I'll ask OP one question. If you doubt the accepted historical account of the Shoah, where did they go? The old excuse was "The Jews went east." Went where east? Why is there no record of an influx of millions of displaced persons entering and settling in some other jurisdiction(s)?

If, as you claim, you're just being analytical and scholarly about it, where's your analysis of the alternative?

Where are the millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, et. al., who were deemed not Aryan enough to remain in the Reich?

That's it. What is your alternative theory and evidence that millions of people were not systematically murdered by the Reich?

The only way you answer that with any validity is to show us the people.

Critical thinking.

Not blindly believing what you are told.

I feel like the Holocaust story is a little, maybe a lot, like the religion story. As you can see in the video that somebody else posted as proof of gas chambers in Auschwitz, we are shown the inside of a building and told that it's a gas chamber. If you have any doubts or critical questions, you are attacked, vilified, and told to shut up.

Using critical thinking, we'd notice that flimsy wooden door with a thin glass window pane, and realize that it would have been broken each and every time that there was a gassing inside of that chamber. (Growing up, my garage's back room had a similar door, and my older brother once punched out one of the window panes to unlock the door so he could steal some of my dads beer. He didn't hurt his hand at all - the window easily broke).

Thus, the Nazi's would have had to repair/replace the window and/or the door each and every time following a gassing. And the door frame would also need repair/replacing from time to time.

Is it plausible that the Nazi's, architectural genius' that they were, to build such a stupid design for something as big and secretive as a gas chamber to exterminate an entire race?

What about the windows? Broken, broken, broken. The gas would seep out and everyone outside would have to run for cover. And stay away for a while. And of course the windows would need replacing after each gassing. Only to be surely broken again. How stupid would that plan be? The Nazi's weren't stupid.

And what if the door wasn't broken? That door doesn't look very airtight. I'm sure gas leaking out would have been a problem.

And what of the personal accounts of the "Sonderkommandos", those Jews who claim that they worked inside of the crematorium, hauling the dead bodies out of the gas chamber and loading them into the cremation ovens? Critical thinking should be applied to their stories as well.

For example, accounts of entering a gas chamber 15 minutes after the gassing began to retrieve the bodies is questionable. Where did the gas go? Did it dissipate that fast? Wouldn't they too have died?

There were no scientific studies done on this.

Now this is supposed to be the part where the intelligent people of this forum say "Those are some interesting points, but here are my counterpoints..."

That rarely happens. Instead, insults are thrown, I am painted as a Nazi, vilified, hated, all with the intention of silencing, and no intelligent discussion takes place. See, Alinsky, Saul, Rules for Radicals. It's the Liberal playbook. He was a "community organizer." If that sounds familiar, it's because that was what Obama was as well.

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

Critical thinking. It's how I poked holes in my religion that was forced upon me, until I no longer saw it as truth. It's how intelligent poker players make intelligent decisions. It's how you poke holes in the Holocaust story.

Seriously, how old are you?

I will go into this more later, but the idea that it's always best consider whatever evidence you can find and make up your own mind independently is severely flawed. Think about why that might be true and why you might discount your own opinion on this issue or any other issue on which you are not an expert.

I didn't say "it's always best consider whatever evidence you can find and make up your own mind independently." Could you point out where I said that?

My guess is you aren't going to deal with any of the facts that I presented, facts such as windows and a wooden door with a window, inside of a supposed gas chamber, that supposedly gassed between 500 and 2500 people at each and every gassing.

Instead of dealing with the facts, you are going to come up with some "clever" liberal intelligentsia tactic for disproving an argument/facts, without having to deal with the facts. Am I right?

Oh dear.

Can you show me data figures of world Jewry population pre and post WWII?

I'm not an expert of the subject so I can't say for certainty what happened.

What I do is shoot holes in the official story to stimulate a discussion.

For example, we are told that the Nazi's gassed Jews and then burned them in single body cremation ovens. We are also told that they buried Jews in mass graves, and then at some point, dug up those graves, and then burned them in mass fire pits, in order to hide the monstrosity of what they had done.

Then we are shown pictures of sick and starving Jews, and pictures of emaciated dead bodies, and told "here's the proof!"

How are starved and sickly people proof of those things? They are much more likely to be proof of horrible camp conditions, as well as deceases of war, such as Typhus.

