The tread about the holocaust

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
....

Actually Hitler gained most of his support from the middle class...not the lower class. Hitlers power came from those who's wealth was flushed away by the wall street crash, He presented the NAzi party as a FASCIST PARTY and Sand regardless of what you say Fascism is a RIGHT WING MOVEMENT! not left wing, in fact it is believed fascism was born from Communism as a natural middle class reaction to a threat from below. IT believes in NATION (socialism is international) in Germany's case RACIAL SUPERIORITY, the undenying strength of its people, a one party system and new economic system.

www.fpp.co.uk

You could be right. But my understanding is that he got support from the lower classes first, he despised the middle classes and upper gclasses, until he needed their support later on. If the the middle classes where bigger than the lower classes in German at that time, then you have have a point but, I doubt that, especially since the massive inflation would have wiped out the wealth of the majority of middle classes by then. Which also played into his hands.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by klaz
Hitler came into power by the permissions of both the german people and the ruling bodies. Sure, he played them off against each other, in superb political skill. But right up until he wielded complete power, it was the German people who placed him there. His putsch failed, so he subverted the people with less direct means. Just because Hitler became the all powerful dictator, doesn't excuse the german people for putting him there.



Nazi'ism was placed forward as the opposite of communism, moreso than a right wing movement. It was made to appeal to the middle class, by opposing communism which stood to degrade their lives/profits. The common person was swayed by historic hatred of Jews and Gypsies, and also .by the promise of work. The ruling and old artisocracy was pushed aside gradually, mostly when Hitler suplanted the Oath of allegience in the army, causing most of the old prussian families to lose most of their power.

Nazism (In relation to WW2/Hiter's Nazism) is about hatred and the stand by "right minded" individuals to stand against the storm that is weaker, genetically unsound races. i.e. Eastern nations, Jews, Arab people's etc (It was only around 1943 that Hitler started allowing foreigners to merge and join his armies.)



Why? Its no different than making posts that disparage the Americans, French or any religious sect. The Holocaust was a terrible thing to happen. But its over...



Ricardo, I think you're placing a bit of the extreme here. I've seen remains of some of these camps, while I visited Germany/Poland (part of school tour). Its eerie, but animal life does exist. Its just creepy because we know what happened. Demolish the area, and wildlife would return, or just place a farm there. (Theres plenty of grave sites that have towns or farmland covering them).

Ireland Awake, thats one of the dodgiest sites i have seen in a long time.

Well the issues was about the German Govt being involved with the holocaust. The question is was there even a Govt by the time the mechanisims of the holocaust were in place.

I think you have take into account the world events and the conditions imposed on Germany that played into Hitlers hands. Some of that blame can be put at the door of the Allies and especially France for invading German;s main industrial areas.

I was under the impression that the Nazi party was about the state acquiring wealth and power and not individuals. But not in the distribution of wealth as per communisim. As Hitler wanted the power of the State for himself.

That was my impression of the place. Take it or leave it!

BlitzKrieg

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
You could be right. But my understanding is that he got support from the lower classes first, he despised the middle classes and upper gclasses, until he needed their support later on. If the the middle classes where bigger than the lower classes in German at that time, then you have have a point but, I doubt that, especially since the massive inflation would have wiped out the wealth of the majority of middle classes by then. Which also played into his hands.

in Wiemer Germany most of the lower class supported the KDP and SDP the Communist and Socialist parties, the two parties were fighting each other so niether could gain the majority in the riechstag. The middle class had in fact grown quite large since the 1920's Wiemer Germany was well known for its jazz clubs and theatres and its *new* middle class which had emerged thanks to Stressemanns policies in borrowing from the American government. But with the wall street crash they turned to the Nazi Party for support, (and i must note the Nazi Party did not have a majority in the riechstag when they came to power, its just no one would oppose them and the CONSERVATISTS, supported them) the Nazi support base was a mixture of the collapsed middle class and the middle class from the rural and small towns as the majority of KDP and SDP support originated from the big cities.

Hitler never despised the upper or middle class, he despised the control some Jewish buisness men had over German Economics but he was essentially very romantic about the established upper class areas, especially those established before the first world war.



and for the love of god...NAZI was not Socialist...it was Fascist, Its was a national movement, Socialism is clearly international, it did not believe in equality among all workers NAZI clearly stated that German workers were superior.


the three quotes you have shown are clearly anti Jewish, very Nationlistic and against the Versailles agreement. They dont show any Socialist qualities, some of the wording is similar to socialism such as the use of the word Capatilisim, which if you look at the quotes are used in completely different context then to a communist leaflet. but despite similarities between communism and Fascism they are considered offically to be opposite ends of the political spectrum...

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by pete
Was this in 1930's germany, or did the boy adolf spend his summers in alabama?

i was refering to america actually. i was making the point the world was somewhat differant then as were attitudes.

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by seamus
What disturbs me most is the "Yeah, so a lot of Jews died, and were persecuted, and reduced to slavery, but by God, there wasn't that many killed" attitude. I mean, what? Who gives a **** how many died? The Nazi regime was pure evil. These guys were committing atrocities against fellow human beings, right left and centre, simply for believing one thing over another, and for not being a member of some delusionsal psychopath's ideal race.

You acknowledge freely that this happened, yet shrug it off. Acceptance of, or agreeing with such ideals makes you just as delusional and the same scum of the earth that the Nazis were. What difference does it make what religion someone is, or what race they are? Why can't you judge each person on their own merits, instead of putting everyone into little boxes which you then burn, gas, starve or perform tests on?

