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

[mgc]

I have been reading more about the health care stuff. The witnesses from the Auschwitz (and Monowitz) hospitals confirm the same story - health care was expanded in 1943 in response to the absurd slave-labor death rate and the fact that almost every surviving slave was too ill to work properly; this was done solely to get slave laborers healthy enough to work again; if Jewish slave laborers could not get healthy they were selected and gassed; and among Jews, only slave laborers got health care (the large majority of Jews who were not slave laborers were gassed as soon as possible after arrival).

These witnesses were not only Germans prosecuted for their crimes and their Jewish accusers. They also included Polish inmates, such as Dr. Stefan Budziaszek, who attested to all the above (health care for inmates including working Jews; no health care for non-working and selected Jews who were gassed; selections for the gas chamber of Jewish slave laborers who did not recover in the hospital: etc. (Note that while Jewish inmates had to as a rule be treated by Jewish doctors, Budziaszek was in a kind of supervisory role at the Monowitz hospital which contained various Jews.)

"Revisionists" pretend the reality of health care in the camp is some groundbreaking discovery. But the general story of slave-laborers receiving health care including limited surgical procedures was confirmed by witnesses at the Nuremberg trials. So none of this contradicts even the earliest "mainstream" and "official" narrative of the Holocaust.

And why the Germans did this makes perfect sense - they wanted more labor efficiency in their slave army at Auschwitz, which engaged in labor that assisted the war.

 

[Fentanyl Floyd]

@Chugger Mossad should demote you with how much of a shitty job you're doing in this thread

 

[mrolonzo]

are you saying if the gassings were real the Germans wouldn't have tried to keep them apart for this reason?

no lol you can quote sources, it's just stupid when you quote arguments, but you haven't been doing that as much. GJ

Possibly but Auschwitz was an open camp with lots of intermingling so...

Oh right. You can quote whatever you like but I can't quote an author? Perhaps I should just post pictures of documents without any further explanation like you guys do. On second thought. Nah. That's getting down to your level.

I have been reading more about the health care stuff. The witnesses from the Auschwitz (and Monowitz) hospitals confirm the same story - health care was expanded in 1943 in response to the absurd slave-labor death rate and the fact that almost every surviving slave was too ill to work properly; this was done solely to get slave laborers healthy enough to work again; if Jewish slave laborers could not get healthy they were selected and gassed; and among Jews, only slave laborers got health care (the large majority of Jews who were not slave laborers were gassed as soon as possible after arrival).

These witnesses were not only Germans prosecuted for their crimes and their Jewish accusers. They also included Polish inmates, such as Dr. Stefan Budziaszek, who attested to all the above (health care for inmates including working Jews; no health care for non-working and selected Jews who were gassed; selections for the gas chamber of Jewish slave laborers who did not recover in the hospital: etc. (Note that while Jewish inmates had to as a rule be treated by Jewish doctors, Budziaszek was in a kind of supervisory role at the Monowitz hospital which contained various Jews.)

"Revisionists" pretend the reality of health care in the camp is some groundbreaking discovery. But the general story of slave-laborers receiving health care including limited surgical procedures was confirmed by witnesses at the Nuremberg trials. So none of this contradicts even the earliest "mainstream" and "official" narrative of the Holocaust.

And why the Germans did this makes perfect sense - they wanted more labor efficiency in their slave army at Auschwitz, which engaged in labor that assisted the war.

Ah right. So now it's ok to talk about monowitz in terms of treating Jews because you want to use the 'confession' of a doctor.

Anyway, selections;

 

[mrolonzo]

Ok, so now, Registration and transfer of sick prisoners.

Remember, registration is something you don't want to do. Because then the numbers get messy if you start turning them into ash for some stupid reason, anyway;

 

[mgc]

I have read the book now so you do not need to to control v the entire thing.

Mattogno’s entire approach in trying to prove that the Nazis were systematically admitting unemployable Jews is dishonest. His approach consists of two things.

