Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Revisionism Poll

Messenger said:
Ok, let me state this: I encourage everyone who isn't sure one way or another to look into the arguments pro and con, and vote on whatever 1/2% of logic tells them.

People are allowed to change their minds, after all. Simply because I voted that it was exaggerated doesn't mean I'm a hard-line revisionist anymore than Shatna and Lilith voting that it occurred would mean that they're Jewish.


Can't do that.

At one time, I regurgitated the popular line, just like everyone else who attended history classes in High School and College. However, I've seen some compelling arguments which challenge the canon.

That being said, I can't say that I'm convinced that those are compelling enough to say, "Yeah, the numbers were wrong," any more than I can say "Yeah, it was six million". I just don't know.

The fact is, I might never know beyond the shadow of a doubt. With the flow of information being what it is, perhaps the convincing bits of evidence have yet to be revealed.

Until that time, I'm of the mind that faith in either account alone is not enough for me to join one school of thought or the other.

In such an instance, the statement, "I know" is a barrier against being open to the possibility of learning something new. Since it's not yet a matter of life or death for me to make such a proclamation, I will wait and see what may yet to be known
 
Peter Octavian said:
Can't do that.

At one time, I regurgitated the popular line, just like everyone else who attended history classes in High School and College. However, I've seen some compelling arguments which challenge the canon.
It's interesting that you should say that, because I bet that more than half of the people who will vote that it wasn't exaggerated haven't seen what the other side saysa as though if belief in the Holocaust is the 'default' belief.

Until that time, I'm of the mind that faith in either account alone is not enough for me to join one school of thought or the other.
I'd like to point out that the latter option indicates a lack of that sort of faith.

In such an instance, the statement, "I know" is a barrier against being open to the possibility of learning something new. Since it's not yet a matter of life or death for me to make such a proclamation, I will wait and see what may yet to be known
The poll choices are all "I believe...." for exactly that reason.

But I completely respect your position.


And now for my obligatory revisionist sedition:

Having made your position on the ultimately unknowable aspects of the past, I would like to turn your attention solely towards the issue of Auschwitz, which the video link posted earlier tries to tackle. Provided you wish to go into such details, of course.
 
Look, I'm not saying you're wrong Messy. I've seen the video. I saw it a while back. I'm just not convinced enough to say that I believe it's unimpeachable.

It's compelling, no argument. It's just not convincing enough on it's own to make me embrace it as gospel.

And really, the former position has, so far as "accepted in polite company" goes, been the default position. It's videos like the one you posted, and many of the arguments which have been undertaken in various fora here that makes one take a step back and say, "hmmmm...never thought about it like that."
 
Depending on where you live, complete unquestioning belief in the holocaust is the default position. Use it to your advantage to weed out the non-thinkers.
 
Thanks everyone, for your input. And I think Pete Oct and Gonad make very valid points here.

Let's take Morrhigan, for example. In all the revisionist discussions I've read here, I don't think I've ever seen her make anything other than an inane, sarcastic remark a la rodent (If she contributed that much.)

What's her basis for voting "I believe that it happened, or has been SLIGHTLY exaggerated, at most." ?
 
That's funny; of all the times I stood up with it and shook off anyone who would come at me, I never noticed Morrhigan among 'em. No to say she wasn't in there, I just didn't notice her if she was.
 
Actually Pete Oct, I have another issue:

If this is a matter of convincing proof or lack thereof, then shouldn't those who claim that it occurred have to provide evidence for their case?

I've seen most revisionists knock down claim after claim with sound logic and scientific fact.

I don't see how you can be in the middle or not convinced somehow. If I claim that Santa Claus exists and TQ claims he doesn't, does TQ have to provide 'further, indisputable proof' that he doesn't?

I'm going to invoke that nasty little phase: Burden of Proof.
 
