I understand that Hitler wasn't democratically elected at first because we has simply appointed Chancellor by the current President, but was he ever elected democratically after that for multiple terms? Every website says something different, so I figured I'd ask her. If not, what other well-known 'evil' leaders have been democratically elected? I'm doing a presentation, and I'd like to put have a visual of a terrible ruler elected in a democracy.
The Nazi Party was elected to the largest plurality of seats in the Reichstag in the 1932 election. They did not have an absolute majority, but since the other parties were all ideologically opposed to each other and could not possibly form a coalition government, the President of Germany had no choice but to name Hitler the chancellor of the government.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
'Do you realized Britain went to war to protect Poland... and left them under Soviet Rule?'
Did Germany invade Poland? Yes or no. Let's see if you can be intellectually honest.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
'Holocaust is a sacrosanct subject, questioning it is forbidden, let's take Holocaust and Jewish sensitivity classes, and then we will be upright citizens.'
There is a difference between questioning and outright denial. I keep seeing this from people who study 'touchy' events. It's this mentality of 'Why won't people just let me say whatever I want without consequence!?' You can question the validity of the Holocaust but for example when you say that gas chambers were not used, that isn't questioning whether gas chambers were used in the Holocaust, that is full on denial of such an event. So I guess we can set the record straight right now. Do you deny that during the early-mid 20th century that the German government, commonly known as the Third Reich, specifically targeted not only Jewish individuals but also Romani, Russians, Polish, homosexuals, the disabled, and Jehovah's witnesses for extermination? I think I fashioned this in a simple yes/no answer without controversial wording
I question the validity of the gas chambers and come to the conclusion that there were no gas chambers used for the extermination of humans. I questioned the Holocaust on many levels, even though I do question, I also hold revisionist views on how the Holocaust was carried out. When you ask a question such as, "Do you deny that during the early-mid 20th century that the German government, commonly known as the Third Reich, specifically targeted not only Jewish individuals but also Romani, Russians, Polish, homosexuals, the disabled, and Jehovah's witnesses for extermination?", of course I'm going to say Yes, because none were exterminated, but it's not as simple as that. If you asked if they were put into labor camps and were oppressed by the NSDAP, I'd say yes. There is a difference in the two. To the question, "Do you deny that during the early-mid 20th century that the German government, commonly known as the Third Reich, specifically targeted not only Jewish individuals but also Romani, Russians, Polish, homosexuals, the disabled, and Jehovah's witnesses?", I'd say No, I don't deny them as targets or enemies of the NSDAP. Yet, again, this type of questioning and language completely avoids the main revisionist question at hand, by trying to confuse and distract people from what's really going on, the real question is, "Did any gas chambers exist for the extermination of people?", and the answer is No.. This question is avoided by questions such as yours.
'I question the validity of the gas chambers and come to the conclusion that there were no gas chambers used for the extermination of humans.'
Ok, you went from questioning to denying that gas chambers exist.
'When you ask a question such as, "Do you deny that during the early-mid 20th century that the German government, commonly known as the Third Reich, specifically targeted not only Jewish individuals but also Romani, Russians, Polish, homosexuals, the disabled, and Jehovah's witnesses for extermination?", of course I'm going to say Yes, because none were exterminated, but it's not as simple as that. '
Well yes it is. You deny that the specific extermination of certain ethnicities by the Third Reich happened. Such an event is called 'The Holocaust.' You deny the event, therefore you deny the Holocaust. You are a Holocaust denier. I don't understand why you dislike your viewpoints being properly conceptualized and defined.
'If you asked if they were put into labor camps and were oppressed by the NSDAP, I'd say yes. There is a difference in the two. To the question, "Do you deny that during the early-mid 20th century that the German government, commonly known as the Third Reich, specifically targeted not only Jewish individuals but also Romani, Russians, Polish, homosexuals, the disabled, and Jehovah's witnesses?", '
Well that's just silly. You admit that they were targeted and put into concentration camps which produced an environment of malnutrition, rampant disease and allegations of mass murder but you don't think this is grounds for being labeled 'extermination.'
'Yet, again, this type of questioning and language completely avoids the main revisionist question at hand, by trying to confuse and distract people from what's really going on, the real question is, "Did any gas chambers exist for the extermination of people?", and the answer is No.. This question is avoided by questions such as yours.'