1) Misleadingly implying that non-Jewish inmates at Auschwitz are Jews (this clearly fooled you, as many of your pictures are about non-Jews).

2) Conflating able-bodied Jews who had fallen ill and had to be recover before they worked, with the vast majority of Jews who were deemed incapable of work and killed on arrival.

Regarding point 2 - Take one of the documents you posted, an 8 July 1943 report about 1500 Jews who were sent from Lublin and admitted/registered as prisoners in Auschwitz (see page 83-84 of Mattogno's book). Because many of these Jews were ill, Mattogno wants to use this document to prove the Nazis admitted non-working Jews to the camp. But a careful reading of this document shows that the Nazis only admitted these Jews so that they could engage in labor.

As Mattogno's own document says "Still further, the overall and nutritional condition of the prisoners is such that they cannot yet be deployed fully to the work required at Auschwitz."

Notice the words "cannot yet," "deployed fully," and "work required," which I have bolded. Clearly the intent is to have these Jews engage in labor, though in some cases this will mean giving them time, rest, food, etc to regain some of their strength first.

The fact is that the vast majority of Jews were ill upon arrival at Auschwitz, because of how terribly they had been treated in the previous years and during their deportation. To meet the labor quotas for their war production demanded of Auschwitz by the SS, the Nazis had to admit lots of ill Jews and get them back into working condition. That is how desperate they were for war-related labor.

But none of this supports your fantasy that the Nazis were keeping alive the vast majority of Jews whom they deemed categorically unemployable (and thus were "useless eaters"), such as children and the elderly.

One thing Mattogno cannot explain is why the censuses of the camp—which you posted and he quotes periodically—show that only a small percentage of the more than one million Jews deported to Auschwitz actually ended up in the camp . Where did the vast majority of the Jews who (by Mattogno's own data) were sent to Auschwitz go? Why are such a miniscule percentage of these deportees reflected in the camp censuses?

 

[mrolonzo]

I have read the book now so you do not need to to control v the entire thing.

Mattogno’s entire approach in trying to prove that the Nazis were systematically admitting unemployable Jews is dishonest. His approach consists of two things.

1) Misleadingly implying that non-Jewish inmates at Auschwitz are Jews (this clearly fooled you, as many of your pictures are about non-Jews).

2) Conflating able-bodied Jews who had fallen ill and had to be recover before they worked, with the vast majority of Jews who were deemed incapable of work and killed on arrival.

Regarding point 2 - Take one of the documents you posted, an 8 July 1943 report about 1500 Jews who were sent from Lublin and admitted/registered as prisoners in Auschwitz (see page 83-84 of Mattogno's book). Because many of these Jews were ill, Mattogno wants to use this document to prove the Nazis admitted non-working Jews to the camp. But a careful reading of this document shows that the Nazis only admitted these Jews so that they could engage in labor.

Because of the cruelties they had endured, a substantial percentage of these Jews were unfit for work upon arrival. Mattogno uses this fact to imply that these were "non-working Jews." But actually, they were working Jews who merely had to get healthier before engaging in labor. As Mattogno's own document says "Still further, the overall and nutritional condition of the prisoners is such that they cannot yet be deployed fully to the work required at Auschwitz."

Notice the words "cannot yet," "deployed fully," and "work required," which I have bolded. Clearly the intent is to have these Jews engage in labor, though in some cases this will mean giving them time, rest, food, etc to regain some of their strength first. The fact is that the vast majority of Jews were ill upon arrival at Auschwitz, because of how terribly they had been treated in the previous years and during their deportation. To meet the labor quotas for their war production demanded of Auschwitz by the SS, the Nazis had to admit lots of ill Jews and get them back into working condition. That is how desperate they were for war-related labor.

But none of this supports your fantasy that the Nazis were keeping alive the vast majority of Jews whom they deemed categorically unemployable (and thus were "useless eaters"), such as children and the elderly.

One thing Mattogno cannot explain is why the censuses of the camp—which you posted and he quotes periodically—show that only a small percentage of the more than one million Jews deported to Auschwitz actually ended up in the camp . Where did the vast majority of the Jews who (by Mattogno's own data) were sent to Auschwitz go? Why are such a miniscule percentage of these deportees reflected in the camp censuses?

