If you have any info that could refute the claims this guy is making please let me know. I'm very surprised the comments on youtube agree with the documentary and there is not a video debunking this one or even an article debunking the documentary.

I'm not done with it but so far I have conclusively refuted one assertion.
- He says Hitler invaded Poland as a result of Polish citizens killing German citizens in the town of Bromberger. Poland. Only problem is the invasion by Germany into Poland happend BEFORE the german citizens were killed in this town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)#Nazi_propaganda

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Gotta be honest, I don't have 72 minutes to watch a VHS quality production on a topic that I don't really care that much about anyway. The world melting down over Kanye West thinking for himself and going off script is much more interesting this week. I was lucky enough (or unlucky enough) to tour the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam when I was 7 years old. My college aged daughter toured Auschwitz a couple years ago so, I'm not sure what there is to deny.

Could you summarize the key points in the argument that you're having?
Or, could you summarize the points in the crappy YouTube video which appear to be bogus?

---

I don't have the time either but dumb point number 2 is as the title suggests that first German Jews declared war on Germany. The documentary shows a sign that says Judea declares war on Germany and leads the viewer to think this occured in Germany. Turns out there were worldwide boycotts of Germany including in London. A london newspaper printed the picture that says Jews declare war on Germany. It didin't occur in germany by jews in Germany and the sign is written in English DUH!.

The guy is a complete moron and I don't have time to debunk the rest ot it.

As far as the Polish border incident goes, I thought it was accepted history that Hitler dressed up dead Poles in German uniforms as a pretext for invasion.

Does this denier believe the Poles really killed the German soldiers? This would be committing an act off war against a country Poland couldn't defeat. Suicide basically.

For me personally, outside of history books, I believe in the Holocaust because I've met an Auschwitz survivor (still alive). Her grandson is my best friend from A&M.

Human Being,

Which argument are you trying to combat? It can be like arguing with flat-earthers, but also don't confuse arguments.

An attempt to say that Germany didn't start the war is beyond bizarre, but strictly speaking is not the *same* as denying the holocaust. Is this about Gliewitz Station? A pretext was arranged for the invasion of Poland even at the time, so it is true there was a propaganda version that claimed they didn't fire the first shot.

If trying to refute something, you can't make it too broad.

"Refute comments" on a video -- that could be futile, not least because how to know which you are arguing.

There is no credible way to deny that Germany invaded Poland and had long planned to do so. It is such a basic fact that even getting into things like Germany and Russia making treaty to divide Poland that very summer is almost redundant, but is among some of the most obvious proofs. Not least because hardly any doubt that Hitler wanted to destroy Russia's communism, and you need the Poland passage sooner or later to invade Russia.

Yet strictly speaking, trying to say Poland fired the first shot is not even the same as trying to deny the Holocaust (at its most basic a deliberate liquidation program complete with extermination centers for Jews). Your post and discussion seems to be about who started it, but The title makes one guess it is trying to say Churchill and Daladier did Jewish bidding. (Because Germany invades Poland days before England and France declare war. There is no doubt about THAT sequence)

If it is the latter, why would you try to argue with such obtuse deniers. Sometimes one can challenge narrow points and then using that leap to some broad conclusion that is totally wrong. (and make no mistake David Irving sometimes threads his needle along the lines of how an even was interpreted, not whether it happened, so it can get tricky). Example, you just might be able to show here and there where the Axis view of a singular atrocity might be more right---but you still can't use that to deny their overall aggression and policies.

Especially on whether Germany started the war.

They had to have Poland to attack Russia---- you can make some contorted argument Hitler didn't want war in the West, but not the East. In fact, the Battle of Britain is partly turned away from because so eager to go ahead with Barborossa and the invasion of Soviet Union---the territory by then even including part of Poland---which both of them had invaded in 1939.

Quote:

---

For me personally, outside of history books, I believe in the Holocaust because I've met an Auschwitz survivor (still alive). Her grandson is my best friend from A&M.

---

One of the older guys my dad worked with in Saudi Arabia was a holocaust survivor. I don't believe he was a Jew but he was some sort of heavily accented Eastern European. The dude had a number tattooed on his forearm. From memory, I think it was about 6 or 7 digits. As a kid, that scared the hell outta me.

aalan94 said:

---

Answer is simple: There is more documentary evidence for the holocaust than there is for the American Revolution. Fact.

Go to Germany and visit a concentration camp there. I know most are in Poland, but there are a few in Germany. If it was the rest of the world lying, then there would be lies in the Polish camps. The Germans would not lie about themselves. The documents are there, and they're in German. The people who run the museums are German. Their grandparents served in the war. If it was a lie, I kind of think they'd have exposed it by now.

---

What are they really trying to deny? As mentioned the detail of what contesting matters. You can get lost in semantics that the camps in Germany were not "ground up built" extermination camps like some of the Polish ones, but in net result most became de-facto death camps in 1945 because of the `allow no concentration camp prisoners to fall into Allied hands' policy in March and April. My post on the May 3 disaster in fact involves one such case- -- the survivors of Stutthoff and Neungamme camps were doomed by the policy. They were being killed literaly right up to the moment the British Army arrived in Neustadt.

How do deniers explain the piles of Jewish bodies at prison sites ?

BigJim49 AustinNowDallas said:

---

How do deniers explain the piles of Jewish bodies at prison sites ?

---

Strange as it may seem, that is where you can fall into a trap. Most of the films and photographs of the piles of bodies were taken in the `non-extermination' camps (still KZ camps, konzinstration slager) liberated by the American and British armies. Famine, disease, starvation, and untreated epidemics was responsible for many of those deaths. There were plenty just mowed down by gunfire and otherwise massacred, though. However, especially when a modern angle of over-focusing on gas chambers is what someone leads with, it can be ducked by the fact that most of these bodies were not produced that way. But its insane. All gassing means is that particular kind of "high volume and industrialized" approach wasn't responsible --- it doesn't mean the deaths were not deliberate and part of a program. In mid-April 1945 Himmler even gave order that no prisoners from those KZ style camps fall into enemy hands alive. Yet at the same time he was trying to bargain with their lives with the Swedes and kept moving them around to win terms. That is why you have the bizarre examples of concentration camps both "evacuated" but anyone unable to keep up simply killed on the march to the new location.

Basically from what can see, the denials comes from over-focus on minutiae details rather than the overall thrust of the general extermination program. There are reams and reams of written official German reports and accounts, let alone of victims, to document. But an over-focus on photographs can lead astray. Its not like they were readily allowed. A sub-set of holocaust denial tries to exonerate Hitler from having ordered it; that too doesn't fly, but it gets more tricky trying to pin down just what he green-lighted.

Hope this helps explain.

Yeah one thing I've learned in life is that someone who is predisposed to believe a conspiracy theory will almost never be talked out of it. Not only is it wasted energy, telling them they are wrong only hardens their beliefs, because to further proof to them that they are the only ones who get it.
And in the case of something like the holocaust, there's often other underlying feelings that presuppose them, and ones you don't want to get sucked into.
I would honestly just question whether you would want to be friends with or even in communication with someone who believes things like that.

Jmo.

Forcing Jews into concentration camps, starving them, causing disease , overcrowding them
= not exterminating !

Only slightly related, but I was shocked to find two German Catholics with my last name, Bubel, on an Auschwitz death list. I couldn't find anything else about them. I can't even find that list anymore.

I'd like to see more about their story, but our family tree has proven to be difficult to trace.