This line of questioning arose because you didn't like being called a holocaust denier, when in fact you deny that the holocaust ( defined as the attempt of the Third Reich to exterminate certain ethnic classes ) happened. Concerning the gas chambers, I was just using it as a device to show the difference between questioning history and denying historical events. Whether or not the gas chambers existed and were utilized is a different topic that we are discussing.
I can't question and have a stance on the subject? I question the existance of gas chambers, and through my research I found enough evidence to conclude they didn't.
What is the Holocaust without gas chambers? Yes, I'm a Holocaust denier, but with a certain choice of words one would believe that I deny that anything happened. I only deny a specific, but large detail, the gas chambers. I don't deny anything else done by the NSDAP.
There was no intentional extermination. They were targeted, and remaining enemies of the state were put into labor camps. The had showers, delousing stations, and one camp had a swimming pool. Near the end of the war after the Allies disrupted the supply lines the conditions of the camps went further into decay. You can find footage of the inmates of the camps in community showers and doing other recreational activities.
The use of "Holocaust Denier" is used as a smear tactic. It's like calling Thomas Woods or Lew Rockwell a neo-Confederate. You seem to have a problem with the idea that through research new evidence might come up to refute an event held as historical fact, and history might not be as it appears. That's like believing the Civil War was based solely on slavery (as I was taught in school), and then to realize there was much more, and then you find out who Lincoln really was, and then through this questioning and research you turn that the Civil War was much more about secession and states rights, and what I'm doing is no different, so why I can't hold my position and question this particular historical event? Whether or not the gas chambers existed and were utilized is the point of the entire topic. If it wasn't for the gas chambers there wouldn't be anything to discuss (literally).
Saying they don't exist isn't questioning them. You can't question something that you don't think exists.
'What is the Holocaust without gas chambers? Yes, I'm a Holocaust denier, but with a certain choice of words one would believe that I deny that anything happened. I only deny a specific, but large detail, the gas chambers. I don't deny anything else done by the NSDAP.
Really? Ok then why did you say this:
When you ask a question such as, "Do you deny that during the early-mid 20th century that the German government, commonly known as the Third Reich, specifically targeted not only Jewish individuals but also Romani, Russians, Polish, homosexuals, the disabled, and Jehovah's witnesses for extermination?", of course I'm going to say Yes, because none were exterminated, but it's not as simple as that.
Now either your lying or you incorrectly think that mass murder was only carried out by gas chambers. Which is it?
One, there are confessions of German staff who say they use gas chambers. Two, gas chambers weren't the only thing that killed the inhabitants. They were shot, drugged to death, hung and starved. I don't see how any of these could be unintentional.
'The use of "Holocaust Denier" is used as a smear tactic. It's like calling Thomas Woods or Lew Rockwell a neo-Confederate '
It is not a smear tactic to attribute proper concepts to what people are espousing. You deny the Holocaust, you've admitted you do and before you were complaining about how PC everyone is today about history. Yet when what you are saying is properly defined you cry 'No! Don't be mean!'
'You seem to have a problem with the idea that through research new evidence might come up to refute an event held as historical fact, and history might not be as it appears.'
I have no problem firstly because I don't get emotional with historical events. Secondly, because you have shown no ground breaking evidence. You have shown the writings of this individual Cole and I have shown a forensic study disputing his claims of no cyanide in the gas chambers. So either you can refute the study or you can cop out and complain that the study was probably performed by Jews who want to continue this 'ruse.'
'That's like believing the Civil War was based solely on slavery (as I was taught in school), and then to realize there was much more, and then you find out who Lincoln really was, and then through this questioning and research you turn that the Civil War was much more about secession and states rights, and what I'm doing is no different, so why I can't hold my position and question this particular historical event? '
Because you can't deny that these groups were targeted for extermination while trying to question whether these ethnic groups were targeted for extermination. Do you not see the contradiction in that?
'Whether or not the gas chambers existed and were utilized is the point of the entire topic. If it wasn't for the gas chambers there wouldn't be anything to discuss (literally).'
Actually there are two issues.
One: Our gas chamber discussion which is a different subject but you seem to want to blend into our second discussion which is I will now elaborate on.
