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

[Bonesjones]

How did these Jews get from German captivity to Soviet? Because that is who we are talking about. The millions of Jews in German hands post barbarossa. Revisionists have tried to do some funny math regarding how many Jews this actually was, but Korherr report which I posted earlier is explicit http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/korherr.html This info is corroborated by German documentation concerning Jewish population in ghettos all across occupied Europe and statements by high ranking Nazis like Hans Frank:

Hans Frank: Cracow Statement

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

So the question is, what happened to the Jews when ghettos (everywhere, including occupied USSR territory) were dissolved during 1942? A certain portion, around 500k were employed in labor camps like Auschwitz, mostly in Poland. Korherr report provides info here. But what happened to the rest? You think they were somehow transferred over the frontline into Soviet territory without anyone noticing?

If you'd actually read most emigrated prewar to a lot of places. And your other link literally specificies that they would be shipped east. I know reading comprehension isn't your strong point but stop cherry picking.

 

[Chugger]

If you'd actually read most emigrated prewar to a lot of places. And your other link literally specificies that they would be shipped east. I know reading comprehension isn't your strong point but stop cherry picking.

I stated in my response I was only talking about the millions of Jews in German captivity post invasion of the Soviet Union. To get to Jewish Autonomous Oblast (which is by the Pacific ocean) they would have to somehow be transferred through an active warzone and over the frontlines.

Yes the Korherr report specificies 1.5 million Polish Jews were transported into "the Russian East", that is occupied Soviet territory. Yet there is zero evidence of any Polish Jews making it there once the ghettos started being emptied, and the report states Jews were also being evacuated out of Russian territories (where to and why?)

BTW, the original wording in the report is these Polish Jews had received 'special treatment', which is self-evidently a code word. Himmler stepped in to change the wording. He also said the report would make "excellent camouflage". The full report and supporting documents can be found here: https://codoh.com/library/document/richard-korherr-and-his-reports/en/

 

[The Great Chandler]

The reality is america could have easily joined the Nazis in early ww2.

There is some truth to this. The situation at the Eastern Front between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was basically devil and devil. No one was better than the other. One thing to look at is that a lot of Americans were pretty anti-semitic. Hell! New York City held the largest fascist rally in the country that rivaled the rallies of Nazi Germany. Even more so, some important leaders besides the likes of FDR (who was a Stalin simp) were sympathetic to Nazi Germany, either, supported halfheartedly, believing them to be "the lesser of two evils" or wholeheartedly supported them. General George S. Patton for example was infamous for his racism, even showing callous indifference in the plight of the Jews after the concentration camps became known.

If the Soviet Union somehow had provoked the west, America would've found themselves rooting for Nazi Germany, even with the knowledge with the camps in hand. That's a scary thought, but is it any different than our alliance with Stalin?

 

[LeChampion1992]

Anyone who has looked into the matter seriously knows there is no easy "answer", that is Complete and Final Explanation, to the question of WHY a civilized modern nation decided to massacre millions of people (just as there is no easy answer to why firebombing of German cities became a thing)

Nevertheless, a very reductive explanation might be that they did it for the same reason they killed tens of thousands of their own people in the uncontroversial euthanasia program. By isolating Jews from wider society they made them reliant on German assistance for survival. Therefore during Germany's existential fight for survival (which became obvious after July 1941 with the failure of Barbarossa) they didn't want to feed millions of people who couldn't materially contribute to the war effort. The fact that they believed (as most revisionists do now) that the Jews were wholly responsible for the war and in fact actively trying to genocide the German people, gave them a convenient excuse to murder children and elderly people, as well as the sick and infirm. 'We're just doing to them what they would do to us in a blink of an eye'. This sentiment is expressed repeatedly in eg Goebbels diary and the writings of many soldiers tasked with wanton murder.

https://training.ehri-project.eu/sites/training.ehri-project.eu/files/Excerpts%20of%20letters%20from%20a%20police%20secretary%20in%20Mogilev%20to%20his%20wife%20EN.pdf

I mean I think the Holocaust has been over focused to such a point that other actual important casualties of WW2.

