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

[Lemmingwise]

We have been over this. Anne Frank was hospitalized in 1945 after Himmler called off the exterminations and ordered that Jews receive proper medical care.

So it's a bug, not a feature after all. I'm glad you agree and corrected @Stan.

 

[History Speaks]

So it's a bug, not a feature after all. I'm glad you agree and corrected @Stan.

Sure, in 1945. That has nothing to do with the deliberate extermination policies in the camps which went on from 1942-1944.

Btw Lemming if you are an expert on human motivation you should recognize that the Allies had little incentive to fabricate the Holocaust.

First, during the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis were already discredited in global opinion because the overwhelming perception was that they had started the Second World War. (Let us leave aside whether you agree with that - that was the perception, and it was discrediting.) They were also discredited in Germany because they lost the war and their mismanagement of it led to death and misery. Most Germans scarcely even paid attention to Nuremberg and were indifferent or hostile to the Nazis by 1945, despite Hitler's massive popularity in earlier years.

Second, faking a genocide is such an extraordinary fraud that the Allies would very likely get caught, which would have been a massive blow to their stature. (In its propaganda, the United States was presenting itself as a beacon of human rights and civilizational decency. This image - critical to its post war influence - would have been destroyed if they got caught faking a genocide to smear a nation.) Why risk that to further sully a discredited Nazi Germany?

Third, specifically regarding the motives of the Soviets, why would they fake a genocide against Jews that contradicted their own narrative of the war, i.e. the "Great Patriotic War" in which Soviet citizens and soldiers, not one particular ethnic group, were the primary victims. There is a reason that the Soviet Union censored books and media about the Holocaust, and the fact that they did that suppressed mention of it shows that they did not fabricate it for propaganda purposes.

 

[Stan]

If this is the case, then putting anne frank in a hospital was a bug,

Hospitals and infirmaries for regular prisoners in concentration camps were pretty much a sham. Even in the context of Germany's deficit of resources in 1942-1945 it was deliberately understaffed and under-stocked. People went there finish dying. Having one was part of the illusion the Germans sought to maintain that freedom and escape were possible if you were compliant. If you look at the photos in my last post, you'll notice the gas chamber/crematorium has a little landscaped yard out front. These details are meant to calm large crowds of hungry, thirsty, dirty people who were just unloaded from a freezing cattle car, and suggest to them that they have arrived in a safe place when the opposite is true. It's kind of like how Temple Grandin discovered that cows will readily walk to slaughter if you put them in curved chutes where they cannot see what's ahead.

These are two excellent things to ask about. I will devote a large effort post to answering these in a couple of days, because I want to do them justice and I can think about how much exactly I'll reveal about myself instead of shooting from the hip. I'll share as much as possible without making myself identifiable, considering half of my posts in this thread are illegal in the country where I live.

I understand, and I appreciate your taking the time to compose your thoughts instead of shitposting. I also appreciate the cultural climate you're operating in because I lived in Germany for a year myself, I know what their laws are like and that political correctness is often more important than freedom of expression.

And I'm sure you don't reject the dental care, football fields, theater plays either.

When I visited Buchenwald the museum discussed these things. I saw some photos of inmates in Buchenwald lounging in the sun on their day off (Sunday), surreptitiously taken by another inmate with a smuggled-in camera. Buchenwald had a small zoo right next to the camp, for the enjoyment of SS officers and their families. The Lodz ghetto had an orchestra and concert nights. Whatever moments of grace and enjoyment the Jews found in those years crammed into ghettos and camps doesn't negate the injustice and horror of Hitler's Endloesung der Judenfrage.

One final thing I feel like talking about. The Lodz ghetto. Jewish ghettos in WW2 were overcrowded, underfed, and severely overworked. They were deadly in their own right in the sense that plenty of people starved, froze to death, or died of disease. However, the residents were aware that whatever awaited them at the camps was worse than the ghetto, so those who were able worked like dogs making things for the Nazis to make themselves useful. I've attached a picture of Jewish workers using an overpass to walk to work in a German factory without being in contact with anyone outside the ghetto to illustrate. The leader of the Lodz ghetto, Chaim Rumkowski, was convinced that Jewish productivity could see them through the war, and was well aware that transportation east meant death. He gave a speech to the assembled ghetto titled "Give me Your Children", where Rumkowski was forced to announce that children and anyone over 65 would be sent east so that the productive workers could stay. (Rumkowski is super interesting in his own right, btw) I think those Jews who had to lead their Judenraten did understand that the six death camps were not transfer stations to the east.

