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

[Lemmingwise]

His name is elie wiesel btw.

 

[Linako 2.0]

Yes, it's really unfortunate.
now to wait on proof that nazis threw babies in the air to use them as targeting practice for gatling guns.

 

[mrolonzo]

I don’t think this continued passage from Stanislaw is as exculpatory as you seem to think it is.

Oh the diesel engines! Oh wait no, it was zyklon b! This guy told me!

At Sobibor no less.

This sort of thing is common in orthodox historiography. Claims of mass murder in completely inappropriate places by inappropriate means, revealing the obvious lie

He's started posting multiple pages from whereever. Of course he is.

This is from the famous cut and paste manifesto. Dealt with extensively by MGK in their tomb of a book.

@Stan

heads up. it seems like you are new to this (talking to deniers, clearly you are familiar with the history) so you should know a few things to save your breath

1) any document recovered is automatically suspect because it was recovered in either Soviet or Pro-Jewish western territories, so open to tampering or forgery

2) any witness statement given after the war is also suspect, for the same reason. Germans would be forced to confess through torture or threat, Jews would lie for obvious reasons

3) these things are all the more suspect due to human remains never having been sufficiently demonstrated

4) forensic reports stating discovery of mass amounts of remains are unverifiable

most importantly you should know that @mrolonzo comes from Rodoh, where they have been arguing about the excavator at Treblinka 2 for months. This is the lowest form, the absolute dregs of denial*, and there is the danger of this thread turning into that and being ruined until mrolonzo leaves.

*I realized this early on when I asked a denier there why the Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz and he said it was to protect them from local anti-semites


they buried tons of ashes with bones removed or smashed in the woods . explain

Talking about details is the dregs of denial. The absolute state of the hoax.

Deniers and ideologues care very little about facts. Their in it for the narrative the facts are a minor concern.

The facts are the only concern

2001 drillings at 5 meter intervals worked because the graves were so massive in terms of dimension. I've shown you the descriptions before, this is mostly for the sake of our new friends

View attachment 3506224

Belzec showed about 133 bodies arranged haphazardly. Likely remains of the prior gypsy camp. Moreover Belzec wasnt secret. The ukie guards mixed with the locals.

Did you hear about the other killing method at Belzec?
Yeah the trains were lined with quicklime, the jews would urinate on it waiting in the trains. When the urine mixed with the quicklime it would create a new toxic gas that would then kill all the train passengers.

It is a lie that the Western Allies "tacitly endorsed" Soviet lies about Katyn.

While the Soviets did make this allegation at Nuremberg, nobody was convicted or punished for it, because the Western Allies were skeptical of the claims and thought the Soviets likely did it (though were not sure either way).

In the late 80s (or maybe it was early 90s, not sure) Gorbachev opened up the Soviet archives and it was conclusively proven through documentary evidence that the Soviets had done Katyn and framed the Germans for it.

Strange that exactly zero evidence emerged of a conspiracy to "fake a genocide of 5 to 6 millions Jews and blame the Nazis for it," an infinitely more elaborate and implausible conspiracy than blaming the Germans for killing 22,000 in the Katyn massacre.

The allies did not defend the Katyn allegation because the nazis had openly investigated it already.

@Stan

I have to go, and probably I won't be back for a few days. But you should know that deniers are in a difficult position because they have to present a case that is as strong and confident as the orthodox one. Even someone like @Lemmingwise who is far more agnostic than most I'd wager is near 100% convinced that mass gassings never happened and anyone who believes this is a fool.

This happens to some extent with every debate, but becomes ridiculous and cartoonish with the Holocaust because of the comparative strength of evidence of the claims. It might be a better look for them actually not to argue on substance at all and just do character assassination.

So there has to be some sensitivity to this. Getting them to do joint research has yielded the best results so far, as with me and Rapechu.

Anyway good luck and enjoy the cowfucked brain of Carlo Mattogno

Ah yes character assassination is a better look for revisionists but enjoy the "cowfucked" brain of Mattogno.

Himmler used a word that germans use for fumigating out pests

Himmer from the Posen speeches (while talking explicitly about the Jews)- "Wir haben das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht, unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, da uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen."

My Translation - we have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do this, to kill these people who wanted to kill us."

Umbringen means "kill," the same way the english word "kill" means "kill." "Umzubringen" mean " to kill," the same way the English phrase "to kill" means "to kill."

