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

[Chugger]

"Fascinating that you want me to provide you context on top of all the points I've provided when it's in your own source;"

Do you realize that it's not impressive when I ask you a simple question and your only answer is to show me documents that I'm already familiar with? It's good to use documents, but these should back up a claim, otherwise I have no idea what your position is. Here, I'll show you, answering the question I just asked you, which you evaded yet again

They didn't accept the city's capitulation, thus condemning the population inside to starve to death, because . . . . ?

I believe they did this because they didn't want the responsibility of having to relocate and feed the people inside.

Documentary evidence: This is the exact reason Hitler gave for denying surrender requests from the city

The Führers Decision on Leningrad (Entschluß der Führers über Leningrad), transmitted by the Naval Warfare Command (Seekriegsleitung) to Army Group North on 29.09.1941

Requests for surrender resulting from the city’s encirclement will be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, there can be no interest on our part in maintaining even a part of this large urban population.

Now your turn. I won't ask you again since this is turning into Rodoh lol despite my best efforts

 

[mrolonzo]

"Fascinating that you want me to provide you context on top of all the points I've provided when it's in your own source;"

Do you realize that it's not impressive when I ask you a simple question and your only answer is to show me documents that I'm already familiar with? It's good to use documents, but these should back up a claim, otherwise I have no idea what your position is. Here, I'll show you, answering the question I just asked you, which you evaded yet again



I believe they did this because they didn't want the responsibility of having to relocate and feed the people inside.

Documentary evidence: This is the exact reason Hitler gave for denying surrender requests from the city

The Führers Decision on Leningrad (Entschluß der Führers über Leningrad), transmitted by the Naval Warfare Command (Seekriegsleitung) to Army Group North on 29.09.1941


Now your turn. I won't ask you again since this is turning into Rodoh lol despite my best efforts

My my, you really can't actually read what I post, even if it's from your own source.

Ok. As per the documents provided by both you and I;

1. They did not want surrender. For obvious humanitarian reasons.

2. They wanted evacuation.

3. This would allow them to destroy the city more easily.

4. Destroying the city safeguarded Finland, the entire Baltic region and Germany.

You've been allowed to derail a holocaust thread, you out right refused to answer when I told you about what the SS was actually allowed to do, and here you are posturing like you're the long suffering one here. Everyone can see what you're doing.


I doubt you'll concede anything, exterminationists seldom do, instead you'll either prevaricate or stop posting.

 

[Chugger]

My my, you really can't actually read what I post, even if it's from your own source.

Ok. As per the documents provided by both you and I;

1. They did not want surrender. For obvious humanitarian reasons.

2. They wanted evacuation.

3. This would allow them to destroy the city more easily.

4. Destroying the city safeguarded Finland, the entire Baltic region and Germany.

lol if this was the case, why wasn't the city evacuated, except in the winter when lake Ladoga froze over?

Road of Life - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if Germans had allowed evacuation, 1.2 million civilians wouldn't have starved to death

you can try again

 

[Bonesjones]

Don't worry he can't stop posting his imaginary career in podcasting won't allow it.

 

[mrolonzo]

How is

lol if this was the case, why wasn't the city evacuated, except in the winter when lake Ladoga froze over?

Road of Life - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if Germans had allowed evacuation, 1.2 million civilians wouldn't have starved to death

you can try again

Because the Soviets had no intention of giving up the city bearing the name of their founder, Lenin.

 

[Chugger]

Because the Soviets had no intention of giving up the city bearing the name of their founder, Lenin.

So now you're saying they chose not to evacuate civilian population?

Don't worry he can't stop posting his imaginary career in podcasting won't allow it.

don't worry bro, I'm almost out of here

 

[mrolonzo]

So now you're saying they chose not to evacuate civilian population?


don't worry bro, I'm almost out of here

They'd certainly evacuate some of course. But they were sending in weapons and supplies instead mostly, so no.

For the reason given, plus a few more.

Is this the point where you refuse to concede anything, denigrate me personally and revisionists in some way, then bug out? Are we there yet?

 

[Chugger]

They'd certainly evacuate some of course. But they were sending in weapons and supplies instead mostly, so no.

There isn't any evidence the Germans even made a proposal to the city or the Red Army to open a gate for civilians to flow out of

the reasons for not doing so are given here:

a) Removal across the Volchov behind the enemy front theoretically a good solution, but can hardly be carried out in practice. Who is to keep
hundreds of thousands together and drive them on? Where is the Russian front in this case?

b) If we do without a march behind the Russian front, those let out will spread across the land.

