Topic: Holocaust deniers and holocaust supporters both have one thing in common.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago#5,088
Neither were there.
Documents can be forged, people lie, and of course the winners write the history books. If Germany had won, we'd all be hearing about how the Brits had mass murders, or the Americans tortured people. Germans denying this could be ridiculed.
You're a troll because your opinion is different than mine.
8
57%
Schwarzenegger !!uADnUIkPw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#89,956
There are some things we just can't know! But there can be a side you lean on more.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,961
Being unable to reach your own concusion on something so well documented is.... well... sad.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,964
@previous (C) > well documented
And how do you know that those weren't forged? Because the American government is an innocent butterfly?
You wouldn't flinch if you heard the Germans had done this, you'd take it all in and say "shame on them for lying". Why do you have such great trust in the Americans?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,966
The photos didn't looked shooped, especially by 50's standards.
As far as I'm aware, the Holocaust did happen, but the numbers were increased for extra-dramacy. Such a big event (you may call it human-made catastrophe) with so many evidences couldn't simply be forged. I might as well say that 9/11 didn't happened because I never was around to really see it.
I mean, it wouldn't make sense for someone to do something this big with no reason. Japan didn't had concentration camps (as far as I'm aware), yet they were the ones punished with atomic bombs. No one required explanation for why Germany was defeated.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,972
> The photos didn't looked shooped, especially by 50's standards.
Haha, because the government doesn't have experts on propaganda, and psychological warfare. Please... If they want it done, it will happen. > As far as I'm aware, the Holocaust did happen, but the numbers were increased for extra-dramacy. Such a big event (you may call it human-made catastrophe) with so many evidences couldn't simply be forged.
Surprisingly no one heard a thing about it when it was happening. Huh. Must be a weird coincidence. The worlds biggest mass murder, all going on without a peep getting out. Not one person at all, at any of the camps, seeing atrocities leaking one bit of info. What are the chances? > I mean, it wouldn't make sense for someone to do something this big with no reason.
Propaganda. America is the best!! We are #1!! Pay your taxes, follow the rules, and then get shot! > Japan didn't had concentration camps (as far as I'm aware), yet they were the ones punished with atomic bombs. No one required explanation for why Germany was defeated.
Japan was full of Japanese, it wouldn't make a very believable story. Unlike Germany they didn't have a minority ethnic group that it might be plausible they abused.
They didn't need to demonize Japan as much, they had pearl harbor, and the guilt-by-association of being in the Axis of "Evil".
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
grg !!fERIbUB8u joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,975
> > Japan didn't had concentration camps (as far as I'm aware), yet they were the ones punished with atomic bombs. No one required explanation for why Germany was defeated. > Japan was full of Japanese, it wouldn't make a very believable story. Unlike Germany they didn't have a minority ethnic group that it might be plausible they abused.
> Surprisingly no one heard a thing about it when it was happening. Huh. Must be a weird coincidence. The worlds biggest mass murder, all going on without a peep getting out. Not one person at all, at any of the camps, seeing atrocities leaking one bit of info. What are the chances?
The same chances that the american goverment was faking documents and pictures, I guess.
> Propaganda. America is the best!! We are #1!! Pay your taxes, follow the rules, and then get shot!
That doesn't honestly make sense. America WAS number 1, they got the lesser casualties in a war that they've won. There was no need to demonize germany, they were already bad by being the starters of WWII and enemies.
As about following the rules and pay your taxes, that's a good one. Was it better for people start killing each other because USA participated in war that needed participation?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,978
@89,972 (A) > Surprisingly no one heard a thing about it when it was happening. Huh. Must be a weird coincidence. The worlds biggest mass murder, all going on without a peep getting out. Not one person at all, at any of the camps, seeing atrocities leaking one bit of info. What are the chances? Youhaven'tinvestigatedthisissuethoroughly
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,983
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Every source there is from PBS. A US government funded network.
Can we please use non-biased sources only?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#89,988
@previous (A)
Give me an example of a reputable non-biased source. Also, if you want to show how the U.S. government has fabricated those sources, and why the U.S. government would fabricate sources that show that the U.S. government ignored the plight of the Jews, I'd be glad to hear your explanation. If you can't show that the sources I cited are fictitious or otherwise disreputable, then why are they off-limits?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#89,993
> Give me an example of a reputable non-biased source.
