By the way my debate with Jim Rizoli is online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRpWoY8IRdw
The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
At which ones, the open air pit burnings that would require orders of magnitude more fuel or your super efficient magic Jew-fat powered crematoriums?
In the first case, where did the fuel come from and where did the bodies go? In the second case we return again to the mystery of the magic vanishing thermodynamic law breaking crematoriums, which is yet to be resolved.
It's almost like none of this shit makes sense and you're just cobbling together unrelated, forged, or deceptively presented materials and calling anyone who notices an anti-Semite.
I don't think we've had a long back and forth here, so which part makes the least sense to you?
And you can tell me if it makes sense for 900 to be working at the krema day and night (including 350 on disinfection detail) when the official books were reporting 25 dead each day
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
All of it.
Nothing you've presented fits together in a way that follows logic, everything is contradicted by something else you claim is true, invalidated as impossible/impractical or simply presented without foundation.
It's almost like none of this shit makes sense and you're just cobbling together unrelated, forged, or deceptively presented materials to advance a completely unfounded and self-serving narrative while calling anyone who notices an anti-Semite.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
1.Uh. Sure. But the nazis used vernichtung in a political sense frequently so they could be talking about destruction in the political sense, which fits with both practice and rhetoric.
2. At no point, were the nazis keen to have their detainees die immediately.
3. Wait. That's the strength of your argument? How much or how little the camps could be described as benign?
Ok. Let's stick with benign, but only in the lesser sense.
4. Re healthcare. The records show surgical intervention in numerous cases. So it wasn't just kissing a boo boo all better. It's 24/7 acute medical care.
No they were keeping non employable Jews alive because they were the family members of other Jews and if you don't treat them, they don't just die immediately, they rot in their bunks, accentuating the hygiene problem and of course lowering morale. Every army in the world has its own medical service. Do you think they care for their soldiers because they are being especially nice or is it a combination of common humanity and efficiency?
And why are you quoting me here from a different post regarding my puzzlement at your response? Is this petulance?
Certainly. But there was no killing of non employable or non able bodied. The SS were firstly quite flexible about who could work because they wanted everyone to work. Those that couldn't , for example children or elderly or sick, were given appropriate alternatives.
And of course, no one was killed in the AR camps, there is no such hard evidence, its just another story.
If you've got a work camp full of typhus, then keeping children around doesn't make sense, unless they along with nazi volunteer soldiers and detainees are helping you develop treatments or therapies against the typhus raging in the camp. Thus the continued presence of twins.
For elderly. They would be moved asap. However, it's possible quite a few still died.
In any case according to Czech the gassing was "called off " in Nov 2 1944. So the Hungarians, especially the non able bodied or non employable Jews should all be dead? Except they're not. Because there was no gassings as that wasnt the point of the camp.
Notice how they refuse to even acknowledge my posts. Refuse to directly quote and answer me.
Yes. But in a lesser sense of course, as prisons are, which are a modern invention.
Not only are they performing surgery on the detainees, they are releasing them, and even filing reports when Jews have been mistreated or they they require corporal punishment which instead of the claims about SS torture and mistreatment is done in strict accordance with regulations.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Yes the nazis did want to use every man for labour. Which is good for the nazis and good for the Jews.
The “Monthly Report on Temporarily Accommodated Hungarian Jews in the Camp” of July 27, 1944 has the following statistics on the treatment of
prisoners in the “Prisoners’ Infirmary Outpatient Clinic B II/a”: 93
“Cases treated: In the reporting period 3,138 prisoners [were94] treated in the clinic.
Of these: Surgical cases 1426
Diarrhea 327
Constipation 253
Angina 79
Diabetes 4
Congestive heart failure 25
Scabies 62
Pneumonia 75
Flu 136
Heat rash/impetigo 268
Other 448
Infectious diseases:
Scarlet fever 16
Mumps 5
Measles 5
Erysipelas 5
The surgical operations were recorded in their respective registers, of which two were found after the war.
The Polish historian Henryk
Świebocki wrote on this (Świebocki, p. 330):
“The operation books contain the names and prisoner numbers of prisoners, the dates of admission, the diagnoses, and the kind of operation.
They cover the period from September 10, 1942 to February 23, 1944.
In this period, as the entries reflect, 11,246 operations of various kinds were performed.”
This works out to an average of more than 20 operations per day!
-------------
Page 199. Conclusions;
"The fundamental assumption of the orthodox Holocaust narrative is that the Jews taken into the transit camp, which were almost exclusively Hungarian Jews, were classified as incapable of working and thus were killed in the purported gas chambers.
This assumption, however, is categorically refuted by an extremely important document.
It is dated July 26, 1944 and its subject is “Prisoners’ Infirmary Clinic BII/a, Auschwitz II. Monthly Report on H[ungarian Jews] Temporarily Quartered in the Camp.”
Camp Sector BIIa contained the so-called Quarantine Camp. The report covers the period June 26 to July 26.
This report indicates that there was a previous report for the period May 17 to June 15.
I translate here the most important parts of this document, of which the second page is missing and the
right edge is damaged in places:381
“In the period (June 26 through July 26, 1944) vo […gaps in original] On average 2,500 Hungarian Jews ready for transport in camp […gaps in original] in 3 blocks, stay in camp for 3 – 10 days. They underwent in the meantime on entry and departure a thorough medical examination and were deloused. Daily monitoring of lice and body temperature enabled delousing of lice carriers in the camp’s own disinfestation facility, clothes and linens were disinfested in the steam kettle and impregnated with anti-louse agents. Seriously ill inmates found during monitoring were sent back to BII/f or transferred to another camp. On July 1 of the same month arrival of 450 young Jewish Hungarians from B II/d [...] Since too many prisoners (up to 1,000) were housed in the barracks, many had to sleep on the bare concrete floor or on damp earthen floors, from which a wave of colds and dysentery. The youths in the special quarantine in Barracks 12 have for 10 weeks, the Hungarians in Barracks 8 for 8 weeks not changed their laundry. Since neither group is part of the camp census, no washing soap could be issued for them. A shipment of soap is urgently requested.”
The report then lists the medical treatments provided to these Hungarian Jews, as I presented in Section 2.2 (see p. 51). This shows that the inmates of the “transit camp” who were incapable of working, rather than being murdered, quite to the contrary were given health care or were being transferred to the Camp Hospital BIIf or to another camp.....
-------------
There's no evidence of a different policy for Poles. Besides Jews are being treated and released.
Transfers, deaths in spring 45, escapes. Plus see above.
Except your own quote showed he doesn't hand wave it. But specifically addressed the problem with his own argument.
There are plenty of nazis that doubt that the gulags were death factories. The difference is thought to be that the Russians were not as efficient.
Bluff and bluster. Death rates were high, very high. Thus the exhortation from senior ranks and the wide scale reforms and improvements. None of this was due to murder, why would they just make even more work for themselves?
I watched it live. Jim didn't take any of your vague nonsense and basically exposed your amateurish behaviour.
Okay so at least I got you to swallow the reductio - you say Stalinist gulags were benign because there were hospitals and released inmates (at a vastly higher rate than Auschwitz, fwiw). Gotcha.
In terms of the list you provide, three points.
First (not so important), as I have said I need to check whether this actually refers to Jews, as many of Mattogno's documents about "health care in Auschwitz" refer to all inmates, though he misleadingly implies they are used to refer to Jews. But let us assume for argument's sake that the document does refer to Jews.
Second (very important), you are omitting an important word, Outpatient Clinic, or Ambulanz in German.
That means that (referring to the "surgeries performed 1426"), the surgeries being performed entailed no stay at the hospital, and instead the patient went home shortly after the procedure. That precludes the kind of serious surgical procedures you are talking about.
In this connection, it is highly relevant that we are talking about 1942-1945, a period when outpatient surgery was in its infancy and thus much more rudimentary than today. See the attachment for some history regarding the development of outpatient surgery, which was customarily used for very minor procedures until the American revolution in outpatient surgery beginning in the 1960s.
Given what outpatient surgery meant in the 1940s, this sounds a lot more like stitching a wound than open heart surgery or whatever you fantasize "surgery" entailed. Note again that the patient would have to be well enough to return to work or the barracks after the procedure was complete, since this is "outpatient" care.
Regarding the second part of your document, which notes treatment for various conditions, it is true that some of the list of conditions the Jewish doctors diagnosed were serious. But it is entirely possible to give someone superficial care for a serious condition. I can give someone advil for a maimed finger and record that as "treatment." You think that because the Jewish slave doctors diagnosed inmates as having serious conditions this means that they were adequately treated, but there is no evidence of that, and in fact overwhelming evidence against it.
Third, as Mattogno's own documents show, health care in Auschwitz was about maintaining labor capacity. It had nothing to do with beneficence toward Jews as you in your fantasy world seem to believe. Because it was about labor capacity, it is scarcely surprising that the overwhelming majority of non-able-bodied Jews never received health care, but were murdered immediately upon arrival to Auschwitz.
In terms of the list you provide, three points.
First (not so important), as I have said I need to check whether this actually refers to Jews, as many of Mattogno's documents about "health care in Auschwitz" refer to all inmates, though he misleadingly implies they are used to refer to Jews. But let us assume for argument's sake that the document does refer to Jews.
Second (very important), you are omitting an important word, Outpatient Clinic, or Ambulanz in German.
That means that (referring to the "surgeries performed 1426"), the surgeries being performed entailed no stay at the hospital, and instead the patient went home shortly after the procedure. That precludes the kind of serious surgical procedures you are talking about.
In this connection, it is highly relevant that we are talking about 1942-1945, a period when outpatient surgery was in its infancy and thus much more rudimentary than today. See the attachment for some history regarding the development of outpatient surgery, which was customarily used for very minor procedures until the American revolution in outpatient surgery beginning in the 1960s.
Given what outpatient surgery meant in the 1940s, this sounds a lot more like stitching a wound than open heart surgery or whatever you fantasize "surgery" entailed. Note again that the patient would have to be well enough to return to work or the barracks after the procedure was complete, since this is "outpatient" care.
Regarding the second part of your document, which notes treatment for various conditions, it is true that some of the list of conditions the Jewish doctors diagnosed were serious. But it is entirely possible to give someone superficial care for a serious condition. I can give someone advil for a maimed finger and record that as "treatment." You think that because the Jewish slave doctors diagnosed inmates as having serious conditions this means that they were adequately treated, but there is no evidence of that, and in fact overwhelming evidence against it.
Third, as Mattogno's own documents show, health care in Auschwitz was about maintaining labor capacity. It had nothing to do with beneficence toward Jews as you in your fantasy world seem to believe. Because it was about labor capacity, it is scarcely surprising that the overwhelming majority of non-able-bodied Jews never received health care, but were murdered immediately upon arrival to Auschwitz.
Last edited:
Well I haven't presented a narrative, and you seem not to be too well read on the subject, so this isn't surprising. Let me know if you're really interested in learning about it--that way you will be able to raise specific points of concern. It's always a good idea to know and understand the opposite side's argument. You should be able to pass yourself off as an educated 'Holocaust' defender, if pressed. I can do this with revisionism, which admittedly is easier, since it offers no narrative but only disjointed criticism
@mrolonzo
your posts are too long to quote but through them all you fail to address our main criticism of your and Mattogno's 'Healthcare at Auschwitz' thesis that Auschwitz healthcare is somehow evidence that they wouldn't gas Jews they had no intention of employing
Even Mattogno doesn't say this explicitly (because he's not as much of dodohead as you), though maybe it is implied and unfortunately lots of people take it this way. Look at the last quote you pulled. The "Hungarian youths" in question are dirty and need to be deloused, quarantined, etc, but clearly they are going to be ready for labor soon
If you want to find evidence of non-employed Jews being maintained somewhere in the East, I suggest you pick up where Rapechu left off, actually looking at evidence of Jewish settlements there. But you know there's nothing so this is a fool's errand.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Page 50;
On December 16, 1943, the head doctor of Auschwitz Concentration
Camp submitted a
“Report on the Activity of the Surgical Department of the Hospital for Prisoners of Auschwitz I Concentration Camp from September 16, 1943 to December 15, 1943.”
Here is the text of this report:91
“The surgical department was, as before, housed in Block 21 during the reporting period. Because of space limitations in Block 21, many surgical patients were treated in Block 19. The outpatient treatments were performed in Block 28.
In the reporting period, 1,800 prisoners were in the surgical department, of whom 314[92] prisoners received aseptic surgeries.
Septic surgeries (for phlegmons, abscesses, etc.) were performed on 2135 patients.
Of the septic surgeries, the following are to be listed:
Stomach resectioning 2
Removal of neck lymph nodes 3
Gall bladder excisions 1
Laparotomies 2
Appendectomies 10
Hernia operations 102
Castrations 89
Genital surgeries 5
Hydrocele operations 9
Vascular operations 7
Amputation of extremities 2
Mastoidectomies 11
Tonsilectomies 30
Deviated septums 30
Ovariectomies 16
Rotator-cuff resectioning 1
Tubal ligations 1
Skin grafting 2
_________
Page 52
A few days later, on December 14, Rudolf Höß, the then-head of Office DI, advised the camp commandants of the following amendment to the circular just referred to:96
“Further to the above circular, I advise with authorization of the head of Agency D III that, when a Jewish inmate physician is not available for the surgery to be performed, a qualified non-Jewish inmate physician may perform the needed surgery.”
_______
So we have not only the assurance that Jews may treat Jews but that accommodation will be made to make that so and in extremis gentile medics will be used. Further demonstrating that Jews were given surgery which was urgently needed I.e. without it they will die.
You may continue your excuses now.
