Mary, avishai; good points.
Realist
I like lists. Here's a list of false claims you have made or have yet to prove;
- The Holocaust is primarily about the money and getting sympathy for Israel
- If the Holocaust had involved non-Jews no one would care about it
- A list of names (without any proof of ancestry of religious adherence) "proves" the USA is subjected to disproportionate Jewish influence
- 20% of the German/Austrian Parliament are made up of Jews - again with no details or proof of ancestry or adherence.
- The State of Israel's current policies in some way mean we should be less aware of the Holocaust
- 'The Jews' have profited from the 'Holocaust Industry' even if most individuals see nothing from it
- There is a 'Holocaust Industry', albeit one that you are incapable of posting any profits for
- Teaching people about the Holocaust teaches them to hate Germans
- Stalin didn't pursue anti-Semitic policies
- The Jews contributed to the Holocaust by isolating themselves culturally.
- Albright knew she was of Jewish decent
- Anti-semitic websites publishing The Protocols of Zion are places where reasonable people gather data concerning the Holocaust.
- The Holocaust's death toll has been exaggerated,
- There was never any explicit plan to wipe-out the Jews until very late in the war when they did it because the war was going bad and it was the Jews fault there was a war
- Jews will support each other even if they disagree with each other/aren't practising Jews/ have no knowledge of their ancestry
I've numbered them for easy reference. So many claims Realist, so little proved. I can provide the quotes on which I base the above by the way...
i don't feel superior in any way when discussing the holocaust...but i do enjoy a real debate over a lame one.
In that case, why not have a real debate for a change? Normally when someone says 'Blackbirds are green', and they are proved wrong, they change their opinion.
You retain your opinions even after being proved wrong. It's not really possible to have a debate with you due to the unchangeability of your beliefs. One can talk AT you in hope something sticks, but that is as far as it goes.
You are arrogant to assume that other posters are so ill-informed as to not be aware of these events at least in outline.where do you get that idea from?
From what you said;
had the victims not be jews but lets say arabs or 'only' russians, polish and gypsies no one would care about it more than about cambodia, rwanda, mao, stalin etc. Who hears about these attrocities?
Oh, were you talking to yourself? Was it a rhetorical question? To which the answer is 'loads of people'? Which really doesn't make the point you might have been trying to make with a rhetorical question...
had it not been for the jewish victims the holocaus would not be more discussed than the mass murder committed by stalin
Yawn. Repeating an unprovable and unreasoned claim that the Holocaust is only remembered as it is because it involved Jews. (No.2.) How bigotted is that? Do you think so little of other racial groups, or do you just think others think so little of other racial groups?
Funnily enough, this is partially right. If the Nazis had decided the Danes were a good scapegoat then the Holocaust would be remembered because of the wholesale slaughter of Danes (most of who are members of the state church even if they don't believe in it), a combined racial and religious massacre, just as the Holocaust was.
It was the unique unreasoned (or deluded) racial hate driving the Holocaust, it's scale, extent and execution that make it stand out. You ignore this by obsessing about Jews, and are obviously incapable of realising if it had happened to a similar religio-racial group to the same scale and extent it would be remembered BECAUSE OF THE SCALE AND THE EXTENT OF RACIAL HATRED IT SHOWED.
But, you're obsessive;
you hear about the holocaust once a day.
YOU might do. Most people don't and this is a quite provable fact. This either means you have very big ears, or you are obsessed with the subject to the extent TO YOU it appears that you hear about it everyday.
And of course the opinions of obsessives who don't change their beliefs even when the facts they base their beliefs on are shown not to be facts aren't really worth much except to the obsessive themself...
Anyway, you're right; miserable Jews, only six million died over half a century ago and they are still whining about it when they run the world, why can't they shut up?
(NFTHI: please note Realist I am lampooning you in the above)
You miss the point even when it's under your nose.
the jews were the victims of the hlocaust but that doesn't make their actions any more innocent or guiltfree than that of any other population. what is going on in israel is a crime and is is committed with influence of the jewish people in the US gov.
Repeated claim that somehow the education about the Holocaust and the modern State of Israel's behaviour should be linked. (No.5.)
In fact I cannot think of one claim ever made that the Holocaust could not have happened in another situation and nation if the circumstances were the same.oh please...you seem to miss some important parts of holocaus literature then!
What I mean is that if Spain (for example);
- had fought and lost WWI,
- had a disastrous war settlement forced upon it,
- suffered economically as a result,
- had a National Socialist party that seized upon using Jews as a scapegoat. etc,
- and developed an ideology which required the Jews to be killed,
... the Holocaust would have happened under the Spanish. There is nothing uniquely German about the Holocaust, unless you think Germans are evil, which only a fool would think, although as you are fond of claiming that teaching people about the Holocaust teaches them Germans are evil (No. 8), god knows what you think.
