Evidence for the Holocaust?

Yad Vashem lists 4.2 million names and back stories along with testimony and primary sources when available.

Yes because they were not recorded as having entered the extermination camps they were supposedly "deported" to and no death certificates were provided, perhaps they were kidnapped by space aliens.

You have no valid rebuttals, it's laughable at this point.

 

You simply repeat this without demonstrating it, then call me laughable. What chutzpah!

 

yeah but due to your obsessive and violent hatred of the Jews, nobody would trust you.

 

Only an idiot would think that the Yad Vashem list of victims could be 99.97% fabricated out of whole cloth.

Even holocaust deniers usually admit to a few million jews dying of starvation and allied bombing.

Mod Edit ~ Rule 2/Personal Insult

 

Really? then this kind of report has been consistently fabricated thoughout the Reich. It is a report from Feldkommandostelle 116. You are obviously unfamiliar with bureaucratic reporting structures.

Interesting.
So a pamphlet written in 1937 by an American socialist and anti-stalinist denouncing Stalin's mock trials from afar is your evidence for why the holocaust didn't happen.

Yes such "evidence" is certainly an insult to the dignity of all intelligent human beings.

 

On the contrary I would suspect only an idiot wouldn't at least suspect it wasn't. You have done little to demonstrate otherwise.

I would put it at well under a million.

Mod Edit ~ Reply to deleted post.

 

Where did I make this claim?

 

Hee hee.

Do you have trouble reading?
I gave you the link so you could examine the procedures that Yad VAshem uses in compiling its database. Seems you got nothing but denial just like every other run of the mill denialist.

You will no doubt be amused to learn I got an infraction for "insulting" you.

Sometimes I forget that that around here, truth is not a defence even if its an accurate description.

Of course you do. I'm sure that the evidence used to arrive at such a conclusion is completely compelling to you. Unfortunately it appears completely non-existent to the rest of us.



I guess you don't find it quite as hilarious as I do that denialists don't appear capable of coming up with any new tactics to express their jew hatred and nazi apologism.

This guide for revisionists is almost two decades old.

#http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax. The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

 

don't you read your own links?

Your concluding sentence from the original post:

Now I realize it might be hard to follow the logic but:
1. you claim a 1937 pamphlet written by a prominent american socialist and anti-stalinist about Stalins mock trials accuses one of the prosecutors as being criminally fraudulent.
2. you then claim that anything this prosecutor did from that period onward should be viewed as fraudulent

therefore:

You utilize a blatant fallacy in attempting to infer that the entire Soviet prosecution of the nuremberg trails was fraudulent.

quick look up.

 

tl;dr. But from what I read you were well sourced, and the links that I looked at weren't bs, so I like a well substantiated post.

However, I do think the number is inflated. Going based on Nazi records just on who they actively killed (exluding deaths by disease etc., because that would mean the Nazis killed Germans in Berlin), the number does seem to be inflated. The problem is that most estimates take how many Jews there were in Europe before the war and after the war, and figure the difference is how many the Germans killed. :/ I think it's pretty easy to see a flaw in that, but challenging that doesn't indicate that the Nazis didn't commit genocide by the millions, it's a dispute over whether it's 6million, 8million, or 4 million (or some number around those). The 8million figure has been challenged before and dismissed (at least by historians), but somehow challenging the 6million figure is innately racist.

All in all, you made a good post.

 

6 million isn't a precise figure. Its meant to be a seen as a general average number.

It may be as low as 5.1 million as per Hillberg.

 

That sound more right. I'm not going to pretend like I know the number, or that I really have a precise range, but I have looked at the reasoning behind claims of 6million+ and they seem to be extremely weak, but are defended to the teeth - meaning, if you question it you're an anti-semite. :/

 

no, saying that 5.1 million Jews died in the Holocaust doesn't make you an anti-Semite.

now, if you say only 200,000 died? that's a different story.

 

Well I wouldn't even say that saying only 200,000 died makes you an anti-semite, it makes you ignorant, naturally or willfully.

One interesting thing I have found though is that the majority of those who died during the Holocaust weren't "actively" killed. That means that they weren't shot or put in gas chambers, but died of disease or starvation, mostly near the end of the war. It could be argued that this was systematic, but the Germans themselves were facing supply shortages and continually created more and more strict rationing measures during the war. I don't mean this in a cold manner, but it's hardly surprising that as the doors closed in on Germany, the work camps had the worst cuts. It happened in Japanese-run camps, too. I think the book I read was Nantung Compound.

