Holocaust happened

Just because books written by Jews, like Hilberg and Lucy, claim 5.1 million Jews were killed doesn't mean it's true. Remember, Jews also wrote in the Talmud that the Romans slaughtered 4 billion of them in ~70 A. D. (1), a blatant lie since there wasn't nearly that many people in the world yet. The other book citations are meaningless without an argument or evidence to back up the respective numbers. I'm not aware that citing a long list of books supporting your position in the very last round is a valid debating tactic. Yes, Hitler developed a hatred for Jews based on his personal experience with them, and admitted as much in Mein Kamf. But hatred doesn't automatically mean genocidal intent. Teenagers say they hate their parents all the time, but that doesn't necessarily make them murderers. The reason the Soviets didn't claim 6,000,000 dead Jews in their Jager Report is obviously because the number 6 million was already commonly accepted as the total number of Jews slain in WWII, so there would be no deaths left to attribute to the concentration camps. Note the Jager Report doesn't refer to concentration camp, or mythical gas chamber, deaths. Pro makes much ado about the 363,211 partisan/war-criminal Jews killed in 4 months, but remember that's a tiny fraction of the total slaughtered overall in the War;15,000,000 battle deaths alone (excluding that of civilians) occured over the course of it(2).20,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were slain in a single day at the Battle of the Somme. (3) I could make an argument as silly as Pro's and explain how at this rate, over 6 million would have been killed in a year! Oh dear! Does that mean the Civil War was a Holocaust of the British people? Since Pro doesn't understand the flexibility of the German word "ausrotten" and how it doesn't necessarily mean "to murder," especially when the context prohibits such an interpretation, I will let a native German speaker, and a Nazi to boot, explain: "I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the various meanings "ausrottung" may have in the German language. One can exterminate an idea, an economic system a social order, and as a final consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into English are so often wrong . .. It means "to overcome" on one side and then it is to be used not with respect to individuals but rather to juridical entities, to certain historical traditions. On the other side this word has been used with respect to the German people and we have also not believed that in consequence . .. 60 millions of Germans would be shot. " - Rosenburg(4) Pro's only basis for arguing ausrotten universally means "to kill" is that a Nazi used it to refer to bacteria. After accusing me of playing semantics, he says it's insane to "uproot bacteria. " But when I said the word means, "to uproot," I obviously wasn't being literal in the sense of pulling up the Jews by their literal roots . .. I clearly meant removing them, as anyone with common sense would understand. Just because a Nazi uses the term "ausrotten" to refer to removal of infectious bacteria doesn't necessarily imply he means it in the sense of murder when referring to Jews . .. especially when, as in the case at hand, he began his remark by saying: "I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the [ausrotten] of the Jewish people. " - Himmler To claim "ausrotten" here means "to kill" requires ignoring the first part of the sentence, which is an obviously silly exercise is self-serving semantics. Since "ausrotten" can have any of a large variety of meanings, including "extirpation" (removal), the context in this case forces us to interpret this way. Not in Pro's way. And as I showed above, the Nazis themselves explained they did not mean it in the "to murder" sense. "I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them" - Himmler (allegedly) SS General, Berger, was in the audience when Himmler gave that speech. He says the transcript (from which Pro got his quote) is not accurate; in other words, it's a fabricated quote. (5) If the testimony of this eye-witness isn't enough to convince you that this particular quote was faked and snuck inside the rest of the genuine transcript, then perhaps the fact that the transcript is titled "Jewish Evacuation" will convince you. (5) The transcript is not signed. It was faked very easily by someone with a typewriter, likely the Soviets, based on their admitted fraudlence regarding the massacre of those 22,000 Polish. "Höss actually described the holocaust in his memoir vividly. He states that around 1.13 million were killed in Auschwitz alone. To argue that he was coerced is complete rubbish. " - Pro No, it's complete rubbish to think his memoirs are admissable evidence. Not even the author of the particular compilation in your citation thinks his memoirs are accurate. For example, the memoirs records Himmler stating that Auschwitz will be used as an extermination camp since the extermination sites in "the East" don't suffice. But the author of the compilation Pro himself cited admits, "there were no exterminaton centers in the East . .. " (p. 27 of Pro's source) Another example of Pro's own source challenging the accuracy (thus destroying the credibility) of Höss' memoirs is on page 31, where Hoss supposedly says Eichmann gave orders, and where the author of the compilation points out that, "It is unlikely that Eichmann could or would give such orders since he was not in charge of the camps. " "Why would he maintain "coerced and fake" facts that will get him hanged? " - Pro Let's let Höss himself answer, quoting from your own source: "[The Allies] beat me to obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. " (Hoss on page 179) Höss was imprisoned by the Allies when he wrote the memoirs . .. as proven by the above quote, they are not admissable as evidence because they were produced under duress. "Con argues that asking a prisoner to look the other way is unreasonable! But this is normal in executions. " - Pro Pro doesn't understand Stark's statement. It alleges Nazis tricked Jews into coming into a room with them, under innocent pretexts, telling them to, "Look over there! " and sneakily pulling a gun from behind their back and executing them. That's rubbish. Stark said they killed Jews one by one with this method. Let's pretend this really happened; if they killed 100 Jews with this method every day since the beginning of WWII, and wanted to reach 6 million, they'd still be doing it today. "Con doesn't challenge Bahr's testimony. He only complains that they only gassed 25. This is a concession from Con that gassing was used to mass murder. " - Pro It's not a concession, I admit no such thing. I just didn't find such a silly testimony worthy of thorough debunking: "Wirth suddenly appeared, looked around on the gas chambers on which they were still working, and said: 'right, we'll try it out right now with those twenty-five working Jews. Get them up here'. They marched our twenty-five Jews up there and just pushed them in and gassed them. " Really? They just "pushed them in and gassed them"? 25 working men? Are these Jews sheep? They didn't fight back, or try to run away? "Con simply argues that Soviets were lying. How convenient for Con! He argues that these are the pictures of a factory, which is complete nonsense. " - Pro The only complete nonsense is Pro's pathetic attempt to uphold his shoes as Holocaust proof. Okay Pro, just go ahead and ignore my source, which quotes a person who actually worked at the museum where the shoes are displayed, admitting that they come not from victims of some mass-murder scheme, but from the nearby shoe factory. The shoes are in bad shape because the shoe factory did business repairing shoes shipped in from other places. "Con claims that Leuchter is "America's number one gas-chamber expert! " What a joke! " - Pro Leuchter designed Missouri's gas chamber. Joke's on you. Pro again says the gas chambers weren't stained blue because killing chambers used less gas than delousing chambers. But this doesn't excuse the fact that no gas at all was detected by Leuchter on the walls. Pro says it's because of ventilation, but this contradicts his claim that gas reached sufficient concentration to kill people inside. "The ventilation units were opened only after the Jews were killed. " - Pro You can't have perfect ventilation and lethal concentrations at the same time, anymore than you can have your cake and eat it too. Note that Pro hasn't even provided positive proof of his mythical, homocidal gas chambers. He expects us to assume, a priori, that they existed and were used for mass murder, even though a gas chamber expert denies this. "how can one explain the Jew being shot before being thrown in the mass grave? " - Pro How can one explain something that never happened? (1) . http://come-and-hear.com...(2) . http://www.nationalww2museum.org...-wide-deaths.html(3) . http://militaryhistorynow.com...-history/(4) From Nuremberg to Nineveh by Mark Turley, p. 124 (free page preview on Google Books)(5) . http://vho.org... [343]