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?
The development of the story itself is the great heart of the hoax. How the Delagatura develops rumours into stories day after day week after week which of course the Allied intelligence agencies will seize with both hands and make sure are printed widely. As such the notion that the SS planned for death camps in the east is simply the cart before the horse.
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.
It's not only that nazis shipped Jews to the moon has no proof, it's more than that. There were only rudimentary ballistic missiles available at the time. There was no technical theory or work up for this. And no subsequent detritus left over.
Similarly for the gassing in the west and the shootings in the east followed by mass barbeques to cover it all up.
If you don't think lampshades were tendenciously possible what is it? Less than that? More than that?
It's a cool moniker. I like seeing it on your profile. Carry on.
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?
Think of the metaphors and descriptions they give you. You'll notice it's entirely routine for holocaust peddlers to turn the emotional noise up to eleven. This is deliberate. This is factually how propaganda works historically and can be traced in the same way back to the beginning of print media itself.
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
View attachment 3582545
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?
Ive always wondered about the hatred for jews in eastern Europe. It's certainly deep and when the Nazis liberated these countries from their Soviet tormentors the local population immediately turned on the Jews. The nazis were happy for this to play out as stopping them getting their revenge would sour things.
The general thinking is that Jews were at the fore front of the Soviet takeover and subsequent state terror inflicted on these very small countries.
Yes. There were plenty of other camps. Hundreds in fact both east and west. This is the long term future of revisionism after the four current projects.
“Everyone who doesn’t disagree with me agrees with me”
Indeed. All you have to do is read revisionism. Its not crazy verbiage, it's not full of spite and bile. It's coldly considered and well informed.
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.
In fact it is semantically unreasonable to call the entire camp system death camps on the basis that alot died there.
Interestingly this camp is where the first revisionist was held Paul Rassinier.
Here's a fascinating related article about it;
Interesting. I read some stuff on HC blogs and they mentioned how the camps could be considered on a spectrum, where “overwork” camps were on the left and “extermination” camps were on the right. Do other historians take a hard definition to these camps? I assume that if the goal of all the camps was death, then they can be considered death camps either way.
LMAO
Today! Zees juden vill be vorked to death!!
Only this vay kan ve be sure to get ze best out of them tomorrow!!
Yeah that’s what I thought. If the final goal was murder you could probably still consider them death camps, although some less deadly could accidentally fall under that.
In fact they were all work camps. Which is demonstrated in the documents and makes sense anyway.
I’ve got another question, this one aimed for the deniers
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the nazis really treated their Jews well. They had healthcare and all that stuff, and only decided to kick out some of them to the east (which is a separate discussion). Wouldn’t you have a lot of higher nazi brass talking about how well they treated these Jews? Like, they gave healthcare and food and all this stuff in these prisoner, and even deloused them, despite being antisemitic and not liking them. It would make sense on the global stage to advertise their treatment continuously along with privately taking about giving treatment. I haven’t read Goebells diary, but does he ever mention this?
Also, if the Jews then died of typhus, wouldn’t you have a lot of really pissed off nazis talking about it too? Like, they spent all of this money to ensure these Jews would be safe, only for a bunch of them to die to typhus and other stuff that wasn’t genocidal.
I don’t do any holocaust reading either way so im curious if these documents from the high level nazis exist. Because I just keep seeing documents like “They will be destroyed!” From goebells and other high ranking nazis
Goebbels, despite being the Nazis most anti semitic senior rank in his own private diaries writes that the Jews were getting a good deal in the east.
Dr Wirth, Garrison medic of Auschwitz, who was supposed to be overseeing all the killing and medical experiments, instead is devastated by the tragic effects of typhus.
Himmler was obviously pissed off at the death rate and demanded it be brought down. Which it then was.
Holocaust peddlers will now try the excuses that all this doesn't count because they wanted war production in the camps. It's true of course, they did want war production. They also wanted an orderly and healthy camp population for various reasons, morale, cross infection, strength for the future deportation project.
there are no errors, I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I'm careful not to make any silly mistakes when talking to you lol
To be clear these are western papers, but the Holohoax was perpetuated by the USSR wasn't it?
how were you able to determine this?
In the post war era the allies and the Soviets were sympatico initially. This faded in some quarters in the west over time, but it's mostly still official policy. At some point the museaums will break under the strain. Even today there's alot riding on all this.
Think about what they did to Rudolf Hess......why would they do that if Nazis weren't something different in many many different ways and representing a fundamental threat to every edifice they've created.
