The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[History Speaks]

You said there is extensive forensic evidence? Then you'll have no issue finding autopsy reports showing death by gassing then?

These memes are so dumb, I mean come on guys at least read a little bit.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a Nazi camp with an operational gas chamber liberated by the Western Allies, Natzweiler-Struthof. There, 87 Jews from Auschwitz had been sent to a doctor August Hirt in order to carry out some crazy medical experiment (according to an exhaustive record of documents, the dude wanted a Jewish skull collection to prove alleged physical differences between Jews and Aryans). The Jews sent from Auschwitz to Natzweiler-Struthof were gassed. <see https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/klarsfeld/Struthof/T005.shtml Many of the gassed cadavers were sent to a German university in Strasbourg.

When the Western Allies liberated the camp, they followed the documentary record and found the gassed cadavers at the university. A physician, Camille Simonin, autopsied the bodies and found that they had been gassed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_skeleton_collection#/media/File:Menachem_taffel.jp

 

[History Speaks]

"Just because these are proven lies, doesn't mean it wasn't true"

This is the most Jewish cope I've ever seen. I'm frankly in admiration at you having the balls to even try such complete bullshit as a narrative.

Do you actually believe that if person A who was in event B lies about event B, that this proves there was no event B?

Are you really this stupid?

If you apply this logic consistently - as I have said many times - you will believe that World War I never happened, since many soldiers told false stories about supernatural spirits on the battle field, etc.

 

[History Speaks]

Compared to victims, what makes them immune to exaggerate, use poetic license, or even tell falsehoods? How is the recollection of a single perpetrator not comparable evidentiary wise compared to the recollection of a single victim?

Everyone has motives and incentives, as was pointed out earlier numerous times in the thread in more or less detail (considering you've been a member for a year, I presume you've read some of it), murderers can exaggerate what they've done. So even if there's no signs of torture, there may still be incentives, for people on any side, and to claim that you can be sure there aren't, is pretty much an admission of either bias or shoddy scholarship.



Can you point to four deniers?

Perpetrator testmony is more compelling than victim testimony because (assuming they are not being tortured, or are not in trial, where pleading guilty may secure a lighter sentence) they have no motive to pretend they committed genocide if they did not. This is why the Eichmann tapes (from his interviews with Nazi sympathizer and Waffen SS volunteer Sassen) from Argentina, given before he was kidnapped by the Israelis, are so compelling.

 

[Bonesjones]

These memes are so dumb, I mean come on guys at least read a little bit.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a Nazi camp with an operational gas chamber liberated by the Western Allies, Natzweiler-Struthof. There, 87 Jews from Auschwitz had been sent to a doctor August Hirt in order to carry out some crazy medical experiment (according to an exhaustive record of documents, the dude wanted a Jewish skull collection to prove alleged physical differences between Jews and Aryans). The Jews sent from Auschwitz to Natzweiler-Struthof were gassed. <see https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/klarsfeld/Struthof/T005.shtml Many of the gassed cadavers were sent to a German university in Strasbourg.

When the Western Allies liberated the camp, they followed the documentary record and found the gassed cadavers at the university. A physician, Camille Simonin, autopsied the bodies and found that they had been gassed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_skeleton_collection#/media/File:Menachem_taffel.jp

I like how your constant attempts at editorializing anything that contradicts you. It's blatantly obvious. Why would they need to transport prisoners from Auschwitz elsewhere after quarentine when they had fully functional gas chambers on site? If their goal was only to study the physical characteristics of people to determine racial makeups, why didn't they just do it at Auschwitz itself?

You expect us to believe a narrative that the Nazis are exceptionally evil, in which they fight a two front losing war while expending enormous resources to genocide jews in particular yet also go to extreme lengths to hide and cover it up at the same time.

You have extensive knowledge of the hows and what's and whys, yet lack basic historical pop culture familiarity?

You also did another dodge because you've provided zero autopsy from Auschwitz itself. Next you'll talk about the totally real gassing vans no one has ever seen.

 

[Chugger]

If you think about it, it also requires courage to not dodge, which people can do instinctively, "just in case it's a trap", which you saw from @Chugger when I asked him simply if he reads german or not.