"During World War II, many German POWs after the loss at Stalingrad died of typhus. Typhus epidemics killed those confined to POW camps, ghettos and inmates in the Nazi Germany concentration camps who were held in unhygienic conditions. Pictures of typhus victims' mass graves can be seen in footage shot at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhus#20th_century\

Those images are also more likely to be the result of Germany losing the war. When food and medical supplies are cut off for extended periods of time, the result is what you see in the pictures. It's well known that in many wars prisoner of war camps conditions deteriorated (into decease and starvation). I pointed this out in a civil war article. They weren't able to care for all the prisoners, as well as the camp being set up poorly to handle a small city worth of folks in the first place, which resulted in death from decease and starvation.

I believe that at least several hundred thousand Jews died in concentration camps from decease and starvation, as well as execution's and beatings, though the latter occurred in much smaller numbers.

I also believe that the Russians executed 22,000 Polish nationals at the start of WWII in the "Katyn massacre." For DECADES, this massacre had been blamed on the Nazi's - but history was proven wrong, and the Russians opened their secret files in 1990 and admitted that they were the ones responsible.

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

How did the "Katyn massacre" get wrongfully blamed on the Nazi's for so long? The Nazi's brought Allied POW's to the site of the massacre, who had attested the the evidence found, and sent this information back to the Americans. The the information was ignored because they needed the propaganda, they needed Stalin, they needed to vilify the Nazi's, thus the evidence was suppressed, denied, and overlooked - for a long time.

You want people to respond to you point-by-point, what you don't realize is that everybody knows you're an idiot who is simply looking for people to agree with him. How do we know this? Because the evidence is all there, and the reason all you keep finding is stuff that supports what you want to be true is because you don't want to see the rest.

The window argument? Do you really think a window with glass of unknown strength, high up and pretty deep, is going to get broken by someone in the physical state that these victims were in, while they are in the process of dying? More than that, you think it is enough to disprove the very idea that gas chambers existed?

#1, why do you assume that the people gassed were in an emaciated state? Is it because you are fooled by the pictures?

The people who were gassed, by most accounts, were straight off the train, which had travelled for a couple of days from their towns. These people were generally fit and healthy, although I will concede that they were probably weak and exhausted by the ordeal. The starvation happened towards the end of the war.

#2, when you are threatened, especially when you believe you are in a life and death situation, adrenaline will instantly bring you strength and energy. You probably won't even feel the pain of breaking the window. Many victims of violence have reported that they didn't even feel the pain of being shot or stabbed; that's how powerful adrenaline is.

#3, the glass is not high up, the men in the video clearly show the approximate height of the windows and the ceiling, as well as the stanchions, which are approximately 3 feet high.

#4, the glass looks to be 8-12 inches deep. That's clearly shorter than an adult's arm.

#5, you are correct, I don't know the strength of the glass of the windows. Good point! But the door is still wooden and looks to be a pretty standard wooden door. Even if the glass was strong, it probably still could easily be forced out without breaking.

#6, you don't know the strength of the glass either. But the hex shaped grills on the outside would suggest that the Nazi's felt the need to protect the glass from the outside, most likely from explosive blasts. Wouldn't want anyone inside of there getting hurt!

#7, the windows and flimsy door are enough to ask some serious questions about the validity of the most famous gas chamber. Why, with all the ingenious Nazi designs of the WWII era, would they make such a flawed building?

#8, and probably the most important point, the Russian's controlled each and every alleged gas chamber camp after the war ended. Stalin and his regime were arguably worse people than Hitler and the Nazi's. They were undeniably evil and untrustworthy (they lied, lol). They and they alone had access to the sites, and they could have easily doctored things. But they weren't even smart enough to do that!

I wouldn't trust the Stalin ruled Russian version of events to even a small degree. Especially considering that Bolshevism/Communism was arguably a Jewish creation and the top ranking officials were well represented by Jewish leaders, and Hitler was an extremely hated enemy to them, so I'd reason that it's highly likely that they would undoubtedly not even blink at smearing the Nazi's post war, making up ridiculous stories, especially because their own crimes/actions/behaviours over the decades since taking power were so horrific, dehumanizing and regularly occurring.

If you've ever been a part of a debate you would know that literally any argument can be made for either side and argued about for hours. There are very few things that can be proven to the point where a debater has to concede a point. The only thing is that at a certain point one side becomes so bad people start laughing at it. Holocaust denial is way past that point.

Another note about debating. There is a tactic called point dumping. You try to throw out as many small points as possible, knowing that the vast majority of them are either irrelevant, lacking in support, or weak, but rely on the quantity being too much and your opponent accidentally dropping some point or you happening to find one point he is ill equipped to answer.

Whether or your motivations are malice, stupidity, or ignorance you're just not interesting to talk to, so this will be my last response here. Everything you want to know is available through google if you don't get bogged down in easy to digest conspiracy theories.

