- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
Were the lampshades forged?
Did the auschwitz holocaust falsely tell visitors they were the original gas chambers before David cole's documentary?
Would you call that forgery?
The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Did the auschwitz holocaust falsely tell visitors they were the original gas chambers before David cole's documentary?
Would you call that forgery?
There's a difference between lying for profit or propagandistic reasons (as most countries do in their school textbooks) and falsification of the historical record itself
In the case of the Auschwitz museum, Cole didn't discover anything new. The museum director:
With regards to the lampshades, Americans shot that down in 1950
USSR didn't have to disclose the changes it made to the Crema I building, and it would have been trivial for the Americans to fashion lampshades out of human skin taken from a morgue or something. But they didn't do these things
Nor is there a single document that has been shown to be a forgery in the way that the Lachout document (fabricated by a revisionist) has
Revisionist critiques here seem to reinforce the authenticity of Holocaust documents, eg language they are skeptical about actually supports native speaker hypothesis
but if any revisionists have examples here we can take a look. there are lots of ways in which a document can be shown to be fabricated
Last edited:
I mean we have been over this many times but he is going to keep repeating his image board memes.
The "evidence" Cole produced of "fraud" by the museum is a young Polish woman with poor English—probably working a summer job as a tour guide—mistakenly referring to the reconstructed crema 1 as an original.
Who would think her mistake is evidence that the Holocaust was fake? An extremely stupid person or an extremely biased person.
In contrast, you can show that mainstream historians were saying Crema I was not an orignial long before Cole's "documentary." But Lemming will still keep memeing.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
It's still there in wikipedia, in encyclopedia brittanica, it was there in the 70s documentaries.... yet your efforts are spent here.
Zo (or anyone else), I would very much like to hear why you disbelieve in the gassings in Natzweiler, given the ironclad documentary and pictorial evidence of the gassings. And the fact that (ffs) the gas chamber still exists today. ("revisionist" David Cole has seen it and attests to its authenticity.)
I hate to use the old cliche, but this seems a lot like "denial" to me.
I hate to use the old cliche, but this seems a lot like "denial" to me.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
Lemmingwise, I’m curious. Why are lampshades so important to you and other deniers?
If I wanted to show the nazis were evil, I only need to go to the Wikipedia page of Josef Mengele, or look up Aktion t4. Those two affected literally a thousand times more people than the lampshades did.
Hell, don’t you believe that the nazis killed millions intentionally? You may think the gassings didn’t happen, but you still agree it was an intentional mass murder of at least 2 million, right? Why does lampshades have any effect on that?
It’s like complaining how a documentary on the Golden State Killer said he forgot to pay off a speeding ticket in 1998, when he didn’t. It is literally nothing when compared to the bigger picture of him being a vile rapist and murderer. Same goes for the nazis
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
There are some European countries where denial is illegal, I think about 13 or so of them ban holocaust denial. Otherwise, holocaust denial is legal in the rest of the world.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
Which ones? Germany maybe, but which countries?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
Legality of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia
Huh, apparently Russia bans holocaust denial too. The more you know…
Keep in mind that some countries “ban” denial by labeling it as hate speech, so they may not say in law “denial is banned” but they may say “denial is sometimes hate speech, and hate speech is banned, so therefore denial can be considered illegal”. Canada and Australia do something like this.
Also, I found this funny:
“While holocaust denial is not explicitly prohibited in Brazilian law, precedents tend to lead to conviction. As of 11 February 2022, several bills criminalizing the act are pending in Congress.”
Apparently Brazil wants to ban denial too? It hasn’t gone anywhere yet but that’s pretty funny.
Last edited:
I just looked through those entries and nothing there is counterfactual
furthermore the lampshades are absolutely small potatoes, given the magnitude of Nazi crimes and other fucked up anatomical experiments, such as the skeleton collection made of gassed Jews seen on the previous page and the established use of "skin":
from hc blog
Maybe you've forgotten but I also did attempt to make a revision to a much more serious error on wikipedia
Deniers' memelike obsession with lampshades (which weren't even accused of being of Jewish origin) just shows the overall weakness of their case
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
The reason I ask is that most of the laws are not actually about Holocaust denial, but broader.Legality of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Huh, apparently Russia bans holocaust denial too. The more you know…
So if you use Holocaust denial as part of an anti-Semitic attack it becomes a crime or likes in France if you deny crimes against humanity you can be jailed. It is not always about the holocaust, but also has a ton to do with politics and different things. That is why Russia has laws against Holocaust denials as it is attached to the self-image of the great "Nazi slayers" they like to pretend they are.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
I know, right? There are so many worse things the nazis did than turning random people into lampshades.
It makes some sense if you are mrolonzo and think the nazis were good boys who din du nuffin, but Lemmingwise thinks the nazis intentionally killed millions. Why does he care about lampshades?
Oh, I see. The Wikipedia article does write out some of the laws, but I don’t know where you could get a list as specific as you want.
This is quite right. The memers say only denial is the "only historical view that is criminalized," but denial of the Armenian Genocide is criminalized in France, denial of the Katyn Massacre and other Soviet atrocities is criminalized in Poland, and so on.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
I can only speak for myself.
I think the lampshades are a perfect example.
It's a perfect example of admitted falsified history that persists until today. Anyone who hasn't thought much about the subject or engaged with much of the material asks him or herself: is there anything to this holocaust skepticism thing or is it just a bunch of crypto hitler worshippers trying to move the needle?
My question is, why is it more important to people like chugger and history speaks that some autists on a catlady nerd gossip site hold the official version of the holocaust when central educational resources (lile wikipedia and encyclopedia brittanica) are misinforming the general public everyday? These sites have catastrophically more views, are trusted more, are relied on more.
It's not that the hitler worshippers don't exist, it's that in practice they're pitiful rather than a genuine threat. The very existance of people acting like chugger and history speaks that care more about posting on the kiwifarms than correcting central resources should tell any reasonably minded person that the jewish internet defence force exists and is pervasive, and as biased as a door to door salesman. If it isn't the JIDF, then an organisation that is comparable by another name.
When any group is organised enough to manage to influence central educational resources to this degree, and don't correct them when things like skin lampshades work in their favor of demonizing those who they perceive as their enemies. Then it should alarm you. It should alarm anyone that does not benefit from said historical manipulation. It should even alarm those that benefit, but value truth and/or long term security over short term benefits.
For me it's also a simple character analysis. If they let these lies stand, how many more lies do they leave standing? Someone's character and virtue is fundamentally corrupt at that point. There are probably more lies there.
Like a husband or wife that lied two times about texting and meeting up with a coworker of the opposite sex at night. It isn't proof that there is more going on, but it is a very strong indication.
So yeah, lampshades are a perfect example of duplicity. If this was corrected with the same fervor, I would have dived in a lot less deeply and have had a lot less doubt.
Why don't you care that central resources are misinforming people?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
False.
Buchenwald | Definition, Location, & Facts | Britannica
archived 14 Jul 2022 17:47:51 UTC
Buchenwald | Definition, Location, & Facts
Buchenwald, one of the biggest of the Nazi concentration camps established on German soil. Its name means “beech forest” in German, and it stood on a wooded hill about 4.5 miles (7 km) northwest of Weimar, Germany. Set up in 1937, it complemented the concentration camps of Sachsenhausen to the...
www.britannica.com
Ilse Koch - Wikipedia
I'll wait for that apology now.....
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
Lampshades made from human skin - Wikipedia
Let me quote a few things from this lampshade stuff on Wikipedia…..
“After her conviction for war crimes, General Lucius D. Clay, the interim military governor of the American Zone in Germany, reduced her sentence to four years' prison on the grounds "there was no convincing evidence that she had selected Nazi concentration camp inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins, or that she possessed any articles made of human skin".”
“Jean Edward Smith in his biography, Lucius D. Clay, an American Life, reported that the general had maintained that the leather lamp shades were really made out of goat skin. The book quotes a statement made by General Clay years later:”
“Jacobson's lamp underwent DNA testing in the early 1990s, which showed evidence that the lamp was made of human skin; however, subsequent testing demonstrated that the lampshade owned by Jacobson was actually made of cowhide and that sample contamination likely led to the initial erroneous result.”
“In 2019 the Anthropodermic Book Project performed a peptide mass fingerprinting test on an alleged Nazi-era human skin lampshade stored in a small Holocaust museum in the United States; the testing results showed the lampshade was made from plant cellulose”m
I can’t speak for Brittanica, but Wikipedia is being completely upfront on how the lampshades weren’t made of human skin. So, no, Wikipedia isn’t deceiving the population. Anyone who bothers looking it up can easily find out the lampshades we’re probably not made of human skin.
Another thing that bothers me with your statement is that your entire reasoning for bringing up lampshades is to say “people can lie about stuff” like yea of course people can be wrong/lie on stuff.
But we didn’t come here to talk about whether or not our interpretation of the holocaust COULD be wrong, we came to talk on whether or not it IS wrong.
Taking your couple example, if a man lied that he met up with a coworker of the opposite sex, he could be lying and cheating. But he also could be scared of his wife who he sees as overbearing on his relations, and feels that he just needs time off. The question is not COULD he have cheated, we are taking if he actually DID cheat.
Also, lampshades are such a small part of the holocaust that your husband wife example doesn’t work. Once again, like a total of 5 people could have been killed for lampshades, and the number of people who died was up to 6 million, so it has literally no effect on the greater numbers or the copious amount of data suggesting the nazis wanted to murder Jews
Last edited:
@Lemmingwise I deleted my post because it felt a little mean and I want to take it easy on you being a retired guy and all
yes the entries say witnesses gave testimony (reputedly means 'according to people') that she had human skin lampshades and quoted some of that testimony. this is true
they don't say the human skin lampshades were ever found or were sufficiently proven to exist
do you get the distinction?
yes the entries say witnesses gave testimony (reputedly means 'according to people') that she had human skin lampshades and quoted some of that testimony. this is true
they don't say the human skin lampshades were ever found or were sufficiently proven to exist
do you get the distinction?
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
Between direct lies and lies of omission or implication? Everyone understands the distinction, but it is one without a difference as the end goal is to advance a false narrative. Trying to be clever about it doesn't mean anything to people interested in the truth.
It fact it makes the theory or narrative advanced by such duplicitous means all the more suspect.