Two: this comment right here:
Spurred my comment which was:
So the two issues at hand are:
1. The validity of the claim that gas chambers were used during the Holocaust
2. Your uncomfortable with being called a Holocaust denier which strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, label yourself as through the course of this discussion. It is not as if I have called you a Holocaust denier preemptively. I asked you a question which I think leads to the answer of whether or not you deny the historical event known as 'The Holocaust.' You denied that such an event transpired and then I classified you, correctly since you too classified yourself as such, as a Holocaust denier.
So I think issue two is resolved and issue one still needs your attention. Get crackin gumshoe.
Unlike Hitler, Allende's popularity was smaller with every election.
I'm questioning the existence and evidence of there being gas chambers. It's my view the said gas chambers did not exist. Is there something wrong with that?
'What is the Holocaust without gas chambers? Yes, I'm a Holocaust denier, but with a certain choice of words one would believe that I deny that anything happened. I only deny a specific, but large detail, the gas chambers. I don't deny anything else done by the NSDAP. Really? Ok then why did you say this: When you ask a question such as, "Do you deny that during the early-mid 20th century that the German government, commonly known as the Third Reich, specifically targeted not only Jewish individuals but also Romani, Russians, Polish, homosexuals, the disabled, and Jehovah's witnesses for extermination?", of course I'm going to say Yes, because none were exterminated, but it's not as simple as that. Now either your lying or you incorrectly think that mass murder was only carried out by gas chambers. Which is it?
Do I deny that gas chambers were used for mass extermination? Yes, I deny that, because of the gas chambers did not exist. Do I deny that various groups of people were targeted by the NSDAP? No, because various groups were put into labor camps. Did I clear that up for you?
What confessions of German staff? Unless you are referring to German officers who were beaten to get a "confession" and then agreed to sign a confession in a language they didn't understand, then no, no confession exists.
You know what I'm talking about on this subject. I'd prefer a better term such as "Holocaust revisionist". It's no different when someone calls someone a capitalist in a negative manner, and the idea of corporatism comes to someone's mind, so some choose something more precise and with less negative connotations. I'm sure a lot of anarchist on here have to clear up to people what they mean by anarchism, and the same with capitalism. When someone says "denier" I have to clear up that I don't deny the policies of the NSDAP, only the existence of gas chambers.
I've been posting Cole because 1) he's gone to the said concentration camps, documented what he's seen, interviewed experts on the Holocaust, and has been involved with other revisionist, and 2) he's of Jewish ancestry, and it's hard to claim it's an anti-Semitic ploy when the person raising these questions is Jewish. I've seen the evidence to counter my claims, and I still have to go in favor with my current stance. I'm not disregarding evidence, I'm comparing evidence.
No, because there were no mass exterminations. I'm questioning the idea of mass extermination, and whether gas chambers existed. I'm coming from the stance that it didn't happen, and the chambers did not exist, and when I get evidence to counter that, I question it.
So the two issues at hand are: 1. The validity of the claim that gas chambers were used during the Holocaust 2. Your uncomfortable with being called a Holocaust denier which strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, label yourself as through the course of this discussion. It is not as if I have called you a Holocaust denier preemptively. I asked you a question which I think leads to the answer of whether or not you deny the historical event known as 'The Holocaust.' You denied that such an event transpired and then I classified you, correctly since you too classified yourself as such, as a Holocaust denier.
1. My stance is that gas chambers were not used.
2. Holocaust denier is the mainstream term used with the intention of discrediting those who hold these views, and question the Holocaust. As I said I'd prefer revisionist. I'm only agreeing to the term for the sake of argument and since that's the mainstream term used. I must clear up I do not deny the policies of the NSDAP towards various groups labeled as enemies of the state. I only deny the use of gas chambers in Nazi Germany during WWII. If the Holocaust is specifically on gas chambers, then you can say I deny the Holocaust, if the Holocaust is spread to all policies regarding enemies of the state, then you could say I'm only denying the gas chambers (which is correct).
'I'm questioning the existence and evidence of there being gas chambers. It's my view the said gas chambers did not exist. Is there something wrong with that?'
How can you question the existence of something you don't think exists? Answer me that.
But you stated that you denied that they were targeted for extermination also.
