Hitler's gas chambers mere fiction?

[avidaloca]

British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria on Tuesday for "denying the existence of gas chambers" during an open lecture. Denying Nazi war crimes is an offence under Austrian Law punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment.

Here is an excerpt from an important article on the "Myth of the Holocaust"

Introduction

Since the 1970s, publications dealing with Holocaust denial throughout the world can be divided into two kinds: the first, vulgar, unsophisticated antisemitic propaganda, and the second, books and articles written in an academic style, with a research methodology, primary sources, "scientific findings" and a complete set of claims. Those belonging to the latter group, such as Robert Faurisson and Arthur Butz, do not deny that the Jews fell victim to Nazi persecution and that a large number of them died during the war in the concentration camps, mainly as a result of epidemics and maltreatment. They do, however, deny the existence of a systematic, industrial plan of organized destruction which resulted in the death of six million Jews.

By the late 1980s/early 1990s David Irving had become one of the most prominent representatives of this stream of Holocaust denial. Unlike other authors in this school whose primary interest in World War II was the attempt to distort or deny the Holocaust, Irving came to the question of the destruction of the Jews as part of his revisionist writing on World War II, which he began to publish as early as the 1960s. He argued mainly against Hitler's demonic image during what he described as "years of intense wartime propaganda and emotive postwar historiography." However, up until the late 1980s Irving refrained from explicitly denying the extermination itself.

This article will focus on the transition from a revisionist approach, which presents a historical picture different from the one commonly accepted in World War II and Holocaust scholarship, to the adoption of views which question the uniqueness, and indeed the very historical veracity, of the Holocaust. It will attempt to determine when and under what circumstances this transition occurred and whether the ideas adopted by Irving in the late 1980s were immanent in his general historical concept and early historical writings.


Hitler's War

Irving's involvement in the discussion of the Final Solution began only at the end of the 1970s, after he had published Hitler's War, his most successful book. The aim of the book, according to Irving, was to describe the war from Hitler's point of view, "through Hitler's eyes, from behind his desk." In order to understand the link between Hitler's War and Holocaust denial adopted by Irving ten years later, one should concentrate on Irving's portrayal of Hitler, which Martin Broszat labelled "the strategy of de-demonization." The image of Hitler In Hitler's War, as well as in the War Path, published by Irving a year later, is totally different from that of the fanatic dictator portrayed by historians such as Allen Bullock, Karl Dietrich Bracher and Eberhard Jackel. In Irving's book, Hitler is depicted as a realistic, fair-minded leader, who strove to restore Germany's political status as a dominant power in Europe. As a solution to Germany's rapid population growth, he sought to acquire new territories in the East, a goal also motivated by a genuine fear of Bolshevist expansion and by a desire to "mark the ultimate frontier between Asia and the West." Hitler believed that the annexation of new territories in the East was not fundamentally different from the colonialism of other European powers, notably Britain. Moreover, he had no aggressive intentions in the West; on the contrary, he sought to reach an agreement with Britain and was willing to accept painful compromises, and even harsh terms, in order to maintain peace in Europe.

So, what about the Holocaust, the Final Solution? How does the image of a rational Hitler mesh with his obsessive war against the Jewish people and his decision to exterminate European Jewry. Irving resolved this complex question by claiming that Hitler never gave any order to exterminate the Jews, either the Jews of Russia or the Jews of Europe. Through his anti-Semitic speeches in the 1930s, admits Irving, Hitler created an atmosphere of hatred toward the Jews. Moreover, "his speeches, though never explicit, left a clear impression that 'liquidate' was what he meant." However, Irving claimed that Hitler did not cross the line between propaganda and reality. The instructions that he gave were to evacuate the Jews eastward, first to Poland and then to the territories occupied in the USSR. He intended to postpone the solution of the Jewish problem until the postwar era. Thus, "having removed the appalling crime of the deliberate systematic murder of six million Jews, Hitler could be viewed in a much more objective and clinical way," said Irving in an interview to The Guardian.