What is it about revisionism that makes it such a great crusade? The further and further we get away from an historical event, the more the events become twisted and skewed. That's the way it is. Jesus Christ, if a few slight inaccuracies about an event that happened 60 years ago make you so passionate, then books like the bible must keep you awake at night, driving you insane with their horribly indulgent and even some completely fabricated stories.
But oh wait, you couldn't give a **** about such things, could you? You only care about making sure it's the Jews who don't get to push their own agenda, their own history. But that means that *you* have an agenda, that *you* want to write *your* own version of events - the exact same thing that you're accusing the Jews of doing! Jeez, now we're in a pickle. Now you are exactly what you claim your enemy is - a manipulative, cunning organisation, trying to promote racial inequality through the rewriting/interpretation of history to suit your own agneda.

Congratulations. You've made the same mistake as all the other rascist morons before you.

"Yeah, so a lot of Jews died, and were persecuted, and reduced to slavery, but by God, there wasn't that many killed". well as i said i believe up to 2,000,000 jews died. i never once justified it. the jews will happily over exaggerate the number and expoit that. this is what's wrong. i have talked to many many people about the 6 million figure and to my surprise quite a lot suspect that there were 6 million. most of them believed that there may have been 4 million tops. you say the nazi regime was pure evil, was the roman regime pure evil? was stalins soviet russia pure evil? it's amazes me how people think the nazis were so evil. sheeple! media slaves!

you talk about judging people on merits. how could you have the time to sit down and judge every single jew especially with the national socialist mind set. you have to understand what the germans and most of europe thought about jews then. they were quite a dangerous force in their minds.

answer this hypothetical question: you are swimming in the sea with your children. along comes a big shark! do you (a) get you and your children the hell out of the water or (b) be politically correct and judge the shark as an individual because perhaps he is one of the few that doesn't fit the stereotype give to sharks and therfore you stay in the water and encourage your children to swim with the shark?

"if a few slight inaccuracies about an event that happened 60 years ago make you so passionate" a few?? the whole thing is a lie. these lies have given the jews palestine where they shoot stone throwing children with american tanks! these lies have given the white race and especially the germans a sense of self loathing and inheritted guilt. these exploited lies have given the jews the holocaust industry which churns out millions every year. these lies have overshadowed all other attrocities in history. these lies have made the historically most hated race to ever exist infallable! the holocaust is the best thing that has ever 'happened' to jews!


"You only care about making sure it's the Jews who don't get to push their own agenda, their own history. But that means that *you* have an agenda, that *you* want to write *your* own version of events - the exact same thing that you're accusing the Jews of doing! Jeez, now we're in a pickle. Now you are exactly what you claim your enemy is - a manipulative, cunning organisation, trying to promote racial inequality through the rewriting/interpretation of history to suit your own agneda."

wow, i applaude you on your ability to twist things! i simply want people to wake up to the lies. the holocaust lie is a great injustice to the white world and it's sickeneing how the jews exploit. finkelstein, a jew, wrote a book on the holocaust industry.

"Congratulations. You've made the same mistake as all the other rascist morons before you." oh no you got me there! wow you are good! (that was sarcasm in case you are as stupid as your posts make you out to be.)

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
q1: Yes I do, I have been to one, I have seen evidence of some of the items created such as soap from human fat.

q2: Yes i believe in the large scale extermination but i do not believe it was a fully approved policy by the German Goverment but the actions of specific groups acting under war time pressure (note most of the large scale atrocities occured during war time) I am not justifying anyone i just dont believe that it was a mass organised action by the german government. Similar to small but powerul groups in the past and todays world such as the Catholic Church, Muslim riligeous fanaticsm, Aspects of the American military, etc.

q3: already answered my answer was no. I believe the racial policy of the German state was of control of the lesser races by the superior German race...whcih i dont agree with...but it was not delibrate mass genocide

q4: Yes, the Nazi policy was that Jews were less then Human just like the abrioginies in Australia (only considered human since the 1960s)

q5: Germany was a Racial Goverment, A Fascist (N.B: Right Wing, Sand...) state which believed in the importance of itself and of its people, therefore the people of eastern europe (NOT JUST JEWS) were slaves to them in their mindset. Similar to Russian Tsarism in the 1800s. It was a general viewpoint since the 1800s that eastern europeans served rather then ruled...See Russia Pre.1917, Austria-Hungary empire, Turkish empire. Between 1939 1945 they wished to claim the eastern european lands they believed belonged to them, but their actions forced them to face western europe as well.


q6: I refuse to have much of a viewpoint because little is said apart from the holocaust and i agree partially that the holocaust is overplayed not by the Jewish people but by the Isreali State which i feel is a different group representing the same people. I dont like the word Anti-semetic, I think the word Racism is more appropiate. My personal experiance with the Jewish people has not been negative but i have only ever had problems with ignorant people of no religous belief. I have many Muslim, jewish, christain (catholic and Protestant), atheiast, satanist friends and only the ignorant who dont really know their own belief's are piss me off (example, guy i know who abused my friend because he was protestant and called him i qoute: 'A Landed gentry Protestant basterd' Even though my friend was poorer then me and his father a photographer...

i have already made my point about q1, the lamp shade and soap story is no longer accepted, like many other stories that have come and gone relating to the holocaust.

q2. there is no documentry evidence to state that the german government knew anything about deat camps or an extermination plan. i'd imagine they knew about the einsatzgrueppen though but probably not the extent of the murders.

