BA's case for orthodoxy

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 12:47 am)

borjastick wrote:The photo of the document number 619 in the top right hand corner doesn't make sense to me. Could someone please translate?

It is in French top left and say Police of Israel. But israel didn't exist in 1942 so what was this paper all about? Where did it originate and why does it have several languages at the top and the text in German?


Abschrift means "copy." If one can't even trust the copy of a German document from the Second World War by the Police of Israel, what can be trusted in this world? :roll: :lol:
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 12:57 am)

Merlin300 wrote:
fireofice wrote:

Why wouldn't anyone publish stories of Jews being kept in internment type camps? Walk me through the mindset of a researcher or publisher who hears one of these stories.


Hello, The mindset of researchers can be show from Camp Westerbork, in Holland.
Thousands of German and Dutch Jews spent the War in the camp with a total death rate of 3%.
See https://kampwesterbork.nl/en/history/se ... -1940-1942

However, the claim now is that Westerbork was known during the War as "The GATEWAY TO HELL."
In short, very few researchers have the courage to mention any facts inconvenient to the Holocaust Tale.

By the way, academics are usually the last to risk their reputation on anything controversial.


Was the gateway to hell with "information" from the BBC... :roll:

"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:13 am)

hermod wrote:
borjastick wrote:The photo of the document number 619 in the top right hand corner doesn't make sense to me. Could someone please translate?

It is in French top left and say Police of Israel. But israel didn't exist in 1942 so what was this paper all about? Where did it originate and why does it have several languages at the top and the text in German?


Abschrift means "copy." If one can't even trust the copy of a German document from the Second World War by the Police of Israel, what can be trusted in this world? :roll: :lol:



I assume this is in a file with one page (supposedly the copy or 'Abschrift') being tagged onto a file by the Israeli police. But that means that they supposed original or copy has been in Israeli hands for a while. And well, that may be a problem. In fact, it is a problem, if the document is a hot topic for Israelis touching upon their national interest.

bombsaway
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:18 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby bombsaway » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:37 am)

Butterfangers wrote:You can offer up whatever narrative of mass killing events you'd enjoy whipping up in the kitchen, feel free to do so, but, "I could also suggest that there was a mass killing at Treblinka... it would make sense for the Nazis to kill people..." is not how criminal investigations and convictions are supposed to work. It is you---not I---who needs proof.


The sites were surveyed after the war in and in terms of findings at least at the Reinhard camps and Chelmno (I haven't looked into Auschwitz deeply, but it seems the ashes weren't stored on site) there is clear indication of mass body destruction and burial. While the studies did not employ scientific methods to determine the quantity of bodies destroyed at each, I think this is understandable given the difficulty and cost of sifting and testing hundreds of thousands of pounds of cremains mixed with dirt and sand. I think the lack of pictures (similar to other mass graves) is ultimately due to the mass body destruction, which is unprecedented. No comparable graves like these have ever been excavated.

As I said before, I wouldn't believe the studies absent of other evidence. Witness testimony and documents are evidence, and I don't think the claim that they were all coerced or key documents were fabricated is convincing. Perpetrators affirmed the mass killing inside and outside of trial, for decades after the war, in countries that had American style legal systems (eg West Germany). The USSR and Western Allies have no history of fabricating documents from other nationalities (governments of course 'lie' internally) and I haven't seen a single document that rises to the level of 'definitely a forgery'. This includes not just written documents, but recordings, like of the Posen speeches or Eichmann's conversations with Sassen in Argentina.

Let's stop playing this game where you pretend you are an objective instigator, really just trying to get to the bottom of things and have happened to conclude based upon an honest weighting of evidence that the establishment position is better supported. Your agenda here is thinly-veiled and transparent. I continue to engage with you only because it gives an opportunity to exhibit the facts to those who will later stumble upon this forum.

You ignore (literally do not even address) the evidence which quite clearly invalidates your position. I have broken this down already (administrative factors, diffusion/dispersion, motivations to document or lack thereof, cover-ups, Allied victory and handling of evidence, Soviet factors, etc.). You ignore all of this, suggest there should still be additional documentation, despite that any one or two of these factors could be sufficient to explain why it might be so limited. 


In terms of my beliefs, at one point I was skeptical about Auschwitz mass gassing claims, but after some research I'd say my position is more or less set, given what I currently know. I've looked into revisionism enough to get a sense that the strongest evidence and arguments aren't impressive, so I doubt anything is going to change my mind at this point. Theoretically of course my mind could be changed if I saw new evidence, and I think that's a good mindset to have. I am trying to get to the bottom of the truth, just like you probably, even though you're also confident about your position.

I think of objectivity as a platonic ideal sort of thing, something we can all aspire towards. This means adhering as much as possible to consistent standards. The relevant standard here is for a narrative to be 'acceptable' in terms of historicity it should be well evidenced. The criteria here is the problem, 'what is well evidenced'? We know lots of facts are lost to history, and expectations can vary here.  Personally, if there was evidence of 1% of the Jews in question being resettled I would call this poor evidence that they all made it. But actually I've seen no evidence from your side that resettlement on any level even occurred, so if such evidence hasn't been unearthed, I think it can objectively be said this particular narrative does not meet the above standards. The extenuating circumstances you describe actually don't matter. When looking at movement of mass groups in recent history, as far as I can tell there has always been at least some evidence trail that can be followed, so you are alleging a singular event which has to be scrutinized very closely, just like the story of mass gassings.

To start with Transnistria vs other SSRs, how did you determine the great difference you're describing? Would it be possible to verify and quantify this difference? eg we might look at population density, GDP, proportion of population that are Jews, urbanization levels , etc ...

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 6:00 am)

bombsaway wrote:
Butterfangers wrote:You can offer up whatever narrative of mass killing events you'd enjoy whipping up in the kitchen, feel free to do so, but, "I could also suggest that there was a mass killing at Treblinka... it would make sense for the Nazis to kill people..." is not how criminal investigations and convictions are supposed to work. It is you---not I---who needs proof.


The sites were surveyed after the war in and in terms of findings at least at the Reinhard camps and Chelmno (I haven't looked into Auschwitz deeply, but it seems the ashes weren't stored on site) there is clear indication of mass body destruction and burial. While the studies did not employ scientific methods to determine the quantity of bodies destroyed at each, I think this is understandable given the difficulty and cost of sifting and testing hundreds of thousands of pounds of cremains mixed with dirt and sand. I think the lack of pictures (similar to other mass graves) is ultimately due to the mass body destruction, which is unprecedented. No comparable graves like these have ever been excavated.
I think you'd first need to know what 'scientific method' means. Where that is applicable and where not. Hint: You can't do scientific method on items of the past. It can only be applied in the present. But you can look at items that have a past. E.g. like corpses, bones, geological formations etc. And then you can apply plausible reasoning on this. That means, if you find bones and corpses at some place, you can do the reverse conclusion that those were buried there. And so it goes on.

As for costing. If you insist 800.000 people were killed, buried, cremated at some place. You have to do proper investigation first. But that's not the sequence of what happened. They simply insisted that figures of people in that ball park were killed WITHOUT prior investigation.

And to say it frankly. They found nothing in Treblinka that was ever in line with their assertion. In other words they were lying. They continue to lie and people that call them out on their lies get persecuted in several countries, as if that is a 'crime against humanity' itself.

bombsaway wrote:As I said before, I wouldn't believe the studies absent of other evidence. Witness testimony and documents are evidence, and I don't think the claim that they were all coerced or key documents were fabricated is convincing. Perpetrators affirmed the mass killing inside and outside of trial, for decades after the war, in countries that had American style legal systems (eg West Germany). The USSR and Western Allies have no history of fabricating documents from other nationalities (governments of course 'lie' internally) and I haven't seen a single document that rises to the level of 'definitely a forgery'. This includes not just written documents, but recordings, like of the Posen speeches or Eichmann's conversations with Sassen in Argentina.
Well, there can be many reason why people accused of crimes DO affirm or at least not contradict allegations being made by the accusers.
You can have a look at the trials including those in Western Germany. The majority of accused and other potential witnesses did say that they DID NOT know about what was alleged. And there is an issue with false confessions, especially at highly loaded cases. Any policeman can tell you that. As a matter of interest, I recall policemen that visited the alleged extermination camp sites. And they weren't exactly convinced. They realized it was a swindle.
"The USSR and Western Allies have no history of fabricating documents from other nationalities"
Are you serious? Of course they do fabricate, forge and alter documents of other nationalities. And in this case they were highly motivated to do so.
And one doesn't have to prove the forgery. What needs to be be proven is that documents ARE legit. There is threads in this forum on Eichmann and Sassen. Search for it. As Treblinka, it was mentioned at the Eichmann show trial in Jerusalem. There was testimony given by a Dr. Adolf Avraham Berman, who was a psychologist. Now he claims to have visited Treblinka after the war and picked children's shoes from a pile of shoes he found there. What's wrong with that picture?


bombsaway wrote:
Let's stop playing this game .... Allied victory and handling of evidence, Soviet factors, etc.). You ignore all of this, suggest there should still be additional documentation, despite that any one or two of these factors could be sufficient to explain why it might be so limited. 


In terms of my beliefs, at one point I was skeptical about Auschwitz mass gassing claims, but after some research I'd say my position is more or less set, given what I currently know. I've looked into revisionism enough to get a sense that the strongest evidence and arguments aren't impressive, so I doubt anything is going to change my mind at this point. Theoretically of course my mind could be changed if I saw new evidence, and I think that's a good mindset to have. I am trying to get to the bottom of the truth, just like you probably, even though you're also confident about your position.

