The Real German Holocaust

[teacher]

Teacher, (uppercase for respect)

Yea, that's gonna cost you.

about the sig, whatever happened to Canuck? Everyone talks about him, but I guess I never met him. What is the deal with him?
Duke

Ah, Canuck. A bigger Canadian moran this site has never known. But he was a bottomless well of material. Apparently he got banned for repeatedly posting copyrighted material improperly. I say so what? I think the case can be made he was mentaly handicapped and put under some sort of ADA protection. Let's hear from him.

I'll get him back. I've quite some pull around here. I will name names. Ayran, Lucidthots and sissy-boy are not enough. I need Canuck.

 

[paulmarkj]

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/extermination.htm

On German TV (ARD-"Titel, Thesen, Temperamente", 17 Nov. 2002, 22:45h) German historian and author, Jörg Friedrich, called the bombing of the German cities during World War II "the slaughter of the Millennium". Mr. Friedrich is the author of "Der Brand - Die Bombardierung der deutschen Städte durch die Alliierten" (The Fire - The bombardment of the German Cities by the Allies). According to Mr. Friedrich more than 1000 German cities were bombarded and a large number of them were completely burned to the ground, people inside the conflagration were turned to ashes.

This attempt to put the blame onto Churchill is bizarre. Churchill believed what Germany was doing was wrong and very bad for Europe. He believed Hitler coud not be appeased and he was right. Do you really believe that Hitler only wanted to invaded a few countries for peaceful purposes. Have you see the plans he had for Russia after he took it over?

Have you forgotten that Hitler invaded Russia? How many of the casualties came from that conflict? That wasn't Churchill's fault.

Germany could have surrended at any time, but continued to fight to the death because Hitler wanted it.

What about the millions of Jews killed? If you don't believe that obvious fact, then why should we believe you on anything else?

 

[Duke]

Yea, that's gonna cost you.


Ah, Canuck. A bigger Canadian moran this site has never known. But he was a bottomless well of material. Apparently he got banned for repeatedly posting copyrighted material improperly. I say so what? I think the case can be made he was mentaly handicapped and put under some sort of ADA protection. Let's hear from him.

I'll get him back. I've quite some pull around here. I will name names. Ayran, Lucidthots and sissy-boy are not enough. I need Canuck.

Hmm, I can't remember what made him a moron, I should get to know him better. I'm off.


Duke

 

[HTColeman]

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/extermination.htm

On German TV (ARD-"Titel, Thesen, Temperamente", 17 Nov. 2002, 22:45h) German historian and author, Jörg Friedrich, called the bombing of the German cities during World War II "the slaughter of the Millennium". Mr. Friedrich is the author of "Der Brand - Die Bombardierung der deutschen Städte durch die Alliierten" (The Fire - The bombardment of the German Cities by the Allies). According to Mr. Friedrich more than 1000 German cities were bombarded and a large number of them were completely burned to the ground, people inside the conflagration were turned to ashes.

holocaust was a genocide, they tried to wipe out all jews. War is not a holocaust, no one was trying to wipe out everyone of German decent.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

]This attempt to put the blame onto Churchill is bizarre. Churchill believed what Germany was doing was wrong and very bad for Europe. He believed Hitler coud not be appeased and he was right. Do you really believe that Hitler only wanted to invaded a few countries for peaceful purposes. Have you see the plans he had for Russia after he took it over?

Churchill admitted after the war that WWII was waged solely to prevent a superpower to the west of the USSR from arising in Europe which would rob Britain of its prestige.It was not fought for the jews.Churchill had many opportunities to respond to peace overtures from Germany but he rejected them all to wage his insane war of annihilation.In so doing not only was Europe destroyed but he lost the British Empire.In no way can that be said to be a successful outcome.He destroyed the country that supported him.
We must also not forget that he was heavily in debt to certain jews who required him to continue the war.
I suggest that you read Churchill`s War Volume 1 by David Irving.

Have you forgotten that Hitler invaded Russia? How many of the casualties came from that conflict? That wasn't Churchill's fault.

If Germany had not of invaded the USSR the USSR would have invaded Germany.Their alliance was merely a temporary expedient arrangement.

Germany could have surrended at any time, but continued to fight to the death because Hitler wanted it.

Britain could have responded to Germany`s peace overtures at any time but under the instigation of the USA it decided to destroy Germany.

What about the millions of Jews killed? If you don't believe that obvious fact, then why should we believe you on anything else?[/QUOTE]

I am sick of hearing about jews.Plenty of other people died in the war but non-one apart from the jews have decided to make a business out of it.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

holocaust was a genocide, they tried to wipe out all jews. War is not a holocaust, no one was trying to wipe out everyone of German decent.

You have not read the posts on this thread thoroughly enough,at least not mine.
I have already posted ample evidence of the deliberate policy of genocide conducted against the German population through cutting off the food supply,felling her forests and dismantling her factories.This occured after the war.
Added to this were the expulsion of 15,000,000 ethnic Germans from their ancient homelands in the east which resulted in far more deaths than the oft trumpeted "6,000,000" jews[a figure never substantiated from the available evidence].
This does not include the millions killed as the result of British and American terror bombing of non-strategic civilian targets.
Read the evidence for yourself.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hmm, I can't remember what made him a moron, I should get to know him better. I'm off.


Duke

It doesn't say he's a moron, it says he's a moran. Clearly an Irish-Canadian.

Aryan's going to be unhappy at this evidence of mixing the races.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

]This attempt to put the blame onto Churchill is bizarre. Churchill believed what Germany was doing was wrong and very bad for Europe. He believed Hitler coud not be appeased and he was right. Do you really believe that Hitler only wanted to invaded a few countries for peaceful purposes. Have you see the plans he had for Russia after he took it over?

Churchill admitted after the war that WWII was waged solely to prevent a superpower to the west of the USSR from arising in Europe which would rob Britain of its prestige.It was not fought for the jews.Churchill had many opportunities to respond to peace overtures from Germany but he rejected them all to wage his insane war of annihilation.In so doing not only was Europe destroyed but he lost the British Empire.In no way can that be said to be a successful outcome.He destroyed the country that supported him.
We must also not forget that he was heavily in debt to certain jews who required him to continue the war.
I suggest that you read Churchill`s War Volume 1 by David Irving.

Have you forgotten that Hitler invaded Russia? How many of the casualties came from that conflict? That wasn't Churchill's fault.

If Germany had not of invaded the USSR the USSR would have invaded Germany.Their alliance was merely a temporary expedient arrangement.

Germany could have surrended at any time, but continued to fight to the death because Hitler wanted it.

Britain could have responded to Germany`s peace overtures at any time but under the instigation of the USA it decided to destroy Germany.

What about the millions of Jews killed? If you don't believe that obvious fact, then why should we believe you on anything else?

I am sick of hearing about jews.Plenty of other people died in the war but non-one apart from the jews have decided to make a business out of it.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't an insane war of annihilation, not from Churchill's viewpoint. His side one. It was Hitler that started the war, anyway. Germany wouldn't have been annihilated if der Fuhrer hadn't attacked Poland.

Lay the blame where it belongs. And that's 100% at the feet of Hitler and all of Germany. No place else.


Oh, the SIX MILLION MURDERED JEWS are Germany's fault too. I recommend that if you're sick of hearing about them, you find a stout rafter and a short rope. SIX MILLION MURDERED JEWS and Germany are linked forever as a stain that humanity should never forget.

 

[Plain old me]

Churchill admitted after the war that WWII was waged solely to prevent a superpower to the west of the USSR from arising in Europe which would rob Britain of its prestige.It was not fought for the jews.Churchill had many opportunities to respond to peace overtures from Germany but he rejected them all to wage his insane war of annihilation.In so doing not only was Europe destroyed but he lost the British Empire.In no way can that be said to be a successful outcome.He destroyed the country that supported him.
We must also not forget that he was heavily in debt to certain jews who required him to continue the war.
I suggest that you read Churchill`s War Volume 1 by David Irving.

Okay doke, I've pointed this out before...even if Churchill did admit the war was to prevent a German superpower (any evidence?), this is pointless, as Chruchill had very little say in Britains actions prior to the war. He had few supporters and little voice in politics. If the war was about destroying a potential superpower why did Chamberlain and his government try to appease Hitler? Why allow Germany to become stronger and re-arm if the the final goal was its destruction?

I think World War Two had a successful outcome...if war can ever have a successful outcome. Instead of living under, or even allied to, a dictator and a facist I live in a democracy. May not be everyones cup of tea, but I certianly prefer it.

 

[Duke]

It doesn't say he's a moron, it says he's a moran. Clearly an Irish-Canadian.

Aryan's going to be unhappy at this evidence of mixing the races.

Oops, I was not careful enough....................:3oops:


Duke

 

[paulmarkj]

]
I suggest that you read Churchill`s War Volume 1 by David Irving.

David Irving - what a joke.

David Irving is a discredited historian. He is a laughing stock in the UK and has been proved wrong so many times.

A few years ago he was accused of being a holocaust denier and (quoting the The Guardin newspaper) "sued author Deborah Lipstadt over her book which said Irving had persistently and deliberately misinterpreted and twisted historical evidence to minimise Hitler's culpability for the Holocaust."

He lost the case. He is offically and legally wrong. He is officially and legally a man who "persistently and deliberately misinterpreted and twisted historical evidence".

So will I read his books? No.