I post this for everyone's benefit. Not only yours. Most right wingers or WNs or whatever don't know much about all this. The true extent of the crime against humanity that the holocaust myth is.

So, this 1500 transport, July 8th 43. Most of the men and women were fit for work, those not fit for work were treated so they could become fit for work. So you're saying that the gas chambers were populated by Jewish children and the elderly? Were the children carried in by nazi nurses and the elderly by nazi orderlies on stretchers?

As for where they went, this example showed they were supposed to go camp Buna, I think that's on the GG border. But only after a four week convalescence or quarantine for hygiene reasons.

 

[mgc]

So you're saying that the gas chambers were populated by Jewish children and the elderly?

Children, the elderly, and adults of all ages who were even sicker and more debilitated than the workers, i.e. those who could not plausibly work. Together they amounted to the vast majority of Jewish deportees.

The testimonial and documentary evidence (including documents cited by Mattogno) make clear that the vast majority of Jews were ill upon arrival, because of the years of neglect and deliberate starvation in the ghettos (only Western European Jews, who were a small minority of the total interned and killed by the Nazis, were not treated in this manner before deportatio), and also because of the terrible conditions of their transit.

Statistically speaking, to meet the labor quotas demanded by the SS, they had to admit some ill Jews in hope that (with rest, food, etc) they would recover into working form. Mattogno is taking advantage of the fact that almost all of the Jews (and therefore a great number of the working Jews) were ill or injured, to mislead you into thinking they were admitting non-working Jews.

But a careful reading of his documents actually proves the opposite. (The sick Jews they were admitting were not little kids or old people or people with debilitating illness, but Jews whom they believed could recover and get to work.)

I note that you have not answered my question about the massive gap between the number of Jews deported to Auschwitz and the camp censuses. Why did such a tiny percentage of the deportees actually end up living in the camp, according to Mattogno's own data? Where did the approximately 1 million deportees not reflected in the censuses go?

 

[mrolonzo]

Children, the elderly, and adults of all ages who were even sicker and more debilitated than the workers. The testimonial documentary evidence (including documents cited by Mattogno) make clear that the vast majority of Jews were ill upon arrival, because of the years of neglect and deliberate starvation in the ghettos (only Western European Jews, who were a small minority of the total interned and killed by the Nazis, were not treated in this manner before deportatio), and also because of the terrible conditions of their transit.

Statistically speaking, to meet their labor quotas, they had to admit some ill ones and try to have them recover into work form. Mattogno is taking advantage of this fact to mislead you into thinking they were admitting non-working Jews, when a careful reading of his documents actually proves the opposite. (The sick Jews they were admitting were not little kids or old people or people with debilitating illness, but Jews whom they believed could recover and get to work.)

I note that you have not answered my question about the massive gap between the number of Jews deported to Auschwitz and the camp censuses. Why did such a tiny percentage of the deportees actually end up living in the camp, according to Mattogno's own data? Where did the approximately 1 million deportees not reflected in the censuses go?

So the gas chambers had ;

Children.
Elderly.
Adults so sick they could not be treated in hospital.

So who carried them all in? How did you fill a room with them?

Did you carry the stretcher in, then tip it over, spilling the elderly jew? Or did you lay down the stretcher and put another stretcher down next to it?

What about all the little rascals running around through your legs and back out the doors? Did you give them a clip round the ear when they were being naughty about getting gassed?

And this is the holocaust of the Jews at Auschwitz?

What about the mother's? Wouldn't they be upset?

And what about the working adults who have elderly parents? Wouldn't they be upset?

----------

Didn't I literally just point to an example of where working Jews were being sent? Did I not just write that as well as posting the author's own work?

 

[mgc]

Again, you are trying to make this seem absurd, but we are at an impasse because I do not see the absurdity.

If we assume the Nazis did not care about the Jews at all but did care immensely about bolstering their war-related labor force, they would have done exactly what I say they did - preserving (through food, lodging, even health care) able-bodied Jews so long as they could potentially work, while simultaneously killing off the "useless eaters" who could not work but would take up resources. (The latter category encompassed the vast majority of Jews arriving at Auschwitz.)

All the evidence indicates that the assumptions I mentioned are correct. They did not care about the wellbeing of Jews but did (at least later in the war, when these "health care" changes were made at Auschwitz) care immensely about efficiently using their slave labor. So it makes sense that they did what I say they did.

As the 26 October 1943 Pohl document quoted by Mattogno says regarding the Nazi efforts (in the later part of the war ) to make more efficient use of their slave-laborers, "the doctors must chiefly focus on maintaining the health and the productivity of the inmates. Not from hypocritical sentimentality, but because we need their arms and legs, because they have to contribute to the German people achieving a great victory."

And nothing you or Mattogno have shared explains the colossal deficit in the number of Jewish deportees to Auschwitz (over 1 million in total) and the census figures of Jews actually living in the camp. Where did they go?

 

[mrolonzo]

Again, you are trying to make this seem absurd, but we are at an impasse because I do not see the absurdity.

I merely asked for how you square both the fact that the exampled transport disagrees with you and to explain how this gassing of the kids, the elderly and the infirm was done.

If we assume the Nazis did not care about the Jews at all but did care immensely about bolstering their war-related labor force, they would have done exactly what I say they did - preserving (through food, lodging, even health care) able-bodied Jews so long as they could potentially work, while simultaneously killing off the "useless eaters" who could not work but would take up resources. (The latter category encompassed the vast majority of Jews arriving at Auschwitz.)

The transport I just showed you shows most Jews could work or were going to work after treatment.

Now you tell us they were willing to drive the workers they wanted to work for them mad with rage and grief over a bowl of soup and a bed space when they're already spending everything on armaments and health technology?

Do you get what you're saying?

All the evidence indicates that the assumptions I mentioned are correct. They did not care about the wellbeing of Jews but did (at least later in the war, when these "health care" changes were made at Auschwitz) care immensely about efficiently using their slave labor. So it makes sense that they did what I say they did.

The evidence is clear that the well being of Jews they wanted to work for them was a primary concern and its backed by documents and hard evidence.

As the 26 October 1943 Pohl document quoted by Mattogno says regarding the Nazi efforts (in the later part of the war ) to make more efficient use of their slave-laborers, "the doctors must chiefly focus on maintaining the health and the productivity of the inmates. Not from hypocritical sentimentality, but because we need their arms and legs, because they have to contribute to the German people achieving a great victory."

Yes. Because there's little point in sentimentality when you've already brought them to these camps. You seem to think the need for labor disproved the reality of good treatment.


And.....

Didn't I literally just point to an example of where working Jews were being sent? Did I not just write that as well as posting the author's own work?

 

[Stan]

Question for thread: If a “resettlement” policy contains exterminatory components (shootings for minor infractions, overcrowded ghettos, starvation, deportation in inhumane conditions, rampant disease) as present in the Nazi “resettlement” can you really call it a resettlement program? Even if you ignore the exterminations, Jews under “resettlement” were treated way worse than murderers in prison.

 

[mrolonzo]

Question for thread: If a “resettlement” policy contains exterminatory components (shootings for minor infractions, overcrowded ghettos, starvation, deportation in inhumane conditions, rampant disease) as present in the Nazi “resettlement” can you really call it a resettlement program? Even if you ignore the exterminations, Jews under “resettlement” were treated way worse than murderers in prison.

Stan went on holiday to Mexico, but it turned out there were pick pockets, the hotel was a dump, the waiters were rude and it rained on most days. Can you really call Stan's holiday a holiday?

 

[Stan]

I post this for everyone's benefit. Not only yours. Most right wingers or WNs or whatever don't know much about all this. The true extent of the crime against humanity that the holocaust myth is.

You’re beyond parody. If the Holocaust didn’t happen, if it is a myth, in what way is that a “crime against humanity”?

Is laughing at you a crime against humanity? Are Holocaust museums crimes against humanity? Wtf rofl

 

[Stan]

One thing I struggle to understand; it’s not like Nazis are moral paragons except for the Holocaust. They did plenty of other horrible things (Aktion T4, forced sterilizations, forced abortion, “”resettlement”” atrocities.) So even if denialists were wildly successful it’s not as if the reputation of Nazis is spotless.

What is the benefit of attempting to polish this turd? Do the deniers in this thread want to make National Socialism Great Again? Or are they just mad that their teacher made them go on a field trip to a Holocaust museum?

 

[mrolonzo]

You’re beyond parody. If the Holocaust didn’t happen, if it is a myth, in what way is that a “crime against humanity”?

Is laughing at you a crime against humanity? Are Holocaust museums crimes against humanity? Wtf rofl

1. Persecution of wide groups of people. Unlawful executions. Lies. Fraud. Etc

2. Yes.

3. They promote the fraud

One thing I struggle to understand; it’s not like Nazis are moral paragons except for the Holocaust. They did plenty of other horrible things (Aktion T4, forced sterilizations, forced abortion, “”resettlement”” atrocities.) So even if denialists were wildly successful it’s not as if the reputation of Nazis is spotless.

What is the benefit of attempting to polish this turd? Do the deniers in this thread want to make National Socialism Great Again? Or are they just mad that their teacher made them go on a field trip to a Holocaust museum?

National socialism is already great. And all that stuff you mention isn't particular to it anyway.

By the way, who are you communicating with Stan? Do you actually want to talk to me?

 

[mgc]

It is all about nazi larping. Which is weird because the larpers in question are supposedly “pro white,” yet th lNazis enslaved and ethnically cleansed and murdered white gentiles by the millions. (Lots of polish kids were sent to Auschwitz after being ethnically cleansed from Zamosc.)

 

[Chugger]

@Chugger Mossad should demote you with how much of a shitty job you're doing in this thread

yeah I should be doing better considering how weak the revisionist case is (they have no evidence for anything), but they're like the black knight from monty python--as long as they stay confident and maintain their poise they can trick themselves and each other into believing they're doing well

but in the end I'll always have rapechu, and no one will be able to take that away from me. there's few examples of deniers getting turned like that, and as far as I know in each case it happened behind the scenes

we witnessed a miracle

Or are they just mad that their teacher made them go on a field trip to a Holocaust museum?

that's the truth really. mrolonzo and others aren't being honest when they call it a 'crime against humanity'.

If they truly believed this they would be out actually investigating shit, like talking to the children of condemned SS or Treblinka witnesses to find evidence of the mass conspiracy

easier to larp from the comfort of your computer and make believe you're on some holy crusade

 

[Stan]

yeah I should be doing better considering how weak the revisionist case is (they have no evidence for anything), but they're like the black knight from monty python--as long as they stay confident and maintain their poise they can trick themselves and each other into believing they're doing well

but in the end I'll always have rapechu, and no one will be able to take that away from me. there's few examples of deniers getting turned like that, and as far as I know in each case it happened behind the scenes

we witnessed a miracle


that's the truth really. mrolonzo and others aren't being honest when they call it a 'crime against humanity'.

If they truly believed this they would be out actually investigating shit, like talking to the children of condemned SS or Treblinka witnesses to find evidence of the mass conspiracy

easier to larp from the comfort of your computer and make believe you're on some holy crusade

My experience is that trying to show primary sources to a Holocaust denier is like feeding an angry baby. You can break your information down into bite size pieces and offer one by one on a little spoon, but there are citations and white papers and primary sources all over the highchair tray, and nothing has actually been digested.

Although, when they get really frustrated they babble and go “no u!” Which I guess is more like a toddler than a baby.

 

[mrolonzo]

It is all about nazi larping. Which is weird because the larpers in question are supposedly “pro white,” yet th lNazis enslaved and ethnically cleansed and murdered white gentiles by the millions. (Lots of polish kids were sent to Auschwitz after being ethnically cleansed from Zamosc.)

It's all about shitlib larping, which is supposedly pro peace, yet the allies ethnically cleansed millions of people and vaporized two cities.

yeah I should be doing better considering how weak the revisionist case is (they have no evidence for anything), but they're like the black knight from monty python--as long as they stay confident and maintain their poise they can trick themselves and each other into believing they're doing well

but in the end I'll always have rapechu, and no one will be able to take that away from me. there's few examples of deniers getting turned like that, and as far as I know in each case it happened behind the scenes

we witnessed a miracle


that's the truth really. mrolonzo and others aren't being honest when they call it a 'crime against humanity'.

If they truly believed this they would be out actually investigating shit, like talking to the children of condemned SS or Treblinka witnesses to find evidence of the mass conspiracy

easier to larp from the comfort of your computer and make believe you're on some holy crusade

I just read and educate. You should do better against us but you don't actually know very much so you can't. Your pontifications about what I should do are ridiculous and you know it. You won't have the courage to answer this particular point.

My experience is that trying to show primary sources to a Holocaust denier is like feeding an angry baby. You can break your information down into bite size pieces and offer one by one on a little spoon, but there are citations and white papers and primary sources all over the highchair tray, and nothing has actually been digested.

Although, when they get really frustrated they babble and go “no u!” Which I guess is more like a toddler than a baby.

Ive been spoon feeding you for some time now. What have you done? Shit your nappy and vomited your bile Stan. That's what. You also don't have the courage to answer this point directly.

 

[mgc]

Okay Zo. I am going to try to address your argument by formally mapping it out, and then going after the premises and the conclusion. If I misunderstood one of your premises please let me know.

Your argument, as I understand it :

1) As Mattogno shows, the Nazis expanded health care at Auschwitz in 1943, including for Jews

2) This shows that the Nazis cared about the well-being of the Jews.

3) You do not mass-murder people whose well-being you value

4) Therefore, the Nazis did not mass murder the Jews at Auschwitz.

My response

1) This is true but presented by Mattogno in a grotesquely misleading, context-free way. The vast majority of Jews sent to Auschwitz—who were upon arrival "selected" by Mengele or other SS doctors as unfit for labor, and then according to me and mainstream historians sent to the gas chambers—obviously did not receive health care. The "jewish" health care systems established and improved in 1943 were intended for working Jews who could recover from their illnesses and get back to work for the Reich. To try to mislead you, the sneaky Mattogno conflates working Jews who could recover from their illnesses with non-working Jews. But a closer examination of his documents shows that the "ill" and "non-able bodied" Jews being referred to are laborers whom the Nazis are trying to get back to work.

2) It does not show that, but instead shows that they were desperate for more labor and production of war-related material after disasters on the Eastern Front, Stalingrad, etc.

3) You do mass murder people whose lives you do not value and whose existence, from your perspective, simply drains up much-needed resources. I.E. you do murder non-working Jews, who were the vast majority deported to Auschwitz. And this is what all the evidence (building records, forensic evidence, contemporaneous documents referring to the goings-on at the camp, eyewitness testimony) indicates happened.

4) All the evidence indicates that they murdered non-working Jews systematically at Auschwitz.


Regarding premise 2, that the Nazis cared about the well-being of Jews, I should add there is ironclad documentary proof that in 1943, at the same time the Nazis were expanding health care at Auschwitz (supposedly for benevolent reasons), the Auschwitz brass selected and shipped off 79 Jews from the camp to be gassed at Natzweiler, for some crackpot attempt to assemble a Jewish skeleton collection. See https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/klarsfeld/Struthof/ for the absolutely ironclad and explicit chain of documents. (Which one assumes were not destroyed because the gassing operation was so small compared to the others.)

The bodies of many of these victims were found by the Western Allies and autopsied by Camille Simonin, who determined them to be victims of homocidal gassing. So there goes your (perverse) premise that the Auschwitz brass cared about the Jews.