P.S. please tell me what you think of the photos I attached in the last post and the monograph on aerial photography of Auschwitz. I think they are reasonably strong evidence of the existence of gas chambers.

 

[JohnDoe]

Picture 4 is a labeled photo that doesn't suggest the layout nor capacity to do what is being said. Remember they have to move tons of material in and out in a regular basis to both fuel and remove ash and waste. There also isn't smoke coming from the stacks, suggesting they aren't in use. This is not an arguement in your favor.

I note that there is even a feature labeled as 'cremation pit' there, which begs the question of why it would be needed if there was such amazing super advanced cremation facilities a stones throw away? The photo 'identifies' three buildings close by as crematoriums, which makes the presence of a cremation pit seem a little superfluous. (Weird that there are no interior photos that would show without a doubt if those buildings houses cremation units.) The photos don't make any sense in the context of the narrative about mega-effecient magic corpse-be-gone crematoriums, but they also don't even make sense in their own internal logic - why have a cremation pit and open air burnings when there are no less than 3 crematoriums?

I guess a more simple explanation might be that that area had an open air burn pit for corpse sterilization, and the labeling/stories of crematoriums are a fabrication. That seems to fit with the available evidence presented.

 

[Stan]

I like how your evidence is pictures labeled by the allies to say what they want to say with absolutely nothing clearly visible.

Picture 1. Is a bunch of naked people

Picture 2. Is a bunch of laborers standing around corpses while there appears to be smoke, no one is identifiable by uniform. It also actually proves that if they were burning corpses outside as suggested, they didn't have the capacity in their crematories to cremate as many as you want to say. This isn't an arguement in your favor.

Picture 4 is a labeled photo that doesn't suggest the layout nor capacity to do what is being said. Remember they have to move tons of material in and out in a regular basis to both fuel and remove ash and waste. There also isn't smoke coming from the stacks, suggesting they aren't in use. This is not an arguement in your favor.

Picture 5. A building with stacks.

The other pictures are probably the same as 5 but labeled differently.

The last picture shows buildings being torn down maybe, it's not clear enough to tell anything.


So your proof is a bunch if prelabeled pictures that say what you want to say, at not good enough quality to make better evidence one way or the other. Which is incredibly common from the holocaust side, since they want to tell you what to think and not put in any work in making it clearer.


I don't really have the time at the moment to argue your other points, but I will say if you are constantly using something to delous the same room, permanent bad smell ontop of the already chemical smell is a stupid thing to argue.

There is also a monograph with context on where the photos were shot, and why (Allied attack on the Auschwitz IG Farben plant captured these photos on the approach to the real target.) These photos are widely accepted to be genuine, and their provenance is well established. I think the problem here is that you are not very skilled at interpreting aerial photographs.

Edit: Here, I'll relink it for you! It's on JStor. Click that link and you will have all the context you ever need about the pictures I've shown you. It's free, but you will need to signup for it. I bet you can use email forwarding or Josh's throwaway email server, if it is still running.

 

[History Speaks]

Are we really still doing the thing where we pretend that amenities in Auschwitz used by British POW inmates and other non-Jews (and a tiny number of privileged Jews, i.e. the kapos assisting in the exterminations) disprove the Holocaust.

There is this soccer game meme where a denier memer doctors a picture of a British POW Auschwitz soccer team to make them appear to be Jewish Auschwitz inmates. Are we still at this level on this thread? Auschwitz was huge and multiethnic and the cultural amenities therein were not for the Jews, but for other ethnicities (and kapos).

To repeat - Auschwitz was really 3 camps, Auschwitz I (where the British Soccer team was), Birkenau (where almost all the murder of Jews took place), and Monowitz.

Deniers confuse normies who have not read about this by talking about amenities in Auschwitz I and insinuating that the Jewish inmates enjoyed them. The gambit can work because most people do not know that Auschwitz was really three camps. But it is dishonest and shows that deniers have to resort to dishonest tactics to persuade people.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Sure, in 1945. That has nothing to do with the deliberate extermination policies in the camps which went on from 1942-1944.

Btw Lemming if you are an expert on human motivation you should recognize that the Allies had little incentive to fabricate the Holocaust.