Will you change your ways not that you know you were laughably informed by deniers about how all references to murder of Jews by Himmler (along with numerous other Nazi leaders" are "mistranslated"? Or will you keep on groping for half-baked excuses to continue to live in your fantasy world?

Dealt with by codoh.

I know you’re being calm and nice, and I do want to read your effort post. My criticism is more towards those like bones and lonzo who are quite brash and vulgar.

What I was getting at, is that even if we were to accept the most expansive kind of Holocaust denial, the Nazis still put the Jews through a lot and even the most diehard denialist should acknowledge that and proceed with a minimum of respect for the Jewish people. Otherwise it will be very hard to get anywhere with those who aren’t already in his corner. Those who are using those slurs and that degree of indifference look like hollering Nazi rage pigs.

To me though, calling a Holocaust survivor a “weasel” isn’t “absurdist humor and exaggeration”, it’s a belittling and slandering of the some of the worst trauma imaginable. Doing it to piss off affirmationists is counterproductive. Those who are willing to use those terms come off as anti-Semitic, and that antisemitism strikes me as the real reason they doubt the Holocaust happened.

The antisemitic comments are DARVO and ideological sperging, hard to take seriously. I come to this new to the debate but fairly good on the history, ready to have a conversation with those who aren’t gonna insult me and the Jews as a way of avoiding the questions I have.

Dude. I only posted Hitler because you guys asserted a claim without reference to the other side i.e. us. You forgot to ask us. You forgot to ask Adolf. Now that's fine if you've no intention of engaging with us as per orthodox historians. But you chose to come here.

So let's be fair. You be nice and respectful to Nazis and I'll be nice to Jews. Not that im not nice to Jews. I respect all peoples and recognise that people only act as per their social programming and / or ethnic interest.

If you really can't be nice to Nazis then let's not go whining about disrespect going the other way.

 

[Stan]

Oh the diesel engines! Oh wait no, it was zyklon b! This guy told me!

At Sobibor no less.

This sort of thing is common in orthodox historiography. Claims of mass murder in completely inappropriate places by inappropriate means, revealing the obvious lie

Mrolonzo, thoughts from me on what you wrote:
1. Scholars such as Browning, Gerlach, Kershaw and Longerich have produced a body of work which recognizes that the decision-making that produced and implemented the Final Solution was “an incremental process, with a number of acceleratory spurts, between summer 1941 and summer 1942” rather than one that required a single, explicit written order that was unchanging thereafter.

I’ve already explained several times that gas chambers and crematoria underwent a significant process of innovation between 1941 and 1945. The first gassings were performed with diesel exhaust, and using “gas vans” outfitted to the purpose.

Later on, when it became necessary to off more Jews more quickly, the Germans switched to Zyklon B, a toxic insecticide they were already familiar with for its legitimate uses in lice control.

Pretending that the Holocaust had to happen all in one jump or not at all is silly, and contrafactual. You’re going to keep doing it, but the evidence is against you. And in any case, suffocating people with carbon monoxide would be extermination by gassing. The Nazis moved on to a more effective agent later.

Dude. I only posted Hitler because you guys asserted a claim without reference to the other side i.e. us. You forgot to ask us. You forgot to ask Adolf. Now that's fine if you've no intention of engaging with us as per orthodox historians. But you chose to come here.

So let's be fair. You be nice and respectful to Nazis and I'll be nice to Jews. Not that im not nice to Jews. I respect all peoples and recognise that people only act as per their social programming and / or ethnic interest.

If you really can't be nice to Nazis then let's not go whining about disrespect going the other way.

I don’t know wtf you’re talking about, what am I supposed to ask you and Adolf about? Why am I supposed to engage with you all as “orthodox historians” when you don’t have the education or training or experience to call yourself that ?

You want me to be ‘nice’ to Nazis? I’ve refrained from calling them names (I will call you names, fanboy), I didn’t say they were “weasels” or “liars”, although I might have reason to. Himmlers speech was all about how the SS would need to lie and conceal their purpose because of intra-party objections like there were to Aktion T4.

Post after post you’ve shown yourself to not be worth taking seriously.

 

[Stan]

His name is elie wiesel btw.

I know, I read “Night”. It doesn’t make it OK by me for lonzo call him “weasel” and then expect me to engage with him as an “orthodox historian”.

 

[mgc]

Why should I be nice to people who make excuses for pic related (a gentile Polish girl, incidentally) being ethnically cleansed and sent to Auschwitz where she died miserably? What kind of person defends the trafficking, torture, and murder of children?

