I don't know and I don't care.

Anyways, I read IHR when fleshy was talking about it. B/C at first I thought she was just reading a site that must have been done by a neo-nazi or something. The scary thing is, it was pretty sound and persuasive site.

I, always down for a debate, looked for an anti-IHR site. I found one, and it really didn't seem to adequately refute what IHR said. I was very surprised. I honestly don't know what to think now. Anyways, I just think this is something that definitely could have been contorted. You may not believe me, but how often is history "written". And I do mean written. Not actually done.

So here is the two major sources. The "revisionists" are ppl who tend to deny the larger claims that are commonly taught about holocaust.

International Historic Review which claims holocaust was largely exaggerated
Nizkor which attempts to refute these claims.

The claims and facts debated are astonishing and the evidence sometimes compelling both ways. I would surely delve into this more if I had some time to spend. So I encourage anyone interested, to please have an open mind both ways, read the sites, compare the evidence, check other sources, and then make your conclusions. Please use this thread to debate and/or keep us informed of your findings?

OK, this is going to be my one and only post here, simply because it pisses me off too much to be worth it.

Anyways, the link. Are there some points that can be valid? Yes. To find opposing information do you need to find a site specifically designed to refute them? nope. Read basically any other acount of the holocaust and you get the other side. The 'distorted' side, which must be discredited because those people are all spoon-fed and full of the wrong facts. Not that it could be the other way around.

"The people who control the media here are of course Zionist Jews"
Of course, because jews truely do control the world and use any means necessary to impart their propoganda. We're all in on it.

( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-12_Bennett.html )

The other articles seem to consist of ideas like that and, of course, the ever-popular Israel bashing. That's a different topic, however.

Yes, some of these articles avoid the anti-semetic overtones, so we take them on fact alone.
These people say one thing, most other people say another.

Gas chambers. They don't work?

http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-03.html

There are more, but I'm lazy and it's basically the same thing. Oposites of what the other side says.

Fleshy says that the eye-witnesses are wrong. OK, let's then say that I accept that there were no gas chambers.
Her parents did die for no better reason than that they were jewish. Millions, yes, millions, did die for no reason other than that they were jewish.
You want to say that they died from disease while in a relocation program from the benevolent Hitler. Ok. They still died.


What it comes down to is that it doesn't matter how they died. What matters is that Hitler wanted no jews in his world and he killed millions of them, however you want to think he did that.


That last part may have not had enough 'facts' for you. Sure, that's true, if you want to say that the people I know who liberated the camps (smelled for 3 days away) and who were there, or had parents there, are all misguided, then go for it.
If you want to say that the entire history as believed by the majority is wrong, go for it.

You want to say that Hitler was a poor, misunderstood genius, go for it.

I respectfully disagree.

Gas chambers = carbon dioxide like from cars. What happenes when you park yourself in your garage with the door open and you rev your car for an hour? exactly...

Carbon monoxide...

Yeh what you said, I always confuse the two .

Zyklon B