It should be noted that in Hitler's War Irving did not deny that the Jews were systematically exterminated, first by squads, later by mobile gas-trucks and eventually in the death camps. The extermination, claimed Irving, began as a consequence of local decisions made by "fanatical Gauleiters in the East who were interpreting with brutal thoroughness Hitler's decree that the Jews must ‘finally disappear from Europe'." These decisions received the support of Heydrich who, according to Irving, was the true initiator of the Final Solution, and eventually of Himmler, without the approval or even knowledge of Hitler. In The War Path, Irving claimed that the distinction between Hitler's more moderate attitude toward the "Jewish problem" and that of fanatic high-ranking Nazi officials was determined before the war. Once Hitler had seized power in 1933, he paid only lip-service to antisemitism and refrained from any involvement with the anti-Jewish policy, which was escalated by Nazi fanatics. Brutal measures, such as Kristallnacht were perpetrated without Hitler's approval and even against his will. Disregard of Hitler's will in relation to the Jewish question became even more blatant during the war. Irving alleged that on 30 November 1941, Hitler instructed Himmler that there was to be "no liquidation of the Jews." Himmler, together with the SS and the party principals, violated this order as "he had disregarded Hitler's veto on the liquidation of the Jews all along."

How was it possible that the Jews were exterminated without the approval or even knowledge of the Führer? Irving offers as explanation the theory of the weak dictator: "Hitler was probably the weakest leader Germany has known in this century." The war was his only concern, "[he was] unable to oversee all the functions of his executives acting within the confines of his far-flung empire," and Germany became a "Führer-Staat without a Führer."

[Mirage]

Is the law stupid?

What happened to freedom of speech?

Was he or anyone else there? (in reference to the supposed Holocaust)

Why would someone say the Holocaust didn't happen?

[ChochemV2]

So...this isn't so much Holocaust denial but Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust denial. I'm really failing to see why I should click the link and read more of the article.

[Boyan]

Why would someone say the Holocaust didn't happen?

Because he think so.

[Mirage]

Why, why, why would someone believe such a thing? It's been documented, there's supposed proof and hundreds of thousands of supposed witnesses...Right?--->So what's the problem?

[Dan Rowden]

The devil, as usual, is in the detail. There's absolutely no doubt a holocaust of sorts took place (that's what a world war essentially is anyway), in that at least 100s of thousands of Jews (and members of other social groups) died in camps. The queston is how this actually happened and the answer to that question is not as clear cut as people think. Mass gassings and burnings of bodies or mass deaths from typhus outbreaks and starvation? One thing to consider is that the mass starvation - i.e. deprivation of resources - doesn't match very well with the enormous resources needed to gas and burn the number of people claimed.

The bottom line is shitloads of Jews died and it wasn't just the Nazis who were responsible. They tried all the way up till '45 to negotiate the repatriation of Jews to other parts. No-one wanted them, or at least the form the negotiations took meant they didn't work out.

The holocaust (or "a" holocaust) involving the number 6 is of considerable prophetic importance to Judaism. Jews had been arguing that a holocaust of 6 million had been talking place long before WW11. The pathos of the WW11 events gets milked for all they're worth. Hitler arguably did them a favour.

[Matt Gregory]

Six million does sound like an infeasible number of people to gas in five years. That would be almost 3300 people a day you'd have to locate, round up, send to the death camp and execute. Or am I mistaken as to what that six million number represents?

[Boyan]

The bigger the number of Jews killed, the bigger the basis on which they can continue on playing their traditional victim role.

[Dan Rowden]

Large numbers of Jews and other "miscreants" were camped and left to die. Given what I've read on both sides of the "holocaust" evidence, I have concluded that it's one of those post-war myths exaggerated for political and religious reasons. A holocaust took place, but that was the nature of the war per se. The "Jewish" issue in Germany is very complex.

[Carl G]

Then, sometime in the 1960's the Jewish experience of WWII was named The Holocaust. Certain Jews usurped the word holocaust to refer just to them. You'll notice the word is rarely used in any official media anymore, except in that context. Part of mythologizing the story, same as the term "6 million." One can hardly say "6 million" without evoking "The Holocaust." I believe this has been deliberate.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Six million does sound like an infeasible number of people to gas in five years. That would be almost 3300 people a day you'd have to locate, round up, send to the death camp and execute. Or am I mistaken as to what that six million number represents?

Considering the total War statistics are about 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians, this number should be seen in perspective. The camps also took 2.5 million Soviet POWs for example, according to mainstream research. From wiki: ".. 12 million civilians died in Holocaust camps, 1.5 million by bombs, 7 million in Europe from other causes, and 7.5 million in China from other causes".

Hmm, 'other' causes?

Stalin's regime, part of 'our team', a really 'good' ally, is blamed for the death of 20 million during his rule. Wiki: "executions 1.5 million, gulags 5 million, deportations 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported), and POWs and German civilians 1 million - giving a total of about 9 million victims of repression. Some have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-33 famine.".

More recent we have the sanctions on Iraq by the UN that killed at least half a million children over a decade, and the civilian costs of the invasion is estimated (and of course disputed) to be 500,000-1,000,000, excluding militants, just over four years.

Lets face it, war sucks, kills and maims. You burn to death in your own house because of some bombing campaign or you're put out of your misery in some camp. Don't forget that lack of resources make people and governments do crazy things. Hard to imagine for people who have everything they need every day from birth to death.

Oh yeah, lets go over the 15 million kids a year that die from hunger, but could be prevented by spending ten Stealth bombers on them. Also this week they published the number of four million kids dying a year because of polution.

Lets just admit it, we're all little Saddams, Stalins and Hitlers. At the same time we're all in concentration camps too.

[ChochemV2]

I must have been taught a different meaning of "The Holocaust" than some of you because I was taught that it encompassed all of the people who were deliberately killed/imprisoned while the Nazi's were in power.

Then, sometime in the 1960's the Jewish experience of WWII was named The Holocaust. Certain Jews usurped the word holocaust to refer just to them. You'll notice the word is rarely used in any official media anymore, except in that context. Part of mythologizing the story, same as the term "6 million." One can hardly say "6 million" without evoking "The Holocaust." I believe this has been deliberate.

Um, what? I'll agree that it's difficult to use the word holocaust without thinking of "The Holocaust" but I don't seem to feel the loss of general use of the word holocaust as sharply as you do. As far as I can tell holocaust has been used in conjunction with mass murders for a long time and it just so happens that this time it stuck as a definitive title. Can you use the term "final solution" without thinking about World War II? I doubt it and I don't hear anyone lamenting about being unable to use the phrase "final solution" in general conversation without people thinking they mean WWII...

Six million does sound like an infeasible number of people to gas in five years. That would be almost 3300 people a day you'd have to locate, round up, send to the death camp and execute. Or am I mistaken as to what that six million number represents?

It's not like we are talking about three camps there were work camps, POW camps, and "death" camps. There were six major death camps which account for maybe a third of the six million figure and more than a hundred work camps across Europe. There were also the "death squads", gas trucks and ghettos which can certainly claim quite a chunk of the six million figure. I really don't find the six million figure out of the realm of possibility when considering the sheer number of people who died during the war, the methods which were used and the stories which came out of those camps.

The bottom line is shitloads of Jews died and it wasn't just the Nazis who were responsible. They tried all the way up till '45 to negotiate the repatriation of Jews to other parts. No-one wanted them, or at least the form the negotiations took meant they didn't work out.

I've never heard that claim seriously discussed, however, I won't deny that Europe and especially America was extremely bigoted at that time. America, probably the only place which could have absorbed such a large number of people, did nothing but raise restrictions on immigration as people were trying to escape Europe. This is why I find the conspiracy arguments to be so ridiculous, the Jewish populations of Europe didn't need to fabricate anything to get their way after the war. No one wanted them, no one wanted to deal with their repatriation and return their belongings, and all they wanted was a crappy piece of sand which was inhabited by more people Europeans didn't particularly care about.

The holocaust (or "a" holocaust) involving the number 6 is of considerable prophetic importance to Judaism. Jews had been arguing that a holocaust of 6 million had been talking place long before WW11. The pathos of the WW11 events gets milked for all they're worth. Hitler arguably did them a favour.

Sometimes you're ridiculous.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As far as I can tell holocaust has been used in conjunction with mass murders for a long time and it just so happens that this time it stuck as a definitive title.

Actually it referred to "catastrophe" especially when a lot of people died because of it. Didn't even have to be murder.

But the reality is that many Jewish, powerful, organizations will prevent lumping the tragedy for the Jewish people in with the rest of the victims. They do a lot of effort to make the Final Solution the centerpiece of the suffering of WW2 and one could certainly claim they hi-jacked some terms.

I think the real disaster was 'faulty intelligence', in this case the science or philosophy of Eugenics which opened the way to the believe one did your country or country's future a favor by cleansing the gene pool from bad material, by deportation, isolation and later on, when the problem became to big to handle - by finalizing a deadly solution. People were already dying in large numbers because of logistics and crisis in food and medial supplies. The final solution was in that context a terrible solution to a terrible problem, created by insane policies but nobody saw a way out without giving up on the war and ridiculing the sacrifice of millions of soldiers for the 'cause'.

Of course, as eugenics goes, we're all selecting the genes we (our own genes) prefer and exclude the ones we despise in our personal life. Hitler brought that to the terrible, most 'efficient' nation wide, centralized conclusion. Jews were equaled with homo-sexuals, Serbs, Gypsies, the retarded, etc. These days it are the 'Muslims' who are looked upon as retarded and instead of their genes, it's their teachings that are on the unwanted list.

[ChochemV2]

Actually it referred to "catastrophe" especially when a lot of people died because of it. Didn't even have to be murder.

That makes more sense. In that context something like a volcano or earthquake could be a "holocaust" and I'm fairly sure I've heard that usage before.

But the reality is that many Jewish, powerful, organizations will prevent lumping the tragedy for the Jewish people in with the rest of the victims. They do a lot of effort to make the Final Solution the centerpiece of the suffering of WW2 and one could certainly claim they hi-jacked some terms.

There are Jewish organizations which are annoyed when people try to use the word holocaust in conjunction with other crises but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously or restrict our use of the word. It's an apt use of the word connected with a tragedy with few equals like the word 'plague' being connected with The Bubonic Plague. The Jews (cue dramatic music) aren't forcing people to teach anything, it's our own preoccupation with race issues that puts it front and center and humanity's continued ability to kill each other over such insignificant things as skin color and place of birth.

EDIT 2:

Also, I have trouble getting worked up over people claiming words because words mean what we make them mean. There is no law, natural or otherwise, which says language has to stay the same throughout it's existence. If society chooses to associate the word holocaust with the final solution for the rest of history I don't see it any differently than not being able to say gay without people thinking I mean homosexual, or not being able to call my trunk the boot in America or sub meaning sandwich in New England, and so on...

[Faust]

The Jews (cue dramatic music) aren't forcing people to teach anything, it's our own preoccupation with race issues that puts it front and center and humanity's continued ability to kill each other over such insignificant things as skin color and place of birth.

Uhh yeah, say that to Steven Spielberg, with his lousy and unaccurate and overly dramatic holocaust propaganda movies.

one thing you should note is that Judaism is not a race, it's a religion, everything about it is religion, there's no such thing as a jewish culture outside of the religion. that's why it's absurd to have an Atheist Jew or a Blonde White Jew, yet there are plenty. Judaism is the only religion that doesn't allow its own members to leave. Weininger thoroughly debunks Judaism for the filth that it is in his book, many Jews can learn from that great ex-Jew.

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com

[ChochemV2]

Uhh yeah, say that to Steven Spielberg, with his lousy and unaccurate and overly dramatic holocaust propaganda movies.

Overly dramatic holocaust movies don't force anyone to do anything. If you watch movies as if they are serious portrayals of history that is your problem but I have no trouble watching a movie with an appropriate amount of skepticism and not assuming it's real history.

one thing you should note is that Judaism is not a race, it's a religion, everything about it is religion, there's no such thing as a jewish culture outside of the religion. that's why it's absurd to have an Atheist Jew or a Blonde White Jew, yet there are plenty. Judaism is the only religion that doesn't allow its own members to leave. Weininger thoroughly debunks Judaism for the filth that it is in his book, many Jews can learn from that great ex-Jew.

I don't have to note anything, "Race" is the most useless pseudo taxonomic distinction humanity has ever created. I may not go to synagogue but I still recognize that half of my heritage which comes from eastern European Judaism. I may not identify myself as Jewish but that tenuous connection is enough for other people (who don't look upon Judaism with a favorable eye) to call me Jewish I don't think it's "my people" who are the problem.

[Matt Gregory]

I think a religious basis for a "race" is just as valid as a biological one. They're both pretty arbitrary.

