Ad hominem attacks aren't really my style, but since the original question has pretty much been answered, I feel it interesting (and not completely off-topic) to observe that the OP, "Lordazazel" is a member of the "british national party supporters" group on Myspace.
The point I'm making is that people take the phrase "free speech" far too literally. Even in countries where such a right is enshrined in law people still can't run around saying things that are simply not true.
In the western world if you say something or print something that isn't true that is offensive and may damage someone or a group of people in some way you can still be sued for libel or slander.
So even without special anti-terror laws and the like people still aren't allowed to run around and say whatever they like. Period. However people in liberalised western societies generally don't fear their governments and the press and media generally aren't censored.
So what? The Iranian government is under extreme pressure at the moment! International sanctions are being levelled against them. They have no choice but to open up and appear more liberal. It's called diplomacy.
More to the point president Mahmood Ahmadinejad is a puppet to the real seat of power in the Iranian government. Which lies with the Islamic clerics. Who incidentally control the army and vet every presidential and parliamentary candidate. If the clerics don't like you. You don't even get to stand for office. President Mahmood Ahmadinejad is essentially a junior partner in the Iranian government with as much or as little power as the clerics grant him. He does what he's told. Basically.
Yes, I am a British Nationalist, but that DOES NOT in any way invalidate my views on those draconian laws, which only serve to show the hypocrisy of Western leaders. How can we lecture countries like Cuba for their "political prisoners" when we are doing the exact same thing ourselves?
And just to point out, the BNP have Jewish members (one of their councillors - Freeman - is a Jew. So any absurd notions you have of British Nationalism equating to Nazism are just that - ABSURD).
So whatever you think of me (and by all means you are perfectly entitled to your views), you should look at the bigger picture and consider the topic at hand. I see a parallel here, in that you are judging me as society is judging the likes of David Irving, Germar Rudolph and Ernst Zundel. They may have dubious political leanings in your eyes, but their doubts about the historical events of WWII are at least worthy of discussion. In otherwords, you can discredit me all you like, but that does not automatically invalidate my argument.
Personally, I am neither an anti-Semite (many of my favourite actors and musicians are Jewish) nor a "Holocaust denier", at least in the sense that I believe many Jews needlessly died in WWII. However, I question the NUMBER who died and the METHODS at which they met their deaths. For example, consider the following points which were made by the aforementioned characters:
1. Many who vanished ended up in Palestine and Hollywood (ie. Michael Douglas, Harrison Ford and many others were born of Jewish parents in the 1940's, after they fled to America. Gene Simmons from KISS was born as Chaim Witz in Israel in 1950, even though he once claimed his family were all lost in Auschwitz). Many changed their names and started new lives. The population of Israel at it's inception in 1948 was in the millions, whereas before WWII it was a significantly lower minority in the British-occupied Palestine.
2. Were there ever 6 million Jews under Nazi occupation? By the time they occupied most of Europe, most had fled the Warsaw Ghettos and suchlike, to go to the UK, Canada, the USA and Palestine. Yet over 3.2 million Jews have claimed compensation from the German government since WWII. That's a hell of a lot of survivors, wouldn't you say?
3. The Vad Yashem Institute and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (2 of the most respected authorities on the side of the Holocaustians) BOTH now admit that the Nuremberg Trial "evidence" of human lampshades from Jewish skin and bars of soap from Jewish body fat are FALSE. Besides, the Race Laws in Germany at the time forbade intimate physical contact between Germans and Jews, so these bars of soap would have surely led to soldiers being court-martialled.
4. They both now admit that there were NO GASSINGS in German camps (ie. Dachau, Bergen-Belsen). That just leaves the question of Auschwitz and the Eastern territories, yet the Museum at Auschwitz have confirmed that the alleged "gas chamber" was constructed by Stalin's army, AFTER the war. The lack of Prussian Blue, the residue left by Zyklon B, is something which cost David Irving his jail sentence when he pointed this out.
5. Speaking of the Nuremberg Trials, why were there no autopsy reports from victims and so little forensic evidence presented? Why was there only 20 min court time devoted to Bergen-Belsen, Sobobor and Treblinka, despise the accusers claims of 2million deaths there? There was also NO cross-examination of witness evidence, or any forensic evidence put forward.
6. At Nuremberg, the confession of the Coofftopicndant of Auschwitz, Rudolph Hoess, was given in English. This was after FOUR DAYS of torture (as admitted by Jewish authorities who carried out his interrogation) and more significantly - Hoess could not speak ONE WORD of English.
7. One other piece of damning evidence is that the memorial plaque laid at Auschwitz after the war, which claimed FOUR million deaths, was replaced in 1990 - to one which says that only ONE million died there. This reduction of THREE million means that the mythical 6 million is reduced to 3. Yet these draconian laws mean that 6-3=6.
