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

[mrolonzo]

When you say this, nobody believes you except those who agree with you based on a predetermined, emotionally-based conclusion. No sane person could read the excerpt and conclude that Himmler had respect for the human rights of Russians. Much less that he was a "white nationalist" who believed Europeans were one race or people.

Here is another passage -

"The Slav is never able to build anything himself. In the long run, he's not capable of it. I'll come back to this later. With the exception of a few phenomena produced by Asia every couple of centuries, through that mixture of two heredities which may be fortunate for Asia but is unfortunate for us Europeans — with the exception, therefore, of an Attilla, a Ghenghis Khan, a Tamerlaine, a Lenin, a Stalin — the mixed race of the Slavs is based on a sub-race with a few drops of blood of our blood, blood of a leading race; the Slav is unable to control himself and create order. He is able to argue, able to debate, able to disintegrate, able to offer resistance against every authority and to revolt. But these human shoddy goods are just as incapable of maintaining order today as they were 700 or 800 years ago, when they called in the Varangians, when they called in the Ruriks."

https://codoh.com/library/document/heinrich-himmlers-posen-speech-from-04101943/en/

Himmler clearly thinks Slavs are a different race than Germans, some kind of "mixed-race" between Asians and Aryans. He also believes that they are incapable of building anything for themselves, and fit for slavery. This racist attitude against Slavs (especially Poles and Russians) helps explain why they were so brutally mistreated by the Nazis, who murdered so many millions of Slavic gentile civilians.

Think about where you're getting all this information and why codoh doesn't think the holocaust happened even while literally giving you the exact information you want to use.

When I say point refuted, it refers to the point I think you want to make. Obviously you'll try to wiggle around so you can never appear wrong but that's ok.

And everyone here who isn't a holocaust peddler believes me.

Is all the unclaimed money and property left behind by Holocaust victims fake, too? Because that’s what funds these programs in part; assets that belonged to people killed in the Holocaust who left no heirs to claim their art or gold coins or whatever they kept in the safety-deposit boxes.

In part? What do you mean in part? Is that 60%.

 

[Stan]

The Romani and homocaust is all a hoax too of course.

Is all the unclaimed money and property left behind by Holocaust victims fake, too? Because that’s what funds these programs in part; assets that belonged to people killed in the Holocaust who left no heirs to claim their art or gold coins or whatever they kept in the safety-deposit boxes.

 

[Lemmingwise]

You just contradicted yourself; “Holocaust survivors” covers Romani, homos, political prisoners, Jesuit objectors

I did not; it's just the difference between the technical definition and the definition in vernacular.

For example, in 2019 the Netherlands started making a substantial one time payment to survivors who were transported on Dutch railways and trains (15k euros) with a fraction of that available to widows and children. But the money for this program in part came from Nazi gold that was looted by the US and then given to the Netherlands.

Yes, the dutch royal railway was blackmailed inyo making a 2019 payment for the holocaust. What were they supposed to do when they were occupied by the germans? Not run the infrastructure?

Why would it be right for holocaust survivors to receive that money but wrong for a conquered country with countless of deaths to receive that money? Every dutch person is a war survivor at that point. But the answer is simple. It's the jew/goy distinction and you should stop simping for jews.

much of the money is being used to restore Jewish stuff (synagogues, art objects, fancy Torah scrolls etc.) or “promote Jewish culture”.

See? Even though there are daily examples of jews denigrating european/dutch culture, this was blackmail of an exagerated event to support jrwish culture.

 

[Bonesjones]

The Nazis razed various villages and cities in Eastern Europe, including Warsaw, without any kind of military justification. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw

The destruction of Warsaw was Nazi Germany's substantially effected razing of the city in late 1944, after the 1944 Warsaw Uprising of the Polish resistance.

Way to contradict yourself in the first sentence.

We will never be hard and heartless when it is not necessary; that is clear.

Why didn't you bold this part? Oh because it contradicts you immediately.

 

[mgc]

The destruction of Warsaw was Nazi Germany's substantially effected razing of the city in late 1944, after the 1944 Warsaw Uprising of the Polish resistance.

Way to contradict yourself in the first sentence.

Why didn't you bold this part? Oh because it contradicts you immediately.

They completed the destruction of Warsaw after the Uprising ended and the Polish Home Army surrendered. So yeah, the razing was done of out spite.

 

[Bonesjones]

They completed the destruction of Warsaw after the Uprising ended and the Polish Home Army surrendered. So yeah, the razing was done of out spite.

"Why would you take my gun after I ran out of bullet"

 

[mrolonzo]

"Why would you take my gun after I ran out of bullet"

Kek

 

[Chugger]

Yes, the Eastern front was a brutal war that’s hardly news. Aside from the general food shortage, the Wehrmacht didn’t have the logistics and ressources in place to deal with millions of POWs.

they didn't have resources to spare for Soviet civilians and POWs (most of whom died in Poland), but made an exception for the "unable to work" Jews supposedly brought into this area?

How “Nazis” treated people and “racial hierarchies” rarely had a consistent implementation, but depended on the conditions on the ground and especially local leaders.

it was pretty consistent. Jews were the only population to be uniformly ghettoized/deported, with all their property seized.

the racial hierarchy thing was not viewed by the Nazis in terms of 'hating Jews for being simply inferior' but rather what being Jewish meant and what they believed the Jews had done

from Hitler's testament (1945)

Isn't it strange that the only camps that were death camps were 100% the ones liberated by the Russians?

stick to shitposting my dude, 90% of the Jews in Europe were from 1945 Soviet occupied territories , and the Nazis weren't going to put death camps in Germany where it would have been obvious to their own people what was going on

"Why would you take my gun after I ran out of bullet"

I didn't know buildings counted as guns and given the war situation there was no way they were going to hold onto the city anyway, so it does seem purely vindictive

Why would it be right for holocaust survivors to receive that money but wrong for a conquered country with countless of deaths to receive that money? Every dutch person is a war survivor at that point. But the answer is simple. It's the jew/goy distinction and you should stop simping for jews.

Were Dutch people uniformly deported with all their property seized, with 95% of those deported not surviving? (this is what happened to the Dutch Jews)

 

[Lemmingwise]

Were Dutch people uniformly deported with all their property seized, with 95% of those deported not surviving? (this is what happened to the Dutch Jews)

Right, it makes sense that an occupied country and its people, that had no control, authority or oversight over these events had to pay reparations for this 80 years after the fact.

Besides, according to amsterdam numbers 25% survived, not 5%. But who cares about accuracy of numbers right? Whether it's 6 million or 1.2 million, same thing right?

 

[Chugger]

Right, it makes sense that an occupied country and its people, that had no control, authority or oversight over these events had to pay reparations for this 80 years after the fact.

Besides, according to amsterdam numbers 25% survived, not 5%. But who cares about accuracy of numbers right? Whether it's 6 million or 1.2 million, same thing right?

I said of those deported, and those numbers are correct as far as I know (102k out of 107k). A certain portion of Dutch Jews were able to hide out or escape with only their property siezed

I see here the US government paid out a few billion to Japanese 40 years later

According to this Germany has paid out 86 billion (~40x more)

https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/germany/

Just looking at Jews who were deported to camps or "resettled" (~6 million) , that number is 50 times higher than the amount of Japanese interned (120k)

and we're not taking into account that unlike with the Japanese, Jewish deportees were subject to outright murder with property seized which was rarely formally returned (because in most cases there was no one to return it to)

if you're being honest, it seems like you should be talking about Jap privilege

 

[Stabmaster Arson]

90% of the Jews in Europe were from 1945 Soviet occupied territorie

Oh, did the allies not liberate any camps outside Germany?

They did?

So again - explain why only commie liberated camps were death camps. Remember to prove the bullshit that flows from your mouth.

 

[Chugger]

Oh, did the allies not liberate any camps outside Germany?

Not east of Germany where 90% of the Jews were.

 

[Stabmaster Arson]

Not east of Germany where 90% of the Jews were.

That's not what I said, and you know it stop moving goalposts. Also, unironically, absolutely seriously, without any trace of satire, kill yourself.

 

[Chugger]

That's not what I said, and you know it stop moving goalposts. Also, unironically, absolutely seriously, without any trace of satire, kill yourself.

wait hold on man. I want to see if I can get through to you.

the story goes they did not put death camps in the west because there were far fewer Jews there, instead preferring to put them in the East near to the major population centers

therefore since the US/Britain only liberated camps in the west, they did not find any death camps

What's your confusion here?

 

[Aves]

You didn't actually just answer my simple first question.

Anyway,

Aves why do you read Holocaust controversies and not codoh?

Just a simple question.

I didn’t answer because I was busy + the debate was fundamentally useless. If I made you concede, you would still think the holocaust didn’t happen. If I conceded, I would have thought it happened. If we were talking about something a lot more important, like, the millions of Jews resettled east, than I would be more keen in answering. But this debate really didn’t mean much.

I understand your point on how partisans in a war aren’t exactly reliable, but my point wasn’t that they or, or even about the lampshades. It was that, as “historians” we have to look at all claims and judge them accordingly. The claim that nazis shipped Jews to the moon is unreasonable because we have no proof of it. It could have happened but without evidence why should we care. The same thing goes for lampshades, it could have happened but without other evidence we really shouldn’t care. I just disagree that we have to think it “tendentiously possible”

By the way, “The once accused baby rapist” goes hard.

 

[Aves]

wait hold on man. I want to see if I can get through to you.

the story goes they did not put death camps in the west because there were far fewer Jews there, instead preferring to put them in the East near to the major population centers

therefore since the US/Britain only liberated camps in the west, they did not find any death camps

What's your confusion here?

One other thing chugger, isn’t “death camp” used pretty liberally by “exterminists?” Like, a camp where you starve to death by overworking is considered a death camp, like those where you get gassed. Right? Or were the western camps very different?

 

[Bonesjones]

they didn't have resources to spare for Soviet civilians and POWs (most of whom died in Poland), but made an exception for the "unable to work" Jews supposedly brought into this area?

They didn't make an exception, they did the equivalent of dropping them off on the side of the road, you know the barbaric thing they talked about. Contrasted to Soviet people they would have had custody of and been required to take care of.

stick to shitposting my dude, 90% of the Jews in Europe were from 1945 Soviet occupied territories , and the Nazis weren't going to put death camps in Germany where it would have been obvious to their own people what was going on

I wish you'd escape from shit posting, but you are incapable of any original thought.

I didn't know buildings counted as guns and given the war situation there was no way they were going to hold onto the city anyway, so it does seem purely

You don't know anything to begin with so it's not surprising. A base of operations that an active resistance can use to good effect is also a base of operations an opponent in war can use to good effect. Why would you leave the infrastructure in tact to be used against you? There's a reason wars primary targets are transportation infrastructure.

 

[Chugger]

One other thing chugger, isn’t “death camp” used pretty liberally by “exterminists?” Like, a camp where you starve to death by overworking is considered a death camp, like those where you get gassed. Right? Or were the western camps very different?

the term is a little fuzzy so I was assuming the hardline definition : a place where hundreds of thousands were gassed

5 places qualify here : Birkenau -- the 3 Reinhard camps -- Chelmno

but camps where prisoners were subjected to barbaric conditions and died like flies could also reasonably be considered death camps. And "camps" existed in the USSR that functioned similarly to extermination centers, but with bullets

eg ponary

They didn't make an exception, they did the equivalent of dropping them off on the side of the road, you know the barbaric thing they talked about. Contrasted to Soviet people they would have had custody of and been required to take care of.

What does "the equivalent of dropping them off on the side of the road" mean exactly? Trains get to Russia, and they're just kicked out?

 

[Aves]

And everyone here who isn't a holocaust peddler believes me.

“Everyone who doesn’t disagree with me agrees with me”

 

[mgc]

The death rates in the camp system as a whole were appalling. For example Mittelbau-Dora (where slave laborers made the V-2 rockets) is not considered a "death camp," yet inmates (not just Jews but slavs, etc) died there at much higher rates than political prisoners died in the Stalinist gulags, whose murderous nature is not doubted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelbau-Dora_concentration_camp

So semantically it would not be unreasonable to call the entire camp system "death camps." However, this is probably a bad idea, because it would lead to confusion among the general public, who would likely wrongly assume all the camps had homicidal gas chambers.