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

[mrolonzo]

Yes. It seems like you're stuck on this point but the practice is well documented

"Baby killing was completely legal and is well documented"....

 

[Chugger]

"Baby killing was completely legal and is well documented"....

Yup babies, children, pregnant women. As HS pointed out, even unsanctioned killing wasn't punished, as long as it was done for "political" purposes

 

[Chugger]

Chugger is extremely dishonest, and will loudly crow over things he can debunk, while studiously ignoring any comment/fact he can't debunk

Plz tell me an important topic comment or fact you think me or HS has ignored. You realize that I consider you guys to be the history equivalent of flat earthers, so it would be an absolute embarrassment for me to have to shy away from any point you raise.

Sometimes I ignore things because I hate making multi point posts, and deniers tend to gish gallop with their arguments

We don't need to have a back and forth here, just tell me what I've missed and I'll rebut

 

[mrolonzo]

Yup babies, children, pregnant women. As HS pointed out, even unsanctioned killing wasn't punished, as long as it was done for "political" purposes

But sadism is out though right?

Dont you just mean executing Jewish bolsheviks?

Its like you're acting like you've just found the Hitler order. I suppose we can refer to this document as no. 1744.

Have you got a better reference?
Are you even going to post the original?

Plz tell me an important topic comment or fact you think me or HS has ignored. You realize that I consider you guys to be the history equivalent of flat earthers, so it would be an absolute embarrassment for me to have to shy away from any point you raise.

Sometimes I ignore things because I hate making multi point posts, and deniers tend to gish gallop with their arguments

We don't need to have a back and forth here, just tell me what I've missed and I'll rebut

Post #3146.

You also skipped over the issue in post #3302.

For HS that would be post #3189 there are many more but just start with that.

 

[mrolonzo]

Oh wait!! Post #3132, as well for you Chugger.

Ok and post #3276 for both. Jesus theyre popping up everywhere when I scroll through the thread.

 

[mrolonzo]

Who "made up" anything? She was accused of having lampshades made of human skin by witnesses, and found not guilty.

This has nothing to do with "morality."

Person was accused of things.
Person was ultimately found not guilty .
Further evidence shows person couldn't have done it in the first place, since the evidence proving guilt was wrong.

This is just the law at work. Nothing here is "morality" it's just how courts work. Person gets accused of things for varying reasons, such as witnesses claiming person did something evil, but is then found guilty or not guilty.

Now replace "person" with Ilse Koch.

She accused of false things but no one 'made anything up'.....

Dude, that's just the law don't ya know?!

 

[Chugger]

But sadism is out though right?

Sadism, as in the case of Max Taubner, was punished with a year of prison time

Excerpts from the SS court document

http://web.archive.org/web/20031102013110/http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/taubner.max/ftp.py?people/t/taubner.max/taubner-1943-verdict

Dont you just mean executing Jewish bolsheviks?

Nope, read the document again

Its like you're acting like you've just found the Hitler order. I suppose we can refer to this document as no. 1744.

Have you got a better reference?
Are you even going to post the original?

There are a ton of documents that unambiguously speak of mass genocide. revisionists usually just say these as fakes: "hundreds of thousands of documents FAWGED"

this document is rather a sterling example of Mattogno's dumbness ( I don't think he's 'dumb' for the record, this is just what holocaust denial does to your brainl)

I don't have the original on hand, but what would that prove to you anyway?

Jesus theyre popping up everywhere when I scroll through the thread.

If you think I've missed a crucial point, tell me what

 

[mrolonzo]

Sadism, as in the case of Max Taubner, was punished with a year of prison time

Excerpts from the SS court document

http://web.archive.org/web/20031102013110/http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/taubner.max/ftp.py?people/t/taubner.max/taubner-1943-verdict

Ah. So now, the battle for the holocaust, being lost in the west, after a re grouping to assess support in the other thread, now turns to the east and the holocaust by bullets.

Nope, read the document again

View attachment 3551496

The document in question is PS - 3428, given at Nuremberg and is a famous piece of orthodox 'evidence'. No original has ever been produced.

There are a ton of documents that unambiguously speak of mass genocide. revisionists usually just say these as fakes: "hundreds of thousands of documents FAWGED"

Aren't you g10spana aka Chugger?

This is you on codoh.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13870&hilit=Taubner&start=30

And you're not fighting us about that on codoh yet you want to fight me about it here?

Did you expect a different answer from a revisionist on kiwi?

Codoh thread on Taubner;

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1201

this document is rather a sterling example of Mattogno's dumbness ( I don't think he's 'dumb' for the record, this is just what holocaust denial does to your brainl)

Normally revisionists will use originals only, where they can. In this case, Mattogno, building on Kues, cites this in argument about - what were the nazis were doing in the east, shooting jews for being Jews or shooting them because they were part of partisan activity?

The former being obvious, because if you wanted to just kill them why send them east?

Does Mattogno quote every part of this document? No. The latter part serves no purpose in the argument towards the wider framework of attack so it's left out.

Yet indeed, in this unoriginal document, it is mentioned that Jews, unfit for work, children, elderly, women were shot.

As HS already states over and over, those unfit for work can recover, and since they can recover they can take part in nefarious activities against international law in wartime and thus pay the price.

But Children! Elderly! Women! Oh no!

Can children take part in such activities? Certainly as adolescents. Can the elderly? Can Women? Of course.

I don't have the original on hand, but what would that prove to you anyway?

Why don't you?

Do you believe in the value of authenticity?

If you think I've missed a crucial point, tell me what

Start with the first post I mentioned then address the point I made.

 

[Stan]

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?

I’ve never been to Mexico, but your comparison of Holocaust ghettos and deportation in cattle cars to a disappointing vacation is cringe. Why are you trying to minimize the human impact of the abuses we all can agree happened? If you think that being misled about the Holocaust is an abuse of your human rights, or that not being allowed to question the Holocaust is an infringement of your rights, how can you describe the stuff you concede Nazis did to Jews as anything but abuse? Are you down to lose your home and all your stuff and chalk it up as a bad vacation to Mexico??

Lonzo, you’re barely reading and you’re certainly not “educating”. You post memes and quote-post single word replies like “lol”. You won’t or can’t engage with the concepts the big boys are presenting here. You’re shitting up the thread and I would like it if you shut up if you have nothing of substance to say.

 

[Chugger]

Ah. So now, the battle for the holocaust, being lost in the west, after a re grouping to assess support in the other thread, now turns to the east and the holocaust by bullets.

you asked about sadism and legality of these killings, hence we brought up the Taubner SS case, which is the best example here

I'm fine not talking about SS police shootings in the east. I covered this subject with Rapechu extensively, where we found no evidence of resettlement but tons of evidence of genocide. So even gas chamber deniers like @Lemmingwise see you as a joke when it comes to this

Nevertheless I brought up the Kube document as an example of Mattogno's idiocy (and if Mattogno is an idiot, I don't know what that makes you)

Can children take part in such activities? Certainly as adolescents. Can the elderly? Can Women? Of course.

the document says they killed everyone except workers (and they wanted to kill the workers after the army was done with them-- that's the part big brain carlo left out)

Since babies can't be used for labor, they were killed too. Regardless, all these Jews were ghettoized or in labor camps, so it's not like they could do much here. The document states they were killed for being supporters or future supporters of partisan activity. Yes babies can grow up to become partisan supporters, so the logic checks out I guess

The document in question is PS - 3428, given at Nuremberg and is a famous piece of orthodox 'evidence'. No original has ever been produced.

what if I produced a scan or copy of the original? would this change anything for you?

Start with the first post I mentioned then address the point I made.

No. I'm not gonna go hunting down comments I probably ignored for good reason. If it's important enough, you can repost it and I'll consider it again


From the other thread:

Peddling the holocaust is denying reality, and no actual revisionist becomes a sputtering mess when confronted. But feel free to test me with challenging points if you like.

if we talked over voice chat you would quickly be reduced to incoherent babbling since you wouldn't have time to refer back to Mattogno.

but Rizoli is the definition of a sputtering mess in this convo: "hundreds of thousands of documents FAWGED"

 

[Stan]

Ah. So now, the battle for the holocaust, being lost in the west, after a re grouping to assess support in the other thread, now turns to the east and the holocaust by bullets.

Pretending that primary sources are fake and posting memes when you get frustrated is a “win” in your column?

Cause I think this isn’t an either-or situation but an also-and: the Nazis started Aktion Reinhard with mass shootings, and even with the Einsatzgruppen partnered to local collaborator militias simply could not shoot enough people. Also, individually shooting Jews began to take a toll on morale; it is probably very difficult to listen to many women and children beg for their lives while kneeling over their grave.

This called for new solutions, which had been developed at Sonnenstein during Aktion T4: the gas van. Instead of all that begging and pleading and praying, Jews would wait quietly in an idling van til they died of CO poisoning. But this was also not efficient enough, which led to the development and deployment of cyanide gas chambers, using the infamous Zyklon B agent.

You’ve shown yourself to be unwilling to grasp the organizational development and innovation within the SS, but the designers of the Holocaust adapted and implemented it stepwise; they moved on to gassing once it was certain that gassing could kill more people faster than mass shooting.

 

[mrolonzo]

you asked about sadism and legality of these killings, hence we brought up the Taubner SS case, which is the best example here

I'm fine not talking about SS police shootings in the east. I covered this subject with Rapechu extensively, where we found no evidence of resettlement but tons of evidence of genocide. So even gas chamber deniers like @Lemmingwise see you as a joke when it comes to this

I asked how sadism was out but executing women and children was ok.

You assert it was excused because it is "political". On the basis of a certain Mr Ippen? Exactly what was excused?.

This is you coming up against the same problem you do on codoh. And explains why you're here.

Did all this rubbish apply only in the east? Did it apply in the west? In the camps?

Does it supercede all regulations ?

Is it supported, known and spread widely across the Reich?

Why didn't you come back to codoh and defend your position?

Nevertheless I brought up the Kube document as an example of Mattogno's idiocy (and if Mattogno is an idiot, I don't know what that makes you)

Mattogno literally brings up the document himself and shows that even this can show the context and purpose of nazis killing Jews.

the document says they killed everyone except workers (and they wanted to kill the workers after the army was done with them-- that's the part big brain carlo left out)

Yes, and the document is not an original.

Since babies can't be used for labor, they were killed too. Regardless, all these Jews were ghettoized or in labor camps, so it's not like they could do much here. The document states they were killed for being supporters or future supporters of partisan activity. Yes babies can grow up to become partisan supporters, so the logic checks out I guess

View attachment 3552071

The logic doesn't check out at all. Firstly jews in ghettos are capable of partisan activity. Secondly Kube's communications already show any threats he makes are empty and he is duty bound to accept Jews to the east for resettlement.

what if I produced a scan or copy of the original? would this change anything for you?

Did you forget what original means?

No. I'm not gonna go hunting down comments I probably ignored for good reason. If it's important enough, you can repost it and I'll consider it again

"The Bichoff letters that Pressac claimed show criminal traces, as well as the actual invoices for work planned and done contradicts the holocaust story. It showed they planned to ventilate the undressing room more than the supposed gas chamber. Thus showing it wasn't a gas chamber."

You ignored that for good reason?

From the other thread:

if we talked over voice chat you would quickly be reduced to incoherent babbling since you wouldn't have time to refer back to Mattogno.

but Rizoli is the definition of a sputtering mess in this convo: "hundreds of thousands of documents FAWGED"

Like you without your dodgy documents?

Planning on any ground studies in the future?

 

[mrolonzo]

Pretending that primary sources are fake and posting memes when you get frustrated is a “win” in your column?

Cause I think this isn’t an either-or situation but an also-and: the Nazis started Aktion Reinhard with mass shootings, and even with the Einsatzgruppen partnered to local collaborator militias simply could not shoot enough people. Also, individually shooting Jews began to take a toll on morale; it is probably very difficult to listen to many women and children beg for their lives while kneeling over their grave.

This called for new solutions, which had been developed at Sonnenstein during Aktion T4: the gas van. Instead of all that begging and pleading and praying, Jews would wait quietly in an idling van til they died of CO poisoning. But this was also not efficient enough, which led to the development and deployment of cyanide gas chambers, using the infamous Zyklon B agent.

You’ve shown yourself to be unwilling to grasp the organizational development and innovation within the SS, but the designers of the Holocaust adapted and implemented it stepwise; they moved on to gassing once it was certain that gassing could kill more people faster than mass shooting.

What do you mean primary sources and why are you bullshitting me about history?

 

[Stan]

if we talked over voice chat you would quickly be reduced to incoherent babbling since you wouldn't have time to refer back to Mattogno.

Even with the benefit of time to refer to his daddy, lonzo still resorts to incoherent babbling in the thread. He asked me if I had “asked [himself] and Hitler before posting” and basically puts his hands over his eyes when you show him primary sources that don’t match what Carlo said.

Ignore and enjoy the peace and quiet Imo

 

[Chugger]

Did you forget what original means?

ok so let's go through this very slowly, starting with this point lol

I cannot physically show you the original document. We would have to meet up and go visit the archive together. So I can only show you a digital scan of the document.

I assume you are comprehending so far, so my follow up question would be

if I were to show you a scan of the document, proving that you were wrong and indeed an "original" was found which could be scrutinized for formal characteristics like signature, heading, etc

would that change anything for you?

 

[mrolonzo]

ok so let's go through this very slowly, starting with this point lol

I cannot physically show you the original document. We would have to meet up and go visit the archive together. So I can only show you a digital scan of the document.

I assume you are following this, so my follow up question would be

if I were to show you a scan of the document, proving that you were wrong and indeed an "original" was found which could be scrutinized for formal characteristics like signature, heading, etc

would that change anything for you?

Didn't you have this conversation on codoh that I literally posted for you to re read?

Even this document itself could be wrong. Its second hand accounting, and even documents still have to be backed by tangible evidence. You literally accepted all this on codoh.

Now you come here, another free speech zone where revisionists may speak , to try and hawk your wares.

Why don't you just write an essay against revisionists? Put this, and however original you find, take a photo, explain why its unassailable and put it into your framework. Right? You're going to do that right?

By the way, do you assert still that the FG report is unassailable?

 

[Chugger]

Didn't you have this conversation on codoh that I literally posted for you to re read?

Even this document itself could be wrong. Its second hand accounting, and even documents still have to be backed by tangible evidence. You literally accepted all this on codoh.

No I didn't

What's your answer to my question?

if I were to show you a scan of the document, proving that you were wrong and indeed an "original" was found which could be scrutinized for formal characteristics like signature, heading, etc

would that change anything for you?

 

[mrolonzo]

Even with the benefit of time to refer to his daddy, lonzo still resorts to incoherent babbling in the thread. He asked me if I had “asked [himself] and Hitler before posting” and basically puts his hands over his eyes when you show him primary sources that don’t match what Carlo said.

Ignore and enjoy the peace and quiet Imo

What primary sources?

 

[mrolonzo]

No I didn't

What's your answer to my question?

Not necessarily no for the reasons given. Any document has to fit in a credible framework and be backed by tangible evidence. As was explained to g10spana on codoh.

Are you going to address the point in the post 3146 that I just re posted for you?

 

[Chugger]

I didn't address your post here,

"The Bichoff letters that Pressac claimed show criminal traces, as well as the actual invoices for work planned and done contradicts the holocaust story. It showed they planned to ventilate the undressing room more than the supposed gas chamber. Thus showing it wasn't a gas chamber."

because you said some shit without so much as posting translations of invoices or whatever as evidence. I'm not gonna go hunt down revisionist arguments that you are too lazy or incompetent to substantiate for me. You can do that yourself, and once you do we can circle back

Not necessarily no for the reasons given.

Ok so this is why I didn't go looking for the the "original" document for you. You wouldn't have accepted it based on it not fitting within the framework you apply, which is the bigger problem

I have one more question though about the "original" document thing. You said multiple times that no original had been produced. Why so confident about this?