First, during the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis were already discredited in global opinion because the overwhelming perception was that they had started the Second World War. (Let us leave aside whether you agree with that - that was the perception, and it was discrediting.) They were also discredited in Germany because they lost the war and their mismanagement of it led to death and misery. Most Germans scarcely even paid attention to Nuremberg and were indifferent or hostile to the Nazis by 1945, despite Hitler's massive popularity in earlier years.

Second, faking a genocide is such an extraordinary fraud that the Allies would very likely get caught, which would have been a massive blow to their stature. (In its propaganda, the United States was presenting itself as a beacon of human rights and civilizational decency. This image - critical to its post war influence - would have been destroyed if they got caught faking a genocide to smear a nation.) Why risk that to further sully a discredited Nazi Germany?

Third, specifically regarding the motives of the Soviets, why would they fake a genocide against Jews that contradicted their own narrative of the war, i.e. the "Great Patriotic War" in which Soviet citizens and soldiers, not one particular ethnic group, were the primary victims. There is a reason that the Soviet Union censored books and media about the Holocaust, and the fact that they did that suppressed mention of it shows that they did not fabricate it for propaganda purposes.

This is quite a dumb analysis. Most of it will be answered by my coming effort post.

Considering it is illegal to question, how could they be "caught"?

Why don't you address any of the forensic/cremation questions anymore by @JohnDoe ? Could it be that you realize that there is no evidence to support your position? Unlike me you're a history expert on this subject, remember? You should be able to address these questions and comments.

---

@Stan I'll look and comment at your evidence that you asked, just not tonight. I'm not going to make a jstor account. Can you pull it from their site or something?

 

[History Speaks]

Considering it is illegal to question, how could they be "caught"?

In most countries that have them, Holocaust denial laws did not exist until the 1990s. So there goes your analysis here.

There are many ways in which it would be easy to "catch" the Allies in such a brazen lie. For example, if the 1.4 million Jews that the Korherr Report says "left Europe" through "special treatment" in the Reinhardt camps were actually moved out of the camp system and resettled, as the leading deniers (Rudolf, Mattogno, Enoch) claim, this would be easy to prove. And the existence of such settlements of the 1.4 million Jews, or evidence that they had once existed, would disprove the story that they were killed in the camps.

Lol John Doe's stuff is quite stupid, but sure I will answer it if you are that compelled by it. I will need to read it first though.

 

[JohnDoe]

Lol John Doe's stuff is quite stupid, but sure I will answer it if you are that compelled by it. I will need to read it first though.

"I haven't read it, but I know it's stupid! Now to beat up the straw man I created some more!"

If you need a few days for for your Rabbi to get back to you with more Soviet memos or something, we understand. It's already Shabbat in Israel right now, so there might be a delay. Just come out and say it though, okay?

 

[Lemmingwise]

In most countries that have them, Holocaust denial laws did not exist until the 1990s. So there goes your analysis here.

Guess I learned something today. Your point is still dumb. People are easily deceived all the time. The people that believe that conspiracies against the public eventually are discovered are mindless drones. By it's very nature we only know of the conspiracies that were exposed. Every conspiracy that wasn't exposed we don't know of. It's a type of survivor bias. The idea that every deception of the public will likely be caught is a juvenile perspective, and wholly unfitting for someone of your age. Though perhaps not your size. Healthy at any size, right?

War propaganda is at its core full of untruths, like bayonetting babies, lampshade skin etc.

But at least you lost some pounds. I see you deleted that post too. Getting self-conscious? You won't survive a month on youtube with that thin skin.

 

[History Speaks]

Okay, cremation science man, let us do a couple paragraphs of meta and then I will discuss technical specifics.

The basic problem you have is that your entire analysis is an extrapolation from your (probably real, but marginal) knowledge of how cremation works in Nebraska or rural Canadian or other hicksville funeral homes. But cremation worked extremely differently at Auschwitz. Because you are extrapolating from your personal experience with cremation and "cooking" - which are not technically analogous to what happened in Auschwitz - you are confused about what is technically possible.

Another point of confusion you have is that commercial cremation in Idaho and cremation at Auschwitz had different goals. The latter was to burn as many corpses simultaneously with as little fuel as possible. So it is predictable that the technical innovations used at Auschwitz would be of a different kind than the technical innovations you find in commercial cremation across the last few generations. It is not that, in other words, that I am arguing Auschwitz had "better technology" than your uncle's funeral home has today in 2022. Instead, Auschwitz had different technology with different goals.

