HOLOCAUST BELIEVER + HOLOCAUST DENIER = HOLOCAUST AGNOSTIC

So, you do not feel that with Churchill's ten years of extensive writings about WWII, simply ignoring such a horrific event was all that bad?

I have to admit that your comment is among the most cold-blooded I have yet heard in life. Are Jews of no importance? (We also do not care if six million mosquitoes are murdered, either.) - David Lyga

I've no knowledge that he did in fact ignore it.

Who says he ignored the Holocaust?



You're the one who is denying the Holocaust, not me.

There are hundreds of witnesses to the extermination of the Jews still living who describe what they saw in detail. In this case, there is a description by the person who was responsible for a big part of it. On YouTube, I have seen at least 15 detailed descriptions by Jews who were imprisoned. If you want to ignore numerous recorded, widely available eyewitness accounts, then you are not searching for information, you are searching for confirmation of your opinion.

If this killing was so important to the Nazis, they why did all camps have (FOR THE INMATES):

1) brothels
2) medical clinics
3) provisions for musical orchestras for entertainment
4) provisions for staging plays for entertainment
4) libraries
5) swimming pools
6) adequate, warm clothing for winter months

If these were DEATH CAMPS why would these social comforts be of any importance?

Further, if schools and universities in the USA or Europe stopped teaching about the Holocaust, not because they did not believe that it had occurred, but, rather, because they thought it too trivial a historical matter (as Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, Charles, de Gaulle, and Joseph Stalin apparently did with leaving this triviality out of their VOLUMINOUS WRITINGS ABOUT WWII), would you have a problem with that omission? - David Lyga

Further, why are those so passionate about the 'horrors' of the Holocaust not concerned with the Allied bombing of the transport capabilities going into and out of those camps? During the last six months of WWII the Germans were unable to supply those camps with food and other essential supplies for thousands of people. When you cannot eat, you tend to become emaciated. But, of course, that emaciation shown in those photographs was due to the Nazi cruelty, NOT due to the Allies allowing this to happen. Lies can be of great comfort to sustain if they go your way.

Amazing how, when the victors spew forth their historical lies, few dare to counter those comforting historical redactions. And, for those who dare to counter such, in many cases prison and fines await.

And, though eyewitness testimony can too often be more than flawed, exaggerated, and based upon pecuniary advantage, when it goes the way that the listener wants it to go, that output becomes no falsehood, but, rather, candidacy for sainthood.

Like my agnosticism concerning religion, I do not state, unequivocally, that the Holocaust DID NOT OCCUR. I am simply bringing up disturbing, potentially redactive elements here (as ANY thinking person should who is not tethered to a specific political agenda) which seem to point in the direction of uncovering gross factual incongruity. - David Lyga

I defy you to demonstrate that the Auschwitz prison camp had these facilities for the inmates.

Brandon

You know, I do not think that one has to search too far. Even the Holocaust Museum admits such. These facilities are no secret, Brandon, though they are often downplayed. And, if you take the time to watch this 1:17 documentary which I have provided the link for at the end of my essay, you will not have much reason to call that video insulting or wayward or anti-Semitic. Watch the whole video without your mobile phone on or other disturbances: It is not an excuse to reincarnate the Third Reich. It is an honest and forthright presentation, the removal of which has been attempted in vain.

The main problem with getting people to watch that video is an underlying, quiescent fear that one's investment into this narrative will be honestly challenged. However, in the long run, honesty aids both Jews and non Jews, and attacks only those who fail to belong to an honest interplay of thought.

I am not trying to sell something to you, Brandon, but you, and others, need to have their eyes opened about this. In fact, you owe such honesty to yourselves even though you dare not tell any or your friends that you have so deviated from the normative need to adhere to the narrative's political impetus. - David Lyga

If you intended to provide a link demonstrating that Auschwitz had those exact facilities you mentioned for the inmates, you must have forgotten, so please post it. If the link does not demonstrate that Auschwitz had those exact facilities for the inmates, please demonstrate that now. I insist that you support that statement with documentation.

