Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "Holocaust", capital "H", was the systemic; disenfranchisement, oppression, persecution, incarceration, enslavement and murder of 11+ million people undertaken by the National Socialist regime in Germany between 1933 and 1945. Those targeted were deemed as "undesirables" by Nazi racial/political ideology and included but was not limited to; Jews, the mentally and physically disabled, homosexuals, some Slavs primarily Poles and Russians, Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses and those with competing political ideologies such as communists and socialists.
Is that enough of a definition or would you like me to expound on the methods used in the definition?
At least you made an attempt. That puts you at the head of the class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Fear was never a problem. A definition has been given and I certainly have the strength and courage to engage in this debate, do you?
But, of course!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
No, we should not frame those who have different beliefs as being "lunatics" no matter how abhorrent those beliefs are to the majority. However, I have yet to meet a person who denies that the events of the Holocaust happened or that the scale was different or that the methods were different; that does not have a very clear agenda that is driving them to engage in the denial. Whether that agenda is a hatred of Jews or a love of Nazi ideology is immaterial, at the end of the day they are not coming from a pure academic inquiry, but are attempting to rehabilitate an ideology.
Unfortunately, there is no doubt that there are people as you described. However, not every person who has questions unanswered about the Holocaust is a Jew hater or a NAZI lover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Whose obfuscating? The evidence is overwhelming. That the Holocaust happened is a matter of fact, period. To deny that it occurred is to tread into the realm of conspiracy theory, akin to claiming that we never landed on the moon.
I would suggest that, um, "Deniers" (snicker) come in different flavors.
You see, that's the whole point of defining the Holocaust.
Let's go back to your definition....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The "Holocaust", capital "H", was the systemic; disenfranchisement, oppression, persecution, incarceration, enslavement....
Did not the US systematically disenfranchise, oppress, persecute, incarcerate and enslave Americans of Japanese Ancestry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Perhaps then there is your answer on why the laws that are the central point of the OP exist. The "Children of WW2" that lived these events, that witnessed them with their own eyes, that suffered unspeakable cruelty, that liberated the camps, that buried the dead and cared for those that were "walking dead"; know that as time passes and they no longer have a voice to remind people of these events that there will be those who will claim it never happened. If your "open-season" can only happen in the absence of the eye witnesses then what does that tell you?
It tells me the "eye-witnesses" had more power and influence than they should have had.
It also tells me that irrational people act irrationally, and once the irrational people are out of the way, rational heads will prevail, and perhaps we can have an open honest investigation and discussion on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
People of our ilk have no need to define or detail anything. It is people of your ilk that wish to obfuscate, deny and twist the truth. To what end though? What do you gain by attempting to re-write the history of the Holocaust?
Who said I'm attempting to re-write history?
You don't even have any idea what I would wish to research if given the opportunity to conduct unfettered research without being harassed by people like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Nothing makes ones point better then pulling in completely unrelated events and ranting about them. Is this the best you can offer to support your position?
And what exactly is my position?
You don't even know what my position is.
That's the whole point of this thread......anyone who raises any question or issue is automatically labeled a Jew-hating-NAZI-loving-lunatic-Holocaust-denier.
And how bizarre is that?
The purpose of doing research is to gather facts from which to draw a conclusion, except one cannot do that with respect to the Holocaust, unless one first has already come to a conclusion, and more importantly, the conclusion demanded by others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Some Native Americans committed genocide against other Native Americans?
Well, a lot, actually.
At least 6 tribal groups from all parts of North America are known to have been eradicated from the face of the Earth in genocidal massacres.....and all of them took place before colonization by Europeans.
The genocide of one of the six tribes was discovered archaeologically/anthropologically. The remaining 5 are based on admissions by the tribes responsible.
It does not include the Hopewell People. Nor does it include the Adena People, for whom there is strong evidence to suggest they met the same fate as the Hopewell People. Based on tribal histories collected, it is believed that as many as a dozen other tribes were eliminated by genocide prior to the arrival of European colonists, but no physical evidence has been found as yet.
I mentioned that for two reasons.
Genocide happens. It's what people do. If you want to figure out the rhyme or reason, knock yourself out.
The other reason is because it relates directly to this thread.
"Native Americans" (snicker) never said squat about their "Ancestral Sacred Ceremonial Religious Burial Grounds"......
....until the genocide of the Hopewell People surfaced.
The Liberals started this NAZI-style propaganda campaign about "Native Americans" (snicker) at about the same time the people were looking into the Hopewell and Adena Peoples, and then suddenly...."Native Americans" (snicker) start screaming like a raped ape over their burial grounds.
A lot of people, myself include, believe this to be nothing more than a ruse....and excuse to keep archaeologists and anthropologists from learning The Truth....whatever it might.
And this played out during the Kennewick Man debacle. "Native Americans" (snicker) fought in court to prevent any forensic investigation. They lost. As it turns out, Kennewick Man is a European, which then begs the question what the hell was a European guy doing roaming around North America -- in particular Washington State -- 13,000 years ago?
You Holocaust Fanatics aren't much different than the "Native Americans" (snicker).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The US government has done unseemly things in the course of supporting it's own interest? Thank you for enlightening us all.
Are you suggesting there's a moral difference between the US government and the NAZIs?
Conducting medical experiments on people without their knowledge or consent, and without any compensation is just plain wrong. The Jews and others may not have given their consent, and they certainly were not compensated, but at least they had knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Yes, because we all know that every Kennedy that ever lived is certainly worthy of contempt.
They earned it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
In terms of what your "grudge" means, it means that you are incapable of rationally and objectively discussing anything about the Kennedy's. Hence, someone who has a "grudge against Jews" is incapable of being objective and rational about anything related to Jews...in addition to being a bigot.
That isn't true at all.
I am quite capable of rationally and objectively discussing anything about the Kennedy's.
From November 1960 through the inauguration, Kennedy and Eisenhower met four times to discuss sensitive issues pertaining to national security policy and foreign policy. Eisenhower stated repeatedly that Kennedy should not proceed with the deployment of the Jupiter missiles until the situation in Cuba had been resolved.
From February 1961 to September 1961, Eisenhower called Kennedy, and sent him letters, begging and pleading that Kennedy not continue with the Jupiter missile deployments. You can drive out to Abilene, Kansas to the Eisenhower Library and read copies of the letters as well as Ike's notes.
What conclusion what a rational person draw? Kennedy erred. There is no other possible conclusion to reach.
What other conclusions would a rational person draw? Kennedy was incompetent. There is no other possible conclusion to draw.
A competent president would have foreseen that that the Soviets would view the deployment of Jupiter missiles to Turkey and Italy as the hostile aggressive act that it was. In turn, the Soviets would do an about face on their policy toward Cuba, and instead of continuing to disrespect Castro, they would have embraced Castro for the purposes of obtaining permission to deploy IRBMs in Cuba to counter the threat of the Jupiter IRBMs.
8-year olds were smarter than Kennedy, because they could figure it out.
What about George Bush's ships, the Barbara and Houston?
Kennedy doesn't know that ships are vulnerable to aerial attack? Really?
Kennedy wrote that his PT-Boat group was attacked by a Betty bomber (or maybe a Kate bomber), and they suffered damage and casualties before they could beat off the attack.
Kennedy couldn't figure out that George Bush's ships would have been vulnerable to air attack by the Cuban air force during the Bay of Pigs?
How stupid is Kennedy?
If I would like Kennedy, how does that change the facts?
I suppose I could say that Kennedy was too worried about having sex with Marilyn Monroe, or some prostitute, like a Soviet spy posing as a prostitute to be concerned with such mundane and trivial matters as air defense for ships.
Read any of the declassified documents in the last 10 years?