Ok. So you think most Jews were non employable or unfit for work?
And anyway why would they gas non employable Jews? Wouldn't that be bad for morale?
Last edited:
I have addressed these documents already.
The first document listing various procedures is from a different clinic in Auschwitz I, not the "outpatient clinic" in Birkenau. It is not even about Jewish patients, who again had to be treated seperately from all the other patients by Jewish doctors (as Mattogno acknowledges) until late 1944. So totally irrelevant to the treatment of Jews in Auschwitz, and totally irrelevant to the list of "surgeries" I was discussing earlier.
The second document is about Jews and represents a change in policy from December 1944, in the last weeks before Auschwitz was liberated, allowing Jewish inmates to be treated by non-jewish doctors, and calling for better health care and treatment for them in general. This order was given AFTER (as part of an attempt to cover up the exterminations and save his skin) Himmler ordered a stop to the gassings and better treatment for Jews. It is completely compatible with mainstream Holocaust history and eyewitness testimony.
The first document listing various procedures is from a different clinic in Auschwitz I, not the "outpatient clinic" in Birkenau. It is not even about Jewish patients, who again had to be treated seperately from all the other patients by Jewish doctors (as Mattogno acknowledges) until late 1944. So totally irrelevant to the treatment of Jews in Auschwitz, and totally irrelevant to the list of "surgeries" I was discussing earlier.
The second document is about Jews and represents a change in policy from December 1944, in the last weeks before Auschwitz was liberated, allowing Jewish inmates to be treated by non-jewish doctors, and calling for better health care and treatment for them in general. This order was given AFTER (as part of an attempt to cover up the exterminations and save his skin) Himmler ordered a stop to the gassings and better treatment for Jews. It is completely compatible with mainstream Holocaust history and eyewitness testimony.
This debate is nearly unlistenable lol but I liked this part https://youtu.be/aRpWoY8IRdw?t=3214 "hundreds of thousands of documents FAWGED"
there's no indication that Jews are being treated in the first document you post, but even so, unlike the non-employable Jews, these prisoners could be useful after recovering
do you understand that one does not follow from the other? (Nazis taking care of Jews that will soon be useful to them does not = Nazing taking care of Jews that they don't intend to employ period)
This is a blatant example of an invalid deductive argument , and the longer you continue with it the more you BTFO yourself , just like you did when you claimed that the Nazis spent trillions on Jewish healthcare and I kept explaining to you why this was dumb and unreasonable (like the GDP of Nazi Germany wasn't even trillions lol)
Last edited:
Yeah the audio quality sucks ass, but the good news is I finally bought a professional-level mic, so no more such nonsense in the future.
no everything sounded fine, I was talking about the "Rizoli" quality. not your fault
I partially disagree with you on Zo, he is kind of a jerk and clearly a denier for ideological reasons. But compared to the other deniers, he is relatively engaging. He at least he posts documents rather than doing the standard "I friggin' love science" nonsense about how fuel efficiency violates the first law of thermodynamics.
I have no real hope for him to change his views, as he is completely ideologically baked in. But the question of health care at Auschwitz is an interesting and under-researched one, though the provision of rudimentary health care to Jewish slave laborers obviously does not "disprove" the Holocaust or any such nonsense. Maybe I will research it in the future, though unfortunately a lot of the documents appear to be in Russian archives.
I have no real hope for him to change his views, as he is completely ideologically baked in. But the question of health care at Auschwitz is an interesting and under-researched one, though the provision of rudimentary health care to Jewish slave laborers obviously does not "disprove" the Holocaust or any such nonsense. Maybe I will research it in the future, though unfortunately a lot of the documents appear to be in Russian archives.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Yes that's fine. Ive listed the treatments given to inmates. You tried to wave it away by pretending that nazis would make certain and specific distinctions between Poles vs Jews or the employable vs the non employable without any reference to the camp documents.
Do you plan on producing any camp document of the time that supports this or should I take it on faith?
So you're saying that they gassed non employable Jews? Is that like 80% of Jews? You do understand that just killing non employable Jews will be bad for morale right?
Are you disputing that only Jewish doctors could treat Jews at Auschwitz, at least until the final weeks? If you acknowledge this (which Mattogno implicitly does), then it follow logically that the non-Jews were treated seperately from the Jews.
I mean, the documents you have mentioned here from the last weeks before Auschwitz was liberated are evidence that Jews and non-Jews were treated seperately. These documents contain orders that Jewish innmates can now be treated by non-Jewish doctors if necessary, which implies that they were not treated by non-Jewish doctors (i.e. alongside the other inmates) before.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
In fact im not a jerk.
