Never Asked Questions / NAQ

[Haldan]

I thought we could perhaps use this thread to post lists of questions that are never asked (but should be asked) with regard to the “Holocaust” (a broad theme for sure).

For example:

I have always noticed that the more complicated or scientific something is the more they (the proponents of the alleged Holocaust) can "refute" it, but when it comes down to something simple, and for them awkward, like the steam chambers, they merely brush them aside. Why is that so?

I am convinced that other participants may have better NAQs than the example provided by me. Originally I wasn't even going to post this topic because I forgot the tangent I had for it in my mind, and the thoughts for it came up when doing a totally different subject..

PS.
Ya, note the quotation marks around REFUTE, they're there for a reason

Regards,
-haldan

[borjastick]

How about a direct question to politicians;

Have you actually see any proof of the claims of the Holocaust?

Or one to Elie Wiesel;

Which concentration camp were you freed from?

Or to wealthy successful Jews around the world including of course Israel;

If the Germans were so bad why do you buy so many Mercedes cars?

[Kip]

Haldan, it's funny, after reading the "An official revision of Majdanek?" thread, I was thinking of starting a thread on this very subject. There are so many good questions that I had never thought of being asked here, but they just sort of get passed by and new threads come up and then the good questions are forgotten.

[Haldan]

Haldan, it's funny, after reading the "An official revision of Majdanek?" thread, I was thinking of starting a thread on this very subject. There are so many good questions that I had never thought of being asked here, but they just sort of get passed by and new threads come up and then the good questions are forgotten.

I get your drift, Kip ! Everyone always say to keep notes, but I always forget, or somehow I just don't do it (for the most part) but doing so may be good - and threads such as this one may be useful for beginners. There's a lot of good questions that can be asked, but many don't do it (that's of course 100% true for mainstream journalists - they just repeat this junk to fill their awfully blasé papers: they have a responsibility to ask questions and not merely be an outlet for unchecked bullshit).

-haldan

[Renewal]

There are less than 400'000 persons identified who died in concentration camps. I would like to know, where are the rest of them? And I also would like to know when will they stop showing off the Allied extermination campaign victims without identifying them as such. Also a few photos of "gas chambers" taken on a day of "liberation" would be nice. Those photos of "gas chambers" that were disguised as "shower rooms" but still had warnings with skull and bones painted on the door are not good enough. Life is not Hollywood where everything needs to be edited and cut before being shown.

[JoFo]

Why did so many other countries along side Germany willingly assist with the deportation of their Jewish populations during WW2?

Why did so many of the supposedly sociopathic murderers like Mengele and Hoess lead normal, upstanding lives until their involvement with the camps?

[Hektor]

Where are the intelligence reports of the Allies on homicidal gassings?

[Renewal]

Reports alone are not enough. Intelligence info is confidential, if published, it will be treated as propaganda.

[Haldan]

Tuvia Tenenbom, author of a play called 'Last Jew In Europe', said the following:

It is well known that the outstanding order at the time was not to have Holocaust stories on the front pages.

Source: http://jewishvoiceandopinion.com/a/jvo200704e.html

One could ask: why did they issue an order like that? Whenever they did publish stories, though, they were mostly inane atrocity stories, i.e turning Jews into various dishes and products - that list is virtually endless! For such a list, see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7551

Why was there an 'outstanding order not to have Holocaust stories' printed on the front pages of various newspapers prior to the war having ended, but when they finally did publish loads & loads of stories, it's for the most part bizarre nonsense? Was it because many people would consider such stories to be exactly that, bizarre nonsense, and that better coordination was desired for the stories to have any bearing on the common "man on the street"?


-haldan

[Moderator]

Everyone:
A simple listing of NAQs is fine, but debate about them would turn this thread into a confusing mess. Anyone who wishes to debate / challenge any of the NAQs listed here are welcomed to so, in separate threads for each NAQ.
M1

[friedrichjansson]

Recall Goering's directive of 31 July, 1941, instructing Heydrich to plan for the final solution:

As supplement to the directive already given to you by the edict of Jan. 14, 1939, to solve the Jewish question through emigration or evacuation in a most favorable way according to the prevailing conditions, I hereby instruct you to make all necessary organizational and material preparations for an overall solution to the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe. Insofar as the responsibilities of other authorities are affected, they are to be involved.

I further instruct you to promptly provide me with an overall conceptual plan regarding the organizational and material requirements for carrying out the desired final solution to the Jewish question.

On the other hand here's Raul Hilberg, telling us that "there was no planning" (start 30 seconds in):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEKFbB-v86c

Other statements by Hilberg and others confirm the absence of planning:

But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.

The process of destruction…did not, however, proceed from a basic plan. … The destruction process was a step-by-step operation, and the administrator could seldom see more than one step ahead. … In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization. [Hilberg, Destruction, 2003]

If Goering instructed Heydrich to plan and prepare for the final solution, then why was there no planning? Did Heydrich plan for a final solution that didn't include extermination, and if so, then why did everyone ignore his plan? In short, how do you reconcile "Heydrich's plan for the final solution" with "the final solution happened without a plan as the result of 'improvised bureaucratic initiatives whose dynamic prompted a process of cumulative radicalization in the fragmented structures of decision-making in the Third Reich'"? When was it decided not to follow Heydrich's plan, why didn't they make a new one?

