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

[mgc]

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

My tech guy who was helping me with a new video has gone completely MIA for days. But worry not - you will be able to see me in higher definition soon enough.

Regarding another comment (not from JohnDoe) about Anne Frank "not being murdered." Yes, she was "not gassed," but if you engage in the trafficking and enslavement of a teenage girl, and she dies from health complications resulting from your crimes, that is murder.)

 

[Linako 2.0]

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

don't be too harsh, he might be a Neutral Milk Hotel fan, he likes his communist daughters.

 

[mrolonzo]

My tech guy who was helping me with a new video has gone completely MIA for days. But worry not - you will be able to see me in higher definition soon enough.

Regarding another comment (not from JohnDoe) about Anne Frank "not being murdered." Yes, she was "not gassed," but if you engage in the trafficking and enslavement of a teenage girl, and she dies from health complications resulting from your crimes, that is murder.)

Right. So you admit that the allies deliberately and knowingly and with pre meditation murdered or attempted to murder vast numbers of children.

Just to be clear. The nazis were not experimenting on kids in the camps. This is both immoral and inefficient, the various doctors were trying to save them all from typhus. Moreover, the vulnerable of the camp were treated by state of the art technology in the camp hospital.

Re YouTube. We commend your effort in this regard. Do you intend to have revisionists on for extended and lengthy respectful interviews? This would get a ton of views.

 

[mgc]

Right. So you admit that the allies deliberately and knowingly and with pre meditation murdered or attempted to murder vast numbers of children.

I believe that the Allied cause was just, but nuking or fire bombing a city is a war crime and murder, yeah. Unsoldierly too.

I am not some libertarian sperg who thinks all collateral damage is murder. But deliberately killing civilians in order to get the enemy to capitulate is a war crime and murder, even if the cause you are fighting for is just. The Allied bombing campaigns against Germany clearly had the massacre of civilians as one of its goals, as obviously did the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that this goal of massacring civilians was incident to a greater and good goal—Axis capitulation—cannot excuse it.

The German murder of Jews and Slavs is still worse—much worse—than Allied mass murder because it was not done to achieve a good or even rational end. It was done because Nazis were crackpots (see their theories about "Jewish physics").

 

[mgc]

Re YouTube. We commend your effort in this regard. Do you intend to revisionists on for extended and lengthy respectful interviews? This would get a ton of views.

I have been having a very respectful exchange on Skype with Rudolf. Yeah I am likely to interview him in the future. What is interesting about him is that he is a denier yet smart and apparently not antisemitic.

I also was relieved to hear him quickly dismiss pseudoscientific arguments that deniers commonly use for their position. And he knows that Leuchter is completely full of shit. I mean the guy (Leuchter) just hacked away like a kook in the cremas, did not control for the depth of samples which is obviously ridiculous since much more HCN will be at the surface of samples. One of his "gas chamber" samples was not even from the gas chamber.

I think Rudolf knows a ton about chemistry—way more than I could dream of knowing on that subject—but he admits he is no expert on statistics, and it shows, as does his bias. His bias (I am speculating here of course, I cannot read his mind) is that he hates the idea of Germany being burdened with this.

I am going to make a video on Rudolf at some point focusing on problems in his statistical analysis, while certainly assuming that he knew what he was doing in collecting his samples (unlike Leuchter LMFAO).

 

[mrolonzo]

I believe that the Allied cause was just, but nuking or fire bombing a city is a war crime and murder, yeah. Unsoldierly too.

I am not some libertarian sperg who thinks all collateral damage is murder. But deliberately killing civilians in order to get the enemy to capitulate is a war crime and murder, even if the cause you are fighting for is just. The Allied bombing campaigns against Germany clearly had the massacre of civilians as one of its goals, as obviously did the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that this goal of massacring civilians was incident to a greater and good goal—Axis capitulation—cannot excuse it.

The German murder of Jews and Slavs is still worse—much worse—than Allied mass murder because it was not done to achieve a good or even rational end. It was done because Nazis were crackpots (see their theories about "Jewish physics").

Although we don't agree on the various powers war aims, intentions and actions. We agree then on the fundamental premises then. A touch of balance is brought to the universe.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

I believe that the Allied cause was just, but nuking or fire bombing a city is a war crime and murder, yeah. Unsoldierly too.

Overfed refugee spawn condemns the wartime decisions of the West.

I am not some libertarian sperg who thinks all collateral damage is murder. But deliberately killing civilians in order to get the enemy to capitulate is a war crime and murder, even if the cause you are fighting for is just.

