Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Holocaust denial

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 6:46:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I had previously done some sloothing on wikipedia to try and figure out what methodology was used to come up with the 5-6 million figure so often used to estimate the number of jewish deaths from the holocaust. As far as I am aware, there are two basic techniques.

First, a before/after census shows about 6 million if you account for birth rates and stuff. I have a lot of problems with this approach.

Most obviously, there was a freaking campaign to exterminate jews, so I don't think all the jews would self identify on the census just for kicks and giggles. The jews were also a refugee people, and taking a survey of refugees is really difficult.

Lastly, the source on these census statistics come from explicitly jewish organizations. The World Almanac estimate is significantly higher, showing about 4 million extra jews living... why the conflict?

Second, evidence for the holocaust comes out of nazi records and testimony. But there are obvious reasons why camp officers would falsify data - similar to how russian factories falsified their data - to make quota. As far as I can see, its just a name in a book. I don't see any evidence of a system of checks and balances that would keep nazi recording honest.

Testimonies were taken under varying pressure, but even I don't think they could have told the real truth even if they wanted to. If they testify they killed 5.5 million jews, it is because they saw that number on a piece of paper. I.e., testimony validity is predicated on record validity, so it offers no special consideration.

So what evidence is good enough for Sieben? Forensic evidence would be nice. Are there 6 million bodies? No. Some of the bodies were burned. How many? Due to many constraints on the physical rate at which crematories can progress, including the total number of ovens, fuel consumed, etc, this author puts the estimate at below 160,000 cremations. http://vho.org...

So where are the other 5.2 million bodies? Supposedly in mass graves that have never been dug up. Why haven't they been dug up? Its the freaking holocaust! I can't find the source right off hand, but I remember reading something to the effect that there are allegedly about 1 million bodies (jew+nonjew) in a mass grave somewhere in poland... except seismic data shows that the soil has never been disturbed.

Anyway, I'm not set in my opinion. I've done X amount of research and come to this conclusion. I may find more information that changes my mind. I don't really care if my hypothesis remains correct, I just don't want to walk around holding an extreme opinion that I can't back up!

And in case you haven't guessed, this is not "denial" in the sense that the holocaust never happened. This is denial of the official 6 million figure. To me it looks like about 1 million jews right now...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:13:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 6:46:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
I had previously done some sloothing on wikipedia to try and figure out what methodology was used to come up with the 5-6 million figure so often used to estimate the number of jewish deaths from the holocaust. As far as I am aware, there are two basic techniques.

First, a before/after census shows about 6 million if you account for birth rates and stuff. I have a lot of problems with this approach.

Most obviously, there was a freaking campaign to exterminate jews, so I don't think all the jews would self identify on the census just for kicks and giggles. The jews were also a refugee people, and taking a survey of refugees is really difficult.

Lastly, the source on these census statistics come from explicitly jewish organizations. The World Almanac estimate is significantly higher, showing about 4 million extra jews living... why the conflict?

Second, evidence for the holocaust comes out of nazi records and testimony. But there are obvious reasons why camp officers would falsify data - similar to how russian factories falsified their data - to make quota. As far as I can see, its just a name in a book. I don't see any evidence of a system of checks and balances that would keep nazi recording honest.

Testimonies were taken under varying pressure, but even I don't think they could have told the real truth even if they wanted to. If they testify they killed 5.5 million jews, it is because they saw that number on a piece of paper. I.e., testimony validity is predicated on record validity, so it offers no special consideration.

So what evidence is good enough for Sieben? Forensic evidence would be nice. Are there 6 million bodies? No. Some of the bodies were burned. How many? Due to many constraints on the physical rate at which crematories can progress, including the total number of ovens, fuel consumed, etc, this author puts the estimate at below 160,000 cremations. http://vho.org...

So where are the other 5.2 million bodies? Supposedly in mass graves that have never been dug up. Why haven't they been dug up? Its the freaking holocaust! I can't find the source right off hand, but I remember reading something to the effect that there are allegedly about 1 million bodies (jew+nonjew) in a mass grave somewhere in poland... except seismic data shows that the soil has never been disturbed.

Anyway, I'm not set in my opinion. I've done X amount of research and come to this conclusion. I may find more information that changes my mind. I don't really care if my hypothesis remains correct, I just don't want to walk around holding an extreme opinion that I can't back up!

And in case you haven't guessed, this is not "denial" in the sense that the holocaust never happened. This is denial of the official 6 million figure. To me it looks like about 1 million jews right now...