While this does not mean that Stalin procured these former comrades' deaths because of anti-Semitism?he had far more concrete and "rational" reasons for wanting them deadexactly. many political leaders in russia were jews. thus a large number of jews were among the victims.
Typically you ignore all the rest of the quote which points to anti-Semitism being a motivating factor. (No.9.) Outstanding intellectual honesty there Realist...
the death toll is based purely on estimates. we were able to establish this in the previous discussion.
Ah, No.13.
As Mary points out here you tell an outright lie; "the death toll is based purely on estimates". How illuminating.
Your recollection of our discussion is regrettably poor. You made assertions you were unable to back up, just as you do here.
I was able to establish that you'd fallen victim to the clever manipulation of figures and straw-man claims of Nazi revisionists. You have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the assertion made by revisionists that the large propaganda based-number of Jews killed at Auschwitz published by the Poles after the war was a carefully researched and scientific claim given wide credence by historians.
It wasn't, but revisionists use the fact the inflated Soviet figure WAS revised downward to further their agenda, and you follow them like a dupe.
All the major studies linking to pre and post war censuses, indicate between 5 and 6 million Jews were killed, regardless of any decades old piece of Soviet propaganda that no historians used anyway.
How do you explain the absense of millions of named individuals from records before and after the war, with full account taken of migratory and refugee patterns of movement leading to a change in the country of record?
also as we discussed previously the wannsee conference protocols (the only documents showing a systematic plan) are not originals and the nazis indeed viewed the jews as responsible for the war.
No.14. The content of the Wansee documents were confirmed by a high-ranking Nazi who was present and who had nothing to gain from lying. The policies of extermination were referred to from 1939 onward (if I recall the research I did on that thread), and the apparatus and infrastructure for extermination and imprisonment of Jews near railway lines for convenient transport was already well underway before Wansee, as were tests of various execution methods.
Despite the fact I documented all of this for you, you persist with your original beliefs unchanged. If producing documentary evidence your claim is wrong won't convince you, what will?
And the fact that Nazi propaganda portrayed the Jews as responsible for the war is irrelevant. Will you next suggest a woman wearing a short-skirt is responsible for her rape? Or are you actually giving credence to Hitler blaming the war on the Jews as being anything other than propaganda?
Amusingly by making this claim you contradict another claim you make; Hitler stated prior to the war that if war started he would exterminate the Jews as war would be their fault. You obviously don't realise that claiming the Nazis killed the Jews because they thought the war was the Jews fault AND claiming they didn't plan to kill the Jews until late in the war are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE claims.
You failed to respond to that last time I pointed it out; I doubt there will be much change now.
Since when did doublethink or cognitive dissonance stop anyone from believing what the hell they liked?
Contrary to you claims, I seem to have proved quite a lot. You just make claims previous dismissed and dismantled.
But it isn't about me, is it?
It's about you persisting with claims that minimise the impact, extent, scale and importance to us today of a event unique in it's intent, extent and scale. It's about you persisting in such claims without having any evidence that withstands scrutiny. It's about you making little of the deaths of 5-6 million people.
The more people try to do what you do, the more we need to make sure people know aout the Holocaust.
That way when people say things like you say, the lies, exclusions, partialities, distortions and selective-thinking required for such beliefs can be seen to be as pathetic and self-serving as they are, and such people can be roundly ridiculded and condemned for letting such nonsense into their heads, let alone out of their mouths.
But of course, even with at least 15 errors in your argument you cannot cope with, you will insist you are still right...
Change the record Realist, you've worn out the groove...
Here's some links about Holocaust denial;
Interesting quote here;
Recently the terms Holocaust Industry and Shoah Business have come into vogue among Holocaust revisionists to express their perception that Jewish leaders promote the official story about the Holocaust for financial and political gain.
Mmm, and who use that term here? I mean, someone who talks about 'the Truth' (seriously. not in humour) isn't necessarily a Witness... but it does normally mean they've learnt about Witnesses and are validating the definition.
So, what do you mean by using and validating an expression that is 'in vouge among Holocaust revisionists Realist? Do you know the joke about duck?
This last one is especially good;
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/skeptic-magazine/
It looks at the fallacious reasoning used by Revisionists, and how, like Creationists, they will point at minor problems, discrepancies or unknowns and declare an entire 'theory' or event is false - ignoring the missing millions of people and all the other strands of evidence (the death camps, the documents, the speeches, the ideologies, the unforced testimonies of those involved (on both sides), etc.) that show the event took place largely as is believed.
But, is there any use? Will you actually change your mind about anything? From experience, no. Even when you are shown to be wrong it doesn't make a bit of difference to your beliefs.