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

[mrolonzo]

A source for Hitler's remark on 17 April 1943 to Horthy is attached below. See the highlighted part (the footnote) Since you're most likely a monolingual Burger LARPing as a Nazi, you can use Yandex image translate. Not only did Hitler say that the Jews "had to perish" if they could not work, but the German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop also told Horthy in the same meeting that "the Jews must be exterminated or brought to concentration camps. There was no other possibility."

.View attachment 5041557​

Don't you notice the assymetry in evidence? I have a statement from Hitler saying 'if the JEws could not work they had to perish,' and an avalance of similar statements from Nazi leaders referring to the extermination of the Jews.

Conversely, you have zero objective evidence for your "hoax" allegation so you have to infer it from errors made by investigators and prosecutors in a trial, which happen all the time. (Incidentally, the errors you mentioned were not part of the final judgment at Nuremberg; nobody was "hanged" at Nuremberg for human soap, etc.).

There is no rational reason other than bias to infer "hoax" from such errors, particularly given that the Allies corrected them as they went. (e.g. at the First Belsen Trial, which the British conducted alone, at least one British government lawyer spoke of alleged gas chambers at Belsen; but the prosecution ultimately concluded that this charge was false and there were no gas chambers there. An odd concession for 'hoaxsters' bent on smearing the Germans to make!)

LMAO

"
On 16 April Horthy told Hitler that Hungary had taken every possible measure against the Jews and that it could not kill them, to which Hitler replied that this was not necessary anyway, since they could be detained in concentration camps, as had been done in Slovakia. Because Horthy did not want to exterminate them, he should not hesitate to intern them. As Horthy was reluctant to adopt this measure, Ribbentrop admonished him on 17 April that he had only two options regarding the Jews: either exterminate them or put them in concentration camps.

In this context Hitler stressed (on 17 April) the need to bring the Jews under control. For this purpose, as stated by him the previous day, it was not necessary to exterminate them, but instead to put them in concentration camps.

A further example brought up by Hitler during the meeting on 17 April was the case of Poland, where the Jews who refused to work were shot, while those unable to work had to “verkommen,” that is, to degenerate, go to ruin, decline. This did not mean that they were to be exterminated, as is shown by the second last sentence, which contains the same verb in a similar context: “Nations who did not resist the Jews degenerated.” Hitler then gave as an example of this fate that of the Persians, who from former greatness, he claimed, in modern day survived as the pitiable Armenians."


Taken from MGK in their demolition of the holocaust controversies bloggers aka Nick Terry, Roberto Muhlenkamp, Sergei Romanov Han Meyer et al. I believe and posted on codoh.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13424&p=98117&hilit=Horthy#p98117

I'd normally post straight from the scholarship itself but the argument is too weak to even need any of that so this will easily satisfy everyone.


As for hoax errors, etc etc. It's true that the allies sometimes didn't accept the various allegations offered but the allies themselves had both intelligence and propaganda elements as well as post war fact finding elements that did not always marry up, understandably in a total war scenario where millions of men are drafted into various different positions. Moreover the allies various agencies were not the original source of the allegations. That was Jewish / polish resistance elements in the theatre. There is considerable evidence of this in highly detailed work that you ignore again and again.

 

[The Tall Man]

You have zero evidence of a conspiracy; all you have are investigative mistakes (many of which aren't even mistakes, although some were) which you then use to infer your conspiracy theory. Pathetic that you don't have a single witness to this conspiracy or document directly referring to it.

Can you even describe this "hoax" in any specific detail? Who knew about it? (Does Biden still know about it? Did FDR? Did Wilson?) When did the Allies decide to "frame" the Germans?

I like how you skipped the Skin Lampshades the human soap and the shrunken heads set up by the OSS. AGAIN !


https://odysee.com/@bodhimantra:c/Ry-Dawson-Holohoax:f?r=BdsZCpdx4VWEtzApkWRBJcJi8ACpTP5u&t=1261

Don't you notice the assymetry in evidence? I have a statement from Hitler saying 'if the JEws could not work they had to perish,' and an avalance of similar statements from Nazi leaders referring to the extermination of the Jews.

My Nigger, what you sent me can not be considered sauce. You post 1 page from a pdf you don't even name the book this is from and where the author got his information from.
Is this what you consider evidence?
No wonder you think there is mountains of evidence for the holocaust with that low of a bar for what constitutes good evidence. With that mindset you would have to consider every Hollywood movie about the holocaust evidence.

The OSS did not "create" the gas chamber narrative. That's an image board meme. The exterminations were first brought to public attention by the Polish Government-in-Exile.

Weird why did they send a member of parliament to Buchenwald, if they wanted to show them a death camp?

https://odysee.com/@bodhimantra:c/Ry-Dawson-Holohoax:f?r=BdsZCpdx4VWEtzApkWRBJcJi8ACpTP5u&t=1126
Why did the OSS set up the fake shrunken heads skin lampshades and human soap display?

What do you think the OSS did during and after the War?

The Dachau gas chamber was built by the Nazis (we have documentary proof of this). Although the Dachau gas chamber was not used, thousands of Dachau inmates were sent to Hartheim Castle (the "euthanasia" facility) and gassed there.

https://odysee.com/@bodhimantra/Ry-Dawson-Holohoax:f?r=BdsZCpdx4VWEtzApkWRBJcJi8ACpTP5u&t=1495
Why did the Nazis build a non functioning faux gas chamber?


Answer all these questions or don't answer at all.

 

[History Speaks]

Zo,

Sure, it wasn't necessary for Horthy to personally kill the Jews or order them to be killed, because he could just hand them over to the Germans (who would kill them). Note that this is not my interpretation; it is Horthy's. As the document I previously posted notes, he believed Hitler was angry at him for not 'allowing the Jews to be massacred.'

By the way, I wonder how you square Hitler's comments with the "resettlement" thesis of Mattogno, etc. Why do you think Hitler said that the Jews who did not want to work were shot, and those who could not work had to perish (or "had to go to ruin" to use your denier translation)? Why did Ribbentrop say the only options are extermination or concentration camps? Why isn't "resettlement" also an option?

Tall Man,
Your first few questions are completely nonsensical and irrelevant. For example, sending a member of Parliament to Buchenwald doesn't change the fact that the Western Allies rejected allegations of gassing there.

As to shrunken heads at Buchenwald, you are wrong to call them fake. They were real, and made by pathologists at Buchenwald. It should be noted however that they were not made pursuant to SS policy. In fact, we have documentary evidence of the pathologists who made the shrunken heads being called out and warned that this is a prohibited practice (See attached; document via Holocaust Controversies, see https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/11/nazi-shrunken-heads-human-skin.html).

Allegations that concentration camp inmates were made into soap were false; however, this rumor was so prevalent during the war that even Himmler was aware of it. The source of the rumor were experiments (not involving Jews) at the Danzig Anatomic INstitute, where human soap was indeed experimentally produced.

As to a human lampshade, this is widely rumored but there is no convincing evidence they were produced. One object alleged to have been a lampshade in a postwar exhibition was tested and found not to have been made of human skin.

You didn't mention human hair, but as the HC post I linked to notes, there is overwhelming evidence of its systematic collection and industrial use by the Nazis.

As to Dachau, there is a clear documentary record that the Nazis constructed this gas chamber and intended to use it to kill people.

For example, we have a note from from Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Heinrich Himmler, 9 August 1942, describing how (see second attachment):

the same installation as in Linz* is to be built in Dachau. As the 'invalid transports' terminate in the special chambers anyway I wondered if it would be possible to test the effects of our combat gases in these chambers using the persons who are destined for those chambers anyway

*this refers to the gas chamber in either Mauthausen or in Hartheim Castle

I do not know why they did not use the gas chamber they built, and preferred to murder Dachau inmates at the Hartheim Castle gas chamber. One can speculate on various technical grounds, but we really don't have evidence for such speculation. All that matters is that it was not used. You have a cartoonish view of history if you think that all details of history (in this case, the question why they didn't use it) are recoverable.

 

[The Tall Man]

History Speaks​

Why did the Germans build a non functioning faux gas chamber?

What did the OSS do during and after the war?


PS

Your first few questions are completely nonsensical and irrelevant. For example, sending a member of Parliament to Buchenwald doesn't change the fact that the Western Allies rejected allegations of gassing there.

They sent 10 MPs to Dachau and told them that Jews were systematically gassed to death there and that the Jews were turned into soap and skin lampshades there. In other words they lied to 10 British MPs on purpose and that doesn't really matter when talking about the holocaust as a psyops to you? Do you think they wouldn't willingly lie to the common people if they lied to allied government officials?
Why do you think they lied to the MPs?

You don't seem to be able to read German.
Why does the first letter named "Germen Order" have the recipient in the subject field?
The author of the letter doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind, the pathologist gets reprimanded for making "gift wares (shrunken heads and so on)".
This comical depiction of Germans gifting each other presents made out of Jewish corpses is very believable.
That's just how these evil Germans are sleeping on typhus invested Jewish corpse hair and sitting on couches made out of Jew cadavers, I mean they are goy whose soul is made out of dark husks aka Kellipot, which makes them inherently evil.
But then the author demands the Pathologist stop giving inmates medical aid immediately. Also very comically evil, very believable.
So was the Pathologist some evil sadist that made shrunken heads as gifts for his evil Nazi friends or did he provide medical aid to the inmates and the evil SS Sturmfuehrer didn't want him to aid the Jews?

You didn't mention human hair, but as the HC post I linked to notes, there is overwhelming evidence of its systematic collection and industrial use by the Nazis.

They were fighting Typhus, they collected and burned the hair.
There is no product made from human hair besides wigs.

But hey prove me wrong and provide the industrial amount of products made from Jewish hair?



The letter called "Dachau source" doesn't mention gas chamber it ask about permission to conduct tests on inmates. The letter reads like it was written by an elementary school kid. "Bin jetzt" is a very improper way to start a sentence, that is not something you would write in a letter, unless it's a letter to your sweetheart.
This is some Nuremberg stuff they got all the good shit like masturbation machines.

Stop posting blurry pictures you don't know the content of, without naming where they are from. Nobody with a three digit IQ can take this serious.


You are completely ignoring what the Dachau gas chamber is, it's a non functioning fake gas chambers.
They have drainage grates connected to the general drainage system in the floor that would obviously leak gas they have vents in the walls that would also leak gas, they have pipes and buttons that don't connect to anything, they plastered over the original showerheads and exposed pipes and stuck showerheads into the plaster.
No need to list everything about this "gas chamber" that makes it non-functional.
The gas chamber in Dachau is fake. A room was retrofitted with props to make it look like a "real" gas chamber (at least what the OSS people thought a gas chamber should look like).

Why did the Nazis build a fake gas chamber?

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

Denial is ridiculous and deniers are delusional.

• How receptive are Muslims to this message?
• Please detail your three most recent campaigns which specifically targeted Muslim communities.
• Please give statistics of Holocaust acceptance across demographics, including Muslims.

Still waiting on these answers, turncoat.

 

[mrolonzo]

Sure, it wasn't necessary for Horthy to personally kill the Jews or order them to be killed, because he could just hand them over to the Germans (who would kill them). Note that this is not my interpretation; it is Horthy's. As the document I previously posted notes, he believed Hitler was angry at him for not 'allowing the Jews to be massacred.'

Sure, but that's silly because the Germans weren't doing that. Didn't Irving quote Hitler on this from the conversations between Horthy and himself at the time? That hitler 'didn't think such an option would be necessary'.

Hitler himself literally denied the holocaust and here you are arguing this bullshit with us.

By the way, I wonder how you square Hitler's comments with the "resettlement" thesis of Mattogno, etc. Why do you think Hitler said that the Jews who did not want to work were shot, and those who could not work had to perish (or "had to go to ruin" to use your denier translation)? Why did Ribbentrop say the only options are extermination or concentration camps? Why isn't "resettlement" also an option?

Probably depends on the time they were discussing this. Mid 43 right? Soon there's less and less space to send them.

 

[History Speaks]

Zo,

Hitler' statement to HOrthy is past-tense, concerning what has happened to the Polish Jews over the last year and a half.

Why is he saying if they refused to work they were shot and that if they could not work they had to perish? Why not say that they had been resettled (since according to Mattogno that is what happened)?

While Hitler does get the weapon of killing wrong (says they were shot), his statement about what happened to the Polish Jews is vastly more consistent with the mainstream history than with denier "Resettlement" theory.

 

[Bonesjones]

While Hitler does get the weapon of killing wrong (says they were shot), his statement about what happened to the Polish Jews is vastly more consistent with the mainstream history than with denier "Resettlement" theory.

Clearly the holocaust was such a well kept secret, it was kept from Hitler himself. What dastardly evil people these Nazis are!

 

[History Speaks]

Clearly the holocaust was such a well kept secret, it was kept from Hitler himself. What dastardly evil people these Nazis are!

Large numbers of Polish Jews were shot, so the statement Hitler made is accurate. But even if interpreted as a mistake (i.e. interpreted as Hitler saying shooting and not gassing was the primary weapon used to kill the Polish Jews), so what? Why does the head of state have to concern himself with the methods of killing? While he wanted the Jews killed, how they were killed was a second order question beneath Hitler's purview.

It's hilarious how biased you guys are. I mean, a document of Hitler saying Jews who did not work were killed somehow supports Holocaust denial because he speaks of them being shot?

 

[Bonesjones]

Large numbers of Polish Jews were shot, so the statement Hitler made is accurate. But even if interpreted as a mistake (i.e. interpreted as Hitler saying shooting and not gassing was the primary weapon used to kill the Polish Jews), so what? Why does the head of state have to concern himself with the methods of killing? While he wanted the Jews killed, how they were killed was a second order question beneath Hitler's purview.

It's hilarious how biased you guys are. I mean, a document of Hitler saying Jews who did not work were killed somehow supports Holocaust denial because he speaks of them being shot?

We aren't talking about people being shot in the course of normal war activities, which you and every other holocaust historian try to conflate as being part of the Holocaust. The holocaust is simple and plain, it was the systematic genocide of jews using gas chambers and cremation. This is your own central argument. Why does it matter if Hitler didn't order them gassed and cremated? It only proves it didn't happen, directly. If Hitler didn't order the jews gassed and cremated, then you've signed the deathnell for your own narrative. Again you own yourself and forget what you are supposed to be arguing. If your own evidence for the Holocaust happening is them building death machines and not using them, the people who ordered it not ever actually ordering it. That only leaves one possibility, it didn't happen and it's all made up. So go disappear for another month and come back pretending like none of this happened again. I'll still be here ready to call you out for the absolute retards you all are.

 

[The Tall Man]

It's hilarious how biased you guys are.

Why did the Nazis build a fake gas chamber in Dachau?

 

[Mr Bubbless]

you know there's nothing inherently wrong with being brown. even if I have mexican DNA I have enough white heritage to be aryan. the people perpetuating the myth that aryans are white with blonde hair and blue eyes are just jews that want to gaslight the people into thinking hitler was crazy, when he actually understood that a multi-ethnic national socialist society is the definition of utopia. I see fellow natsocs crying about blacks fucking white women, but really I don't see anything wrong with that. we're all humans, who cares if a baby is born half black and half white? it's still a human baby, and since it's half white it's still aryan too

 

[mrolonzo]

you know there's nothing inherently wrong with being brown. even if I have mexican DNA I have enough white heritage to be aryan. the people perpetuating the myth that aryans are white with blonde hair and blue eyes are just jews that want to gaslight the people into thinking hitler was crazy, when he actually understood that a multi-ethnic national socialist society is the definition of utopia. I see fellow natsocs crying about blacks fucking white women, but really I don't see anything wrong with that. we're all humans, who cares if a baby is born half black and half white? it's still a human baby, and since it's half white it's still aryan too.

If it was a quarter white would it still be ayran too?

Zo,

Hitler' statement to HOrthy is past-tense, concerning what has happened to the Polish Jews over the last year and a half.

Why is he saying if they refused to work they were shot and that if they could not work they had to perish? Why not say that they had been resettled (since according to Mattogno that is what happened)?

While Hitler does get the weapon of killing wrong (says they were shot), his statement about what happened to the Polish Jews is vastly more consistent with the mainstream history than with denier "Resettlement" theory.

Is something preventing you from quoting me or is this a give no platform to nazis thing?

 

[John.Doe]

It's hilarious how biased you guys are

Dipshit, you think the Nazis could violate the law of conservation of energy!

 

[Spud]

I got a warning from ChatGPT for asking "is there any official statement that explicitly states that the jews are to be executed rather than worked to death". Wat mean?

 

[mrolonzo]

I got a warning from ChatGPT for asking "is there any official statement that explicitly states that the jews are to be executed rather than worked to death". Wat mean?

Chatgpt knows fuck all about the subject but also , the jew AI is on to you and has marked you for death.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

You have zero evidence of a conspiracy; all you have are investigative mistakes (many of which aren't even mistakes, although some were) which you then use to infer your conspiracy theory. Pathetic that you don't have a single witness to this conspiracy or document directly referring to it.

That's not how it works. Something Larry Correia said always stuck with me: "the difference between mistakes and malfeasance is that mistakes are random. If all the 'mistakes' accrue to the benefit of one party, then they're not actually mistakes." There doesn't need to be a conspiracy (at least in terms of collusion) to produce these results, because all the various sources (OSS, NKDV, MI-6) we're operating off the same incentive structure: "say the worst shit you possibly can about the Germans in order to rationalize the fact that your ruling class strip mined your country and fed tebs of thousands to millions of you into a meat grinder for their own benefit," just like they did in the last world war. Note that this doesn't mean that everything they said is fraudulent, but rather that propaganda operates in such a way that truth value is irrelevant beyond the degree that it can be used to "prove" an already existing narrative.

Can you even describe this "hoax" in any specific detail? Who knew about it? (Does Biden still know about it? Did FDR? Did Wilson?) When did the Allies decide to "frame" the Germans?

It wasn't one conspiracy, it was rather a cluster of official propaganda lines that got haphazard bodged together at the Nuremberg show trials- that's why the stories keep not matching up and embarrassing oopsies like Katyn had to be swept under the rug: there was no one "official story" until they created it openly, in public, at Nuremberg.

 

[Gog & Magog]

The holocaust is simple and plain, it was the systematic genocide of jews using gas chambers and cremation. This is your own central argument.

That's not the whole truth. The Holocaust encompassed all deadly actions against the Jews and anyone designated as such by the German and cooperating regimes, whether it was executing civilians out in the field in occupied territories, or intentionaly or recklessly creating conditions in ghettos and camps so terrible it killed them. And while Jews were the focus, millions of others shared the same fate on account of German perceptions of politics, nationality and race (although they are not lumped in with Jews as vitcims of the Holocaust and so are placed within their own categories,) I have never seen any WW2 historian or researcher limit the definition of Holocaust to only Jews who perished witin the the camp system. I know you guys speak in the Germans' defense because you believe they were unfairly blamed for the second world war by the Allies, but you go too far and "revise" entire histories of Germany, jews, Europe and the whole world even all to pretty up the face of a dead, warmongering regime that lasted a mere 12 years. You don't even know anyone who was involved and yet you take it all so personally.

 

[Bonesjones]

That's not the whole truth.

Yeah you gotta make up more stuff since the "facts" don't fit what you want to be the truth.

The Holocaust encompassed all deadly actions against the Jews and anyone designated as such by the German and cooperating regimes,

So now you are either revising what the holocaust is, or using Motte and Bailey arguments, since you can't prove your most basic assertions. Also funny you blame the Germans for genocide when the allies are all guilty of significantly worse. War crimes are for losers.

whether it was executing civilians out in the field in occupied territories, or intentionaly or recklessly creating conditions in ghettos and camps so terrible it killed them.

Shooting civilians in war is genocide, even if they are engaging in partisan warfare. Dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs on cities? Well we didn't mean to kill them, just an accident. So if the Germans recklessly created terrible conditions and it can be linked entirely to the destruction of supply lines by Allied forces, I guess that makes the allies guilty of genocide. By your own standards of course. Oh that doesn't count does it? Hmm.

And while Jews were the focus, millions of others shared the same fate on account of German perceptions of politics, nationality and race (although they are not lumped in with Jews as vitcims of the Holocaust and so are placed within their own categories,)

Prewar, the jews were given the opportunity to leave. In fact we just went over a concentration camp where they let jews leave if they emigrated and also had a murderous gas chamber they didn't use. Man that's crazy. They put criminals in jail, didn't murder them, and let them go. How evil!

I have never seen any WW2 historian or researcher limit the definition of Holocaust to only Jews who perished witin the the camp system.

You have over 200 pages of Holocaust research you didn't read, instead you rotate in to get owned by basic logic while you use the same rote expressions and appeals to emotion. Nothing you say hasn't been covered ad nauseam, you aren't special, you are just another idiot fed a diet of propaganda and lies.

 

[mrolonzo]

That's not the whole truth. The Holocaust encompassed all deadly actions against the Jews and anyone designated as such by the German and cooperating regimes, whether it was executing civilians out in the field in occupied territories, or intentionaly or recklessly creating conditions in ghettos and camps so terrible it killed them. And while Jews were the focus, millions of others shared the same fate on account of German perceptions of politics, nationality and race (although they are not lumped in with Jews as vitcims of the Holocaust and so are placed within their own categories,) I have never seen any WW2 historian or researcher limit the definition of Holocaust to only Jews who perished witin the the camp system. I know you guys speak in the Germans' defense because you believe they were unfairly blamed for the second world war by the Allies, but you go too far and "revise" entire histories of Germany, jews, Europe and the whole world even all to pretty up the face of a dead, warmongering regime that lasted a mere 12 years. You don't even know anyone who was involved and yet you take it all so personally.

Interesting. Gee nobody ever thought about all the others involved in the holocaust. I guess you'd like to tell us about the holocaust of the Roma too?