q3. i have to agree with you there.

q4. the nazis believed the jews to be inferior, conniving and devious.history has shown this. the fact is that jews are very intelligent otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing this. history has shown this. the nazis weren't by far the first anti semites and they won't be the last either.

q5. germany was on a crusade to save europe from the lesser peoples. they believed the european races were superior and they considered themselves as the best of the best. they were white nationalists. they knew that europe was created by the likes of germans, french and british, etc and not by any non european race like africans or jews. jew brought choas with them, they were despised everywhere they went. i agree with the nazis and many others that europe and america was built by europeans. all the greatest people to ever live were european. but this is another topic for discussion...

q6. i understand what you say. the holocaust over shadows that period, the holocaust overshadows the whole century! i am athiest but i know what i am. what religion was your friend who insulted the protestant? it was pretty ignorant what he said.

mike65

NAZI party economic policy was in every meaningful respect Socialist

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/nsdappro.htm

some examples -

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

and even oddly enough communist (any business theat did'nt run it operations in accordance with Nazi philosophy was controlled or closed, very USSR).

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)

Mike.

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
Ireland Awake...I had a look at your website...and though i will gladly discuss and debate history with you (Because i am a history studant) I must state now I do not agree with your website at all...Please keep our discussion seperate from it. And on the topic on hand...

i brought up my website and will have to becasue whether or not you agree with the site it contains many links to essential information. and not everything linked there is nazi/racist/anti semite or whatever. it's just a collection of links. i did not write the jew lists. i wouldn't have that much time on my hands!! what did you honestly think of them?

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by Meh
I'm going to draw your attention to this little quote from Hitler again:Out of his own mouth, in front of the entire Reichstag. Nor does it make sense to kick out nuclear scientists like Einstein, declare war on America or invade Russia that late in the summer. Hitler did a lot of things that don't make sense.This sentence is actually true in a narrow sense, but it's a distortion of the real story -- a classic holocaust denier tactic. The minutes of the Wannsee conference used euphemisms like "final solution" and "deportation" instead of "mass murder" and "genocide". But Adolf Eichmann admitted at his trial that the actual language spoken by the participants in the conference was much more blunt, and included terms like "extermination".

i am not familiar with that hitler quote, i am not denying it's existance, i am just not familiar with it. i am interested in what else he said at that time. you may have just picked out that bit leaving out the relevant parts which may take up a completely differant meaning.

"Nor does it make sense to kick out nuclear scientists like Einstein, declare war on America or invade Russia that late in the summer. Hitler did a lot of things that don't make sense." i agree they should have kept einstein and used more intellectual jews like him and fritz habor. fritz habor was the jewish inventor of zyklon b, the anti typhus agent. ironically if the germans had have used more zyklon b more jews would have lived as most died from typhus. they were forced to declare war on america due to the alliance with japan. hitler was a usless military leader, this is where he made his mistakes.

"The minutes of the Wannsee conference used euphemisms like "final solution" and "deportation" instead of "mass murder" and "genocide". But Adolf Eichmann admitted at his trial that the actual language spoken by the participants in the conference was much more blunt, and included terms like "extermination"." i was a prisoner of mossad and israel i would say anything they wanedt me to! they did the same to rudolf hoess, not hess. they still use barbaric torturein israel that is banned in the civilised world.

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by Simi
Maybe this tread could dissapear just like the holocaust one. Please...

typical. you call for closure when you have nothing to say. when such a topic gets closed it's because the revisionist are winning the debate.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by Ireland Awake!
i agree they should have kept einstein and used more intellectual jews like him and fritz habor. fritz habor was the jewish inventor of zyklon b, the anti typhus agent. ironically if the germans had have used more zyklon b more jews would have lived as most died from typhus. they were forced to declare war on america due to the alliance with japan. hitler was a usless military leader, this is where he made his mistakes.

Out of interest, would there be a specific IQ level at which the Jew would be allowed live, or point of cognitive reasoning and intelligence at which he would not need to be 'deported to the East'?

As for the military leader part, thankfully you are right as otherwise the world would be a mighty unpleasant place around now.

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by Wicknight
There are two things I don't get

1 = Hitler and most of the entire Nazi party hated the Jewish race. But some people, who tend to agree with this hatred, seem to find it improbably that they would attempt to exterminate them, despite all evidence that they did. Why? I am not being smart, I really don't get how people who hate Jewish people (such as modern Nazis) cannot understand why other people who hate Jewish people would attempt to kill them.

2 = If the Holocaust didn't happen, then every eye wittness account, every document, every photograph of a gas chamber, and especially every survivor account, must be a fabrication. Again, why?

i am for the truth. as i said earlier the holocaust is a great injustice to the white world with the inherited guilt and racial self hatred. there are many neo nazis and the likes who yell "6 million more!" but they are the ignorant ones. i don't agree with racial extermination. i don't believe the nazis were evil. as i asked earlier does the world consider the romans as evil?

eye witnesses can simply lie, no witness can ever be accepted as hard evidence. no lie detector tests were evr done. the world was made swallow their lies. even the most ridiculous ones like the stories of electrocution pates and over 10,000,000 jews dead. these and most other lies were later dropped, therefore proving that many eye witnesses had already lied. most of the documents have been simply forgerd, it's quite a simple process. the real ones have had their contents twisted. the holocaust lobby cannot rely on documents as there aren't enough to prove the existance of the holocaust. the gas chambers were erected by the soviets in the east. they were poorly built and incapable for murder on such a scale. the germans would have built far better homicidal units if they had wanted to.