^I have zero interest in engaging you guys in this discussion, that's why you haven't heard any arguments from me. I can't even be bothered to counter whatever insults to my intelligence you feel like spouting. Have fun. :)
 
An oldie but a goodie:

The Natural Sciences Under National Socialism said:
The Natural Sciences and Technology under National Socialism: A Dry Analysis of Special Interest to Engineers
(translated from German)

Over a period of almost 5 decades the act of "Coming to Terms with the Past" has illuminated every nook and cranny of National-Socialist activity in war and peace. There is however one phenomenon which, until today, has not been described nor explored, and this is that this cynical system managed to impose its own laws even on nature itself. We present the following arguments in support of this claim.

1. The fourth law of thermodynamics, the so-called National-Socialist one, asserts that under certain political conditions, the effects of the other three laws may be limited.

Proof: Corpses burn like dry wood in the force-field of National Socialism . The burning can be enhanced with the addition of water, as the following practical cases demonstrate.

At the Jerusalem Trial of J. Demnjaniuk, eyewitness Elyiahu Rosenberg stated that "after the Germans discovered that women and children burn better than adult males, we had to throw the corpses of men into the fire only at the end." (Münchener Abendzeitung, 27.2.87)

Remark: A person consists of between 60 and 70 % of water. The higher percentage holds for the bodies children, which, according to eye-witness testimony, burnt best of all.

The witness Szyia Warszawsky stated that "when the corpses caught fire, they burnt on their own." (Main record of The Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland). A statement by French-Jewish doctor C.S. Bendel, sworn on 2.3.46 before an Allied military tribunal in Hamburg, stated that "it is an actual fact that 1000 bodies thrown into such a ditch disappeared within an hour, they turned into ashes". (Document reprinted in U. Walendy, "Auschwitz in IG Farben Prozess", Vlotho 1981, p.58)

2. The National-Socialist law of compact packing or the compression of matter without pressure.

This was applied in order to pack the optimum number of victims into a gas chamber. According to eyewitness Dr. Bendel (ibid, p.55), "One thousand people were brought into a room with dimensions 10 by 4 by 1,6 meters (64 cubic meters) [...] This could only be achieved by the German method."

Explanation: The body of an adult fits into a National-Socialist cube of side 40 centimetres.

3. The law of specific National-Socialist gas circulation. (Spontaneous homogeneous diffusion in a strongly inhomogeneous cavity-system).

This was confirmed by Judge Melder who tried Ernst Zündel in November 1991 at Munich: In a gas chamber packed full with people the slowly liberated poison- gas spreads itself evenly throughout the gas chamber without any fall in concentration.

4. The law of total annihilation of matter.

Proof: At least at Treblinka around 800 000 murdered people disappeared without leaving a trace.

5. The National-Socialist principle of oxidation. (Burning with a throttled supply of oxygen or without oxygen altogether).

Applied for the disposal of traces during and after mass-murder of Jews in Poland. According to perpetrator Rudolf Hoess, "[...] for the most part, those gassed were burnt behind Crematorium IV [...] The bodies were at first burnt with oil residue, later by pouring on methanol. In the ditches corpses were burnt continuously, that is day and night." (Martin Broszat (Ed.) "Commandant in Auschwitz", Munich 1981, p.165 and p.161 respectively).

Witness Szlama Dragon on the burning of corpses at Auschwitz (statement made on 11.5.45): "[...] there were two 30m long 7m wide and 3m deep ditches at Auschwitz. The edges of the pits were blackened by smoke". (Kogon, Langbein & Röckerl: "Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas" ("National- Socialist Mass-Murder with Poison-Gas"), Frankfurt/M 1983, p.211).

Explanation: In a hole in the ground fire has normally an insufficient supply of oxygen. Without National-Socialist technology it is impossible even today to burn wood and paper piles in a 3-metre deep ditch, let alone heaps of bodies.

Remark: Application of the National-Socialist oxidation principle found its perfect fulfilment at Auschwitz, namely under water. For, in the vicinity of the camp the water table reaches a level just beneath the surface of the ground. (Compare the photograph in the Magazine of the paper Südeutschen Zeitung of 6.12.91, where one can observe a pool of water next to Crematorium IV). The burning-ditches were thus full of water.

