Why Can't Anyone Have A Different Opinion About The Holocaust?

[djconklin]

My sainted Irish grandfather fought in WWII, in the European theater; he was in the second wave at the Normandy landing on D-Day, June 6th, 1944 and I have an unconfirmed story that he was among the troops who liberated Dachau, one of the worst of the camps (in which many Catholic priests were imprisoned). I can’t help taking it a bit personally when people say the Sho’ah wasn’t as bad as it was, considering what my dad’s dad went through as part of the effort to break the vise-grip of evil that Hitler and his flunkys had on Europe.

There are videos out on the web that show you the gas chambers and the people who were liberated from the death camps. To claim that this was all made up or exaggerated is beyond bizarre. How did the guy become a bishop without anyone realizing what his views were?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

It’s not that you can’t have a different opinion about it but the fact that he said that no gas chambers existed is very ignorant

No, that is not what he said. He said there weren’t that many gas chambers. He did not deny them, nor did he deny the Holocaust. Just the numbers involved. Which doesn’t make it right, it’s a matter of opinion I guess and everyone has a right to theirs.

 

[GKC]

No, that is not what he said. He said there weren’t that many gas chambers. He did not deny them, nor did he deny the Holocaust. Just the numbers involved. Which doesn’t make it right, it’s a matter of opinion I guess and everyone has a right to theirs.

As you have been told, and as it is easy to hear on the videotape, he said no gas chambers. No Jews killed in gas chambers. No gas chambers.

Why do you embarrass yourself this way?

GKC

 

[Valke2]

**what do you call people who hate Catholics? **
Bigots maybe? Is there a specific phrase that I should use?

 

[whatevergirl]

I would like to know why people cannot have a different opinion about the Holocaust without being condemned for it. Many people don’t even believe there were even that many Jews in Germany at that time. If someone else wants to think and believe that the number was different, he has every right to do so without being ridiculed about it.
What about the Jewish couple who lied about even meeting at the Holocaust? They went on to write this wonderful love story about the Holocaust and it turned out they were never even there! They went on Oprah and lied to her and lied to the media about their story. What about them? What about the millions of Christians who were murdered during the Holocaust? Gypsys?
Although I agree the Jews were in fact targeted victims, others also perished. Why not talk about these victims?
Don’t get me wrong, it was a terrible awful catastrophic event that should of never happened and I feel for the Jews, but people have a right to have a different view about it and not be ridiculed for it.

I don’t think you have a different opinion of it, I just think you feel that the Jews as a whole, have been the focus of the Holocaust, when in fact you are correct, many groups of varying ethnicities perished. That being said, the Jews I think are talked the most about because the premise started based on the furor’s decision to extreminate jews. He eventually didn’t stop there, but it started with the jews. (his master plan)

I marvel at people who claim that the Holocaust never happened. I never understood that sentiment.

 

[djconklin]

Where can I hear the tape?

 

[whatevergirl]

Why is this in the non Catholic section? I just thought about that. lol Should be more in social justice or something…sorry, just posting my thoughts out loud!

 

[Valke2]

Where can I hear the tape?

youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM

**The bishop says he has the historical evidence from people who concluded and who designed these gas chambers, that the designers studied the gas chambers and his expert conclusion was they were not gassed. He went on to say they would have needed high chimneys in which they did not have, and it would of been airtight. That the door must be absolutely airtight. He is going by the Loister Report. He thinks from historical evidence there were about 300,000 Jews and others who perished.

I am in no way in agreement with this whatsoever, so let’s make that clear. If he has this historical evidence in which he claims, then he should show us this report.**

 

[GKC]

**The bishop says he has the historical evidence from people who concluded and who designed these gas chambers, that the designers studied the gas chambers and his expert conclusion was they were not gassed. He went on to say they would have needed high chimneys in which they did not have, and it would of been airtight. That the door must be absolutely airtight. He is going by the Loister Report. He thinks from historical evidence there were about 300,000 Jews and others who perished.

I am in no way in agreement with this whatsoever, so let’s make that clear. If he has this historical evidence in which he claims, then he should show us this report.**

But perhaps, you will admit that the bishop says no gas chambers, no Jews killed in gas chambers, less than 60 seconds into the video at the link above.

