I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. I just happen to disagree with you. Regardless of what the actual number of victims is does it really lessen the tragedy and the diminish the lessons that should be learned? Don't get so hung up on numbers memehunter.

Gypsy_Man, I believe I can at least give you two links (among many) to get you started (again, you may already know about these issues, but in case you do not). These are easy reads, and not too controversial (yet):

"The 1919 Holocaust that Failed"
Click to view link

This one is not as serious or factual, but worth reading:
Click to view link

Usual disclaimers and qualifiers:

- I have seen the facts mentioned on these links elsewhere, and have done my own research to confirm to my satisfaction the most relevant ones, but I do not claim that everything they state is true. I am sure you can find a denial somewhere...

- These links are really just to get you started, so please do not assume that this is the end of my research or that there is nothing else to be learned - there is a lot (again, you may already know about these other issues)

I read the letter and knew about the denial, but thanks for your efforts.

I used this document because it is a good starting point for a discussion, which at least claims to be official (whether it really is or not). I am not in a position to give you other references here because it is not a topic that can be discussed freely.

Look, if you conduct your own research, you probably know about some of these books that I would like to mention. If that is the case, you will see that other aspects of the official version need to be discussed and that all this fuss about the Red Cross letter is irrelevant.

I could question your credibility as well at this point but I will assume that you have simply not read or heard about these "other aspects". Perhaps DB is in a better position to discuss it; I am not willing to do it here.

I do conduct my own research and I do agree with you that one should not simply accept the facts that one is fed by the mainstream media outlets which are controlled by a few old men in the city of London. I simply tried to point out to you that this quoted number by the Red Cross you have used is unconvincing. If anything it makes me doubt your credibility and wonder what your motives are. As you are so learned and wise in the ways of the world, I'm wondering why you are using a statistic that the International Committee of the Red Cross has already come out and denied and clarified in a published letter. I've cut and pasted this letter for you below which is a letter directly addressing the statistic you quoted in your previous post and the letter below comes directly from the Red Cross. Maybe you should read it again.

[Logo]
COMITE INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE

Geneva, 10 May 1979
Fpe/grt

Dear Madam,

We have pleasure in acknowledging receipt of your letter of 12
April concerning the victims of the Second World War, together
with the enclosed booklet. We did already have a copy of this
document, which is not the only one of its kind. Indeed, the ICRC
and several National Societies, in particular, the American
Red Cross, have received a great deal of correspondence on
this matter.

The booklet in question supports its false allegations by two
abridged quotations taken from two documents published by the
ICRC:

"Report of the International Committee of the Red
Cross on its activities dueing the Second World War"
(3 volumes)

"The work of the ICRC for civilian detainees in German
Concentration Camps" (1 volume)

These two documents, which we are sending you under separate
cover, contain the basic information which the ICRC possesses
on the victims of the Second World War.

Unfortunately, we are not able to provide you with the figures
you are seeking, since the ICRC has never tried to compile
statistics on the victims of the war and has never certified
the accuracy of the statistics produced by a third party. In
fact, the basic aim of the ICRC is to come to the aid of
victims of armed conflicts and not to act as a commission of
enquiry or a statistics service.

With regard to the figure of 300,000 victims quoted on page 28
of the document you sent us, on 19 January 1955 the newspaper
"Die Tat" published an article (of which a photocopy is
enclosed) giving figures for the victims of the Second World
War, including that of 300,000.

As you will see upon reading this article, first, the figure
of 300,000 was not given by the ICRC and, secondly, it refers
only to the _German_ victims (Jews and non-Jews) of the
concentration camps. The authors of the booklet have therefore
doubly falsified their information, by claiming that the
figure relates to all the Jewish deportation victims and by
naming the ICRC as its source.

Finally, for your information, we are sending a copy of the
ICRC information bulletin "The ICRC in Action" of 12 December
1975, the last page of which mentions the work of the ICRC in
concentration camps.

We hope this information will be of use to you.

Yours faithfully,
s/
R. Gaillard-Moret
Head of Documentation

"For those willing to venture outside the official version (and look to other sources of information besides the mainstream media and satellites such as Wikipedia), there is plenty of information available that might lead you to question other aspects of the official version."

Gypsy_man, that is all I will say on the topic, for obvious reasons. Please do your own research. Let me tell you that you still have a lot to learn.

For the record, The Red Cross has denied and clarified their stance on this often misquoted claim you've cited.

Click to view link

I do however agree with The Daily Bell's comments on this subject.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Here is some information as the Holocaust as hoax:

Click to view link


And here is some mainstream information on the Holocaust:

Click to view link

The Holocaust commemoration center, the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, comments:

There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million established by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 and repeated later by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. ...

Raul Hilberg, in the third edition of his ground-breaking three-volume work, The Destruction of the European Jews, estimates that 5.1 million Jews died during the Holocaust. This figure includes "over 800,000" who died from "Ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 who were killed in "Open-air shootings"; and "up to 2,900,000" who perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll in Poland at "up to 3,000,000" ...

The whole holocaust issue is very difficult to tackle, in part because one is made to feel very uncomfortable if one dares question the official version.

I would like to point out, however, that the official records from the Red Cross show that "only" 271,301 people died in concentration camps during World War II.

For those willing to venture outside the official version (and look to other sources of information besides the mainstream media and satellites such as Wikipedia), there is plenty of information available that might lead you to question other aspects of the official version.

Finally, one should not feel obliged to mention this every time one discusses this particular issue, but I have to point out that my mother is of Jewish origin, although she does not observe the religion (and I personally have absolutely nothing to do with it and never had) and that several members of her family (including my grandfather whose name is inscribed on a plaque in a European country - I have seen it myself) died as prisoners during WWII.

