The Jewish Children that 'Survived'

[gl0spana]

What happened to the Jewish children of - say - Poland? According to the Jews, 1 million Polish Jewish children died in the holocaust.

I assume most of these really survived - were resettled in the east.

Yet these children couldn't ever admit to this, resettlement is not part of the official story. Rather they would have to have convincing stories of how they survived, and what they were up to from 1942-1945, whether hiding out in orphanages, or escaping eastward through war-torn Russia to safety.

I expect adult Jews to be able to lie and come up with plausible stories and explanations for what happened them and how they were mistreated so by the Nazis - after all as Hitler said, "the Jews are a nation of actors"

But what of their children? Do 9 year olds, who would have been 6-8 during the most crucial period, have the capacity to lie so well and thoroughly
that not a single report of a Jewish child speaking "erroneously" about that Holocaust has surfaced?

I think this tips you off about the power of the elites who perpetuated this whole thing. The only explanation I can think of is that these kids were brainwashed, hypnotized, perhaps implanted with false memories. Do you guys have any other theories?

[Hannover]

gl0spana, you said:

According to the Jews, 1 million Polish Jewish children died in the holocaust.

According to those same Jews 'holocausted' adults and children went to enormous mass graves. The alleged human remains supposedly within those alleged mass graves are claimed to exist in known locations, yet there are no such remains.

That question is covered thoroughly here:

Simple question: What happened to the people who were sent to the camps?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13204

gl0spana, you also said:

I assume most of these really survived - were resettled in the east.

The simple fact is that Jews went where Jews are. Again, see: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13204

Welcome, Hannover

Alleged "gas chambers' that could not have done what is alleged and no alleged human remains of millions upon millions to be seen in allegedly known locations simply demolishes the 'holocaust' propaganda.

[borjastick]

They couldn't say much because they were behind the Iron Curtain matey. Then they went to wherever they went and have forever since being saying this

'there were seven hundred and forty six of my immediate family sent to Auschwitz, and I was the only one to survive. All the rest were gassed to death before lunchtime on the first day. It was a miracle how I survived'.

Best to say that with a strong jewish accent, makes it more fun.

[Lamprecht]

But what of their children? Do 9 year olds, who would have been 6-8 during the most crucial period, have the capacity to lie so well and thoroughly that not a single report of a Jewish child speaking "erroneously" about that Holocaust has surfaced?

There are plenty of testimonies where the individual was a child at the time.

French Jew Moshe Peer was born in 1933, and at age 11 he was sent to Bergen-Belsen, the same camp that Anne Frank was sent to from Auschwitz, where she died of Typhus. Moshe Peer wrote that he was sent to the gas chamber six times, but survived each time. In a 1993 interview he said he didn't know how he survived, saying:
"Maybe children resist better, I don't know"

He even claimed "Bergen-Belsen was worse than Auschwitz" and spent 19 years writing a book about his experiences at the camp. However, all mainstream historians today agree that Bergen-Belsen had no gas chambers and was not an extermination camp.

Wikipedia says it right there on the page:
"There were no gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen-Be ... ation_camp


Full text here: http://archive.vn/FfUOa or https://web.archive.org/web/20200620085 ... e.it/7np7c

Also see:
Holocaust Lies: Bergen-Belsen Gassing
https://codoh.com/library/document/holo ... assing/en/

The memories of children are not usually regarded as the most accurate. Some news articles from an older thread:

False memories as 'facts' / some examples
viewtopic.php?t=14

"The researchers say young children, the elderly and people with short attention spans appear most likely to concoct false memories. But even college students -- who presumably spend much of their time remembering what they read and hear -- can be easily tricked into swearing they recall things that never happened."

Also recommended:

The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
http://archive.fo/Q1iK0#calibre_link-1809 or https://web.archive.org/web/20200229212 ... _link-1809

[Lamprecht]

They couldn't say much because they were behind the Iron Curtain matey.

And why would the Soviets trot out some kid to testify about gas chambers in a show trial when there were plenty of adults they could choose from instead? The testimony of a young child many years after the event took place is not very valuable, especially when they are claiming to be a victim. A lot of "Eyewitnesses" just want attention.

[gl0spana]

They couldn't say much because they were behind the Iron Curtain matey.

These children would be in their late 50s or early 60s when the iron curtain lifts. Clearly some people have reliable memories of where and how they lived when they were children. If you are Jewish I'm sure you'd get a lot of questions. Considering there are at least hundreds of thousands of them, is it really believable that all of them or 99.9% could fabricate what happened to them during 1941-1945 without being prodded, manipulated by some external power. This is very interesting to me.

[Hannover]

Bottom line, gl0spana, there is simply no proof that they were murdered and there is tons of information, as posted and you ignored, that explains where they went, where they are.

And indeed, borjastick is quite right. Going against the party line in the communist USSR was not good for one's health. I find it interesting that anyone would contest that fact.

Perhaps you could tell us about some "children survivors".
Tell us in their own words what they claim that supposedly supports the 'holocaust' narrative.

- Hannover

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
- George Orwell

[gl0spana]

I contest none of what you guys have said actually. I'm just wondering if you have any theories about who told these children what to say or remember happened to them during this crucial period of 1942 -1945.

eg Did their parents tell them, "hey you weren't put in a special camp with all these other Jewish children during this time, you were really hiding out somewhere. If anyone asks you, this is what you should really tell them: . . . " Over time the Jews internalize this fiction, perhaps come to believe it. It sound plausible, but could this have really happened to hundreds of thousands of people, without some going against this programming?

I think this must be evidence of the strength and sophistication of the programming that was used on these Jews.

[Lamprecht]

Considering there are at least hundreds of thousands of them, is it really believable that all of them or 99.9% could fabricate what happened to them during 1941-1945

No, it isn't believable. And as far as I am aware, nobody actually believes that. I don't know where you found this 99.9% number, but that's a lot closer to the percent of "eyewitnesses" who don't claim to have witnessed Jews being killed in homicidal gas chambers.

gl0spana - it seems you don't understand what "Holocaust denial" really is. Please check out these simple graphics, read them carefully:



It's a very popular strawman, and it's just plain wrong.

I suggest also checking out the thread linked below where I explained:

- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Einsatzgruppen shot many people, including Jews in the East (disputing numbers and motives)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there were crematoria in the camps
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Germans had anti-Jewish policies and forced them into ghettos and camps (disputing claims of "extermination camps")
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there were piles of corpses and emaciated bodies, found and photographed during the liberation of these camps (disputing that they are gassed corpses)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there was a state-sponsored euthanasia program for mentally ill, incurably sick, and severely disabled people (has nothing to do with a "Holocaust")
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that that "Final Solution" was a real policy (it meant resettlement/deportation/forced labor)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that a lot of people perished in the camps (disputing the estimated totals)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that thousands of "survivors" testified about these things listed above, and many/most were telling the truth (albeit with some exaggerations and even lies; - fewer than 5% of Auschwitz testimonies mention gassings)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Germans committed some war crimes (like all other sides / they would have been the only belligerents to not do so if that was the case)

For some people, you can list all of these things that aren't disputed and they will respond:
So basically you're saying the Holocaust happened?
Yet you are a "Holocaust denier"

The power of the "Denier" label and people's confusion about the "Holocaust"
viewtopic.php?t=12923

And we know, like the example I provided in the previous post, that there is completely absurd "eyewitness testimony" such as:
- Homicidal gas chambers in camps that no historian today claims had gas chambers
- Nazi scientists cut off a prisoner's hand and sewed them on the opposite wrists, so they were backward
- Nazis drowning Jews in feces, urinating in their mouths, and raping them with German shepherds as a favorite sport
- victims surviving homicidal gassings by breathing through a keyhole
- Mass murder in electrocution chambers and steam chambers
- Jews being turned into furniture, clothing, and cleaning products
- Jewish prisoners forced to eat bread made of sawdust or even cannibalize Jewish babies
- A cage with a bear and eagle where a prisoner was placed every day; the bear would rip him apart and the eagle would pick the remaining flesh off the bones

Do you really believe all that stuff? What about UFO abductions and bigfoot sightings?

Much more ridiculous "Holocaust" testimony can be found here:

The Most Ridiculous Testimony
viewtopic.php?t=7033

The reality is that this eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence in the hierarchy of evidence, and if it is given decades after the event it is often totally useless, especially when there is no risk of being charged with perjury. They may want revenge, they may want to claim victim status for the fame and attention, they may want to make a quick buck writing their memoirs with some gruesome atrocities that they invented in their own mind.

From a previous post I made in a thread that was linked above by Hannover (I suggest you read it) about the "Hierarchy of Evidence":

Here's a basic outline, in order of most definitive first:

1. Laws of nature – If someone contradicts the laws of nature, it did not happen. For something to have happened, it must first be possible. Simple

2. Common sense - If something makes absolutely no sense, it probably did not happen. For example, someone claims they avoided the gas chamber many times by being the 201st person in line but it only fit 200. That's just silly

3. Physical/material evidence - If someone says "Below my feet is a mass grave of 10,000 people" and then we dig and find nothing, it is not true. Even if 10 people agree with him, it just is not there

4. Documents - documents are generally more reliable than testimony, but even documents can be faked/forged: something the Soviets were notorious for. So when looking at them we must keep this in mind. Also, documents can be destroyed (both incriminating and exonerating) so relying solely on documents is problematic, but they do in general have more weight than testimony.

5. Neutral testimony - testimony of someone who has no skin in the game. A person who can not benefit or lose out no matter what they say. These people can lie, but are less likely to

6. Party testimony - a victim, a perpetrator, a prisoner, a vengeful enemy. These sorts of testimonies are the weakest forms of evidence imaginable. A victim or enemy may lie just for revenge. A perpetrator may lie just to seem innocent, and that may be denial or a "Yes it happened but I couldn’t stop it!" confession (whether you consider that a "confession" is a matter of semantics). A prisoner’s testimony is also very weak because he may just be saying whatever he thinks will get him out of jail.

We should never assume a testimony is false just because of who says it, but we should be very skeptical about testimony and make an honest effort to combine it with something more genuine, ideally physical evidence but if that is not possible then we should preferentially use documents.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of "Eyewitness testimony" by Jews who were put in camps in WWII does not include anything that is disputed by revisionists or "deniers". I urge you to make a thread on the "Eyewitnesses" supposedly included in this 99.9% figure you posted that you believe are evidence against "Holocaust denial" (as defined by published revisionists).

This malicious canard was discussed quite recently in a thread about racial supremacist Deborah Lipstadt, a Professor of "Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies."
Lipstadt, despite a person in her position certainly knowing better, made the claim in her recent book:
"For deniers to be right, all survivors would have to be wrong"

I suggest you read the thread as well:
Why Does Deborah Lipstadt Oppose Free Speech?
viewtopic.php?t=13288#p96750

From one of my posts:

It's a strawman encountered far too often. Juergen Graf recently made mincemeat of this nonsensical assertion in his book on Auschwitz eyewitness testimonies. To wit:

The “Many Thousands of Witnesses, Survivors, Victims and Perpetrators”
No revisionist has ever claimed that the witnesses and survivors of the concentration camps, of which there were indeed many thousands, had lied throughout in all instances. It’s not about former concentration-camp detainees in general, however, but about those who claim to have attended homicidal gassings, and there weren’t “many thousands” of them, but quite a small number. As far as their testimonies pertain to Auschwitz, the most important of these witnesses are presented and quoted in this book.

From:
Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust — 30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php ... page_id=36

The vast majority of "survivors" do not claim anything exceptional in their testimony with regards to "denial" here. Individual, unverifiable, and random acts of cruelty are common in the "survivor" literature, but these are mostly concerned with personal accounts during a bloody and chaotic war and not regarding any overall Third Reich policy that is disputed. Eyewitness testimony is understood to be an imperfect metric and subject to personal exaggeration, biases, and omissions that are not necessarily a result of deliberate intent to deceive. Stating a falsehood is not a lie by definition if you actually believe it is true.

