My grandfather was one of the first into Auschwitz. I have second hand knowledge that everything about the Holocaust is real.
This woman has been deceived and the fact that she has been deceived for a long time does not matter.
Now should her terribly misconstrued construction of a past that doesn't shame her be forbidden by law? Never! Free speech includes the right to speak untruths and is far more important that any movement that lies about history. Does that mean that anyone should believe her? Certainly not.
My grandfather was one of the first into Auschwitz. I have second hand knowledge that everything about the Holocaust is real.
Did he see the electrocution conveyor-belt, the blast furnace, or the gas chambers on the wrong side of the camp? That's what the Soviets claimed, in Pravda, after they captured Auschwitz. Needless to say, these claims are not compatible with what historians now believe about the alleged extermination facilities there.
Does that mean that anyone should believe her? Certainly not.
If you're going to comment, perhaps you should (at least) understand what revisionists are saying? The link above should prove useful, although this is probably an easier entry point, as is this.
I understand what they say and deny every misled statement.
My grandfather was 6"10 and almost 300 lbs. A beast of a man that feared no one. I only saw him cry once.
He broke down crying the only time he spoke to me of what he saw. I believe him beyond anything a revisionist says, period.
He fed an inmate and watched him die because he was so malnourished. He saw the horror that was visited on the Jewish race and it scarred him for life. The Holocaust is real and to deny it is simply naive or purposefully forgetful.
I do not care one iota for the "historical inaccuracies" that are drummed up by those who don't want to believe.
He broke down crying the only time he spoke to me of what he saw
But did he ever say he saw a gas chamber? If so, how did he describe it? That's what this about.
All troops who captured the German camps were primed, by their nation's propaganda, to believe that they were extermination camps -- even the British and US troops who captured camps which historians now don't believe were centers of killing. This was done, in part, to motivate the troops to kill, by reducing their enemies to caricatures of evil monstrosity -- it happens in all wars. A malnourished former prisoner, to a solider primed by such propaganda, becomes evidence of German weapons of mass destruction -- even as no evidence of such a weapon is provided to him.
Why the fuck does it matter if they were gassed or shot or strangled? They were killed by the millions.
It matters because if, as the evidence suggests, the gas chambers were a repeat of WWI atrocity propaganda, then millions were not killed. (Note: in 1916 it was claimed that Austrians gassed 700,000 people. It was also claimed the Germans turned corpses into soap, and operated "factories of death." Sound familiar?)
I've examined the historical record, friend, including criticisms of the narrative pushed by the victorious governments. Can you honestly say the same?
Yes. And I have spoken to 11 members of the US military that personally witnessed atrocities on the scale described. Do I have details of where everything was located and what actually happened? No. But you don't either, and slight differences in historical records are not necessarily indicative of tampering. Historical records are notoriously inaccurate from that time. What isn't inaccurate is 11 men hardened by war that cannot speak without crying about what they saw.
After my grandfather told me the stories I decided to write a paper on the Holocost for school.
The pain and horror I witnessed in the eyes of men far stronger than me is more evidence in my mind than any historical record.
I understand that you haven't experienced that and that I am just a guy on the internet, but I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Germans in WWII attempted the extermination of the Jewish race.
PS Your argument that guards were brainwashed to believe they were doing something that they were not is just asinine. Please take an actual reasoned look at the record and possibly talk to someone who experienced it first hand. It will change your mind.
Really? Which revisionist writers have you read, and how would you respond, specifically, to what you see as their strongest arguments?
And I have spoken to 11 members of the US military that personally witnessed atrocities on the scale described
Did any of them claim to have seen "gas chambers"? If so, how did they describe them?
What isn't inaccurate is 11 men hardened by war that cannot speak without crying about what they saw.
Human tragedy, i.e. incarceration + the collapse of the state which incarcerated you =/= extermination by way of a forensically undocumented weapon of mass destruction. That's what we're talking about. I don't doubt that it was traumatic to enter those camps.
I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Germans in WWII attempted the extermination of the Jewish race.
I'm just pointing out that you haven't actually done your responsible due diligence here. You dismiss the revisionist perspective without actually bothering to understand the arguments being put forward -- they would surprise you, if you were actually to follow those links.
view the rest of the comments →
superwookee ago
My grandfather was one of the first into Auschwitz. I have second hand knowledge that everything about the Holocaust is real.