OK now let me address the specific technical stuff. We know a lot about how cremation at Auschwitz worked because the manufacturer of the cremas, Topf, left quite a paper trail. A lot of the documents detailing the technical workings of the cremation can be found in Robert Van Pelt in his book The Case for Auschwitz,

One of the most interesting documents cited by Van Pelt is a 1942 patent application by Topf, who again was the guy who created the cremas at Auschwitz. In the patent application Topf described his special technique for burning a ton of bodies together, with drastic savings in time and fuel. During the war, due to "secrecy" considerations involving the use of his technology by the German government (gee, I wonder what those were . . .), the patent could not be approved. But post-war, Topf again applied for a patent for his special cremation technology, and his patent was approved in 1953 by West Germany, as patent no. 861731.

So the Nazis utilized Van Pelt's method during the war, and the post-war (non-nazi) West German patent office considered the method he described in his patent application as technically legitimate and feasible. What was that method? We can tell from Topf's patent applications.

Topf (I do not have a copy of his patent application, so I quote Van Pelt) described his cremas as "continuous cremation furnaces" in which corpses are inserted at the top and "as they slowly slide down a system of inclined grids, they are quickly reduced to ashes." Stuttgart Engineers who assessed Topf's patent application supposed that "the furnace could be initially loaded with 50 corpses and that in the upper part of the furnace the bodies would dry out through evaporation."

Even you can discern the importance of this evaporating process in saving fuel.

Moreover, when you are burning so many corpses simultaneously, the corpses themselves will produce a lot of heat, meaning you need considerable less fuel than you otherwise would have to burn them. (Please no straw men on this, I am not saying that the heat makes it easier to burn 50 corpses than 1, I am merely saying it is another way in which burning 50 simultaneously in the way described saves fuel relative to 50 sessions in which you burn 50 individually, which is the relevant comparative)

Lemming - LOL "thin skin" is your interpretation as to why I edited a post to delete something positive about myself? I just thought it sounded stupid to brag about my weight loss.

Also, I did not even remember editing this post until you mentioned it. You are as obsessively jealous as a teenage diarist when it comes to me. But that makes sense at some level, I might behave similarly if I was in your postiion.

 

[Chugger]

I note that there is even a feature labeled as 'cremation pit' there, which begs the question of why it would be needed if there was such amazing super advanced cremation facilities a stones throw away?

Jeez I step away for a few hours and you guys have racked up a hundred posts in this bitch

But you could have saved some time and effort by reading witness testimony here which make clear (across many different statements) that the crematoria couldn't handle processing so many bodies and broke down. Bischoff's note is a projection for the crematoria operating at full capacity under favorable circumstances.

So yeah the bodies were mostly burned outside . You can see the pits quite clearly behind the crema here (Luftwaffe aerial photo from summer 44)

And Sonderkommando photo here

Now you guys are all conspiracy theorists. I've asked you to present evidence of a conspiracy to fake the Holocaust and I think the best you came up with was a few Nazis got beaten up and mistreated immediately after the war in interrogations.

I don't think this is too suspicious because these interrogations were conducted in a military setting, where physical violence was commonly used to get info out of people.

But riddle me this. We have the auschwitz death books, which deniers use to "prove" that no wrongdoing was happening.

For May 1944, in his book Auschwitz: Open-Air Incinerations (pg 78 ) Carlo Mattogno estimates 50 deaths per day in the camp. This is in line with how many deaths are recorded in the death books after the Typhus epidemic was largely remedied.

And yet big brain Carlo, that marvelous beast, also provides the number of slave laborers working at the crematoria. Here are some numbers from January to October 1944.

Anything interesting or suspicious going on here, perhaps related to the Hungarian deportation of 44, which started in May and continued into July. How many workers does it seem like you would need to dispose of 50 bodies per day?

 

[Lemmingwise]

I like how there's no technical analysis. Only trusting van Pelt wholesale. Wasn't van Pelt the one who depended on two witness testimonies, one of which claimed that fat bodies burned of their own accord after being lighted? I suppose if you believe that things can get very fuel efficient. If.

And of course open air cremations are even more fuel efficient. Thanks Chugger.

 

[Chugger]

More sussy shit , request for HCN detectors for the Crematoria (such a rare and "strange" request Mattogno calls these documents out as forgeries)

documents calling for camouflage of crematoria (why? to cover up destruction of 50-100 bodies daily?)

search for keyword 'special'

and of course documents mentioning gas chambers explicitly

 

[History Speaks]

But riddle me this. We have the auschwitz death books, which deniers use to "prove" that no wrongdoing was happening.

For May 1944, in his book Auschwitz: Open-Air Incinerations (pg 78 ) Carlo Mattogno estimates 50 deaths per day in the camp. This is in line with how many deaths are recorded in the death books after the Typhus epidemic was largely remedied.

View attachment 3495537

And yet big brain Carlo, that marvelous beast, also provides the number of slave laborers working at the crematoria. Here are some numbers from January to October 1944.

View attachment 3495542
Anything interesting or suspicious going on here, perhaps related to the Hungarian deportation of 44, which started in May and continued into July. How many workers does it seem like you would need to dispose of 50 bodies per day?

I mean we already have documents showing that far more Jews were "leaving" Auschwitz via "special treatment" than by natural death (of registered prisoner). Special treatment of course being an obvious code word, which is defined explictly as "murder" in other documents.

And the fact that the number of prisoners kept dropping dramatically, in vast disproportion to numbers of "natural" deaths (i.e. registered deaths in the death books) and deportations to other camps, is completely unexplained by deniers. But we have an explanation.

By the way thank you for mentioning the requests for HCN detectors in the cremas documents. I had forgotten about those. Laughable to deny the cremas were gas chambers.

 

[Lemmingwise]

A lot of kvetching and still no genuine addressing of the fuel demands.

 

[Chugger]

And of course open air cremations are even more fuel efficient. Thanks Chugger.

A lot of kvetching and still no genuine addressing of the fuel demands.

We've been through this before, but are you saying that hypothetically if they had killed and buried millions of men women and children, an act unprecedented in human history, they would have left these graves untouched to be discovered by Soviet photographers?

 

[History Speaks]

We've been through this before, but are you saying that hypothetically if they had killed and buried millions of men women and children, an act unprecedented in human history, they would have left these graves untouched to be discovered by Soviet photographers?

Honestly the documentary record looks like one would think it would look after a government destroyed a lot of documentation to cover up something, but came nowhere close, because the thing was just way too vast to cover up.

We have dozens of documents explicitly referencing mass murder of Jews, but a great many of these are primarily about something else and only bring up the exterminations as a secondary point.

For example the Stroop Report which mentions Jews being killed in Treblinka is principally about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The Hagen letter to Hitler which mentions that Jews are being killed is principally about the fate of the gentile Poles, and only mentions the Jews being killed as a comparative. The Täubner judgment is primarily about the court martial of one guy, but mentions in that context the (as of 1942) Nazi legal doctrine that SS men can murder random Jewish civilians legally, so long as their motive is political anti-semitism and not sadism or pecuniary gain.

Surely they destroyed a lot of documents whose main point was extermination, but they could not destroy anywhere near all the documents, especially not those which only mentioned the exterminations but were not principally about them, since the references to systematically murdering Jewish in documents that were principally about other things would be harder to identify and remember.

Another category of wartime documents that the cover up efforts predictably missed were personal documents (Frank and Goebbels diaries) and documents held by non-governmental actor (like the Topf und Söhne documents about cremation capacities).

 

[Lemmingwise]

I just notice that his arguments stand unaddressed. There is a lot of long storytelling of "x is what happened", but no engagement with anything he wrote. It's like reading out a callscript like a telemarketer. Maybe I was wrong, maybe this is paid shilling after all.

 

[Chugger]

I just notice that his arguments stand unaddressed.

What arguments lol ?

Why were the cremation pits so close to the crematoria, as is obviously evident in the photo?

Because the gas chambers were in the crematoria, and they didn't want to haul the bodies and destroy them miles away.

In summation, to meet the claimed goals of cremating 4,756 bodies per day (what a weirdly precise number) I would expect an industrial processing footprint of at least half a football field for the crematory units alone, using modern, compact and efficient units. I can't begin to guess how much more space would be needed for contemporary units, plus the loading/unloading staging areas, secondary processing (grinding), etc.

The indoor cremation issue is moot because most of the bodies were destroyed outdoors, but if you're trying to question the authenticity of Bischoff's note, how many muffles (openings) do construction documents state existed at the complex?