Why the Holocaust story isn't just false but insane

[Truthseeking]

There is a torrent of Holocaust videos on Youtube, and in watching them, it occurred to me how impossible the Holocaust story is. Supposedly, evil guards and doctors assessed people upon their arrival at Auschwitz, and those who were unfit to work, either because of illness or age (being too young or too old) were selected to die. Then they were separated from their family and frends and sent to the gas chambers, vanishing them forever. But, what about their family and friends? What did they do after that? Just accept it? The disappearance of their loved one? How could the Nazis maintain any order and functionality at the camp at all with that going on? How on Earth did they get people to work?

For instance, if a man was separated from his wife and kids, and then they didn't return; they just disappeared; he's not going to just start working at some job. He's going to demand to know what happened to them. And it doesn't matter what the Nazis do to him. They could beat him to a bloody pulp. There is nothing they could do that would make him accept the disappearance of his family and start working and obeying orders. With his family gone, he isn't going to care about his own life. So, it's going to be impossible to harness him to some job. It doesn't matter if he is healthy and able-bodied; he's not going to work. If you're going to kill his family, you might as well kill him too.

The whole idea of an extermination camp is preposterous because you couldn't keep it a secret. The disappearance of people, the disposal of their bodies, the cremations... you couldn;t hide it. And once people knew, they would revolt. There would be an uprising. It wouldn't matter that the Nazis had guns and clubs and dogs, while the prisoners had nothing. They had numbers.

The point is that coercion only works to a point. Once you start exterminating, then it instantly becomes something else: a battle. That mass exterminations were being done without prisoners knowing it is preposterous. That upon knowing it, prisoners continued to work and obey orders is preposterous. That "work camp" and "extermination center" could exist side by side, and not just that, but be fully integrated, is preposterous. That it could function for years, as is claimed, is preposterous, But, never mind years: it couldn't even function for days. It would break down rapidly.

Human beings are not like cows at a slaughterhouse. And I'm not saying that cows are completely oblivious to what is happening to them there. But compared to people, they are rather oblivious. Or, let's put it this way: the cows are oblivious enough that you can make it work at a slaughterhouse. But, human beings are not oblivious enough to make it work at an extermination center. The order, the organization, and the functionality of the place would break down very quickly, and I mean from the start. It would be a no-go. The Nazi "death camps" as they have been described to us could not possibly function, which is to say: they could not possibly exist.

But, you realize that there is an army of people out there- academics- whose job it is to wax academically about the Holocaust, to explain the behaviors involved- both that of the villains and the victims. But, none of it makes any sense. That what they are waxing about, so learnedly, is a complete illuison and delusion evades them completely. And I say that is insane. These people are paid to be learnedly- and often eloquently- insane.

[Merlin300]

When you add in known facts like the ratio of inmates to guards (usually about 100 to 1), the ease of escape, and the necessity of inmate labor to the functioning of the camp the Nuremberg Trial tales become impossible.

The claim of passive and cooperative Jewish inmates was a necessary element of the IMT image of Auschwitz.

[fireofice]

Then there's the fact that the Sonderkommando (Jewish inmates) were the ones bringing the Jews into the gas chambers to be killed. Everyone was supposedly calm and not resisting. Norman Finkelstein brings up how this was a controversial aspect of Raul Hilberg's work:

https://youtu.be/u9ud_Xqejqg?t=33m50s

[Truthseeking]

Tonight, I watched a Auschwitz survivor describe her ordeal. She was a 12 year old girl at the time with her mother. She mentioned no other family members, though she could have had some. She said that upon arriving, they inspected everyone and sent them right or left, depending on whether they were going to be gassed or not. So, her mother was ordered to go left and the girl right, or maybe it was vice versa. But, that's the first disconnect right there. No mother is going to walk away from her 12 year old daughter just because somebody orders her to. She's going to cling to her and refuse because that's what mothers do. She posted a picture of herself with her mother, and they both looked healthy. So, why would the Nazis want to kill the mother and spare the daughter if work was the goal? How much work is an orphaned 12 year old going to do?

And it amazed me how cavalierly she spoke of her mother being gassed to death. She rather shrugged and said that she held on to hope that maybe her mother got away; escaped; and would be found in a displaced persons center.

But, in the meantime, she said she got to work in the garden where they grew cucumbers, tomatoes, potatoes, and more. She said that she would often smuggle cucumbers back to the barrack by stuffing it in her bra. Tomatoes, she said, didn't work because they would burst. But, potatoes could be shoved lots of places, so she often brought them. But, how did she cook them? They didn't have kitchen facilities, did they?

And she said she experienced a lot of culture, that the first time she heard Mozart's Requeim was at the concentration camp with the many talented prisoners performing it. I'm thinking she didn't get the memo that she was supposed to concentrate on bad stuff, not cucumbers and Mozart. But, the commenters weren't put off. They wrote things like, "Oh, you poor thing. May the world never forget. I hope you find peace." It's like they didn't hear what she said. And that's a good point that the whole idea that other Jews would pull the bodies out of the death chamber is another preposterous claim. And presumably, they were doing this day after day. All in a day's work. Excuse my callousness. I am being that way because I don't believe for one second that it happened.

[Libertas Aut Mors]

Especially with regards to the Sonderkommando. The idea that anyone would passively help a foreign people systematically exterminate their own people with only the very occasional rebellion is beyond fathoming. If it were me, I’d simply flat out refuse and damn the consequences, and I sure as hell am not the bravest person alive.

Plus, the implication is that when a Jewish Sonderkommando is forced to kill people (his own people, mind you) or else be killed himself, it’s okay if he’s “following orders” because he’s a victim! But if a German does so, “following orders” ceases to be a valid excuse!

[Hektor]

When you add in known facts like the ratio of inmates to guards (usually about 100 to 1), the ease of escape, and the necessity of inmate labor to the functioning of the camp the Nuremberg Trial tales become impossible.

The claim of passive and cooperative Jewish inmates was a necessary element of the IMT image of Auschwitz.

The best is the testimony most people think is in favor of the Holocaust Hypothesis. E.g. at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial.
They questioned inmates and they told them some details of life in the camps.
a) One witness was a Jewish women working for the camp Gestapo as a translator.
b) Jewish Communists told of getting free medical treatment that would be considered luxurious at the time by many Europeans.
c) Camp inmates worked as domestic aid and nannies for Concentration camp staff.
d) One Jewish Communist told them that he was transferred out of the camp to work somewhere else.

As for...
a) Highly unlikely to employ people you 'want to exterminate' into responsible positions. And then even with the Gestapo ('Politische Abteilung').
b) Why give them free medical care to begin with. Get rid of anyone that goes sick.
c) If extermination was the goal, you would avoid any personal contact as much as possible.
d) Jewish Communist should be immediate extermination, if it was the goal. It's the targeted group and it then he's hostile politically. Two flies with one clap, if killed immediately.

The homicidal gassing is mostly told as some sort of 'hear say', hence rumor. No doubt rumors existed at the time. People would tell stories to scare newbies and for entertainment purpose. The Holocaust promotors cherry pick the details of testimony that seems to support their narrative, but actually have to ignore most of the testimony available to make the narrative fly. This is intellectually dishonest to put it mildly. If the Holocaust was true, all those tactics and pressurizing people to believe it would simply be unnecessary. If they'd go with the facts they'd be honest to say that there was lots of atrocity propaganda. They would point out that live for inmates might be difficult, but that there was no deliberate policy to exterminate them. That would leave them with unfair detention without a trial. But then the debate would on something completely different with out the emotional load. They would loose any perceived 'moral high ground', since Germans and others were detained in Allied countries, too. Detention is a coercive measure done by governments, but so are traffic controls, taxation, compulsory schooling, summoning people to court cases, executing court orders, etc. The debate would then be on the legitimacy of coercive state action. So rather single out one state/government/country and accuse it of obnoxiously excessive coercive measures. It lets other government look far better in public perception. And it seems some gov's actually like the Holocaust for exactly that reason.

[borjastick]

Two points;
Firstly a friend of mine who is a successful businessman in the UK was on holiday last week in Krakow. He and his wife did the whole cultural trip in the city and then went to the salt mines and of course the obligatory trip to Auschwitz. He knows my feelings on it all and hasn't mentioned much to me since his return but he did post on FB to say that Auschwitz was shocking and an eye opener. Needless to say he went in and believed everything he was told without questioning any of it.

The second thing about how bad the evidence is for all this holohoax stuff being true was this -the other night I just happened to watch an episode of The World At War. It was, I think, season one episode 20. I have tried to find it on youtube to check again what I heard but cannot find it. It was of course dealing with the holocaust and in particular summer 1944 in Auschwitz. One of the main interviewees was who they claimed to be a 'survivor' of the camp as he was very fit and strong. He claimed to be a Hungarian jew though he didn't look the slightest bit jewish. He had ginger hair, blueish eyes and a light skin with a normal straight nose.

His claim was that he survived because he worked in the crematorium shovelling bodies in the ovens which he of course claimed could burn a corpse to ash in fifteen minutes. Here's what struck me as very odd. This guy was clearly reading a script from the floor area by the camera. He was constantly looking down and pausing while he read the next line. Then he would glance over towards the interviewer, who we never saw, and make his statement. I think he also claimed that things got worse and worse in the camp as the war came to a close but when the AMERICANS arrived it all got better!

[Hektor]

@borjastick:
"Auschwitz was shocking and an eye opener"

Well, indeed it is. But I guess what you mean depends on the way one is looking at it. The whole faith in the Holocaust depends on muddying the waters, getting people already into a prejudicial mood and then they see 'evidence for extermination' in anything. Seen this technique with other scams as well.

That's why sobriety and rationality are important.


When people take something that isn't evidence for it as definite evidence, than you know that they are not rational.
Take the dupes that think they have 'seen evidence for the Holocaust' and then cite photos of people that died of disease. Such a person IS NOT thinking logically. But they quickly get offended, when you point this out to them. And, if they don't ostracize you immediately, they may simply double down on it.... Perhaps showing you more photos of it, cite movies (fiction), cite 'famous historians' and the like

One problem is that they can't distinguish between valid and invalid evidence.