Because I have seen pictures, as well as talking to survivors. There are records of rations the Nazis gave. You would not think it is possible to survive with that few calories. In addition the strongest ones were generally put into forced labor.

Also lol at saying straight off the train like it is only a small discomfort. These people were packed in like cattle, many people lost the will to live through this experience.
This just goes back to point dumping issue. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Say I were to concede that these people had a burst of adrenaline while having lungs pumped full of CO and watching everyone around them withering/dying around them. Does it make it any less likely that the holocaust happened. You are trying to lead to a point that will lead to a point, which is stupid.
These are one point, trying to determine how realistic it is to reach the the glass with enough force. However your 'points' don't actually add much support to convince someone that it was possible. Especially since one of the points is addressing an unknown video. I will add that I have seen people trying to use model/fake rooms in these arguments so make sure you don't just believe anything you see in a youtube vid.

Glad you conceded the window point making the last 4 points you made worthless. Now please never mention the window again.

Your arguments continue to lack proper rigor. You estimate that the glass could probably be forced out. You are unsure if the door is designed well enough to work.

I will use your own argument here. The Nazis had great engineers, they could certainly have made a window/door that were good enough for their purposes.

This may be the worst point in the history of point-making. The fact that I don't know the strength of the glass is irrelevant and a dishonest tactic.
I have no idea what the rest of your point is so I'm not gonna bother responding, but trying to deduce the motivation behind how it was built is a silly venture.
You've already conceded the window, bringing it up again just makes you seem stupid. Furthermore, you are not making a new point here. You are simply summarizing what you have said up to now. Again, point dumping.
Your 'most important' and most idiotic point. All you are saying is that the russians are liars and you won't believe anything they say. This doesn't surprise me since you won't believe anything anyone says if they don't agree with you. You don't make any concrete point here. Further speculation.

Continue talking about the Jewish Bolsheviks and how Jews run Hollywood. Would love to hear your opinions on the Jewish lobby.

Try thinking while posting if your are actually making a meaningful argument or if you are just point dumping hoping that something will stick.

To the above poster. Youre argument is flawed on so many levels.
OP - you will never get through the ego and emotion, you're wasting your time here

Ibavly, although I disagree with your reasoning, I appreciate you actually taking the time to use counter points, although your inclusion of insults is unnecessary and pointless. I'll try to respond later.

One point I'll respond to now.

You took my point and ran with it in a completely irrational direction. My concession was ONLY that I don't know the strength of the glass....that it could be strong glass. I don't know that and neither do you. It's more likely that it's just glass, average glass, and not bullet proof glass.

My concession does not mean that it indeed is reinforced glass. Only a fool would presume that. It's simply an unknown.

No one should argue with you point by point. It's utterly ridiculous to believe such things. It's like the moon landing. 100,000 people worked on it, but w/e someone came up with 14 things that look odd. In this case, for most people anyway, it's worse, because it's not fueled by crazy, it's fueled by hatred. In this case, millions of people lost family members and hundreds of thousands of people witnessed it. Arguing about the strength of a piece of glass is insane.

I'm thinking you are quite young. Hopefully you are. I expect at some point in the future you will be ashamed that you thought this way when you were young.

A number of buildings which were used for a time as gas chambers were converted to other uses later on during the war. There is at least one example of such a buliding having been partially converted back for demonstration/memorial purposes by the Russians (or maybe the Poles), but the reconversion is incomplete and leaves some elements which were not there when the building was used as a gas chamber and which would have rendered the building ineffective for that purpose.

Eyewitness accounts consistently describe a type of gasketed door used on gas chambers. Anything that does not have such a door is obviously not in condition to be used successfully as a gas chamber. Technical drawings and specifictions for such doors for use in gas chambers have also been found. Either the building was never a gas chamber, or the door has been replaced since it was last used as a gas chamber.

Unless one can show that the buildings with the flimsy wood door were never modified after allegedly having been being used as gas chambers, the argument proves nothing. If the bulding in question is the partial reconstruction (at Auschwitz?) then it definitely proves nothing since the building is an attempted reconstruction but inaccurate.

In another case, a room which was used for delousing clothing (also using the same gas plus a safety odorant, but in much higher concentrations for longer lengths of time) was confused by some as a gas chamber for killing people. Not surprisingly, this room had higher levels of chemical residue from the gas on the walls or ceiling than the execution rooms. I doubt lice would be strong enough to break the wondow.

The wooden door and glass window arguments are common denier myths that have been thoroughly debunked. Anybody who comes across them for the first time and truly wants to find out the truth about them can easily find these refutations. People who don't know how to evaluate historical records and scientific research might continue to be fooled by the deniers. People who don't want to know the truth won't bother to check for refutations.