Another quote: "a number of his works which had previously escaped serious scrutiny were shown to be irredeemably flawed, and what remained of Irving’s reputation as a historian was destroyed."

Irving is an intelligen man. But he is also arrogant and believes that he can say what he like.

More in Irving and Dresden (from wikipedia)

In the first edition of the book, Irving's figures for deaths in Dresden (which he initially reported as estimated authoritatively at 135,000, and which he himself estimated at between 100,000 and 250,000) were an order of magnitude higher than anyone else's. Nonetheless, these figures became widely accepted and were repeated in many standard references and encyclopedias. Over the next three decades, later editions of the book gradually modified that figure downwards to a range of 50,000-100,000, but during that time Irving also made a number of public statements indicating that 100,000 or more Germans had been killed. It was not until the hearing of Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt in 2000 that the figures were discredited. Today, the Dresden bombing casualty figures are estimated as most likely in the range of 25,000 to 35,000 dead, and probably toward the lower end of that range. This is a theme which appears repeatedly in Irving's writing: overstatement of putative wrongs done to Nazi-era Germany, while understating wrongs done by Nazi Germany.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

So will I read his books? No.

How "open-minded" of you.So you are expressing an "opinion" on a scholar and author of whose work you have NEVER read.
What a lazy attitude to take!Like your history spoon fed to you then?

 

[Aryan Imperium]

Churchill the war monger-


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/23/newsid_4013000/4013583.stm

1951: Churchill denies 'warmonger' claims
The Conservative leader, Winston Churchill, has wound up his election campaign with a hard-hitting speech in which he vigorously denied accusations of warmongering.

The former prime minister, who is bidding to return to office after six years in opposition, was speaking in Devonport in Plymouth, on the final day of the five week campaign.

Labour has been in power since the end of World War II in 1945. Labour leader Clement Attlee was returned to government in February 1950 - but his administration has been hampered by a strong opposition and splits within his own party.

His decision to go to the polls now in the hope of increasing his majority comes at a time of worsening oil dispute with Persia and Egypt's attempt to regain control of the Suez Canal.


If I remain in public life at this juncture it is because I believe I may be able to make an important contribution to the prevention of a third world war"

Winston Churchill
Labour has concentrated its attack on Mr Churchill and the Conseratives saying their return to government would make a third world war more likely.

"Whose finger on the trigger?" has become the slogan for this campaign after the Daily Mirror coined the phrase for a front-page headline.

Mr Churchill firmly rejected the charge of warmonger in today's speech: "This is a cruel and ungrateful accusation. It is the opposite of the truth.

"If I remain in public life at this juncture it is because, rightly or wrongly but sincerely, I believe that I may be able to make an important contribution to the prevention of a third world war, and to bringing nearer that lasting peace settlement which the masses of the people of every race and in every land fervently desire."

Mr Churchill said he had sought to prevent war ever since his speech at Fulton in the United States in March 1946, in which he spoke of an "iron curtain" descending across the continent of Europe and the need to reach agreement through the auspices of the United Nations Organisation.

 

[Brutus]

You are more stupid than I originally thought. Do you honestly believe that I am here to make "friends" on a liberal American site[liberal by my definition of the word]. I realise that most of you are all by varying degrees slaves to jewish propaganda and have been from birth. When the Aryan race disappears from the earth the responsibility for that will be down to people like you.

HAHAHAH!!! Pardon my language, but is this guy F***in serious?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Churchill the war monger-


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/23/newsid_4013000/4013583.stm

1951: Churchill denies 'warmonger' claims

Since Hitler started the war by his unprovoked attack on Poland, how is it that Churchill becomes the "war monger"?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

HAHAHAH!!! Pardon my language, but is this guy F***in serious?

Well, there's nothing amusing is spewing lunatic Nazi propaganda, so he's either insane or dead serious. He's always wrong, though.

 

[paulmarkj]

So will I read his books? No.

How "open-minded" of you.So you are expressing an "opinion" on a scholar and author of whose work you have NEVER read.
What a lazy attitude to take!Like your history spoon fed to you then?

If asking me how open minded I am is a genuine question, then the answer is yes, I am.

If it is, as I suspect, implying I am not open minded then you are simply employing a circular argument (I am not open minded because I believe David Irving is wrong and I believe David Irving is wrong I am not open minded), the same argument can be just as easily applied to you (I are not open minded because you believe David Irving is right and you believe David Irving is right because you are open minded). So let's cut out the insults and get on with the debate:

I say Irving is wrong because it is well docmented, eg:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/

I don't provide the evidence here because it is too detailed (131,000 words), the evidence is on the document at that address.

If you look at the evidence and read the judgemment, as I have, you will see why Irving is wrong.

If you can provide evidence to show Irving is right, provide it here, but don't just say I'm not open minded, because you don't know.

I could read his books, but then I would just refer you the passaged in the trial summary that show him to be wrong.

Provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Plain old me]

Since Hitler started the war by his unprovoked attack on Poland, how is it that Churchill becomes the "war monger"?

similarly I'd like to know how exactly this article proves Churchill was a war monger - so his opposition in the 1950's paint him one, thats hardly surpringsing, and hardly proof...

...and still waiting on the answer to my question - if all Britain was trying to do was eliminate a German superpower why did Chamberlain bend over backwards to appease him? And how can the idea of starting the war be placed at Churchills feet when he had very little say in British government in the whole run up to the war?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

...and still waiting on the answer to my question - if all Britain was trying to do was eliminate a German superpower why did Chamberlain bend over backwards to appease him? And how can the idea of starting the war be placed at Churchills feet when he had very little say in British government in the whole run up to the war?

Heck, once AI answers how Churchill is a warmonger and not Hitler, I get to ask him why then did Hitler turn around and attack the USSR, which up to that point had been an ally in the Nazi gang rape of Europe.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

If asking me how open minded I am is a genuine question, then the answer is yes, I am.

If it is, as I suspect, implying I am not open minded then you are simply employing a circular argument (I am not open minded because I believe David Irving is wrong and I believe David Irving is wrong I am not open minded), the same argument can be just as easily applied to you (I are not open minded because you believe David Irving is right and you believe David Irving is right because you are open minded). So let's cut out the insults and get on with the debate:

I say Irving is wrong because it is well docmented, eg:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/

I don't provide the evidence here because it is too detailed (131,000 words), the evidence is on the document at that address.

If you look at the evidence and read the judgemment, as I have, you will see why Irving is wrong.

If you can provide evidence to show Irving is right, provide it here, but don't just say I'm not open minded, because you don't know.

I could read his books, but then I would just refer you the passaged in the trial summary that show him to be wrong.

Provide evidence to the contrary.

Thank you but I read the ENTIRE judgement shortly after Mr Irving`s trial.
What I am asking you to do is to come to your own conclusion and think for yourself.You can only do that by reading his work.
All you have done is repeat other peoples opinions of the man and his work.
Do you believe that he deserves to go to prison for 20 years purely for expressing an opinion?

 

[SHodges]

Aryan Imperium hates jews as much as he must have hated paying attention in history class.

 

[paulmarkj]

Thank you but I read the ENTIRE judgement shortly after Mr Irving`s trial.
What I am asking you to do is to come to your own conclusion and think for yourself.You can only do that by reading his work.
All you have done is repeat other peoples opinions of the man and his work.
Do you believe that he deserves to go to prison for 20 years purely for expressing an opinion?

I do think for myself.

I am widely read and have seen evidence form many sources. I have to make a judgement and that judgement says the weight of evidence goes against Danid Irving.

I am trying to guide thios discussion away from personal insults (such as 'open your mind' and 'think for youself') and get back to a proper debate. So, you show the evidence (perhaps from Irvinings book).

 

[Aryan Imperium]

Aryan Imperium hates jews as much as he must have hated paying attention in history class.

I do not "hate jews".Your words,not mine.I merely hate what they have done and are doing to the world in which they exploit.
You are the one that needs to read a history book my boy.Stange enough I was passing exams in History when your parents were wearing short pants.
Now run along,there`s a good child!

 

[Aryan Imperium]

I do think for myself.

I am widely read and have seen evidence form many sources. I have to make a judgement and that judgement says the weight of evidence goes against Danid Irving.

I am trying to guide thios discussion away from personal insults (such as 'open your mind' and 'think for youself') and get back to a proper debate. So, you show the evidence (perhaps from Irvinings book).

No,you started this.You passed judgement on Irving`s work and yet you have never read a single book.Therefore I am forced to surmise that you lack any credibility when discussing Irving or any aspect of historical revisionism.
I have posted all the evidence that I need to on this thread on various aspects of the murder of German people by the allies,whether this be by carpet bombing during the war or massacres and atrocities carried out against men,women and children after the work,ethnic cleansings or planned starvation.The evidence is there,I have no intention of repeating myself just because you are too lazy to read it.

 

[SHodges]

I do not "hate jews".Your words,not mine.I merely hate what they have done and are doing to the world in which they exploit.
You are the one that needs to read a history book my boy.Stange enough I was passing exams in History when your parents were wearing short pants.
Now run along,there`s a good child!

You don't hate jews, you only hate everything about them, that's reassuring.

And you aren't fooling anyone, you're a neo-nazi! Not only is being 17 hardly a handicap at all (and resorting to age again in a debate is just sad, how did AL Gore let you on in the first place?), but you're very cleary carrying your own teenage angst and rebellion, chances are good you're a 13-15 year old bored kid who grew up in the suburbs and is just trying to stir up trouble to look "unique".