You know, I think calling you a Nazi is wrong. you might be a national socialist, but you aren't a Nazi since you're so desperate to deny the reality of Nazi ideology as practiced and advocated by the Nazis. You have no understanding of actual Nazism, only the fantasy version of Nazism that exists in your head based on your cherrypicked quotes from Hitler and your favorite Nazis.
…You don't really know anything about national socialism or being a nazi or actual nazism or the ideology so quit whining, no one gives a fuck.
Working in factories and fields is contributing to the war effort just as much as any infantryman does, but I wouldn't expect someone who believes in a fantasy version of Nazi Germany to understand the importance of such roles.
…Nope, broadly important or not, working in factories hasn't been classed as participating in combat by the Hague convention or any other.
Except when they did, hence the frequent partisan activity. They even lost many of their collaborators such as the OUN (at least until 1944 when Soviet reconquest was inevitable). Actual studies, not just cherry picked documents and quotes, prove that the Nazis systematically starved Eastern Europe and their brutality and unwillingness to use the full spectrum of local collaborators lost them the war. This was not the sane, intelligent policy Imperial Germany pursued in 1918, because Nazi Germany was a racial supremacist project first and foremost aimed at colonizing Eastern Europe as evidenced by the actual conduct of the Nazis toward local populations and their own words!
Mostly just communist agitators creating partisan activity behind the lines by Stalin ordering civilians to participate and Germany dealing with them.
You still haven't explained why the graves are almost entirely empty. That does not happen because why would the Nazis dig graves that deep in an area with such limited space? Further, there is clearly bone and ash poured in there as evidenced by what was discovered. People do not dig graves that large or numerous for a few hundred corpses. The gypsies don't dig graves like that either. Your story makes no logical sense while my evidence agrees with the actual testimony.
I did explain it. There are only about 133 actual bodies in graves arranged haphazardly in limited space therefore dug well for environmental reasons by Gypsies who, being transient, would dig graves in various places as they came and went.
What testimony are you referring to?
You know exactly what I'm trying to say. Those are burn scars, as attested by the numerous witnesses to executions at that site during the Nazi occupation of Kiev. No one who was executed there was ever seen again. It sure is convenient there's photographic evidence of documents telling Jews to gather in the area right around the time they were killed.
When the best you've got is "it sure is convenient" that's a suspicion at best.
Mattogno's view is that there well have been an execution there. Just nothing like the numbers claimed and more in line with the anti partisan executions of the time. Which would make sense as it's just outside Kiev. But sure go ahead and prove us all wrong. The ground isn't even closed off. You could go there right now and start digging and sending us photos as no one else has ever done since, even get core samples and send each one to a lab as again, no one has ever done since.
But instead you choose to make a fool of yourself trying to abuse revisionists.
Excuses excuses. You do not have endless propaganda depicting Slavs as subhuman and germans, again, made numerous alliances with slavs.
This assertion is absolutely insane.
Lol even the booklet titled Der Untermensch praises various Slavic peoples and anyway Stalin deported more Poles than the nazis anyway.
You're not arguing my point, the point is smart people can look bad under cross-examination. The job of a lawyer is to win the case for their client, not prove a point, and if your witness is becoming a liability to winning your case, you cut them off no matter who they are.
Sure it's possible to be correct and still look bad but it's unlikely. Indeed Vrba was a liability because he is full of shit and was exposed. That's all. Same for Hilberg too.
That is a point, dumbass. Children are smaller than adults. Up to 1/3 of Holocaust victims were children.
Are they? Alot smaller or not so much?
So how many people did the nazis kill in their first gassing at Auschwitz?
I'm sure they're all selectively edited by your favorite denialists and liars.
Ok you choose one yourself from Auschwitz and we'll compare what ive got with what you've got shall we?
Have you ever actually seen a gas chamber? If you have, you'd know it's totally different than cramming people into a tiny room which will literally suck out the oxygen. Unconsciousness and death can come in under 2 minutes when people are exposed to an inert gas atmosphere. I would say an actively toxic substance like HCN being introduced into the lungs as the oxygen is rapidly being sucked out by the victims. Human crush deaths occur from asphyxiation.
Can you actually refute my point? I'm not just saying, "nope, read [Holocaust scholar]" since I'm actively engaging with you (I shouldn't because you're probably among the most disingenuous people I've ever argued with here). Science says you die quickly when the oxygen is sucked out of a room, replaced by a gas which isn't toxic. Now suck the oxygen out of the room and inject an actually toxic gas.
I can refute a point or not where it's clearly established. Sure creating a vaccume is indeed deadly, but you can't just make shit up to suit the story, and zyklon b while harmful isn't like a nerve gas. It's literally a slow release pesticide that was poured out carefully on clear floor space for delousing clothing.
You've yet to prove me wrong on this point. You just take him on his words, but this is the same guy claiming the ovens worked like a modern funeral home. You claim the Holocaust has holes, but denialists come up with abject nonsense trying to refute it.
Sorry but it's the most detailed study in existence on these ovens by far.
How would he know the names of random officers? If the guy looked important, it would be an easy mistake to think he was Himmler.
He's in the camp for some time. He'd know who many of the the officers are. Many inmates did, they even praised the garrison doctor.
Missing a fact, or even embellishing one by claiming a random officer was Himmler, does not make the testimony inherently inaccurate. Unreliable narrators still serve as valuable sources, especially when other details match other testimony and match archaeological fact.
Excuses excuses. It undermines it's credibility. Obviously this glaring detail isn't the only issue.
Pseudo-Himmler? Oh I know, how about because Hitler was actually so evil "they" had to make him less evil by inventing a guy with a similar name who got attributed a lot of Hitler's evil to make Hitler more believable to the public. Or something. It doesn't make sense, but neither does Holocaust denial. You can't give me a motive for why the Holocaust should be made up, since the Nazis were already considered the peak of evil that needed to be destroyed because they led their nation into starting ANOTHER world war (Allied perception, yes I know Germany did not start WWI).
Easily, the germans had a number of implacable enemies who were interested in atrocity propaganda.
Indeed, Allied perception. You know Germany didn't start ww1 but expect everyone to believe the allies were being reasonable the 2nd time around just because.
I've explained evidence of graves, burnings, burials and showed how your claims as to gassing or burning not being possible are not based in science. Likewise I've shown that your theories of Jews being transported are ludicrous and do not match demographic evidence and your views on international law exist only in your head. When your points are refuted, you do nothing but double down or resort to strawmen. But you don't understand, maybe because your IQ is on par with those races I mentioned, I dunno.
"I saw wildfire burn marks on vacation once"
"Those graves are deep"
"If you suck air out you can gas them all"
Indeed, you don't know. Which is why you perform like this.
Why shouldn't anyone be offended by people making things up about their family? Holocaust deniers don't have any evidence. Maybe they should find Shlomo, age 99, who did NOT die at Auschwitz like his family who saw him vanish maintains, and reunite him with his Holocaust survivor brother Moshe. Maybe then people would take these "scholars" seriously.
What does being offended matter to the truth?
1) Yes, the pits overflowing with bodies as per eyewitnesses and later confirmed to have once been overflowing with bodies.
2) Once again you disingenuously ignore my point, given I was referring to Jews being AS A WHOLE smaller than Germans because they were very poor and suffered greatly during the wars from 1914-1923, which affected the growth of people born during those years and years before. But this is typical of Holocaust denialists, you're just learning from what you've read on how to selectively read writings and use what you need to prove your point. Not how history works.
1/ "Pits were overflowing" but the bodies found are at the bottom
2/ Vague rubbish about some people being smaller due to the prior 20 years therefore; the holocaust, is just laughable.
3/ How actually does history work? Do you think an event can be possible merely on the basis that a number of people say it happened? Is that how history works?
I don't think a single
mass grave from Soviet executions has been "independently verified". Is all this propaganda as well?
Didn't Katyn dig up have international observers and is broadly thought to be an investigation without any credible dispute?
As I grew up I heard about the holocaust and thought "Oh thats horrible" Then year after year throughout my life it seemed there was a new featured special on the Holocaust. I thought, well thats kinda weird, haven't their been other genocides? What about them? It's been what 80 years? Come on give someone else a go. Then I found out even questioning or even criticizing official accounts of the Holocaust(not denying it) can land you in prison in some countries. And I was like "ah okay, that doesn't calm my suspicions at all, you're just fueling them"
I've avoided at looking most of the "evidence" because it's been 80 years, I expect the evidence trail so muddied now you can't make sense of anything. But it seems at least something is going on there.
The evidence trail isn't muddied, it's hidden. That said, there are numerous ways for a serious historian to attack a problem like this and therefore the research has been done and is still being done. Recently most impressive is the research on the "work" of Danuta Czech, this is the woman who really got the Auschwitz fable going by mis representation of events and records.
were located right next to mass graves or even on top of them! 