It is interesting...I was talking with my parents and they thought that only a couple million jews died in the Holocaust. They also don't even have any hint of anti-semetism in there either, but what I think you have to put into consideration is the decay of bodies as well.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:25:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 7:13:41 PM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:

It is interesting...I was talking with my parents and they thought that only a couple million jews died in the Holocaust. They also don't even have any hint of anti-semetism in there either, but what I think you have to put into consideration is the decay of bodies as well.

Decay? What about bones?

Also, the issue isn't just that they can't find the bodies now. They never had them.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:46:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In most of Europe what you are saying might open you to prosecution. If you do proceed down this path it is probably best to do it anonymously.

Holocaust denial/revision is a pretty fascinating area, I've not made a serious study myself but I have found a few interesting things here and there.

The six million Jews, seems to be a figure set in stone. Even when the a sub figure is revised, the overall figure is not. For instance I believe Auschwitz crossed off a million victims from it's official claim a few years ago. Yet still six million is the official approximate figure.

The Nurembourg trials (and I beleieve the trial of eichmann but my memory is vague) contain testimony with regards the holocaust that is clearly false. But has entered in as official historical and legal fact.
-In one camp it is claimed that Jews were murdered using carbon monoxide from the engine of a captured Russian Sub. This is a most cumbersome method, and there was no captured Russian Sub.
-Female bodies were used as kindling, around pyres of male bodies. No fuel was used. The human corpse is naturally flammable, female ones more so.
-Corpses were buried so tightly that blood bubbled out of the earth like a natural spring.
-The clothes of the dead formed a mountain 100ft high.

Then there are the cases of individual survivors, I believe Simon Wiesanthal could never quite remember what camp he was rescued from (it became about three or four) and was ultimately asscused of being a Nazi agent by the Jewish chancellor of Austria.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:53:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 7:46:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
In most of Europe what you are saying might open you to prosecution. If you do proceed down this path it is probably best to do it anonymously.

Holocaust denial/revision is a pretty fascinating area, I've not made a serious study myself but I have found a few interesting things here and there.

The six million Jews, seems to be a figure set in stone. Even when the a sub figure is revised, the overall figure is not. For instance I believe Auschwitz crossed off a million victims from it's official claim a few years ago. Yet still six million is the official approximate figure.

Err, what you're referring to is the fact that the Russians originally overstated the claim, and it was rolled back.

"A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document" (actually a paper by Aaron Breitbart),[40] which describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Holocaust deniers insist that the number of Jews killed therefore be lowered by at least 2.5 million. However, the plaque had never been used as an accurate historical source by mainstream historians. As early as the 1950s, Raul Hillberg estimated 1.1 million Jewish deaths in Auschwitz."

The Nurembourg trials (and I beleieve the trial of eichmann but my memory is vague) contain testimony with regards the holocaust that is clearly false. But has entered in as official historical and legal fact.
-In one camp it is claimed that Jews were murdered using carbon monoxide from the engine of a captured Russian Sub. This is a most cumbersome method, and there was no captured Russian Sub.

Lol that's funny. I'll have to check that out.

-Female bodies were used as kindling, around pyres of male bodies. No fuel was used. The human corpse is naturally flammable, female ones more so.

Err, only some parts of it are. To fully *cremate* you need to actually add extra fuel.

-Corpses were buried so tightly that blood bubbled out of the earth like a natural spring.
-The clothes of the dead formed a mountain 100ft high.

Then there are the cases of individual survivors, I believe Simon Wiesanthal could never quite remember what camp he was rescued from (it became about three or four) and was ultimately asscused of being a Nazi agent by the Jewish chancellor of Austria.

Hah, nice.

The issue with testimony is that you can't like, see 6 million people at once. So I believe that there were camps jam packed with prisoners, but its like trying to estimate the population of a city by just walking around downtown.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 8:00:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
at least 6,775,235,741 People will die over the next century.

Come-on people, this is 1000 times the Holocaust, let's do something!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 8:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 7:53:00 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/20/2011 7:46:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
In most of Europe what you are saying might open you to prosecution. If you do proceed down this path it is probably best to do it anonymously.

Holocaust denial/revision is a pretty fascinating area, I've not made a serious study myself but I have found a few interesting things here and there.

The six million Jews, seems to be a figure set in stone. Even when the a sub figure is revised, the overall figure is not. For instance I believe Auschwitz crossed off a million victims from it's official claim a few years ago. Yet still six million is the official approximate figure.

Err, what you're referring to is the fact that the Russians originally overstated the claim, and it was rolled back.

"A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document" (actually a paper by Aaron Breitbart),[40] which describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Holocaust deniers insist that the number of Jews killed therefore be lowered by at least 2.5 million. However, the plaque had never been used as an accurate historical source by mainstream historians. As early as the 1950s, Raul Hillberg estimated 1.1 million Jewish deaths in Auschwitz."


Oh I see, thanks for the info.

The Nurembourg trials (and I beleieve the trial of eichmann but my memory is vague) contain testimony with regards the holocaust that is clearly false. But has entered in as official historical and legal fact.
-In one camp it is claimed that Jews were murdered using carbon monoxide from the engine of a captured Russian Sub. This is a most cumbersome method, and there was no captured Russian Sub.

Lol that's funny. I'll have to check that out.

I can't remember whose testimony that was.


-Female bodies were used as kindling, around pyres of male bodies. No fuel was used. The human corpse is naturally flammable, female ones more so.

Err, only some parts of it are. To fully *cremate* you need to actually add extra fuel.


Yep!

-Corpses were buried so tightly that blood bubbled out of the earth like a natural spring.
-The clothes of the dead formed a mountain 100ft high.

Then there are the cases of individual survivors, I believe Simon Wiesanthal could never quite remember what camp he was rescued from (it became about three or four) and was ultimately asscused of being a Nazi agent by the Jewish chancellor of Austria.

Hah, nice.

The issue with testimony is that you can't like, see 6 million people at once. So I believe that there were camps jam packed with prisoners, but its like trying to estimate the population of a city by just walking around downtown.

Thats the thing, would you really have kept exact records? Yea I know... Nazi efficiency blah blah. I think with a large scale operation, and the anarchic nature of the Nazi command, non-Nazi sources should be the best way to go.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 11:04:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Q1: Do you think it an unrealistic number of Jews in Europe?

Q2: Do you think it an unrealistic task to kill that number in that time frame given the resources found for that task?

Q3: Do you suspect a conspiracy?
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 11:17:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why can't you make the same arguments about any part of history?
Is there more evidence of the civil war and black slavery in america than the holocaust?
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 11:32:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
We know it happened because there are people that lived it that said it happened. Good enough for me.
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 1:54:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 11:17:52 AM, sal wrote:
Why can't you make the same arguments about any part of history?
Is there more evidence of the civil war and black slavery in america than the holocaust?

At 3/21/2011 11:32:57 AM, Heathen wrote:
We know it happened because there are people that lived it that said it happened. Good enough for me.

You guys didn't actually read the thread, did you? He's not saying the Holocaust never happened, he's questioning the official 6 million dead figure.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 2:48:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 11:04:51 AM, innomen wrote:
Q1: Do you think it an unrealistic number of Jews in Europe?

No. I don't think the numbers are unrealistic. I think it is *possible* to capture and murder that many jews. I just don't think it happened.

Q2: Do you think it an unrealistic task to kill that number in that time frame given the resources found for that task?

Just to kill? No. On specific issues like cremation, the evidence I see shows that they would not have been able to cremate more than 160,000 with the resources they expended. Sure its possible that they could have spent more resources to cremate more, but they didn't.

Q3: Do you suspect a conspiracy?

There's motivation. I don't know the specifics. If there was a conspiracy I doubt it would be documented.

The Allies NEED the holocaust to be a big deal so that WWII can be the good war. Otherwise we're just killing millions and millions of people to stop germany from being imperialistic, which is just too rich because the rest of europe is highly imperialistic too. Like I didn't see us liberating french africa... Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

And then of course the jews get isreal out of it. I do not know how big a role holocaust sympathy played in the formation of the isreali state, but its possible they may have wished to overstate the figures for some benefit, real or imagined.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 3:11:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 11:32:57 AM, Heathen wrote:
We know it happened because there are people that lived it that said it happened. Good enough for me.

We know that something happened, we also know that a large number of witnesses give false and self-contradictory testimony.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 6:44:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 6:40:17 AM, feverish wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:48:34 PM, Sieben wrote:
Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

lol, if I sigged stuff, I'd sig that.

Wow, I didn't catch that when I first read through his comment. What you say about the imperialism is valid, but that is total non-sequiter.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:11:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 6:44:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 6:40:17 AM, feverish wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:48:34 PM, Sieben wrote:
Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

lol, if I sigged stuff, I'd sig that.

Wow, I didn't catch that when I first read through his comment. What you say about the imperialism is valid, but that is total non-sequiter.

It means that we go to help white people when they are victims of imperialism, but we don't help africans, latinos, or sand people. =Racist.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:13:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:11:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 6:44:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 6:40:17 AM, feverish wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:48:34 PM, Sieben wrote:
Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

lol, if I sigged stuff, I'd sig that.

Wow, I didn't catch that when I first read through his comment. What you say about the imperialism is valid, but that is total non-sequiter.

It means that we go to help white people when they are victims of imperialism, but we don't help africans, latinos, or sand people. =Racist.

Oh. hmm. I still don't think that is fair to infer. I would say it means we help victims of imperialism if we are threatened by them, not because of their race.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:27:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:13:34 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:11:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 6:44:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 6:40:17 AM, feverish wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:48:34 PM, Sieben wrote:
Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

lol, if I sigged stuff, I'd sig that.

Wow, I didn't catch that when I first read through his comment. What you say about the imperialism is valid, but that is total non-sequiter.

It means that we go to help white people when they are victims of imperialism, but we don't help africans, latinos, or sand people. =Racist.

Oh. hmm. I still don't think that is fair to infer. I would say it means we help victims of imperialism if we are threatened by them, not because of their race.

We were not threatened by nazi germany. We choose to make hitler our enemy. Hitler liked us before that. http://en.wikipedia.org... And a little intelligence probably would have gone a long way even if he didn't like us.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:31:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:27:47 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:13:34 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:11:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 6:44:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 6:40:17 AM, feverish wrote:
At 3/21/2011 2:48:34 PM, Sieben wrote:
Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

lol, if I sigged stuff, I'd sig that.

Wow, I didn't catch that when I first read through his comment. What you say about the imperialism is valid, but that is total non-sequiter.

It means that we go to help white people when they are victims of imperialism, but we don't help africans, latinos, or sand people. =Racist.

Oh. hmm. I still don't think that is fair to infer. I would say it means we help victims of imperialism if we are threatened by them, not because of their race.

We were not threatened by nazi germany. We choose to make hitler our enemy. Hitler liked us before that. http://en.wikipedia.org... And a little intelligence probably would have gone a long way even if he didn't like us.

I'm British. You didn't join in the war till quite late in the day, and only once provoked anyway. By attacking Germany's ally you became their enemy.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:43:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:31:12 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm British. You didn't join in the war till quite late in the day, and only once provoked anyway. By attacking Germany's ally you became their enemy.

Germany only allied with Japan so that they would attack us in the first place... he was worried because he knew FDR wanted to enter the war and was just looking for an excuse.

Also consider that if we wanted to maintain neutrality we *probably* shouldn't have been sending the allies war supplies.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:51:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:43:38 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:31:12 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm British. You didn't join in the war till quite late in the day, and only once provoked anyway. By attacking Germany's ally you became their enemy.

Germany only allied with Japan so that they would attack us in the first place... he was worried because he knew FDR wanted to enter the war and was just looking for an excuse.:
Also consider that if we wanted to maintain neutrality we *probably* shouldn't have been sending the allies war supplies.

Yes, totally agree, but that contradicts your statement about being able to choose neutrality. They planned to attack you, ergo you were threatened.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:52:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:11:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
It means that we go to help white people when they are victims of imperialism, but we don't help africans, latinos, or sand people. =Racist.

Kinda like how we're in Libya yet do nothing about Darfur, Sudan, Central African Republic, etc.? Haha - I don't think racism has anything to do with it. Money and power pretty much always trump racism :)
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:54:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:51:58 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:43:38 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:31:12 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm British. You didn't join in the war till quite late in the day, and only once provoked anyway. By attacking Germany's ally you became their enemy.

Germany only allied with Japan so that they would attack us in the first place... he was worried because he knew FDR wanted to enter the war and was just looking for an excuse.:
Also consider that if we wanted to maintain neutrality we *probably* shouldn't have been sending the allies war supplies.

Yes, totally agree, but that contradicts your statement about being able to choose neutrality. They planned to attack you, ergo you were threatened.

Well technically all we have to do is stay out of the war with *hitler* to maintain my thesis. So if we had just kicked Japan's butt and then stayed home that would be consistent with self defense.