Instead the city was denied surrender, and the millions of civilians inside condemned to die of hunger

 

[mrolonzo]

There isn't any evidence the Germans even made a proposal to the city or the Red Army to open a gate for civilians to flow out of

the reasons for not doing so are given here:

Instead the city was denied surrender, and the millions of civilians inside condemned to die of hunger

The city had ample opportunity to surrender all by itself.

It didn't run out of white linen did it? Or sticks and poles?

Or evacuate, it chose to hold on thus it condemned itself.

 

[Bonesjones]

Just saw this on 4chan

 

[Chugger]

The city had ample opportunity to surrender all by itself.

It didn't run out of white linen did it? Or sticks and poles?

Once it was encircled, requests for surrender were denied, as per Hitler's decision

Or evacuate, it chose to hold on thus it condemned itself.

Once it was encircled, no opportunity was provided for the civilians to evacuate

In fact orders were given for the army to fire on civilians trying to break out

From the War Diary of the General Command of L. Army Corps, 18.9.1941 - 6.5.1942 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, H 24/5015) 24.10.1941:

The commanding general visited a number of firing positions of heavy and light batteries of artillery regiment 269. The commanding general viewed the installations for the winter and the construction of emplacements and then discussed with the commanders and battery leaders the use of the artillery in case of the Russian civilian population trying to break out of Leningrad. According to army order of 18.9.1941 Nr. 2737/41 secret, such attempts are to be prevented, if necessary by force of arms. It is the task of the artillery to fend of any such undertaking as far away as possible from our own lines by opening fire at an early stage, so that the infantry is as far as possible spared having to shoot on civilians.

 

[Bonesjones]

Let our civilians escape so they don't die and we can keep fighting! Also we are going to carpet bomb your cities nonstop until you give up. These things aren't directly the same.

 

[Chugger]

Let our civilians escape so they don't die and we can keep fighting! Also we are going to carpet bomb your cities nonstop until you give up. These things aren't directly the same.

if u want to play the whataboutism game, 4x more civilians died in the siege of Leningrad than in the entire 6 year bombing campaign against Germany, which I would also classify as a war crime, though of a lesser magnitude.

It's also true that German civilians had the option of leaving cities that were a threat to be bombed (and this was a main objective for the allies), while the civilians in Leningrad were simply fucked

 

[Bonesjones]

if u want to play the whataboutism game, 4x more civilians died in the siege of Leningrad than in the entire 6 year bombing campaign against Germany, which I would also classify as a war crime, though of a lesser magnitude.

View attachment 3350218

It's also true that German civilians had the option of leaving cities that were a threat to be bombed (and this was a main objective for the allies), while the civilians in Leningrad were simply fucked

And what happened to the German civilians when the Soviets arrived? Remember the holocaust was so terrible and brutal that when given the choice of embracing the freedom the Soviets were going to provide, the poor holocausted jews chose to leave with their captors. That's some Stockholm syndrome!

 

[mrolonzo]

Once it was encircled, requests for surrender were denied, as per Hitler's decision


Once it was encircled, no opportunity was provided for the civilians to evacuate

In fact orders were given for the army to fire on civilians trying to break out

From the War Diary of the General Command of L. Army Corps, 18.9.1941 - 6.5.1942 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, H 24/5015) 24.10.1941:

1. The axis wanted evacuation, surrender meant responsibility. Like I said.

2. The german navy wasn't operating on the lagoda sea, so no that's wrong.

3. Yes, the axis didn't want civilians on its lines, creating further problems. This is all in the documents and comments we've both written here.

if u want to play the whataboutism game, 4x more civilians died in the siege of Leningrad than in the entire 6 year bombing campaign against Germany, which I would also classify as a war crime, though of a lesser magnitude.

View attachment 3350218

It's also true that German civilians had the option of leaving cities that were a threat to be bombed (and this was a main objective for the allies), while the civilians in Leningrad were simply fucked

The germans weren't having any infiltration of their lines and wanted the city destroyed. We've already proven they were never about extermination of anyone but surrender meant changed priorities. So no. They didn't want a surrender because that was a humanitarian disaster. Evacuation was reasonable.

And what happened to the German civilians when the Soviets arrived? Remember the holocaust was so terrible and brutal that when given the choice of embracing the freedom the Soviets were going to provide, the poor holocausted jews chose to leave with their captors. That's some Stockholm syndrome!

