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

[byuu]

Yeah I read it. You used an old version of it, 1500's if I recall, not exactly as close as 20th century translation, is it?

So what? It still says ausrotten and it's the same passage with the same meaning of destruction.

None of the old german dictionaries say the it is exclusively for destruction.

Except every single one posted here did.

I'm not going to look for a 16th century botanical guide in german that explicitly uses it for uprooting and replanting.

I am not asking you to provide evidence you don't have.
All I want from you is the evidence that you claimed you have (or at least know of).
You've mentioned it in the beginning, but you still haven't shown it:

In the past ausrotten only meant to uproot, and the other meaning, the destruction or vernichting slowly also gained traction since the 18th century and more examples of it being used that way were in 1930s.

Here is it again. Where are these examples?
Why? Did you misremember? Did you look and find out it was only talking about weeds? Were you just lying?
What made you say this? Why won't you ever give me a straight answer on this?

Also why won't you look for botanical guides? Why are you so sure of an argument that you never properly researched?
And if not you, is there no other denier that did his homework on this, that can provide a proper source?
Is that what deniers are? People that just unquestionably keep repeating the same old memes without investigating them?
Weren't you supposed to be the serious skeptics in a world of sheep?
Don't you want convince people? You're not gonna convince a native speaker on this without solid evidence.

The fact that you are not willing to acknowledge the old meaning of the english word exterminate should convince any english speaker with any inch of remaining doubt about your honesty on this subject.

What bearing does that have on the German word? That's all I care about. I'm not relying on any English translation but I'm looking at the original German sources.
There was some weird unfounded and obviously retarded claim that exterminate and ausrotten develop in parallel. Even though they're different words, with a different origin, different history, that aren't even interchangeable in all contexts (claiming otherwise would defeat YOUR own argument).
Was that supposed to be some big gotcha? My bad I couldn't tell because it was so stupid.

 

[Chugger]

If you aren't being dishonest about ausrottung and auschaltung.....

1. Why didn't you acknowledge the alternate meaning when I provided evidence for it?

2. Why are you unable to find evidence for it yourself when there are still a number of ways to find it?

Lemmingwise, say something that interests me, or agree to my "challenge", in which case out of fairness I'll respond to whatever you want. We can even throw in your "dictionary" argument as a freebie, I'll respond to that too

To keep such a conversation manageable, I will address your single best [preferred] argument against my claim of what happened to the Jews--that is systematic murder of millions (to break this down, around 3 mil gassed, 1.5 mil shot, and 750k from privation- I personally think death toll is a little over 5 mil) , and you will address my single best argument against what you claim happened to the Jews--that is resettlement of millions in the "Russian East" post 1942.

Yeah that you literally admitted was taped over, destroyed. These recordings are so vital and important to historical record they are gone forever.

Its weird how this keeps happening, almost like there is an intentional cover up.

this isn't a charity, i don't have to teach you how to read

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwoS1WN8MKM

From Eichmann before Jerusalem:

"Willem Sassen also used tape for his own texts and was plainly fascinated by its possibilities. At the time, the tape recorder was a very modern piece of technology. He started using it as a matter of course, and played with it in private as well, recording plays, dance music, and his own singing and whistling, which can still be heard on the few surviving tapes. Together with the transcripts and Eichmann’s corrections, the recordings that reemerged in the late 1990s present a very precise picture of Sassen’s working methods. The tapes were typed up relatively quickly by various helpers, then recorded over. New tapes were expensive, both in Buenos Aires and elsewhere, and they weren’t easy to get hold of. Today we have around one thousand pages of the transcript (including the pages of corrections) and twenty-nine hours of recordings, including doubles of tapes that were copied later. Not only do they prove that the transcripts are an authentic source; they are also a window into the year 1957—and the front room of the Sassen house."

 

[Lemmingwise]

Lemmingwise, say something that interests me

Hey your dopamine levels is your business to worry about, not mine.

You've avoided difficult questions in this thread by saying you're not interested in them. The useful thing about an "be interesting" requirement is that it's amorpheus and you can apply it to anything at all and waive any subject or question and you seem to use it as such.

Personally I'm into finding intellectually honest people that I agree or disagree with and see if I can expand my knowing, typically by asking and answering questions. I'll engage in topics I find disinteresting to a certain degree because like most people I have some discipline to engage with things that have an importance.

But to put it in terms that are more relateable to you, I don't find it interesting trying to be interesting to you.

 

[Chugger]

Hey your dopamine levels is your business to worry about, not mine.

You've avoided difficult questions in this thread by saying you're not interested in them. The useful thing about an "be interesting" requirement is that it's amorpheus and you can apply it to anything at all and waive any subject or question and you seem to use it as such.

Personally I'm into finding intellectually honest people that I agree or disagree with and see if I can expand my knowing, typically by asking and answering questions. I'll engage in topics I find disinteresting to a certain degree because like most people I have some discipline to engage with things that have an importance.

But to put it in terms that are more relateable to you, I don't find it interesting trying to be interesting to you.

You've avoided a full on discussion about "resettlement" (or whatever revisionist hypothesis you believe in), perhaps because you don't find the topic interesting or particularly important. That's your prerogative, even though it's my main reason for being in this thread (I wanted to see how well the hypothesis could withstand a high level of scrutiny)

But we can talk about something else if you want. Before you called me out for being selective with whatever documents I read, and I have to say this isn't true. As a "documents guy" interested in this debate, I've tried to find the "toughest" documents revisionists put out (maybe this would be the Schlegelberger minute? http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/DocItself0342.html) Needless to say, not this or any other documents I've run into come close to 'disproving' or contradicting the mainstream theory, which is more than I can say for the revisionist alternative, which is basically violated over and over and over again (eg most of these here, esp after 1941 http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-than-100-nazi-extermination.html )

 

[Lemmingwise]

avoided a full on discussion about "resettlement" (or whatever revisionist hypothesis you believe in),

Anyone can just read the thread to find out what I believe.

I had not begun to comment on resettlement as I was still in the early phase of research on that topic spurred by yourself. The only reason I dropped it later was that I could see having a mutually curious and intellectual honest investigation wasn't going to happen with you.

I am interested in truth, not manipulation.

 

[Sincere Sinner]

I firmly believe The Holocaust happened as the Soviets claimed it happened in the canps they and they alone occupied at the end of the war. (Because no claims of externination were made in camps occupied by other Allied Forces you see).

I also firmly believe they had no reason to lie, exaggerate, or otherwise misrepresent the actions of a state they were explicitly at war with for an extended period of time. Why dont you?

 

[Bonesjones]

Hey look Chugger takes everything he agrees with at face value despite lacking in any credibility whatsoever. Anything else is required to be picked apart entirely. Copying a forgery is standard practice for cover ups because the quality degradation can be used to cover the fraud and blamed on the copying process itself. That's why you keep the original. You'd understand this if you weren't a narrative pushing idiot. Regardless of someone saying something is authentic (who is doing the authenticity comparison?) Unless it can be independently verified its useless.

Look at how many pages arguing over the semantics of what words really mean? This is because the allies fail to show the systematic destruction of millions of people. They grasp at straws looking for narrative justification that they can't even begin to show.

 

[Chugger]

Anyone can just read the thread to find out what I believe.

I had not begun to comment on resettlement as I was still in the early phase of research on that topic spurred by yourself. The only reason I dropped it later was that I could see having a mutually curious and intellectual honest investigation wasn't going to happen with you.

I am interested in truth, not manipulation.

you're so interested in the truth you're gonna stop researching if there's any evidence for the grand historical theory you believe in?

Hey look Chugger takes everything he agrees with at face value despite lacking in any credibility whatsoever. Anything else is required to be picked apart entirely. Copying a forgery is standard practice for cover ups because the quality degradation can be used to cover the fraud and blamed on the copying process itself. That's why you keep the original. You'd understand this if you weren't a narrative pushing idiot. Regardless of someone saying something is authentic (who is doing the authenticity comparison?) Unless it can be independently verified its useless.

Look at how many pages arguing over the semantics of what words really mean? This is because the allies fail to show the systematic destruction of millions of people. They grasp at straws looking for narrative justification that they can't even begin to show.

got it, all the documents are forged (because they haven't been verified by revisionists) and the witnesses and forensic studies can't be trusted, so let's just believe in something that has no evidence going for it whatsoever

 

[Bonesjones]

got it, all the documents are forged (because they haven't been verified by revisionists) and the witnesses and forensic studies can't be trusted, so let's just believe in something that has no evidence going for it whatsoever

Can be, no longer exist in primary form, so can't be verified. We have to take the people doing the prosecution at their word. This is obviously a thing we should do.

 

[Chugger]

Can be, no longer exist in primary form, so can't be verified. We have to take the people doing the prosecution at their word. This is obviously a thing we should do.

LOL you're still on the tapes huh. They're fake cuz they were taped over, I see yes yes. Easy peazy lemon squeezy. Got voice impersonators and the whole nine yards. Not convincing at all. We can't trust prosecutors huh, but the tapes were never used in court. All they had back then was transcripts and eichmann claimed he was rambling drunk so they should not be included. Great conspiracy, this. Terrific work, Jews.

Also I like that you guys all but admit (with your utter silence) that there is no accessible evidence for resettlement of millions. This fact doesn't bother you at all, yet your main argument against the holocaust is lack of evidence. You can call me stupid or a dupe or whatever, but at least i ain't no hypocrite. Though I wouldnt mind getting a hit of that sweet sweet copium you're on. Give me just a taste?

 

[Bonesjones]

LOL you're still on the tapes huh. They're fake cuz they were taped over, I see yes yes. Easy peazy lemon squeezy. Got voice impersonators and the whole nine yards. Not convincing at all. We can't trust prosecutors huh, but the tapes were never used in court. All they had back then was transcripts and eichmann claimed he was rambling drunk so they should not be included. Great conspiracy, this. Terrific work, Jews.

Also I like that you guys all but admit (with your utter silence) that there is no accessible evidence for resettlement of millions. This fact doesn't bother you at all, yet your main argument against the holocaust is lack of evidence. You can call me stupid or a dupe or whatever, but at least i ain't no hypocrite. Though I wouldnt mind getting a hit of that sweet sweet copium you're on. Give me just a taste?

We know your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds and you hand wave away any point made that you can't discredit. But to reiterate, the whole point of keeping primary sources is so there can be no objection to their accuracy and legitimacy. Anyone who destroys them immediately puts their claims into doubt, no matter who it is. The fact that it doesn't makes any claims you make suspect because you start with a narrative and build facts to support it instead of looking at what the facts show and how any party could manipulate them to an ends.

Yes there is no immediate evidence the Soviet Union puts forth to support the Nazi claim that they were resettled. Does that surprise me? Not at all. They've completely fabricated the narrative of industrial wholesale genocide, so why would they keep evidence to the contrary? Stalin himself was so paranoid and control focused he literally had people removed from old photographs and deleted from written history. I have no doubts he would do that with anything not supporting the holocaust narrative.

Again you can't provide the bodies to prove the murders so everything else is lip service, despite your protests.

 

[Chugger]

Yes there is no immediate evidence the Soviet Union puts forth to support the Nazi claim that they were resettled. Does that surprise me? Not at all. They've completely fabricated the narrative of industrial wholesale genocide, so why would they keep evidence to the contrary?

Nah i'm talking about German documents (there should be millions given the level of documentation of ghettos) + all the witnesses to such an event

BTW ussr folded 30 years ago and they couldnt even cover up katyn, which would be tiddlywinks in comparison

Gimme sum o dat copium yessum

Bro Stalin loved the jews so much this happened a few years later

Doctors' plot - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Youse postulatin conspiracies within conspiracies

 

[Bonesjones]

Damn you mean they failed to cover up one set of warcrimes, so that means they just stopped trying? All it shows is they would do them and attempt to cover up and blame Germany for them.

Maybe they killed the jews and blamed Germany? Is that what you are pushing for now?

 

[Chugger]

Damn you mean they failed to cover up one set of warcrimes, so that means they just stopped trying? All it shows is they would do them and attempt to cover up and blame Germany for them.

well I'd say it stand to reason that if the Soviets were unable to cover up evidence of a small operation (Katyn) they would be unable to cover up evidence of an operation many thousand times larger in terms of paper trail and witnesses

Maybe they killed the jews and blamed Germany? Is that what you are pushing for now?

No there's no documentary, witness, or physical evidence that the USSR killed the Jews, at least not targeting them explicitly

 

[Bonesjones]

well I'd say it stand to reason that if the Soviets were unable to cover up evidence of a small operation (Katyn) they would be unable to cover up evidence of an operation many thousand times larger in terms of paper trail and witnesses


No there's no documentary, witness, or physical evidence that the USSR killed the Jews, at least not targeting them explicitly

Confirmation bias.

You just posted some.

You are completely unable to keep anything you do or say straight. You just present ideas piecemeal and hope no one connects any dots between them.

 

[Chugger]

Confirmation bias.

You just posted some.

You are completely unable to keep anything you do or say straight. You just present ideas piecemeal and hope no one connects any dots between them.

Bro, how high are you? The doctors plot happened 5 years after the end of WW2 and no Jews were killed. A few doctors got arrested. It was Stalin's idea so after he died they gave up on it. The point is, Stalin was no friend of the Jews and was the number one guy in the USSR.

I hope you're just fucked up on drugs, in which case, clear your head a little and maybe we can talk. Otherwise uhhh-- you should look into the Dunning-Kruger effect lol . See ya

 

[Bonesjones]

Bro, how high are you? The doctors plot happened 5 years after the end of WW2 and no Jews were killed. A few doctors got arrested. It was Stalin's idea so after he died they gave up on it. The point is, Stalin was no friend of the Jews and was the number one guy in the USSR.

I hope you're just fucked up on drugs, in which case, clear your head a little and maybe we can talk. Otherwise uhhh-- you should look into the Dunning-Kruger effect lol . See ya

Lmao get fucked nerd

 

[Lemmingwise]

well I'd say it stand to reason that if the Soviets were unable to cover up evidence of a small operation (Katyn) they would be unable to cover up evidence of an operation many thousand times larger in terms of paper trail and witnesses

Survivor's bias. You always only know about the unsuccesful coverups.

 

[Chugger]

Survivor's bias. You always only know about the unsuccesful coverups.

Well I hope you'd agree that just because a mass coverup can in theory exist doesn't mean it DOES exist.

Is there any evidence of this coverup? (eg like the letter I showed earlier from Globocnik saying the Reinhard camps had been dismantled and surveillance farms built on top of them + all vouchers and data being destroyed)

Or is the only thing we have a motive?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Well I hope you'd agree that just because a mass coverup can in theory exist doesn't mean it DOES exist.

Is there any evidence of this coverup? (eg like the letter I showed earlier from Globocnik saying the Reinhard camps had been dismantled and surveillance farms built on top of them + all vouchers and data being destroyed)

Or is the only thing we have a motive?

I'm not going into 25 back and forth with you again, and you already know why.

You said coverups were impossible. That's wrong. Coverups are possible. I appreciate that you can acknowledge that, now.