Fat Man was only sent because they didn't listen to Little Boy. At minimum the second one is the Japs fault.

 

[mgc]

Although we don't agree on the various powers war aims, intentions and actions. We agree then on the fundamental premises then. A touch of balance is brought to the universe.

I also agree by the way that what happened to Rudolf and his PhD was absurd.

I have to admit that I had assumed this was a meme and he just sucked at chemistry and was kicked out of his doctorate. But no, the evidence indicates he was kicked out of his PhD because of his Holocaust denial. And obviously he is an expert in chemistry after speaking with him.

I think denial is a completely dumb conspiracy theory but the law of probability dictates that a few smart people will believe in it. Like Peter Duesberg believes in AIDS denial. Rudolf is among those few smart people.

 

[mrolonzo]

I have been having a very respectful exchange on Skype with Rudolf. Yeah I am likely to interview him in the future. What is interesting about him is that he is a denier yet smart and apparently not antisemitic.

I also was relieved to hear him quickly dismiss pseudoscientific arguments that deniers commonly use for their position. And he knows that Leuchter is completely full of shit. I mean the guy (Leuchter) just hacked away like a kook in the cremas, did not control for the depth of samples which is obviously ridiculous since much more HCN will be at the surface of samples. One of his "gas chamber" samples was not even from the gas chamber.

I think Rudolf knows a ton about chemistry—way more than I could dream of knowing on that subject—but he admits he is no expert on statistics, and it shows, as does his bias. His bias (I am speculating here of course, I cannot read his mind) is that he hates the idea of Germany being burdened with this.

Yes you've written this before. You should not think we don't take in what you say. We are aware of your position.

It really really is truly amazing that a revisionist is both intelligent and humane is it not? What wonders shall we discover as we explore together eh?

Let's not go too far in expounding your claims to superior understanding of statistics but please understand. We do hear you. You are not alone in the universe. There are people sympathetic to your vision and empathetic of your questions.



Perhaps you could do discussions with all revisionists?

I also agree by the way that what happened to Rudolf and his PhD was absurd.

I have to admit that I had assumed this was a meme and he just sucked at chemistry and was kicked out of his doctorate. But no, the evidence indicates he was kicked out of his PhD because of his Holocaust denial. And obviously he is an expert in chemistry after speaking with him.

I think denial is a completely dumb conspiracy theory but the law of probability dictates that a few smart people will believe in it. Like Peter Duesberg believes in AIDS denial. Rudolf is among those few smart people.

Indeed. We get you think xy and z. You don't need to keep telling us in every single post.

Do you recognise thus that upright men of science can be condemned despite the basis of their science and merely on the limited conclusions drawn?

A bit like Galileo as Rudolf himself said.

 

[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 there's no official policy you can point to? Only a collection that might add up to one? Pretty damning.

What kind of person defends the trafficking, torture, and murder of children?

You have to prove any of that happened, I generally don't sympathize with fictional accounts.

I lived as a Jew for two years;

Least surprising admission.

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?

There's no moral relativism. Just a proper comparison of a point in time. If both sides had internment camps, then you can't complain about one and not the other. I don't think the Nazis had any intention of being cruel and unusual, which is why they took great lengths to ensure disease and starvation were minimized when possible, unfortunately the war going on had other ideas.

What evidence?

Why did all the people who left New Orleans after Katrina not 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?

Because the Nazis weren't the horrific monsters they are claimed to be? They genuinely intended to move the jews out of their territory.

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.

These are claims of capacity and not demonstrated capacity. Transit camps would need delousing chambers. Inmates believing they are going to be killed would. Which is the key point. Rumors spread far and wide, these were turned into war propaganda, and eventually used to turn the post war period against Germany to cover for the allies own war crimes.

 

[mgc]

Rumors spread far and wide, these were turned into war propaganda, and eventually used to turn the post war period against Germany to cover for the allies own war crimes.

This is such a strange assumption. Nobody was ignorant of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the Holocaust itself got very little play until the 1960s, including in Germany (the Eichmann Trial, the Auschwitz trial, and the coming of age of the 68-er generation in West Germany gave the issue new prominence).

The Nazis themselves had marginal support in Germany when the war ended. Yes Hitler was probably the most popular leader in Europe in 1940, but losing the war so badly through a string of strategic catastrophes (Stalingrad, Kursk, declaring war on the US) and broken promises will take that away. From 1933 through the first several years of war, Nazi Germany was an authoritarian state whose power came from the "charismatic leadership" (see Weber) of the Führer and his relationship with the people. But in the aftermath of the failed Hitler assasination attempt in 1944, it became a totalitarian state that terrorized its people into submission.

It is true that the Wehrmacht generally fought until capitulation. But there was virtually no "Nazi resistance movement" (the vaunted werewolves ended up not being a thing) after German surrender. That is because so few Germans had any loyalty or love left for that failed regime.

Only a minority of hardcore Nazis even cared when Hitler died (yes there were a German number of suicides that are most likely attributable to the end of Nazism rather than other factors, but compare that to the total German population). People were sick of the regime and ready to see it go. Most Germans barely paid attention at Nuremberg. They were ready to move on from the Hitler gang. Which is another reason it is implausible that the Allies would risk everything to fake a genocide. #

The Nazi regime had discredited itself already, through losing the war miserably which it had started. The Allies need not have done anything to discredit them. And if they wanted to discredit them they need only focus on German responsibility for starting the war, not fabricate a genocide.

 

[mrolonzo]

This is such a strange assumption. Nobody was ignorant of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the Holocaust itself got very little play until the 1960s, including in Germany (the Eichmann Trial, the Auschwitz trial, and the coming of age of the 68-er generation in West Germany gave the issue new prominence).

The Nazis themselves had marginal support in Germany when the war ended. Yes Hitler was probably the most popular leader in Europe in 1940, but losing the war so badly through a string of strategic catastrophes (Stalingrad, Kursk, declaring war on the US) and broken promises will take that away. From 1933 through the first several years of war, Nazi Germany was an authoritarian state whose power came from the "charismatic leadership" (see Weber) of the Führer and his relationship with the people. But in the aftermath of the failed Hitler assasination attempt in 1944, it became a totalitarian state that terrorized its people into submission.

It is true that the Wehrmacht generally fought until capitulation. But there was virtually no "Nazi resistance movement" (the vaunted werewolves ended up not being a thing) after German surrender. That is because so few Germans had any loyalty or love left for that failed regime.

Only a minority of hardcore Nazis even cared when Hitler died (yes there were a German number of suicides that are most likely attributable to the end of Nazism rather than other factors, but compare that to the total German population). People were sick of the regime and ready to see it go. Most Germans barely paid attention at Nuremberg. They were ready to move on from the Hitler gang. Which is another reason it is implausible that the Allies would risk everything to fake a genocide. #

The Nazi regime had discredited itself already, through losing the war miserably which it had started. The Allies need not have done anything to discredit them. And if they wanted to discredit them they need only focus on German responsibility for starting the war, not fabricate a genocide.

Ridiculous and ahistorical. Nuremberg was widely keen known and viewed. The country had been split asunder, millions of Germans displaced, killed. Millions of others too. The UK was bankrupt, the soviets devastated, yet curiously now in control of all eastern Europe. The allies were occupying Europe, the middle east was confronting zionism, the Japanese occupied, two cities destroyed the list goes on...

 

[Bonesjones]

This is such a strange assumption. Nobody was ignorant of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the Holocaust itself got very little play until the 1960s, including in Germany (the Eichmann Trial, the Auschwitz trial, and the coming of age of the 68-er generation in West Germany gave the issue new prominence).

Hey look you only point to using nukes as a war crime, ignoring the others. Curious. So the holocaust was invented 15 years later? I thought it was immediately apparent? Weird.

The Nazis themselves had marginal support in Germany when the war ended. Yes Hitler was probably the most popular leader in Europe in 1940, but losing the war so badly through a string of strategic disasters and broken promises will take that away. From 1933 through the first several years of war, Nazi Germany was an authoritarian state whose power came from the "charismatic leadership" (see Weber) of the Führer and his relationship with the people. But in the aftermath of the failed Hitler assasination attempt in 1944, it became a totalitarian state that terrorized its people into submission.

I'm pretty sure National Socialism was destroyed when half the world occupied German territory. Everyone left alive and not tortured were ready to move on with their lives and American financial support post war would basically stipulate its destruction.

It is true that the Wehrmacht generally fought until capitulation. But there was virtually no "Nazi resistance movement" (the vaunted werewolves ended up not being a thing) after German surrender. That is because so few Germans had any loyalty or love left for that failed regime.

Or because they knew fighting against half the world was suicidal.

Only a minority of hardcore Nazis even cared when Hitler died (yes there were a German number of suicides that are most likely attributable to the end of Nazism rather than other factors, but compare that to the total German population). People were sick of the regime and ready to see it go. Most Germans barely paid attention at Nuremberg. They were ready to move on from the Hitler gang. Which is another reason it is implausible that the Allies would risk everything to fake a genocide. #

No one can prove Hitler ever died and the skull the Soviets claimed to have belonged to a woman.

Its not hard to fake anything when no one is left in power to doubt you, which you constantly gloss over. It's almost like you do it on purpose.

 

[Bonesjones]

I believe that the Allied cause was just, but nuking or fire bombing a city is a war crime and murder, yeah. Unsoldierly too.

So the allies were the good guys, even when they said they would join the devil against the Nazis? Are we sure they were morally just?

I think denial is a completely dumb conspiracy theory but the law of probability dictates that a few smart people will believe in it.

There was a list of celebrities, politicians, and academics who hinted at the holocaust not being entirely true, being unable to say it outright due to the effect it would have on their career. I of course can't find it because strangely Google won't let you search for holocaust denial literature. I guess that just proves how fake it really is, when they have to stop you looking at it because it's so untrue.

 

[Lemmingwise]

A bit like Galileo as Rudolf himself said

Funnily enough, galileo is very much a history misremembered too. The pope himself commissioned for galileo to write down and share his teachings regarding the planetary bodies in our system.

Galileo rather than laying out his arguments straightforwardly, did it by having a dialogue between two people, on of which had a name which pretty much meant "simpleton". This character had a number of traits that were identical to the pope. This character defended the geocentric model while the other character defended heliocentrism.

It is basically a really old version of the chad / virgin meme. Considering the pope was paying him for this treatise and considerinf the pope was considered a spiritual leader to the prevailing religion, it was both hugely disrespectful and gauche to present the information this way.

He had been asked to present the arguments for and against heliocentrism without advocating any point.

It might be worth pointing out that the pope sided with galileo the time he similarly got into a spitting match with jesuits and that on the end of that conflict with competing treatises this commission was asked.

As a result of him not presenting the facts neutrally, there was an inquisition. He was threatened but not subjected to torture. He conceded that the treatise advocated a viewpoint, which was a huge threat politically at a time during the rise of protestantism. He was officially allowed to be imprisoned, but immediately this was commuted to a house arrest, under which he remained the rest of his life, able to work and study, but not teach and publish (broadly).

Of course when the enlightenment looked for icons and flags for people to rally behind, galileo was the perfect example of a maligned scientist who suffered under ecclestial rule and as such his history is blown up and sanitized.

Did Rudolf get commissioned by one of the top people in power to give his arguments for and against the holocaust?

Did Rudolf present his ideas in a satirical manner making fun of those top person or people that hired him?

Did Rudolf already have a history of getting in conflict with powerful groups which he was then defended for by sitting power?

I don't think Rudolf is that comparable to galileo at all. Perhaps only in the way galileo is popularly remembered, when viewed through enlightenment glasses.

I admit my cope about how Wiesel might mean something different in Yiddish was dumb

I, for one, applaud you for admitting a misstep. This is not a satirical reply to you, as most have been recently.

 

[mrolonzo]

So the allies were the good guys, even when they said they would join the devil against the Nazis? Are we sure they were morally just?

There was a list of celebrities, politicians, and academics who hinted at the holocaust not being entirely true, being unable to say it outright due to the effect it would have on their career. I of course can't find it because strangely Google won't let you search for holocaust denial literature. I guess that just proves how fake it really is, when they have to stop you looking at it because it's so untrue.

Recently finished Majdanek presentation by codoh poster you may find elucidating;

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mevhj05mk3an55l/Majdanek%20V2.pdf?dl=0

 

[Lemmingwise]

The Allied bombing campaigns against Germany clearly had the massacre of civilians as one of its goals, as obviously did the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that this goal of massacring civilians was incident to a greater and good goal—Axis capitulation—cannot excuse it.

I'll remind you that the USSR was one of the allied. What's your moral opinion on how they treated civilians under their own rule compared to Germany?

And if civilian deaths in favor to win are the greater good, do you consider german reprisal actions in say netherlands or france where whole areas were punished for resistance equally morally defensible as the nukes and civilian firebombing? And if they are, would you agree at the very least that the detainment of jewish people was understandable, considering that there had been an attempted coup by almost purely jewish people, and that there was an international call by jewry to resist and fight germany, leading to the newspaper headline "judea declares war on germany", which happened (as far as I know) before any discriminatory legislation or actions from germany against jewish people.

(Note: see how I engage seriously when you are willing to admit missteps? You should still admit the other, bigger one though)

 

[mgc]

Honestly if you take into account how much the Soviets suffered, and how desperate their circumstance was, I am not sure that they were much worse than the Western Allies.

I am not exonerating the Soviets, who often behaved monstrously (Katyn of course, but also the brutal ethnic cleansing operations targeting Volga Germans and supposedly pro-German Soviet minorities like the Chechens and Crimean Tartars, widespread mistreatment of German POWs, large incidence of rape, etc ). By equating the Soviets with the Western Allies, I am trying to emphasize instead how horrible the latter behaved too.

The latter engaged in the firebombing and nuking of civilians, the British diverted foodstuffs from South Asia knowing it would cause a genocidal famine, and then they collaborated with the Soviets after the war to ethnically cleanse Germans, not just the "settlers" who had replaced ethnically cleansed Poles, but traditional German populations all over Eastern Europe who were just living where they always had lived. I would also add that contrary to Western versions of history, sexual violence was hardly the exclusive province of the Red Army, and plenty of British and American soldiers committed rape.

Nazis win overwhelmingly in terms of horribleness, though. First people in history to create factories devoted to killing all members of an ethnic group they could get their hands on, not just political enemies but women and kids. (Able bodied were killed after being exploited for labor.) And do not forget that, while the biggest Allied crimes (huge exception being ethnic cleansing of Germans) ended when the war ended, Nazi crimes and body count would have only increased had they prevailed and achieved dominion in Eastern Europe. General Plan Ost would have meant the death and enslavement of tens of millions more Slavs.

In terms of the Wehrmacht, they behaved pretty similarly to the Western Allies in the West, but were unparalled savages in the East - much worse than the Red Army - because they had dehumanized Russians and Poles. The Germans razed numerous villages or cities and regularly murdered thousands of Eastern civilians in "reprisals." Rape committed by German soldiers was punished by court martial in the West, yet not in the East (I cannot say I have personally read the documents showing this, but according to Richard Evans, German rapists of Russian women were punished for racial shame, not rape).

 

[Bonesjones]

Honestly if you take into account how much the Soviets suffered, and how desperate their circumstance was, I am not sure that they were much worse than the Western Allies.

I am not exonerating the Soviets, who often behaved monstrously (Katyn of course, but also the brutal ethnic cleansing operations targeting Volga Germans and supposedly pro-German Soviet minorities like the Chechens and Crimean Tartars, widespread mistreatment of German POWs, large rates of rape, etc ). By equating the Soviets with the Western Allies, I am trying to emphasize instead how horrible the latter behaved too.

The latter engaged in the firebombing and nuking of civilians, the British diverted foodstuffs from South Asia knowing it would cause a genocidal famine, and then they collaborated with the Soviets after the war to ethnically cleanse Germans, not just the "settlers" who had replaced ethnically cleansed Poles, but traditional German populations all over Eastern Europe who were just living where they always had lived. I would also add that contrary to Western versions of history, sexual violence was hardly the exclusive province of the Red Army, and plenty of British and American soldiers committed rape.

Nazis win overwhelmingly in terms of horribleness, though. First people in history to create factories devoted to killing members of an ethnic group they could get their hands on, not just political enemies but women and kids. And do not forget that, while the biggest Allied crimes (huge exception being ethnic cleansing of Germans) ended when the war ended, Nazi crimes and body count would have only increased had they prevailed and achieved dominion in Eastern Europe. General Plan Ost would have meant the death and enslavement of tens of millions more Slavs.

So considering these large amounts of crimes against humanity, you can see how they would have a want for a moral justification for all the devastation. Whether it's real or not?

 

[Lemmingwise]

how much the Soviets suffered, and how desperate their circumstance was

Do you think this is very different compared to the suffering of Germans or that there was a difference in how desperate their circumstance got?

I would also add that contrary to Western versions of history, sexual violence was hardly the exclusive province of the Red Army, and plenty of British and American soldiers committed rape.

It's commendable of you and rarely pointed out. The attempts of japan to deal with rape were also interesting postwar, where they established brothels next to american bases to prevent rapes. Asking their own women to do a duty so other women could be safe. Which pretty much reduced raping to 0%. But then this of course did lead to some stds for american soldiers as they all had sex with the same women, and as a result the brothels were forbidden by the americans, and rape rates returned to what they were. But I digress.

Okay, you seem willing to point to each country for their crimes. Do you have similar moral condemnation for jewish discriminatory actions, like the call to not serve germans in restaurants internationally, like the attempted jewish communist coup in germany, like the partly jewish coup in russia that created the ussr, like the russian jew who called for the death of every single german and for every soviet citizen to act towards it? Like the morgenthau plan?