3 ms·

Let's clear something up here. We will never know the truth. Evidence was burned, paperwork destroyed, the 'responsible' people were trialled in private and ex

Let's clear something up here. We will never know the truth. Evidence was burned, paperwork destroyed, the 'responsible' people were trialled in private and executed, propaganda was all over the place, facts are omitted for political gain and people needed to save face. The official story needed to be promoted. The people who deny the holocaust do not deny, but question whether or not the official story is 100% accurate or not. However to have any political force disallow questioning the official story is not an acceptable situation. It undermines free speech and it purveys an unacceptable duality of reality and fiction. Wars are always recorded in the eyes of the victors and are closed from future investigation (a bad situation).

urbanjunkie 14y ago
There's a mountain of evidence that supports the fact that millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps. Are you seriously claiming that the biggest issue that holocaust deniers have is that the "official" version isn't "100% accurate".
- gouranga 14y ago
  Not quite - that's what your history teacher taught you. There's evidence that an undetermined but quite large number of people sadly died in concentration camps during the second world war. The number, race and cause of death was not entirely determined and is not possible to determine any more. That's all the facts on the table - there are no more concrete facts at all believe it or not (find me a citation which is credible to prove otherwise!). This is extrapolated into millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps which is the "official story" by the victors. The story came before evidence and evidence was destroyed before the story could be verified. The main issue is that historical revisionism is used to piece together events so we can learn about the past. When the label and respective charge of "holocaust denial" is placed one something, it is a closed subject where revisionism is no longer allowed. It's an enforced dark age. It should always be open for discussion and research. Perhaps one day some clarity will be found? Perhaps more can be brought to justice, perhaps more names could be cleared. It's not closed, so don't close it is what I'm saying.
  - srean 14y ago
    Is it really relevant if it was 6 million or 2 million or less. Regardless of the numbers it was mankind at its worst. Not the singular act of depravity, not the only act of genocide, but it does not need to be so to be condemned. I think there are better things to do than nitpick on the numbers. At least the allied forces had the foresight to document the concentration camps. My first reaction to it when I was reading about it was, go on fight the war, cover more ground, why are you pausing over this "PR exercise". But then they (Churchill et al) were right, I was wrong, clearly I am not made up for this kind of stuff.
  - urbanjunkie 14y ago
    Actually, YOU find ME a credible citation that supports your little tinpot revisionist theory. Of course, you won't, as that will expose the lunacy of your position. ps - the moon landings actually happened.
    - gouranga 14y ago
      The typical response. The burden of proof is on the inclusive case. Were you there? If not, all you have is stories passed down built on propaganda. I don't disbelieve, but i expect evidence. I've been to Auschwitz btw - have you? I dint get the moon landings point. They did happen.
      - urbanjunkie 14y ago
        Sighs Actually the burden of evidence is on you. I know it's inconvenient, especially as you have little that you can cite, but they, them's the breaks. Have you really been to Auschwitz? I don't believe you. I think you may have been near Auschwitz, or perhaps you're read about it. Prove that you've been there. Then explain how it's even vaguely relevant. At this point, I'll tell you I've been to more than one concentration camp, but that doesn't mean anything. Oh, I just assumed that you didn't believe the moon landings happened. And it's amusing that you're pretending to not understand the point.
        14y ago

urbanjunkie 14y ago

There's a mountain of evidence that supports the fact that millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps. Are you seriously claiming that the biggest issue that holocaust deniers have is that the "official" version isn't "100% accurate".

gouranga 14y ago
Not quite - that's what your history teacher taught you. There's evidence that an undetermined but quite large number of people sadly died in concentration camps during the second world war. The number, race and cause of death was not entirely determined and is not possible to determine any more. That's all the facts on the table - there are no more concrete facts at all believe it or not (find me a citation which is credible to prove otherwise!). This is extrapolated into millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps which is the "official story" by the victors. The story came before evidence and evidence was destroyed before the story could be verified. The main issue is that historical revisionism is used to piece together events so we can learn about the past. When the label and respective charge of "holocaust denial" is placed one something, it is a closed subject where revisionism is no longer allowed. It's an enforced dark age. It should always be open for discussion and research. Perhaps one day some clarity will be found? Perhaps more can be brought to justice, perhaps more names could be cleared. It's not closed, so don't close it is what I'm saying.
- srean 14y ago
  Is it really relevant if it was 6 million or 2 million or less. Regardless of the numbers it was mankind at its worst. Not the singular act of depravity, not the only act of genocide, but it does not need to be so to be condemned. I think there are better things to do than nitpick on the numbers. At least the allied forces had the foresight to document the concentration camps. My first reaction to it when I was reading about it was, go on fight the war, cover more ground, why are you pausing over this "PR exercise". But then they (Churchill et al) were right, I was wrong, clearly I am not made up for this kind of stuff.
- urbanjunkie 14y ago
  Actually, YOU find ME a credible citation that supports your little tinpot revisionist theory. Of course, you won't, as that will expose the lunacy of your position. ps - the moon landings actually happened.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    The typical response. The burden of proof is on the inclusive case. Were you there? If not, all you have is stories passed down built on propaganda. I don't disbelieve, but i expect evidence. I've been to Auschwitz btw - have you? I dint get the moon landings point. They did happen.
    - urbanjunkie 14y ago
      Sighs Actually the burden of evidence is on you. I know it's inconvenient, especially as you have little that you can cite, but they, them's the breaks. Have you really been to Auschwitz? I don't believe you. I think you may have been near Auschwitz, or perhaps you're read about it. Prove that you've been there. Then explain how it's even vaguely relevant. At this point, I'll tell you I've been to more than one concentration camp, but that doesn't mean anything. Oh, I just assumed that you didn't believe the moon landings happened. And it's amusing that you're pretending to not understand the point.
      - 14y ago