- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
One cannot glean any information from an incompetent or dishonest study Chugger?
Is this your assertion?
The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
One cannot glean any information from an incompetent or dishonest study Chugger?
Is this your assertion?
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2019
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
The Krege report https://codoh.com/library/document/the-1999-krege-report-on-the-treblinka/en/
Funded by Mattogno, but not mentioned in any of his books about Treblinka or the AR camps
Are you going to answer my question about the competency and honesty of Kola's Belzec study, or should we move on to the next topic?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Wait this is the only dishonest or incompetent study ever done according to you and absolutely no information can be taken from it?
Why move on to the next topic? Are you in a hurry?
Re Kola. One has to distinguish between the conjectures Kola offers and the findings that are given as evidence to the claims he makes. To his credit Kola provides plenty of good educational detail about the camp. Photos, drawings, maps and so on. So incompetent as an absolute statement is not reasonable in my view.
Would you like to move on to the next topic now or explore Revisionism on Belzec some more?
No there are probably thousands of examples of spurious archeological studies
Yes. Even Mattogno completely ignored it
Ok I'll try to be more clear here
when Kola plainly states (not conjectures) that there are dozens of massive pits containing significant amounts of "cremains" at Belzec site, is this due to incompetence or deceit, or perhaps my assessment of his report is wrong?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Did he ignore it because it's complete rubbish in every regard or simply that its not published in a full manner that another scholar could use?
Re Kola. It's a tricky one. Gotta be one or the other right?
A "report" was published that was used by some revisionists but not Mattogno. I have no idea why he didn't use it, but I'm sure if there was something there he would have.
Personally I think incompetence is unlikely. We can look at some of the grave descriptions
Is the claim that a PHD in archeology working with a team of researchers would repeatedly identify large amounts of "crematory remains" or "body ashes" (eg grave 5 -- 1 meter thick layer) where there were none?
We should also note that a Jewish group supervises Belzec and most revisionists think they are covering up the true nature of the site, hence the memorial which makes digging harder. In this case why would they risk letting an independent researcher in to possibly expose the truth?
The case for deceit is much more reasonable in my view.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2022
Maybe they used the Jews to replace the missing oil. They were all placed into a pit, then a legion of stormtroopers jumped up and down very hard on top of the pit until all the Jews were fossilized into oil. Would be two birds with one stone.
Of course the only way to test this would be to examine the soil. I can't imagine that's hard to do.
Of course the only way to test this would be to examine the soil. I can't imagine that's hard to do.
@mrolonzo: "thunk provoking emote"
what I'm getting at is it's misleading for revisionists to say "very little" was found at the AR camps. Rather revisionists should say studies state presence of large amounts of cremains at these sites, but they are probably lying (there is no evidence of this, but it is of course possible)
We can move on to a new point now
My question was: "what's your response to the question of whether the Nazis ever used 'resettlement' as a code word for mass killing? and if so, why did they use it?"
are you refusing to answer? I've asked you this a bunch. it's fine if you don't want to answer.
what I'm getting at is it's misleading for revisionists to say "very little" was found at the AR camps. Rather revisionists should say studies state presence of large amounts of cremains at these sites, but they are probably lying (there is no evidence of this, but it is of course possible)
We can move on to a new point now
My question was: "what's your response to the question of whether the Nazis ever used 'resettlement' as a code word for mass killing? and if so, why did they use it?"
are you refusing to answer? I've asked you this a bunch. it's fine if you don't want to answer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Well we both agree that there's no evidence of cremains as in mass murder in any reasonable sense and that resettlement generally meant what it says.
Surely this is a reasonable compromise.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
What happened to HistorySpeaks [even when it shouldn't]? Did Mossad stop sending him weekly shekels after the site went down? Honestly I kinda miss the big lug.
out of curiosity, how could they prove to you that they're not lying about what they found there?
I agree that this was the case up until late 41/early 42, but thereafter there is no evidence of actual resettlement and there is a lot of evidence of killing, so it would be senseless for me to accept your compromise
since you acknowledge the reality that the Nazis used "resettlement" as a code word when killing Jews, why do you think they used this term in particular?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Well thinking about it, it's not really lying, instead they may be drawing conclusions from assumptions they've already made. As in, they see darkened earth and presume this is hundreds of thousands of bodies and just ignore the implications of the soporified remains as this doesn't fit the conclusion they want to make. That wouldn't necessarily be incompetence either, simply motivated reasoning.
True, there's also no evidence that the Nazis actually won in Stalingrad either so that explained the lack of permanent resettlement, as in the creation of clear new Jewish towns and cities in the east, and we know there wasn't a holocaust by bullets in the east either. If you were too say that they used resettlement definitively as code words for killing in every case, before during and after 42 , and you could show that without doubt then you might have a case. Its nonsense to think that they'd just start turning the word resettlement into a code word for killing because we know they certainly tried to resettle and it's not like nazis would just kill Jews, especially women, children, elderly, who'd done nothing to them.
So obviously while you seek to assert that you have evidence of an occasion of nazis telling us that they used resettlement as code word for killing and that this therefore proves they could do so and this therefore proves the holocaust in the east you don't have backing for this in the wide range of correspondences of the time.
Plus of course all the other hard evidential factoids of the area like the lack of bodies so you have no real choice but to compromise. Explanations about why nazis would use that word in particular would depend on who exactly was talking, where, when and why, the legitimacy of the claim and the supporting evidence.
Last edited:
wait the claim is they extracted and examined core samples as the basis of the investigation
but they did use the term 'resettlement' as code for killing, or do you disagree here? I thought you admitted that they did.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
yes, they claim to have extracted and examined core samples. Just wanted to point that out to you, since you seem to think it is possible "they see darkened earth and presume this is hundreds of thousands of bodies"
well from spring 1942 on (around the time the Reinhard camps came online), there is not a single example that can be corroborated as actual resettlement, and in most cases it is either obvious or evidenced elsewhere that they were killed
feel free to search thru Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book for "resettlement", it's a point he tries to prove
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
1. I read the Kola report a few years ago, we know they drew up core samples, we also know how they present them.
2. Nice try. Creating cities and towns full of Jews when you just lost Stalingrad wasn't feasible and the AR camps, I.e. Belzec was not an extermination camp as the evidence showed. Supported by the other points referenced above and conveniently ignored again by you.
3. Exactly what point is Mattogno trying to prove about resettlement? The EG book is also about the holocaust by bullets. Which definitively didn't happen. Because it couldn't, as the study of the evidence demonstrates. Happy to go through pages of the book.
4. And don't post some internet archive EG text script of Mattogno. You can get the book quite easily. Simply post screenshots and links to the actual books for the benefit of kiwifarms readers. You owe everyone that.
Last edited:
Try what? Around this time period (spring of 1942 and on) the term shows up in documents in reference to millions of Jews. Yet from this point on there is no evidence of actual resettlement happening on any scale, only killing of Jews on a vast scale
If you aren't getting this, I suppose this is a good stopping point for now
here ya go, it's the same book https://ia600706.us.archive.org/2/items/EinsatzgruppenCarloMattogno/EinsatzgruppenCarloMattogno.pdf
he tries to find examples of actual resettlement, but is only able to find examples prior to spring/summer 42, when the Reinhard camps came online and Himmler ordered the "resettlement" of the "entire Jewish population" of occupied Poland
Order by Himmler On July 19, 1942, for the Completion of the "Final Solution" in the Government-General
I herewith order that the resettlement of the entire Jewish population of the Government-General be carried out and completed by December 31, 1942.From December 31, 1942, no persons of Jewish origin may remain within the Government-General, unless they are in collection camps in Warsaw, Cracow...
www.yadvashem.org