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

[Chugger]

By what standard are you operating here?

Context, provenance, style, material

eg https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2019/08/nazi-document-on-mass-extermination-of.html

 

[Aves]

I can’t seem to reply to your big post mrolonzo,
but I don’t understand what you are saying about lampshades

“Some holocaust lies were based on vague stories and immediately tangible material which could be examined and therefore were impossible to defend even for holohoax peddlers and shitlibs. Lampshades are merely an example of the lengths the enemies of all mankind would go to against the Nazis.

Which shows the problem.

If the Nazis were really the bad guys why would you need to ever lie in any way at all about anything they did, thought or said??”

But Wikipedia isn’t lying at all! They are completely upfront about how the lampshades were not made of human skin. I don’t see what your problem is with lampshades. Like, Wikipedia literally mentions how DNA studies show it was made of cellulose and not human skin, no one is lying on wikipedia at all.

Maybe Brittanica is lying, but go write them an email if you want, I guess.

My bigger point is that lying about the deaths of 5 people (who weren’t even specifically Jews, by the way) has no effect on the larger story in anyway whatsoever. It could easily be a tiny error.

If Albert Einstein accidentally wrote 2+2=5 in his notes, it doesn’t mean the Theory of Relativity is wrong. The 2+2=5 had no bearing on the paper, same goes with lampshades

 

[mgc]

Zo-

I am going to skip over the psychologizing about how I am "bluffing." I can only say to you that I believe what I am saying in good faith.

Regarding documents, how about we go one document at a time?

For example take this 24 August 1942 document from Hans Frank, head of the General Government (German-occupied Poland), where he says that we are sentencing 1.2 million Jews to death by hunger, and that if they do not starve, it will lead to a speeding up of the anti-Jewish actions (i.e. the deportations).

Do you either think this document is fake, or that it does not reflect genocidal intent?

 

[mrolonzo]

I can’t seem to reply to your big post mrolonzo,
but I don’t understand what you are saying about lampshades

“Some holocaust lies were based on vague stories and immediately tangible material which could be examined and therefore were impossible to defend even for holohoax peddlers and shitlibs. Lampshades are merely an example of the lengths the enemies of all mankind would go to against the Nazis.

Which shows the problem.

If the Nazis were really the bad guys why would you need to ever lie in any way at all about anything they did, thought or said??”

But Wikipedia isn’t lying at all! They are completely upfront about how the lampshades were not made of human skin. I don’t see what your problem is with lampshades. Like, Wikipedia literally mentions how DNA studies show it was made of cellulose and not human skin, no one is lying on wikipedia at all.

Maybe Brittanica is lying, but go write them an email if you want, I guess.

My bigger point is that lying about the deaths of 5 people (who weren’t even specifically Jews, by the way) has no effect on the larger story in anyway whatsoever. It could easily be a tiny error.

If Albert Einstein accidentally wrote 2+2=5 in his notes, it doesn’t mean the Theory of Relativity is wrong. The 2+2=5 had no bearing on the paper, same goes with lampshades

Stop being silly. Why. Would. Anyone. Ever. Need. To. Lie. About . The Nazis. Ever?

 

[mrolonzo]

Zo-

I am going to skip over the psychologizing about how I am "bluffing." I can only say to you that I believe what I am saying in good faith.

Regarding documents, how about we go one document at a time?

For example take this 24 August 1942 document from Hans Frank, head of the General Government (German-occupied Poland), where he says that we are sentencing 1.2 million Jews to death by hunger, and that if they do not starve, it will lead to a speeding up of the anti-Jewish actions (i.e. the deportations).

Do you either think this document is fake, or that it does not reflect genocidal intent?

Bluff and bluster I.e. prevarication. Instead of directly answering the point you talk about something else.

Here you do it again, now you want to move on from curated transports and the implications of Natzweiler and the healthcare system to the authenticity and implications of the Hans Frank document.

So it's more;

Bluff and bluster.

 

[mgc]

I have written multiple massive responses to Mattogno's documents about health care in Auschwitz. You on the other hand are unwilling to write any response to the Frank document. Who is dodging questions?

Is the 24 August 1942 Hans Frank document where he refers to a policy of starving 1.2 million Polish Jews to death an expression of genocidal intent? Is it fake? What do you think?

 

[Aves]

Stop being silly. Why. Would. Anyone. Ever. Need. To. Lie. About . The Nazis. Ever?

But who is lying about lampshades?!

Wikipedia clearly says the lampshades weren’t made of human skin.

And it isn’t “lying.” Being wrong about one tiny issue doesn’t mean you are lying about the big picture.

Unless you can show that people intentionally lied about lampshades on a mass scale, despite knowing the truth, use another example to make your point.

And even if you showed some people lied, I (and the rest of the holocaust believers here) would just say they were wrong. In terms of the debate nothing is gained or lost on either side.

 

[mrolonzo]

But who is lying about lampshades?!

Wikipedia clearly says the lampshades weren’t made of human skin.

And it isn’t “lying.” Being wrong about one tiny issue doesn’t mean you are lying about the big picture.

Unless you can show that people intentionally lied about lampshades on a mass scale, despite knowing the truth, use another example to make your point.

And even if you showed some people lied, I (and the rest of the holocaust believers here) would just say they were wrong. In terms of the debate nothing is gained or lost on either side.

You're saying that claims about Ilse Koch were just innocent and simple mistakes anyone could have made ? Sort of like guessing her dress size wrong? Maybe a 32 instead of a 34?

That sort of thing?

 

[mrolonzo]

I have written multiple massive responses to Mattogno's documents about health care in Auschwitz. You on the other hand are unwilling to write any response to the Frank document. Who is dodging questions?

Is the 24 August 1942 Hans Frank document where he refers to a policy of starving 1.2 million Polish Jews to death an expression of genocidal intent? Is it fake? What do you think?

I think you're refusing to answer the points of discussion so you want to move on to a document. This way you can open up a new front and leave all this behind.

Bluff and bluster.

 

[mgc]

This is the Holocaust thread. Not the "health care in Auschwitz thread."

Nevertheless I read the entire Mattogno book and wrote pages of responses to your documents. It is revealing that you are completely unwilling to address mine.

Why is this document in which Hans Frank (head of German occupied Poland) sentencing 1.2 million Polish Jews to death by starvation, and then expresses hope that the anti-Jewish measures (deportations to camps) will speed up if the Jews manage to avoid starving, not an expression of genocidal intent?

 

[mrolonzo]

This is the Holocaust thread. Not the "health care in Auschwitz thread."

Nevertheless I read the entire Mattogno book and wrote pages of responses to your documents. It is revealing that you are completely unwilling to address mine.

Why is this document in which Hans Frank (head of German occupied Poland) sentencing 1.2 million Polish Jews to death by starvation, and then expresses hope that the anti-Jewish measures (deportations to camps) will speed up if the Jews manage to avoid starving, not an expression of genocidal intent?

You didn't read shit you fucking shitlib liar. Im still posting from that book now or earlier today, without response from you. No pages posted. No questions asked. But now you're bored and don't have the answers so you want to bring up a document you think I won't have answers for.

No one has to dance around whenever you want to change the tune.

And yeah. It is the healthcare system in Auschwitz thread, because that's the holocaust and there is ton of information on the exact issue of killing of innocents. We can certainly talk about documents, but not anytime you want to move away from the point. Seethe more.

 

[mgc]

You didn't read shit you fucking shitlib liar. Im still posting from that book now or earlier today, without response from you. No pages posted. No questions asked. But now you're bored and don't have the answers so you want to bring up a document you think I won't have answers for.

No one has to dance around whenever you want to change the tune.

And yeah. It is the healthcare system in Auschwitz thread, because that's the holocaust and there is ton of information on the exact issue of killing of innocents. We can certainly talk about documents, but not anytime you want to move away from the point. Seethe more.

Bro i read the book and wrote pages of analysis discrediting multiple documents on this thread. For example one of his documents is misdated to 1943 (when it is from dec 1944, ie after, according to all eitneshimmler called of the gassing and ordered better treatment for Jews), others are not about Jews and misleadingly presented as being about Jews (you were misled), others are clearly only about health care for Jews who are slave laborers or prospective slave laborers.

Spending many hours responding to your documents is not dodging. And I am entitled to be a little bored of the topic after all those hours.

This is a very childish way of saying you have no response to the frank document.

 

[mrolonzo]

Context, provenance, style, material

eg https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2019/08/nazi-document-on-mass-extermination-of.html

See attached.

Bro i read the book and wrote pages of analysis discrediting multiple documents on this thread. For example one of his documents is misdated to 1943, others are not about Jews, others are clearly only about Jews who are slave laborers or prospective slave laborers.

Spending many hours responding to your documents is not dodging. And I am entitled to be bored after all those hours.

This is a very childish way of saying you have no response to the frank document.

1. Re 43. I said it's obviously a typo. You agreed.
2. Your distinctions are alleged. That's all.
3. Your allegations about killing off the vulnerable are merely that.

You haven't discredited anything and what you've read amounts to the actual pages ive offered you.

The actual book is about alot more than the items offered on this thread, so go read it.


Then, feel free to write an actual revisionist caliber essay or book on the subject.

 

[mgc]

Okay so I take it you are unable to respond to the frank document. What about Hitler’s claim to horthy on 17 April 1943 that if the (Polish) Jews “could not work, they had to perish”? Does that sound “non-genocidal” to you? Or do you think it was faked?

You said you had a copy pasta response to that from Mattogno, I would be interested in seeing that.

 

[mrolonzo]

Okay so I take it you are unable to respond to the frank document. What about Hitler’s claim to horthy on 17 April 1943 that if the (Polish) Jews “could not work, they had to perish”? Does that sound “non-genocidal” to you? Or do you think it was faked?

You said you had a copy pasta response to that from Mattogno, I would be interested in seeing that.

You can see I just posted the revisionist view on FG for your friend.

Here again, instead of congratulating me on finding relevant revisionist research and analysis, you seek to denigrate me for posting serious authors rather than offering my own takes. It's not only rude, it makes you look bad, not me.

But now you want me to post about Hans Frank. And you want that response. Now. Why the hurry?

But it's ok. I accept your implicit concession.

Anyway, yes. Hans Frank. See attached.

More generally his views reflected NS policy and moreover Hitler himself, who while he had ups and downs certainly he respected Polish people. He even put on honour guard at Sidulski's grave that lasted the entire war apparently.

 

[Chugger]

See attached.

So the FG document is the most obvious case of a forgery you can find? Really?

Lachout document can be invalidated in very simple terms. Forgery is the only hypothesis that explains the discrepancies found in it

 

[mgc]

By the way here is a source for my claim that the Nazis sometimes curated Jews into "workable" vs "non-workable"

See https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2020/02/seriously-now-where-did-jews-evacuated.html

Maybe "curated" was an awkward word for me to use; pre-selected would be better. But my substantive point that you made fun of was as usual entirely correct. Many transports of Jews were not selected at random, but specifically comprised of working Jews (or, to more precisely quote the source, "workable" Jews, which could include e.g. young Jews who were ill with the flu, but could be brought back into working condition with some rest and isolation). Hence these transports were admitted rather than being gassed upon arrival.

I doubt Mattogno would explicitly disagree with me on this point about pre-selected transport of Jews. He is too clever and familiar with the documents. What he will do is omit this critical context, about the reality of pre-selected transports, to deceive neo-nazi readers like you into thinking that the Nazis were systematically admitting all Jews into the Auschwitz (rather than all Jews on a pre-selected transport of working Jews).

Are we going to have any semblance of fairness in this thread? I have spent many hours responding to your (Mattogno's) documents. Can you respond to just one of mine, e.g. Frank or Horthy. Or at least tell me where in your copypasta the 24 August 1942 Frank diary entry about sentencing 1.2 million Jews to death by starvation is mentioned, because I cannot find that anywhere upon a skimming of what you posted. (Another Frank diary entry, from 16 December 1941, is addressed by Mattogno and co.))

 

[Aves]

You're saying that claims about Ilse Koch were just innocent and simple mistakes anyone could have made ? Sort of like guessing her dress size wrong? Maybe a 32 instead of a 34?

That sort of thing?

Ilse Koch was found NOT GUILTY! What more do you want?

Not only that, but I found that information on Wikipedia!

And yes! People can be wrong about historical events. People thought nazis were evil (see: Josef Mengele), it makes sense that they thought Koch was also evil. But being wrong about Ilse Koch doesn't affect the truth about the holocaust, it is such a minuscule event (how many people died? Like 5. And they weren't even specifically Jews)

Go write emails to people who keep saying Ilse Koch turned people into lampshades, I don't really care.

 

[mrolonzo]

So the FG document is the most obvious case of a forgery you can find? Really?

Lachout document can be invalidated in very simple terms. Forgery is the only hypothesis that explains the discrepancies found in it

You posted FG yourself!!

Then you complain when it's taken apart.

As for Lachout, revisionists themselves had a problem with this.

By the way here is a source for my claim that the Nazis sometimes curated Jews into "workable" vs "non-workable"


View attachment 3545752

See https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2020/02/seriously-now-where-did-jews-evacuated.html

Maybe "curated" was an awkward word for me to use; pre-selected would be better. But my substantive point that you made fun of was as usual entirely correct. Many transports of Jews were not selected at random, but specifically comprised of working Jews (or, to more precisely quote the source, "workable" Jews, which could include e.g. young Jews who were ill with the flu, but could be brought back into working condition with some rest and isolation). Hence these transports were admitted rather than being gassed upon arrival.

I doubt Mattogno would explicitly disagree with me on this point about pre-selected transport of Jews. He is too clever and familiar with the documents. What he will do is omit this critical context, about the reality of pre-selected transports, to deceive neo-nazi readers like you into thinking that the Nazis were systematically admitting all Jews into the Auschwitz (rather than all Jews on a pre-selected transport of working Jews).

Are we going to have any semblance of fairness in this thread? I have spent many hours responding to your (Mattogno's) documents. Can you respond to just one of mine, e.g. Frank or Horthy. Or at least tell me where in your copypasta the 24 August 1942 Frank diary entry about sentencing 1.2 million Jews to death by starvation is mentioned, because I cannot find that anywhere upon a skimming of what you posted. (Another Frank diary entry, from 16 December 1941, is addressed by Mattogno and co.))

1. It's conceivable for efficiency that one could divide people up this way.

But then you complained the Oct 8th was "too symmetrical"

Then the 11th was brought, this was not symmetrical at all. But now it's generally too healthy!

Then I posted sections from the s.b. section of the book showing what actually happens to the vulnerable.

2. What you want literally isn't there. What's there is even better. A full declaration by Frank about his diaries preceded by an explanation of what type of guy Frank was in terms of the wannsee conference.

Ilse Koch was found NOT GUILTY! What more do you want?

Not only that, but I found that information on Wikipedia!

And yes! People can be wrong about historical events. People thought nazis were evil (see: Josef Mengele), it makes sense that they thought Koch was also evil. But being wrong about Ilse Koch doesn't affect the truth about the holocaust, it is such a minuscule event (how many people died? Like 5. And they weren't even specifically Jews)

Go write emails to people who keep saying Ilse Koch turned people into lampshades, I don't really care.

Why would anyone go to the trouble of making things up about this woman and how could you have the moral stance that doing so is just 'being wrong'. ?

I don't need to write emails thus. What do you think our memes and truth posting is about?

 

[Chugger]

You posted FG yourself!!

Then you complain when it's taken apart.

I posted it when u asked about standards. You can choose the most blatant example of a forgery. FG report is it?

As for Lachout, revisionists themselves had a problem with this.

No shit. That's because unlike any holocaust document, it's clearly a forgery. Still I should point out faurrison vouched for it