These life saving measures of the Nazis gave rise to the phantasmagorical 'homicidal gas chambers' of the holocaust

I see. In other words, no good dead goes unpunished, right? The nazis were humanitarians, trying to save the lives of the poor Jews. Never mind that they worked these people to death, and that untreated disease was rampant in the camps. Really, the nazis were good blokes, according to Saggy.

Piper is the director of the Auschwitz Museum, he explains the 'reconstruction' of the 'gas chamber' by the Soviets after the war ended.

I saw the gas chamber in Dachau, which was occupied by the Americans. Who rebuilt that gas chamber?

I am just speechless.

What is it about Traditional Catholics being Holocaust deniers, anyhow? I mean, this is how Mel Gibson is too.

At the core, it is driven by Anti-Semitism. It has to be. I don't know a single Jewish person who denies that the holocaust made victims of groups aside from the Jews. But that doesn't negate the terrible pain suffered by those who survived the camps, and those who lost loved ones in the camps.

This is the first time I have ever seen someone allege that the Nazi's use of Zyclon was a "life saving measure."

May God Have Mercy on Your Soul.

Are the reason General Eisenhower insisted his troops carefully film and document what they found in the liberated death camps.

He predicted people like Saggy and Williamson would come along and cast doubt that the Holocaust happened. This way, there would be proof. What he didn't realize is that people like Saggy and Williamson wouldn't believe their lying eyes.

Dear Bishop Williamson:

Please click the link below.

Be prepared to shed tears.

It is heartbreaking.

Many sad stories told, using some of the first tape recorders invented.

http://voices.iit.edu/

It is well known that the camps were heavily damaged and scavenged after the war by locals, who pilfered building materials to rebuild their bombed out homes. By the time anybody got around to thinking about preserving the sites for historical reasons, they were mostly ruins.

The reconstruction of the camps was not to create "false proofs", as the video alleges. They didn't need "false proofs", they had the records the Nazi's kept.

At Nuremburg, no defendant argued that the number was smaller than alleged, they just argued that they weren't responsible, were out of the country, or were dead at the time.

You are an unforgivable maggot... Sorry had to be said.

I guess my relatives... eyewitness to the horrors of the holocaust... are all liars. Including the few that survived the camps themselves.

You should dig a hole... and get in.

Bug foggers? That may be the worst analogy I've ever heard. There's a reason they tell you to not be home when you use bug foggers: If you stay inside, you die.

It would be like arguing that a Carcano rifle couldn't possibly have killed Kennedy because it would be no more effective than a Winchester.

You come up with some really silly shit, dude.

I don't know who is an anti-Semite, who's lying, who's got the monopoly on the truth.

What I do know is that people disagree about the exact nature of a historical event.

Nothing will ever be resolved by calling the people with the disagreement duty-heads.

Bring out all the facts, lay them on the table.

If historical records and evidence make the circumsances and numbers 100% clear, then let's make sure everybody can easily view those records and that evidence.

Maybe this is already so? Okay, then provide references and citations to the books and documents that lay it all out.

Stop calling names, accusing of racism, etc.

By the way, I notice this bishop keeps being referred to as a "holocaust denier." Yet the only thing I've heard him deny is that there were gas chambers. It doesn't sound like he is denying that there was a Final Solution, or concentration camps, or that Jews were killed en masse. His one point of denial seems to be the gas chambers (correct me if I'm wrong). So it seems inaccurate, at the least, that he is labeled as a "Holocaust denier."

It seems to me that this whole episode accepting these Bishops backinto the Church says more about the current Pope than about the Bishops. He is very conservative which will make Catholics like Tom Donahue and Mel Gibson's father happy.

I don't think it's a good thing for the Catholic Church, especially in America. This is no longer a church I recognize - it seems like some more fundamentalist faith.

But since I am not Catholic, I wonder why everyone is up in arms about this story. The man is an anti-semite, who is wrapped in the cloak of a powerful Church. That the Pope feels that it is okay to accept such a vocal revisionist into his fold says alot about Catholicism. Has nothing to do with the millions of non-Catholics who are Christians.

It's probably good that he doesn't want to visit Auschwitz since he would only disrespect what it has come to symbolize. It will be interesting to see how the Pope handles Williamson after he "does his research" and concludes that the Holocaust never occured. Then what?

What stinks is you.

My father's family was from Dresden and Durmstat. When his family was abducted and murdered, and my grandfather got to the U.S., he joined the American armed forces and bombed his hometown. Because he knew his people and his world were more important than his former government leveraging the history of one city.

And I've never heard ANYONE claim that only Jews were murdered. Ironically, many catholics were killed as well. I grew up with plenty of outrage over Japanese camps in the U.S., as well.

Very similar arguments here to the creationists attacks on evolution. Given a body of overwhelming evidence that goes against your beliefs, attack the least plausible seeming detail and get your opponents to defend that detail, make them seem absurd, and than translate the "doubts" you raise on that detail to a "disproof" of the whole shebang.

Here, instead of wanking about how woodpeckers came to be, you go after ONE execution method at ONE camp, use cherry picked sort-of facts to cast doubt on that method, and shazam! no more Holocaust.

As a famous physician once said, the difference between a cure and a poison is the dose. Zyklon B is nothing more that stabilized Hydrogen Cyaninde; when used cyanide gas is released. In small doses, sure, it'll kill lice and not people. But HCN is pretty unambiguously lethal to humans at not terribly high concentrations in air. Don't believe me? Get some potassium cyanide, dissolve it in water, then go in your garage, close it up, and dump some vinegar in that mess. Let me know how that goes for you.

As absurd as the attacks on the gas chamber's plausibility are, they're entirely irrelevant. People were worked to death. People were shot. People were vivisected. People were burned alive. All this was done as a matter of a policy of extermination. You can question the viability of a specific method of execution all you want, all those people are still dead.

SS displays a second kind of non-argument used by the "debater" with no actual arguments on his side--change the subject! The Nazis killed millions of civilians you say? ...well, uh...Americans do bad things too! And since Americans do bad things, therefore the Nazis didn't. QED.

And Yup, SS, the firebombing and nuking of cities to force your enemies to surrender because they can't bear any more civilian casualties--often referred to as breaking your enemies will to fight--is a pretty Terrible Thing. The men who ordered those things were a mixture of people who thought they were doing what they had to to save more lives in the long run, and incredible douches with a contempt for the humanity of their enemies. And you can argue, certainly, about whether the death of civilians to achieve a military objective is morally defensible or not, as bad as the holocaust or not, comparable or not.

But firebombing Dresden didn't make the Holocaust not happen.