An interesting story, if you don't mind the short diversion. Westerners in the Japanese controlled territories at the start of the war were put into camps, and given food, but as the war went on the Japanese were running shorter on supplies, and supplies given to those interned grew smaller and smaller. Only about 5% of those there were American, and eventually an American parcel came in for the Americans held there. There was an interesting confrontation as all were in short supply, and then the 5% Americans got far more than they needed and, initially, wanted to keep it for themselves (understandable - going without for extended periods of time usually creates 'hoarder' mentalities).

 

Most Jews killed during the Holocaust were killed inside Poland and the western USSR.

800,000 Jews were shipped to Treblinka. Maybe a few hundred were found alive when the camp was liberated.

Poland had more than 3 million Jews in 1939 and maybe 300,000 when the war was over.

There is no logical & intelligent doubt that many millions of Jews were deliberately gassed, shot, and starved to death by the Nazis and their helpers.

Literally everyone who thinks only a few hundred thousand Jews died during WW2, is an anti-Semite and obsessive Jew hater, or thinks Germany was right to persecute the Jews and deport them to "The East".

 

Many actually fled, but the issue i raised is simply that first, there's a difference between 'died' in the Holocaust and 'killed' in the Holocaust. It's certain that around the 5.1m (give or take - I don't care a great deal for specificity because we're dealing with unknowns) died, I don't doubt that. That 5.1m were shot or gassed? Yeah, I wouldn't buy that.

Like I said, it can be argued that those who died of disease and starvation did so by Nazi intent, and there are cases where it is clearly so.

Not literally everyone, but literally everyone in that category would be naturally ignorant (they just don't know one way or another, or find it so shocking they can't believe it), or willfully ignorant (head in the sand type of guy).

 

Why can't you buy that millions of Jews were gassed or shot to death? The Nazis were too kind and too humane for such an act?

Do you accept that 750,000 civilians were killed with machetes and guns within 100 days in Rwanda?

 

straw man?

The Nazis were hardly kind and humane, they were methodical. If they just wanted to massacre 5.1m Jews, why do you think they kept most of them alive in work camps for years? Because they needed to have a formal debate between the pro-gas and pro-bullet crowds? No, they used them for forced labor and so wanted to keep them alive.

But would you seriously suggest that every person in Nazi-held territory who died of disease or starvation was intentionally killed by the Nazis? That'd be silly.

 

Every person kept in a concentration camp and died of starvation, is a victim of murder. they committed no crime.

there was no legal reason for them to be in that camp, other than evil hatred and bigotry.

you agree with this, right?

and where do you get your evidence that most of the Jews deported to camps werre kept alive for labor?

you are also aware that the decision to commit mass genocide was made in 1941, right?

 

On 200 calories a day........ya think?

 

if you hold a person prisoner for the crime of being a Jew, and they die of starvation under your "care", they are a victim of murder.

 

I don't care to get in a heated argument - I was commenting casually. In a previous serious discussion, I had found evidence that the majority of those who died in the Holocaust (according to meticulous German records) died of disease or starvation. There was no good or just legal reason to put them in camps [this is different from "there was no legal reason for them to be in that camp"], but that doesn't mean that anyone who died there was murdered. Murder requires active intent. If Joe thinks, "dang, I'd really like to see Sally die," and Joe accidentally runs over Sally on the way to work (this is assuming omniscience on the viewer), then Joe did not murder Sally, despite his desire to see her dead.

 

so you're saying that if 5 million Jews starved to death in nazi concentration camps, none of them were murdered?

that's disgusting.

and NO, there was NO legal reason to put these people in the camps. they had committed no crime.

unless of course you're going to take the Nazi Apologist point of view that according to Nazi Law, they actually had committed a crime of being Jewish, therefore their internment was legal.

 

If all the Germans were getting their 2000 calories a day, you'd have a point, and I'd have already made it, but the simple fact is that they weren't. That was my point.

- - - Updated - - -

your insistence on straw men and, really, personal attacks is just puerile and not worth my time. It's abundantly clear that that is not what I said.

 

when the Americans liberated the camps, they forced the local Germans to see what had gone on.

these Germans looked in good health and shape. the Jews? Not so much.

this was a crime of murder.