I will rest my case on that matter. It is not only in the documentary but is common knowledge to all Holocaust academics. - David Lyga

You cannot support your claim with any documentation whatever. You lose the debate.

That is OK History will exonerate me. - David Lyga

You make a very specific claim which, if true, would be recorded numerous places, yet cannot provide a citation to any of them nor can you provide a particle of information to support it. This is not the behavior of someone telling the truth. You lose the debate.

There was a library in Buchenwald, originally meant for German Communists "re-education". Jorge Semprun describes it in one of his books (don't remember which) - he says it was stacked up with many prints of Mein Kampf, as well as much German literature and philosophy. The communist network in the camp (Semprun was a Franco-Spaniard Communist, that's why he was sent there) used one of the Mein Kampf copies to share secret messages. Nobody was ever reading them so it was a safe way for the network to communicate secretly.

I can’t post links. Google Theresientadt family camp.

In short the facilities existed for a limited period of time to wrong foot the Red Cross and hide the true nature of the Holocaust.

I suspect that you haven't done much research other than finding things which confirm your opinions.

This link was kindly provided by someone who didn't wish to directly reply to this thread:

Churchill and the Holocaust

I suspect that many of the other claims you've reprinted here are specious as well.

Of course, Holocaust denial has a long history, longer than the Holocaust itself.

They were working on hiding it before they started it. That ****’s still out there.

Sure, when he saw the condition of the camps he, or course, tried to distance the Allies from the reality that their bombing of the means to get supplies caused most of the typhus and starvation. And, he was always on the Zionist side, allowing Israel to exist (as if Britain had a right to manage that area of the mid East!!!) and allowed Zionists to butcher Arabs who had been living in Palestine for a thousand years. Of course, he had great sympathy for Jews, but six million was a figure he NEVER wrote about, No where near. Zionists are desperate to cover up that omission. - David Lyga

And you know what? The six million figure has been used by the Jews and their supporters maybe half a dozen times since the 19th century. That figure, in fact, in a way defines Zionism.

If Israel said at the turn of the 21st Century that there were still one million Holocaust survivors living, how many were living back in 1945? You know, mathematics can be quite revealing when we use life expectancy tables.

How come Jewish organizations in 1948 were still saying that the world Jewry figures were a little HIGHER than in 1938? If there were 15 million in 1938, these Jewish organizations did not know that 40% of that 15 million had perished? Are you REALLY asking me to believe that bullshit, and that is what you are asking me to believe: bullshit. Three full years after the end of WWII they had NO IDEA that 40% of world Jewry had been wiped out? This is more than stunningly amazing, even obscene, but, again, this truth is so dire that yeoman's effort is spent trying "to explain" such outrageous actions in order to promote the myth and garner the advantages, both political and pecuniary, of getting people to eat at the trough and make Jews, forevermore, look like victims.

These questions are very uncomfortable to deal with because so much has been invested in forcing this issue. Can you begin to imagine if, tomorrow, suddenly, there were NO RESTRICTIONS in probing, discussing, and scrutinizing this episode with true academic and scientific rigor? Folks, there really ARE reasons why doing so draws either a prison sentence or a huge fine, or, in the case of countries whereby one is not legally punished, one will be excoriated, ridiculed, by those who have been trained to worship at the Altar of this Holocaust.

This is the ONLY topic which can not be debated without repercussions. Something about that restriction is truly obscene and even dangerous to a liberal democracy.

If I tried to say that I believed that 1 plus 1 was 3, you would tolerate that more than if I said that I had trouble believing the Holocaust narrative because there are too many facts which do not align. Think about this and come to your own private conclusions; conclusions which you can privately own without fear of igniting the lion trained to attack you for your doubts. - David Lyga.

That was well-said.

Again, Lyga, I defy you to provide one particle of evidence that the facilities you list for inmates existed at Auschwitz. You cannot run away from the argument.