"Deniers" acknowledge that the Third Reich had anti-Jewish policies that involved segregation, deportation, and camps for the purpose of labor and internment. Only a tiny % of the "survivor" testimonies claim to have witnessed anything that is actually specifically disputed by "deniers".

Insofar as the opinion "well, I did not see anything of the sort myself, but I believe it happened!" is a useful qualifier, it certainly is not at least in regards to historiography. Once you create this label "survivor" which comes with it [financial] incentives (reparations + more) you have completely destroyed the validity of using this label as a metric for anything meaningful. Today, you could invent a vague event and anyone who was alive and in a general place during a period can get paid reparations for it, you will naturally find yourself a long line of fast-buck artists even if your intentions are benevolent.

From another thread:
Ratio of obvious liars to claimed "eyewitnesses"?
viewtopic.php?t=12170#p90722

Using the USC Shoah Foundation database, I showed that fewer than 5% of testimonies from Auschwitz mention homicidal gas chambers at all, at least if we go by the keyword taggings. This is from over 50,000 testimonies. And not necessarily all of these individuals who were tagged with "gas chamber" necessarily claimed to have witnessed actual gassings. The number of overall testimonies tagged with gas chambers/gassings (including gas vans) is comparable to the number tagged with rumors of human soap, claims of electrocutions and live burnings.

Actually, if you search "gas chambers" OR "gas vans" OR "gassings" and limit it only to Jewish survivors, you get a total of 737... But this is out of 51,386 testimonies for "Holocaust" category and "Jewish Survivors" experience group. So 1.4%, and remember these are tags and if someone said something like "My brother was sent straight to the gas chamber and I never saw him again" - but did not actually see the process of gassing, then it would be included in these figures.

737 testimonies mentioning gassings, gas chambers, and gas vans out of ALL Jewish "Holocaust survivors" ... but 2,670 testimonies mentioned Josef Mengele! These figures are from a year and a half ago so there might have been a few changes, but you can register for the site yourself and verify this.

Quotes from that thread:

"Over half of the 20,000 testimonies from Holocaust survivors on record at Yad Vashem are “unreliable” and have never been used as evidence in Nazi war crimes trials [according to archives director & Auschwitz survivor Shmuel Krakowski], Krakowski says that many survivors, wanting “to be part of history,” may have let their imaginations run away with them.
“Many were never in the place where they claim to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers according to Krakowski. A large number of testimonies on file were later proved inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an expert historian’s appraisal."

- B. Amouyal, "Doubts over evidence of camp survivors," Jerusalem Post (Israel), August 17, 1986, p. 1
download/file.php?id=2167

"Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable... Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity. Diaries are rare, and so are authentic documents about the making, transmission, and implementation of the extermination policy. But additional evidence may still come to light. Private journals and official papers are likely to surface. Since Auschwitz and Majdanek, as well as the four out-and-out killing centers, were liberated by the Red Army, the Soviet archives may well yield significant clues and evidence when they are opened. In addition, excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs may also bring forth new information."

- Arno J. Mayer (1988) "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? - The 'Final Solution' in History", pp. 362-363
Source | PDF | mirror1 | mirror2 | mirror3

"Many thousands of oral histories by survivors recounting their experiences exist in countries and archives around the world. Their quality and usefulness vary significantly according to the informant's memory, grasp of events, insights and of course accuracy. The longer the time lapsed [between the event and the testimony] the less likely the informant has retained freshness of recollection. The transcribed testimonies I have examined have been full of errors in dates, names of participants, and places, and there are evident misunderstandings of the events themselves. To the unwary researcher some of the accounts can be more hazard than help."

- Dawidowicz, L. (1981) "The Holocaust and the Historians" p. 177
Google Books or Archived

[Lamprecht]

I contest none of what you guys have said actually. I'm just wondering if you have any theories about who told these children what to say or remember happened to them during this crucial period of 1942 -1945.

You didn't read the articles posted specifically addressing this. You're also confused about what revisionists are arguing, attacking a strawman. I do not think you're doing this on purposes, the promoters of the "Holocaust" narrative have made a strong effort to confuse people about what revisionists actually claim. This is discussed above in the links I have posted.

Again, from:

The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
http://archive.fo/Q1iK0#calibre_link-1809 or https://web.archive.org/web/20200229212 ... _link-1809

3.2.3. An Expert Opinion about the Value of Testimony Regarding the Holocaust

There is currently no topic of human history that is treated more emotionally and one-sidedly in public than the Holocaust. It represents the central taboo of western civilization, and to question it is the epitome of heresy, punishable by imprisonment in many western democracies.

Given this state of affairs, Professor Dr. Elisabeth Loftus, expert on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony, pointed out in 1991 that testimonies pertaining to actual (or merely alleged) National-Socialist atrocities, which for many different reasons are based on experiences made during times of particularly emotional distress, consequently are less reliable than almost any other kind of testimony. Elaborating, she observes:

a. The time elapsed since the end of World War II has contributed to an inevitable fading of recollections.

b. In trials of alleged National-Socialist criminals, pre-trial publicity has meant that witnesses had generally known the identity of the defendants and the crimes they were charged with already before the trial.

c. Prosecutors have asked witnesses leading questions, such as whether they could recognize the defendant as the perpetrator. Witnesses have rarely been called on to identify the defendant from a number of unknown people.

d. It is fairly certain that witnesses have discussed identifications among themselves, which facilitated subsequent ‘identifications’ by other witnesses.

e. Photos of defendants have been shown repeatedly also during exhibitions, each additional showing of the pictures making witnesses more familiar with the face of the defendant, and thus increasingly ‘certain.’

f. The extremely emotional nature of these cases further increases the risk of a distortion of memory, since the defendants to be identified by the witnesses were more than alleged tools of the National Socialists – they were devils incarnate: said to have tortured, maimed and mass-murdered prisoners. They were allegedly responsible for the murder of the witnesses’ mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives and children.318

Professor Loftus, herself Jewish, uses her own experience to describe how a false sense of loyalty to her heritage and her people and “race,” as she puts it, prevented her from taking a stand against the obviously false testimony of her fellow Jews. It is safe to assume that this is a widespread, common reflex among Jews.319

However, she omits three further factors that can contribute additionally to the massive distortion of memory where the Holocaust is concerned:

g. Accounts of witnesses’ personal experiences have always – and not only during criminal trials – been widely disseminated by word of mouth, print and broadcast media, and particularly among the witnesses themselves through personal correspondence and all sorts of relief organizations.

h. Since at least the late 1970s the topic of the Holocaust has been ever-present in the mass media, and in an extremely one-sided manner, so that memories inevitably become standardized.

i. Where the Holocaust is concerned, it is not only unforgivable but at times even a criminal offense not to know, not to concede, or perhaps only to doubt, certain things. There is thus a very strong social (or even legal) pressure on witnesses in particular to recall certain ‘facts’ and to repress others.

If one considers all these factors and combines them with studies on the manipulability of human memory, such as the one recently published by Prof. Loftus in a leading scientific journal,320 then one cannot help but conclude that there is in fact no other kind of witness testimony less reliable than that on the Holocaust. If in normal scientific and legal proceedings one accepts as a rule that eyewitness testimony is the least-reliable kind of evidence, then insofar as the Holocaust is concerned it is necessary to observe that here the eyewitness testimony should only serve to flesh out the framework of historical events as established by documental and physical evidence, and perhaps to give clues to events whose occurrence has yet to be proven by documents or material evidence. But anyone who relies chiefly on eyewitness testimony and assigns it a greater value as evidence than documental or even material evidence cannot seriously claim to adhere to the scientific method in his work. Thus, the present volume pays particular attention to the critical analysis of many claims made by witnesses.

gl0spana -- You speak of "hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses," please make threads on each of the alleged "eyewitnesses" that you believe support the "Holocaust" conspiracy theory of homicidal gas chambers, 5-6 million dead Jews, and "extermination camps".

Did their parents tell them, "hey you weren't put in a special camp with all these other Jewish children during this time

Holocaust revisionists do not claim that there were no camps. Some have written books over 1000 pages devoted just to particular aspects of one camp!