I didn't dodge here

No. Why do you ask? Translation works well since it's transcribed. On chrome browser right click translate

so I guess you're calling me courageous. I appreciate the compliment but it's not necessary. I'm not interested in rhetoric, the case you're trying to argue (no systematic mass killing) is so woeful I would be embarassed on the level of soul to have to score points this way

 

[History Speaks]

I like how your constant attempts at editorializing anything that contradicts you. It's blatantly obvious. Why would they need to transport prisoners from Auschwitz elsewhere after quarentine when they had fully functional gas chambers on site? If their goal was only to study the physical characteristics of people to determine racial makeups, why didn't they just do it at Auschwitz itself?

You expect us to believe a narrative that the Nazis are exceptionally evil, in which they fight a two front losing war while expending enormous resources to genocide jews in particular yet also go to extreme lengths to hide and cover it up at the same time.

You have extensive knowledge of the hows and what's and whys, yet lack basic historical pop culture familiarity?

You also did another dodge because you've provided zero autopsy from Auschwitz itself. Next you'll talk about the totally real gassing vans no one has ever seen.

Actually, the genocide of the jews was very profitable. The Jews killed at the Reinhardt camps had all their belongings stolen, netting huge resources for the Third Reich. The Jews deported to Auschwitz were both plundered and (if they were able bodied) exploited for labor before they were killed.

In terms of the Natzweiler gassings, for anatomical reasons, Dr. Hirt wanted these Jews to be in good health, well fed, etc, before they were killed. Thus he needed to isolate the Jews he was studying from the disease ridden Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, with its inadequate rations and poor hygenic standards. See, e.g. https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/klarsfeld/Struthof/T023.shtml

 

[Bonesjones]

Actually, the genocide of the jews was very profitable. The Jews killed at the Reinhardt camps had all their belongings stolen, netting huge resources for the Third Reich. The Jews deported to Auschwitz were both plundered and exploited for labor before they were killed.

In terms of the Natzweiler gassings, for anatomical reasons, Dr. Hirt wanted these Jews to be in good health, well fed, etc, before they were killed. Thus he needed to isolate the Jews he was studying from the disease ridden Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, with its inadequate rations and poor hygenic standards. See, e.g. https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/klarsfeld/Struthof/T023.shtml

Hey look you start talking material wealth instead of logistic management. Another dodge.

Also reading your link of the Strutof album, he gave contradictory depositions on two occasions, why would he change his mind? Funny when we start to examine the material with even the most basic scrutiny, it immediately falls apart. So we've got another Chugger, claiming your material says one thing when it clearly points to the opposite. You just hope no one puts any effort into actually reading it.

 

[History Speaks]

Hey look you start talking material wealth instead of logistic management. Another dodge.

Also reading your link of the Strutof album, he gave contradictory depositions on two occasions, why would he change his mind? Funny when we start to examine the material with even the most basic scrutiny, it immediately falls apart. So we've got another Chugger, claiming your material says one thing when it clearly points to the opposite. You just hope no one puts any effort into actually reading it.

What specifically are the "logistic management" issues and testimonial contradictions to which you are referring? (I am not saying there is no contradictory testimony, but who and what are you referring to?)

 

[History Speaks]

I am going to go ahead and assume you are talking about the introduction and the mention of Kramer's contradictory statements. So what? We have the documentary record from Hirt and the SS approving the experiment, the notice of the patients arriving in the camp, the recording of their deaths, pictures of the gassed cadavers, and autopsies of the gassed cadavers. Hell, the Natzweiler gas chamber is still largely intact (the Natzweiler camp officials are actually going to open the gas chamber to the public this fall, a change in their previous policy of limiting the general public's ability to see this facility.)

Whatever Kramer said when he was trying to save his neck is really of little relevance compared to this tsunami of documentary and physical evidence. I will say he was lying when he denied there were gas chambers, you will say he was lying when he said there were gas chambers. But (as you claimed to agree with a few minutes ago) physical and documentary evidence are much more valuable than the contradictory statements of a guy who is trying to save his life in a trial.

 

[History Speaks]

"The French Military Justice possessed irrefutable evidence of the existence and use of a gas chamber at Struthof, without even taking Joseph Kramer’s statements into consideration, and relying solely on German documents that had been seized. A daily report of building progress, signed on 3 August 1943 by the Chief of the K.L. Natzweiler Works Directorate, mentions the word “Gasraum” three times and the word "Gaskammer" (gas chamber) once. The weekly reports of the 14 and 21 August 1943 about the camp's overall complement are particularly eloquent by their silence on the cause of death of the 87 Jews. Moreover, SS-man Volkmar's note-book, which associates Professor Hirt with the “Gas Blausaure” (gas from hydrocyanic acid), shows that the camp’s entire staff was aware of the gassings." https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/klarsfeld/Struthof/T010.shtml

 

[Bonesjones]

What specifically are the "logistic management" issues and testimonial contradictions to which you are referring? (I am not saying there is no contradictory testimony, but who and what are you referring to?)

Again, you hyperfocus on details to avoid talking about the larger picture. You rely on testimony that doesn't hold up to scrutiny then say just because that doesn't, doesn't mean the other evidence was manipulated. Which is exactly where it should lead.

You point to what could be a small scale gassing, which doesn't make any sense because why use poison gas at all when suffocation with inert gas has always existed and leaves no harm to anyone else. Then, say it proves that they gassed jews at Auschwitz when there's zero connection between the two. Since we have contemporary photographs of Auschwitz which shows zero pinking of the skin, which is a known side effect of cyanide poisoning, the supposed method of death. Why is that?

 

[History Speaks]

Again, you hyperfocus on details to avoid talking about the larger picture. You rely on testimony that doesn't hold up to scrutiny then say just because that doesn't, doesn't mean the other evidence was manipulated. Which is exactly where it should lead.

You point to what could be a small scale gassing, which doesn't make any sense because why use poison gas at all when suffocation with inert gas has always existed and leaves no harm to anyone else. Then, say it proves that they gassed jews at Auschwitz when there's zero connection between the two. Since we have contemporary photographs of Auschwitz which shows zero pinking of the skin, which is a known side effect of cyanide poisoning, the supposed method of death. Why is that?

I specifically said I do not rely on perpetrator testimony if perps are in a trial, because a trial is a coercive scenario which gives perpetrators incentives to lie (they have an incentive to deny guilt if they are guilty, and also have an incentive to affirm guilt if they are innocent, to get a lighter sentence). So dismissing Kramer is entirely consistent with the standard I proposed.

The claim that carbon dioxide and cyanide invariably cause a cherry red color is more false and lazy copypasta from you. In fact, this depends on other factors such as hypoxemia.

In terms of the big picture, how about the fact that millions of Jews (the vast majority of Jewish deportees) disappeared in the Nazi camp system? We know this from the deportation records and the records of the Allies as to how many Jews they found in the camps at the end of the war. These disappearances demand explanation, and no explanation with any evidence has been given apart from mass murder.

 

[Lemmingwise]

There, 87 Jews from Auschwitz had been sent to a doctor August Hirt in order to carry out some crazy medical experiment (according to an exhaustive record of documents, the dude wanted a Jewish skull collection to prove alleged physical differences between Jews and Aryans). The Jews sent from Auschwitz to Natzweiler-Struthof were gassed

87 gassed jews accounted for, 5.999.913 to go.

I think I posted on like the 5 page of this thread, several years ago, that yes, there were gas chambers that fit 1, maybe a couple of people, but there's scant evidence of mass gas chambers. One of the reasons is that it's not very easy to make it practical. Assuming for the moment these claims are correct, fatal medical experimentation on 4 dozen people really isn't evidence of large scale gassings.

Also learn to not triple post.

 

[History Speaks]

While it is not true that in all cases carbon dioxide and cyanide cause a cherry red color, it is true sometimes. In this connection, it is noteworthy that (contrary to what you may have heard from the denier Fritz Berg, who is the source of this copy pasta about cherry red corpses) Nazi perpetrators have described the color of gassed corpses as pinkish-red -

See http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-not-so-short-debunking-of-holocaust.html

I bring this up not because I consider it particularly relevant evidence (it is not), but to show you how dishonest Berg and other deniers are.

 

[History Speaks]

Also learn to not triple post.

I do have to learn not to post before proofreading (it looks cringe to see a post has been edited), but I am new. As for triple posting, it is pretty based if you end up getting replies to all three of them.

 

[Bonesjones]

In terms of the big picture, how about the fact that millions of Jews (the vast majority of Jewish deportees) disappeared in the Nazi camp system? We know this from the deportation records and the records of the Allies as to how many Jews they found in the camps at the end of the war. These disappearances demand explanation, and no explanation with any evidence has been given apart from mass murder.

We know the Soviets kept meticulous records which they never altered or destroyed. So we can definitely trust their claims on everything they said the Nazis did. So clearly we can deduce that any evidence of wrong doing would never be altered, forged, coerced, or anything else. This is all the proof we need of guilt, no matter how ridiculous the claims are nor how implausible they are to carry out. This is your brain on Holocaust.

 

[Chugger]

We know the Soviets kept meticulous records which they never altered or destroyed. So we can definitely trust their claims on everything they said the Nazis did. So clearly we can deduce that any evidence of wrong doing would never be altered, forged, coerced, or anything else. This is all the proof we need of guilt, no matter how ridiculous the claims are nor how implausible they are to carry out. This is your brain on Holocaust.

The Soviets inability to cover up their own involvement in ethnic cleansing, artificial famine, and mass shooting campaigns means that they were able to completely scrub out the likely hundreds of thousands of mentions of resettlement in German records + faked or manipulated thousands of documents, without any evidence of this conspiracy surfacing. This entire plan also hinged on their enemies in the west brutally torturing Nazis into admitting the Holocaust story, nor finding any evidence of resettlement, or even anyone there speaking up about it. It also hinged on the West German government secretly torturing their own innocent citizens 20 years later into admitting the same thing. Also this plan hinged on the millions of resettled Jews never talking about what had actually happened to them, or getting in touch with relatives (living under assumed names in Israel?).

So you see, the case for millions of Jews secretly being resettled in the USSR is crystal clear. As obvious as gravity really. There is no other possibility. My brain, my brain. My brain?

 

[Bonesjones]

The Soviets inability to cover up their own involvement in ethnic cleansing, artificial famine, and mass shooting campaigns means that they systematically scrubbed out the likely hundreds of thousands of mentions of resettlement in German records + faked or manipulated thousands of documents, without any evidence of this conspiracy surfacing. This entire plan also hinged on their enemies in the west brutally torturing Nazis into admitting the Holocaust story, nor finding any evidence of resettlement, or even anyone there speaking up about it. It also hinged on the West German government secretly torturing their own innocent citizens 20 years later into admitting the same thing (even more exhaustivley) . Also this plan hinged on the millions of resettled Jews not talking about what had actually happened to them, or getting in touch with relatives (living under assumed names in Israel?).

So you see, the case for millions of Jews secretly being resettled in the USSR is crystal clear. As obvious as gravity really. There is no other possibility. My brain, my brain. My brain?

We've already done this before, so go reread what was said you retard. When we show you documents and evidence of resettlement, you just deny it exists and keep on with the same bullshit.

Jews weren't just resettled in Soviet territory but were displaced all over the world. So acting like it's a grand Soviet conspiracy to hide millions of people, instead of just people finding their ways to America, parts of Europe, blending in with existing Slavic populations, immigrating to Isreal, etc.

You never answered why in a post-world war situation that the Soviets were willing and able to move significant quantities of people into Siberia. You need an excess of people and pretty good reason to waste resources shipping cities worth of people thousands of miles away.

Again and again you attempt to use German record keeping to both prove what they did, and then the absence of those documents as guilt. When there was enough time and ability for them to be destroyed to create the holocaust narrative.

 

[Chugger]

When we show you documents and evidence of resettlement

Actually there's no evidence here. I asked Rapechu (the only denier here who ever engaged with or investigated this subject) an even broader question, show me evidence of non-working Jews being maintained anywhere in German occupied USSR.

He settled on Kaunus as the best example, and after I responded here he left the forum. Even before that point he had abandoned the hardcore denial position by stating the majority of the Jews held in USSR must have died.

So there is no evidence of 'resettlement' and neither is there evidence of the Germans transferring Jews out of their realm. You dodge these points with such tenacity I'm surprised you haven't thrown out your back.

 

[Bonesjones]

Actually there's no evidence here. I asked Rapechu an even broader question, show me evidence of non-working Jews being maintained anywhere in German occupied USSR.

He settled on Kaunus as the best example, and after I responded here he left the forum. Even before that point he had abandoned the hardcore denial position by stating the majority of the Jews in the USSR must have died.

So there is no evidence of 'resettlement' and neither is there evidence of the Germans transferring the Jews out of their realm. You dodge these points with such tenacity I'm surprised you haven't thrown out your back.

By your logic Hurricane Katrina killed 200 thousand people.

Also you can't even speak for yourself, so don't put words in other people's mouths.

We have evidence of the Germans marching people out of concentration camps, why would they do that if there was no intention of resettlement? So again your logic falls apart at basic scrutiny.

Just because we have an accounting of people being moved east and a lack of one afterward, means absolutely nothing without the corresponding physical evidence of their murder. Which you have to have to implicate genocide. We've proven you didn't have this time and time again, which is why you've fallen back on this asinine theory.

To edit: you insist that the Soviets would keep and offer up exonerating evidence for Nazi crimes. Why do you have this stupid expectation?