Against Questioning the Holocaust

[infoterror]

People who feared Christianity first tried to resist it through Satanism and occultism; later they found out that this merely made it a bigger presence in their lives. The way to overcome something is to make it obsolete by creating a better order. We cannot "fight" liberalism by questioning the Holocaust; we must look toward the positive things that came from national socialism and the Jewish exile (nicknamed the "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~shoa (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shoa), i'm fukcin") without concerning ourselves with what its enemies say. Truth is more important than whining about disadvantages, and only six million dead is really not a big deal; if we act according to that knowledge, others will understand that the holocaust is not a GOAL but a METHOD or CONSEQUENCE and therefore its existence or nonexistence does not criticize the GOAL.

All FYI. Send negative rep points with flowers.

[Trojan]

we must look toward the positive things that came from national socialism and the Jewish exile

And this list would include?

[infoterror]

And this list would include?

Rehabilitation of Germany and an end to the great depression;
Replacement of covert Communist opposition with overt;
Exile of Jews from Europe strengthened European culture (look at how cultureless America became in contrast);
Infused new generations with crypto-fascist environmental, racial and social theory.

And, subjectively:

- Cool uniforms.
- Great music.
- Awesome ruins.
- Excellent symbolism.
- Striking parades
- Bombed England (!!!) and slaughtered Russians (!!!) = eugenics

[Keystone]

Rehabilitation of Germany and an end to the great depression;
Replacement of covert Communist opposition with overt;
Exile of Jews from Europe strengthened European culture (look at how cultureless America became in contrast);
Infused new generations with crypto-fascist environmental, racial and social theory.
And in a short 12 years, a ruined country and millions dead and impoverished.

And, subjectively:

- Cool uniforms.
- Great music.
- Awesome ruins.
- Excellent symbolism.
- Striking parades
- Bombed England (!!!) and slaughtered Russians (!!!) = eugenics
LOL. I'll admit the SS uniforms were cool....:o

[infoterror]

And in a short 12 years, a ruined country and millions dead and impoverished.

That's a disadvantage, not a counterargument.

For example, you'd have to prove that such disaster would not have occurred anyway, in possibly worse form... :)

I'm not fond of some things the national socialists did; I think this article says it all:

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/2006/

...but they got the basics right.

[Keystone]

That's a disadvantage, not a counterargument.

For example, you'd have to prove that such disaster would not have occurred anyway, in possibly worse form... :)

I'm not fond of some things the national socialists did; I think this article says it all:

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/2006/

...but they got the basics right.
Widespread carnage is definitely a disadvantage...

I don't have to prove anything. Germany was devastated on Hitler's watch because of his policies and decisions. Germany was Hitler and Hitler was Germany. You make claims like that, you'd better take responsibility for any consequences.

[Jofreidr_1488]

People who feared Christianity first tried to resist it through Satanism and occultism; later they found out that this merely made it a bigger presence in their lives.

Not to quibble, but actually before Satanism and Occultism my Pagan Ancestors tried to violently resist judeo-christianity.

Here is a little History: The Viking Age And Christianity In Norway by Varg Vikernes (http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/the_viking_age_and_christianity_in_norway.shtml)

[WFHermans]

Widespread carnage is definitely a disadvantage...

I don't have to prove anything. Germany was devastated on Hitler's watch because of his policies and decisions. Germany was Hitler and Hitler was Germany. You make claims like that, you'd better take responsibility for any consequences.
If a nigger rapes and murders a white child, who is guilty, the nigger or the white child?

[cerberus]

WGH , you need some serious help.
You are preocupied with having white children raped.

[Keystone]

WGH , you need some serious help.
You are preocupied with having white children raped.
It's just Hermans' twisted way of blaming everyone else for Poor Mr. Hitler's failure except Mr. Hitler. I know the drill....:p

[Starr]

my opinion has simply always been that way too much time and attention is spent on this topic. the jews and their dupes have complete control over this topic and anyone wanting to openly discuss it will just be either thrown in prison or called evil. Someone who constantly brings it up and harps on it is only benefitting the Jews.

[infoterror]

Germany was devastated on Hitler's watch because of his policies and decisions.

You have failed to prove that this was an exclusive consequence of Hitler.

I am afraid you have lost this round.

(Yes, I am trained in debate and logical argument.)

[infoterror]

Someone who constantly brings it up and harps on it is only benefitting the Jews.

http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2003/gnomes/images/gnome-sign.medium.jpg

I agree. Even a Southern Italian could see that.

[The Retard]

It seems like everybody in this situation will not face reality, and deal with reality, now. By debating the holocaust we make it special, as if genocide first occurred in ww2, and any role americans played in killing millions of native inhabitants sieze to exist in our memory, nor do we stop and realize the deliberate attack on both American and European culture to adopt the Holocaust as the most treacherous act in human history.

[cerberus]

You have failed to prove that this was an exclusive consequence of Hitler.
Hitler led germany into a war , a war which she was not ready to fight and a war which her led to her division and communist occupation in the east , with the Allied powers in the West.
Forget the usual " Germany didn't start WW2" , you are wasting your time with that one.
Both as a head of goverment and increasingly as an amateur military leader he was a total failure , a day dreamer who increasingly became hysterial in the way he faced reality and the dire situations into which he placed the German people.

Economical he spent money Germany did not have on what was little more than his grandoise ideas , huge public works which benefited no one and served only to massage his own ego and accomadate the party needs once a year.
A Re armament programme which could not be afforded.
He ran an inflation time bomb concealed by a slick propaganda machine , which still fools those who want and need to be fooled today.

He devalued the law of the land and he made live very cheap.
He removed any say the German people had in running the country , his yes men did all , any who might have spoken out risked arrest and " re education".

When he at last got the war he wanted - having been denied one on Czechoslavikia , the Fuhrer's gift as a military leader came into full bloom.
He relegated the professional soldier to that of an over paid NCO and controlled decisions even down to divisional level and further down when he the need had arisen.
In short he was a adject failure 1939-45.
And before someone shouts "Poland" - Poland was easy meat , "France" - Manstein planned that , and Hitler screwsed it up by calling a halt on the outskirts of Dunkirk.
Russia was his supreme folly , the act of a total Hubris.
Why am I wasting my time saying this again.
By debating the holocaust we make it special, as if genocide first occurred in ww2, and any role americans played in killing millions of native inhabitants sieze to exist in our memory, nor do we stop and realize the deliberate attack on both American and European culture to adopt the Holocaust as the most treacherous act in human history.
To some extent true as regards other genocides , Hitler was the first man to decide to take it a stage further and employ industrial methods to achieve his end.

One question I will ask , do you ever think that the SS imagined that they would ever be held to account for their actions ?

[Sulla the Dictator]

my opinion has simply always been that way too much time and attention is spent on this topic. the jews and their dupes have complete control over this topic and anyone wanting to openly discuss it will just be either thrown in prison or called evil. Someone who constantly brings it up and harps on it is only benefitting the Jews.

So Starr's opinion is that its wrong to call someone evil who is telling you that you are a liar, that your parents didn't die, and that you didn't have it that bad as they were gassing you.

Its also Starr's consistant statement that she doesn't know anything about the Holocaust. But she sure seems to 'know' (Read: Faith) its not real.

[cerberus]

Now Sulla , don't be silly , you know that its only the likes of you and I who treat the Holocaust" as a religion.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[infoterror]

Hitler led germany into a war , a war which she was not ready to fight and a war which her led to her division and communist occupation in the east , with the Allied powers in the West.

You are not understanding what I'm saying: the political situation at the time was volatile, but in any time, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the situation was wholly a consequence of his actions and would have turned out otherwise without him.

For example, we can blame G.W. Bush for America's Iraq war because it was entirely elective; however, since WWI, it was clear that Europe was heading for another wave of internal warfare, this time balanced out by the recent Eurasian communist power (Russia).

This burden is upon you if you want to logically argue your point.

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Sulla the Dictator]So Starr's opinion is that its wrong to call someone evil who is telling you that you are a liar, that your parents didn't die, and that you didn't have it that bad as they were gassing you.

Yes, I do think there is something a little wrong with throwing people in Jail and/or labeling them as something near the "ultimate evil" just because you don't like or agree with what they are saying. My whole point was that constantly discussing whether it did or did not happen is pointless and tiring, especially when one side holds all of the cards. There are much more important things going on and problems we are facing to sit around and harp on "the six million, true or false":rolleyes: The most important thing is not whether it happened or didn't, but the ways in which it gets used by the jews to shut everyone up who may criticise them. And also the link that has been established between caring about your race(if you are white, anyway) and the death of the precious six million, that you must feel guilty about.:nono:

[Sulla the Dictator]

Now Sulla , don't be silly , you know that its only the likes of you and I who treat the Holocaust" as a religion.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And a powerful religion it is, considering its fact and doesn't require the least bit of faith. :p

Like if Christ knocked on my door and handed me an Arrowhead bottle full of merlot. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

You are not understanding what I'm saying: the political situation at the time was volatile, but in any time, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the situation was wholly a consequence of his actions and would have turned out otherwise without him.


1. Did the West warn Hitler about the consequences of invading Poland?

2. Did Hitler choose to invade Poland?

3. Did the West act in the manner they said they would upon the invasion of Poland?

If the answer to all three questions is yes, then it stands to reason that Hitler bears responsibility for the consequences of that act. Especially since he was aware of what they would be.