Check out: https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.ph ... =1#entries

I think this must be evidence of the strength and sophistication of the programming that was used on these Jews.

If somebody claims to have survived six gassings at a camp that didn't have a homicidal gas chamber, what is that evidence of?

[gl0spana]

I don't know if you guys are reading my posts carefully or maybe I am not being clear. I am not casting doubting on ANY of your claims.

I will try to restate:

you guys believe (and this is also the "official" story) that the Jews were kept in ghettos until 42-43 and then those ghettos were closed down and they were taken somewhere else.

at this point the narratives diverge:

revisionists believe that though some Jews were definitely employed in forced labor by the Nazis, and others were resettled. I assume that the children were not used in forced labor and instead put in special camps or resettled (while their parents were employed in the labor camps).

orthodoxy says the children were all killed because they had no labor value

do you have any issues with the above two statements?

----

now, for a Jew who was a child during those years of 1942-1945, what they experienced no doubt differs from the orthodox story. It MUST, because the orthodox story says they were either
a) killed
b) hiding
c) escaped to some territory not under Nazi control (otherwise they would have to hide or be captured and killed)

---

thus, any Jew who was a child during these years must be lying (whether intentionally or unintentionally) about where they were during this time - the years between when the ghettos closed down and the end of the war. Because there is said to have been a million Jewish children in Poland during this time, there must be at least hundreds of thousands of people this applies to.

---

so my question to you guys is how do you think this goes down? obviously the children must be instructed by their parents to lie about where they were at some point, or do the kids just figure it out on their own?

if they are not lying, ie they tell the truth about where they were during those last years of the war, there should be reports about this. as i am aware the USSR gladly flaunted figures about how many were killed by the Germans, but they were not eager to mention it was mostly Jews getting killed.

see link ('de-Judaization of Auschwitz)
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

It seems like trying to find memoirs, contacting known descendants of Polish Jews to see if their grandparents ever admitted where they really were doing during 1942-1945, would be a very useful approach in definitely proving much of what is commonly accepted about the holocaust is wrong. I don't understand why this approach hasn't been taken, or maybe I just don't know about it.

Otherwise, if no such evidence exists, it must be proof of the Jews ability to coerce their own kind into playing into all of this through various extremely effective methods, for example ???

Let me know if this makes sense, interested to hear your thoughts.

[borjastick]

How many children were in the camps, the big camps that we are so well accustomed to? Many thousands is the answer, quite possibly tens of thousands. You seem to be stating that all adults were used in labour camps and were definitely separated from their kids. Many were sent east with their parents too.

Nothing to see here.

[Hannover]

gl0spana:

Indeed, you are not 'making any sense', since, and to repeat:

"there is simply no proof that they were murdered and there is tons of information, as posted and you ignored, that explains where they went, where they are."

All other considerations are an intentional distraction, just another false strawman as Lamprecht has pointed out.

Speaking of children, see below, both Jew and Gentile children, see actual Hanukah ceremonies in the "death camps"
''What happened to children in the German concentration camps':


Healthy Jew children at Auschwitz 'liberation':


- Hannover

[Lamprecht]

maybe I am not being clear

Indeed, you're talking about large numbers of children that supposedly testified as eyewitnesses but have provided no names of these children. Where are the examples?

revisionists believe that though some Jews were definitely employed in forced labor by the Nazis, and others were resettled. I assume that the children were not used in forced labor and instead put in special camps or resettled (while their parents were employed in the labor camps).

The plan, known as the "Final Solution" was to resettle Jews out of Europe, moving them to the East was a temporary measure. This is explained in the documents.

There were many potential areas they could have been resettled:


When the war in the East was essentially lost (early 1943) evacuating Jews to the Eastern territories (again, a temporary measure) was no longer feasible. Using Jews for labor was now considered more practical than dumping them into ghettos, so the focus was shifted labor camps such as Auschwitz.

Children can certainly be used for forced labor, they have small hands which is useful for various things. See all of the examples of child labor in the world even to this day, especially poor South Asian countries:

"A total of 152 million children – 64 million girls and 88 million boys – are estimated to be in child labour globally, accounting for almost one in ten of all children worldwide... South Asian child labourers can be found in a variety of industries: the brick kilns, carpet weaving, garment making, domestic service, agriculture, fisheries, and mining" https://www.unicef.org/rosa/what-we-do/ ... ploitation

thus, any Jew who was a child during these years must be lying (whether intentionally or unintentionally) about where they were during this time - the years between when the ghettos closed down and the end of the war. Because there is said to have been a million Jewish children in Poland during this time, there must be at least hundreds of thousands of people this applies to.

One cannot unintentionally lie. To lie, it must be intentional. And which children are you referring to? Please provide their names and what they have claimed.

so my question to you guys is how do you think this goes down? obviously the children must be instructed by their parents to lie about where they were at some point, or do the kids just figure it out on their own?

Which children? Please provide their names and what they have said.
I provided one: Moshe Peer. He was 11 years old at Bergen Belsen and claimed to have survived 6 gassings. However, he made these statements as an adult. I don't think he was coerced into saying this, he was probably just looking for attention.

if they are not lying, ie they tell the truth about where they were during those last years of the war, there should be reports about this. as i am aware the USSR gladly flaunted figures about how many were killed by the Germans, but they were not eager to mention it was mostly Jews getting killed.

Reports? And who was in possession of the documents? If the Soviets had "reports" that contradicted the allegations they were making against the Germans, do you think they would release them?
Even the USA helped the Soviets cover up their Katyn atrocity:
US 'helped Russia cover up Second World War Katyn Forest massacre'
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 22111.html

It seems like trying to find memoirs, contacting known descendants of Polish Jews to see if their grandparents ever admitted where they really were doing during 1942-1945, would be a very useful approach in definitely proving much of what is commonly accepted about the holocaust is wrong. I don't understand why this approach hasn't been taken, or maybe I just don't know about it.

It's a little too late to do something like that now. Even young children alive during this period have mostly died of old age. It's also possible that, as children, they didn't know (or don't remember) every place they were during WWII, assuming they were deported and moved around a lot.

Otherwise, if no such evidence exists, it must be proof of the Jews ability to coerce their own kind into playing into all of this through various extremely effective methods, for example ???

There is a financial incentive for any Jew who was in Europe during WWII to claim they were "Holocaust survivors" - they are called "reparations."

From the article I quoted above:
"Professor Loftus, herself Jewish, uses her own experience to describe how a false sense of loyalty to her heritage and her people and “race,” as she puts it, prevented her from taking a stand against the obviously false testimony of her fellow Jews. It is safe to assume that this is a widespread, common reflex among Jews.319"

Remember, we are talking about a group that, for thousands of years, literally believed they were "God's Chosen people" and that the entire universe was created by their tribal diety for them.

As Rabbi Schneerson -- known as "The Rebbe" and widely considered "The Most Influential Rabbi" in modern history -- put it:
"A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the 'beginning.' This means everything, all developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the 'heavens and the earth - are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim."

[gl0spana]

gl0spana:

Indeed, you are not 'making any sense', since, and to repeat:

"there is simply no proof that they were murdered and there is tons of information, as posted and you ignored, that explains where they went, where they are."

All other considerations are an intentional distraction, just another false strawman as Lamprecht has pointed out.

Speaking of children, see below, both Jew and Gentile children, see actual Hanukah ceremonies in the "death camps"
''What happened to children in the German concentration camps':


Healthy Jew children at Auschwitz 'liberation':


- Hannover

Why do you assume I am arguing that they were murdered and the holocaust is true?

I agree there is no good proof they were murdered, but perhaps there is proof that they survived? If they were kept in the camps then that contradicts official narrative as well. Contacting the children or grandchildren of "survivors" might be a useful way of constructing a body of evidence that contradicts official narrative.

Polish Jews who were children at this time seems like a useful avenue because if any of them are telling truth or let the truth slip out, perhaps in unpublished memoirs or the stories they told their children, this is going to blatantly contradict the official narrative.