Here is the original Auschwitz memorial:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y14/metallordazazel_666/1aus1948.jpg
...and here is the one which replaced it:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y14/metallordazazel_666/1aus.jpg
8. Also, in the 1990's a Frenchman (Jean-Claude Pressac) was commissioned by Jewish authorities to research the death toll at Auschwitz, in order to "silence the Revisionists". His figures claimed that only 470000 - 550000 Jews died there. So rather than destroy the Revisionists' arguments, he only served to STRENGTHEN them. So we've gone from 4 million to 1 million and now only approx. HALF A MILLION. Read about the Pressac Report, if you will. Doesn't add up, does it?
9. The Eastern camp of Treblinka fails to stand up to scrutiny. If the 870000 claimed to have died there is true, then the mass graves would have to be 100 feet deep, given that it was only the size of 2 baseball fields. Also, if there were really mass-cremations of women and children every day, why did the Allies find no piles of ashes there upon liberation?
The only "testimony" from a survivor was one of a Mr. Wiernik. He made the OUTRAGEOUS claim that he was forced to carry bodies on his back and transport them from one end of the camp to another, without ANY food or water. Here's the catch - Wiernik was a 47 year old man who had done NO manual labour in 20 years. Even a US Navy Seal would struggle to carry out these tasks day after day, never mind someone of Wiernik's stature.
10. Has anyone wondered just how much fossil fuel it would take to burn millions of bodies to ashes in a 3 year period? Holocaustians allege that the genocide started in 1942, so given that many of the camps were liberated in 1944 and early 1945, it would have taken an ASTRONOMICAL amount of fossil fuel to achieve this. Let's not also forget that the Nazis LOST the battle for North Africa, where they fought for oil resources. So did they have the resources to do it?
11. The official (I repeat, OFFICIAL) Red Cross reports confirm that they delivered 1000's of packages to inmates and that upon REPEATED inspections of these camps, found NO evidence of mass homicides. The official Red Cross documents (you can check them out) put the death figures at 271000 people in total, of which around 60% were Jews. Where does this mythical 6 million come into play?
12. Also, every population census shows that the Jewish population, between 1933 and 1945, actually INCREASED. Given that it was 15.3 million before the war and around 15.8 after the war and around 18 million today, wouldn't it have taken a baby-boom on a level NEVER seen before in the history of mankind? Given that Jewish birth rates are negligible, I'm sure you can see the significance here.
13. Bear in mind also, that the Red Cross figures were compiled from Nazi documents and records which were confiscated AFTER the liberation of these camps by the Allies. The figures which were de-classified by Gorbachev after Glasnost and Perestroika also show figures NOWHERE NEAR that claimed by Holocaustians. Indeed, there is also NOT ONE Nazi record in existence which shows there was ever a concrete extermination plan for the Jews.
14. The alleged Nazi conspiracy, the Wansee Protocol (named after the alleged meeting between Nazi heirarchy in 1942), contained the words "evacuate" and a plan to ship them all to Madagascar. Holocaustians claim this "evacuate" was a code word for "exterminate". Yet why would they lie? After all, not only were the National Socialist Party very open about their views, they were still winning the war in 1942, until after they lost the Battle of Stalingrad in January 1943. In otherwords, they had NOTHING to lose.
being a British Nationalist doesn't equate with you being a nazi, although you have to admit the evidence pointing towards a link between BNP membership and general *******-like tendencies is compelling.
Does the fact that the Black Helicopters aren't swooping on your house as we speak not give you a tiny clue that you're wrong about "Western Hypocrisy"?
Your right that being in the BNP does not automatically make you a Nazi however it does mean you support a party which consists primarily of bigoted racists with professed bigoted goals and a well known fondness for Nazism.
Your points as they stand sound remarkably similiar to the kind of arguments presented by creationists arguing that evolution did not occur or that it occurs but only on a 'limited scale'. And as such Im sceptical that they are going to turn out to be particularly valid. I don't have enough familarity with the history nor do I have the inclination this evening to address the points I assume you've lifted from several sources (could you provide a list of the original sources?). But I will have a look into the relevant points and see how much of what your saying is true.
However, the possible validity of some of your points does not dampen the fact that you state you do not deny the holocaust then go on to list points:
- calling those who accept what mainstream historians have found 'holocaustians'.
- insinuating there was no Nazi policy for exterminating the Jews: "there is also NOT ONE Nazi record in existence which shows there was ever a concrete extermination plan for the Jews"
- making ridiculous arguments such as that piles of ash should be found if there were cremations.
- and lets not forget calling holocaust survivors liars.
All this seems to suggest to me that you may not be quite as convinced that it occured (even on a scale of about a million) as you suggest. Saying I don't deny the holocaust occured and then suggesting that the Nazi's didn't have a policy for exterminating Jews seems to me at least a little inconsistent.
Also of importantance to recognise is that many of your points insinuate that holocaust survivors must have been making up stories about gas chambers and the like in order to wangle money out of the German government or gain sympathy. In my book and it seems in pretty much all mainstream historians books thats a load of rubbish. Still your points will take to address and I'd be interested in looking into them when I have time- but at the minute Im too busy to get bogged down in researching WW2 history- maybe someone else has more familarity with the topic.
Actually, in that old post, I was condemning the Nazi element who attach themselves to parties like the National Front and BNP. I still stand by that belief that these skinheads who align themselves with said parties are not only mindless scum, but a liability to those like myself who actually have REASONED arguments about multiculturalism and the way it is practised (a topic for another thread, perchance?).
The fact that both parties still contain such elements is in fact the reason why I am NOT a member of EITHER party. That's right. NOT a member. I am a British Nationalist who openly condemns Nazism (and had family who were killed in WWI and were POW's in WWII) and REFUSES to actually join any political party like the NF or BNP, due to the fact their approach does, as you so rightly point out, contain extremist elements (although they can't be Nazis if they have Jewish members, can they? ).
FOR THE RECORD: The reason for my being a member of a certain group on Myspace is because I converse with the more articulate members of said groups, with whom I empathise (ie. fellow concerned British citizens who are appalled at what the last 2 governments have done to this country AND who are vehemently opposed to the Iraq war). I have a post-grad education, including a Physics degree, so any notions you may have of me being an ignorant skinhead would make YOU as ignorant as those misguided fools you so despise.
Sources? Certainly....
1. The World Almanac (one of the world's foremost sources on population Census). Issues from before and after the war give the worldwide Jewish population figures.
2. The Vad Yashem Institute (one of Israel's foremost Holocaust authorities).
3. The International Red Cross (you can see their reports from 1944 and the final death figures of around 271000).
4. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre (named after the man who was perhaps the World's foremost Nazi-hunter).
5. The Pressac Report (commissioned by Jewish authorities, to combat growing Revisionist dissent, but which actually strengthened it by again reducing death toll figures at Auschwitz).
I didn't say you were a skinhead though did I? I said if you supported the BNP as you alluded to in your previous posts you were supporting a party comprised primarily of bigots with a bigoted agenda and rather embarassing links to Neo-Nazism. Oh and about the Jewish member thing do you have any idea how many Jewish members the party have? I suspect it is going to be an incredibly insignificant number, especially given that to most members of the BNP ethnically Jewish people are not considered "Indigenous Caucasians" and would therefore not be allowed to join the party. The single councillor who is of Jewish descent I also suspect is not going to be particularly connected to the Jewish community/religion.
EDIT: Having had a look around the inter web it seems that the BNP now accepts 'European Jews' as party members (though how many it actually has is probably rather humorous).
As for your sources I'm not talking about those kind of sources I'm talking about the main sources from which you got the points you listed... I doubt that you simply did all that research on your own so I'm curious as to what sources you used to remind you of the arguments you laid out.
To offer an analogy if I was asking a creationist for the source of a long list of arguments they provided against evolution I am asking for something like www.answersingenesis.com I am not asking for the sources they have already specifically cited in their points.
P.S. Having a Post graduate education while great and all does not prevent someone from holding foolish opinions.
Interesting stuff.
I figure that's well worth taking a look at.
I don't think that many if any people posting in this thread are actually going to read up enough to be able to seriously look at these issues frankly.
I think most would rather spend their time taking pot shots at your BNP status. And who can blame them for that... from everything I've ever seen on their policies and members... they're total clowns.
But you're right... none of that automatically invalidates the points you've brought up.
Something none of the other posters in this thread have been willing to address other than CKava.
Can you point me to particular Pressac Report you were using? I found several online... but it'd be good if you provided the one you were referring to.
It doesn't appear to be the entire report... perhaps just suofftopicry or commentary on the report mentioned. That the report numbers in the hundreds of pages... I'd have to ask if you've actually read the entire thing?
Which makes for some interesting reading. I don't really know if it's credible... but it gives an idea of the serious amount of reading anyone is going to have to do if they truly want to understand the issues involved in proving or disproving the holocaust and particularly the whole gas chambers incident.
What I find disturbing (but perhaps not surprising)... is the logo on Zindels site is basically a Nazi flag and strikingly similar to many of the Neo-Nazi insignia permutations.
And the debate rolls on.. here's the Wiki on Fred A. Leuchter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter
After reading through this and several of the links... I'd be very wary to put much trust in anything that Leuchter has to say. It appears he's a total sham.
its not a case of his point being invalid, its a case of his points not mattering, I dont care for the exact figure killed during the holocaust, it still happened, it was still horrific and if exaggeration of its scale is the only way to ensure it doesn't happen again, then I say exaggerate away.
Now for the pot shots at his BNP status...
Now if that isn't a good enough reason to disregard anything he ever posts again, then I really dont know what is.