No. Why do you ask? Translation works well since it's transcribed. On chrome browser right click translate
This is a good excuse to go to the primary source. In the case of the 1965 auschwitz trial it's all available on the site I showed lemming
The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2019
Thank you for these links I'm delving into the most incredible intellectual wellspring that is Wikipedia. I had no idea this level of creation and knowledge was out there. Currently reading about "Hey Arnold" and it's blowing my mind.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
Okay, so share the transcript of the jaeger confession. Share it german, share it translated in english, up to you.
You were using it as an example of proof, so I'm sure you're familiar with it and not just throwing out random stuff and see what sticks, right?
When did you first read it, yourself?
The Jaeger confession is 29 pages long and has not been transcribed, so no I've only read translated excerpts https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hol...sh-mass-graves-in-lithuania-t2014.html#p72911
The reason I brought it up was because mrolonzo baselessly stated the Jaeger report was a "copy of a copy" (it clearly isn't) and otherwise dubious
In addition to the Jaeger report, I said we had his post-war confession, a 1942 handwritten note from him confirming the figure of 130k Jews (including 35k children) shot in 4 months, and hundreds of other supporting documents and witness statements concerning specific shootings related in the report.
Is a single piece of evidence proof? No. If there was evidence of a thousand non-working Polish Jews being resettled in USSR territory (like a witness statement to this effect or a German document) this single piece of evidence would not prove millions had been resettled there as revisionists believe. Rather for something of this magnitude to be "proven" (to say close to 100% certainty) there needs to be a constellation of evidence that supports the hypothesis from many different angles, and a corresponding lack of evidence for any opposing position.
Now it happens that my job here is pretty easy, and the contrast to the Holocaust evidence pretty stark, because there isn't even a single piece of evidence showing non-working Jews were being maintained in USSR into 42/43. This was the point I was making to mrolonzo here when I brought up the report in tandem with a bunch of other evidence.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2019
"is this anecdote from some random pole evidence? perhaps not. but i feel it's powerful and thus proven 100% and the beginning of a constellation of proof."
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
Reading the confession, it indeed seems that before his suicide he had confessed that he was instructed that jews were the bearers of communism, were inclined to acts of sabotage and therefor were to be shot. As a result it's only the numbers of the report that are under question as it seems to me.
I mean the jaeger report wasn't produced until 4 years after his death, and was produced by the USSR in 1963 if wikipedia is to be believed. You only seem to have doubt of USSR sources when other people point it out. Never independently for yourself. I'm sure this is a sign of innocent oversight and not of a rabid partisanship and closedmindedness.
You're right he doesn't list the numbers, but in the confession he repeatedly contradicts the revisionist narrative, eg by mentioning Heydrich's orders that "the Jews in the East must be shot" and that in his opinion they were being "killed only because of their faith and their race".
Nevertheless the 135k number is affirmed by numerous documents, like the Stalhecker map and this handwritten note to Stahlecker, which I posted earlier.
No, maybe I would doubt it if it wasn't supported by hundreds of other documents and witness statements. It's a very specific report you as you know. Also we have to distinguish between documents found in Soviet aligned territories (which included Berlin) and pronouncements of officials, like the claim that 4 million people (not Jews) were killed at Auschwitz. USSR made other crazy claims for propagandistic reasons, like millions of German soldiers dying and being taken prisoners during the 6 month Barbarossa offensive.
Basically, anything from secondary sources (eg wikipedia or the USSR) should be parsed by following references until you get to either documents or witness testimony, which is really what should be evaluated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
There's more than one and you know it. Don't play dumb.
This one was "found" in lithuania and we know how trustworthy USSR documentation is. I chase one piece of evidence down that you put forth and it's embarrassing for you. Your claim of it being from west germany and therefor trustworthy is once again intentionally misleading.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2022
Riddle me this: If Hitler was fighting three wars, why would he have expended resources to find and detain Jews? It seems contra productive to the war efforts.
The Holocaust never happened.
The Holocaust never happened.
yeah sorry. I should say the 'denier' narrative, to distinguish between you guys and people like David Irving and David Cole, who have doubts about Auschwitz but think the mainstream numbers are basically correct.