There is some truth to this. The situation at the Eastern Front between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was basically devil and devil. No one was better than the other. One thing to look at is that a lot of Americans were pretty anti-semitic. Hell! New York City held the largest fascist rally in the country that rivaled the rallies of Nazi Germany. Even more so, some important leaders besides the likes of FDR (who was a Stalin simp) were sympathetic to Nazi Germany, either, supported halfheartedly, believing them to be "the lesser of two evils" or wholeheartedly supported them. General George S. Patton for example was infamous for his racism, even showing callous indifference in the plight of the Jews after the concentration camps became known.

If the Soviet Union somehow had provoked the west, America would've found themselves rooting for Nazi Germany, even with the knowledge with the camps in hand. That's a scary thought, but is it any different than our alliance with Stalin?

Its really no different fascism gets a bad wrap because anti semitism is somehow the worst thing in the world but when you look at things it makes you wonder.

 

[The Great Chandler]

Its really no different fascism gets a bad wrap because anti semitism is somehow the worst thing in the world but when you look at things it makes you wonder.

Antisemitism link or not, fascism can still go to hell lol

Even if Hitler wasn't prejudiced at all, the mere suppression of free speech is still not worth the economic boost

 

[Chugger]

If the Soviet Union somehow had provoked the west, America would've found themselves rooting for Nazi Germany, even with the knowledge with the camps in hand. That's a scary thought, but is it any different than our alliance with Stalin?

Likely there would have been no extermination camps had Germany been allied with US/England (for diplomatic reasons). They only went this far once there was no chance of peace with Britain, at least in near term. After invasion of USSR, Britain was going to hold out at least until that was settled, and then the war turned attritional, and the Nazis had nothing to lose

 

[Bonesjones]

Likely there would have been no extermination camps had Germany been allied with US/England (for diplomatic reasons). They only went this far once there was no chance of peace with Britain, at least in near term. After invasion of USSR, Britain was going to hold out at least until that was settled, and then the war turned attritional, and the Nazis had nothing to lose

Your own posting proves that Germany shipped jews east, the Polish President said they shouldn't waste the effort but would follow Hitler's decisions. Post war intellence said atleast some of them made it to the far reaches of Siberia but more likely into Crimea and into other areas instead. That puts the genocide into the hands of the Soviets who no one denies murdered millions through neglect if not intentional wholesale slaughter. The Nuremberg trials were cooked up to blame the Germans and shift blame away from the allied war crimes.

 

[Chugger]

Your own posting proves that Germany shipped jews east, the Polish President said they shouldn't waste the effort but would follow Hitler's decisions. Post war intellence said atleast some of them made it to the far reaches of Siberia but more likely into Crimea and into other areas instead. That puts the genocide into the hands of the Soviets who no one denies murdered millions through neglect if not intentional wholesale slaughter. The Nuremberg trials were cooked up to blame the Germans and shift blame away from the allied war crimes.

Yeah by 1942 these millions of Polish Jews could have been shipped east and resettled in the vast tracts of 'Russian' land the Germans had conquered. It would be much more difficult and historically unprecedented given the intensity of the fighting, but conceivably these millions also could have been shipped east and somehow transported over the frontlines into Soviet held territory. But there's zero evidence of either of these things happening.

There is evidence of massive trains full of Polish Jews going to destinations marked Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and those were one way trips with the trains returning empty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-aAwsJjJxY

 

[Bonesjones]

Yeah by 1942 these millions of Polish Jews could have been shipped east and resettled in the vast tracts of 'Russian' land the Germans had conquered. It would be much more difficult and historically unprecedented given the intensity of the fighting, but conceivably these millions also could have been shipped east and somehow transported over the frontlines into Soviet held territory. But there's zero evidence of either of these things happening.

There is evidence of massive trains full of Polish Jews going to destinations marked Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and those were one way trips with the trains returning empty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-aAwsJjJxY

So that means you have only two choices, either produce piles of bodies and mountains of ash, (Still hasn't been done) or the Soviets covered up their own actions.

 

[Chugger]

So that means you have only two choices, either produce piles of bodies and mountains of ash, (Still hasn't been done) or the Soviets covered up their own actions.

At various places, eg Belzec, numerous studies located 20 foot deep holes full of layers of ash with bones removed https://www.holocausthistoricalsociety.org.uk/contents/belzec/belzecexcavations.html
(see "Mass Graves Numbered 1-33 Are listed in the Order of Discovery")

But how would you like these to be "produced"?