Ireland Awake!

Originally posted by therecklessone
I think we should leave the last word to the Dead Kennedy's...

Nazi punks
Nazi punks
Nazi punks - F*ck Off!

You still think swastikas look cool
The real nazis run your schools
They're coaches, businessmen and cops
In a real fourth reich you'll be the first to go

i see we have an intellect...

Sand

I have no interest arguing with you about this

How Roystonesque of you.

But I will say this: with some investigation you'll find that right-wing politics and National Socialism are harder to separate than you seem to believe.

Actually theyre miles apart - right wingers tend to want less government inteference in the economy, less government power of social institutions such as the church, less government taxation to pay for bums, etc etc.

Fascism/Nazism is the exact opposite - it stresses the power and glory of the state over and above the individual, it uses nationalism to justify *why* the state is greater than the individual and why the individual should be willing to lay down their very lives and personal well being in the interests of the state.

The greatest historical lie that has been perpetuated is that the Nazis were right wing, that being right wing is equivalent with being a Nazi, a nationalist and a racist. This is shown in your stated belief that some of the views that have been exspressed on this thread show that the politics board is as left wing as its made out to be - i.e. that these views are a good example of the right. Thats what I have an issue with - There are too many racists/nationalists of all political persuasions to claim that one paticular idealogical family has some sort of monopoly on them. After all, wouldnt you agree theres an interesting subtext to the common idea that, Yes, we have an obligation to end poverty of all people, but we need to take care of our own first - because the suffering of our own is worth more than the far greater suffering of foreigners?

When you look at the Nazis they were a socialist party, that adopted racist, xenophobic views to further define their class enemies. It may be a bitter pill to swallow but thats the long and short of it.

Sand regardless of what you say Fascism is a RIGHT WING MOVEMENT! not left wing,

You can keep on saying that, but it doesnt make it true. Any real examination of the Nazis make it clear - to my mind at least - that they were simply racist socialists, the two are not mutually exsclusive.

Christ its bad enough with the Nazi lunatics on this thread now the leftist whackos are joining in. Sand is not a revistionist from what I've read, he merely states a plain truth that you dont have to be a right wing facist to be a racist. Thats clear enough. And the NAZI party was clearly socialist.

Cheers Mike, but to be honest youre wasting your time with some people.

and for the love of god...NAZI was not Socialist...it was Fascist, Its was a national movement, Socialism is clearly international, it did not believe in equality among all workers NAZI clearly stated that German workers were superior.

No, some brands of socialism were international - the brand that had an accident with an ice pick in Mexico so I heard. Just about every other brand of socialism, including the brand that triumphed in the USSR was "socialism within one country".

Socialism idealogically defined enemies of the people such as capitalist, property owners and the middle classes and has in many historical cases, liquidated them as a matter of state policy - the fate of the kulaks in the USSR is an example. The only "innovation" nazism brought was defining the people as being more than simple "the workers" and their enemies as being more than simply "bankers". They refined them to "Aryans" and "Jews" respectively.

But again, keep saying it - possibly it will make it true.

blobert

Originally posted by Sand
How Roystonesque of you.

earwicker

Sand: nice cheap shot! Does that make you Matt Cooper then?

Have a look at some books on the subject. Dismantle what you find there. Remember, Google does not constitute research.

Oddly enough, you still seem to think that I'm saying Nazism has nowt to do with a strategic deployment of certain socialist policies. I have made no pronouncements either way. So I really don't see why you persist in quoting me countering points that I am not arguing.

Although your insistence might (unkindly, perhaps) be taken to suggest that your own oesophagus is rejecting the bitter pill.

Meh

Originally posted by Ireland Awake!
i am not familiar with that hitler quote, i am not denying it's existance, i am just not familiar with it. i am interested in what else he said at that time. you may have just picked out that bit leaving out the relevant parts which may take up a completely differant meaning.

Feel free to look it up yourself if you want. Anyway, that isn't the only evidence connecting Hitler to the Holocaust:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar26.html
Or the Goebbels Diaries:

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

A speech given by Himmler in 1943:

I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member, "quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it."

The verdict of a Nazi court in 1943:

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.

i was a prisoner of mossad and israel i would say anything they wanedt me to! they did the same to rudolf hoess, not hess. they still use barbaric torturein israel that is banned in the civilised world.

What about all the testimony at the Nuremburg trials? Or all the Holocaust trials since -- many of them even conducted by German courts in Germany? Did the West Germans torture their own countrymen? Why have none of these witnesses come forward to expose this torture? Or what about SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch's interview with Swedish television in 1981?

Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that "special treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have to be extermination.

Münch: "Special treatment" in the terminology of the concentration camp means physical extermination. If it was a question of more than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were gassed.

Interviewer: "Special treatment" was gassing?

Münch: Yes, absolutely.

I suppose the Swedish cameraman tortured him into saying this?

eye witnesses can simply lie, no witness can ever be accepted as hard evidence.

So if these are the standards of proof you require, then what historical events do you believe in? Do you also believe the moon landings were faked? That Colombus never discovered America? That the earth is flat? Are you on the same planet as the rest of us at all?

no lie detector tests were evr done.

Lie detector tests are not admissible in court.

BlitzKrieg

Actually theyre miles apart - right wingers tend to want less government inteference in the economy, less government power of social institutions such as the church, less government taxation to pay for bums, etc etc.