The problem here appears to be that user okayokayit'snotok is not very good at selecting reputable sources for facts or arguments. Either that or he's ugly and lives under a wooden bridge.

I have heard the building conversion stories. I've also heard that a building was built after the war and that they claimed it was the original gas chamber. But after being exposed, their excuse was "ok, it's not the original, but it was rebuilt using the exact same parts as the original that were found around the camp, we swear!"

It's pretty tough to find good reliable sources, since everyone who brings up a contradictory point about the Holocaust is either legally prosecuted and either goes to jail or is financially destroyed and ruined, is physically attacked, has death threats levied against them, is fired from their job, has their home or business vandalized (or firebombed), their business boycotted, becomes a social pariah, is shunned, has people screaming death and hate at them, and their lives ruined.

Oh, and the mainstream media either completely vilifies or ignores these sources.

How can we have an honest debate with this kind of oppressive environment?

This is the real oppressive and sick behaviour. Where is freedom of speech? Why is this historical event so censored to analysis and discussion?

Why? Because like most things that are closed for debate, it won't stand up to scrutiny if closely examined and questioned.

Atheists once had a terrible time trying to scrutinize religion. Today, it's much more accepted. Hopefully one day we'll be able to say the same about the religion of the Holocaust.

And btw, if you don't know who converted the buildings back to their original purpose for demonstration purposes - WHO? - the Russians or the Poles? - "one of them did, I don't know", then you really don't know your stuff.

P.S. If you believe the sociopathic and murderous regime of Stalin really told the truth, then there really is no point in discussing things with you.

P.P.S. There have been documents from WWII implicating the Nazi's for atrocities that were proven to be falsified to look like authentic Nazi orders. Believe it or not, after the war ended, the Allies made fake documents in clear attempts to make the Nazi's look worse than they actually were! Wow, stuff like that went on in this world of ours? I'm sure that kind of stuff no longer happens though!!!

"But I've talked to survivors!" (So the fool valiantly exclaims).

Holocaust historians rely heavily on so-called "survivor testimony" to support the extermination story. But such "evidence" is notoriously unreliable. As one Jewish historian has pointed out, "most of the memoirs and reports [of "Holocaust survivors"] are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies." (Samuel Gringauz in "Jewish Social Studies" (New York), January 1950, Vol. 12, p. 65)

LoLz

Well, you've convinced me.


But, keep believing the BS you post if you will. In the long run, holding that belief means simply that you will die in ignorance.

So you're convinced?

That's iiiilariuis!

Do you want to know who the new anti-semites are? Jews. Yep, sad but true, that's the new definition. Kinda funny though.

Woooooott??? Explains immediatetlee!

Ok, here goes. Jews, prominent Jews, some of whom were in concentration camps, some of whom have had relatives in camps, are speaking out about Jewish lies and deceit....and are being called "anti-semites" by high ranking Zionist Jews!!!!

Thats illlarrreeeuuus!

Of course, they are immediately labeled as unreputable sources and dismissed by the media and anyone who gets on a media show.

And that's why, DOTHEMATH, there are no "reputable" sources that question the Holocaust.

That's ill-laaaaare-eee-us!

DTM: "Ralph Nader came to public attention when he wrote the book Unsafe at Any Speed, which detailed safety problems with North American cars, especially the Corvair, which was made by either Chevy or Chrysler.
OOINO: You don't know who made the Corvair, so obviously Ralph Nader does not exist.

No, I am not an expert on the holocaust. I've just read enough about the spurious arguments the deniers put forward to know some of the answers, without remembering all the details. Whether it was the Poles or the Russians who did the reconstruction doesn't change the fact that the reconstruction was not an accurate rendering of the building as it was when it was used for exterminations. Nor does my failure to remember who did the reconstructions change the fact that an argument that "there were no exterminations because this (inaccurately reconstructed) building would not have been effective as a gas chamber" is spurious.

I believe that "the sociopathic and murderous regime of Stalin" is a more reliable source of information about Nazi atrocities that you are. But I don't have to rely on the Soviet sources, because there are plenty of Polish, German, British and American sources that provide the same information. Much of what we know about Auschwitz comes from independently interrogated Germans sources in British custody corroborated by survivors of the camp.

What?!? People lied?!? I guess that means we can't believe anything about any subject then, right?

