New Denierbud video. "The CIA During World War II"

[hermod]

Thought so. If there were indeed records - which should be if the narrative was true - We would never hear the end of it.

There still would be all the technical questions the Holocaustians can or not don't want answer.

I actually contacted Arolsen once about the dead people in concentration camps. They were aware that the death books add up to something between 200.000 to 300.000 dead. "But it was of course more. Only the registered were entered there'. Well, but if the unregistered were actually moved elsewhere e.g to the East into Russia like Dr Buehler said in Nuremberg, what then?

Arolsen apparently sits with the records of 20.000.000 or more people. But I never read that they could actually bring up evidence that would support the gassing narrative.

A few years ago, a spokeswoman for the Bad Arolsen archives even stated that the Nazi meticulous record-keeping had stopped as soon as Jews and others entered a gas chamber and that not a single homicidal gassing had been recorded on paper by the Nazis.

Let me get that straight. They say them Nazis kept records on virtually everything, but the most relevant records on how many Jews they killed with their main instrument of choice (homicidal gas chambers), they did not keep records on?

Yes, that's exactly what they say!! Any good conspiracy theory such as the Holohoax is not supposed to leave any clear palpable evidence behind, is it?

https://postimg.cc/HrhcGsbD

https://postimg.cc/vcjNSGYM

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14897&start=45#p108531

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14897&start=45#p108550

[Hektor]

This is priceless once again:

"30.000.000 documents on survivors Nazi Camps, Gestapo Prisons, forced labor and displaced persons"
"It was only opened to researchers in 2007 after criticism that it was too protective of it's material"


"containing clues to the fates of 17.5 million people"
"registers of arrivals and departures from concentration camps:

Too protective of it's material they say. I think I know why that is.

"At Death Camps like Sobibor and Auschwitz only natural causes of death are recorded - No mentioning of gassing"


Well, but you don't jump to the most plausible explanation for this, you jump to a conclusion not supported by the evidence. That people were gassed, although this was never recorded.

The overall documentary evidence from the period does contradict the "Holocaust Narrative" in its core claims.

[Mortimer]

One thing I find really annoying is the holier than thou tone of the newsreel footage - as if everything the US government did was good and above reproach. This is the same government that worked with organised crime.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8177

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hi Kremawurst,

Thanks for your post. Yes, this forum helped me a lot in learning about the holocaust myth in the past 20 years!

[Fred zz]

Hi Kremawurst,

Thanks for your post. Yes, this forum helped me a lot in learning about the holocaust myth in the past 20 years!

Hello Denierbud
First I want to complement you on your Auschwitz video you did. I must of watched it about 10 times focusing in the technical aspects of the Auschwitz buildings. I liked the crazyness of gassing in the basement only to have to bring bodies upstairs. Great stuff

My question is, (Forgive me if I missed something) Why is it you did not cover Auschwitz Crematoria 4 and 5 and the claimed process and building design there? Was it time or lack of information? The claimed process at these two crematoria are equally ridiculous.
thanks

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hi Fred zz,

Thank you! Regarding why I didn't include crematorium IV and V. I don't remember. The thing about being thorough in videos is it doesn't come off as well as in books. In video, thoroughness can make a video lose momentum. I knew that if someone was interested in that, they could always look in books by Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf.

[Hektor]

Hi Fred zz,

Thank you! Regarding why I didn't include crematorium IV and V. I don't remember. The thing about being thorough in videos is it doesn't come off as well as in books. In video, thoroughness can make a video lose momentum. I knew that if someone was interested in that, they could always look in books by Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf.

The thing is one needs to keep focus. I realize this is a problem, when debating the Holocaust. I recall that once you refuted one 'homicidal gassing story' related to one specific place, they'd simply jump to another. When you jumped with them to a number of claims and places, they'd forgotten that the initial ones were already refuted and started all over again. Except for practice it isn't to much avail to debate people that don't really care to think through the claims themselves. They simply assume that 'what everyone says' must be true. When pointed to this not being a good standard for truth, they'll point to 'the experts' or 'I read it in some books'. In other words appeal to authority. When they become aware that (humane) 'authority' isn't a good standard for truth, neither. They will try the film footage manufactured by the Allies psychological warfare units in relationship with the Western camps. And then feel caught in a folly, when it is posed to them: "Don't you realize that this is propaganda? They put the results of Allied Warfare in Germany on footage and then shifted the blame". Even if the person realizes that the public is massively lied to, this doesn't change a lot. "It's lies, but so what, my life is more comfortable not bothering with those issues".