 

[Bonesjones]

At various places, eg Belzec, numerous studies located 20 foot deep holes full of layers of ash with bones removed https://www.holocausthistoricalsociety.org.uk/contents/belzec/belzecexcavations.html
(see "Mass Graves Numbered 1-33 Are listed in the Order of Discovery")

But how would you like these to be "produced"?

Again your link shows 1. Mass Graves of thousands of people, which we know many people died of typhus and malnutrition. 2. Graves dug in an unorganized and ad hoc manner. Further supporting the idea that this wasn't a mass extermination campaign.

 

[WonderWino]

There is some truth to this. The situation at the Eastern Front between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was basically devil and devil. No one was better than the other. One thing to look at is that a lot of Americans were pretty anti-semitic. Hell! New York City held the largest fascist rally in the country that rivaled the rallies of Nazi Germany. Even more so, some important leaders besides the likes of FDR (who was a Stalin simp) were sympathetic to Nazi Germany, either, supported halfheartedly, believing them to be "the lesser of two evils" or wholeheartedly supported them. General George S. Patton for example was infamous for his racism, even showing callous indifference in the plight of the Jews after the concentration camps became known.

If the Soviet Union somehow had provoked the west, America would've found themselves rooting for Nazi Germany, even with the knowledge with the camps in hand. That's a scary thought, but is it any different than our alliance with Stalin?

While I agree that the US basically picked one devil over another in their view, I doubt its as simple as being being able to simply provoke the US into siding with the axis

The main reason is quite simple - even if many in the US were ideologically or politically in favor of it for whatever reasons, it just wasn't a practical choice at the time. Keep in mind that had the US sided with the germans it would have meant war against the allies. To the US this mainly means england and canada at first. From a practical standpoint, the instant they side with the germans they not only have a hostile england to deal with (largely from a naval standpoint I suspect) but they now immediately have a hostile canada at their border with a 5000km+ land border, the fourth strongest (at the time) military on the planet (behind the US, UK, Germany, Russia), leading to an immediate ground war along its entire border. In short, the US would have its own version of the eastern front, given the sheer size of canada and a large part of it being comparable to russia in terms of climate and winter weather. Even if it were to win the ground war, it would likely be bogged down in a long term partisan war similar to what the germans were facing behind the lines on the eastern front. It would be a massive drain on resources and manpower, and a constant threat to the northern states. As such the US support available to the germans would be limited at best, as the US would have its own issues to deal with. The US had far more to lose than to gain from an alliance with germany. To say nothing of the fact that if the soviets did defeat the germans in the end the US would then be faced with a hostile england, europe, soviet union and canada - with the soviets in a position to be able to send support through northern canada at some point to take alaska and push further south into the US through canada. The US would have too large of a border to effectively defend, its navy wouldn't be of much use at that point and its manpower is far more limited than the allies and soviets combined. They'd have to sue for peace or face a long term ground war on their own soil. One they would have a very difficult time maintaining their own territory in, let alone being able to do much offensively in

 

[Chugger]

Again your link shows 1. Mass Graves of thousands of people, which we know many people died of typhus and malnutrition. 2. Graves dug in an unorganized and ad hoc manner. Further supporting the idea that this wasn't a mass extermination campaign.

How many times is 'crematory' mentioned here? And what does Kola (the investigator) mean by it? https://www.holocausthistoricalsociety.org.uk/contents/belzec/belzecexcavations.html

eg (describing a grave 15 feet deep, 90 feet long, 30 feet wide, filled with 2-3 foot layers of "crematory contents")

Grave Pit No.5

Located in the south-western part of the camp. The grave had the shape of an irregular lengthened rectangle with the dimensions of 32 meters by 10 meters, reaching a depth of over 4.5 meters. It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick; above 50 cm thick layer of soil, 4 following layers of crematory remains appeared, separated from each other with 20-30 cm layers of sand. The volume of the pit was about 1350 meters.

for @Bonesjones and anyone else contemplating the revisionist response to the passages I have highlighted--there is none. This should show 'amateur' revisionists and sympathizers that their masters (in this case I guess the people writing metapedia) are being intellectually dishonest, I don't know whether consciously or unconsciously. They should just call this archeological study fraudulent. Instead they claim it presents no evidence of mass murder (huh??)

 

[LatinasAreTheFuture]

Obviously the Holocaust didn’t happen, and even if it did they obviously didn’t kill all of them.