The highest ranking US spy ever was a member of the Soviet General Staff. At a meeting with Khrushchev, the generals told Khrushchev that they were not ready to go to war, and even if they were, they had no intention of going to war over Cuba.
A summary of that meeting was sent from US Embassy Moscow to Kennedy within 72 hours, and yet, knowing that the Soviets had no intention of escalating the situation or going to war, Kennedy threatened the whole world with nuclear annihilation...
...and all because he made a mistake.
My having a grudge doesn't alter the facts, and only an apologist would be willing to over-look such fatal flaws, flaws that could have led to war and deaths of thousands of Americans, and all because the man had an ego that couldn't be crushed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
What it does alter is your willingness to believe any bad things you hear about the Kennedys.
Then, please, by all means, gives your justification for Kennedy abandoning his wife and children on the evening of his inaugural ball to go to party at Peter Lawford's home, suck face with Angie Dickinson, and have sex with two prostitutes at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
It alters the standards of evidence you might demand for embracing information which places the Kennedy family in a poor light.
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Things which others view as "accusations" or "rumors" get converted into "facts" in your mind.
Peter Lawford confirmed it. So did Angie Dickinson. And the two prostitutes. And the dozens of others at Lawford's home, including many celebrities. Jackie confirmed it. Several Kennedy aides have confirmed it. Kennedy's own press secretary, Bill Moyers confirmed it.
With respect to the Bay of Pigs, US government documents confirm Kennedy acted stupidly.
With respect to the Cuban Missile Crisis, US government documents prove Kennedy knowingly caused the crisis, and then lied about it.
With respect to the Berlin Crisis, US government documents prove nonchalant ambivalence and failure to exercise leadership caused it.
With respect to the murder of President Ngo Diem, and his dim-witted side-kick half-brother, US government documents prove Kennedy gave the okay.
With respect to the British Politician Sex Scandal, where Kennedy and British Members of Parliament and other high-ranking office holders were having sex with prostitutes who were actually Soviet Spies, you have the newspaper article, two Pulitzer Prize winning editors, the statements of both the Soviet spies/prostitutes, MPs and then of course, the fact that the British government's investigation into the matter is still classified, most peculiarly those parts related the high-ranking US government official involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Consider...suppose I was charged with forming a panel to investigate an accusation against a Kennedy family member. In the course of interviewing you, I learn of your grudge against them. Wouldn't that be reason enough to reject you in favor of someone who has no such pre existing animosity?
So, you're only going to interview people who love Kennedy? Brilliant. I think we've had enough of that to last an eternity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Wouldn't I be pretty irresponsible to overlook your confessed prejudice and give you a spot on the panel? Wouldn't I be right to be concerned about the public credibility of my panel? Would not your presence on that panel dilute that credibility in the eyes of the public?
No, it would be irresponsible only if you withheld from the general public that I had a grudge.
Then, please, by all means, gives your justification for Kennedy abandoning his wife and children on the evening of his inaugural ball to go to party at Peter Lawford's home, suck face with Angie Dickinson, and have sex with two prostitutes at the same time.
Wow, you missed the point by a huge margin. I have no interest in defending or condemning any Kennedys here. My point was that a predisposition against someone renders any reporting on that object of hatred to be suspect. That you despise the Kennedys is manifest with your posts here. Therefore, you are not the best qualified person to make unbiased judgements of any future Kennedy family actions.
Seldom have I ever seen a poster so relentlessly prove the exact opposite of what he or she was attempting to argue.
The Holocaust as I know it, is a 21st Century term to mean the systematic categorizing, roundup, deportation, and murder of 5.8 million to 6.2 million Jews, Roma, homosexuals, (although the vast majority were jews). This was done through individual killings, mass killings, starvation, disease, and lack of medical attention (amongst other things). Death camps were made where carbon monoxide poisoning and later, Zyklon B gas, was used in mass killings. The bodies were burned in large open pits and in specific crematoria. It was done to advance the Nazi, read German, advancement of a "superior race."
Now, you slammed Mark about Rudolph Hess. I do not believe he meant "Hess" in his writing. In his earlier statement, he was referring to "Rudolf Hoss." Who was commander of Auschwitz from May 1940 until November of 1943. He had a minor spelling error, and a Holocaust Denier/Revisionist, just love to take one minor error and jump all over it. Instead of using common sense and intelligence to look at the facts.
Hoss's OWN admission is he visited Treblinka and IMPROVED upon its killing methods in Auschwitz. He was able to kill 2,000 persons at a time:
Höss explained how 10,000 people were exterminated in one 24-hour period:
"Technically [it] wasn't so hard—it would not have been hard to exterminate even greater numbers.... The killing itself took the least time. You could dispose of 2,000 head in half an hour, but it was the burning that took all the time. The killing was easy; you didn't even need guards to drive them into the chambers; they just went in expecting to take showers and, instead of water, we turned on poison gas. The whole thing went very quickly."
Again, this is Hoss's OWN words in a confessions and dairies he wrote. I have NO CLUE what it is you are getting at. If you truly believe this did not occur, you are living in fantasyland.
Anybody that even dares to ask questions on this subject is scorned and ridiculed. I've always been curious about the seemingly magic "6,000,000" number since that number was used for decades before WWII.
If he were in a university in Germany or Austria NOW? Could he do? And what would the responses be to that? Just curious.
Researching a fact to determine if it is a fact isn't research.
Research to determine the extent or the activities surrounding or comprising the events would be valid and probably acceptable if presented that way. Researching to determine if it actually happened just invites ridicule and in some locations around the world, rightfully so.
There are many questions about the number and scope of the Holocaust, but regardless of those questions, there was one. There in rests the issue with research.
At least you made an attempt. That puts you at the head of the class.
Attempt? How about you define it for us.
Quote:
But, of course!
Strength and courage to debate requires one to actually engage in a debate on the topic, not obfuscate, create strawmen and semantical arguments and type pages that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Quote:
Unfortunately, there is no doubt that there are people as you described. However, not every person who has questions unanswered about the Holocaust is a Jew hater or a NAZI lover.
...and those people are free to engage in research and have their questions answered.
Quote:
I would suggest that, um, "Deniers" (snicker) come in different flavors.
You see, that's the whole point of defining the Holocaust.
Let's go back to your definition....
Did not the US systematically disenfranchise, oppress, persecute, incarcerate and enslave Americans of Japanese Ancestry?
So, are we debating the semantics of applying the word holocaust and having the lower case "h" bascially be consumed by the upper case "H" meaning in general terms; or are we debating the existence of an event which has become known as the Holocaust actually happened?
As for the internment of Japanese Americans, yes the US did everything you listed. However, that was not by definition a holocaust. A holocaust requires destruction of the targeted people in order to be called a holocaust.
You are not going to earn debate points with me if your intent is to simply argue that there are other holocausts besides the Holocaust.
Quote:
It tells me the "eye-witnesses" had more power and influence than they should have had.
It also tells me that irrational people act irrationally, and once the irrational people are out of the way, rational heads will prevail, and perhaps we can have an open honest investigation and discussion on the subject.
Ah, so the people who lived it are irrational and have too much influence over the debate? Why is that? Why do the people who lived the event and either personally or generally experienced it have no role in defining it?
As for rational heads, plenty of rational unconnected people have studied the Holocaust. They generally arrive at the same conclusions. Again, no one is denied having an "open honest investigation and discussion".
Quote:
Who said I'm attempting to re-write history?
You don't even have any idea what I would wish to research if given the opportunity to conduct unfettered research without being harassed by people like you.
And what exactly is my position?
You don't even know what my position is.
That's the whole point of this thread......anyone who raises any question or issue is automatically labeled a Jew-hating-NAZI-loving-lunatic-Holocaust-denier.
And how bizarre is that?
The purpose of doing research is to gather facts from which to draw a conclusion, except one cannot do that with respect to the Holocaust, unless one first has already come to a conclusion, and more importantly, the conclusion demanded by others.
I get the impression that you don't even know what your position is.
Quote:
Well, a lot, actually.
At least 6 tribal groups from all parts of North America are known to have been eradicated from the face of the Earth in genocidal massacres.....and all of them took place before colonization by Europeans.
The genocide of one of the six tribes was discovered archaeologically/anthropologically. The remaining 5 are based on admissions by the tribes responsible.
It does not include the Hopewell People. Nor does it include the Adena People, for whom there is strong evidence to suggest they met the same fate as the Hopewell People. Based on tribal histories collected, it is believed that as many as a dozen other tribes were eliminated by genocide prior to the arrival of European colonists, but no physical evidence has been found as yet.
I mentioned that for two reasons.
Genocide happens. It's what people do. If you want to figure out the rhyme or reason, knock yourself out.
The other reason is because it relates directly to this thread.
"Native Americans" (snicker) never said squat about their "Ancestral Sacred Ceremonial Religious Burial Grounds"......
....until the genocide of the Hopewell People surfaced.
The Liberals started this NAZI-style propaganda campaign about "Native Americans" (snicker) at about the same time the people were looking into the Hopewell and Adena Peoples, and then suddenly...."Native Americans" (snicker) start screaming like a raped ape over their burial grounds.
A lot of people, myself include, believe this to be nothing more than a ruse....and excuse to keep archaeologists and anthropologists from learning The Truth....whatever it might.
And this played out during the Kennewick Man debacle. "Native Americans" (snicker) fought in court to prevent any forensic investigation. They lost. As it turns out, Kennewick Man is a European, which then begs the question what the hell was a European guy doing roaming around North America -- in particular Washington State -- 13,000 years ago?
You Holocaust Fanatics aren't much different than the "Native Americans" (snicker).
Who said that only Europeans commit genocide or holocausts? I fail to see the parallels between the point of this thread and your rant about Native Americans (no snicker). As for Kennewick Man, the latest tests said that he was of Poynesian ancestory and dated to between 7600 and 7300 BCE. He's not related to the current Native Americans that inhabit the area and he is not European. As for why the Native Americans made the stink over it, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they were no longer entirely disenfranchised when this issue arose and since the Civil Rights era have been working to reclaim and defend their heritage.
Quote:
Are you suggesting there's a moral difference between the US government and the NAZIs?
Conducting medical experiments on people without their knowledge or consent, and without any compensation is just plain wrong. The Jews and others may not have given their consent, and they certainly were not compensated, but at least they had knowledge.
No, not at all. At least in terms of acting in their own interests. You're not earning points against me by pointing out nasty things the US has done. I'm not trying to say it was "Saint America" vs. "Evil Nazi's", merely pointing out that the Holocaust did in fact happen. Drawing in other genocides, bad actions by the US government, etc. does nothing to change that salient fact.
Quote:
They earned it.
That isn't true at all.
I am quite capable of rationally and objectively discussing anything about the Kennedy's.
From November 1960 through the inauguration, Kennedy and Eisenhower met four times to discuss sensitive issues pertaining to national security policy and foreign policy. Eisenhower stated repeatedly that Kennedy should not proceed with the deployment of the Jupiter missiles until the situation in Cuba had been resolved.
From February 1961 to September 1961, Eisenhower called Kennedy, and sent him letters, begging and pleading that Kennedy not continue with the Jupiter missile deployments. You can drive out to Abilene, Kansas to the Eisenhower Library and read copies of the letters as well as Ike's notes.
What conclusion what a rational person draw? Kennedy erred. There is no other possible conclusion to reach.
What other conclusions would a rational person draw? Kennedy was incompetent. There is no other possible conclusion to draw.
A competent president would have foreseen that that the Soviets would view the deployment of Jupiter missiles to Turkey and Italy as the hostile aggressive act that it was. In turn, the Soviets would do an about face on their policy toward Cuba, and instead of continuing to disrespect Castro, they would have embraced Castro for the purposes of obtaining permission to deploy IRBMs in Cuba to counter the threat of the Jupiter IRBMs.
8-year olds were smarter than Kennedy, because they could figure it out.
What about George Bush's ships, the Barbara and Houston?
Kennedy doesn't know that ships are vulnerable to aerial attack? Really?
Kennedy wrote that his PT-Boat group was attacked by a Betty bomber (or maybe a Kate bomber), and they suffered damage and casualties before they could beat off the attack.
Kennedy couldn't figure out that George Bush's ships would have been vulnerable to air attack by the Cuban air force during the Bay of Pigs?
How stupid is Kennedy?
If I would like Kennedy, how does that change the facts?
I suppose I could say that Kennedy was too worried about having sex with Marilyn Monroe, or some prostitute, like a Soviet spy posing as a prostitute to be concerned with such mundane and trivial matters as air defense for ships.
Read any of the declassified documents in the last 10 years?
The highest ranking US spy ever was a member of the Soviet General Staff. At a meeting with Khrushchev, the generals told Khrushchev that they were not ready to go to war, and even if they were, they had no intention of going to war over Cuba.
A summary of that meeting was sent from US Embassy Moscow to Kennedy within 72 hours, and yet, knowing that the Soviets had no intention of escalating the situation or going to war, Kennedy threatened the whole world with nuclear annihilation...
...and all because he made a mistake.
My having a grudge doesn't alter the facts, and only an apologist would be willing to over-look such fatal flaws, flaws that could have led to war and deaths of thousands of Americans, and all because the man had an ego that couldn't be crushed.
Then, please, by all means, gives your justification for Kennedy abandoning his wife and children on the evening of his inaugural ball to go to party at Peter Lawford's home, suck face with Angie Dickinson, and have sex with two prostitutes at the same time.
No, it doesn't.
Peter Lawford confirmed it. So did Angie Dickinson. And the two prostitutes. And the dozens of others at Lawford's home, including many celebrities. Jackie confirmed it. Several Kennedy aides have confirmed it. Kennedy's own press secretary, Bill Moyers confirmed it.
With respect to the Bay of Pigs, US government documents confirm Kennedy acted stupidly.
With respect to the Cuban Missile Crisis, US government documents prove Kennedy knowingly caused the crisis, and then lied about it.
With respect to the Berlin Crisis, US government documents prove nonchalant ambivalence and failure to exercise leadership caused it.
With respect to the murder of President Ngo Diem, and his dim-witted side-kick half-brother, US government documents prove Kennedy gave the okay.
With respect to the British Politician Sex Scandal, where Kennedy and British Members of Parliament and other high-ranking office holders were having sex with prostitutes who were actually Soviet Spies, you have the newspaper article, two Pulitzer Prize winning editors, the statements of both the Soviet spies/prostitutes, MPs and then of course, the fact that the British government's investigation into the matter is still classified, most peculiarly those parts related the high-ranking US government official involved.
So, you're only going to interview people who love Kennedy? Brilliant. I think we've had enough of that to last an eternity.
No, it would be irresponsible only if you withheld from the general public that I had a grudge.
What do the sexual habits and failings of the Kennedy's have to do with the discussion of the Holocaust? I was unaware JFK was part of the vast conspiracy to make people think the Holocaust happened.
Quote:
The facts speak for themselves.
Yes they do. The Holocaust happened. One can research any aspect of it that they would like and question it all they would like. People do this all the time without being labelled as a "neo-Nazi" (which I am just using as a general catch-all). When it becomes an issue is when the specific motivation for the research and questioning is based on an existing hatred and agenda. All of the other genocide and holocaust events in the history of the world, all of the horribleness of the Kennedy's, anything unseemly the US has ever done does not change the fact that the Holocaust happened.
Anybody that even dares to ask questions on this subject is scorned and ridiculed. I've always been curious about the seemingly magic "6,000,000" number since that number was used for decades before WWII.
There are plenty of researchers and historians exploring the actual numbers of people who were killed and the methods used. None of those people is even remotely "scorned and ridiculed" for engaging in that line of research, even when their numbers come out lower then expected.
This website is a pretty good resource and explains the various studies done and how they reached their conclusions. It is run by amateur volunteers as well as university researchers in the field and is sort of an open collaborative project:
That is far and away not the only site available. In general the estimates for deaths during the Holocaust are:
4.1 - 6.0 million Jews
5.0 - 6.0 million non-Jews
Total: 9.1 - 12 million people.
That is the range that the vast majority of research falls into and is considered an accurate estimate. Most accept a general number of 11 million total deaths with the breakdown being 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.
The numbers are determined based on the rather extensive records kept by the Nazi's themselves, investigation of forensic evidence, population studies, etc. Each researcher brings their own methodology and that is why you end up with the variations. Current estimates are actually much lower then they were in the immediate post-war era. Soviet statements about the deaths attributed to camps that they liberated were often wildly exaggerated and some early estimates into the 1950's were in the 18 million range. These were heavily revised down based on post-war demogrpahic studies and a thorough examination of Nazi records. So, as one can see, the question over how many people died is hardly one that is closed to researchers and is in fact a near constant topic of research.
NJGoat your source is a joke and the numbers are a joke.
There were nowhere near that many Jews killed in Europe
during the war years. Their own population studies at the time
and Red Cross and other studies all Jewish population strong
and almost unaffected in large by the war years.
The Communists in Russia, by the way, killed a heck of a lot
more people outright than just those sent to camps later.
As I posted in the other thread //www.city-data.com/forum/28512943-post45.html
the Six Million is about as real as the Six Million Dollar Man
was a real person. "we have the technology..."..
Sorry that's all I want to post right now, any whetted
readers will have to launch across the Tiber themselves.
NJGoat your source is a joke and the numbers are a joke.
There were nowhere near that many Jews killed in Europe
during the war years. Their own population studies at the time
and Red Cross and other studies all Jewish population strong
and almost unaffected in large by the war years.
The Communists in Russia, by the way, killed a heck of a lot
more people outright than just those sent to camps later.
As I posted in the other thread //www.city-data.com/forum/28512943-post45.html
the Six Million is about as real as the Six Million Dollar Man
was a real person. "we have the technology..."..
Sorry that's all I want to post right now, any whetted
readers will have to launch across the Tiber themselves.
Oh, I think we've already "Crossed the Rubicon" on these threads when it comes to seeing what people really think, no need to go launching oneself across the Tiber.
If my numbers, vetted and agreed to by the vast majority of researchers and historians are incorrect, then please provide sources on where one can find the "correct" numbers. Just a request though, my workplace won't let me access anything labelled as a "hate site" or "personal blog" so no Storm Front or "blog theory of the week" links.
Any person who would like to throw doubt on the reality of his historic horror needs to get an old fashioned smack across the face. My parents were all through Europe during the war and my mother crawling through heaps of corpses to find a bit of food was not an imaginary event.
The holocaust should include all of he people who lost their lives due to the insane cult inspired insanity that Germany partook in - that would be well over 30 million people...To be honest with all of you- If I was in power after WW2 - The Germanic tribe that committed and facilitated this unimaginable horror....would have been laid waste - every last man woman and child..every living thing - every building.. The Germans got off easy...They should have been nuked.
As for doubters and deniers of the holocaust and the other millions of deaths who were not Jews..I would say they are dangerous people more than willing to repeat history- to hell with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