'What confessions of German staff? Unless you are referring to German officers who were beaten to get a "confession" and then agreed to sign a confession in a language they didn't understand, then no, no confession exists.'
And what evidence do you have for this? The Allies beat every German officer into confession? How absurd is that?
'You know what I'm talking about on this subject. I'd prefer a better term such as "Holocaust revisionist". It's no different when someone calls someone a capitalist in a negative manner, and the idea of corporatism comes to someone's mind, so some choose something more precise and with less negative connotations. I'm sure a lot of anarchist on here have to clear up to people what they mean by anarchism, and the same with capitalism. When someone says "denier" I have to clear up that I don't deny the policies of the NSDAP, only the existence of gas chambers'
Firstly, you cannot rewrite that which you deny. You need to affirm an event transpired before you can set about explaining it. So you aren't a revisionist. You just deny an event. If I say that the Great Depression didn't happen, I wouldn't be a Great Depression revisionist. The Holocaust isn't just the jailing of certain ethnic groups but the systemic attempt to exterminate them. You claim that the Germans never intentionally exterminated any ethnicity, they were just put in jail.
So that whole piece about how they found cyanide in the gas chambers, something your guy says didn't happen, you just ignore it and say you are comparing?
'No, because there were no mass exterminations. I'm questioning the idea of mass extermination, and whether gas chambers existed. I'm coming from the stance that it didn't happen, and the chambers did not exist, and when I get evidence to counter that, I question it.
There were no mass exterminations but yet you question it. Explain to me how you question something you affirm doesn't exist! If it truly didn't exist in your mind then you couldn't question it.
Holocaust denier is the mainstream term used with the intention of discrediting those who hold these views, and question the Holocaust. As I said I'd prefer revisionist. I'm only agreeing to the term for the sake of argument and since that's the mainstream term used. I must clear up I do not deny the policies of the NSDAP towards various groups labeled as enemies of the state. I only deny the use of gas chambers in Nazi Germany during WWII. If the Holocaust is specifically on gas chambers, then you can say I deny the Holocaust, if the Holocaust is spread to all policies regarding enemies of the state, then you could say I'm only denying the gas chambers (which is correct).
Stop being disingenuous. You don't just deny the gas chambers but also the premise that exterminations happened, a key component to the Holocaust event. Again you are not a revisionist because you can't rewrite a historical event that you think didn't transpire.
My question still has not been answered. This turned into a big Holocaust-never-happened-yes-it-did-no-it-didn't party.
My winning of the internet is more important then your question!
But seriously, I think some have already answered your question.
yeah, you win. for one thousand years.
They did not have an absolute majority, but since the other parties were all ideologically opposed to each other and could not possibly form a coalition government, the President of Germany had no choice but to name Hitler the chancellor of the government.
Would you say that's a failure of democracy, or of government in general?
Look, how can you appear to be good?
Three ways only;
- Be better, work harder, be decent, act ethically...
- Claim your opponents are worse, lying if necessary or creating false accusations.
- Silence your critics, so that your position doesn't go worse, only your opponents's.
Governments use options 2 and 3, during war specially. Don't criticize us, you will be a traitor! And after that, How dare you insult the sacrifices of our brave soldiers!
Going back to for example, WW2, Point 3, silence your critics is accomplished, "treason laws" on your own country and... now opposition country to accuse you of anything or refute your propaganda!
Without propaganda, looking at point 1 only, pre-WW2, one has immediately to concede that Germany was a better country, more hard-working and more ethical.
-The US, genocide and stealing north america, keeping slaves, trading with them, burning witches until late, faking wars to steal mexico and Spanish possessions, arrogantly claiming ownership of all the continent (Monroe Doctrine), intervening in foreign continents and wars... when they themselves are perfectly isolated and protected between massive oceans! Imperialistic and world-dominant in nature, not of their own environment (north-america), but to the whole world! The country with the least necessity for armies, with the most easily defended geographical position and friendlier frontiers ever... is the country with the biggest military! That says it all! British Imperialism/Piracy in their Genes.
It's good to remember how Lysander Spooner on his essay on Jury debunks the myth of law as a British product but instead shows it was a north-german one that was later imported to Britain! Pre-1945 German Law is much more objective and truth seeking than the money-might show trials of Anglo-America. where disguised as impartiality they censure the judge and the team with most lawyers and better oratory wins, in German Law the judge intervenes on his own to find out everything, so, even if you are poor, the judge will defend you because he is not sitting there but interested in finding what happens.
