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

[Chugger]

Dunno, why don't you prove what you claim

hold on, are you saying you're not claiming the Jews survived these camps, or don't think it happened? nice man, welcome to right side of history.

Euthanasia

lol this guy thinks the Nazis were killing the handicapped-against the will of the families and the country at large--cuz they felt so bad for these people

if you're concerned with motive, they killed them for the same reason they killed the Jews (useless eaters)

 

[JohnDoe]

This gap requires explanation as millions do not simply disappear.

First you're still not proving that anyone vanished, just that you don't know where they went. If you want to assume they died, you can, but your assumption isn't proof. Produce the bodies.

Otherwise I guess we have to assume that Katrina was an excuse to kill a few thousands of Americans, using the same logic.

hold on, are you saying you're not claiming the Jews survived these camps, or don't think it happened?

I don't know if people survived, escaped, died to disease, or were even there in the first place.

 

[Chugger]

I don't know if people survived, escaped, died to disease, or were even there in the first place.

It's totally fair to plead ignorance based on lack of familiarity with the material available to us, and how to parse it. This is tough stuff and took me several weeks of heavy reading to get a handle on.

But if we are taking an evidence-based approach to what happened (which is how history works) in order to supplant Holocaust story there must be a better evidenced alternative (for example showing that millions of Jews starved to death in resettlement camps). Otherwise, at minimum, we must say it's our best guess.

 

[JohnDoe]

But if we are taking an evidence-based approach to what happened (which is how history works) in order to supplant Holocaust story there must be a better evidenced alternative

Wrong. In an evidence based approach you need evidence to prove your Holocaust story. You can't just assert without proof that something happened, stop trying to skip that step. I might suggest that the first step to proving 6 billion cases of murder might be to produce bodies. After that you can start proving the circumstances of the deaths.

 

[mrolonzo]

hold on, are you saying you're not claiming the Jews survived these camps, or don't think it happened? nice man, welcome to right side of history.


lol this guy thinks the Nazis were killing the handicapped-against the will of the families and the country at large--cuz they felt so bad for these people

if you're concerned with motive, they killed them for the same reason they killed the Jews (useless eaters)

This euthanasia thing....

Isn't this just an excuse you think you can to make people think they got an idea to commit mass murder here?

It's totally fair to plead ignorance based on lack of familiarity with the material available to us, and how to parse it. This is tough stuff and took me several weeks of heavy reading to get a handle on.

But if we are taking an evidence-based approach to what happened (which is how history works) in order to supplant Holocaust story there must be a better evidenced alternative (for example showing that millions of Jews starved to death in resettlement camps). Otherwise, at minimum, we must say it's our best guess.

Ok so we show that no one was gassed at AB or could be gassed in AR, then take a best guess about the east.

So we agree right ? There was no holocaust? Right!?

 

[Chugger]

Wrong. In an evidence based approach you need evidence to prove your Holocaust story. You can't just assert without proof that something happened, stop trying to skip that step.

Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

Isn't this just an excuse you think you can to make people think they got an idea to commit mass murder here?

idk man, it's just part of the historical record. Lange went on to be the commandant of Chelmno

 

[mrolonzo]

Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

idk man, it's just part of the historical record. Lange went on to be the commandant of Chelmno

So this is a suspicion?

 

[mrolonzo]

It's totally fair to plead ignorance based on lack of familiarity with the material available to us, and how to parse it. This is tough stuff and took me several weeks of heavy reading to get a handle on.

But if we are taking an evidence-based approach to what happened (which is how history works) in order to supplant Holocaust story there must be a better evidenced alternative (for example showing that millions of Jews starved to death in resettlement camps). Otherwise, at minimum, we must say it's our best guess.

JOHNDOE: I don't if anyone was even around to die in the first place.

CHUGGER: That's chill and cool man, I get you. Took me a while to get my head around it man.

But look, I can't prove it to you but you got a better explanation?

__________

Ladies and Gentlemen. The orthodox holocaust.