 

[Solid Snek]

for @Bonesjones and anyone else contemplating the revisionist response to the passages I have highlighted--there is none. This should show 'amateur' revisionists and sympathizers that their masters (in this case I guess the people writing metapedia) are being intellectually dishonest, I don't know whether consciously or unconsciously. They should just call this archeological study fraudulent. Instead they claim it presents no evidence of mass murder (huh??)

As a Holocaust Affirmer myself, I cannot speak on behalf of any revisionists. But I'd assume their response would be exactly what @Bonesjones stated above?


There are graves at Belzec. That's never been disputed by anyone, afaik, and it certainly doesn't appear to be disputed by any revisionists here on the Farms.


However, the article does not cite any forensic evidence pointing to causes of death, nor does it give an estimate for the number of bodies interred in these graves - the two most important questions. Furthermore, the article confirms Bonesjones' assertion that the graves were dug in an ad-hoc manner ("The preparation and digging of these graves would appear to have been made on an ad-hoc basis with the early graves located in the north-eastern part of the camp"), and even offers some circumstantial reasons for questioning the Affirmer narrative ("Exactly why the SS did not empty all the graves and destroy the traces of their crimes is not known").

Perhaps the estimated number of bodies in each grave is there, and I missed it? If so, please point it out.

 

[Bonesjones]

His whole goal is to muddy the waters with irrelevant details and assertions. You spend all day counting pine needles instead of looking at the lack of stumps.

 

[Chugger]

As a Holocaust Affirmer myself, I cannot speak on behalf of any revisionists. But I'd assume their response would be exactly what @Bonesjones stated above?


There are graves at Belzec. That's never been disputed by anyone, afaik, and it certainly doesn't appear to be disputed by any revisionists here on the Farms.


However, the article does not cite any forensic evidence pointing to causes of death, nor does it give an estimate for the number of bodies interred in these graves - the two most important questions. Furthermore, the article confirms Bonesjones' assertion that the graves were dug in an ad-hoc manner ("The preparation and digging of these graves would appear to have been made on an ad-hoc basis with the early graves located in the north-eastern part of the camp"), and even offers some circumstantial reasons for questioning the Affirmer narrative ("Exactly why the SS did not empty all the graves and destroy the traces of their crimes is not known").

Perhaps the estimated number of bodies in each grave is there, and I missed it? If so, please point it out.

Thanks for the question. Witnesses stated that at Belzec, similar to Treblinka and Sobibor, bodies were removed from the graves and destroyed. That is burnt and then the bones smashed to bits and separated from the ashes. This was done so that the dead could not be counted. Then the ash was dumped back into the graves.

So the bodies were destroyed, but if you want to know, a 100 pound reduces to roughly 100 cubic inches of pure cremains. 1 cubic meter contains 61,000 cubic inches, so enough for combined ashes of about 600 people. Kola calculated total grave value to be 15,000 cubic meters I think, and most of them contain "crematory contents"

But the "volume" of the dead doesn't even matter that much because the mere act of destroying bodies proves genocidal intent, there would be no reason to destroy them (smash the bones) unless they were trying to prevent them from being counted

His whole goal is to muddy the waters with irrelevant details and assertions. You spend all day counting pine needles instead of looking at the lack of stumps.

Lol you asked me if there were mountains* of ash and I said yes, studies have found that

*Maybe not mountains, but swimming pools worth of ashes

 

[Solid Snek]

Thanks for the question. Witnesses stated that at Belzec, similar to Treblinka and Sobibor, bodies were removed from the graves and destroyed. That is burnt and then the bones smashed to bits and separated from the ashes. This was done so that the dead could not be counted. Then the ash was dumped back into the graves.

So the bodies were destroyed, but if you want to know how much a 100 pound reduces to roughly 100 cubic inches of pure cremains. 1 cubic meter contains 61,000 cubic inches, so enough for combined ashes of about 600 people. Kola calculated total grave value to be 15,000 I think, and most of them contain "crematory contents"

But the "volume" of the dead doesn't even matter that much because the mere act of destroying bodies proves genocidal intent, there is no reason to destroy them (smash the bones) unless you are trying to prevent them from being counted

15,000 is in the ballpark of what Bonesjones asserted, so again, his response wouldn't need to change.

As for the act of destroying bodies proving genocidal intent, I don't think that follows at all! Bodies routinely get cremated, for all sorts of reasons other than hiding genocide. One such reason is given in your source: "Chloride of lime was spread over the six still open mass graves, identified above, in an effort to avoid epidemics breaking out." Containing diseases is a vital component of corpse disposal (especially if the bodies happen to be from people who died of disease). Spreading lime to hasten decomposition is one way to go about it, although per the article, the joint Nazi-Jewish burial teams didn't seem to know what they were doing, and lime did not prove to be very effective. If lime fails to neutralize the threat of disease, then cremation would be the next obvious step.


Also, I'm not seeing anything about witness statements asserting that "bodies were removed from graves and destroyed ... so that the dead could not be counted"

• There is a section of the article which references "hearing oral testimony from many inhabitants of Bełżc village and its environs", followed by a description of graves being disinterred. But what that testimony was is not cited, and in this instance it was not Nazis who were removing bodies from the graves - it was the Allied investigators, who moved the bodies not to hide them, but in order to give them a proper burial.
• The only other reference to witness testimony is some unrelated stuff about construction workers and Jewish collaborators.

This material may be demonstrated elsewhere ("From the evidence uncovered by the 1997 -98 investigations, ... their aim was to disguise the enormity of the numbers buried in the camp."), but it's not in the article you cited.

 

[Chugger]

15,000 is in the ballpark of what Bonesjones asserted, so again, his response wouldn't need to change.

As for the act of destroying bodies proving genocidal intent, I don't think that follows at all! Bodies routinely get cremated, for all sorts of reasons other than hiding genocide. One such reason is given in your source: "Chloride of lime was spread over the six still open mass graves, identified above, in an effort to avoid epidemics breaking out." Containing diseases is a vital component of corpse disposal (especially if the bodies happen to be from people who died of disease). Spreading lime to hasten decomposition is one way to go about it, although per the article, the joint Nazi-Jewish burial teams didn't seem to know what they were doing, and lime did not prove to be very effective. If lime fails to neutralize the threat of disease, then cremation would be the next obvious step.


Also, I'm not seeing anything about witness statements asserting that "bodies were removed from graves and destroyed ... so that the dead could not be counted"

• There is a section of the article which references "hearing oral testimony from many inhabitants of Bełżc village and its environs", followed by a description of graves being disinterred. But what that testimony was is not cited, and in this instance it was not Nazis who were removing bodies from the graves - it was the Allied investigators, who moved the bodies not to hide them, but in order to give them a proper burial.
• The only other reference to witness testimony is some unrelated stuff about construction workers and Jewish collaborators.

This material may be demonstrated elsewhere ("From the evidence uncovered by the 1997 -98 investigations, ... their aim was to disguise the enormity of the numbers buried in the camp."), but it's not in the article you cited.

Sorry 15,000 is not the death count, it's the cubic meters of grave space Kola calculated. Most of these graves contain ash.

If we look at grave number 5, which I quoted earlier

Grave Pit No.5

Located in the south-western part of the camp. The grave had the shape of an irregular lengthened rectangle with the dimensions of 32 meters by 10 meters, reaching a depth of over 4.5 meters. It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick; above 50 cm thick layer of soil, 4 following layers of crematory remains appeared, separated from each other with 20-30 cm layers of sand. The volume of the pit was about 1350 meters.

Grave was layers of "crematory contents" separated by total 1.5 meters of soil. Since the total depth was 4.5 meters lets say this grave consisted of 50% "crematory contents". 50% of 1350 meters = 675 cubic meters of ash . So in this single grave, assuming the ash was pure, you could fit 675*600 worth of bodies, or ashes of 400,000 people, that is roughly the estimated death total at Belzec

This grave is just one of many, so we're dealing with a tremendous amount of ash.

You might burn the bodies for sanitary reasons, but then would just dump them into the graves. Separating bones from ash is a labor intensive process that is unnecessary here.

The impetus to destroy bodies for the purpose of making them impossible to count is quite obvious (there is no other way to make them uncountable), but is also indicated in Nazi testimony. Rudolf Hoess:

Shortly after the visit of the Reichsfiihrer SS, Standartenfiihr, Blobel arrived from Eichmann's office with an order from the Reichsfuhrer SS stating that all the mass graves were to be opened and the corpses burned. In addition the ashes were to be disposed of in such a way that it would be impossible at some future time to calculate the number of corpses burned.

 

[TheRetardKing]

Auschwitz is my favorite amusement park.