What are you talking about? I never claimed the Jaeger report was found in West Germany. I'd say you were trying to frame me, but I 'm almost certain you're not doing it intentionally. I think you're a decent guy, just struggling a bit with historical evidence that is complicated, unfamiliar, and contradicts strong beliefs you hold.
Last edited:
FlamingPie
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2015
Simple: this is Clown World. Someone can fight a war on two fronts and still be dumb enough to kill randos by the millions. Of course, one could counter-argue it's just as possible for someone to be stupid enough to try to fake a genocide using the most bare bones methods and call it a day.
Bonesjones
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2021
This guy once wrote a letter saying we killed 12 billion jews in the holocaust, this definitely proves everything. Bodies? Who needs that we've got admissions under torture it happened. Why would I need physical evidence that any of it happened?
Round and round she goes, jewish bodies? No one knows.
Round and round she goes, jewish bodies? No one knows.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Probably late to the party, but:
I believe that it both happened, and did not happen. I think the truth is far more complex than what one side (6 trillion died!) and the other (they didn't die! but they deserved it!) believe and hold as gospel. My view is that, initially, their plan was to simply intern them in concentration camps - akin to the internment of Japanese-Americans contemporaneously in the United States and the Boers in South Africa only forty years prior - and keep them there until some kind of deportation was arranged. There are clear efforts of the German Government attempting some form of this, with the Haavara Agreement in 1933 and the various schemes like the Madagaskar Plan, but for one reason or another this fell through.
Following this, the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in occupied Russia speak more on general violence directed in occupied territories, which is commonplace throughout history, but clearly with a directed slant against the Jewry. There was also clear collaboration with this with the local citizenry, as in cases like Babi Yar. In this "period," the MO is a clear line from other actions taken by armies throughout history: open massacres and clearing of villages and areas. But was this a directly sanctioned and ordered action from the high command, or spontaneous violence? I lean towards the latter, of spontaneous acts of violence orchestrated by unit commanders. These tend to be how massacres and war crimes happen, across all nations. Not necessarily sponsored by the state apparatus, but undertaken by those in command on the ground.
But I guess this thread is more clearly about the camps. My view is that there was no clear action taken to specifically murder all of them, as in Hitler directly ordered them to start killing them all. I think it was one action that snowballed into a bigger thing, undertaken sporadically and carelessly and without real oversight or reasoning. The Final Solution, as it's said to have been conducted, seems to have originated between Himmler and Heydrich, probably spurned on by Himmler. If we trust it, and we draw the line from there, it seems that the actual actions undertaken under that order are vaguely implemented by various unit commanders in different ways.
I would say, however, most of the deaths that happened at those camps were by and large due to willful neglect by the Germans, who had neither the reason nor the capability to feed, clothe, or medicate any of the prisoners when by that point, they barely had the capability to reliably do that for their home front or their Army.
I believe that it both happened, and did not happen. I think the truth is far more complex than what one side (6 trillion died!) and the other (they didn't die! but they deserved it!) believe and hold as gospel. My view is that, initially, their plan was to simply intern them in concentration camps - akin to the internment of Japanese-Americans contemporaneously in the United States and the Boers in South Africa only forty years prior - and keep them there until some kind of deportation was arranged. There are clear efforts of the German Government attempting some form of this, with the Haavara Agreement in 1933 and the various schemes like the Madagaskar Plan, but for one reason or another this fell through.
Following this, the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in occupied Russia speak more on general violence directed in occupied territories, which is commonplace throughout history, but clearly with a directed slant against the Jewry. There was also clear collaboration with this with the local citizenry, as in cases like Babi Yar. In this "period," the MO is a clear line from other actions taken by armies throughout history: open massacres and clearing of villages and areas. But was this a directly sanctioned and ordered action from the high command, or spontaneous violence? I lean towards the latter, of spontaneous acts of violence orchestrated by unit commanders. These tend to be how massacres and war crimes happen, across all nations. Not necessarily sponsored by the state apparatus, but undertaken by those in command on the ground.