 

[Chugger]

So this is a suspicion?

No it's not a suspicion that Chelmno and the Reinhard camps were staffed with many people from Aktion T4

But look, I can't prove it to you but you got a better explanation?

__________

Ladies and Gentlemen. The orthodox holocaust.

yes, now you're getting it.

the next step for you will be to start thinking about this in probabilistic rather than binary terms. so eg if the two best explanations are equally evidenced, one cannot be sure which is right. but if one theory is 10x more evidenced, the likelihood goes way up

are you following so far?

 

[Bonesjones]

No it's not a suspicion that Chelmno and the Reinhard camps were staffed with many people from Aktion T4


yes, now you're getting it.

the next step for you will be to start thinking about this in probabilistic rather than binary terms. so eg if the two best explanations are equally evidenced, one cannot be sure which is right. but if one theory is 10x more evidenced, the likelihood goes way up

are you following so far?

So if one is physically impossible due to lack of supporting evidence because it would leave literal mountains behind, and the other wouldn't. If we can't find that mountain, I guess the other would be true. Even if unlikely?

 

[mrolonzo]

No it's not a suspicion that Chelmno and the Reinhard camps were staffed with many people from Aktion T4

Yes it's a suspicion that this meant murder most foul yes?

the next step for you will be to start thinking about this in probabilistic rather than binary terms. so eg if the two best explanations are equally evidenced, one cannot be sure which is right. but if one theory is 10x more evidenced, the likelihood goes way up

are you following so far?

Yes. Im following. Given that hard evidence outweighs human input by 1million times, the holocaust is thus shown to be fraud in probability terms unless of course one thinks that various witness stories outweighs hard evidence.

 

[Chugger]

Yes. Im following. Given that hard evidence outweighs human input by 1million times, the holocaust is thus shown to be fraud in probability terms unless of course one thinks that various witness stories outweighs hard evidence.

Good. it seems like we agree that if one is evaluating based only on witness and documentary evidence, the holocaust is heavily indicated.

so the debate hinges on the hard evidence.

can I get an amen here

 

[mrolonzo]

Good. it seems like we agree that if one is evaluating based only on witness and documentary evidence, the holocaust is heavily indicated.

so the debate hinges on the hard evidence.

can I get an amen here

Yes. And since we agree that since hard evidence, like lack of bodies, inability of zyklon b or engine fumes, the presence of blue in delousing areas rather than supposed homicidal areas, the plans shown , the archeological evidence, plus documents showing the benign nature of the camps outweighs all other evidence such as dodgy documents or lurid tales and your suspicions about T4 or where the jews went are at best guesses, the holocaust is shown to be an utter fraud probabilistically.


You can amen to that right? Are you clapping with me or booing at me?

 

[Chugger]

Yes. And since we agree that since hard evidence, like lack of bodies, inability of zyklon b or engine fumes , , the presence of blue in delousing areas rather than supposed homicidal areas, the plans shown , the archeological evidence, plus documents showing the benign nature of the camps outweighs all other evidence the holocaust is shown to be an utter fraud.

You can amen to that right?

No, your documents go in the other category, alongside and in contrast to the immense documentary and witness evidence for mass extermination.

Otherwise you have my amen-- we can move on to examining the hard evidence

 

[mrolonzo]

No, your documents go in the other category, alongside and in contrast to the immense documentary and witness evidence for mass extermination.

Otherwise you have my amen-- we can move on to examining the hard evidence

Right but the hard evidence I mentioned supporting me, outweighs all your witnesses by 1 million x. Or are you saying that witness stories outweighs hard evidence or is equal to it?

And we did the hard evidence already in this thread. You agree Rudolf is a good chemist. You tried your energy bluff.
Perhaps you'd like to fight for Pressac's criminal traces?

 

[mgc]

Zo - Do you actually think the camps were "benign"?

The documents I assume you are basing this view on—Mattogno's cherry-picked documents calling for better food and health care for slave laborers—are specifically responding to the massive death rate in the camps from starvation and disease. (Even Mattogno does not quote them completely dishonestly, mentioning that these orders for better treatment said such improvements should not be implementedout of "hypocritical sentimentality" about the well-being of slaves, but out of concern for such a massive and rapid rate of death among able bodied Jews, and a corresponding rapid depletion of the labor force.

Which is to say - even these cherry-picked documents recognize the brutal nature of life in the camps for the slaves.

Of course we disagree on what happened with the Jews who were not able-bodied - I say the overwhelming majority of them were gassed and you and other deniers say they disappeared somehow, I guess. But my question is not about that.

Do you actually think Auschwitz was a "benign" place for the Jewish slave laborers?

 

[Chugger]

The documents I assume you are basing this view on—Mattogno's cherry-picked documents calling for better food and health care for slave laborers—are specifically responding to the massive death rate in the camps from starvation and disease. (Even Mattogno does not quote them completely dishonestly, mentioning that these orders for better treatment said such improvements should not be implementedout of "hypocritical sentimentality" about the well-being of slaves, but out of concern for such a massive and rapid rate of death among able bodied Jews, and a corresponding rapid depletion of the labor force.

Moreover I should add that it seems like mrolonzo believes these documents easily outweigh the vast documentary evidence for killing at camps --whether the ones in Poland or further east like Maly Trostenets. These camps could not have existed, he thinks, because of the steps taken in other camps to preserve slave labor force

I suspect there's little more conversation to be had here -- I call this impasse 'the rodoh wall'

 

[mrolonzo]

So this is a suspicion?

Zo - Do you actually think the camps were "benign"?

The documents I assume you are basing this view on—Mattogno's cherry-picked documents calling for better food and health care for slave laborers—are specifically responding to the massive death rate in the camps from starvation and disease. (Even Mattogno does not quote them completely dishonestly, mentioning that these orders for better treatment said such improvements should not be implementedout of "hypocritical sentimentality" about the well-being of slaves, but out of concern for such a massive and rapid rate of death among able bodied Jews, and a corresponding rapid depletion of the labor force.

Which is to say - even these cherry-picked documents recognize the brutal nature of life in the camps for the slaves.

Of course we disagree on what happened with the Jews who were not able-bodied - I say the overwhelming majority of them were gassed and you and other deniers say they disappeared somehow, I guess. But my question is not about that.

Do you actually think Auschwitz was a "benign" place for the Jewish slave laborers?

Ok. Let's clear a few things up you've been trying here;

1. There are no cherry picked documents. To cherry pick presumes one picks those you do like over those you don't. Mattogno picks all original authentic documents and puts them into the framework of the camp. There are no other documents ordering harsh treatment or execution of innocents that Mattogno leaves out. Point refuted.

2. Hypocritical sentiment means the fact that they've been brought here, not " let's not be hypocritical because we're trying to kill them all". Point refuted.

3. The jews were already being fed when the orders went out to make sure their diet and work hours were adequate. This is simply an addition to that practice. This completely destroys you and Chuggers "work them to death" fantasy. Point refuted.

4. Slaves sure. Brutal nature of the camp, not really. Brutality is against orders and contradicted by provisions of amenities, good food reasonable work hours and occasional releases. Point refuted.

5. Killing non able bodied Jews is refuted by the healthcare treatment fundamentally. Just another stupid story and easily refuted unless you would like to argue differently. I gave you the sources and quotes. Point refuted.

6. Benign yes. Detained in a work camp is benign compared to industrial murder. Yes absolutely.

Moreover I should add that it seems like mrolonzo believes these documents easily outweigh the vast documentary evidence for killing at camps --whether the ones in Poland or further east like Maly Trostenets. These camps could not have existed, he thinks, because of the steps taken in other camps to preserve slave labor force

I suspect there's little more conversation to be had here -- I call this impasse 'the rodoh wall'

Look how any time it gets difficult for you , you then stop responding directly to me and instead quote your friend. I literally asked you a direct and clear question;

1. Right but the hard evidence I mentioned supporting me, outweighs all your witnesses by 1 million x. Or are you saying that witness stories outweighs hard evidence or is equal to it?