But you're hypothesizing that hitler wanted a war with the united states. US intervention became inevitable, so hiter/japan launched a pre-emptive strike. If we had been pledging neutrality the whole time, and not supplying the allies, he'd probably have believed us. After all, he liked the United States.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:55:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:52:45 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:11:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
It means that we go to help white people when they are victims of imperialism, but we don't help africans, latinos, or sand people. =Racist.

Kinda like how we're in Libya yet do nothing about Darfur, Sudan, Central African Republic, etc.? Haha - I don't think racism has anything to do with it. Money and power pretty much always trump racism :)

Oh, yeah I don't believe the higher powers would waste their time being racist when they can just get tons of money. But *popular* justification for WWII becomes racist without the holocaust. (maybe even with the holocaust)
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 10:00:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:54:03 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:51:58 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:43:38 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:31:12 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm British. You didn't join in the war till quite late in the day, and only once provoked anyway. By attacking Germany's ally you became their enemy.

Germany only allied with Japan so that they would attack us in the first place... he was worried because he knew FDR wanted to enter the war and was just looking for an excuse.:
Also consider that if we wanted to maintain neutrality we *probably* shouldn't have been sending the allies war supplies.

Yes, totally agree, but that contradicts your statement about being able to choose neutrality. They planned to attack you, ergo you were threatened.

Well technically all we have to do is stay out of the war with *hitler* to maintain my thesis. So if we had just kicked Japan's butt and then stayed home that would be consistent with self defense.

But you're hypothesizing that hitler wanted a war with the united states. US intervention became inevitable, so hiter/japan launched a pre-emptive strike. If we had been pledging neutrality the whole time, and not supplying the allies, he'd probably have believed us. After all, he liked the United States.

Lets say hypothetically America had just kicked Japans butt and kept out Europe, and that Germany had won the war in Europe, do you believe that the relationship between the two countries would be amicable, or even neutral? Look at Russia and USA after the war, and they were on the same side.
America almost certainly felt threatened by Germany.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 10:02:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Nazis were known to be meticulous with their records, so that's a very helpful nudge into thinking the records were accurate. This, among several other reasons (tbh, I don't know much about the issue).
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 10:04:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 10:00:16 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Lets say hypothetically America had just kicked Japans butt and kept out Europe, and that Germany had won the war in Europe, do you believe that the relationship between the two countries would be amicable, or even neutral? Look at Russia and USA after the war, and they were on the same side.

I think the relationship largely depends on the intentions of both countries. But this argument is irrelevant because no one could have predicted a cold war with russia, let alone a hypothetical cold war with a victorious germany. So this wasn't a factor in their decisions.

America almost certainly felt threatened by Germany.

Only after they had chosen sides with the allies by providing them with supplies. Before that, I see no reason why hitler would pose a threat to the united states.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 10:08:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 2:48:34 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/21/2011 11:04:51 AM, innomen wrote:
Q1: Do you think it an unrealistic number of Jews in Europe?

No. I don't think the numbers are unrealistic. I think it is *possible* to capture and murder that many jews. I just don't think it happened.

I think the resulting numbers of Jews in Europe speaks more to this point than the estimated numbers that entered the camps and died there.

Q2: Do you think it an unrealistic task to kill that number in that time frame given the resources found for that task?

I don't know the rate of burn for the human body under the crematorium conditions they had. Nor do i think an accurate number is attainable. You must add to this also the mass graves which actually doesn't take much time at all to do, just space.

Just to kill? No. On specific issues like cremation, the evidence I see shows that they would not have been able to cremate more than 160,000 with the resources they expended. Sure its possible that they could have spent more resources to cremate more, but they didn't.

What are the dates of crematoria operation and how many. I don't think you're even close to a number with 160,000. If you assert this, you will need to account for all the missing Jews in Europe. After WWII, there were virtually none where the Germans occupied. Although many did emigrate, there isn't evidence to support those numbers. You have a lot of missing Jews.
Q3: Do you suspect a conspiracy?

There's motivation. I don't know the specifics. If there was a conspiracy I doubt it would be documented.

