? I mean, many countries attack other country's. Do you always have to get involved because they are an ally?

If Germany won WWII, I'm sure the allies bombings of cities would have been decried as the most brutal, evil thing ever done. Women, children, elderly, the sick, all blown up and burned.

"Following orders is no excuse!" Of course it is, either die right then and there for treason or get with the program and hopefully your team wins and you'll survive. Well, not just survive, but be hailed as a hero and receive wealth.

Were there really a million German soldiers starved to death on purpose after WWII ended?

Were the Nuremberg trials the silliest court proceedings of all time? Were many of the defendants tortured into agreeing with their captors version of events? Just imagine, you know you are going to die. But right now they are torturing you. If you agree to what they want you to confess, at least the torture will stop and you will be left alone.

Were there even 6 million Jews that came under Hitler's control?

In the USA, during the war of 1812, the North (the good guys), inhumanely treated prisoners, while the south (the bad guys, humanely treated them.

I used to believe in history and knew who the good guys were - us. Now my whole world has been turned upside down and much of history that was portrayed as fact is now up for questioning. But i'd rather know the truth than keep playing along to lies.

Holocaust denial and now the american civil war was fought in 1812?

Holocaust denial? Strawman. Incorrect date on American war. Honest mistake. I was about to look that one up. Just something to discuss, question, wonder about.

Britain and France didn't declare war on Germany solely because of the invasion of Poland. It was the straw that broke the camel's back after previous aggression by Germany. Neither country was looking to get involved in another European war with the horrors of the First World War still being fresh in everyone's minds. There's an argument that their appeasement/ lack of action prior to the invasion of Poland resulted in the war as decisive action at an earlier date would've seen Hitler losing face, and possibly power.

If you want to have a "serious" historical discussion getting salient details correct would be a good start.

In your OP you ask if Hitler actually had six million jews under his control. How else was that supposed to be construed when no one outside of the neo nazi movement contests that fact?

It is career, social, and political suicide to question or provide evidence countering the official explanation. Also, the death and boycott (and shunning) threats, as well as being labelled a Nazi and anti-semetic aren't very pleasant No wonder why people only talk about it anonymously on the internet, dontcha think?

Which is where?

And when you provide Holocaust-denier talking points (or their JAQing-off equivalents--"did Hitler even have 6 million Jews under his control?), you're going to get treated like a Holocaust denier.

Holocaust denier accusations are strawmen. I don't know the truth. I heard/read some interesting arguments that question the total official number, as well as many of the stories. I've seen evidence presented, arguments made, holes poked in the official story. I am simply asking if anyone can comment on these things with some corroborating facts. As I stated, it's difficult to sift through what's fact and what's lies. Yes, I'm aware that there are Nazi's who make up stories. But there are also Jews who've questioned the official story and poked holes in it. They make some great points, but nobody wants to follow up.

I thought this was a place for intelligent debate. If I ask a question or present facts, or make an interesting point, I am hoping for an honest answer or two. But I guess the usual "only Nazi's say that" or "everyone agree's with the official story except Nazi's" or "you are anti-semetic" or "how dare you" is what I should have expected.

[x] Not a Nazi
[x] Not a holocaust denier
[x] Prefers to seek the truth
[x] Would like an honest debate
[ ] This post was only about the holocaust

This video brings up some interesting arguments. I'm not sure if they are true or not. I think it's worth discussing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3c0P...ctr=1374450910

You apparently have no knowledge of Andersonville prison (Confederate). The confederate officer in charge was tried and hung after the Civil War. Debate is still active on this but a general consensus exists that ill treatment aggravated already bad conditions. And nothing much was done to alleviant the situation.

Information by NPS:http://www.nps.gov/ande/index.htm

From the above link:



Of the approximately 45,000 Union prisoners held at Camp Sumter during the war, nearly 13,000 died of starvation, malnutrition, diarrhea or communicable diseases.

"During the American Civil War, prisoners of war presented major logistical, political and humanitarian challenges to both the Union and the Confederacy. And, like virtually all other aspects of that conflict, the Union, for the most part, did a better job of handling those challenges. But the horror was widespread on both sides."

"Andersonville was designed to imprison up to 10,000 “overflow” prisoners from elsewhere in the rapidly crumbling Confederacy, but its inmate population climbed to 33,000 by the end of the summer of 1864. Furthermore, its physical design was fatally flawed to begin with. In addition to the absence of any system for waste disposal within the camp, a creek flowing through the camp delivered upstream waste from the military camp where Andersonville’s guards were stationed.

By the end of the war, 13,000 Andersonville prisoners (30 percent of the camp’s population) had died from a variety of diseases such as dysentery, scurvy and gangrene, as well as malnutrition and exposure. Although subsequent historical analysis suggests that this humanitarian catastrophe was the result of incompetence rather than intentional cruelty, nonetheless Andersonville’s commander, Captain Henry Wirz, was convicted of war crimes and executed, and other prison officials were jailed."

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/con...truly-horrific

The link you provided did not work.

jeez, so much fail in this OP

while I can sympathize with the general point that history is written by the victors and the winning side in these wars could just as easily be vilified and prosecuted for war crimes had they lost, the examples you are using in an attempt to prove this point are pretty awful. You're definitely getting into holocaust denial territory here which completely discredits anything you're trying to say when there are many better examples you could have used

also pretty hard to expect anyone in the history forum to take you seriously when you think the civil war took place in 1812, even though you have already attempted to address this point it shows a pretty fundamental lack of historical knowledge. Don't believe everything you see on youtube

Point 1 - GB and France declared war on Germany for attacking Poland. But not Russia. For the same thing. If you are going to say my points are pretty aweful but not offer up a counter point, then why bother posting? Why not just read and skip along to the next thread?

Point 2 - GB started the civilian bombing (probably out of desperation because they feared they were about to lose the battle of Britain.) Why is this a "pretty awful" point?

Point 3 - Following orders is no excuse. It's something that you often hear and it's usually said with such great conviction but did anyone ever question the logic behind it? it would take a super brave human who could, in the middle of being caught up in something as big and engulfing as a war, to say "hey, i'm gonna opt out, k? I'm goin home and waitin for this whole mess to be over."

Point 4 - Did they starve a million soldiers to death on purpose? Nobody has said anything to the contrary. And they say the Germans were so terrible for starving jews in concentration camps, but perhaps that was more of a result of losing a war, ei, the supply line has been bombed, the supply runners have been killed, there is no food, water or medicine to support a camp of tens of thoousands. Meanwhile, on the other hand, it was done completely on purpose after the war ended?

As for the holocause question, I used to believe it unquestioningly. I don't remember when, but I read about some questions about the facts, as well as the political motivations. Bored, like usual, and interested in the subject matter, I followed up on the subject matter and found there were many interesting points being made. Does that make me a Nazi? Or a denier? I'm just currious about the other side of the story, which can be compelling. Am i a believer? As i said, it's difficult to know what's fact and what's fiction without doing a ton of research. Thus, you saying "don't believe everything you watch on youtube" was rather pointless and most likely a slight/insult, when i already said I acknowledge that there are lies.

The point of the discussion was to see if any of this has any merit. So far, no one has stepped up to the plate with a good counter argument. I figured that there are a lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people on 2 + 2 but so far nobody wants to touch it.

Re these points, I've already addressed the first point but you seem to have ignored it. Could go into a lot more details but I'll see how this post develops first.

Regarding the 2nd, German bombs fell on London (possibly by accident) and Churchill then ordered the bombing of Berlin in retaliation. It should be noted that prior to this Germany had bombed other European cities, not to mention the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War by the Luftwaffe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

Just noticed this remark, which is pretty gross. If you've looked into the history of this you must be aware of the masses of evidence about the firing squads that were initially used in the extermination of the jews then the moves onto more 'efficient' methods such as the gas chambers as well as the documents from the highest levels of the nazi party making it clear what there plans were.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here but you're making it difficult.

Husker, did you watch the first two minutes of the video that I posted?

Dr. Raul Hilberg, according to wikipedia, was considered the preeminent scholar on the holocaust. But I don't think you need wikipedia to tell you this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg

In a trial in Canada against Ernst Zundel, he admitted under oath in a court of law that Hitler's order to exterminate the Jews was verbal, therefore no one knows the exact wording. "It's one of the gaps in history" he said.

"There is no single report in existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps" is something else he admitted - under oath.

Can you comment of this?

To me personally, to read these things is quite shocking and provides motivation to keep digging on this subject. As Zundel's laywer Doug Christie said, he's "out to prove that Zundel has reason to question the widely accepted beliefs about the holocaust." I think what I've uncovered is sufficient reason to continue to explore/question this issue.

You say the documents exist. Hilberg, the Holocaust expert, says it was a verbal order, thus no one knows. Could you provide some evidence to corroborate your claims?

As for the horror photo's shown of the emaciated bodies from concentration camps, society was shown pictures and told "see, proof of all the atrocities". In days long ago when my critical thinking skills were underdeveloped, I believed what they said, without question. In reality, those photo's alone don't prove gas chambers existed. Unfortunately, when citizens are shown a gruesome photo and told by authority figures what lies behind the picture, they are often accepted unquestioningly. They are in fact more synonymous with starvation and decease caused by the captors losing a war and thus losing control and being incapable of properly caring for it's prisioners.

An excerpt from an article on the civil war prisoners of war camps is universal, IMO.

"the conventional assessment has viewed conditions at these prisons as unfortunate but unavoidable developments of war--a reflection more of the uncontrollable and inhumane nature of war in general, rather than a conscious and intentional expression of man's inhumanity to man. According to this explanation, the North was not to blame for conditions at places like Camp Douglas; the Dix-Hill cartel broke down because of the South's refusal to exchange black Union soldiers as equals, which in turn transformed the North's prisons into overcrowded incubators of death. Likewise, the South cannot be blamed for conditions at Andersonville or elsewhere; the starving Confederacy could barely feed its own soldiers in the field, much less a growing population of enemy prisoners."

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12466

Note in the video how Obama tells a whopper of a lie about his uncle liberating a concentration camp. The gall of people to make up lies on the spot, especially those in positions of immense power, is very disturbing. It shows how easy it is for others to jump on board with a lie of their own.

The only evidence of such atrocities is personal accounts. Unfortunately, those aren't enough IMO, considering the fallacies of humanity.

"1 in 4 people will experience some kind of mental health problem in the course of a year."

http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-...th-statistics/

An estimated 1-3% of the population are sociopaths. They have no problem creating elaborate lies, as well as carrying them on and on and on. Their game is to lure as many people as possible into believing their lies. Unfortunately, these people can easily shape history. Normal people believe them because normal people think "why would someone lie about such things? I would never lie about such things!"

And who knows what other mental health problems exist that create the need in people to create elaborate lies, often due to an excessive need for attention. Many people, including Obama, have been caught lying about their Holocaust experience. If you want proof, I'll provide it. Otherwise, the information is out there.

As far as the capability of humans to create such grand lies, look at those who believe they've been abducted by aliens and brought aboard a space ship or to another planet. There are thousands of these people.

Why should the capacity of humans to lie be limited to alien abductions and not other events?

Here is more evidence for the capability for humans to lie, especially when there is a politcal motivation behind it. From an article about concentration camp prisoners in the civil war of America....

"Gillispie contends that the American political climate of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Northerners were constantly “waving the bloody shirt” and Confederate sympathizers were crafting the Lost Cause mythos, led to both sides’ soldiers embellishing and exaggerating their wartime POW experiences, making them sound far worse than they actually were."

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12466

The political motivation for the Holocaust was the creation of Israel, as well as the constant expansion, financial payments (from Germany and support from the USA) and protection. Many Jews all over the world to this day still receive monthly cheques from Germany for reparations. Oddly enough, a Jewish scholar, Norman Finkelstein, wrote a book critiquing Jews for being deceitful about the Holocaust in order to profit from it. There's a "funny" Jewish saying that goes "there's no business like Shoah Business." Shoah is a word for the Holocaust. Many have remarked that this phrase is inappropriate and points to a callousness and lack of empathy for something so sacred to Jews. I couldn't agree more.