But I guess this thread is more clearly about the camps. My view is that there was no clear action taken to specifically murder all of them, as in Hitler directly ordered them to start killing them all. I think it was one action that snowballed into a bigger thing, undertaken sporadically and carelessly and without real oversight or reasoning. The Final Solution, as it's said to have been conducted, seems to have originated between Himmler and Heydrich, probably spurned on by Himmler. If we trust it, and we draw the line from there, it seems that the actual actions undertaken under that order are vaguely implemented by various unit commanders in different ways.
I would say, however, most of the deaths that happened at those camps were by and large due to willful neglect by the Germans, who had neither the reason nor the capability to feed, clothe, or medicate any of the prisoners when by that point, they barely had the capability to reliably do that for their home front or their Army.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
This is very close to my own view on things.
Early on in the thread I argued that this would cause people (and the gov of my country) to call me a denier, or perhaps it was in one of the threads that preceded this one. I was told, no, if I acknowledged deaths of at least hundreds of thousands of jews, I was not a denier. But I am once again vindicated by our resident pilpuller who calls me a denier for views quite close to what you just posted.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
It's a view that has no friends on either side, to be sure.
Furthermore, I really do believe that the acts that happened as the War went on in regards to the Final Solution were, above all else, acts of frustration, desperation, and wrathful anger more than some cold and systematic purge. If it was the latter, then they would've done it when they had them in the camps in the first place. But I lean towards the belief that they felt as though the War was lost, that everything was falling apart anyway, and they'd might as well take a few of them down with them. I don't think that this was a conscious policy, or even one that was issued through innuendo like Aktion Reinhard was, but rather simply an outpouring of various peoples' desire to deal with them while they had the chance.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
Saw this article (archive) being promoted on Twitter and immediately thought of this thread, wondering if anyone has any opinions on it.
I know one of the Revisionist talking points is the lack of actual written evidence for the Holocaust, though some Nazis have spoken explicitly about it after the fact mostly at Nuremberg which Revisionists like Denierbud have called into question due to the setting. I don't speak German so I'm not going to make a statement on the legitimacy of the translation in the bit of video they've provided it's not much, just 5 or so seconds at the end.
Does this have the potential to shape up the conversation or is it just a cheap way to generate hype for a upcoming doc?
I know one of the Revisionist talking points is the lack of actual written evidence for the Holocaust, though some Nazis have spoken explicitly about it after the fact mostly at Nuremberg which Revisionists like Denierbud have called into question due to the setting. I don't speak German so I'm not going to make a statement on the legitimacy of the translation in the bit of video they've provided it's not much, just 5 or so seconds at the end.
Does this have the potential to shape up the conversation or is it just a cheap way to generate hype for a upcoming doc?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
"If"
Also it's very suspicious that it takes 80 years to unearth these tapes. This is becoming almost as many years between when we started writing about norse pagan religious traditions and when they were actually practiced, or the time distance between the events of the bible regarding jesus, compared to when they were first written down.
Last edited:
It didn't take 80 years. The tapes were known about in 1960, though no one cared too much. Eichmann had already confessed so the Holocaust was never in question.
I posted about these earlier in this thread ('the sassen tapes') . @Clorox Cowboy here is context for the first quote
Some might question why the millions of victims of the great purge and holodomor haven't been dug up. How can we know it happened without the bodies?
The answer is that you don't need to dig up millions of bodies when events are overwhelmingly evidenced in other ways. From the 30s and 40s on we knew these things had happened due to intelligence and witness reports from people who escaped the USSR. After the opening of Soviet archives and the discovery of documents, censuses, etc, historians have been able to establish more precise death counts.
But the case for the Holocaust may actually be stronger due to the total lack of evidence for any other historical altenative. The ghettos were emptied of Jews, with a minority being taken for labor and the rest - according to deniers - just disappeared. No paper trail or witness testimony gives any explanation about what may have happened to them.
Holocaust doesn't refer to persecution or even pogrom-esque vigilante violence-- but systematic genocide on a mass scale. You're changing definitions. Just own it, unless you believe the Nazis purposefully starved millions of Jews to death after they left the ghettos, something that is no better evidenced than resettlement
Last edited: