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

[mrolonzo]

I never said or suggested that most educated peoplein Ancient Greece believed the world is flat. Reread my comment and maybe consult your old copy of Hooked On Phonics first.

Rather, I mentioned that numerous scholars from antiquity onwards wrote extensive proofs that the world was round, despite the fact that flat earth was not (and is not) an intellectually defensible position.

Similarly, today, almost no educated people deny the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial (like flat earth) is not a respectable position. Yet some scholars have written extensively debunking denial.

I appear to have missed this

Who would you point to that has written extensively debunking revisionists?

And why haven't you mentioned them until now?

Any serious attempt to take on revisionists must be taken seriously.

Inb4 - The cut and paste manifesto by the gang of five. This was already taken down and isn't serious anyway.

 

[mrolonzo]

You want us to do your work for you, because you are a worthless waste of flesh.

It appears that he refuses to do any of the recommended reading and instead wants us to create a list of pro revisionist remarks.

If this list doesn't add up to equal to or more than the hundred curated pro exterminationist remarks he links to at the HC blog site then thereby the holocaust is proven.

This challenge was in response to me posting the actual policy of the whermact in the east.

So again, we have our holocaust peddlers point blank refusing to any of reading offered by me but instead demanding that we go do more work for them. This time it's to build a list for them. This demonstrates the falsity of their purpose.

This is not discussion. If it were discussion they would be delighted to read what I offer and see how it fits their framework. But instead we get insult and avoidance at every turn.

 

[Stan]

Zo, Do you realize how pathetic it is to just link to websites without even being able to paraphrase and recalibrate their arguments in your own terms? It makes you look like a brainless cultist citing some holy book.

I get the sense Zo more or less is parroting what he reads from denialist tracts. He was oddly forthright about how much he spends on them when I talked about Mattogno’s financial incentive / fame incentive to keep lying about the Holocaust.

 

[mrolonzo]

I get the sense Zo more or less is parroting what he reads from denialist tracts. He was oddly forthright about how much he spends on them when I talked about Mattogno’s financial incentive / fame incentive to keep lying about the Holocaust.

I read all revisionist work, which obviously fully surveys orthodox work also. I quote it extensively too.

As a younger man I read holocaust authors, some years ago I read the HC bloggers manifesto too.

I peruse the HC blog too and check the comments, I post and read rodoh and very occasionally on skeptics forum - obviously not much because they're all charlatans that are oddly Skeptical about everything except the holocaust, also they were founded by this propagandist Michael Shermer.

So, given all that. Is there something amiss?

 

[Chugger]

I peruse the HC blog too and check the comments, I post and read rodoh and very occasionally on skeptics forum - obviously not much because they're all charlatans that are oddly Skeptical about everything except the holocaust, also they were founded by this propagandist Michael Shermer.

to be clear, most users in the holocaust forum on 'skeptics' post almost exclusively there, so there isn't a broader affiliation with the rest of the forum

If this list doesn't add up to equal to or more than the hundred curated pro exterminationist remarks he links to at the HC blog site then thereby the holocaust is proven.

actually I'm looking more at quality than quantity

I still don't see what the problem is with me doing this. It's only a problem if the pro-revisionist evidence is nearly non-existent, because then it will be obvious, even to deniers, that the evidentiary case is not too good

But if you're happy with the state of the list I can leave it at that. You said you have positive evidence and I included everything I could remember you offering

 

[mrolonzo]

to be clear, most users in the holocaust forum on 'skeptics' post almost exclusively there, so there isn't a broader affiliation with the rest of the forum


actually I'm looking more at quality than quantity

I still don't see what the problem is with me doing this. It's only a problem if the pro-revisionist evidence is nearly non-existent, because then it will be obvious, even to deniers, that the evidentiary case is not too good

But if you're happy with the state of the list I can leave it at that. You said you have positive evidence and I included everything I could remember you offering

Ive told you the problem, I've literally just written the problem to bonesjones. You can say "I still don't see it" all you like. Fact is, you do see it.

But moreover, this is what I don't get. Let's see if you can see this problem;

At the back of every revisionist book there are numerous documents, maps, diagrams and photos.

Why isn't that enough?

 

[Chugger]

At the back of every revisionist book there are numerous documents, maps, diagrams and photos.

Why isn't that enough?

I'm aware, eg I posted a screenshot of the krema labor force reports from Mattogno's book on open air cremation

but should I really add them to the list ? 900 people working day and night to destroy 25-50 bodies?

I think the list needs to be curated

 

[mrolonzo]

I'm aware, eg I posted a screenshot of the krema labor force reports from Mattogno's book on open air cremation

but should I really add them to the list ? 900 people working day and night to destroy 25-50 bodies?

I think the list needs to be curated

Alot of revisionism is actually about surveying and organising orthodox history into something more sensible but to the extent this document is used in the revisionist case then of course you can add it to the list. Perhaps with reference to where it is mentioned in the case being made.

So you've admitted thus that you know already that there is extensive documentation given in the appendix of every revisionist book.

 

[Chugger]

So you've admitted thus that you know already that there is extensive documentation given in the appendix of every revisionist book.

Yeah again the problem is eg 900 people working day and night for weeks on end is more evidence of mass killing and body destruction than normal camp activities

That's why the list needs to be curated, so you can include the most unambiguous evidence to show how strong your case really is

 

[mrolonzo]

Yeah again the problem is eg 900 people working day and night for weeks on end is more evidence of mass body destruction than normal camp activities

That's why the list needs to be curated, so you can include the most unambiguous evidence to show how strong your case really is

Yeah except this issue was addressed in this thread. And this document is but one of many.

Moreover, looking at the HC blog list already there are significant problems with the quotations of Hitler and Goebbels as exterminationist remarks. This was addressed in the link to Thomas Dalton I gave you.

Furthermore you're saying that revisionists need more unambiguous evidence in the form of a list of revisionist remarks by Nazis when you haven't even comprehended how bad the extermination case truly is because you refuse to read revisionism because it's too much hard work for you yet you also request that we run around for you.

So at this point. You've been defeated and you're just making a fool of yourself.

 

[Chugger]

I've read and quoted from that Dalton link. It's actually a great resource, except for his commentary, which i guess is good for a laugh

I've obviously also read Mattogno, though the boy has written many thousands of pages. I'd still say I've read much more of him than the average internet denier. I've read metapedia extensively which is sort of a compilation of the best revisionist arguments, including a lot from Rudolph and Mattogno

So you have nothing more to add to the list ?

 

[Stan]

let's reframe a bit

what I want to do is team up with you revisionists and compile a list of the best "counter" evidence to the Holocaust. Something like a revisionist version of this list

Since we have no idea what happened to the millions of "resettled" Jews from Poland, Western Europe, and in the German controlled East, we cannot disprove the Holocaust by providing a convincing counter narrative.

But we have other evidence. @mrolonzo has provided some, and we can continue, using Holocaust Handbooks as a reference

so far we have--

1. numerous documents showing Nazis took steps to preserve their labor force in Auschwitz, which included Jews (Healthcare in Auschwitz)

2. A pledge low-ranking SS guards took that they couldn't kill any inmate (presumably including Jews) without authorization from Himmler


3. The case of Johann Meisslein, a construction supervisor who ordered a shooting and got 3 months in jail for "abuse of authority"


4. ghettoization policy document that says "purely vexatious actions" should be abstained from, but that "possible actions against Jews should not be hindered" as long as they didn't cause disorder and weren't done in a purely self serving manner (rather revenge I guess?)

Not directly related, but:

The Wehrmacht handbook had strict rules about not raping civilians from 1941 onward, and Wehrmacht soldiers deny raping civilians, even years later. But there are also numerous victim reports from Poland and France of women saying they were raped by German men in Wehrmacht uniforms. I’m inclined to believe the rules are there in response to rapes, and that enforcement was spotty at best.

The research I am reading suggests that the Wehrmacht was able to control its own men somewhat, at least in France, til 1944 when the incidence of rape increases quite dramatically. But the Eastern front is . It seems there that rape was officially forbidden but permitted in practice.

So I’m not always convinced that a strict law on the books not to harm camp inmates allows one to infer that camp inmates were never harmed. It’s just as likely that they were harmed for trumped-up or untrue infractions, or that the military just looked the other way when it came to enforcement.

 

[mrolonzo]

Not directly related, but:

The Wehrmacht handbook had strict rules about not raping civilians from 1941 onward, and Wehrmacht soldiers deny raping civilians, even years later. But there are also numerous victim reports from Poland and France of women saying they were raped by German men in Wehrmacht uniforms. I’m inclined to believe the rules are there in response to rapes, and that enforcement was spotty at best.

The research I am reading suggests that the Wehrmacht was able to control its own men somewhat, at least in France, til 1944 when the incidence of rape increases quite dramatically. But the Eastern front is . It seems there that rape was officially forbidden but permitted in practice.

So I’m not always convinced that a strict law on the books not to harm camp inmates allows one to infer that camp inmates were never harmed. It’s just as likely that they were harmed for trumped-up or untrue infractions, or that the military just looked the other way when it came to enforcement.

This is fair commentary.

It's entirely conceivable that military crimes breaking the rules did indeed occur. They were indeed were punished but we can reasonably infer, given the allied and Soviet record also that discipline was not absolute at all times.

 

[Chugger]

So I’m not always convinced that a strict law on the books not to harm camp inmates allows one to infer that camp inmates were never harmed.

It wasn't even a strict law but a pledge taken by low ranking camp guards to discourage them from going hog wild on prisoners

And parts of it are nonsensical
"I am aware that only the Führer may decide upon the life and death of an enemy of the state."

The Fuhrer was clearly not involved in decisions regarding the fate of individual inmates, he was busy with other things lol

On top of this the Jews sent to the gas chambers went unregistered, so never formally became inmates

 

[mrolonzo]

I've read and quoted from that Dalton link. It's actually a great resource, except for his commentary, which i guess is good for a laugh

I've obviously also read Mattogno, though the boy has written many thousands of pages. I'd still say I've read much more of him than the average internet denier. I've read metapedia extensively which is sort of a compilation of the best revisionist arguments, including a lot from Rudolph and Mattogno

So you have nothing more to add to the list ?

1. Let me categorically state, this list you've suddenly decided you want to do because you've have been refuted with actual facts, is of little probtive value. I do not intend to add to it further.

Moreover, that which is there is sufficient.

Is that clear? Do you require further explanation?

2. Dalton's commentary is excellent, and he is an excellent scholar who wrote a tremendous general survey of the holocaust debate.

3. You having relied on metapedia, is hopefully, a beginning at least. Two further questions I require an answer for;

a. Have you obtained The Real Case for Auschwitz?

b. Did you actually read the Dalton link I gave you?

A simple yes or no will suffice for each.

It wasn't even a strict law but a pledge taken by low ranking camp guards to discourage them from going hog wild on prisoners

And parts of it are nonsensical
"I am aware that only the Führer may decide upon the life and death of an enemy of the state."

The Fuhrer was clearly not involved in decisions regarding the fate of individual inmates, he was busy with other things lol

On top of this the Jews sent to the gas chambers went unregistered, so never formally became inmates

This commentary is nonsense. The Fuhrer was involved in all kinds of decisions over individuals.

But here now we finally see the final play, the idea will now be floated that the Jews went unregistered into the gas chambers and thus the holocaust in the west. This is a very old excuse. Not that that's a bad thing per se.

 

[Chugger]

this list you've suddenly decided you want to do because you've have been refuted with actual facts, is of little probtive value

why is a list of the best pro-revisionist evidence of "little probative value"? evidence by definition has probative value lol

Have you obtained The Real Case for Auschwitz?

yes

Did you actually read the Dalton link I gave you?

yes I read it before actually

This commentary is nonsense. The Fuhrer was involved in all kinds of decisions over individuals.

Over whether individual inmates at camps should live or die? Source lol?

 

[mrolonzo]

why is a list of the best pro-revisionist evidence of "little probative value"? evidence by definition has probative value lol


yes

yes I read it before actually


Over whether individual inmates at camps should live or die? Source lol?

1. Because every remark requires context.
2. Great.
3. Then that point is over thus. Excellent.
4a. From memory, I think I mentioned it earlier. The Fuhrer was in too minds about how to handle the case of the young Jewish man who assassinated a German diplomat in 1938. He ended up kicking the matter into the long grass and the young man supposedly survived the war. So here we see that despite the man's crime against the German people and the state, no one else was allowed to simply strangle him or torture him.

4b. Konrad Morgan, the SS judge, pursued the case of a camp commandant killing two Jews years earlier and eventually got his man. The SS fellow being executed for it. Thus demonstrating again the actuality of order in the camps. Even commanders do not have their own white card in these matters.

5. Given your and others conduct I won't immediately source anything I write here. Reason, there's absolutely no guarantee any of you will read what I write or link to or cite or attach, unless, like naughty school boys, you are pressured into it.

Therefore we can relax and have a more convivial discussion as I don't demand much of you either.

6. I have a question, what drives you in your quest against us?

 

[mgc]

I have not researched this question personally, but Richard Evans states that the Wehrmacht was not prosecuted for rape on the Eastern Front, only "racial shame." The German dehumanization of Russians thus reached the point where raping Russian women was said to be impossible.

The situation in the West was different, where if a German soldier was (for example) caught raping French women, he was punished by court-martial. But if Evans is correct, German soldiers were only given a slap on the wrist for raping Russian women, which partially explains why there was so much sexual violence directed at the latter by the former. (We all hear about the Red Army's sexual violence against German women, but for some reason not so much about the Wehrmacht's sexual violence against Slavic women.)

Numerous women who wound up in Wehrmacht brothels said after the war they had been kidnapped and forceably brought there in a similar manner to Japanese comfort women. All of the accounts I have read of this were from Slavic gentile women from Eastern Europe. For a variety of reasons (Nazi racial theory about the Slavic sub-human, greater respect for Western civilization than Eastern Europe, etc) the Wehrmacht behaved considerably less savage in the West than the East.

But regardless we know the Wehrmacht engaged in child-sex trafficking because they procured 15-year olds for their brothels. 15 year olds are not old enough to consent to prostitution. That is Jeffrey Epstein stuff at a systematic level.

Re - Dalton, I have a couple quibbles with his translations. But in general they are basically accurate. Which makes his benign interpretations of Goebbels' numerous genocidal pronouncements completely hilarious.

Do you actually think you are going to persuade non-biased people with this stuff, zo? I mean Dalton says that the passage where Goebbels says that 'in Germany, we have killed these Jews like rats' as non-murderous because

it’s clear that many Jews have indeed ‘died like rats,’ but once again this is a far cry from complete annihilation.

He also interprets "liquidate" in a non-murderous sense despite the fact that it of course means murder as applied to human beings, and the Nazis used it for murder in various other contexts, including a documentary produced by Goebbels which accused the Russians of "liquidiating" the Poles at Katyn.

I mean seriously dude, do you think this is the product of honest linguistic reasoning rather than bias?

 

[mrolonzo]

I have not researched this question personally, but Richard Evans states that the Wehrmacht was not prosecuted for rape on the Eastern Front, only "racial shame." The German dehumanization of Russians thus reached the point where raping Russian women was said to be impossible.

The situation in the West was different, where if a German soldier was (for example) caught raping French women, he was punished by court-martial. But if Evans is correct, German soldiers were only given a slap on the wrist for raping Russian women, which partially explains why there was so much sexual violence directed at the latter by the former. (We all hear about the Red Army's sexual violence against German women, but for some reason not so much about the Wehrmacht's sexual violence against Slavic women.)

Numerous women who wound up in Wehrmacht brothels said after the war they had been kidnapped and forceably brought there in a similar manner to Japanese comfort women. All of the accounts I have read of this were from Slavic gentile women from Eastern Europe. For a variety of reasons (Nazi racial theory about the Slavic sub-human, greater respect for Western civilization than Eastern Europe, etc) the Wehrmacht behaved considerably less savage in the West than the East.

But regardless we know the Wehrmacht engaged in child-sex trafficking because they procured 15-year olds for their brothels. 15 year olds are not old enough to consent to prostitution. That is Jeffrey Epstein stuff at a systematic level.

Oh dear. See attached.

Anyway there are competing facts here;
The SS institutes camp brothels as an anti rape measure
The eastern front, being so very large with some 2 million soldiers, would be very hard to control anyway
We also have European attitudes to sex to contend with
So it's very hard to try to paint nazis as child sex abusers.

 

[mgc]

On the Western Front, brothels may well have been presented as an "anti-rape measure." But on the Eastern Front they were introduced to prevent German soldiers from having children with the Slavic "Untermenschen." (Condoms were required in the brothels and women underwent forced abortions.)

The Nazis were not "pro-white" bro. Ask a Pole or Russian. They committed genocide against Slavic "subhumans," and you are being anachronistic and silly in claiming them as muh ancestors, given that you are a Burger with 7 ethnicities (probably a couple of which are slavic).