6. The law of racially determined sensitivity to hydrocyanic acid. (The selective effect of HCN on homo sapiens Hebraeicus).

Proof: The gas chambers at Auschwitz were in the immediate vicinity of other camp facilities, for instance the SS field hospital. Continuous ventilation of the gas chambers would certainly not have affected the guard detail - clearly a genetically determined phenomenon. Also, following a still to be unravelled National- Socialist method, the Jewish work details would have been immune to poison, since they hauled the corpses out of the gas chambers without any protective clothing, gloves or gas-masks. (M. Broszat, op. cit. p.130).

7. The gas chamber effect.

In the force-field of a National-Socialist gas chamber there occurs a wave alteration effect, so that the invisible becomes visible. Eyewitness Boeck, a member of the guard detail, announced during the 1964-1965 Frankfurt Auschwitz trial that he saw disposal squads working in the blue haze of Hydrogen cyanide gas. Hint: Hydrogen Cyanide is normally colourless; ie. invisible.

* 8. The National Socialist principle for generating carbon monoxide with the help of a Diesel engine.

Proof in the case of Treblinka: "There was a Diesel motor in an annex which generated poison gas." (Kogon, Langbein, Röckerl, op.cit., p.163). Proof in the case of Belzec: "The engine itself stood there [...], it was Diesel-driven. (K. Gerstein, quoted in Kogon, Langbein & Röckerl, op.cit. p.173).

Hint: At that time, to all practical purposes the ideal poison-gas generator would have been readily available in the form of one for generating producer-gas from wood. With 32% of its volume consisting of carbon monoxide, the propellant gas formed contained a high proportion of this highly toxic gas. (Meyer's Encyclopedia/Lexicon, 1974, vol. 12, p.207).

It is clear that special wartime circumstances determined that producer-gas generators should have been retained for the maintenance of truck transport on the home front. Thus the extermination camps in the East had to make do with Diesel engines, which even under present political conditions can only emit non- dangerous concentrations of about 0.5% carbon monoxide. (Meyer's Encyclopedia/Lexicon, 1971, vol.1, p.88).

Nevertheless, the circumstances prevailing during the National Socialist reign made it clearly possible to gain substantially greater emissions of carbon monoxide from a diesel engine, contrary to the design of its inventor. In any case one had to sacrifice extremely scarce Diesel fuel for this purpose; the producer-gas carburator would have had to make do with wood shavings.

The disclosure by natural scientists and technologists of these examples of the fearful capabilities of the terror regime (to name only a few) has been long overdue. For, only the knowledge of these things can neatly round off our picture of National Socialism. It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this, even though the victors carried off thousands of scientists as well as all patents and research results as booty from a vanquished Germany.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_____ *Remark of the translator. The German word for hydrocyanic acid (HCN), Blausäure, named after the blue in Prussian Blue, itself a cyanide compound iron, might suggest to the ignorant that HCN should have a blue coloration. In order to sound more authentic perhaps Boeck thought this would be a realistic detail.

Source.
 
Morrhigan said:
^I have zero interest in engaging you guys in this discussion, that's why you haven't heard any arguments from me.
No, I think you simply lack the facts.
I can't even be bothered to counter whatever insults to my intelligence you feel like spouting. Have fun. :)
There are many intelligent people on both sides of the debate. It's just that some usually prefer to defend something unproveable, and do it on total faith and 'instinct.' Yes, very logical, and completely within the realm of intelligence.

So much so, that you've started your first possible post by poisoning the well that people would insult your intelligence, and that no one would listen to you. Good job!
 
Zodiac said:
Which one do you think I was referring to?

"I believe that it happened, or has been SLIGHTLY exaggerated, at most."

"I believe that it has been largely exaggerated, or did not occur."

The latter, 'though I couldn't be sure, which is why I asked.
 
Granted, but since "I believe that it has been largely exaggerated, or did not occur." is more easily interpreted as a denial --much as the word "no" is usually interpreted as denial, it seemed to contradict your established stance.

Hence, the request for clarification. Thank you.
 
Top