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

[Lemmingwise]

How about you raise a single, specific Holocaust-related issue on which you think I am "dodging." I will answer it.

First, you guys may be united in your belief, but the forum is a disparate mass of opinions. For example, I know I don't agree with bonesjones. Similarly, I knew I didn't agree with rapechu.

That is nature of a taboo and mostly illegal subject of inquiry for europeans, whereas americans have a language and evidence batrier. So to offer this to a group makes no sense.

Similarly, it makes no sense to only offer one question. If you were a scientist defending a theory, you would and should be able to answer any question rather than just one.

So the exercise makes no sense.

Why don't you show the kind of humility I did and admit mistake when you misread a comment? Why did you not do the same when you realised that in total war, the paying for fuel is more of a formality, where the exchange depends on geopolotical decisions, rather than depending on cash reserves?

More importantly, your frame is nonsense. The goal should be to find truth, not to play forum games. The fact that you eliminate the possibility that either of you would change position or learn something speaks volumes to both your arrogance and zealotry on the subject, rather than curiosity or openmindedness.

 

[History Speaks]

Why don't you show the kind of humility I did and admit mistake when you misread a comment? Why did you not do the same when you realised that in total war, the paying for fuel is more of a formality, where the exchange depends on geopolotical decisions, rather than depending on cash reserves?

It was not a "formality" for Nazi Germany to pay other countries for imports of essential raw materials (including but not limited to fuel). After its failed attempt to conquer the Soviet Union in 1941, Germany had no other viable option but to pay other countries many critical imports, for which they needed money. You are making me question my assessment of you as not particularly dumb by doubling down on this utter stupidity that money was not important for the German war effort, a statement which I was kind enough to ignore the first time.

Anyway, you have provoked me into answering your statement in detail.

The relevant period of time we are discussing, i.e. the extermination of Jews in Aktion Reinhardt, begins in early 1942. We talked about three countries specifically, Turkey, Romania, and Sweden, from which Germany needed imports.

Why did they have to pay for these imports, rather than "just invading" these countries and taking the needed resources? We will begin with Turkey.

In early 1942, Nazi Germany was in absolutely no position to invade Turkey to secure its chrome. Turks are no joke militarily (remember that the Ottomans had outright defeated the British in the Battle of Gallipoli during World War I.). In view of Germany's protracted war against the Soviets following Barbarossa's failure in 1941, as well as German's ongoing war against the British in North Africa (a war necessary to prevent the Allied invasion of Europe from the south), the Germans were in no position to spare the troops and munitions needed to conquer Turkey, you silly little man.

Similarly, if Germany had invaded Romania on a sham pretext to steal its oil, it would have completely alienated its allies. This was something Hitler was highly fearful of. Indeed, he launched the doomed eastern offensive Operational Citadel in 1943 solely to regain prestige and support from his allies after various setbacks.

As for Sweden, the Nazis were afraid of invading them because Sweden would have immediately requested relief from the Western Allies, meaning that the Western Allies would have established bases in Scandinavia. The Nazis far preferred a neutral Sweden that prohibited any foreign military intervention on its soil.

You are going up against someone who has read a ton about the subject matter, and you are shooting from the hip here. Try harder. You sound really dumb making points like this.

 

[Lemmingwise]

It was not a "formality" for Nazi Germany to pay other countries for imports of essential raw materials (including but not limited to fuel). After its failed attempt to conquer the Soviet Union in 1941, Germany had no other viable option but to pay other countries many critical imports, for which they needed money. You are making me question my assessment of you as not particularly dumb by doubling down on this utter stupidity that money was not important for the German war effort, a statement which I was kind enough to ignore the first time.

Anyway, you have provoked me into answering your statement in detail.

The relevant period of time we are discussing, i.e. the extermination of Jews in Aktion Reinhardt, begins in early 1942. We talked about three countries specifically, Turkey, Romania, and Sweden, from which Germany needed imports.

Why did they have to pay for these imports, rather than "just invading" these countries and taking the needed resources? We will begin with Turkey.

In early 1942, Nazi Germany was in absolutely no position to invade Turkey to secure its chrome. Turks are no joke militarily (remember that the Ottomans had outright defeated the British in the Battle of Gallipoli during World War I.). In view of Germany's protracted war against the Soviets following Barbarossa's failure in 1941, as well as German's ongoing war against the British in North Africa (a war necessary to prevent the Allied invasion of Europe from the south), the Germans were in no position to spare the troops and munitions needed to conquer Turkey, you silly little man.

Similarly, if Germany had invaded Romania on a sham pretext to steal its oil, it would have completely alienated its allies. This was something Hitler was highly fearful of. Indeed, he launched the doomed eastern offensive Operational Citadel in 1943 solely to regain prestige and support from his allies after various setbacks.

As for Sweden, the Nazis were afraid of invading them because Sweden would have immediately requested relief from the Western Allies, meaning that the Western Allies would have established bases in Scandinavia. The Nazis far preferred a neutral Sweden that prohibited any foreign military intervention on its soil.

You are going up against someone who has read a ton about the subject matter, and you are shooting from the hip here. Try harder. You sound really dumb making points like this.

You are now arguing my point, as you did before, where it is strategic considerations rather than money, which principally decides this kind of resource transfer during times of total war.

This goes against your earlier point. I'm glad you have given the matter some thought after I challenged you on it.

For example at one point romania stopped trading oil to germany. Why? Could they not agree on price?

For that matter the EU today is refusing to buy russian gas and such. Why? Could they not agree on price?

You made a stupid point and now you are doubling down. It's true I'm shooting from the hip and the fact that you not only made such a mistake, but then are unwilling to concede the point and own up to your mistake, is embarrassing.

I'll requote it:

Deniers emphasize the fuel costs of exterminating Jews, but never mention the money Germany made from plundering everything the murdered Jews had on their persons and in many cases in their luggage

It was a shitty redirect to begin with that didn't address why a country would waste fuel, because even if it can be bought, why waste the money? But it was a comical lack of understanding of the fuel problem for a self professed expert that it was funny to hone in on.

You only expose your own retardation when someone shooting from the hip teaches you something about the realities of strategic geopolitics. The fact that you did not grasp this independently is a sign you have poor conception of how powerful people relate to each other, which is a sign you have no power in your own life, which is probably why you have been failing to launch something so easy as a youtube career.

I would have a lot more respect for you if learned to take an L. Being realistic about where you are is an essential step towards growth as a person.

Don't mind me just trying to help a youngster like you to not be so self destructive and double down on a mistake.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

You are now arguing my point, as you did before, where it is strategic considerations rather than money, which principally decides this kind of resource transfer during times of total war.

This goes against your earlier point. I'm glad you have given the matter some thought after I challenged you on it.

For example at one point romania stopped trading oil to germany. Why? Could they not agree on price?

For that matter the EU today is refusing to buy russian gas and such. Why? Could they not agree on price?

You made a stupid point and now you are doubling down. It's true I'm shooting from the hip and the fact that you not only made such a mistake, but then are unwilling to concede the point and own up to your mistake, is embarrassing.

I'll requote it:

It was a shitty redirect to begin with that didn't address why a country would waste fuel, because even if it can be bought, why waste the money? But it was a comical lack of understanding of the fuel problem for a self professed expert that it was funny to hone in on.

You only expose your own retardation when someone shooting from the hip teaches you something about the realities of strategic geopolitics. The fact that you did not grasp this independently is a sign you have poor conception of how powerful people relate to each other, which is a sign you have no power in your own life, which is probably why you have been failing to launch something so easy as a youtube career.

I would have a lot more respect for you if learned to take an L. Being realistic about where you are is an essential step towards growth as a person.

Don't mind me just trying to help a youngster like you to not be so self destructive and double down on a mistake.

Jesus fucking christ Lemmingwise. We don't need evidence of a holocaust, because you just put this guy in a hastily dug ditch and blew his brains out with a Kar98K.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I think you're talking about something more serious--intentional deception? That I'm lying should be blatant and obvious.

Why are you acting like this is something new? I must have pointed to about 20-30 times where you misrepresented things at this point.

I'm not planning on going back and pointing them all out again. Or sift through them and elevate one as the most significant.

Why the sudden interest in talking about where you misrepresented things?
Maybe it's because I show signs of being reasonable, because I admit when I make a mistake. Maybe thats why you suddenly want to address your deceitful reputation for the first time. But since you have never shown a sign of being reasonable yourself, what evidence do I have of you being reasonable? What is there for me to gain?

You may want to point to what you seem to regard as your magnum opus: your interaction with rapechu. I also remember that it was only the second attempt that worked. At first hurdle the mutual challenge fell apart, as you were trying really hard to control the territory of discussion instead of going into it. You made a similar request of wanting the most important reason elevated.

If the holocaust held similar standards of inquiry for you, it would have been dismissed. If only the best, biggest example brought forward by a side counted (auschwitz) the entire thing would be wiped of the table with those standards.

We all know history is never that simple, but it should be noted that the people who wiped it off the table were also called deniers, experienced reputational attacks, had propaganda movies made about them or were even physically attacked or politically persecuted for it.

And you continue to double down on that, too. You make an implicit appeal for people to stop asking questions, rather than appealing elsewhere to allow soil examinations or to break the taboo and illegality of discussion.

Of course here you have to agree that it shoulsn't be illegal, you couldn't get a foot in the door to discussion if you didn't, but your zealotry is not aimed at removing restrictions. Instead you try to lure people into exposing their voices on podcasts or videos, when you know the platforms you post it on have removed literal thousands of videos of opposing viewpoints. Yet you don't lobby for those voices to be heard.

Your framing for discussion in the way you pitched your producer for your podcast was paranoia. You seem to think people that disagree with you suffer mental illness. You have had three dozen chances. Why should I give another?

I suggest you cover your mirror and sit on a low stool.

 

[Chugger]

If the holocaust held similar standards of inquiry for you, it would have been dismissed. If only the best, biggest example brought forward by a side counted (auschwitz) the entire thing would be wiped of the table with those standards.

Bro you are schizo posting, calm down. I'm just trying to focus the discussion and avoid cherry picking your arguments, and I've said I will answer any and all questions lol.

Unlike you guys, I'll gladly answer any historical question.

But if you don't want to talk anymore, that's your prerogative. If you don't want to try to validate your allegations against me, which I consider baseless, you don't have to either. You're misrepresenting things, but I don't think you're doing it maliciously. Your case is quite bad, so I have some sympathy for you. We are all mentally ill to some extent, and trying to defend an untenable and ludicrous historical position can't be easy on the mind.

Obviously, the goal would be to get him to accept the truth about Nazi extermination by gassing and mass shooting, but he is moving in the right direction. And it is also noteworthy that, after admitting that most Jews in Nazi custody must have died, Rapechu vanished from the forum.

Well after determining there was no evidence of the Nazis maintaining resettled Jews and that the vast majority had died, my plan with Rapechu was to move on to documents like this 'Combating Partisans and Aktion Against Jews in the Generalbezirk of Byelorussia'

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-holocaust-thread.68380/post-10679953

validated as authentic by Mattogno and which states the scheduled killings of most Jews in Belarus, including children, Jews from Germany, and eventually even the Jews employed in vital industries and currently protected by the army. A rationale is provided -"There will then be no further danger that the partisans can still rely to any real extent on Jewry" - so what we are dealing with here is (from the perpetrator's perspective) justifiable genocide -

Another example of this line of thinking would be Himmler's quote about having to kill the women and the children so they would not rise up as avengers in the future, or Eichmann's statement to Sassen about future generations paying for the Nazis failure to effect a "complete elimination" of European Jewry.

Rapechu was almost out of the woods.

 

[History Speaks]

Chugger, Whenever you quote from the copious wartime documents showing Germany was systematically killing the Jews, they either imply (with no evidence) that they are forged, or claim documentary evidence, which is the foundation of history (not just for the Holocaust), does not matter because, according to copypasta from an image board, the Holocaust is "scientifically impossible."

 

[Chugger]

Chugger, Whenever you quote from the copious wartime documents showing Germany was systematically killing the Jews, they either imply (with no evidence) that they are forged, or claim documentary evidence, which is the foundation of history (not just for the Holocaust), does not matter because, according to copypasta from an image board, the Holocaust is "scientifically impossible."

I like 'Combating Partisans and Aktion Against Jews in the Generalbezirk of Byelorussia' because Mattogno validated it, but yeah it's tough

Best practice is try to slow the conversation down and keep things thorough (eg, why do you believe this document is forged? let's talk about it)

And hardest of all, stay empathetic. They're attacking your character because their other arguments aren't really viable.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm obviously not going to stop posting; another misrepresentation of what I wrote.

You're attacking lack of resettlement records, because you lack forensic evidence for the burning, for the holocaust (burnt offering). And in either case it doesn't address the lack of evidence for mass gassing. After 200 posts of that, it's worth pointing to character.

 

[Bonesjones]

Don't worry they have no plans of stopping their retarded posting either. They'll just keep ducking and dodging anything that makes their arguments ridiculous, frame everything as beneath addressing, etc.

Look at them pivot from death camps back to the Nazis killed them so its genocide. It's all so childish.

 

[Chugger]

I'm obviously not going to stop posting; another misrepresentation of what I wrote.

I said 'if' lol. I was speculating.

I hope we still get to talk, but it's obviously a frustrating experience for you, so I understand if you don't want to engage with me

You're attacking lack of resettlement records, because you lack forensic evidence. And in either case it doesn't address the lack of evidence for mass gassing. After 200 posts of that, it's worth pointing to character.

I'll put the evidence for mass gassing up against the evidence for resettlement any day . any day

 

[History Speaks]

One thing we have not discussed here is the Leuchter Report. Do some or all of the deniers hear believe in that particular absurdity, Chugger?

 

[Chugger]

One thing we have not discussed here is the Leuchter Report. Do some or all of the deniers hear believe in that particular absurdity, Chugger?

I don't know, I don't remember it coming up. I'm sure there's some Leuchter fans here. But the ones in the know will flaunt the Rudolf Report . . . .

 

[Lemmingwise]

If you want to talk chugger, you should try answering some questions. I asked a number. Despite your offer to answer any questions, you don't seem to do so.