Actually, I know that concentration camps were a British invention dating from the Boer war. So obviously we can't trust anything about the holocaust that comes to us through British sources. And George Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, so obviously we can't trust anything about the holocaust that comes from American sources. The Poles cannot be trusted - the camps were in Poland. And the Germans who worked at the camps, including one of the camp commanders - their confessions can't be trusted because they were just trying to save their skins. And there is documented proof that some of the Jews who survived the camps lied about certain aspects of what the Germans did, possibly to make them look even worse, so we can't trust the survivors' accounts either. I guess that since some of the evidence is unreliable and other evidence differs in some details, we'll just have to ignore the huge mountain of generally consistent cross-corroborating evidence.

Solipsism is the only reliable world view. Dubito ergo sum FTW.

Professor Michel de Boüard

In 1986, Michel de Boüard, former inmate at Mauthausen, honorary dean of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Caen, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War, member of the Institut de France, said:

In the monograph on Mauthausen that I published in Revue d’Histoire de la [Deuxième] Guerre mondiale in 1954, I mentioned a gas chamber on two occasions. When the time of reflection had arrived, I said to myself: where did you arrive at the conviction that there was a gas chamber in Mauthausen? This cannot have been during my stay in this camp, for neither myself nor anybody else ever suspected that there was one there. This must therefore be a piece of ‘baggage’ that I picked up after the war; this was [an] admitted [fact] but I noticed that in my text - although I have the habit of supporting most of my affirmations by references-there was none referring to the gas chamber . . . (Ouest-France, August 2-3, 1986, p. 6).


In response to The Journalist's question:

You were president of the Calvados (Normandy) Association of Deportees, and you resigned in May, 1985, why?

he said:

I found myself torn between my conscience as a historian and the duties it implies, and on the other hand, my membership in a group of comrades whom I deeply love, but who refuse to recognize the necessity of dealing with the deportation [ 1] as a historical fact in accordance with sound historical methods. I am haunted by the thought that in 100 years or even 50 years the historians will question themselves on the particular aspect of the Second World War which is the concentration camp system and what they will find out. The record is rotten to the core. On one hand a considerable amount of fantasies, inaccuracies, obstinately repeated (in particular concerning numbers), heterogeneous mixtures, generalizations and, on the other hand, very close critical studies that demonstrate the inanity of those exaggerations. I fear that those future historians might then say that the deportation, when all is said and done, must have been a myth. There lies the danger. That haunts me. (Ibid).

Those there are words of a very distinguished, reputable and intelligent man. If a man such as that could admit such things, then eyewitness accounts by much lesser individuals must be conceded to be unreliable as well.

Those words should be in a Holocaust museum.

Or in textbooks for kids to read, not some fiction by a guy named Elie weasel.

But alas, you argue that I ignore this and that, but the Holocaust industry, the media, the schools, they ignore the counter evidence, such as the above. It's suppressed. So the only way to find it is to do your own digging, while the rest is mass-force-fed down kids throats. Disgusting. I've seen the video's of the most ridiculous Holocaust liars preaching to school children. No wonder people are so ****ing stupid today.

Tell me again that you believe Stalin's version of events. When you find out somebody is a sociopathic liar, you should cease to believe anything they have to say. Well, unless you want to belive it because it fits your world view.

I looked up a partial quote to see what websites you might have pulled your above research from. The above is a cut and paste from this, correct?

Post 8877061.

And if not that website, which of these was it? Given that you left the source formatting intact there are only a handful of possibilities returned. The Journal of Historical Review, maybe? There's this one, with "we trash and hate the Jew" up top ("jew" replaced by a slur that's filtered on twoplustwo).

Looks like you're really making an effort to pull up credible, unbiased sources.

So what's your ****ing point genius? I already said that no mainstream sites are going to publish these things. Everyone knows that's true. Everyone knows they ignore these facts. They don't cover these types of things when they are revealed. And any site that does is labelled as "anti-Semitic" or "unreputable". And no, I did not get that quote from stormfront. But you know it's true, but your only defense is "look where he got it from!!!"

Here's a cute little quote for you;

"Much of the literature on Hitler's final solution is worthless as scholarship, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud.

Given the nonsense that is turned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics."

Dr. Norman Finkelstein

Oh wait, I forgot, he's been branded as "unreputable" because he dares speak out about the sheer ridiculousness of the Holocaust industry.

Oh, and he's an "anti-semitic" Jew! Love that one. Or "must be a self-hating Jew!"

Come back when you have something intelligent or noteworthy to add to the discussion.

My point is that you're cutting and pasting direct from hate sites and aren't smart enough to do objective research on your own.

How's that, clear enough? Or should I make a YouTube video to help you out?

But you know I'm telling the truth and that's....

illllaaarius!