I defend the free speech rights of neo-nazis, to be free of prosecution and Silicon Valley censorship. I also do not think they should be physically attacked or anything like that. But I am under no obligation to do more than that.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I know

It was in response to the post above it, not to you.

 

[Stan]

Bruh, I literally told you his name is Eli Weasel, the fact you think of the animal is your own anti-semetism showing.
if your handler finds out, I don't think he'll let you go to the metzitzahs anymore.

Calling me a “handler” discredits you; it makes you look like a maniac partisan who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a shill.

I lived as a Jew for two years; the “metzizah” (mechitzah?) is the little fence Orthodox congregations use to seperate the mens side of the shul from the womens. Don’t talk about the faith if you don’t know the first thing about it.

Didn’t your momma teach you that it’s not acceptable to make fun of peoples last names? Why would intentionally calling him “Eli weasel” when his name is “Wiesel” convince me you have no ulterior motive in disputing the Holocaust?

 

[Stan]

Ok so they can get 20k like the Japanese did, oh wait they exceeded that amount 1000x? Guess they can pay it back. How much in reparations do I get for being forced to listen to decades of unfounded lies?

"Oy vey, we just did a little lie about millions of us being killed for money, what's that compared to mean words?"

Your questions are irrelevant compared to your own assertions. They are just another dodge of your own claims meant to muddy the waters of discussion.

Again with even more specifics: the holocaust is the claim of a policy of genocide against jews that involved the gassing and cremation of millions.

1. Prove that the policy exists and was carried out. This includes orders from Hitler and other top brass. It also includes multiple widespread occasions of these orders being carried out.

2. The capability to carry these orders out. You have to prove gas chambers existed and crematory existed capable of carrying these orders out in a systematic fashion. This was an industrialized killing, so ad-hoc measures aren't actually evidence for it.

3. That they actually carried this out. So you have to prove the logicists above and beyond normal activity. And provide evidence for the claimed amount of murders.

This could also included forced starvation, but you'd have to prove they were intentionally denying food that they had.

These are the basic assertions of the Holocaust. Not forced labor camps or transit camps where people died.

Are you trying to use moral relativism? Stop. Can you not agree that what the Nazis did to the Jews was cruel and inhumane, or not?

If my questions are so weak why can’t you give a coherent answer that fits in with the historical evidence we have?

If they were not gassed to death, Where did those people “deported East” go and why didn’t any of them come back?

If the Jews were being deported outside of the occupied territory why was it necessary to delouse them, if that’s what the Zyklon B was for? They’re leaving the country right?

Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, madjanek, weren’t forced labor camps or transit camps. Transit camps don’t need a crematory that can process the entire camp population twice over. Transit camps don’t need a gas chamber. Inmates wouldn’t leave their last valuables behind at a transit camp.

The straw man Jewish guy you’re imitating is cringe. Nobody is going to give you reparations for learning the truth and rejecting it with all the vitriol you can summon.

 

[Bonesjones]

1. Scholars such as Browning, Gerlach, Kershaw and Longerich have produced a body of work which recognizes that the decision-making that produced and implemented the Final Solution was “an incremental process, with a number of acceleratory spurts, between summer 1941 and summer 1942” rather than one that required a single, explicit written order that was unchanging thereafter.

So you admit there is no orders establishing a policy of Jewish extermination? Only things that could add up to one. That's a really big misstep.

I’ve already explained several times that gas chambers and crematoria underwent a significant process of innovation between 1941 and 1945. The first gassings were performed with diesel exhaust, and using “gas vans” outfitted to the purpose.

So even when we give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of capability, you cant prove the process used, nor establish a chain of logicists capable of carrying it out? Another huge blow.

Pretending that the Holocaust had to happen all in one jump or not at all is silly, and contrafactual. You’re going to keep doing it, but the evidence is against you. And in any case, suffocating people with carbon monoxide would be extermination by gassing. The Nazis moved on to a more effective agent later.

Pretending that a narrative has supporting facts when you can't even begin to start, is silly and contrafactual. You will keep ignoring your own claims and move the goalpost, like you just did. Yet again. Again you haven't supported any claim they gassed anyone with carbon monoxide. You've also admitted your standard of efficiency is even worse than deniers suggest. So now you have an even bigger preponderance of evidence to find.

 

[Linako 2.0]

I lived as a Jew for two years

explains so much your behavior.
also metzitzah b'peh is something that they do to men and not women I'll give you that.