I think of objectivity as a platonic ideal sort of thing, something we can all aspire towards. This means adhering as much as possible to consistent standards. The relevant standard here is for a narrative to be 'acceptable' in terms of historicity it should be well evidenced. The criteria here is the problem, 'what is well evidenced'? We know lots of facts are lost to history, and expectations can vary here.  Personally, if there was evidence of 1% of the Jews in question being resettled I would call this poor evidence that they all made it. But actually I've seen no evidence from your side that resettlement on any level even occurred, so if such evidence hasn't been unearthed, I think it can objectively be said this particular narrative does not meet the above standards. The extenuating circumstances you describe actually don't matter. When looking at movement of mass groups in recent history, as far as I can tell there has always been at least some evidence trail that can be followed, so you are alleging a singular event which has to be scrutinized very closely, just like the story of mass gassings.

To start with Transnistria vs other SSRs, how did you determine the great difference you're describing? Would it be possible to verify and quantify this difference? eg we might look at population density, GDP, proportion of population that are Jews, urbanization levels , etc ...


At least in Auschwitz they can point to some buildings were they allege mass gassings took place.

You don't need 'new evidence'. You need to have reliable evidence to begin with. Now that needs to bit more than tell tales from witnesses. that had an axe to grind and obviously were rewarded for their 'cooperation'. And again. You don't kill a million people and then make all the evidence vanish. The evidence findable is the evidence one expects for their being some work camp / detention center in the past.

OK, I think we need to stay focused on one subject at the time. And then it's either Treblinka or Auschwitz. And the details there of course.
I was also a 'believer' ones, because the Holocaust and it's 'details' like the gas chamber were perpetually alleged by media, books, movies, documentaries, etc. But at some stage I noticed the pushiness and also that they were using information that was provable false to advance the narrative. So, I looked deeper in this. And once one can see the swindle for what it is, it actually gets easier to spot the obfuscation being done there. The whole affair works like a cult and people that are taken in by a cult often don't even know this. It's just something they grew up with. They don't doubt the postulates of the cult neither. And when they do, they may get excited about the matter. Emotion plays a major role in this... And it beats reason all the time. Emotion works easier, reasoning is intellectual effort.

Fun fact: It was actually Jews that convinced me from the narrative being false. Those Holocaustians white-knighting for them give it the rest. Simply ask them for simple forensic evidence for what they allege and they get aggressive.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 6:28 am)

Hektor wrote:
hermod wrote:
borjastick wrote:The photo of the document number 619 in the top right hand corner doesn't make sense to me. Could someone please translate?

It is in French top left and say Police of Israel. But israel didn't exist in 1942 so what was this paper all about? Where did it originate and why does it have several languages at the top and the text in German?


Abschrift means "copy." If one can't even trust the copy of a German document from the Second World War by the Police of Israel, what can be trusted in this world? :roll: :lol:



I assume this is in a file with one page (supposedly the copy or 'Abschrift') being tagged onto a file by the Israeli police. But that means that they supposed original or copy has been in Israeli hands for a while. And well, that may be a problem. In fact, it is a problem, if the document is a hot topic for Israelis touching upon their national interest.


Wouldn't an Israeli document made from a German original and with a header in French and Hebrew say "Copie" or/and "עותק" rather than "Abschrift"? Believe it or not, but the German language was never very popular in post-WWII Jew-occupied Palestine (aka "Israel"). I remember a news about some tourists from the Netherlands assaulted in "Israel" because the Jewish occupiers of that land had confused the Dutch language with the hated German language.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 8:54 am)

hermod wrote:....

Wouldn't an Israeli document made from a German original and with a header in French and Hebrew say "Copie" or/and "עותק" rather than "Abschrift"? Believe it or not, but the German language was never very popular in post-WWII Jew-occupied Palestine (aka "Israel"). I remember a news about some tourists from the Netherlands assaulted in "Israel" because the Jewish occupiers of that land had confused the Dutch language with the hated German language.


Not, if the document in question was already an 'Abschrift' to begin with.

But it seems to be the "Hide and Seek with evidence"-game again.
A significant portion of early Israeli's spoke only German. But I also hear they were rather isolated there.
Someone not too familiar with Dutch/German could confuse the languages. I had a friend from South-West-Africa who told me that while he traveled abroad he was hitch-hiking. Once he was kicked out of the car, because he was German (I think by a Jew). Once he was kicked out, because he was considered a White South Africa (and 'Apartheid' was sooo bad, of course because it discriminated based on origin/race).

About the race issue he also had a debate with a Jew once. The Jew accused Whites of 'calling Blacks kaffirs'. He replied that Jews call non-Jews 'Goyim' (which they mean perjoratively). That's btw. funny in both cases. The old literature has missionaries using the term kaffirs for Bantu-people. And in the Old Testament the term Goyim is actually neutral, meaning 'nations'. It's mostly used for foreign nations, but also for Israelites occasionally. There is a warning to mix with those nations, since this would incorporate the customs (idols) as well. There was quite some debate on this in South Africa (between theologians), since this actually suggests that Apartheid was right.

