Bert,
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=8
At 2hrs/cremation, one cremator could do 12 bodies/day, or 4380/yr. For 3 years, thats 13,140 for ONE cemator. I assume they had up to 50 cremators on site if they were serious. That’s 657k in total for one camp…
The strongest argument against mass cremation is still the amount of lumber they would have needed to cremate all those bodies. The actual amount of forest cleared is nowhere near enough to cremate that many bodies. I’m sure Player or Bert knows the source off the top of their heads 
At 2hrs/cremation, one cremator could do 12 bodies/day,
You are assuming that each cremator holds one body at a time???
I’m saying that even under those conservative assumptions, the capacity is more than enough to kill that many jews. Maybe 20 million.
Not that this proves anything, but it’s quite a coincidence I got this email (I’m in a Jewish fraternity). Anyways, it’s interesting,
It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.
He did this because he said in words to this effect:
‘Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened’
Considering the fact that Eisenhower ordered all of the same done to the German POWs, that email is most likely made up.
The problem with the “Holocaust” is that it is all about jews. That is the attitude that you come to expect from jews and probably the most part of the reason that they’ve always been hated so widely. The whole of humanity is supposed to cry daily for eternity over some proportionately minor casualty group in one event out of all other war and other killing that ever happened. The obsession is grossly disproportionate in popularity, teaching and emphasis..
I think Jews are hated for more ignorant reasons, to be honest. Israel may be disliked by a great deal of Muslims (talking about those living in countries surrounding Israel), but I don’t think they hate Jews as much as people think. I think the view of Muslim-Jewish relations is skewed by the words of political leaders, but I don’t think most Muslims hate Jews (and hating Israel is not the same as hating Jews).
EDIT: And, I don’t get the rationale of that first sentence.
No, whats wrong with the official story of the holocaust is that it makes WWII the good war. Without the holocaust, then what? Its just like slavery and the civil war. Government A attacks government B and they’re both pretty lame so its not worth killing a ton of people over… The holocaust makes it okay that a bunch of terrible stuff happened.
If it’s true does it make you question whether you should be pro government or not? It shouldn’t. Government still caused the holocaust. Government caused the war.
Oddly enough, Hitler did the same thing Lincoln did. He tried to convince the jews to emigrate to a colony in Africa.
The holocaust makes it okay that a bunch of terrible stuff happened.
Whether or not the holocaust is used for justification for the Second World War, how is it relevant to the factual accuracy of the accepted history of the holocaust? I don’t think one should judge scholarship on the holocaust based on any implications it may have towards the Second World War in general, especially in regards to justification for the war. I don’t want to start a discussion on the Second World War, and I am certainly not saying that there was any good reason for entering the war (although, I think given the circumstances of the situation one can’t really draw a line between “wrong” and “right” without terribly oversimplying it), but there are a myriad of justifications for the Second World War.
Caley,
He tried to convince the jews to emigrate to a colony in Africa.
Interesting. Do you have a reputable reference for this? At some point, Hitler put up a great deal of regulation on the ability of Jews to emigrate from Germany (at least, after the establishment of the Nuremberg Laws).
ironically, I think that is what this thread was supposed to be about in the first place
Oh, so he didn’t try to convince the Jews to move to Madagascar; rather, he weighed the option of forcibly deporting them, and ultimately found it lacking (two years before the final solution was declared).
David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates of Auschwitz Part 1
David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates of Auschwitz Part 2
http://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=dDUYVO1cIC0&feature=related
This discusses the immigration and the “Final Solution”.
It depends on who you ask. The gatekeeper historians or Hermann Goering’s testimony at the Nuremburg tribunal. He said in court that “final solution” was a mistranslation; that it was “total solution”. It’s like anarcho-communists calling themselves the original “libertarians”.
It’s hard to believe the “evidence” when it comes to the Nuremberg trials. Tons of testimonies have been mistranslated, evidence was somehow destroyed (when the Soviets had real Nazi documents for years, and skewing the facts), and especially when the Nazis are put on trial by the winners of the war in the favor of their own interests. Hell, I’ve read that top Nazi officials were brutally beaten to get a confession, and then the confession is mistranslated!
It isn’t. It just deserves extra scrutiny.
Exactly. I’m not too interested in a full discussion of WWII, but the holocaust is supposed to cover up the moral grey area to make us the good guys.
It’s hard to believe the “evidence” when it comes to the Nuremberg trials.
The Nuremberg trials do not provide the entirety of evidence in support of the Holocaust. I suggest actually committing to proper research on the subject, rather than listening and believing to a couple of youtube videos (the same goes the other way around).
It depends on who you ask. The gatekeeper historians or Hermann Goering’s testimony at the Nuremburg tribunal. He said in court that “final solution” was a mistranslation; that it was “total solution”. It’s like anarcho-communists calling themselves the original “libertarians”.
This doesn’t say anything useful. What are you trying to say?