2. And we did the hard evidence already in this thread. You agree Rudolf is a good chemist. You tried your energy bluff.
Perhaps you'd like to fight for Pressac's criminal traces?

3. Other camps of smaller and more temporary nature did exist and could have existed, just not as execution camps because it doesn't fit with the frame work of evidenced reality.

4. Your supposition that the germans could treat well in the west then kill in the east is simply your attempt to deal with contradictions in evidence. You really should try to refute revisionist work regarding the west.

5. At this point though it looks like you're both not even at the level of amateurism. You're not aware of the relevant literature either for or against the holocaust. You should be arguing for how Pressac's traces are real evidence or that Van Pelts work despite its problems, is legitimate. Instead you both seem to want to pretend you are forging a new path in historiography when you're managing nothing of the sort. You can't get it through your head that revisionists are to varying degrees mostly very knowledgeable in this field, that includes codoh posters and rodoh posters. Refusing to give us respect only makes you look foolish over and over when we discuss details.

 

[mgc]

There are plenty of documents calling for able-bodied Jews and persons in other ethnic groups to be worked to death, including the famous Wannsee Protocols.

To quote a September 1942 report from Reich Minister of Justice Thierack to Himmler -

"Auslieferung asozialer Elemente aus dem Strafvollzug an den Reichsführer SS zur Vernichtung durch Arbeit. Es werden restlos ausgeliefert die Sicherungsverwahrten, Juden, Zigeuner, Russen und Ukrainer, Polen über 3 Jahre Strafe, Tschechen oder Deutsche über 8 Jahre Strafe nach Entscheidung des Reichsjustizministers." ("The delivery of anti-social elements with penal sentences to the Reichsführer SS, to be exterminated through labor. All persons in protective custody, Jews, gypsies, Russians, and Ukranians, Poles with more than 3-year sentences, and Germans with more than 8-year sentences, are to be handed over without exception to the Reich Minister of justice.")

https://www.ns-archiv.de/imt/ps0501-ps1000/654-ps.php

It is true that (especially later in the war, with the Nazis particularly desperate for labor) the Nazis were not so keen to have all their slaves die immediately, and issued orders intended to preserve them for a longer period of time. What is odd (perverse to be honest) is that you say the camps were benign even though in the documents to which you refer the Nazis speak of a massive death rate due to how the inmates were being treated.

For example, as Mattogno mentions, the document where Himmler calls for better food refers to a recent death rate of 70,000 out of 136,000 registered prisoners in the camps. That is far higher than the death rate in Soviet gulags, and in a vastly shorter period of time. Does this sound "benign" to you?

On health care, you think you have a btfo because you do not understand or pretend not to understand the distinction between a 25 or 16 or 35 year old with the flu or an injured hand in need of stitches (given rudimentary health care and sent back to work), and a 85 or 5 year old (killed as useless eaters). You define all these people as "non-able bodied." But that does not mean there is not a distinction between them, namely that teenagers and younger adults with the flu or an injured hand can be brought back to working capability easily, and the very old and very young cannot.

Quick question - do you consider the gulags "benign" because they had hospitals and (in contrast to the Nazi camps, where release only happened in a tiny fringe of cases with real political interests at stake) considerable rates of release?

Of course I would say the Nazi death camps were worse than the gulags, but I am not asking about the Nazi camps here. Were the gulags "benign" places because they had hospitals and a very significant rate of release?

 

[Chugger]

mrolonzo thinks the Nazis were performing costly surgeries to keep non-employable Jews alive (who would then have to be fed and housed) just out of niceness.

meanwhile millions were starving to death in Europe due to the food crisis, something that affected German military planning on the highest level. remember our "discussion" about Leningrad?

I seriously don't know how to respond. Have I been btfo'd?