Fascism/Nazism is the exact opposite - it stresses the power and glory of the state over and above the individual, it uses nationalism to justify *why* the state is greater than the individual and why the individual should be willing to lay down their very lives and personal well being in the interests of the state.

firstly sand the right wing your describing there is the NEW RIGHT movement made famous by margaret thatcher in the 1980s.

Nazism has more in common with Hobbes's classic conservatism though it is more extreme. SUCH AS: the power and glory of the state above the individual and the use of nationalism to justify policies...As you stated.


I agree with some policies of the right and some policies of the left, i'm not fully supportive of either side, but if there is one thing i have learned is that there are more then one variation of both left and right movements some borrow from each other (THE NEW LEFT, has very much classic conservatist policies) but the policy applied by historians and political thinkers to diduse whether they are more left or right tends to apply the movement to the ORIGINAL theories of liberalism socialism and conservatism.


You might believe that fasicism is more left wing then right wing, but the offical viewpoint is that its a right wing movement. There are many things that say you are right, Mussolini was original a socialist before starting the Fascist party. But the similarities in goals and policies between Fascism and Classic Conservatism are far too similar. These similarities include the role of the rular, the role of the state, the importance of the nation and so on.

The left is just as f*cked up, i mean Communism is extreme left yet it has alot in common with Hobbes classic conservatism and less with Marx's Socialism. But historically it was a socialist movement, and in fact communism has now been divided up into leninism, stalinism and so on, because under each new rular the ideology would change.



i think one of the most interesting theories on politics is that the spectrum bends the further left or right you go until you reach a point were all extreamists think alike. Hence the similarities between Communism and Fascism.


Hell one of the aspects of Conservatism is that there is no set policy, that the government acts in what it believes best at the given time, unlike say liberalism and socialism which both have set goals. This is one of my favourtie things about conservatism.

You pointed out there are variations of the socialist movement, why can there not be the same with the right wing policies?


Sand your not right your NEW RIGHT. There is nothing wrong with that i am not criticising hell i like alot of new right policies myself...


you can actually argue about all this for years and niether of us would be right (as in correct not political position)




and just to make you feel good, a feature of fascism was the belief of the *third way* now where have we heard that before?

simu

Originally posted by Ireland Awake!
i am for the truth. as i said earlier the holocaust is a great injustice to the white world with the inherited guilt and racial self hatred.

Wow, I would be "white" according to your classifications but I have yet to notice any of this guilt and self-hatred anywhere, even amongst "white" Germans! Am I blind? Would you like to enlighten me by giving some examples of this?

pete

From stormfront.org:

Revisionism Discussion on boards.ie

---

Their is a Revisionist Discussion on boards.ie see link below maybe people could back up "sean1916" and "Irelandawake".

In order to view the link without it been redirected you will have to copy and paste it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...threadid=167335

or if that link doesnt work copy and paste http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/foru...p?s=&forumid=99

Hi "barry"! Hi guys!

Zombrex

Originally posted by Ireland Awake!
as i said earlier the holocaust is a great injustice to the white world with the inherited guilt and racial self hatred. there are many neo nazis and the likes who yell "6 million more!" but they are the ignorant ones. i don't agree with racial extermination.

eye witnesses can simply lie, no witness can ever be accepted as hard evidence. no lie detector tests were evr done. the world was made swallow their lies.

the holocaust lobby cannot rely on documents as there aren't enough to prove the existance of the holocaust. the gas chambers were erected by the soviets in the east.

IrelandAwake you obviously have major "issues" with the Jewish people. For one thing in your posts you talk about "the Jews" as one single entity, and referr to "them" as group that lies and decieves.

You seem to believe (an appologies if i am putting words in your mouth) that all Jewish eye-witnesses are lying and pushing an agenda to gain pity for themselves. Not only that but that all evidence discovered by historians, or accounts given by military personel, German soldiers, and Jewish survivers are lies and fabrications (all of it?) of a Jewish controlled media.

But you then base this on work by done and published by groups that, like yourself, seem come from the inital starting point of having major issues with the Jewish people.

It seems to me that you are working backwards. You did not start out in a neutral place and attempt to see what really happened. You started out believing that Jews are corrupt, so therefore if a Jew said it happend and a group that seems to hate Jews said it didn't, you believe the group that hates the Jews, because the Jew must be lying. And then if more evidence supports the original Jew's account, that evidence must also be a fabrication. And so on.

For example there are documents to show that large cremation chambers were built by German companies and moved to the concentration camps. I have seen reproductions in Leaving Cert History books. Plus all the eye witnesses at these camps say that the German soldiers killed and then burnt thousands of Jews (along with others). From a non-bias standpoint and with other evidence, it seems pretty likely that if they were build and moved there and if a large number of independent eye-witnesses (including German soldiers) say that is what they were used for, then that is close to the truth. But you seem to assume that the eye-witnesses MUST be lying.

Can you not see the inherent bias in that view point.

Basically I am saying is, show me the historians who have no link to anti-Jewish groups, no link to Holocaust denial groups, no opinions on the Jewish race or the individual people, who have sat down and in a non-bias manner come to the conclusion that the Nazi's did not set out to work to death or execute millions of Jews. If the only evidence you can provide is evaluated by groups that inheriently believe that Jews are liers, then how can you expect that this evidence is taken seriously.

I am not being smart, I am honestly asking you to think for one minute, is it possible that your bias towards the Jewish people may cloud your judgement in what historical evidence you choose to believe when presented with two conflicting views?