The Allies NEED the holocaust to be a big deal so that WWII can be the good war. Otherwise we're just killing millions and millions of people to stop germany from being imperialistic, which is just too rich because the rest of europe is highly imperialistic too. Like I didn't see us liberating french africa... Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

There is so little needed to assert this premise. The Nuremberg trials were evidence enough without adding to that. Do you think the Nuremberg trials were a sham? There is also the entire Japanese theater - which was horrifyingly brutal and cruel. On a tangential note, i am curious why the evils of Japan were hardly brought to the same level as the Nazis.
And then of course the jews get isreal out of it. I do not know how big a role holocaust sympathy played in the formation of the isreali state, but its possible they may have wished to overstate the figures for some benefit, real or imagined.
It was the entire reason Israel exists. This is the only valid motive that i can see for your suspicion.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 10:14:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 10:04:14 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/22/2011 10:00:16 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

Lets say hypothetically America had just kicked Japans butt and kept out Europe, and that Germany had won the war in Europe, do you believe that the relationship between the two countries would be amicable, or even neutral? Look at Russia and USA after the war, and they were on the same side.

I think the relationship largely depends on the intentions of both countries. But this argument is irrelevant because no one could have predicted a cold war with russia, let alone a hypothetical cold war with a victorious germany. So this wasn't a factor in their decisions.

America almost certainly felt threatened by Germany.

Only after they had chosen sides with the allies by providing them with supplies. Before that, I see no reason why hitler would pose a threat to the united states.

The cold war would not have been predictable, but predicting hostilities from someone who fought your allies? Very predictable.
So far I've just defending one reason why it wasn't about racism. Here are a few more;
1) Ideological and historical ties
America identified far more with the Allies politically than the Germans
2) Trade
It was in America's interest to keep selling weapons. Germany was already self-sufficient in this regard, so Britain was the natural recipient
3) Protection
Japan was ostensibly the only threat to American soil at that time. Who had colonies in that part of the world?
4) Political pressure to remain a player on the world stage
The outcome of the war was clearly going to have a major impact on world history. There was a lot of pressure within America to join the war, so as to remain relevent.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 10:24:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 10:08:38 AM, innomen wrote:

I think the resulting numbers of Jews in Europe speaks more to this point than the estimated numbers that entered the camps and died there.

I already explained that the World Alamanc's estimate shows significantly more still-living jews than the Jewish organizations' estimates. Also that taking a census of a persecuted refugee people is lol. I can't see why anyone would mark the "jew" box on the census a few years after WWII.

I don't know the rate of burn for the human body under the crematorium conditions they had. Nor do i think an accurate number is attainable. You must add to this also the mass graves which actually doesn't take much time at all to do, just space.

Well even if you double the number of cremated bodies, its still not even on the same order of magnitude as the total deaths claimed.

Mass graves *WOULD* be evidence! That's exactly my point. The mainstream claims that there's all these mass graves just sitting around. But you'd figure they would have dug them up to give the victims a proper burial right? I also remember reading that there's supposed to be a mass grave of like 1 million somewhere in poland, but seismic shows that the soil has never been disturbed...

What are the dates of crematoria operation and how many. I don't think you're even close to a number with 160,000.

Why? The source I used was very detailed. More detailed than both of us care to be.

If you assert this, you will need to account for all the missing Jews in Europe. After WWII, there were virtually none where the Germans occupied. Although many did emigrate, there isn't evidence to support those numbers. You have a lot of missing Jews.

I think more than 160,000 died. Just not 6 million. I could believe 1.4 million, which is what the world almanac estimate gives you.

The Allies NEED the holocaust to be a big deal so that WWII can be the good war. Otherwise we're just killing millions and millions of people to stop germany from being imperialistic, which is just too rich because the rest of europe is highly imperialistic too. Like I didn't see us liberating french africa... Without the holocaust, WWII is implicitly racist.

There is so little needed to assert this premise. The Nuremberg trials were evidence enough without adding to that. Do you think the Nuremberg trials were a sham? There is also the entire Japanese theater - which was horrifyingly brutal and cruel.

Yes I do think the nuremberg trials are a sham. But its the *holocaust* that makes the nuremburg trials worth paying attention to. Otherwise its just "oh hey germany don't be imperialistic against poland and france k?" That would COMPLETELY fly in the face of all the imperialism perpetuated by euro powers against brown peoples.

On a tangential note, i am curious why the evils of Japan were hardly brought to the same level as the Nazis.

Nothing immediately comes to my mind.

And then of course the jews get isreal out of it. I do not know how big a role holocaust sympathy played in the formation of the isreali state, but its possible they may have wished to overstate the figures for some benefit, real or imagined.
It was the entire reason Israel exists. This is the only valid motive that i can see for your suspicion.

Well my suspicion comes from the fact that the methodology is so bad. A zionist conspiracy is interesting but non-essential.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...