Ernst Zundell is a lying, scummy, holcaust denier. Not only that he's crazy:

'When Zündel started Samisdat Publishers in the 1970s, he initially catered to the UFOlogy community, which was then at its peak of public acceptance. His main offerings were his own books claiming that flying saucers were Nazi secret weapons launched from an underground base in Antarctica, from which the Nazis hoped to conquer the world.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel

Here's a link picked at random from a magazine article re proof. It's really not hard to find but I'm getting the distinct impression that you're not really concerned about the truth here

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/amer...skeptic-8.html

You did not address the bombshell that the preeminent Holocaust historian himself, with 40 years of studying the holocaust, admitted that no scientific papers were ever written about the famous gas chambers. That means the accusations were government officials and eye witnesses making assertions - but no scientific data. Imagine that, the infamous gas chambers having no scientific papers written about them. All that evidence yet none of it documented in a scientific, provable manner? That's preposterous.

You did not provide any corroborating evidence to the contrary. Making an assertion that there are files and files and files but not having any evidence is not good enough.

None of my points depended on the integrity of Ernst Zundel. But if you do watch documentary's about the trial, he does bring up many interesting, if not fascinating points.

Calling someone a lying Scummy holocaust denier isn't what I'd call "making a good argument" - it's simply smearing - smearing someone who brought up a lot of good questions. Show me some good counter points, not just smearing.

Smearing is evidence of having no good counterpoints for good arguments.

Why don't you pull something out of your link and provide it as evidence to an argument or point you are making?

I've already learned in school about the holocaust, watched documentaries about it, watched movies about it,etc. Now I am exploring the other side of the story. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. In fact, I'd be so bold as to say that any intelligent human being who seeks the truth should do that.

The reason why western powers didnt declare war on Russia, is because Russia's foreign politics didnt call for attacking of their sovereignty, their beef was strictly with Poland. Hitler's beef was with everyone, he just started with Poland, because they were an easy target and closest.

As far as your holocaust doubting goes, I've been to Terezin, talked to countless survivors, including my grandfather.

Fwiw, the allies bombing of Dresden indeed is one of the most brutal things ever done

Like I mentioned earlier, to this day, people inject their own lies into the story - as evidenced by Obama's blatant lie. Why did he make something like that up? To appease people? To give more validity to the story? I don't know but it reeks of smugness and a lack of respect for people's intellect.

Am I calling your relatives liars or embellishers? Certainly not, but I have watched many accounts of survivors tales. Most often times they describe hellish camp conditions/treatment, but they don't have any direct witness to gas chambers.

Okay, you take Raul Hilberg as a reliable source. Good choice, he is superb.

Hilberg compiled massive evidence of the Holocaust. The fact that no scientist put his name on a paper called "How to Gas Jews with Efficiency" did not convince Hilberg there was no Holocaust. Since he's a good source, you should note that and look at his other evidence. Read one of his books.

Be sure you don't make the error of fixating on one small thing. Balance the aggregate of evidence. Hilberg found mountains of documentation -- is it all invalidated because you expected but didn't find a science article on genocide by gas, or a signed Hitler "gas 'em up" order?

Russia wasn't attacked because they didn't feel threatened by it.

I think I might know why.

You say you're only objectively researching the supposed other side of the holocaust matter but often in you're argument you seem to be quite passionately speaking in defense of the argument against the holocaust. I wonder whether you go about you're argument in this way so as to not come accross as fanatical or if deep down you really want to believe that things were not as we are told they were.
Now i am not as much of an expert about the holocaust as undoubtedly many others on here are but i do know that you are reaching a little far when the main pillars of you're argument rest on 'a lot of people lie' and 'human memory is flimsy and can exaggerate reality'. This is simply too speculative to be seriously considered.
Another note, if you are so suspicious of peoples' truthfulness why do you jump at believing all of the people that are taking the other side (in other words: the people who are saying what you want to hear)? It's possible to find affirmation of anything if you look hard enough and holocaust denial is at the end of the day just another fanatical conspiracy theory like Elvis still being alive and the illuminati ruling the world

Of course, i don't know/may have misunderstood you so i may be wrong about the nature of you're argument but i am not impressed with the arguments you have provided thus far.