A fair amount of Jews I've known were fluent in German usually the older ones that is. And they also spoke this without any issue. I wonder, if they were in the know about a certain subject. That they didn't say explicitly. In 'Israel' it was the post-war generation that was brought up anti-German. People working there told me that it wasn't a big issue with the older ones and also not the younger ones. I'd guess the leadership used it as a tool to instill cohesion in the 'new citizens'. As far as Jews in business are concerned, now they seem to have business with Germans again, since they consider them more credible, reliable and trustworthy than other nationalities. It's just that their products are pricy. And more folks try to save on quality, since they try to get millage out of products quicker now. That's the reason more rubbish is now on markets. Especially from the countries that only recently industrialized. There is other repercussions as well. While the products are cheaper, it kills local production of goods off. And when people are unemployed they can't buy those goods at all. I assume 'Israel' is mostly importing with some sectors of course established there. Especially Arms-Industry and Hi-Tech. There was some exchange with South Africa prior to 1990, though. That's how they got their nukes. And I'd guess that they have the Holocaust accountability-shield, comes in handy, when violating 'international law'. So they had 'good reason' to do the Eichmann show trial. And well, the footage they produced during the proceedings is great for Revisionism.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 11:05 am)

Hektor wrote:
hermod wrote:....

Wouldn't an Israeli document made from a German original and with a header in French and Hebrew say "Copie" or/and "עותק" rather than "Abschrift"? Believe it or not, but the German language was never very popular in post-WWII Jew-occupied Palestine (aka "Israel"). I remember a news about some tourists from the Netherlands assaulted in "Israel" because the Jewish occupiers of that land had confused the Dutch language with the hated German language.


Not, if the document in question was already an 'Abschrift' to begin with.

But it seems to be the "Hide and Seek with evidence"-game again.


Yes, that's what I meant. A copy of a copy at best. A forgery with an original nowhere to be found at worst. "Dubious" is a big understatement. As usually... :roll:



Hektor wrote:A significant portion of early Israeli's spoke only German.


Yes, I know. My objection was not about their ability to speak German*. My objection was about their wish to do it.


* I remember about an early controversy on the language to be used at the newly-established Institute of Technology in Jerusalem. One side wanted Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people. And the other side wanted German, the language of chemistry and physics at that time.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:49 pm)

I think the 'lack of originals' presented... Is something we should bring up and investigate again. Also the character of what is used for evidence and how. Then there is the issue of literally millions of documents from the era with no trace of any Holocaust. And I relate here to documents dealing with the 'Jewish Question' at the time. One underwhelming example was the Auschwitz documents. If people would first see the documentation on the camps themselves, the Holocaust storyline gets less believable and that's why the hide-and-seek is being played. The Holocaustians like to cherry-pick harsh or ambiguous documents, apparently forgetting that those were not holiday camps and that this wasn't exactly during peace time.

Jews outside 'Israel' generally don't speak Hebrew and also don't have knowledge of the old-Hebrew unless they are rabbis or academic specialists. They speak the language of the country they live in and perhaps some other modern languages.
Yiddish is written with Hebrew letters, but most of the words are of (older) German origin. It shields their communications from the Poles, Balts, Russian etc., but native German speakers can follow the conversations to some extent. Vice versa Jews can pick up what Germans say, which allows them to spy easier with German troops being around. And there was probably a million Jews during the WW2 era that were fluent in German, which came in handy for the Allied war effort. They could possibly emulate German bureaucratic custom as well and would be able to establish texts that sound very German. And well, we know that they were engaged with the IMT and other trials.

It seems that General Patton wasn't too fond of the Jews neither. In fact, I wonder if they can find any German General that wrote about them in the way he did. Goebbels or Streicher may have written like this, but they were not generals. And it was for sure not representative for the Wehrmacht or even the Waffen-SS.

User avatar
Butterfangers
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:45 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Butterfangers » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:51 pm)

bombsaway wrote:
Butterfangers wrote:You can offer up whatever narrative of mass killing events you'd enjoy whipping up in the kitchen, feel free to do so, but, "I could also suggest that there was a mass killing at Treblinka... it would make sense for the Nazis to kill people..." is not how criminal investigations and convictions are supposed to work. It is you---not I---who needs proof.


The sites were surveyed after the war in and in terms of findings at least at the Reinhard camps and Chelmno (I haven't looked into Auschwitz deeply, but it seems the ashes weren't stored on site) there is clear indication of mass body destruction and burial. While the studies did not employ scientific methods to determine the quantity of bodies destroyed at each, I think this is understandable given the difficulty and cost of sifting and testing hundreds of thousands of pounds of cremains mixed with dirt and sand. I think the lack of pictures (similar to other mass graves) is ultimately due to the mass body destruction, which is unprecedented. No comparable graves like these have ever been excavated.


Look at all this conjecture. "...the studies did not employ scientific methods to determine the quantity of bodies..." but we should still accept these claims about the quantity of bodies (?). Your "clear indication of mass body destruction and burial" amounts to reaching inferences and assumptions lacking any necessity of truth or validity. You suppose the "difficulty and cost of sifting and testing hundreds of thousands of pounds of cremains" is justification enough to place guilt for the most serious allegations of all-time upon an entire nation of unfortunate [German] men and women.

"No comparable graves like these have ever been excavated." And no comparable allegations like these have ever been made.

As I said before, I wouldn't believe the studies absent of other evidence. Witness testimony and documents are evidence, and I don't think the claim that they were all coerced or key documents were fabricated is convincing. Perpetrators affirmed the mass killing inside and outside of trial, for decades after the war, in countries that had American style legal systems (eg West Germany).

Rather predictably, it's like you are pretending these are things Revisionists have not already addressed in-detail and beyond sufficiently. Witnesses can be liars, hence why "hearsay" is thrown out of court constantly. Liars are abundant, especially with stakes as high as WW2 and, history has shown, especially with Jews, in general (sorry, not sorry), but also with men on trial who know they are hopeless at denying the over-arching claims of an "extermination campaign" and are, thus, forced to accept a false premise. Moreover, finding ex-soldiers who accept bribery or other personal incentives is never impossible. Those who will affirm a "Holocaust" are praised or "forgiven" whereas those who tell the truth---that such claims are stupid and ridiculous---are permanent pariahs or even outlaws.

The USSR and Western Allies have no history of fabricating documents from other nationalities (governments of course 'lie' internally) and I haven't seen a single document that rises to the level of 'definitely a forgery'.

It seems like you're saying here, "the Soviets wouldn't lie!". Please elaborate your argument so that it becomes even more clear how deliberate you are in your deception campaign.

This includes not just written documents, but recordings, like of the Posen speeches or Eichmann's conversations with Sassen in Argentina.

The Posen speech says precisely nothing about the literal killing of all Jews on the basis of Jewishness. Himmler speaks of the removal of the parasitic entity that is Judaism and its racial adherents within the body of the German people. All conceptions of "killing" or "uprooting" in that regard are relevant to this process, with only one or two exceptions where he acknowledges the brutality of the evacuation process and that some may indeed die in the process. This has nothing to do with any global "extermination program".

As for Eichmann, if I recall correctly, the tapes were thrown out of an Israeli court (only a very small portion of a written transcript was admitted) and the originals have since vanished while in Israeli custody. :lol:

In terms of my beliefs, at one point I was skeptical about Auschwitz mass gassing claims, but after some research I'd say my position is more or less set, given what I currently know. I've looked into revisionism enough to get a sense that the strongest evidence and arguments aren't impressive, so I doubt anything is going to change my mind at this point. Theoretically of course my mind could be changed if I saw new evidence, and I think that's a good mindset to have. I am trying to get to the bottom of the truth, just like you probably, even though you're also confident about your position.

Again, Mr. Feldberg, I am not buying it, and I doubt anyone else is here, either.

I think of objectivity as a platonic ideal sort of thing, something we can all aspire towards. This means adhering as much as possible to consistent standards. The relevant standard here is for a narrative to be 'acceptable' in terms of historicity it should be well evidenced. The criteria here is the problem, 'what is well evidenced'? We know lots of facts are lost to history, and expectations can vary here.  Personally, if there was evidence of 1% of the Jews in question being resettled I would call this poor evidence that they all made it. But actually I've seen no evidence from your side that resettlement on any level even occurred, so if such evidence hasn't been unearthed, I think it can objectively be said this particular narrative does not meet the above standards. The extenuating circumstances you describe actually don't matter. When looking at movement of mass groups in recent history, as far as I can tell there has always been at least some evidence trail that can be followed, so you are alleging a singular event which has to be scrutinized very closely, just like the story of mass gassings.

What you keep referring to is missing Jews, for whom there are no precise, credible estimates of how many are missing, no precise location they are missing from, or at what time they went missing. It is presumed at least several hundreds of thousands may have ended up either at or around the AR camps or somewhere east of Poland.

Predictably, you ignore all of the points I have already outlined, again trying to compare a unique set of circumstances to your own inferences about other events in history. At minimum, you ignore:

  • administrative factors
  • diffusion/dispersion
  • Jews used for labor (light or heavy)
  • Jews in other camps and collection sites
  • motivations to document or lack thereof
  • cover-ups by Germans, Allied governments, the Soviets, and/or Jews themselves
  • Allied victory and handling of evidence
  • Soviet factors

Let's break those down into question format:

  • How many fewer reports should we expect with such stark differences in administration (between Transnistria and other Eastern-occupied territories)?
  • How many fewer should we expect when Jews were diffused/dispersed all throughout a massive region (i.e. relatively low numbers to each area)?
  • How many of the "unfit" Jews actually were used for labor in the East (hence, housed within the massive labor camp network through the end of the war)?
  • How many of the remaining Jews ended up in any of the thousands of other camps or collection sites which are known to have existed (remember, 40,000+ in Europe)?
  • Who would have been motivated to document Jews that were resettled? Did the Germans have any real motivation to document these placements?
  • Who had motivation to actually cover-up these placements? How many could have been covered-up by the Germans? By the Allied governments? By the Soviets, in particular? By Jews themselves, wishing to remain in hiding long after the war?
  • How many were quite literally "erased" from the historical record by the Allies through the course of post-war trials and their dishonest historiography?
  • How many of these Jews did the Soviets kill immediately, imprison indefinitely, or otherwise wipe from the record?

Each and every one of these items is a gaping hole in your narrative that ____ million/thousand Jews were gassed at Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Beijing, Atlantis, or the Moon. :bootyshake:

Remember, it was the proponents of your position who first made the extraordinary claims you now defend. Not only do these lack the requisite extraordinary evidence in terms of that which is physical/forensic, and not only is the witness pool saturated with countless proven liars, but your documentary trail is fatally broken, as is your suggestion that documentation which opposes your hypothesis should be present (for the reasons shown above).

To start with Transnistria vs other SSRs, how did you determine the great difference you're describing? Would it be possible to verify and quantify this difference? eg we might look at population density, GDP, proportion of population that are Jews, urbanization levels , etc ...


I determined the difference by using Google for five minutes and actually trying to be honest and objective in my research. The Romanian government was an ally of Germany and thus was much more cooperative in developing administration related to Jewish policy. They also occupied the area of Transnistria very early in the war (mid-late 1941), and this area was adjacent / in very close proximity to the Romanian heartland. The Centrala Evreilor ("Jewish Center") was established by January 1942, as a centralized administration which dealt specifically with Jewish policy. No such centralized administration existed in the Baltic states and Ukraine, which were, rather, makeshift "puppet administrations" and only did what they were essentially forced to do, specifically related to the requirements as set forth by German officials. These areas were also vast, with Jews occasionally concentrated in major city areas however often vastly spread out over thousands of kilometers.

On the Centrala Evreilor, from USHMM:

During the period of 1941-1944, the Jewish Central Office in Romania was the only institution authorized to represent the interests of the Jewish community in Romania. To the Jewish Central Office in Romania there were subordinated all institutions of public interest, charity, cultural and religious societies of different Jewish communities across the country.

https://portal.ehri-project.eu/units/md-002886-1594_1


More information/insights about the Centrala Evreilor and its function, role in Transnistria:

It would be interesting to compare the number of Jews you accept as 'gassed and murdered' with absolutely zero physical evidence for each of them, compared to the number of Jews you deny as simply having gone missing and unreported for any of the reasons I have outlined earlier.

fireofice
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 1:55 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby fireofice » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:32 pm)

Butterfangers wrote:As for Eichmann, if I recall correctly, the tapes were thrown out of an Israeli court (only a very small portion of a written transcript was admitted) and the originals have since vanished while in Israeli custody.


The tapes were not available to the prosecution at the time. All they had were transcripts. They only allowed certain parts of the transcripts because they could not verify them with the tapes. The original tapes do indeed exist today and are held in an archive. You can listen to some of the tapes here:

https://www.amazon.com/Part-One-The-Hunt/dp/B0B8T147WL/

My review of the documentary:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14609&p=108176#p108151

I've already responded to BA on the Eichmann tapes and Eichmann's ridiculous claims. Apparently, he doesn't think Eichmann's ridiculous testimony effects his credibility at all, which isn't good for BA's credibility. Even mainstream historians find his pre and post capture statements not reliable, and then go on to use them anyway.

https://codoh.com/library/document/an-e ... ocaust/en/

He's already been destroyed on the "confession" point in regards to the "West German Trials", where the holocaust was considered an established fact and would have been very risky to say the least to try and challenge the whole thing head on. The fact that he continues to spout this as well as the Eichmann nonsense even after being shown how bad these arguments are shows how little credibility BA has.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14852

fireofice
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 1:55 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby fireofice » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 5:22 pm)

BA is still ignoring the documentation that Jews were deported to the east alive and continues to lie about the contents of these documents:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&p=109030#p109023

Kube explicitly threatened to "liquidate" a subset of transported Jews. If "liquidate" means something innocuous that doesn't involve killing, then these transports of Jews are not being murdered. This also applies to the rest of the transports, since it is highly unlikely they would choose the word "liquidate" for groups of Jews not to be killed as opposed to the rest that are to be killed. If "liquidate" does mean kill here, then this means it was policy to not kill Jews as a whole, since it makes no sense to threaten to kill a group already set to be killed. These documents prove non genocidal deportations. If BA wants to reject these documents, he cannot appeal to German documents about Jews being deported either.

And don't bring up "fit to work" vs "unfit to work" either. That is irrelevant. If only unfit Jews were deported, then this applies to all the Jews in these documents. If "fit" Jews were deported along with the "unfit" Jews, and only the "fit" Jews survived, then this whole thing about "where did they go" makes no sense as you believe fit Jews were deported alive that we can no longer find. So this is a red herring and completely irrelevant.

The fact that BA has so far not addressed this honestly indicates that he knows his position is untenable.

bombsaway
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:18 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby bombsaway » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Apr 15, 2023 8:30 pm)

fireofice wrote:BA is still ignoring the documentation that Jews were deported to the east alive and continues to lie about the contents of these documents:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&p=109030#p109023

Kube explicitly threatened to "liquidate" a subset of transported Jews. If "liquidate" means something innocuous that doesn't involve killing, then these transports of Jews are not being murdered. This also applies to the rest of the transports, since it is highly unlikely they would choose the word "liquidate" for groups of Jews not to be killed as opposed to the rest that are to be killed. If "liquidate" does mean kill here, then this means it was policy to not kill Jews as a whole, since it makes no sense to threaten to kill a group already set to be killed. These documents prove non genocidal deportations. If BA wants to reject these documents, he cannot appeal to German documents about Jews being deported either.

And don't bring up "fit to work" vs "unfit to work" either. That is irrelevant. If only unfit Jews were deported, then this applies to all the Jews in these documents. If "fit" Jews were deported along with the "unfit" Jews, and only the "fit" Jews survived, then this whole thing about "where did they go" makes no sense as you believe fit Jews were deported alive that we can no longer find. So this is a red herring and completely irrelevant.

The fact that BA has so far not addressed this honestly indicates that he knows his position is untenable.


re the Kube document https://phdn.org/histgen/einsatzgruppen ... 10742.html here again, my position is that Jews were deported into this area. Some went to work deployment, others were killed upon arrival, even into summer 1942 as I demonstrated here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&p=108985#p108985

Some like the German Jews who were deported earlier, weren't killed right away but the following year, as stated by Kube.

I don't understand your arguments so I won't be able to respond to them. My point is simply that there's no evidence of non-employable Jews being maintained in Belarus past a certain point (mid 1942), but lots of evidence of them being killed around this time. Kube's document reports on the process of reducing the Jewish population of Belarus to ~15,000 working Jews, which he wants to kill as well, but fall under the army's protection.

In Minsk 2600 Jews from Germany were left alive. Added to this are all the 6,000 Russian Jews who remained in the service of the units which employed them for a specific operation, and who are still alive. Even in the future, Minsk will always keep its character as the largest center of Jewish elements, which are necessary, at least for the moment, because of the concentration of the armament industries and the works to be carried out on the railways. railways. In all other territories, the number of Jews to be used as labor will be limited by the SD and by myself to a maximum of 800 and, if possible, 500; so after the conclusion of the planned operations, we will keep 8,600 Jews in Minsk and about 7,000 in the other 10 districts, including the free territories of Minsk-countryside Jews. Then, the danger of partisans relying particularly on Jewry, will no longer exist. Of course, when the Wehrmacht no longer needs it, we, the SD and I would like to eliminate Jewry once and for all from the District General of White Ruthenia. For now, we are considering the demands of the army, the main employer of Jews.


All other Jews had been killed or were in the process of being killed as described in the document. Liquidations almost certainly means killed when referring to groups of people. Mattogno backs this interpretation in his note on the document : "The massacres, even in their brutality, were therefore motivated by the anti-partisan war and not by an extermination order of Jews for being Jews. " (This is his only statement on the document, and he neglects to quote it in full) https://archive.org/stream/Exterminatio ... g_djvu.txt

So too Kube's ominous phrasing "left alive" "still alive"

re Eichmann and Sassen tapes -- certainly as with many witnesses Eichmann was unreliable in terms of details and certain facts that he presented to the Sassen circle. But he did make clear there was a mass killing program underway, and I can see no reason for him to lie about this. Sassen and his friends were revisionists pretty much and very pro-Nazi, so if he was playing to his audience he wouldn't have taken this route.

I'll respond to Butterfanger's long post in the coming days.

User avatar
Butterfangers
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:45 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Butterfangers » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sun Apr 16, 2023 1:09 am)

fireofice wrote:
Butterfangers wrote:As for Eichmann, if I recall correctly, the tapes were thrown out of an Israeli court (only a very small portion of a written transcript was admitted) and the originals have since vanished while in Israeli custody.


The tapes were not available to the prosecution at the time. All they had were transcripts. They only allowed certain parts of the transcripts because they could not verify them with the tapes. The original tapes do indeed exist today and are held in an archive. You can listen to some of the tapes here:

https://www.amazon.com/Part-One-The-Hunt/dp/B0B8T147WL/


I am aware of the "Devil's Confession" documentary but even they only had access to 15 hours of audio (out of the 70 total hours of original audio). 15 hours out of 70 comes out to about one-fifth of the total (and only maybe five minutes of that 15 hours is included in the three-part series). So the remaining almost 80% of the Sassen-Eichmann audio is mysteriously missing. Where did it go? The NYT and the aforementioned documentary allege that Sassen simply taped over them. I notice they provide no citation or way to validate this claim, of course:

The German authorities and the owner of the tapes gave the filmmakers free access to 15 hours of surviving audio. (Sassen had recorded about 70 hours, but he had taped over many of the expensive reels after transcribing them.) Mr. Mozer said that the owner of the tapes and the archive had finally agreed to give the filmmakers access, believing that they would treat the material respectfully and responsibly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/04/worl ... srael.html

In any case, Sassen was paid handsomely to produce his transcripts, once he did:
He decided to sell the publication rights for his collection of tape recordings to Life Magazine and most likely received significant financial remuneration for it.
"Long-lost Recordings of Eichmann Confessing to the Final Solution Revealed", Haaretz 2022, https://archive.is/NBghG

Even of the mere 15 hours of audio that exist, German archivists were for some reason very worried that these recordings could be used in favor of Revisionists (or as they say, "neo-Nazi") interpretations:

Later, when the German researcher was asked to undergo security clearance before being given access to the materials, to ensure that he was not a neo-Nazi who could make wrongful use of them...
Ibid., emphasis mine.

Strange that people are denied access to information which is claimed to be proof only of a "Holocaust"... It just an honest interview, right? It's almost like they worry that truth favors Revisionism.

It seems the full 15 hours are still unavailable to the general public. Instead, we have only cherry-picked selections presented in documentaries which were made in Israel. It really begs the question of what exactly is on those 15 hours of audio or, more importantly, what is on the remaining 55 hours which are still unreported on.

What could be contained within these hours? In these, does Eichmann:

  • Provide clarifying context to some of his statements, which could show those exhibited thus far are misrepresented in some way?
  • Tell all sorts of ridiculous, provable lies which completely undermine any credibility on reports of "extermination" involvement?
  • Make other statements which demonstrate an ulterior or obvious motive of some kind?

fireofice shared a very interesting article, above, about top establishment historian Christopher Browning's acknowledgements of Eichmann's unreliability in his precapture confessions:

In his precapture statements, Eichmann claimed that he saw the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Majdanek, a concentration camp in Poland. Browning informed his readers in 2003 that these “observations” are not credible: “In both precapture accounts, Eichmann’s dating is vague. Furthermore, the claims that gassing was already taking place in this first camp, or that it was Majdanek, are contrary to what we know from other sources. The precapture testimonies, in short, are helpful to neither the historian nor Eichmann’s credibility [p. 23].” In plain language, Eichmann never saw the “gas chambers” he claimed to have seen at Majdanek.


If Eichmann's indeed just telling lies (and assuming his few, brief excerpts from the "Devil's Confession" documentary are accurate and in proper context), what could possibly motivate him to tell such lies? Here are some ideas:

  • Attention-seeking: Eichmann may have wanted to draw attention to himself by making sensational claims. By 'admitting' to actions he did not commit, he could have hoped to provoke a reaction from Sassen or others who might learn of the conversation.
  • Empowerment/Revenge/Coping: Eichmann might have felt motivated to claim a role in "extermination" which did not actually occur, in order to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies, after a heavy and brutal defeat in WW2.
  • Establishing camaraderie: Eichmann might have believed that admitting to these actions would help him establish a sense of camaraderie or shared experiences with Sassen or others who held similar ideological beliefs. By doing so, he could have hoped to strengthen relationships and build alliances.

Of course, people telling lies based on motives such as those above (or any number of others) is not uncommon. And as for Eichmann, the Israelis and just about everyone on the planet (all of us here included) would consider him a liar in some way or another. We agree on that, at least.

fireofice
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 1:55 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby fireofice » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sun Apr 16, 2023 1:32 am)

bombsaway wrote:Some went to work deployment, others were killed upon arrival, even into summer 1942 as I demonstrated here

Some went to work deployment? Really? WHERE DID THEY GO THEN? It must have never happened. Surely, they were all killed and it never happened.

Also, this theory about some being killed on arrival makes no sense. All Jews set to be killed would have been killed at the Reinhardt camps. No point in sending them further east just to be killed there. That's just complete nonsense.

Some like the German Jews who were deported earlier, weren't killed right away but the following year, as stated by Kube.

Irrelevant. Not what is being talked about in the document I'm referencing.

I don't understand your arguments so I won't be able to respond to them. My point is simply that there's no evidence of non-employable Jews being maintained in Belarus past a certain point (mid 1942), but lots of evidence of them being killed around this time. Kube's document reports on the process of reducing the Jewish population of Belarus to ~15,000 working Jews, which he wants to kill as well, but fall under the army's protection.

Employable, non-employable, completely irrelevant. The point is lots of Jews were being sent there (hence why Kube was overwhelmed) and it was policy not to kill them, that's why he threatened to kill a subset of them (assuming liquidated means killing, which is what we'll go with here). This has implications for deportation policy in general. This means all deportations to the east were non-genocidal. It was the norm not to kill them, employable or not. Focusing on Kube and his (almost certainly exaggerated) anti-partisan activities is therefore irrelevant. Address the fact that Jews not set to be killed were being transported to the east. Don't bring in any irrelevant nonsense about anti-partisan activity by Kube.

Eichmann and Sassen tapes -- certainly as with many witnesses Eichmann was unreliable in terms of details and certain facts that he presented to the Sassen circle. But he did make clear there was a mass killing program underway, and I can see no reason for him to lie about this. Sassen and his friends were revisionists pretty much and very pro-Nazi, so if he was playing to his audience he wouldn't have taken this route.

I don't think he was "playing to his audience". He was practicing a defense strategy. And if he got "certain facts" wrong about killing methods, there's no reason to believe his "certain fact" about the actual killing program itself.

And still so far, you have not provided physical evidence of an extermination program, which completely trumps deportation documents.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Otium and 7 guests