[Hektor]

Tuvia Tenenbom, author of a play called 'Last Jew In Europe', said the following:

It is well known that the outstanding order at the time was not to have Holocaust stories on the front pages.

Source: http://jewishvoiceandopinion.com/a/jvo200704e.html

One could ask: why did they issue an order like that? Whenever they did publish stories, though, they were mostly inane atrocity stories, i.e turning Jews into various dishes and products - that list is virtually endless! For such a list, see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7551

Why was there an 'outstanding order not to have Holocaust stories' printed on the front pages of various newspapers prior to the war having ended, but when they finally did publish loads & loads of stories, it's for the most part bizarre nonsense? Was it because many people would consider such stories to be exactly that, bizarre nonsense, and that better coordination was desired for the stories to have any bearing on the common "man on the street"?


-haldan

During WW2 the atrocity stories were mostly short and placed on later pages. Commonly not 'frontpage news' only something, real news boffins would pick up and perhaps talk about with others. If the sensational News would have been overdone, it would have been counterproductive.

The front page 'atrocity stories' about concentration camps mostly appeared in 1945, when there was no longer a German government that could contradict them.

This Tuvia Tenenbom is also a character of note.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vpogpw9mI2fk/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kCRWCLvS17hE/

Tuvia's hate isn't limited to his Nazi-fetish or Germans, though. He thinks all Europeans are 'Anti-Semitic' and that they are the problem for Israel, not the Muslims:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CBzedugMYluw/

[hermod]

Why was there an 'outstanding order not to have Holocaust stories' printed on the front pages of various newspapers prior to the war having ended, but when they finally did publish loads & loads of stories, it's for the most part bizarre nonsense? Was it because many people would consider such stories to be exactly that, bizarre nonsense, and that better coordination was desired for the stories to have any bearing on the common "man on the street"?

-haldan

During WW2 the atrocity stories were mostly short and placed on later pages. Commonly not 'frontpage news' only something, real news boffins would pick up and perhaps talk about with others. If the sensational News would have been overdone, it would have been counterproductive.

Not all newspapers did that. But the influential New York Times did that (several Jews have complained about it since the end of WWII) because the owner of The NY Times during WWII was an anti-Zionist Jew who knew that those stories were mostly Zionist atrocity propaganda lies invented and disseminated to mould public opinion for the postwar Jewish seizure of Palestine.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/58 ... the-holoca

The front page 'atrocity stories' about concentration camps mostly appeared in 1945, when there was no longer a German government that could contradict them.

Anyway, the German dementis were disbelieved and even derived. During a war, the statements delivered by an enemy are always regarded by most people as a pile of lies. The propagandists of a country at war most often "immunize" the citizens of that country against foreign information by portraying the enemy as a big liar.

https://postimg.cc/cK1VMrhs

[Hektor]

That's why demonization can be such a powerful tool. Once you successfully demonized an enemy, you appear more holy (since you are fighting him) and those persuaded by the demonization disbelieve anything the enemy says or anything that is said and could defend the enemy against accusations. That effect must have been heavily at work with Allied prosecution teams and investigators during the early stage of the occupation of Germany.

The "Ueberleitungsvertrag": https://www.hackemesser.de/ueberleitungsvertrag.html
stipulates that the Allied court decisions can not be challenged, which anyway would be a laborsome process.

That way historiographers can always point to courts having proven German 'war crimes'. The audience will be ignorant of the problems with those trials of course. So the 'there are court verdicts'-argumentoid will continue to work. And most folks neither have the time nor the skills to work through court verdicts spotting what they problems with them are. It's apathy, laziness and ignorance that keep the Holocaust Ball rolling.

[hermod]

That's why demonization can be such a powerful tool. Once you successfully demonized an enemy, you appear more holy (since you are fighting him) and those persuaded by the demonization disbelieve anything the enemy says or anything that is said and could defend the enemy against accusations. That effect must have been heavily at work with Allied prosecution teams and investigators during the early stage of the occupation of Germany.

In an old book about propaganda I read some time ago, the author explained that very well and he said that false atrocities (propaganda lies) generate real atrocities (brutalized enemies) and that those brutalities generate false confessions making those real atrocities seem legitimate and fully deserved in a vicious circle of lies, outrage, violence and more lies.

The "Ueberleitungsvertrag": https://www.hackemesser.de/ueberleitungsvertrag.html
stipulates that the Allied court decisions can not be challenged, which anyway would be a laborsome process.

That way historiographers can always point to courts having proven German 'war crimes'. The audience will be ignorant of the problems with those trials of course. So the 'there are court verdicts'-argumentoid will continue to work. And most folks neither have the time nor the skills to work through court verdicts spotting what they problems with them are. It's apathy, laziness and ignorance that keep the Holocaust Ball rolling.

For fun, I like asking the people who refer to the court verdicts of post-WWII show trials as a definite proof of the Holocaust if they believe in witchcraft because there exist many court verdicts 'proving' the alleged guilt of so-called witches.