[Faust]

Overly dramatic holocaust movies don't force anyone to do anything. If you watch movies as if they are serious portrayals of history that is your problem but I have no trouble watching a movie with an appropriate amount of skepticism and not assuming it's real history.

Haha, it's not ME who watches it like that, it's the 90% of imbeciles that I talk to that do, "oh my goddd that's sooo bad oh my god I can't believe it.....Let's donate billions to Israel."

I don't have to note anything, "Race" is the most useless pseudo taxonomic distinction humanity has ever created. I may not go to synagogue but I still recognize that half of my heritage which comes from eastern European Judaism. I may not identify myself as Jewish but that tenuous connection is enough for other people (who don't look upon Judaism with a favorable eye) to call me Jewish I don't think it's "my people" who are the problem.

"race," "sub-species" "ethnicity" whatever you want to call it, having different gene pools for centuries contributes to some sort of grouping. And we all know genetics has a big impact on traits and abilities and personality. You're not a "Jewish" race, you're Amorite, Middle-Eastern, Caananite, unless of course Religious Jews did centuries of inbreeding then there would be some sort of quasi-"race" but in modern days A Jew can be just about anyone so it's hard to tell.

Also, The Khazars were an ancient Eastern European Kingdom, although they were of Central Asian descent, they decided to convert to Judaism, and many Eastern European Jews could have very well come from that line.

Judaism as the religion, the feminine Collective Hive Borg, whatever you want to call it is a problem, for it stifles individuality and seperates itself from the rest of humanity, you should really read Weininger's debunking. Ex-Jews are forced to somehow "stay" with it and identify with it if they don't want to. Also,
the religion is bad too, like the rest of the Abrahamic religions, all of them terribly wrong, superstitious and dangerous.

Although Zionism has nothing to do with traditional Judaism, it has permanently damaged its reputation, with its dispecable and endless global terrorism, conspiring, wars and false flag operations.

Btw, have you READ the Talmud? It's full of racism and Jewish supremacy, not to mention supporting paedophilia

[ChochemV2]

Haha, it's not ME who watches it like that, it's the 90% of imbeciles that I talk to that do, "oh my goddd that's sooo bad oh my god I can't believe it.....Let's donate billions to Israel."

And yet movies still don't force anyone to believe anything. Just because there are plenty of people out there with nothing better than a tenuous grasp of reality doesn't mean Spielberg is involved in some kind of worldwide conspiracy to change history. 90% of the factual inaccuracies in WWII movies would be plainly obvious to anyone who paid attention in grade school history class...

"race," "sub-species" "ethnicity" whatever you want to call it, having different gene pools for centuries contributes to some sort of grouping. And we all know genetics has a big impact on traits and abilities and personality. You're not a "Jewish" race, you're Amorite, Middle-Eastern, Caananite, unless of course Religious Jews did centuries of inbreeding then there would be some sort of quasi-"race" but in modern days A Jew can be just about anyone so it's hard to tell.

Nothing more than aesthetic differences. Other "races" aren't fundamentally different from each other even if they have a predisposition toward certain hair color, skin color, eye color, or body type. It's a scientifically useless term because it separates people by what you can see and not what they are.

Also, The Khazars were an ancient Eastern European Kingdom, although they were of Central Asian descent, they decided to convert to Judaism, and many Eastern European Jews could have very well come from that line.

Whee, I really don't care...

Judaism as the religion, the feminine Collective Hive Borg, whatever you want to call it is a problem, for it stifles individuality and seperates itself from the rest of humanity, you should really read Weininger's debunking. Ex-Jews are forced to somehow "stay" with it and identify with it if they don't want to. Also,
the religion is bad too, like the rest of the Abrahamic religions, all of them terribly wrong, superstitious and dangerous.

I really don't know how much clearer I can make myself. I'm not really Jewish, I don't practice the religion and the only reason I have any connection to Judaism is one side of my family is of Jewish descent. As I said in my previous reply I would have no problem not identifying myself as Jewish, however, I don't seem to be the one who gets to decide whether I'm Jewish or not...

Although Zionism has nothing to do with traditional Judaism, it has permanently damaged its reputation, with its dispecable and endless global terrorism, conspiring, wars and false flag operations.

I thought traditional Judaism already had a tarnished reputation. I don't see how Zionism could damage it any further, at least in your mind...

Btw, have you READ the Talmud? It's full of racism and Jewish supremacy, not to mention supporting paedophilia

I haven't, I don't practice the religion, I don't particularly care about the religion and I have never even set foot in a synagogue. Even then, it doesn't sound less full of BS than any other religion.

[Boyan]

I haven't, I don't practice the religion, I don't particularly care about the religion and I have never even set foot in a synagogue. Even then, it doesn't sound less full of BS than any other religion.

If you haven't read it how can you know how much bs it has? It certainly has the most racism and hate in it.

[ChochemV2]

If you haven't read it how can you know how much bs it has? It certainly has the most racism and hate in it.

[/quote]

It may very well have the most racism and hate in it but that doesn't particularly matter to me. I may read it one day, however, at this point I don't feel the need to read another book which tells me how I should live my life. I've never finished the Bible, Qur'an, LDS Bible, or who knows how many other religious texts I know of and have some knowledge of. I've never found anything particularly inspiring about any of them so I eventually end up putting them down and never picking them back up.

Ultimately the "evil of the Talmud" doesn't really apply to the topic at hand except to say "These people base their lives off this flawed text so obviously they are capable of fabricating the Holocaust" which misses the mark for a sound logical argument by many miles.

[Faust]

And yet movies still don't force anyone to believe anything. Just because there are plenty of people out there with nothing better than a tenuous grasp of reality doesn't mean Spielberg is involved in some kind of worldwide conspiracy to change history. 90% of the factual inaccuracies in WWII movies would be plainly obvious to anyone who paid attention in grade school history class...

yes HE is involved, and he gets awards for it!! like that stupid movie, Shoah. Instead of reminding Blacks and Native Americans about their persecuted people, he tells them to wail and sob for the poor Jews. Wait wait, WHAT???? grade school history class????!!!! Righttt, I learned that the holocaust could be bullshit and that Zionism is bullshit and that WW2 and Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor was bullshit and the Federal Reserve was bullshit out of your typical American grade school history class, oh brother!!! It's the other way around moron, the other way around.

Nothing more than aesthetic differences. Other "races" aren't fundamentally different from each other even if they have a predisposition toward certain hair color, skin color, eye color, or body type. It's a scientifically useless term because it separates people by what you can see and not what they are.

Hahahaha, once again, genetics inherits traits, abilities, characteristics, etc etc... Genetics isn't aesthetic at all. Why do you think the Negro has never built anything of value on his own continent, and Egypt was caucasian NOT black, it started to crumple when Nubians infested it. Why do you think the Japanese have had major success throughout their history, and the Europeans?? The Indigenous Negro culture was and is nothing compared to the other civilizations, even before colonization. That's why most North American crime is done by blacks even though they're a minority, and have had over 100 years of relative opportunities to do otherwise. IQ also has a huge genetic correlation. Also, aesthetics is important too. Blacks rape 2/3 more white girls than black girls, more people of different races like White girls than other girls. I'm one of them.

I really don't know how much clearer I can make myself. I'm not really Jewish, I don't practice the religion and the only reason I have any connection to Judaism is one side of my family is of Jewish descent. As I said in my previous reply I would have no problem not identifying myself as Jewish, however, I don't seem to be the one who gets to decide whether I'm Jewish or not...

once again "Jewish descent" doesn't mean anything, do you look like you're Middle Eastern, Amorite, Caananite? Then will you be closest to an Ethnic Jew. Are you Caucasian though? White? Blonde? European? Asian? Negro? If you aren't Middle Eastern then you're not really from a "Jewish" stock.

I thought traditional Judaism already had a tarnished reputation. I don't see how Zionism could damage it any further, at least in your mind...

Zionism has indeed tarnished Judaism to the point of no return. The founder of Zionism Theodre Herzl wrote in his diary:

It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . . I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends

Zionism used Anti-semitism as a tool

[Faust]

If you haven't read it how can you know how much bs it has? It certainly has the most racism and hate in it.

It may very well have the most racism and hate in it but that doesn't particularly matter to me. I may read it one day, however, at this point I don't feel the need to read another book which tells me how I should live my life. I've never finished the Bible, Qur'an, LDS Bible, or who knows how many other religious texts I know of and have some knowledge of. I've never found anything particularly inspiring about any of them so I eventually end up putting them down and never picking them back up.

Ultimately the "evil of the Talmud" doesn't really apply to the topic at hand except to say "These people base their lives off this flawed text so obviously they are capable of fabricating the Holocaust" which misses the mark for a sound logical argument by many miles.[/quote]

how is it not a sound logical argument?? Zionists have certainly been influenced by the Talmud. And it doesn't do justice to the Real Jews that despise Zionism but have their reputation tarnished. I know that no religious text is worthy, it's just that for some peculiar reason you don't hear anything bad about the Talmud in Western media, except you hear a whole lotta schmuckness from Islam and the Koran, no doubt by Zionists.

[Iolaus]

What concerns me is the freedom of speech issue. It is shocking that freedom of speech is a thing of the past in several European countries. They are working on it here with the excuse of 'hate laws.' That's the foot in the door and it's all they need.

20 years for holocaust denial! You can do armed robbery, rape and probably murder and get less than that. C'mon, that's a LOT of power. If you can command that, you've got a lot of power. And many 'holocaust deniers' are trying to do rational research. What all this will ultimately cause, is a backlash of antisemitism, because it's oppresssive and unfair.

Someone here said that America was too bigoted to accept Jews in WWII and ended up giving them a miserable piece of sand. I agree about the miserable sand - but that's what they wanted. The zionist movement began in the 1800's and was quite strong by the turn of the century. Political maneuvers by very wealthy Jews created the Balfour declaration. And America accepted tons of Jews just 30-50 years before WWII. Is it really rational to suppose that they would turn them away as refugees such a short time later? And why, if the Jews wanted a homeland so badly, didn't they do like the mormons and run off to Oregon or some such place when it was there for the taking?

Dan, I can see you've considered the question at length, rational as usual.

It is neither true that Jews are a race nor a religion. They are tribal and call themselves 'a people.'
Chochem,

There are Jewish organizations which are annoyed when people try to use the word holocaust in conjunction with other crises but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously or restrict our use of the word. It's an apt use of the word connected with a tragedy with few equals

We will have to take them seriously when they can jail us for speaking our opinions. And no, the Jewish holocaust is not a tragedy with few equals. It is a tragedy similar to several others. It's a good think I don't believe the Bible, in which they document their own holocaust, at the command of Jehovah, of other people.
Faust,

Also, The Khazars were an ancient Eastern European Kingdom, although they were of Central Asian descent, they decided to convert to Judaism, and many Eastern European Jews could have very well come from that line.

From what I understand, the majority of them do come from that line. However, as they originated in an area north of Iraq, they are of more or less middle eastern descent, so how different are they from semites? But today, the real semites are pretty much the Arabs, or Arabic peoples. Which is funny.

you should really read Weininger's debunking

I don't like Weininger, but maybe I will read this.

Although Zionism has nothing to do with traditional Judaism, it has permanently damaged its reputation, with its dispecable and endless global terrorism, conspiring, wars and false flag operations.

Btw, have you READ the Talmud? It's full of racism and Jewish supremacy, not to mention supporting paedophilia

Well, if we lose our rights to free speech as may be on the horizon, then we will no longer be able to examine such things. It really is hypocritical, to whine endlessly about how mean everyone has been to them, while having a religion that is almost entirely based upon racial or tribal superiority claims. But that can't be touched because it's religion. I don't necessarily blame Jews for having the Talmud or certain parts of the Bible, but it's way past time to own up to the ugliness it harbors and chalk it up to the ignorance of the times and publicly repudiate it.

As I said in my previous reply I would have no problem not identifying myself as Jewish, however, I don't seem to be the one who gets to decide whether I'm Jewish or not...

I think this is a popular myth. Is it really true? I'd say the rule that you're Jewish if your mother is Jewish is an old matriarchal rule, and also a bit of common sense - you usually can be pretty sure who your mother is. But that was probably meant to apply in the case where the person wanted to be recognized as Jewish.

[Iolaus]

Chochem,

Oh, and the reason some people are annoyed about the majority of Jews today coming from the Khazar line, is that their ancestors never lived in the holy land, they converted in the 7th century, and yet they ousted something like 800,000 Palestinians in the 1940's.