The Holocaust is a social construct, driven by the cultural industry, which includes film, news, education, academics, experts etc. This is institutionalized and as long as those calling the shots in those institutions say it is true, people will believe it or at least make as if they do. This will then produce articles, books, movies, statements that are in line with the 'pre-scribed truth'. I believe that virtually any society functions a bit like like this. It just happened to be more blatant in some of the dictatorships as well as of course in the Soviet Union... Where there were official party lines anyone with a position had to parrot in some way. The people were however more aware of this being lies and not really believable. But they'd not say this in public or even complain about this openly. Otherwise the 'secret police' would be on them.

In the West people believed that "We are a democracy", we "have a liberal constitutions", "people have rights and freedom"... "Our government would never oppress us".... "There is freedom of the press", etc. And indeed there are thousands of newspapers in name as well as a plate full of big ones. They cater to different social groups and segments of society.. Being liberal, socialist, conservative, professionals, workers, academics, etc. But on core issues they follow the same dogmata, just package them differently. That the owners of a media concern got a profit motive is self-evident, but that they may have also a 'mission' and 'vision' they would like society change to is a bit above most people's heads. Most people even deny that they could be influenced by propaganda and would notice it immediately. That's probably why it works so well.

Hi Kremawurst,
Thanks for your post. Yes, this forum helped me a lot in learning about the holocaust myth in the past 20 years!

Hello Denierbud
First I want to complement you on your Auschwitz video you did. I must of watched it about 10 times focusing in the technical aspects of the Auschwitz buildings. I liked the crazyness of gassing in the basement only to have to bring bodies upstairs. Great stuff

My question is, (Forgive me if I missed something) Why is it you did not cover Auschwitz Crematoria 4 and 5 and the claimed process and building design there? Was it time or lack of information? The claimed process at these two crematoria are equally ridiculous.
thanks

As said it is difficult to cover all the information that could be relevant in a book or video. My argument is also not that "we have disproven all the claims/accusations being made". We have not and this is virtually impossible, since we are not omniscient, all might neither.

My argument is simply that they haven't proven the core elements of their claims, not at all. What they use as substitute for proof are exercises of innuendo. They point to 'witness testimony', which is not hard evidence of course. And bear in mind at best this could be about ONE event. But how is that event corroborated by any other evidence. Don't have testimony for it. No names of victims are given, no corpses, no prove for what happened with corpses, etc. And well, any exculpating evidences or testimony is simply ignored as 'not relevant' by those pushing the narrative and their audience.

Let me put it frankly. If you kill 100.000+ people within a small area within a limited period of time, there would still be piles of evidence that could prove that fact. That simply is not there. In Auschwitz there is the camps, the facilities, the crematoria. While this doesn't directly contradict the Extermination thesis (it does so indirectly) it is no proof to go further than the revisionist thesis on the matter. And that is that people were interned there. That there were epidemics and that of those people did die and were cremated. There were even single executions, but not by gassings. In fact what is presented as evidence for gassings (Zyklon B cans) was actually there as a means to prevent those diseases.

Claiming that "The Holocaust" is proven is simply dishonest. The Holocaust Lobby does have lots of debating techniques as well as means of persuasion to make people 'buy into the story', but they virtually have zero product to offer. They are politically and socially influential and via this achieved and maintain cultural influence. There motivation is entirely selfish, to advance their own careers, to get public funding and as far as organized Jewish elites are concerned it is to gain and defend the power and influence they have. It is also a means of control inside the Jewish community meaning the elite Jews use it to control the rank and file Jews by way of scaring them against what the Goyim may do to them, if the elites would loose control.

For Anglo-American elites the matter is a bit different. They had to legitimize their countries engaging in World War Two and the extermination narrative was quite handy in this. They obviously didn't feel that 'Germany being an authoritarian country' wasn't enough not even, when combined with the charge of ;aggressive warfare'. So rather add atrocity accusations to the narrative to shut up any existing critics or those that may arise in the future. Abd well, invoking Hitler2.0. is the Go-To boogey-man, if they have to justify another 'war for democracy'.

Once the Holocaust-Hex is removed this all starts to look insane, well, because it is. If it wasn't for the Holocaust, people would starting to think about the merits of what their politicians are doing as well as what is happening in their societies. So rather keep them pre-occupied with the Holocaust as a subtext. And as I showed several times, it is a substitute for religion in the respective societies, which are mostly secular now. As far as mainline Churches are concerned, they simply added it in some way and allow it to displace and refute other teachings they once head.

As for Krema 4/5 they could be attended to specifically with articles and videos. I just wonder what there is already in the literature. The "Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial" did not seem to deal much with what are Krema's on the map. The cooperative accused's statements seem to have related to 'farm houses' outside the camp. Conveniently there is even less physical evidence for this. Other testimony is of course another matter.

Another question is of course whether the Krema in Birkenau were even all operational at once. Perhaps their purpose/function was even changed, since the epidemic of 1942/43 was over and the figures of those dying weren't as high anymore?

It's an investigation in itself. So back to the CIA (or predecessor organizations like OSS, OWI)

[Fred zz]

Hi Fred zz,

Thank you! Regarding why I didn't include crematorium IV and V. I don't remember. The thing about being thorough in videos is it doesn't come off as well as in books. In video, thoroughness can make a video lose momentum. I knew that if someone was interested in that, they could always look in books by Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf.

Good day Denierbud
Ultimately it comes down to is one's own way of doing things. Good or bad, I feel a need to cover every aspect that supports my arguments, and I do not let any past lies and exaggerations be forgotten. I am sure people might think that is evident in my Majdanek work.

Another can be human nature. While I agree with you in regards to most people here will read about it from Graf and Mattogno, However, most humans see reading and looking things up as a burden. In other words people must be willing to expend effort to read and thus avoid it. And I would wager that humans would rather watch a video (Say on Bitchute) on the subject than read about it. Admittedly I myself have to be well rested before tackling Mattogno or Rudolf material. Watching a video does not take as much effort. I would also wager that most that watch on Bitchute or whatever have no idea who Mattogno is.
A great example would be: People would rather watch Eric Hunt's video on Majdanek than read through my presentation even though I try to keep the reader awake with plenty of photos. That is just human nature. However, I feel my presentation goes more in depth than Eric's video. Don't get me wrong, Eric did a great job on Majdanek and have a section dedicated to one of his arguments.
To this date I never seen anyone cover the stupidity of the Crematoria 4 and 5 building design for large scale homicidal gassing in a video. In my opinion, it is just as bad as 4 and 5.
Thanks

[Hektor]

Hi Fred zz,

Thank you! Regarding why I didn't include crematorium IV and V. I don't remember. The thing about being thorough in videos is it doesn't come off as well as in books. In video, thoroughness can make a video lose momentum. I knew that if someone was interested in that, they could always look in books by Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf.

Good day Denierbud
Ultimately it comes down to is one's own way of doing things. Good or bad, I feel a need to cover every aspect that supports my arguments, and I do not let any past lies and exaggerations be forgotten. I am sure people might think that is evident in my Majdanek work.

Another can be human nature. While I agree with you in regards to most people here will read about it from Graf and Mattogno, However, most humans see reading and looking things up as a burden. In other words people must be willing to expend effort to read and thus avoid it. And I would wager that humans would rather watch a video (Say on Bitchute) on the subject than read about it. Admittedly I myself have to be well rested before tackling Mattogno or Rudolf material. Watching a video does not take as much effort. I would also wager that most that watch on Bitchute or whatever have no idea who Mattogno is.

That's the thing. To get people read a whole book is almost impossible. Unless you offer a course at a university and can prescribe a book for the course. People read books, because they are already interested in a subject. And that interest can be biographically (a book about the town where I stay), or simply because the interest is already there (reading a cook book, because I like to cook and eat good food). So as far as Revisionism is concerned, one will need to first raise some interest for the subject the book is answering to. That can be done by reviews, articles and well, videos. People will rather watch a video or listen to audio, before they procure and read a book, which can take hours. And reading can be quite exhaustive in terms of mental energy. Watching a video clip is perhaps the most convenient thing to do. Even getting someone to download and watch a 1.5 hour video is already a little challenge. But "Majdanek in 5 minutes" is something many people will do, if they have a little time to attend to this.

If that raises interest, other videos may be watched or books may be bought. One big thing is of course what is on the racks at book dealers. People go there to look around what books are on the market and what may raise their interest. The full racks are bait to attract customers so to speak. And they occasionally buy books. The book dealers procure from publishers and wholesalers, who in turn have programs on what books to offer. It's about speed of sales there. So they will try to hold what they can expect to be popular. The popularity comes with big name authors, subjects of interest and of course media appraisal of the books. Not to mention what universities prescribe as 'course material'. There is of course NO-No subjects and No-No subjects as well. Think of pornography in the past. Book dealers didn't hold it, unless they were specializing in it. It was mostly really shoddy as well. So nothing that would interest people with some self-esteem in terms of 'buying good things'. This has however changed and there is pornography that looks like top of the range products. And it became kind of 'socially acceptable'. That it is addictive and a degenerate influence on culture is however widely ignored. But it sells and that's what counts for the book sellers. The acceptance of previously disparaged cultural products, hasn't changed that there is still a canon of acceptable and unacceptable items of literature. Porn, Horror, New Age, Astrology, Drugs etc. have become 'acceptable'... "Holocaust Denial" is perhaps the biggest no-no now followed by unpc views on race, gender, sexuality, etc. Unpc is actually the traditional views on this. I'm not even talking about stuff that is over the top provocative here.
Indeed I found the older literature on matters... This is now from the 19th century to the first half on the 20th superior in quality and soundness of argument than most what came past this period. I do have the arts and sciences in mind here of course, since this is were my interest are. The natural sciences did maintain their quality better than what is called social sciences or simply cosmological types of literal (some of this passing as natural science, when in fact they aren't, but that's another matter). In philosophy one had an ultimate turn since Martin Heidegger, afterwards it became more and more obscure and relativist... As did the views of most people in the West since then. It doesn't matter what is true and good, what matters is what you believe and how you feel. Most people wouldn't even know what epistemology is, they have an idea on what ethic is, but their ethics are usually some form of utilitarianism or hedonism. What counts is what makes people feel good. Since one can not make all people feel good in the same extent, there need to be hierarchies. And those hierarchies are picked by victimhood status. So it is important to make those feel good that are considered victims. And that is again defined by consensus. The consensus is managed by those that have influence in the cultural industry. Typical victimhood classes are Blacks, homosexuals, Jews, women and 'the marginalized'. Mature, Christian, White, Males are the arche-type of the enemy that is somehow responsible for all evil in the world. They can however gain redemption, if they support progressive causes or if they are Zionists (support Jews and Israel). The epitome of evil is Adolf Hitler and followed quickly by the Nazis. They are followed by the KKK or the Boers in South Africa. More in the present is Putin or Victor Urban in Europe. Nobody beats Hitler and the Nazis, though. And the political identity in the West rests on this to a large extent. I don't deny that there are other traditions of philosophy, ethics and politics that play a role, but they were all skewed tremendously since World War Two. This is almost universal, but it is especially strong in North America, Western Europe and former British Dominions. It wasn't as potent in South Africa for historic reasons though. But I think there is a chapter on Hitler in the History School Books now. Basically repeating the Nuremberg Charges as somehow true. Even if they were true, this is highly superficial. And dimwits of course believe anything, if it comes with the cloak of authority and knowledge to them. They lose interest, when it is about 'the thing itself' and they have to use their own mental faculties to come to answer. They are used to be 'entertained' and not to engage in labor, intellectual or otherwise.

A great example would be: People would rather watch Eric Hunt's video on Majdanek than read through my presentation even though I try to keep the reader awake with plenty of photos. That is just human nature. However, I feel my presentation goes more in depth than Eric's video. Don't get me wrong, Eric did a great job on Majdanek and have a section dedicated to one of his arguments.
To this date I never seen anyone cover the stupidity of the Crematoria 4 and 5 building design for large scale homicidal gassing in a video. In my opinion, it is just as bad as 4 and 5.
Thanks

Eric hunt made excellent videos. But I was irritated a bit by the use of loaded language, when it came to calling of the figures in it 'Zionists'. I'd consider this a separate issue. And I think one needs to be careful with the "us vs them' scheme. It's my impression that this was even part of the program and calculated beforehand that people would become upset, when they realize how viciously they are being lied to. One needs to bear in mind that friction between 'Jews' and 'Goyim' is part of the group survival strategy. The Jewish elites need 'Anti-Semitism' like goldfish need clean water to thrive. So people angry at Jews will be part of their strategy, already. And they've learned how to manage und even use this.


Concerning the design of crematoria indeed one needs to look at the design and also how they could have operated at a theoretical maximum. Be advised I'm not talking about some fictional maximum, but a theoretical one that is in line with technical possibilities, there. This is frequently confused. And the Holocaustians don't even seem to realize how relevant this is. It seems they think that anything is possible in theory? Well not, if one considers the limitations of the natural world that is. But considering those would destroy the narrative pretty quickly, so they can't go there.

The field we're looking at here is industrial engineering. Now that's a job description in America. But I don't think this was really a German job title at the time. It would be done by mechanical or civil engineers that had some management and operational experience or knowledge on hand. Afaik, the design of the Krema buildings in Birkenau was done by Topf & Soehne. They had pretty much experience with cremation technology. But none with use of 'poisonous gas'. And it were pretty standard crematoria they designed there. Now if you are a contractor designing something, your client needs to give you specifications for the future use. Did the camp administration tell them that they would gas 100s or 1000s of people in some rooms and then transport them to others for the purpose of cremating the bodies? I don't think so. I recall there being some documents from Topf&Soehne as well as the SS being published. What do they really tell us? And apparently SMERSH did interrogate people that worked for that company at some stage. Now what does that tell us. SMERSH were not criminal interrogators, SMERSH was a counter-intelligence unit. More in line with intimidating potential spies and informers to prevent them from becoming active.