Also, why do you believe that the Nazi's (not talking about hitler himself) didn't set out to kill 6 million Jews when there is strong evidence that they did. Why believe supporters of the Nazi party over respected historians? Again is there an issue of bias in your judgements on what you choose to believe?

Sean1916

Originally posted by Wicknight
IrelandAwake you obviously have major "issues" with the Jewish people. For one thing in your posts you talk about "the Jews" as one single entity, and referr to "them" as group that lies and decieves.

You seem to believe (an appologies if i am putting words in your mouth) that all Jewish eye-witnesses are lying and pushing an agenda to gain pity for themselves. Not only that but that all evidence discovered by historians, or accounts given by military personel, German soldiers, and Jewish survivers are lies and fabrications (all of it?) of a Jewish controlled media.

But you then base this on work by done and published by groups that, like yourself, seem come from the inital starting point of having major issues with the Jewish people.

It seems to me that you are working backwards. You did not start out in a neutral place and attempt to see what really happened. You started out believing that Jews are corrupt, so therefore if a Jew said it happend and a group that seems to hate Jews said it didn't, you believe the group that hates the Jews, because the Jew must be lying. And then if more evidence supports the original Jew's account, that evidence must also be a fabrication. And so on.

For example there are documents to show that large cremation chambers were built by German companies and moved to the concentration camps. I have seen reproductions in Leaving Cert History books. Plus all the eye witnesses at these camps say that the German soldiers killed and then burnt thousands of Jews (along with others). From a non-bias standpoint and with other evidence, it seems pretty likely that if they were build and moved there and if a large number of independent eye-witnesses (including German soldiers) say that is what they were used for, then that is close to the truth. But you seem to assume that the eye-witnesses MUST be lying.

Can you not see the inherent bias in that view point.

Basically I am saying is, show me the historians who have no link to anti-Jewish groups, no link to Holocaust denial groups, no opinions on the Jewish race or the individual people, who have sat down and in a non-bias manner come to the conclusion that the Nazi's did not set out to work to death or execute millions of Jews. If the only evidence you can provide is evaluated by groups that inheriently believe that Jews are liers, then how can you expect that this evidence is taken seriously.

I am not being smart, I am honestly asking you to think for one minute, is it possible that your bias towards the Jewish people may cloud your judgement in what historical evidence you choose to believe when presented with two conflicting views?

Also, why do you believe that the Nazi's (not talking about hitler himself) didn't set out to kill 6 million Jews when there is strong evidence that they did. Why believe supporters of the Nazi party over respected historians? Again is there an issue of bias in your judgements on what you choose to believe?

Wicknight the official figure ist even 6 million anymore, you should download this Documentry http://www.reportersnotebook.com/vi..._resolution.wmv its made by a jew so you cant say hes a "neo nazi" .

Also here's another article writen by a Irish Liberal in support of Revisionism
http://www.geocities.com/reocork/hex.htm


They only found one room which they cliam to have been used as a "gas chamber" if you believe in the 6 million figure they would of killed 3000 people a day in that room, which is simply not possible, also their was no trace of zyklon b found in that room were the gasings were said to have taken place.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sean1916
Wicknight the official figure ist even 6 million anymore, you should download this Documentry http://www.reportersnotebook.com/vi..._resolution.wmv its made by a jew so you cant say hes a "neo nazi" .

Also here's another article writen by a Irish Liberal in support of Revisionism
http://www.geocities.com/reocork/hex.htm


They only found one room which they cliam to have been used as a "gas chamber" if you believe in the 6 million figure they would of killed 3000 people a day in that room, which is simply not possible, also their was no trace of zyklon b found in that room were the gasings were said to have taken place.

I have nothing against true historical "revisionism" ... it is the basis of all historical study.

What I was asking was; is it not probably that a lot of the authors and supporters of holocaust "revisionist" ideas bias their information by having preconceieved ideas about Jewish eye-witnesses and the Jewish people/race in general.

For example, your first link (which doesn't work) goes to a site that contains a number of links to other webs sites (such at the HRP) that seem to have a large number of "issues" with Jewish people as a whole (again I am trying to be delicate in how I phrase this). Again is it not possible that a bias and stereotype of Jewish behavour is effecting how they view evidence and present facts?

Also I assume you are referring to the Leuchter report when you talk about no cyanide being found. A obvious problem with this report is that the samples were taken 50 years after the end of the war, which other experts claim would make it impossible to detect if cyanide was present, so it is not conclusive that no cyanide was used. Leuchter is convinced he was not looking at gas chambers, but there remains problems with his study.

The Joseph Heaney article seems to do nothing but sum up other ideas. I don't know who he is, but I can find links to him only on "revisionist" websites, some of which are very questionable.

Anything a little more concrete?

Meh

Originally posted by Sean1916
They only found one room which they cliam to have been used as a "gas chamber" if you believe in the 6 million figure they would of killed 3000 people a day in that room, which is simply not possible,

Ah, another grain of truth wrapped in a ball of lies. You're right that it's impossible for six million people to have been killed in Auschwitz, but nobody claims that 6 million people died in Auschwitz alone -- there were many other death camps, as well as mass executions out in the countryside and the ghettos, and asphyxiation in specially designed vans.
You are also correct that there was only one small gas chamber in the Auschwitz camp proper. But just down the road in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, there were four much larger chambers. http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar06.html

also their was no trace of zyklon b found in that room were the gasings were said to have taken place.

The Leuchter report has been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

eoinm

Originally posted by Meh
Ah, another grain of truth wrapped in a ball of lies. You're right that it's impossible for six million people to have been killed in Auschwitz, but nobody claims that 6 million people died in Auschwitz alone -- there were many other death camps, as well as mass executions out in the countryside and the ghettos, and asphyxiation in specially designed vans.
You are also correct that there was only one small gas chamber in the Auschwitz camp proper. But just down the road in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, there were four much larger chambers. http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar06.html
The Leuchter report has been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

i think this is best explained by Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz

2. I have been constantly associated with the administration of concentration camps since 1934, serving at Dachau until 1938; then as Adjutant in Sachsenhausen from 1938 to 1 May, 1940, when I was appointed Commandant of Auschwitz. l commanded Auschwitz until 1 December,1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries. Included among the executed and burnt were approximately 20,000 Russian prisoners of war (previously screened out of Prisoner of War cages by the Gestapo) who were delivered at Auschwitz in Wehrmacht transports operated by regular Wehrmacht officers and men. The remainder of the total number of victims included about 100,000 German Jews, and great numbers of citizens (mostly Jewish) from Holland, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, or other countries. We executed about 400,000 Hungarian Jews alone at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944

7. Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chambers to accommodate 2,000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we selected our victims was as follows: we had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the Camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under the clothes but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated. We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz

From his testemony at Nuremburg.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946hoess.html

Sean1916

Originally posted by Wicknight


Also I assume you are referring to the Leuchter report when you talk about no cyanide being found. A obvious problem with this report is that the samples were taken 50 years after the end of the war, which other experts claim would make it impossible to detect if cyanide was present, so it is not conclusive that no cyanide was used. Leuchter is convinced he was not looking at gas chambers, but there remains problems with his study.

What "experts" say that ? and how come they found loads of Zyklon B in another building ? were it was used on clothes.

Sean1916

Originally posted by eoinm
i think this is best explained by Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz

2. I have been constantly associated with the administration of concentration camps since 1934, serving at Dachau until 1938; then as Adjutant in Sachsenhausen from 1938 to 1 May, 1940, when I was appointed Commandant of Auschwitz. l commanded Auschwitz until 1 December,1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries. Included among the executed and burnt were approximately 20,000 Russian prisoners of war (previously screened out of Prisoner of War cages by the Gestapo) who were delivered at Auschwitz in Wehrmacht transports operated by regular Wehrmacht officers and men. The remainder of the total number of victims included about 100,000 German Jews, and great numbers of citizens (mostly Jewish) from Holland, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, or other countries. We executed about 400,000 Hungarian Jews alone at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944

7. Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chambers to accommodate 2,000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we selected our victims was as follows: we had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the Camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under the clothes but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated. We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz

From his testemony at Nuremburg.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946hoess.html

I would'nt believe anything said at Nuremberg as they were make to say things under torture.

http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd03.html

'CONFESSIONS' UNDER TORTURE
Altogether more disturbing, however, were the methods employed to extract statements and "confessions" at Nuremberg, particularly those from S.S. officers which were used to support the extermination charge. The American Senator, Joseph McCarthy, in a statement given to the American Press on May 20th, 1949, drew attention to the following cases of torture to secure such confessions. In the prison of the Swabisch Hall, he stated, officers of the S.S. Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler were flogged until they were soaked in blood, after which their sexual organs were trampled on as they lay prostrate on the ground. As in the notorious Malmedy Trials of private soldiers, the prisoners were hoisted in the air and beaten until they signed the confessions demanded of them. On the basis of such "confessions" extorted from S.S. Generals Sepp Dietrich and Joachim Paiper, the Leibstandarte was convicted as a "guilty organisation". S.S. General Oswald Pohl, the economic administrator of the concentration camp system, had his face smeared with faeces and was subsequently beaten until he supplied his confession. In dealing with these cases, Senator McCarthy told the Press: "I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the effect that the accused persons were beaten up, maltreated and physically tortured by methods which could only be conceived in sick brains. They were subjected to mock trials and pretended executions, they were told their families would be deprived of their ration cards. All these things were carried out with the approval of the Public Prosecutor in order to secure the psychological atmosphere necessary for the extortion of the required confessions. If the United States lets such acts committed by a few people go unpunished, then the whole world can rightly criticise us severely and forever doubt the correctness of our motives and our moral integrity." The methods of intimidation described were repeated during trials at Frankfurt-am-Mein and at Dachau, and large numbers of Germans were convicted for atrocities on the basis of their admissions. The American Judge Edward L. van Roden, one of the three members of the Simpson Army Commission which was subsequently appointed to investigate the methods of justice at the Dachau trials, revealed the methods by which these admissions were secured in the Washington Daily News, January 9th, 1949. His account also appeared in the British newspaper, the Sunday Pictorial, January 23rd, 1949. The methods he described were: "Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners finger-nails; knocking out of teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near starvation rations." Van Roden explained: "The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months ... The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses ... All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators." The "American" investigators responsible (and who later functioned as the prosecution in the trials) were: Lt.-Col. Burton F. Ellis (chief of the War Crimes Committee) and his assistants, Capt. Raphael Shumacker, Lt. Robert E. Byrne, Lt. William R. Perl, Mr. Morris Ellowitz, Mr. Harry Thon, and Mr. Kirschbaum. The legal adviser of the court was Col. A. H. Rosenfeld. The reader will immediately appreciate from their names that the majority of these people were "biased on racial grounds" in the words of Justice Wenersturm -- that is, were Jewish, and therefore should never have been involved in any such investigation. Despite the fact that "confessions" pertaining to the extemination of the Jews were extracted under these conditions, Nuremberg statements are still regarded as conclusive evidence for the Six Million by writers like Reitlinger and others, and the illusion is maintained that the Trials were both impartial and impeccably fair. When General Taylor, the Chief Public Prosecutor, was asked where he had obtained the figure of the Six Million, he replied that it was based on the confession of S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf. He, too, was tortured and his case is examined below. But as far as such "confessions" in general are concerned, we can do no better than quote the British Sunday Pictorial when reviewing the report of Judge van Roden: "Strong men were reduced to broken wrecks ready to mumble any admission demanded by their prosecutors."