This woman has been deceived and the fact that she has been deceived for a long time does not matter.
Now should her terribly misconstrued construction of a past that doesn't shame her be forbidden by law? Never! Free speech includes the right to speak untruths and is far more important that any movement that lies about history. Does that mean that anyone should believe her? Certainly not.
TTrns ago
Did he see the electrocution conveyor-belt, the blast furnace, or the gas chambers on the wrong side of the camp? That's what the Soviets claimed, in Pravda, after they captured Auschwitz. Needless to say, these claims are not compatible with what historians now believe about the alleged extermination facilities there.
This has nothing to do with belief -- at least, for other people. All of the arguments of revisionist scholars are backed by evidence.
If you're going to comment, perhaps you should (at least) understand what revisionists are saying? The link above should prove useful, although this is probably an easier entry point, as is this.
superwookee ago
I understand what they say and deny every misled statement.
My grandfather was 6"10 and almost 300 lbs. A beast of a man that feared no one. I only saw him cry once.
He broke down crying the only time he spoke to me of what he saw. I believe him beyond anything a revisionist says, period.
He fed an inmate and watched him die because he was so malnourished. He saw the horror that was visited on the Jewish race and it scarred him for life. The Holocaust is real and to deny it is simply naive or purposefully forgetful.
I do not care one iota for the "historical inaccuracies" that are drummed up by those who don't want to believe.
TTrns ago
But did he ever say he saw a gas chamber? If so, how did he describe it? That's what this about.
All troops who captured the German camps were primed, by their nation's propaganda, to believe that they were extermination camps -- even the British and US troops who captured camps which historians now don't believe were centers of killing. This was done, in part, to motivate the troops to kill, by reducing their enemies to caricatures of evil monstrosity -- it happens in all wars. A malnourished former prisoner, to a solider primed by such propaganda, becomes evidence of German weapons of mass destruction -- even as no evidence of such a weapon is provided to him.
superwookee ago
Holy Fuck! Are you serious!?
Why the fuck does it matter if they were gassed or shot or strangled? They were killed by the millions.
You are seriously delusional and need to actually look at the historical record instead of inventing what you want and then looking for evidence.
TTrns ago
It matters because if, as the evidence suggests, the gas chambers were a repeat of WWI atrocity propaganda, then millions were not killed. (Note: in 1916 it was claimed that Austrians gassed 700,000 people. It was also claimed the Germans turned corpses into soap, and operated "factories of death." Sound familiar?)
I've examined the historical record, friend, including criticisms of the narrative pushed by the victorious governments. Can you honestly say the same?
superwookee ago
Yes. And I have spoken to 11 members of the US military that personally witnessed atrocities on the scale described. Do I have details of where everything was located and what actually happened? No. But you don't either, and slight differences in historical records are not necessarily indicative of tampering. Historical records are notoriously inaccurate from that time. What isn't inaccurate is 11 men hardened by war that cannot speak without crying about what they saw.
After my grandfather told me the stories I decided to write a paper on the Holocost for school.
The pain and horror I witnessed in the eyes of men far stronger than me is more evidence in my mind than any historical record.
I understand that you haven't experienced that and that I am just a guy on the internet, but I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Germans in WWII attempted the extermination of the Jewish race.
PS Your argument that guards were brainwashed to believe they were doing something that they were not is just asinine. Please take an actual reasoned look at the record and possibly talk to someone who experienced it first hand. It will change your mind.
TTrns ago
Really? Which revisionist writers have you read, and how would you respond, specifically, to what you see as their strongest arguments?
Did any of them claim to have seen "gas chambers"? If so, how did they describe them?
Human tragedy, i.e. incarceration + the collapse of the state which incarcerated you =/= extermination by way of a forensically undocumented weapon of mass destruction. That's what we're talking about. I don't doubt that it was traumatic to enter those camps.
I'm just pointing out that you haven't actually done your responsible due diligence here. You dismiss the revisionist perspective without actually bothering to understand the arguments being put forward -- they would surprise you, if you were actually to follow those links.