Dude this is his thing. He went to codoh but doesn't really know much about the holocaust except what he's read on a blog. So now he's got this bug bear about leningrad. If he can prove that the nazis deliberately killed 1.2m Russians he doesn't really need to prove the gassing or shooting of Jews because he's already proven Nazis demonic penchant for atrocity.

Trying to quote you here but im not sure what you said here, but I think you're arguing that because they would fire on civilians going to their lines then etc etc

If you mean something else then please say.

"It is the task of the artillery to fend of any such undertaking as far away as possible from our own lines by opening fire at an early stage, so that the infantry is as far as possible spared having to shoot on civilians."

From our own lines. You seem to miss out that bit. Look, this is a 75 year old war that is highly politicised and steeped in spin and propaganda so it's difficult to get all the details.

 

[Chugger]

"It is the task of the artillery to fend of any such undertaking as far away as possible from our own lines by opening fire at an early stage, so that the infantry is as far as possible spared having to shoot on civilians."

From our own lines. You seem to miss out that bit.

yes, they had encircled the city. There was no land based evacuation path except through their lines, which were extremely dense in that area because they had to maintain the blockade. are you understanding yet? If not I'm close to giving up here lol

 

[mrolonzo]

yes, they had encircled the city. There was no land based evacuation path except through their lines, which were extremely dense in that area because they had to maintain the blockade. are you understanding yet? If not I'm close to giving up here lol

View attachment 3350480

Right. Ok. There was no land based route. We agree. We also agree they were not encircled in every direction. Can we agree on that? Take your time. I'll be away for a short while.

 

[Chugger]

Right. Ok. There was no land based route. We agree. We also agree they were not encircled in every direction. Can we agree on that?

Yes. However transport over the lake was not nearly enough to supply the city, which contained millions of civilians, or get enough people out, as the Germans were well aware

Notes of the Head of the General Staff of the 18th Army, Colonel Hasse, from the high level meeting at Orsha on 13.11.1941 (State Archive Nuremberg, NOKW-1535)

Report on Wagners statements (excerpt):

[...]The feeding of the great cities can however not be solved. There can be no doubt that especially Leningrad
must starve to death, because it is impossible to feed this city. The task of the leadership can thus only be to keep the troops away from this and from the phenomena related hereto.[...]

Operational Situation Report (Ereignismeldung) UdSSR No. 191 of 10.4.1942 (Bundesarchiv, R 58/221)

The road across the ice of Lake Ladoga continues to be used by the Leningrad authorities not only to bring in war material and food, but increasingly also to evacuate a part of the population to the inner Soviet Union.[...]

Much more important in terms of numbers than the evacuation across Lake Ladoga is the reduction of the population of Leningrad due to the mass dying that continues without a change. The indicated numbers of daily deaths vary, but always lie above 8,000. The causes of death are hunger, exhaustion, heart failure and intestine diseases.[...]

 

[mrolonzo]

Yes. However transport over the lake was not nearly enough to supply the city, which contained millions of civilians, or get enough people out, as the Germans were well aware

Notes of the Head of the General Staff of the 18th Army, Colonel Hasse, from the high level meeting at Orsha on 13.11.1941 (State Archive Nuremberg, NOKW-1535)


Operational Situation Report (Ereignismeldung) UdSSR No. 191 of 10.4.1942 (Bundesarchiv, R 58/221)

Right. So you say they couldn't evacuate the city.

The German navy was not operating on lagoda. Agreed.

The report literally says they were increasingly using the route they did have for evacuation. Agreed.

The germans knew that starvation would happen. And their troops risked disease from the population. Agreed.

They certainly had enough supply route capacity to send weapons and some food in one direction. Agreed.

Perhaps you would like to say they couldn't move roughly a few thousand people east per day?

We both know Germans were not about just killing people. That's agreed too.

 

[mr.moon1488]

The only reason I'm skeptical about the official account of the holocaust itself is because.

1. Today several countries threaten jailtime for denying it or even contesting some parts of it. No other genocide in human history is treated that way.

2. It would take far more manpower and infrastructure to kill millions and hide the evidence, than to simply keep them alive. How is a country supposed to wage a World War alone with such resources devoted to killing millions? It's lunacy. Not to say that atrocities didn't happen, its war, this will happen. But I repeatedly hear the line "Oh the Germans are so efficient they would kill them all". The most efficient thing is to keep them alive.

These are all arguments I would attribute to common wisdom, but it seems no one works on that level anymore. They want a snopes factcheck before they will believe anything, even if it goes against what their own experience tells them.

In general, most people don't actually trust their own judgment and would rather have someone else do the thinking for them.