Didn’t your momma teach you that it’s not acceptable to make fun of peoples last names? Why would intentionally calling him “Eli weasel” when his name is “Wiesel” convince me you have no ulterior motive in disputing the Holocaust?

cry about it.

 

[Linako 2.0]

I didn’t say they were “weasels” or “liars”, although I might have reason to.

Man, my accidental misspelling of his name really struck a nerve.
Not my fault that his name is similar to an animal's by one vowel.

 

[JohnDoe]

I know, I read “Night”. It doesn’t make it OK by me for lonzo call him “weasel” and then expect me to engage with him as an “orthodox historian”.

You're one to complain about decorum, considering you can hardly go a post without insulting people. Regardless, that's literally what his name means. Half the time my phone autocorrects his name to weasel anyway. Calm down.

Not my fault that his name is similar to an animal's by one vowel.

It's literally the word weasel in German.

 

[Linako 2.0]

It's literally the word weasel in German.

Stan bros... it's over... the nazis won....

 

[mgc]

Did Stan ever claim to know German? And the anglicizing of "Wiesel" (which may be a Yiddish name with a different meaning for all I know-I do not know Yiddish, but I know it derives from German-although it would mean "weasel" in German) is obviously done with insulting intent by you guys, not as a translation of the German word.

Regardless this is all irrelevant. So you know a word in German and stan perhaps does not. None of this has anything to do with the issue we are supposed to be debating on the thread.

 

[Linako 2.0]

>A guy misspelled an uncommon name in his language that's similar in spelling to something that means the same in both language
>that must mean it's a big meaning moment
ok boomer hashtag groan zone.

None of this has anything to do with the issue we are supposed to be debating on the thread.

yes it does.

 

[mgc]

yes it does.

I admit my cope about how Wiesel might mean something different in Yiddish was dumb, but how is it relevant to the Holocaust denial "debate" that he did not know the meaning of weasel in German?

 

[mrolonzo]

Mrolonzo, thoughts from me on what you wrote:
1. Scholars such as Browning, Gerlach, Kershaw and Longerich have produced a body of work which recognizes that the decision-making that produced and implemented the Final Solution was “an incremental process, with a number of acceleratory spurts, between summer 1941 and summer 1942” rather than one that required a single, explicit written order that was unchanging thereafter.

I’ve already explained several times that gas chambers and crematoria underwent a significant process of innovation between 1941 and 1945. The first gassings were performed with diesel exhaust, and using “gas vans” outfitted to the purpose.

Later on, when it became necessary to off more Jews more quickly, the Germans switched to Zyklon B, a toxic insecticide they were already familiar with for its legitimate uses in lice control.

Pretending that the Holocaust had to happen all in one jump or not at all is silly, and contrafactual. You’re going to keep doing it, but the evidence is against you. And in any case, suffocating people with carbon monoxide would be extermination by gassing. The Nazis moved on to a more effective agent later.


I don’t know wtf you’re talking about, what am I supposed to ask you and Adolf about? Why am I supposed to engage with you all as “orthodox historians” when you don’t have the education or training or experience to call yourself that ?

You want me to be ‘nice’ to Nazis? I’ve refrained from calling them names (I will call you names, fanboy), I didn’t say they were “weasels” or “liars”, although I might have reason to. Himmlers speech was all about how the SS would need to lie and conceal their purpose because of intra-party objections like there were to Aktion T4.

Post after post you’ve shown yourself to not be worth taking seriously.

Yes, these "historians" certainly coped with the lack of an order, a plan, a budget, a technical theory, a technical work up by simply saying in effect " they did it as they went along..."

There was no first gassing. Which is kind of the point of the whole thread.

I know you’re being calm and nice, and I do want to read your effort post. My criticism is more towards those like bones and lonzo who are quite brash and vulgar.

What I was getting at, is that even if we were to accept the most expansive kind of Holocaust denial, the Nazis still put the Jews through a lot and even the most diehard denialist should acknowledge that and proceed with a minimum of respect for the Jewish people. Otherwise it will be very hard to get anywhere with those who aren’t already in his corner. Those who are using those slurs and that degree of indifference look like hollering Nazi rage pigs.

To me though, calling a Holocaust survivor a “weasel” isn’t “absurdist humor and exaggeration”, it’s a belittling and slandering of the some of the worst trauma imaginable. Doing it to piss off affirmationists is counterproductive. Those who are willing to use those terms come off as anti-Semitic, and that antisemitism strikes me as the real reason they doubt the Holocaust happened.

The antisemitic comments are DARVO and ideological sperging, hard to take seriously. I come to this new to the debate but fairly good on the history, ready to have a conversation with those who aren’t gonna insult me and the Jews as a way of avoiding the questions I have.

That's fine from where you stand. I don't like people insulting nazis. That's all.

Mrolonzo, thoughts from me on what you wrote:
1. Scholars such as Browning, Gerlach, Kershaw and Longerich have produced a body of work which recognizes that the decision-making that produced and implemented the Final Solution was “an incremental process, with a number of acceleratory spurts, between summer 1941 and summer 1942” rather than one that required a single, explicit written order that was unchanging thereafter.

I’ve already explained several times that gas chambers and crematoria underwent a significant process of innovation between 1941 and 1945. The first gassings were performed with diesel exhaust, and using “gas vans” outfitted to the purpose.

Later on, when it became necessary to off more Jews more quickly, the Germans switched to Zyklon B, a toxic insecticide they were already familiar with for its legitimate uses in lice control.

Pretending that the Holocaust had to happen all in one jump or not at all is silly, and contrafactual. You’re going to keep doing it, but the evidence is against you. And in any case, suffocating people with carbon monoxide would be extermination by gassing. The Nazis moved on to a more effective agent later.


I don’t know wtf you’re talking about, what am I supposed to ask you and Adolf about? Why am I supposed to engage with you all as “orthodox historians” when you don’t have the education or training or experience to call yourself that ?

You want me to be ‘nice’ to Nazis? I’ve refrained from calling them names (I will call you names, fanboy), I didn’t say they were “weasels” or “liars”, although I might have reason to. Himmlers speech was all about how the SS would need to lie and conceal their purpose because of intra-party objections like there were to Aktion T4.

Post after post you’ve shown yourself to not be worth taking seriously.

You're supposed to ask Adolf, or us, what we think about these things before you start asserting things.

You can ignore us if you want as orthodox historians have done. Which is fine. Then of course, there's no need for you to be here.

I know, I read “Night”. It doesn’t make it OK by me for lonzo call him “weasel” and then expect me to engage with him as an “orthodox historian”.

I haven't mentioned Elie even once. His contribution is beneath contempt. I don't just play around with names to make a point. A waste of words.

Why should I be nice to people who make excuses for pic related (a gentile Polish girl, incidentally) being ethnically cleansed and sent to Auschwitz where she died miserably? What kind of person defends the trafficking, torture, and murder of children?

I defend the free speech rights of neo-nazis, to be free of prosecution and Silicon Valley censorship. I also do not think they should be physically attacked or anything like that. But I am under no obligation to do more than that.

You are under moral obligation to treat us with respect. We do not condone harm to children. Good example. Ann Frank. Tortured? Gassed? Nope. Detained, contracted typhus and shipped out. So much for the killing of the useless eaters and another reason why such extensive de lousing was going on.

It's these basic details that destroy the whole edifice of allied lies and propaganda begun by the polish resistance groups in the camps and swallowed for their own purposes by the allies then built on by the soviets when they took over AB and started "reconstructing " things.

We are nazis after all. We're very particular about such things. You hitting the roof over this girl is ridiculous. How many children were killed in ww2 by everyone? How many moved, imprisoned, parents tortured. Alot. Moreover the things you complain most legitimately about I.e. state actions harming civilians were and are a common feature among all powers long into history.

 

[mgc]

The Allies committed horrific war crimes too, all of these crimes are worthy of moral indignation.

I do think kidnapping kids, subjecting them to torturous medical experiments, and murdering them—all because of crackpot theorizing about Slavic and Jewish inferiority—is considerably more repugnant than indscriminate bombing campaigns aimed at a rational strategic goal (capitulation of the enemy). But obviously nuking and fire bombing cities are war crimes too.

Anne Frank was capable of work. 15 year olds are capable of work.

 

[JohnDoe]

I admit my cope about how Wiesel might mean something different in Yiddish was dumb, but how is it relevant to the Holocaust denial "debate" that he did not know the meaning of weasel in German?

Your desperate attempts to start a YouTube career with equipment from the 90's and the charisma of a dead skunk are as about as relevant, and it doesn't stop you from bringing that up. Repeatedly.

Anne Frank was capable of work. 15 year olds are capable of work.

Please don't elaborate on this, I don't need to have my assumptions about you confirmed.