Or, maybe not. But it wouldn’t matter, anyone can click and hear it.

GKC

 

[djconklin]

The bishop says he has the historical evidence from people who concluded and who designed these gas chambers, that the designers studied the gas chambers and his expert conclusion was they were not gassed. He went on to say they would have needed high chimneys in which they did not have, and it would of been airtight. That the door must be absolutely airtight. He is going by the Loister Report. He thinks from historical evidence there were about 300,000 Jews …

He also claimed that the guy who studied this also designed gas chambers for the execution of criminals in the US. You want the chamber to be air tight–but you don’t want, or need, to have a high chimney.

 

[djconklin]

youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM

Thanks!

Now, if he had wanted to say not all 6 million Jews were killed by the gas chambers, then he’d be on good solid historical ground–some were shot, others were burned and some were buried alive!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

At the danger of legitimizing these ridiculous semantic arguments, I will point out that most Jews use the term “Shoah,”, which is also the term the Pope used in his recent statements.

So who uses the “ridiculous” word “Holocaust” to define the Crimes of humanity?

 

[catharina]

So who uses the “ridiculous” word “Holocaust” to define the Crimes of humanity?

Repeating Post 383 in totality - with an addition:

"Gabriel. I’m peaceful with my understanding of the terms used by the Holy Fathers (JP II and Benedict XVI) as they describe various events of WWII. As they might easily decide to include all the war cimes committed against civilians in the nations of Asia **during the same WWII **as ‘crimes against humanity’ I can’t imagine either Pope describing those crimes as part of the Holocaust/Shoah, a separate event based in the planned extermination of a religious people. Only you are responsible for your understanding of history. I have no further obligation to continue this discussion.

Hoping you do not take offense, I am bowing out of this exchange … . God bless you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I see. You are arguing that “Holocaust” means burnt offering and therefore applies to the males only. So use the word “Shoah” which Jews prefer anyway. But your argument is similiar to the one used against the word “anti-semetism”. Yes, technically, a semite includes people other than jews but we all know that “anti-semite” means hatred of jews only.

Gabriel of 12:

That’s the problem here, the Jews want to term the Shoah or Holocaust as if they were the only ones who were victimized from crimes of humanity. I just dont get it? A Jew would argue to those who deny these crimes of humanity that it occurred only to them. The secular world uses terms to describe these crimes of humanity that do not define the Massacre that occurred.

And your different opinion about the Holocaust was what? or can you explain what the Holocaust means to you as per the OP. The Pope in his complete statement does not prejudice these crimes of humanity to a select few, the Pope with out fear or prejudice reveals these crimes of humanity applied to all victims not just the Jews, no matter what terms he applies in his conclusion he neglects no one.

Peace be with you.

 

[catharina]

One more time, Gabriel, and just for you:

Repeating Post 383 in totality - with an addition:

"Gabriel. I’m peaceful with my understanding of the terms used by the Holy Fathers (JP II and Benedict XVI) as they describe various events of WWII. As they might easily decide to include all the war cimes committed against civilians in the nations of Asia **during the same WWII **as ‘crimes against humanity’ I can’t imagine either Pope describing those crimes as part of the Holocaust/Shoah, a separate event based in the planned extermination of a religious people. Only you are responsible for your understanding of history. I have no further obligation to continue this discussion.

Hoping you do not take offense, I am bowing out of this exchange … . God bless you.

Are you implying that all the crimes of WWII, in the Phillipines, in China, etc., are included in the papal use of the terms Shoah and Holocaust - as they might be used in a definition of WWII’s ‘crimes against humanity?’ If you believe that, put forth an example of such usage.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Repeating Post 383 in totality - with an addition:

"Gabriel. I’m peaceful with my understanding of the terms used by the Holy Fathers (JP II and Benedict XVI) as they describe various events of WWII. As they might easily decide to include all the war cimes committed against civilians in the nations of Asia **during the same WWII **as ‘crimes against humanity’ I can’t imagine either Pope describing those crimes as part of the Holocaust/Shoah, a separate event based in the planned extermination of a religious people. Only you are responsible for your understanding of history. I have no further obligation to continue this discussion.

Hoping you do not take offense, I am bowing out of this exchange … . God bless you.

Gabriel of 12:

I believe you totally missed my case in point, by you disecting words of speech. When I prefer the whole content of the speech. I believe you are making an argument that does not exist with me. Upon all that was said; maybe revealing your opinion of the “Holocaust” here would suffice your understanding and my case in point.

No offense taken, I do sense a misunderstanding of my opinion of the terms used by secularism to describe the massacre’s, and I do agree with the Pope’s statement in their entirety, not taken out of their full context.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

One more time, Gabriel, and just for you:

Are you implying that all the crimes of WWII, in the Phillipines, in China, etc., are included in the papal use of the terms Shoah and Holocaust - as they might be used in a definition of WWII’s ‘crimes against humanity?’ If you believe that, put forth an example of such usage.

Gabriel of 12:

Let me speak plainly: When the Pope addresses the Crimes of humanity, when he uses the terms preferred by those who call them by such names as Shoah, Holocaust, the Pope in his entire speech does not leave out the woman, Children, Christians and others than Jews who fell victim to these Crimes of humanity.

When Jews or secularist use the terms be it Shoah, or Holocaust, I asked to which are they referring only the Jews, or all who fell victim to these crimes of humanity?

One Jew responded here only the Jews, to which I applied my personal opinion of why many deny the Holocaust, one from meaning of the word which does not apply to the atrocities, because no one is speaking the truth of the whole matter, the only one thus far who speaks for all the victims has been the Roman Catholic Pope publicly, to which I support wholeheartedly.

Besides my post addressed TMC, not yours, your post puts my post out of context here. As you did the Popes statement with my opinion.

Peace

 

[catharina]

Gabriel of 12:

Let me speak plainly: When the Pope addresses the Crimes of humanity, when he uses the terms preferred by those who call them by such names as Shoah, Holocaust, the Pope in his entire speech does not leave out the woman, Children, Christians and others than Jews who fell victim to these Crimes of humanity.

When Jews or secularist use the terms be it Shoah, or Holocaust, I asked to which are they referring only the Jews, or all who fell victim to these crimes of humanity?

One Jew responded here only the Jews, to which I applied my personal opinion of why many deny the Holocaust, one from meaning of the word which does not apply to the atrocities, because no one is speaking the truth of the whole matter, the only one thus far who speaks for all the victims has been the Roman Catholic Pope publicly, to which I support wholeheartedly.

Besides my post addressed TMC, not yours, your post puts my post out of context here. As you did the Popes statement with my opinion.

Peace

Gabriel, I have not “missed” your point.
Rather, I reject your point - as you’ve made it over and over again in this thread.

The Church, the Popes, anyone who calculates “religious persecution” IN HISTORY, has to conclude that the desired extinctionof the entire Jewsih people was the singular goal of the Nazi war-machine (as was world domination, control of cultural tastes and a wealthy economy for Germany - minus the Jewish people). To pretend that the notion of world extermination (including gypsies, Christians, jehovah witnesses, communists, etc.) was a comparable, similar or all-inclusive desire is next-to-fantasy, imo.

The desired, planned and ‘underway’ extermination of religious people deserves its own term and history has presented us with the terms Shoah and Holocast. Since the Church accepts such a distinction, one has to wonder why you can’t seem to do so.

One might also wonder why you would choose to embarrass yourself (or the Church) in public with such unnecessary and divisive (and confusing) hair-splitting.

As for your recent post ‘being addressed to TMC,’ irrelevant.
This is an open thread on an open forum. Prayers for you.

 

[Peter_J]

There are videos out on the web that show you the gas chambers and the people who were liberated from the death camps. To claim that this was all made up or exaggerated is beyond bizarre. How did the guy become a bishop without anyone realizing what his views were?

Just for the record I’d like to point out that the bishop in question, Richard Williamson, was never a Catholic bishop. I.e. he was not, at any time, simultaneously Catholic and a bishop. (He was consecrated a bishop in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, at which time he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. That excommunication has recently been lifted, by Williamson is still not in full communion with the Catholic Church.)