Still (and to her credit, I would say), my mother never claimed that they died in concentration camps, she simply admits that they never heard from them after they were taken as prisoners. The whole issue is made somewhat more complex by the fact that some family members (including my grandfather) were involved more or less actively with resisting Nazi occupation, so it is difficult to say whether they were made prisoners simply on the basis of their ethic origin.

Reply from The Daily Bell

It is not a complex problem. Whatever the actual casualties, Jewish banking elites have used the holocaust to prevent criticism of Israel and their own monetary and military manipulations. They have also used the holocaust to terrify their own people and to promote Israel as the fitting and safest destination for all Jews.

No, that was not really the point. Anyway... And my name is not Ingo, by the way. Regarding you other post:

"It is not up to me as an American to presume to tell other countries what their laws should be. "

Again, if you think a law would not be good for your country because it limits freedom of speech, why would such a low be good for other countries? Or do you somehow think that non-Americans do not deserve to have the same rights as Americans?

The killing of Jews did not actually start to go into gear until the defeat suffered by the Germans in the Battle at Stalingrad. Hitler in fact tried to get other countries to take the Jews he had put into concentration camps before he resorted to killing them. There are stories which abound how ships loaded with Jews were turned away by country after country, including Cuba and the U.S.

The legal question was whether there was a "holocaust", meaning a whole sale killing of jews or other groups, or whether there was not. If you belonged or were related to a group of persons effected by the "holocaust" you automatically had a specific standing in court. The holocaust laws were intended to cut short arguments about the specific standing in court.

Ingo, when I read about the "normalcy bias", the example given was that something like 150,000 Jews left Nazi Germany because of the impending threat, but that something like 450,000 did not leave because of the normalcy bias.

Was the legal question whether there was an attempt to exterminate Jews--the whole idea of the holocaust--or was it the number of Jews--and other people--who were killed?

Thanks. I think you answered it for me, but through the back door.

I had asked if the BIS owned our Federal Reserve, not the other way around.

I did not realize that the President of the NYFed also functioned as the President of the BIS. That would have been Timothy Geithner a couple of years back. Hmmmmm.

Okay, Ingo. I think I get your point.

To question the existence of Santa Claus does not necessarily mean that you are anti-Christmas.

Thanks.

It is not up to me as an American to presume to tell other countries what their laws should be.

"Bischoff, I would not say that if I were you. I'm certainly no expert on Swiss history, that's true. For the rest, let us just say that we have a fairly different perspective about history in general... "

Fair enough. I made my judgement based on your previous post.

As regards Ferdinand Lips, I agree with him fully as he expresses himself in his book "Gold Wars". Yes, the Swiss banking circles have been manipulated through intimidation. Also, the question of the "Holocaust" did become an issue in Switzerland, as it did in other European countries for strictly legal reasons. It did not mean however, that the question could not be discussed at all. The question was that of "denial". There is plenty of evidence, some to which I have witnessed personally, that people were held in concentration camps. To deny such, and to raise it in court as a defense only wasted the time of the courts. It is for the reason to overcome the denial argument, that the "holocaust" laws were legislated.

However, as it regards the "Swiss dream", I believe that the Swiss have enough institutional memory left to recover from the latest efforts of trying to undermine their autonomy. Their way of looking at human nature and as it manifests itself in the world has worked for them for centuries. I predict that their "Swiss" spirit will not be easily diminished nor defeated.

P.S. Ferdinand Lips' daughter has created a very informative website in her father's honor. The information is in both English and German.

Dotti,

The U.S. Fed doesn't own the BIS. The U.S. government as such is not involved in the BIS, whatsoever. There is absolutely no authority for any U.S. President, U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator to require or demand anything of the BIS or interfere in its operation.

On the other hand, the independent regional Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been an active participant in the operation of the BIS since its very inception in 1930. For years and years, the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank has also functioned as the President of the BIS.

As I mentioned, the BIS was an outgrowth of the "Allied Reparations Committee" established after WWI to administer the collection of reparations from Germany. During WWII the financial big shots from the U.S., England, France, Germany, Italy and Japan routinely met in Basel to settle balance of payment differences and other financial questions. There was no "war" between these financial people. There was only banking business.

However, again directly to your question, the "Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System", which is a creation of interests in the U.S. Congress and interests in the American Bankers' Association, never ever had a direct involvement in the BIS.

I assume that is what the FEMA camps are for.

Dotti, here is a little parable for you:

In my country (not Switzerland...), there is a law that forces me to say (in public at least) that Santa Claus exists. I am allowed to talk about the color of his clothes, his weight, what he ate yesterday, where does he live, and so on. In fact, the media keep talking about Santa Claus and there are countless movies produced every year about him. But if I ever dare announce that I do not believe in Santa Claus, I will be denounced as an "anti-Christmas" or some such nonsense. And if I persist, I will lose my job and eventually go to jail as being a "public danger to children".

OK, I could have been more precise but I think that anyone who can read between the lines could understand. This was a quick reply to Bischoff - I have been very active on other threads here on DB and I am not paid to write posts on DB all day long.

As for the law, if you would rather not have such a law in the US, don't you think that your reasoning applies to other countries as well?

Butting into your disagreement here...apologies, but

Re: "other European countries that have criminalised Holocaust denial"

I consider that to be considerably different from prohibiting "any discussion of the WWII Holocaust."

I will add, though, that I am not approving/disapproving of the law itself; however, I would not approve of such a law in the US because of infringement on freedom of speech.

Okay, Ingo. Very good!

I have a question for you. I recently saw that the BIS owns our own Federal Reserve.

what can you tell me/us about that?