Anyone that doesn't receive money from the very people we are talking about, of course. > Also, if you want to show how the U.S. government has fabricated those sources
Hey now, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not saying they did fabricate them, just that they could have. > and why the U.S. government would fabricate sources that show that the U.S. government ignored the plight of the Jews
It makes it much more believable, as we see here right now. People can use it as an explanation when someone doubts the events. And however bad the US government looks, it pales in comparison to the Nazis. Many people probably do not even know the US ignored the Jews. > If you can't show that the sources I cited are fictitious or otherwise disreputable, then why are they off-limits?
Obviously because PBS receives money from the government- that makes them biased. Again, it's just proper citation. Why can't you put your mom on your resume as a reference? Well, you can, but it just looks bad because everyone knows a family member isn't a good objective veiw, and will say anything to help out.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#89,998
@previous (A) > Hey now, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not saying they did fabricate them, just that they could have.
And unless you can show that it's likely that the documents are untrustworthy, then I don't see the point.
> Obviously because PBS receives money from the government- that makes them biased.
No, it just makes it possible that they are biased. But, shockingly, it is possible for anyone to be biased, so you're going to have to do better than that.
Either show that we have good reason to doubt the authenticity of my sources or accept that they are reliable.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#90,008
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I won't argue this further. We can't have a real debate in which all the sources took money from the people involved.
I'd be happy to discuss this further if other sources are used.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#90,009
@previous (A) > We can't have a real debate in which all the sources took money from the people involved.
Yes we can. In order for the sources to be discredited you must show that it is likely that they are unreliable. If you cannot do that, then you cannot object to their usage.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#90,011
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU) > you must show that it is likely that they are unreliable
I have, by showing they receive money from people involved in what they report on.
What happens if a Jury member is caught taking money from the accused? Do they say "we have to first see if he is truly unreliable", or "we must first see if he can be truly discredited"? No, it's the mere act of taking money that makes him biased.
There are a certain code of ethics that have to be followed to be considered reliable. It may be possible to break these ethics and at the same time still be unbiased, but because it is so prevalent that people who receive money have motive to... "bend the truth", they should never be considered a reliable source.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#90,013
@previous (A) > I have, by showing they receive money from people involved in what they report on.
No, you've just shown that it is possible. I need you to show me that it is probable.
Hopefully an analogy will get my point across.
Is it possible that the U.S. government is lying to me when it says that outer space exists? Yes. Now, suppose I said "Prove to me that outer space exists, without linking me to any government sites, astronomers who have received federal funding to study outer space or anyone who has ever received money from the U.S. government."
You'll find that your options are quite limited, and since we both think that we are justified in believing that outer space exists, there is clearly something wrong with your standard of evidence.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#90,020
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That is a really bad analogy. I can simply look up into outer space to see that it exists, many people take their own personal telescopes and look into outer space, without government funding. I do not have a time machine I can take back to WW2 Germany.
Here we are talking about a "well documented" event? Very few media outlets exist that are funded by the US government, I can think only of PBS, and that just happens to be the one you chose. You are just making excuses now. If it's such a well documented event, then why can you only show "evidence" from a state sponsored media outlet? There are so many journalists out there.
Imagine if this were happening in Libya, someone claimed "the rebels are working for the terrorists" and backed it up with the (biased) Libyan state media. What if they continued to say it is reliable because there is no proof of it being an unreliable news source.
This should be very easy for you, but you are being stereotypically in denial. This is not outer space, something anyone can observe for themselves, this is something they have a reason to lie about, something that would not go unnoticed, something that was supposedly so big, I have to ask why only a state funding organization has evidence.
I won't talk about this further. If you are unable to listen to reason, and logic, there is no point. I hope you examine your beliefs more. You cannot get information from party involved in the event you are examining.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 53 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#90,035
Dude there were people freed from the concentration camps at the end of the war, there were mass graves full of dead Jews. Both Natzis and Jews have written accounts about what happened in the concentration camps. What more evidence do you need?
> Being unable to reach your own concussion on something so well documented is.... well... sad.
But that's EASY, just drop a WWII documentary on your head!
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#90,100
I do believe the holocaust happened, but not any of that 6 million Jews or soap machine nonsense.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#90,542
@90,020 (A)
Anonymous A you are 100% correct in this post.
I don't agree with all your conclusions ITT however lol.
Are there any Nazi testimonies about the Holocaust not made under torture? Which begs the question of whether any statements were actually made under torture, as some claim.