Germany had very aggressive neighbors, a lot of frontiers and countries all around to defend itself against, no massive empty continent to expand and get resources, and still it outgrows Britain and America all the time, even after losing two world wars! And the arrogant Anglos claim they are the free-marketers and hard-workers? Ha!
And back to topic, Andrew Cain, I would sign I killed Lincoln, Kennedy and Julius Caesar! If I were under soviet torture or threatened to be handed to them!
Let's examine for example, Auschwitz-Treblinka commandeer Hoss's "testimonies";
- A testimony signed by him, in English, when he didn't know English!
- Talks about three camps, Treblinka, Wolzek and Belzek. Belzek camp never existed, he invented it and "confessed" to crimes in a camp that never existed!
- Talks about gassing at dates when the camps hadn't even been built yet!
- Changes the numbers of cremated corpses from 2000 to 120, just like that, and nothing happened!
- Talks about blowing gas through a hole, which is physically impossible as ZylonB was solid!
- Hides documents showing ZylonB was ordered not for camps only, but for whole cities like Berlin, because it is a pesticide!
- Hides the fact that the pictures of "oh, danger symbol and an oven" was a small one for clothes, and this real cloth-burning oven was much more solid and closed that the "supposed gas chambers".
-Hides the fact that the Poles built the "gas chambers" after the war and show it to tourist. They are not real! They were built after the war! Supposedly according to how they were before... they don't say that part, that they are so fake the victors built them!
-Hides the fact that Hoss, Treblinka's commander, sent a letter to his wife stating he was ashamed of having been forced to said that under torture. That is never said. Remember the three points at the beginning of my post.
- Hides the fact that the camps were never "liberated", when allies took over, they kept the prisoners there, because there truly was an infection and could not release them and spread that infection to the rest of Germany.
- Hides the fact that American doctors made autopsies to the graves, and stated they died of typhus, all of them, no one has ever been autopsied as been gases, no one, ever. The Americans finally listened to the doctors who were begging to stop opening the graves because the infection, of which they died would risk spreading.
-Hides the fact the Federal Government of Germany today claims no gassing ever happened! They can't even defend it anymore and had to go back to shootings (which did happen in at least one isolated incident, against orders by rogue commander like in Riga)
-Hides the fact that the Allies bombed the medical factories, condemning to death hundred thousands of people. Germany never used gas warfare, even when they had better technology and capabilities, they did stock only as retaliation if Churchill used them first, which he ordered to do, bought gas to Americans and ordered it prepared in bombs and selected six germans cities to annihilate, fortunately Churchill was overruled by his military at the last moment)
-Hides the fact that thousands of concentration camps died during Allied Occupation, because there was no food, transportation and the million civilians killed by the Allies's bombings were infecting the water supplied. Therefore they know and could easily calculate and see how and why this people died. They opened the graves again and again and ended with one result only, death by infections.
-Hides the fact that against Geneva conventions, the allies SOLD SLAVES, at 200£!
-Several million Germans were murdered after the surrender, sold as slaves, given to the "victors" as slaves, and treated so bad, that the British and Americans had to stopped giving them to the French.
-The cities were emptied of males, all were transported in horrible conditions to be sold as slaves to the Soviets, at 200£ per head.
-Tens of thousands were executed, lynched, tortured in presence or directly by the occupying forces.
-Incalculable amounts of art were "liberated", sometimes going as far as accusing of pro-nazi an innocent in order to steal his property.
- Hundred of reporters and lawyers were flown from America and given the best homes that survived the bombings, kicking out to the streets the german civilian living there. While civilians were dying of hunger, American reporters and lawyers were enjoying Lous XIV style banquets. Of course, the bill was sent to the german taxpayers later.
- The Approved Morgenthau plan meant 5 million slaves, innocent german childs to be sold to Stalin (counted as 200£ per child as war-reparations)
- It also meant the genocide of Germany, sterilization of all the german men and women and Germany made a farm land.
Now, go back to the begging of my post and read again the three points. There was a holocaust, against German civilians.