[cerberus]

Like if Christ knocked on my door and handed me an Arrowhead bottle full of merlot
Water to wine , hard to beat.;)
I do hope God has a sense of humour or I am totally "fecked" , and knowing what the legal aid bill will be like there is no way he will pay it and I don't blame him .;)

[cerberus]

You are not understanding what I'm saying: the political situation at the time was volatile, but in any time, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the situation was wholly a consequence of his actions and would have turned out otherwise without him.
Sk yourself who was the man who said after Munich that he had no further demands to make , might it have been the same man who said that Danzig was no longer the issue but living space for the German people.
The same man who said that when we think of living space we must look to the east ?
Ask yourself if it was Hitler who might have had his hand on the gas supply - it was he alone who wa sresponsible for making things volatile.
See Sullas three questions.

[infoterror]

it stands to reason that Hitler bears responsibility for the consequences of that act

Um, you're confusing a moral concept with a logical one. Please re-read what I wrote and try again.

[cerberus]

Um, you're confusing a moral concept with a logical one
The sequence of events which follwoe was quite logical , they took about three days to run their course , during which time an approach was made to the German goverment saking that their troops be withdrawn and outlining that unless this was done that a declaration of war would follow.

That " final note" was delivered and when no reply was recieved by 11.00am the same morning , the rest is history.

Whilst there are moral issues involved the sequence of evenst was logical.
As Hitler said to Ribentrop " What are we going to do now".

[infoterror]

Whilst there are moral issues involved the sequence of evenst was logical.

You are also not getting it. Prove exclusivity. It's a serious challenge and one than any serious thinker will complement with a potent argument.

But until you do that, your point is baseless.

[Trojan]

You are not understanding what I'm saying: the political situation at the time was volatile, but in any time, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the situation was wholly a consequence of his actions and would have turned out otherwise without him.

For example, we can blame G.W. Bush for America's Iraq war because it was entirely elective; however, since WWI, it was clear that Europe was heading for another wave of internal warfare, this time balanced out by the recent Eurasian communist power (Russia).

This burden is upon you if you want to logically argue your point.

Your playing a what if game, how can you so squarely lay a burden of proof?

If you blaim GW for the Iraq war on the grounds of it being elective, then why not blaim WWII in Europe on Hitler, it WAS elective.

If Hitler had not invaded Poland, it is possible that Europe would have found another path to war. Just as it is possible that if GW had not invaded Iraq, the Middle East could have found another path to war.

War in Europe could have been many years away, had not it been for Poland, just as war in the Middle East could have been years away. How do you make the distinction?

[infoterror]

If you blaim GW for the Iraq war on the grounds of it being elective, then why not blaim WWII in Europe on Hitler, it WAS elective.

If Hitler had not invaded Poland, it is possible that Europe would have found another path to war. Just as it is possible that if GW had not invaded Iraq, the Middle East could have found another path to war.

Yes, but the United States is not in the Middle East. Thus the war is elective and not defensive or, in the case of the best wars, preemptive.

Imagine a Communist Europe just beginning to recover (Western Europeans are 6-9 IQ points higher than Russians, therefore probably would have made Communism work longer).

Would you say the same thing about Hitler then?

Is it no surprise that Hitler is "forgiven" most in countries that were occupied by Soviets?

[Trojan]

Yes, but the United States is not in the Middle East. Thus the war is elective and not defensive or, in the case of the best wars, preemptive.


The United States is not some isolationist country, any war in the Middle East would have the potential to draw in the US, no matter which party is in the White House.


Imagine a Communist Europe just beginning to recover (Western Europeans are 6-9 IQ points higher than Russians, therefore probably would have made Communism work longer).


The hypothetical of the Soviets overrunning Eastern Europe in the absence of Hitler may be plausible, but are you suggesting the Soviets would drive to the English Channel? That's absurd.


Would you say the same thing about Hitler then?


To many hypotheticals, but I would still call Hitler evil, no matter the alternative.


Is it no surprise that Hitler is "forgiven" most in countries that were occupied by Soviets?

What countries now forgive Hitler? Is it part of some official policy or is this your subjective opinion?

[Die]

Who can forgive Hitler for being an angry ugly resentful tool?

:rofl:

Evil?! He was just a sicko, like everybody who is found to be 'evil'!

[infoterror]

The hypothetical of the Soviets overrunning Eastern Europe in the absence of Hitler may be plausible, but are you suggesting the Soviets would drive to the English Channel?

Theatre dominance would require it. Do not forget: warfare had just changed radically.

[Trojan]

Unless Stalin developed the A-bomb first, the western allies would never allow Soviet dominance in all of Europe. Without western aid (lend lease), the Soviets would have a hard time driving to the channel.

But this discussion should have its own thread.

[Gleb]

Imagine a Communist Europe just beginning to recover (Western Europeans are 6-9 IQ points higher than Russians, therefore probably would have made Communism work longer).


Western European IQ would be the same as Russia's on average, considering that France, Spain, Portugal and Ireland scored lower than Russia. France's population size alone is half of what is Western Europe. It would rather make sense to make northl/south distinction, not east/west. Plus, Russia has a lot of different republics which could affect the average (I doubt that IQ of Dagestanis averages more than 80, for example).