Sean1916

http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd03.html

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE

It should be emphasised straight away that there is not a single document in existence which proves that the Germans intended to, or carried out, the deliberate murder of Jews. In Poliakov and Wulf's Das Dritte Reich und die Juden: Dokumente und Aufsätze (Berlin, 1955), the most that they can assemble are statements extracted after the war from people like Hoettl, Ohlendorf and Wisliceny, the latter under torture in a Soviet prison. In the absence of any evidence, therefore, Poliakov is forced to write: "The three or four people chiefly involved in drawing up the plan for total extermination are dead, and no documents survive." This seems very convenient. Quite obviously, both the plan and the "three or four" people are nothing but nebulous assumptions on the part of the writer, and are entirely unprovable. The documents which do survive, of course, make no mention at all of extermination, so that writers like Poliakov and Reitlinger again make the convenient assumption that such orders were generally "verbal". Though lacking any documentary proof, they assume that a plan to murder Jews must have originated in 1941, coinciding with the attack on Russia. Phase one of the plan is alleged to have involved the massacre of Soviet Jews, a claim we shall disprove later. The rest of the programme is supposed to have begun in March 1942, with the deportation and concentration of European Jews in the eastern camps of the Polish Government-General, such as the giant industrial complex at Auschwitz near Cracow. The fantastic and quite groundless assumption throughout is that transportation to the East, supervised by Eichmann's department, actually meant immediate extermination in ovens on arrival. According to Manvell and Frankl (Heinrich Himmler. London, 1965), the policy of genocide "seems to have been arrived at" after "secret discussions" between Hitler and Himmler (p. 118), though they fail to prove it. Reitlinger and Poliakov guess along similar "verbal" lines, adding that no one else was allowed to be present at these discussions, and no records were ever kept of them. This is the purest invention, for there is not a shred of evidence that even suggests such outlandish meetings took place. William Shirer, in his generally wild and irresponsible book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, is similarly muted on the subject of documentary proof. He states weakly that Hitler's supposed order for the murder of Jews "apparently was never committed to paper -- at least no copy of it has yet been unearthed. It was probably given verbally to Göring, Himmler and Heydrich, who passed it down . . ,"(p. 1148). A typical example of the kind of "proof' quoted in support of the extermination legend is given by Manvell and Frankl. They cite a memorandum of 31st July, 1941 sent by Göring to Heydrich, who headed the Reich Security Head Office and was Himmler's deputy. Significantly, the memorandum begins: "Supplementing the task that was assigned to you on 24th January 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to present conditions ..." The supplementary task assigned in the memorandum is a "total solution (Gesamtlösung) of the Jewish question within the area of German influence in Europe," which the authors admit means concentration in the East, and it requests preparations for the "organisational, financial and material matters" involved. The memorandum then requests a future plan for the "desired final solution" (Endlösung), which clearly refers to the ideal and ultimate scheme of emigration and evacuation mentioned at the beginning of the directive. No mention whatever is made of murdering people, but Manvell and Frankl assure us that this is what the memorandum is really about. Again, of course, the "true nature" of the final as distinct from the total solution "was made known to Heydrich by Göring verbafly" (ibid, p. 118). The convenience of these "verbal" directives issuing back and forth is obvious.

eoinm

ohh the 'institute for historical review' one is quivering in ones jackboots!

maybe Hoess' own words might be more convincing for you?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306806983/103-8864188-5609414?v=glance

perhaps you should read some accounts of the actual interrogations?

http://www.historyofmilitary.com/Interrogations_The_Nazi_Elite_in_Allied_Hands_1945_0142001589.html

or an account by fritz stangl who commanded treblinka?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394710355/103-8864188-5609414?v=glance

no doubt he was tortured by that little old austrian lady into admitting that he oversaw the death of at least one million people



though, then again i reckon your a lot happeir in your little fascist fantasy world

Originally posted by Sean1916
I would'nt believe anything said at Nuremberg as they were make to say things under torture.

http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd03.html

DeVore

Ok, lets accept for a moment that there wasnt 6,000,000 jews killed in WWII.
Lets say it was as low as *half* that.

Lets say "only" 3,000,000 were killed.


There is a word going through my mind when I think of that and its:

SO?!?

I mean, ok... say we ALL agreed that much. Whats your point? 3 Million people were still killed by a mad man, unnecessaraily and in a horrific inhumane manner.


I have some questions for the StormFronters:

1. Do you accept that several million Jews died in the concentration camps. (More then 1 Million less then 6)?

2. What is your point that this is less then the "official" jewish figures.

3. Do you condemn Hitler for what he did?

4. What do you want to do about it now?


I notice noone bothered to argue with my last post here either. Only interested in arguing with the name callers?

DeV.