BA's case for orthodoxy

[bombsaway]

webmaster, please add this to my response to Hektor (having some technical issues on my end)

When you speak of "overwhelming means, motive and opportunity", I agree they easily could have done it. I don't agree that there was strong motive to. Do you see a motive beyond responding to the concerns of holocaust revisionist or revisionist friendly people, or is that enough for you to qualify as overwhelming?

Was there a disincentive? Possibly. On another page a poster viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14866#p107892 mentioned a biblical verse that states cremation is religious sacrilege (thus a reason for the SK to launch a suicide attack against the crematoriums) . Is the issue of poking around ashes something religious groups might be sensitive to? I haven't done much research on this subject but it seems Kola's investigations were roundly criticized by such groups.

[Hektor]

webmaster, please add this to my response to Hektor (having some technical issues on my end)

When you speak of "overwhelming means, motive and opportunity", I agree they easily could have done it. I don't agree that there was strong motive to. Do you see a motive beyond responding to the concerns of holocaust revisionist or revisionist friendly people, or is that enough for you to qualify as overwhelming?

The motive is actually the most evident thing of this. It's easy to guess, if one considers that the Allies extended actually escalated the war and bombed Germany to smithereens and in many cases without a remotely military reasons for this. In fact from a military perspective that may have even been counterproductive. The most rational thing to do is to try to portray the enemy in the worst light possible. How could that be done. Insist that there was an extermination program by that country and show typhus corpses as proof for this over and over again.

It's overwhelming once one takes a sober look on the accessible evidences. I admit that a birds-eye few is necessary and it's something that is intellectually demanding.

Was there a disincentive? Possibly. On another page a poster viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14866#p107892 mentioned a biblical verse that states cremation is religious sacrilege (thus a reason for the SK to launch a suicide attack against the crematoriums) . Is the issue of poking around ashes something religious groups might be sensitive to? I haven't done much research on this subject but it seems Kola's investigations were roundly criticized by such groups.

There is some religious objection to cremation if that religion objects to cremation based on the believe that a dead person has to be buried 'as is' in the ground. There is however health concerns that can make cremation favorable over six foot underground burial. An issue in the Auschwitz area, since the water table was quite high there. So rather cremate the dead, even if that is more effort, than let corpses infest the water in the area risking further spread of diseases.

I get that people may resent working at a cremation facility.

[bombsaway]

The motive is actually the most evident thing of this.

Hektor, I was responding to your previous post, where you said, re mass graves:

They haven't been shown to exist. This while there was overwhelming means, motive and opportunity to find and investigate for decades. It doesn't seem they really bothered looking for them. But they still made their claims... Without having physical proof to back it up. And well. This shows that they were lying all the time

You seem to be saying that with with so much motive to forensically prove the graves, their failure to do so proves a mass cover up around these sites, and that all the studies extensively mapping the graves (some with detailed illustrated core samples) are fraudulent.

Is there motive here beyond responding to the concerns of holocaust revisionist or revisionist friendly people, or is that enough for you to qualify as overwhelming?

The sensitivity of religious groups of poking around cremated remains might be a strong disincentive, but I have to do more research in this area.

[PrudentRegret]

2 hectares is 20,000 square meters, that's a big space.

You are claiming that the population equivalent of San Francisco was murdered in this small camp and buried in a 20,000 square meter space. Wouldn't you admit that this is a remarkable claim? Shouldn't you require a lot of evidence to believe in such a remarkable claim?

It doesn't really strike me as that remarkable

Can you cite any other mass grave with this murder/burial density in history? When have 700,000 - 1 million people ever before in history been murdered and buried in such a small area of a small camp? If it doesn't strike you as remarkable I don't think you have good judgement.

How much space does it take to bury the ashes of 700,000 people? Serious question, I'm not sure.

You may not be aware that it is claimed that at least ~760,000 of those victims were already murdered and buried before they were unburied, cremated, and reburied. So you should instead investigate the burial space required to bury 500,000 - 760,000 people since nobody doubts that this area could physically hold the capacity of the cremated remains.

The far bigger problem is the cremation operation itself. How much wood would it take to burn over 5,000 corpses a day non-stop on open-air pyres? Does that claim not seem remarkable to you either?

This blogger shows that even using wrong, under-estimates by the HolocaustControversies bloggers of wood required for that cremation operation, would have required 6,000 cords of wood to be burned in this small camp over the course of 100 days. This would be the daily equivalent of a forest fire being burned in this site for 100 days straight. Does that not seem remarkable to you?

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rdt-camps/

To me those are remarkable claims. I'm not going to believe them unless investigators excavate and prove the mass graves exist. You shouldn't believe it either, because the claims are too remarkable to believe without that evidence.

That blogger also has a series on burial space, with a good comparison to the Katyn forest mass graves:
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rrections/

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rial+space

[Some Dude]

That's true. What's inconsistent is the exterminationist/antirevisionist theory that the German National Socialists picked up a Zionist term about a population transfer of Europe's Jews to name a mass slaughter of Europe's Jews.

Zionist pioneer Theodore Herzl in 1899:

https://postimg.cc/BtLRFXyr

A "Zionist" term? If so, explain the dozens of instances of the term's use before 1899.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Endl%C3 ... 50&dpr=1.5

[Some Dude]

The documentary case for the Revisionists is clearly better since the documents plainly state what Revisionists claim happened.

Oh, sure. You just don't have any physical evidence or eyewitnesses to back it up.

[Some Dude]

The usual excuse made is that these kinds of document are euphemistic. But that doesn't work here unless you want to argue that "Madagascar" is a codeword.

No one thinks Madagascar was code.

Also, consider that less than three weeks after Goebbels writes the entry you quote, he writes this: "Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt , und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man wohl feststellen, daß 60 % davon liquidiert werden müssen , während nur noch 40 % in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

Pretty clear people are being killed, no?

[Some Dude]

Consider that that there is no actual date, because it did not happen.

Um, what?

We don't know the date on which Shakespeare was born, although we can make an educated guess. Does that mean he wasn't born, since we don't have an actual date?

[Some Dude]

using a ridiculous method of murder

Argument from incredulity is not an argument.

[Some Dude]

Surely the murder of millions of people in gas chambers would leave an enormous amount of documentary evidence

Really. Why?

[Some Dude]

The bottom-line is that Jews were sifted through camps in the GG according to geography and labor needs, along an "access route" which led many to cross-over into Ostland and RK Ukraine via the "gateways" of Belzec (B), Sobibor (S), and Treblinka (T). Once crossing into eastern-occupied territories, they were sifted through the camps on this side even further, all the way up to the eastern front.

And then what happened? The Wehrmacht shouted over a loudspeaker at the Red Army, "Hey, could you guys maybe wait a couple minutes while we move these thousands of Jews across over to your side? Oh yeah, they're fit for labor. Might as well draft them while you're at it."

Those anticipated to be able to handle the difficult journey further east would use these "gateway" sites to be deloused, shower, etc. as their property (and that of those who disembarked at earlier stops) is unloaded from the train and sorted by the camp staff (who would often burn large amounts of "junk" property, leading to the odors and smoke reported by some witnesses). Those transiting Jews then board a different train nearby (this one on Soviet wide-gauge rails) for the journey further east. They then continue a similar journey to the one they had just endured. They are "sifted through" the many labor camps in the eastern-occupied territories in much the same fashion as before. These routes went as far as the eastern front.

And then what? They still disappear. You're still left with the same problem.

Here's the thing most of you guys don't know about Stalin. He was a big "let's move this population around" guy. Moved populations a lot. Like there are still Koreans in Uzbekistan because of these programs, as well as a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea that wasn't there in 1919. And here's the thing -- all those movements around are documented in Soviet files. You know what's not documented? Thousands of Jews being dumped over the front lines, as if such a thing were even possible or desirable from the German standpoint, given that they'd be handing over potential soldiers.

[MLLBR]

You are claiming that the population equivalent of San Francisco was murdered in this small camp and buried in a 20,000 square meter space. Wouldn't you admit that this is a remarkable claim? Shouldn't you require a lot of evidence to believe in such a remarkable claim?

It doesn't really strike me as that remarkable

Can you cite any other mass grave with this murder/burial density in history? When have 700,000 - 1 million people ever before in history been murdered and buried in such a small area of a small camp? If it doesn't strike you as remarkable I don't think you have good judgement.

How much space does it take to bury the ashes of 700,000 people? Serious question, I'm not sure.

You may not be aware that it is claimed that at least ~760,000 of those victims were already murdered and buried before they were unburied, cremated, and reburied. So you should instead investigate the burial space required to bury 500,000 - 760,000 people since nobody doubts that this area could physically hold the capacity of the cremated remains.

The far bigger problem is the cremation operation itself. How much wood would it take to burn over 5,000 corpses a day non-stop on open-air pyres? Does that claim not seem remarkable to you either?

This blogger shows that even using wrong, under-estimates by the HolocaustControversies bloggers of wood required for that cremation operation, would have required 6,000 cords of wood to be burned in this small camp over the course of 100 days. This would be the daily equivalent of a forest fire being burned in this site for 100 days straight. Does that not seem remarkable to you?

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rdt-camps/

To me those are remarkable claims. I'm not going to believe them unless investigators excavate and prove the mass graves exist. You shouldn't believe it either, because the claims are too remarkable to believe without that evidence.

That blogger also has a series on burial space, with a good comparison to the Katyn forest mass graves:
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rrections/

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rial+space

Yes, when it comes down to logistics, the absurdity of these exterminationits claims comes to light, the huge amount of wood and manpower needed would inevitably leave some evidence, not even mentioning the cremations, the amount of smoke produced certainly would grab people's attention.

[fireofice]

It doesn't really make sense for the Nazis to send the Polish Jews en masse to the Russian front. The primary motivation (as explained by Himmler in the Sonthofen speeches, for example) for the liquidation of the Polish ghettoes was that they posed an immediate threat to the security of the rear (e.g, Himmler says he doesn't believe they could have held the Lemberg front if the Warsaw ghetto had remained). The nazis Nazis would not have solved this problem by sending the Jews to the front.

According to Franz Rademacher:

In August 1940 I gave you for your files the plan for the final solution of the Jewish Problem, drafted by my office, for which purpose the Madagascar Island was to be demanded from France in the Peace Treaty, while the Reich Security Main Office was to be charged with the actual execution of the task. In accordance with the plan, Gruppenführer Heydrich has been ordered by the Führer to carry out the solution of the Jewish Problem in Europe.

In the meantime the war against the Soviet Union has offered the possibility of putting other territories at our disposal for the final solution. The Führer accordingly has decided that the Jews shall not be deported to Madagascar but to the East. Therefore it is no longer necessary that Madagascar be taken into consideration for the final solution.

https://codoh.com/library/document/depo ... e-east/en/

There's your answer. Their reasoning was that there was more space in the east than anywhere else. You can not like their reasoning all you want or think they were stupid, but that's not an argument for saying that's not what they were doing. Clearly, they thought this was a viable temporary solution, regardless of your opinions.

And diverting resources from the war effort to kill all Jews is clearly irrational, so appealing to "irrationalism" from your perspective is not valid anyway.

[Lamprecht]

The documentary case for the Revisionists is clearly better since the documents plainly state what Revisionists claim happened.

Oh, sure. You just don't have any physical evidence or eyewitnesses to back it up.

Physical evidnece? The lack of huge mass graves of 100s of thousands at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and Belzec are all the physical evidence [or lack thereof] that is needed.

I suggest you respond to these 10 questions:

Simple challenge to bombsaway on alleged physical "evidence of a genocidal program"
viewtopic.php?t=14850

Oh yeah, they're fit for labor. Might as well draft them while you're at it."

I thought the allegation is that they were "unfit for labor" thus undraftable.

Here's the thing most of you guys don't know about Stalin. He was a big "let's move this population around" guy. Moved populations a lot. Like there are still Koreans in Uzbekistan because of these programs, as well as a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea that wasn't there in 1919. And here's the thing -- all those movements around are documented in Soviet files. You know what's not documented? Thousands of Jews being dumped over the front lines, as if such a thing were even possible or desirable from the German standpoint, given that they'd be handing over potential soldiers.

Do you know what also isn't documented? One single "huge mass grave" at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, or Belzec with just 0.1% of the alleged 1.5 million or so.
Rather telling.

Again, I suggest you respond to these 10 questions:

Simple challenge to bombsaway on alleged physical "evidence of a genocidal program"
viewtopic.php?t=14850

[hermod]

Also, consider that less than three weeks after Goebbels writes the entry you quote, he writes this: "Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt , und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man wohl feststellen, daß 60 % davon liquidiert werden müssen , während nur noch 40 % in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

Pretty clear people are being killed, no?

No. Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal. Goebbels deplored on several other occasions that the German treatment of Jews was too soft in his opinion (see the 2 quotes below as an instance).

Goebbels' diaries:

May 15, 1942 (II.4.293) **
A report from Paris informs me that a number of those who staged the last acts of terror have been found. About 90 percent [sic: 99%] of them are eastern Jews [Ostjuden]. A more rigorous regime is now to be applied to these Jews. As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated (abschöben) or liquidated (liquidierten) all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris. By nature and race they will always be our natural enemies anyway.

Mar 6, 1942 (II.3.423, 425-426) **
An SD [Sicherheitsdienst] report informed me about the situation in occupied Russia. It is, after all, more unstable than was generally assumed. The partisan danger is increasing week by week. The partisans are in command of large area in occupied Russian and are conducting a regime of terror there. [...] Everywhere the Jews are busy inciting and stirring up trouble. It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this (mit ihrem Leben bezahlen müssen). Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated (liquidiert), the more consolidated will be the situation in Europe after this war. One must have no mistaken sentimentality about it.

In other words, Goebbels was merely giving his opinion that the "useless" Jews (i.e. those not needed for the German war industries) should be killed without too much delay when he wrote those words in his diaries on March 27, 1942. No surprise from a radical anti-Semite like him. But Goebbels was not a policy-maker of the Third Reich regarding the Jewish problem. He was the Minister of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment and the Gauleiter of Berlin. So his own opinion on the best way to solve the Jewish problem is irrelevant and his private/non-public statements on the Jews are almost as off topic for Holocaust research as the opinion and statements of an American minister of agriculture on NASA missions.

The people who mistakenly believe that Goebbels' diaries proved the Holocaust should read Thomas Dalton's paper Goebbels on the Jews.

Goebbels on the Jews
by Thomas Dalton
https://codoh.com/library/series/goebbe ... e-jews/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-1/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-2/en/