The new silence from history speaks in regards to economic geopolitics is resounding, btw.

But instead you're going to slide it back and hope people don't see it, apparently.

 

[History Speaks]

I genuinely do not understand what your point is in this regard. Are you saying that money was irrelevant to the Nazis? Or that they could not buy fuel (e.g. oil from Romania) with money? Or something else? Try to rephrase your point in a concise manner because I did not understand your last post at all.

I don't know, I don't remember it coming up. I'm sure there's some Leuchter fans here. But the ones in the know will flaunt the Rudolf Report . . . .

I cannot speak for anyone here, but Mike Enoch is still defending at least the main part of the Leuchter report, i.e. his samples from the gas chambers. This is laughable since, as I tried to tell Mike in an email today, Leuchter did not control for the depth of his samples (obviously samples near the surface will have more hydrogen cyanide than samples deeper in the wall), or even differentiate between brick and mortar (the latter being much more susceptible to hydrogen cyanide). Dude just hacked away at the wall.

 

[Chugger]

If you want to talk chugger, you should try answering some questions. I asked a number. Despite your offer to answer any questions, you don't seem to do so.

Which one should I answer? Your last post was just a cavalcade of attacks on my character.

 

[Bonesjones]

If you want to talk, you should try answering some questions.

The new silence from history speaks in regards to economic geopolitics is resouding, btw.

But instead you're going to slide it back and hope people don't see it, apparently.

They still haven't shown any evidence that they had the required material to cremate over a million people. Which makes it all irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many trucks you own if you can't gas them up to use them.

Also their appeals to authority. They always post about who said what where, because it's easy to twist and misquote, so they can walk back their statements when proven wrong. It's hard to prove things not physically existing wrong in any capacity.

They've both inevitably blocked me because they think my posting is directed at them and not showing what fools they are to anyone reading.

 

[History Speaks]

They still haven't shown any evidence that they had the required material to cremate over a million people. Which makes it all irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many trucks you own if you can't gas them up to use them.

Also their appeals to authority. They always post about who said what where, because it's easy to twist and misquote, so they can walk back their statements when proven wrong. It's hard to prove things not physically existing wrong in any capacity.

They've both inevitably blocked me because they think my posting is directed at them and not showing what fools they are to anyone reading.

I have posted a copy of an original document from the Nazis at Auschwitz showing that their cremation capacity was massive, i.e. 4,756 bodies a day (also reposted). This is easily enough to burn the corpses the mainstream history says they burned, even considering the time that they would have needed to deactivate the cremas for repairs, etc.

The image board claims of impossibility are based on the time it would have taken ma and pa funeral homes to burn that many bodies (assuming equal cremation capacities). In response to this, I have also tried to explain that cremation at Auschwitz was faster and required less fuel than commercial cremation at a ma and pa funeral home, because at Auschwitz they cremated multiple bodies at once and the cremas ran all day (the longer the cremas are running, the less fuel you need to burn bodies, because of built up heat).

After I made these points you guys just resorted to memes and straw men (e.g. JohnDoes claimed I had said that an individual body burns faster if another body is burning alongside it, which I never said. Instead I said that it takes less time and fuel to burn three bodies together than the combined time it takes to burn 3 bodies individually in three seperate individual sessions).

In terms of you specifically Bones, all you appear to be capable of doing is repeating this claim of "scientifically impossible" you found on image boards. But you cannot defend this claim analytically, or debunk my analysis. You just repeat your image board mantras like a barking dog.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Which one should I answer? Your last post was just a cavalcade of attacks on my character.

Pick any one you like. They're demarcated with a symbol called a question mark.

I genuinely do not understand what your point is in this regard. Are you saying that money was irrelevant to the Nazis, or that they could not buy fuel (e.g. oil from Romania) with money? Try to rephrase your point in a concise manner because I did not understand your ast post at all.

I think you understand fine and are playing dumb. It's a very womanly way to approach things. Nobody else was confused by my point or questions.

You are an expert in this field, remember? So you know why romania at some point stopped trading oil to germany. Was it because germany ran out of money? We both know the answer is no. So stop with the games.

 

[History Speaks]

Pick any one you like. They're demarcated with a symbol called a question mark.



I think you understand fine and are playing dumb. It's a very womanly way to approach things. Nobody else was confused by my point or questions.

You are an expert in this field, remember? So you know why romania at some point stopped trading oil to germany. Was it because germany ran out of money? We both know the answer is no. So stop with the games.

This is just silly. I am obviously saying money is not the only factor necessary to import a good. It was necessary, not sufficient for the Nazis to get oil from Romania.

Obviously after the Nazi effort was transparently doomed, Romania did not want to play ball with them anymore, no matter the money. But that has nothing to do with the time frame we are discussing, the beginning of AR in early 1942.