Anyway,
The Monowitz hospital has been extensively described by the Italian Jewish doctor Leonardo de Benedetti as well as by the well-known author Primo Levi. Both were deported to Auschwitz on February 26, 1944. In 1946 they published a “Report on the Hygienic-Sanitary Organization of the Monowitz Concentration Camp for Jews (Auschwitz, Upper Silesia),”103
from which the following passages are taken: “Illnesses of the stomach and digestive tract. [...] The standard treatment was of a dual nature and encompassed both nutrition and pharmacological therapies. After their admission to the hospital, the patients underwent a total fast for 24 hours, after which they received a special diet until their condition improved....
“Surgical Cases.
Here also, we will not dwell long on those ailments requiring surgical interventions which had no connection with life in the camps. We shall cover such matters with the remark that even surgeries requiring a high surgical standard were performed, above all those involving penetration of the body wall such as gastroenteroanastomosis for duodenal ulcers, appendectomies, rib resectioning for emphysema, as well as orthopedic interventions for fractures and sprains. Where the overall condition of the patient did not assure that the trauma of the surgery could be withstood, the patient received a blood transfusion before initiating the procedure; transfusions were also performed to alleviate secondary anemia as well as severe hemorrhage from an ulcer or trauma sustained in an accident. For donors, recent arrivals to the camp were selected who were in good health; donation of blood was voluntary and was rewarded with 15 days’ stay in the hospital, during which time the donor receives a special diet, so that there was never any lack of volunteers for blood donation. [...]
The surgical suite is equipped with an extensive assortment of instruments, which were at least adequate for the surgeries in prospect; the walls were clad in washable white tiles; there was an adjustable operating table that, although a bit old-fashioned, still was in good condition and made it possible to place the patient into the main positions for surgeries;
further there was an electric autoclave for sterilization of surgical instruments; for lighting served several portable spotlights as well as a large, fixed lamp in the center of the suite. On one wall, behind a wooden screen, were lavatories with running hot and cold water in which the surgeon and his assistants washed their hands. On the subject of aseptic surgery, we note that inguinal hernias were regularly operated upon at the request of the patient, at least until mid-Spring 1944; after that such operations were discontinued, except in cases of very serious ......
“Later the first beginnings of a medical-care service were attained with the establishment of a clinic, where anyone who thought himself ill could present himself, but those whom the doctors pointed out as malingerers would be subject to severe physical punishment by the SS. Where the illness was seen to impair the ability to work, a couple of days’ rest could be prescribed. As time went on, several barracks were converted into infirmaries, which with time continually acquired new departments, such that during our stay in the camp, the following departments were in regular operation.......
There was no x-ray machine, and when an x-ray was judged necessary, the patients were sent to Auschwitz, where there was a good facility of the kind available, and from which they returned with an x-ray diagnosis. From this presentation one might form the impression that it portrays a hospital that, although small, still was fully equipped and that functioned well in most respects. In fact, however, there were deficiencies, some of which could perhaps not be remedied, such as the shortage of medically trained personnel and the lack of medication, which may be explained from the grave situation in which Germany found itself at the time; after all, from the one side it was threatened by the inexorable advance of the Russian troops while from the other side it was bombarded day in and day out by the British and American air forces; other shortages could clearly have been borne with a bit of forbearance
and better organization of the health service.” (p. 12)......
Yes, that was the general policy. The estimates range from 60-80%
As opposed to killing all Jews?
And whose morale exactly?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Yes. That's about ethnic cultural distinction in care provided. Not about treatment which is ultimately, given by the nazis.
So no. You're not going to provide any documents from the camp. You're literally just going to tell me, 'oh they decided to not kill the Jews because they didn't like the bad publicity so they called it off...'
Why shouldn't I just dismiss that assertion?
So they're non employable in what fashion? Being young or old? Sick? And most Jews are either young old or sick?
The Jews morale. It would be rather upsetting and cause an uproar and disorder which is against orders. In fact the camp commandant would have to be notified.
Last edited:
So you think Levi's testimony, that able-bodied Jews with “Illnesses of the stomach and digestive tract" were told to fast for 24 hours, had their diet adjusted, and were given 3-4 Tannalbin pills (which would cost about 1 dollar and 50 cents today, see https://www.homoempatia.eu/product/tannalbin-tabletten.59055.html?language_code=en), disproves the Holocaust?
Also, why do you believe Primo Levi on his testimony about health care methods at Auschwitz while disbelieving him about exterminations of the non-able bodied Jews?
Also, why do you believe Primo Levi on his testimony about health care methods at Auschwitz while disbelieving him about exterminations of the non-able bodied Jews?
Last edited: