BA's case for orthodoxy

[Hektor]

....
Yeah, I know. I like it when some "progressivists" who spent most of their lives mocking and defiling all that is dear to me go crazy because some clueless teenagers made a few selfies when touring a former German concentration camp. Taking a shit in their cathedrals always infuriates them very much.

They can't handle what they perpetually do to others. Even if it's rather bening. Instead I think they get most mileage out of it, when they go nuts about something insignificant. It exposes the psychopathology of those people, but it is a double-edged sword. On the one hand going nuts does intimidate others. But they also can see that there is something mentally wrong with those that 'feel offended' about what is essentially a big nothing burger.

At the same time you can insult anything occidental. Be it national institutions, historical figures, religious concepts and symbols or anything else one can imagine here. And don't they celebrate degenerate art? Ususally something totally unart or ugly or vile and despicable like fecal matter on something. In Germany it seems they attacked grave sides of soldiers. But I also hear that churches get attacked often with historical art work in them. Public Outrage? Well as long as it isn't a Koran they burn or a mosque they desecrate, not much will happen.

Grafitti on a Synagogue will of course be 'Big News'.

[hermod]

....
Yeah, I know. I like it when some "progressivists" who spent most of their lives mocking and defiling all that is dear to me go crazy because some clueless teenagers made a few selfies when touring a former German concentration camp. Taking a shit in their cathedrals always infuriates them very much.

They can't handle what they perpetually do to others. Even if it's rather bening. Instead I think they get most mileage out of it, when they go nuts about something insignificant. It exposes the psychopathology of those people, but it is a double-edged sword. On the one hand going nuts does intimidate others. But they also can see that there is something mentally wrong with those that 'feel offended' about what is essentially a big nothing burger.

At the same time you can insult anything occidental. Be it national institutions, historical figures, religious concepts and symbols or anything else one can imagine here. And don't they celebrate degenerate art? Ususally something totally unart or ugly or vile and despicable like fecal matter on something. In Germany it seems they attacked grave sides of soldiers. But I also hear that churches get attacked often with historical art work in them. Public Outrage? Well as long as it isn't a Koran they burn or a mosque they desecrate, not much will happen.

Grafitti on a Synagogue will of course be 'Big News'.

I think I'll never get enough of the Libtards' hilarious double standards...

https://postimg.cc/hXjX9TBP

Grafitti on a Synagogue will of course be 'Big News'.

Big, but most often fake.

https://postimg.cc/k2Hpdm7P

https://postimg.cc/9DChfkgn

[Hektor]

....
Yeah, I know. .....

.....

Grafitti on a Synagogue will of course be 'Big News'.

I think I'll never get enough of the Libtards' hilarious double standards...

....

https://postimg.cc/9DChfkgn

It relates to their denial of truth as a thing that is actually real. Then you also have to deny or disbelieve that there is something like Logic/Logos. Then you can selectively apply it as well. They will try to argue logically in matters to their convenience. But they will avoid doing that, if they don't like the conclusions.

In other words: The problem is far more fundamental than believing into atrocity propaganda from the middle of the 20th century.

[hermod]

It relates to their denial of truth as a thing that is actually real. Then you also have to deny or disbelieve that there is something like Logic/Logos. Then you can selectively apply it as well. They will try to argue logically in matters to their convenience. But they will avoid doing that, if they don't like the conclusions.

In other words: The problem is far more fundamental than believing into atrocity propaganda from the middle of the 20th century.

I think that it's a consequence of believing atrocity propaganda from the middle of the 20th century because Holohoax propaganda is both Zionist land-grabbing advocacy and Globalist White-man bashing. As soon as one swallows the lie that the White man is the supreme supervillain of history, one also regards anti-White-man bias as normal and fair. In the mind of someone with those beliefs, any White man doesn't deserve a fair trial more than a "Nazi" did/does and justice even requires the beating and killing of such a monster without delay. Every human being's safety and happiness depends on that, Libtards believe. Basic Marxist reasoning. Real hate speech.

[Hektor]

It relates to their denial of truth as a thing that is actually real. Then you also have to deny or disbelieve that there is something like Logic/Logos. Then you can selectively apply it as well. They will try to argue logically in matters to their convenience. But they will avoid doing that, if they don't like the conclusions.

In other words: The problem is far more fundamental than believing into atrocity propaganda from the middle of the 20th century.

I think that it's a consequence of believing atrocity propaganda from the middle of the 20th century because Holohoax propaganda is both Zionist land-grabbing advocacy and Globalist White-man bashing. As soon as one swallows the lie that the White man is the supreme supervillain of history, one also regards anti-White-man bias as normal and fair. In the mind of someone with those beliefs, any White man doesn't deserve a fair trial more than a "Nazi" did/does and justice even requires the beating and killing of such a monster without delay. Every human being's safety and happiness depends on that, Libtards believe. Basic Marxist reasoning. Real hate speech.

It will be a dirty mixed back.

What the degressive left believes wasn't entirely new and came already to some prominence in the decades before World War Two.

Those putting (the leadership of) Germany on trial in Nuremberg were themselves major colonial powers. With Great Britain and France being global empires at the time. And the USA and the USSR being more localized empires themselves. Germany, which was essentially a Nation state was rather tiny in comparison. Essentially they started to scape-goat the Germans for their own behavior. And as far as Britain and France were concerned this quickly backfired in the two decades after WW2. The Soviet Union had expanded it's sphere of influence tremendously. But not to what they had hoped for prior to world war two. The US also expanded its influence (especially at the expense of Britain), but I don't think that was really the WASP elites plan prior to it. They were of course happy to have crushed a major competitor on world markets, giving them a competitive edge there for several decades after WW2. They also could expropriate German companies and patents, something that is widely ignored now.

The Libtard's aren't classical Marxist. Classical Marxism in the Western coutnries died a slow death after the so-called Russian Revolution, when the Bolsheviks took over the biggest scraps of the Czarist empire. It was secluded, but people in the West realized that what was happening there, wasn't exactly a good advertisement for Marxism. With the Frankfurt School Neomarxism was slowly developed. And this is first and foremost an attack on Western Culture, to which White people were of course the carriers. The Class struggle component of classical Marxism was Workers vs. Capital Owners/ Employers. The Neomarxists didn't ditch this immediately, but realized that the majority of workers isn't really interest into Utopia or being canon fodder for the revolution of some dandy intellectuals. All they wanted was fair contractual agreements and better living conditions.

The Frankfurters (and also some Hungarian Marxists around Bela Kun) concluded that it was 'culture' that prevented Workers from having successful revolutions in industrial societies. They didn't want to exterminate the Bourgeoisie, they wanted to emulate it, if possible. That means that you have to follow a different path for the negation of the negation, there. Bear in mind that the Marxist view on any existing order is that it is a negation that needs to be destroyed. That's of course no good advertising for ones ideology at all. So they came up with portraying the economic order as 'injust' and using Socialism or a 'classless society' as bait. It's actually a kind of 'alternative to Christianity'. Since Christianity teaches that the world is under sin, but that Christ died for redemption, so people can be reconciled with God and be with him in heaven one day.
Christianity was however 99% social conservative at the time essentially supporting law and order, property, contracts and charity was voluntary often organized by churches. That's probably the reason for the Marxist rhetoric against Religion. It is seen as a competitor that teaches stuff contrary to historical Materialism. They did however change their strategy on this and found also some collaborators in theology for that.

But first what was the changing plan with regards to Bourgeoisie/Middle Class? If you can't beat them join them. One needs to attack the culture first. And the power stations for cultural production are actually the universities. Especially the Humanities so they started focusing on that. Starting with Sociology, Psychology but gradually moving into other disciplines as well. In Germany they had the 'Institute for social research'. In itself a benign name, but they tried to figure out what makes society tick. The crude theory there is that cultural norms are repressive. That those norms are from the superego and to liberate the it, one needs to get the ego fighting the superego. It's of course only one of the tag lines, since human beings and society are more complex than that. They viewed a good relationship with parents as a problem, since the kids that respected their dad would become 'fascists' one day. So that relationship need to be undermined to get a 'really democratic and liberal' society. While the Frankfurters were Marxists, they started using lots of liberal verbiage over time. Something that gave them access to students from liberal families and backgrounds and it was at least remotely palatable to social conservatives.

With passing time and oversight, it does however become more apparent that their envy and hate is directed against Whites in general. And Christianity of course. Political correctness and multiculturalism are weapons against Whites... While the weapons against Christianity are already there with the materialism and changing anthropology in a way that contradicts Christian teachings. But there is more. There is also theological movements that are conducive to Marxism. Karl Marx and Paul Tillich being some prime Protestant examples. I don't see it that much with Bonhoeffer, but his mind is filled with hate against German society and culture in general. That was the real motivation for his treason. He buys and sells the Materialism as well. Insinuating that God is 'a working hypothesis that lost its meaning in the modern world. It's an appeal to redesign Christianity, while the outcome isn't really that much of a concern to Bonhoeffer. Probably "as long as it isn't German", would be his only requirement.

The result is the present state of Western academia which is a dirty bastard from cultural Marxism, Deconstruction and Naturalism aka Materialism.

No place for Logic, Truth and proper Methodology there.

The Holocaust Narrative and NAZI2.0. won't survive proper methodology and common sense for 5 minutes. That is of course, if you have access to documentation and a great oversight there. In fact the Holocaust assertions would have to be dismissed, based on them having no empirical evidence supporting the notion whatsoever.

And then there is the thing with the term "NAZI'... Which is a rather juicy thing in itself. It's not a German word. It is however a abbreviation for several Hebrew terms.

[bombsaway]

Where does it say anything about space? You may be making an arguably logical inference here (though also illogical, see below), but it's not in the document.

Right here:

In the meantime the war against the Soviet Union has offered the possibility of putting other territories at our disposal for the final solution.

That's not saying anything about space. The Soviet Union contains territories yes, just like any other country.

Again, I don't know how many were transported to the east. I think it's a real possibility that there were no mass deportations and the references to it in the government records are not accurate. That doesn't prove anyone was killed. You have to do more than disprove that there were deportations to the east.

My general point here is that the revisionist narrative for what happened to the Jews after they were deported is seriously lacking and shouldn't be taken seriously until basic questions may be answered. If you're going to say the deportation and government records are inaccurate, you should explain why or how this could be, preferably with evidence. The Germans kept detailed records of Jewish population in Poland, you can add up the Jews in all these ghettos and arrive at a figure corroborated by Korherr and other censuses.

By late 42 into 1943 most of these ghettos were dissolved and new Jewish population of around 200k to 300k given by both Korherr and other censuses, which would be a mass decrease in population. Were the ghettos really dissolved? If not, you should be able to find evidence of ghettos existing with most of their population intact until liberation, and I don't think there's a single one. In Transnistria, where only 100k Jews were resettled, there are many.

In brief, BA's argument seems to be:
There is documents like diaries wherein rather harsh statements against Jews are made.

There are many hundreds of documents evincing genocidal policy + many hundreds of witness statements + archeological studies and observable physical evidence at alleged extermination sites https://t.co/sVtVbsQRO2 (see here, my posts have not really been addressed). There is no such evidence for the revisionist narrative as offered by the most respected authors in the field -- Mattogno, Graf, Kues, Rudolf.

On top of this, the narrative itself barely makes sense . . . see the logistical nightmare that was occupied USSR

I posted this from Stahel's book on the battle of Moscow, a military history.

If the German troops retained a general measure of faith in their commanders, this is not
to say it came without qualifications. The most common complaint was the absence of
winter clothing, which by early December 1941 was a criticism that had been dragging on
for two months. The extent of the problem justified, in the starkest of terms, a questioning of
faith in the German leadership. More than a month earlier, on November 1, the army’s
senior quartermaster-general, Major-General Eduard Wagner, gave absolute assurances that
the Ostheer would be adequately supplied for the winter. Goebbels was thrilled and wrote in
his diary: “Everything has been thought of and nothing forgotten. If the enemy places his
hopes in General Winter and believes that our troops in the east will freeze or go hungry he
is completely mistaken.”31 However, Wagner’s assessment went beyond the wildly
optimistic; it was simply impossible. According to Colonel Wilhelm von Rücker, attached to
the planning staff of the quartermaster-general’s office, “a few hundred additional trains
would have had to be sent” to meet the needs of the troops for the coming winter.32 Not
only was there not the transport capacity for winter equipment, but also other high-priority
matériel, such as fuel and ammunition, were already failing to arrive in the required
quantities, and the quartermaster-general had to have known this.33
By November 13 Wagner had had a complete change of heart and acknowledged there
were nowhere near enough trains reaching Army Group Center, meaning the urgently
requested winter clothing could only be transported to the front at the expense of other
supplies and in any case would not arrive until February 1942

It's quite obvious that housing and feeding many hundreds of thousands or millions of deported Jews (according to Kues 1.8 mil "almost certainly") in the East would have affected the logistical situation for the army, as opposed to keeping them in ghettos or internment camps in Poland, which had a much denser railroad network. It doesn't seem likely to me that the German high command would have compromised the army in order to accomodate the resettled Jews, and no deliberation here exists or has been found.

As I said to the other poster, you need to be able to answer simple questions about and provide evidence for your narrative, or put forward a different one that is stronger along these lines.

[fireofice]

That's not saying anything about space. The Soviet Union contains territories yes, just like any other country.

It literally is. You're just denying the plain meaning of the text. It says that new territories will be open for the Final Solution. That's referring to deportation. You don't need "new territories" to kill them. You can kill them anywhere. You need new territories to deport them somewhere else.

If you're going to say the deportation and government records are inaccurate, you should explain why or how this could be, preferably with evidence.

Simple. Anyone can write something on a piece of paper. Just because someone wrote something on a piece of paper, doesn't mean it happened. Same with the Einsatzgruppen reports that have false casualty numbers. That's "how it could be". Your main problem is that there is no written Hitler order for the extermination of Jews, which would have to exist if such a program existed.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-plum-cake/en/

However, if hypothetically there were such a written Hitler order, that would not prove an extermination actually happened. If such a written order were to be found, then my position would change to "OK, there was a plan to carry out an extermination at one time, or it was at least talked about in writing, but it wasn't carried through". This is because all of the other evidence that exists against the extermination theory. Arthur Butz takes the same position here:

https://codoh.com/library/document/on-t ... n-jews/en/

Same applies to deportation documents. You said "explain how this could be, with evidence". You are the one providing the "evidence". If what you are saying is true, then that is the evidence the documents are wrong. If the documents are wrong, you don't get to appeal to them to say they were killed. You can't have it both ways.

see here, my posts have not really been addressed

Yes, they have.

[borjastick]

Bombsaway you are beginning to sound very much like Eric Hunt. The claim that as we cannot show where every single jew went after the claimed holocaust they must have been killed in the holocaust is just dumb.

As Hannover used to say jews went where jews are, by that he means that as they are everywhere (in much larger numbers than we are led to believe in my opinion) then that's where they went after the war. I mean israel is full of them and most are Ashkenazi fake jews from Europe.

[Hektor]

....

In brief, BA's argument seems to be:
There is documents like diaries wherein rather harsh statements against Jews are made.

There are many hundreds of documents evincing genocidal policy + many hundreds of witness statements + archeological studies and observable physical evidence at alleged extermination sites https://t.co/sVtVbsQRO2 (see here, my posts have not really been addressed). There is no such evidence for the revisionist narrative as offered by the most respected authors in the field -- Mattogno, Graf, Kues, Rudolf.

On top of this, the narrative itself barely makes sense . . . see the logistical nightmare that was occupied USSR

I posted this from Stahel's book on the battle of Moscow, a military history.

.....

One can observe physical evidence now. But one can not observe the past of course.
Some monstrous event in the recent past would however still have left monstrous evidence today.

So if the Holocaust was real, it should have left overwhelming evidence. The tricks pulled by Holocaustian Historiographers and their minions are however pathetic avoidance of coming to terms with there not being ANY evidence for what they allege (different from the Revisionist thesis on events).


They pick some snippets, trinkets and testimony put it into a cauldron and then present this to people insisting that 'six million Jews were killed'... The gassing part diminished over the years it seems. But don't think that they will admit to telling lies about 'gas chambers'. It simply would throw up too many other questions in people's minds. Because if people realize they were lied to about 'gas chambers', they'd be open to reconsider other claims and imaginations on the matter. Meanwhile people disputing the claims are persecuted, while people obviously lying are celebrated as 'martyrs' and 'heroes'. Leaning back and reflecting about this, one can't help to notice how preposterous this all is. But it's sad to see, how many people still take that serious. And how they are afraid of expressing doubt as well. Afraid not so much of being put on trial for "Holocaust Denial"... Afraid of being ostracized and being personally attacked by those that still pretend believing all this.

I recall being at an museum were 'photographic evidences' of 'the Holocaust' was presented. The photographic material were rather obviously fake (photographed paintings)... Still people believed this to be 'evidence'. Their imagination superseded serious cognition completely, it seems.

Now those folks were 'ordinary citizens'. People with mediocre jobs, not academics or 'highly qualified folks'. But why assume that it is much different with 'professional historians' whose jobs actually depend on them affirming or at least not contradicting the narrative hammered into people's minds for decades?

I'm listening to the IMT recordings. And even hostile witnesses do claim that they DID NOT KNOW about mass extermination before May 1945. And they say they learned this from the Allied controlled media. They seemed to have believed it, but don't forget they had an axe to grind with the NSDAP (several arrests during 33-45 era). It's also funny how the judge interrupts them over and over again. Now I wonder did no historian notice that there was something rather fishy going on during the proceedings?

The trial records/recordings are full of stuff that could be rather powerful, if presented in the right manner. I recall "not guilty in Nuremberg", but think one could even do better than this. And with the audio recordings it should be possible to give a condensed version of all the issues people attach to the NS-Era. Unfortunately some of the witnesses with candid statements are neither in English nor in German. There is some Russian, French and I think Polish statements, which limits the audience a bit.

And well "quality packaging" seems to count, if you want to reach a broader audience with things.

[bombsaway]

It literally is. You're just denying the plain meaning of the text. It says that new territories will be open for the Final Solution.

To refresh your memory, this topic came up because of expressed skepticism about very concept of a resettling hundreds of thousands or millions of people in a virtual warzone, with me pointing out there would have at least been some deliberation about this. You claimed that a reason had been given, saying

"There's your answer. Their reasoning was that there was more space in the east than anywhere else."

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&start=30#p107929

Now it seems like you're not really answering my question at all, and just stating something that is completely obvious.

Simple. Anyone can write something on a piece of paper. Just because someone wrote something on a piece of paper, doesn't mean it happened. Same with the Einsatzgruppen reports that have false casualty numbers. That's "how it could be". Your main problem is that there is no written Hitler order for the extermination of Jews, which would have to exist if such a program existed.

"which would have to exist if such a program existed"

There isn't a Hitler order for a lot of things, eg the mass deportation of Jews from ghettos all across Eastern Europe, or the resumption of the euthanasia program in 1941. I agree Hitler would have had to have known about any systematic plan of killing, but there is no reason why he couldn't have given the go ahead to Himmler orally

What documents are you questioning exactly? I referenced population figures given for the ghettos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... ied_Poland

which were then dissolved, after which numerous German censuses were taken showing an enormous population drop (Korherr report says 297,914 by late 1942/early 43 and there is a March 1943 GG census stating 203,000). From my understanding,  revisionists agree the ghettos existed and then were summarily dissolved around this time, in accordance with this Himmler order https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hi ... l-solution

Bombsaway you are beginning to sound very much like Eric Hunt. The claim that as we cannot show where every single jew went after the claimed holocaust they must have been killed in the holocaust is just dumb.

I would never claim such a thing, logically it doesn't make sense. Rather the lack of evidence reveals a stark hypocrisy in revisionist thinking (the argument against the mainstream is that the evidence is shaky, would it be better if there was no evidence whatsoever?). In modern history events  befalling hundreds of thousands or millions of people are traceable in the historical record -- see the case of Jews deported to Romanian occupied USSR -- so the shoulder shrug here is unconvincing to me.

The fact that no other evidenced hypothesis has been presented concerning the fate of the resettled Jews, of course makes the mainstream theory more likely. This applies to every historical hypothesis as well as scientific ones.

One can observe physical evidence now. But one can not observe the past of course.
Some monstrous event in the recent past would however still have left monstrous evidence today.

So if the Holocaust was real, it should have left overwhelming evidence. The tricks pulled by Holocaustian Historiographers and their minions are however pathetic avoidance of coming to terms with there not being ANY evidence for what they allege (different from the Revisionist thesis on events).

They pick some snippets, trinkets and testimony put it into a cauldron and then present this to people insisting that 'six million Jews were killed'... The gassing part diminished over the years it seems.

Yeah I'm skeptical of this claim of no evidence because I've seen the evidence, and there's a lot of it, more so than for any other genocide in history. I've gone over specific documents in detail and evaluated the revisionist responses, which I have found to mightily lacking. I offered such criticism here with the Turner letter viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14881&p=108180#p108180 and my last post was not responded to.

My last post re physical evidence was also not responded to viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850&start=60

[Archie]

My general point here is that the revisionist narrative for what happened to the Jews after they were deported is seriously lacking and shouldn't be taken seriously until basic questions may be answered. If you're going to say the deportation and government records are inaccurate, you should explain why or how this could be, preferably with evidence. The Germans kept detailed records of Jewish population in Poland, you can add up the Jews in all these ghettos and arrive at a figure corroborated by Korherr and other censuses.

By late 42 into 1943 most of these ghettos were dissolved and new Jewish population of around 200k to 300k given by both Korherr and other censuses, which would be a mass decrease in population. Were the ghettos really dissolved? If not, you should be able to find evidence of ghettos existing with most of their population intact until liberation, and I don't think there's a single one. In Transnistria, where only 100k Jews were resettled, there are many.

Well, if you ask me, your narrative on how the "gas chambers" supposedly worked is "seriously lacking." Same with the mass cremation of millions of bodies and many other things in your narrative. I say it's lacking, you say it's hunky dory. We could go back and forth making such assertions all day.

Here are the main reasons I do not find this familiar argument persuasive:

1) Your framing ignores that the playing field is strongly tilted. There are vastly more resources on the pro-holocaust side, by orders of magnitude, along with preferential access to sources. The US, Britain, Russia, and Israel are all heavily invested in the mythical version of WWII. They have no incentive to overturn it. For Israel, it is of existential importance since they would not be permitted to maintain their Jewish supremacist state without the cover provided by the holocaust story. Virtually all of the documents we have have been filtered through these entities. The documents compiled for the war crimes trials were selected primarily by the prosecution. Many documents and materials of interest such as the air photos, the crematoria blueprints, the Auschwitz construction office documents, the Auschwitz death books, etc. were hidden away for decades after the war.

2) The argument is entirely circumstantial. It says that unless revisionists document Jewish population movements in Eastern Europe to your arbitrary satisfaction then we have to accept your story, even though it has major and obvious problems. It is a red flag that you guys make this indirect case as a fallback argument after failing to make the direct case. This point has been made a million times by revisionists. Often it is expressed as you guys reversing the burden of proof which is clearly what it is. You say six million Jews died, with perhaps over four million being executed. And then the proof is to say that WE have to trace all their movements (which Jews prevent people from doing).

There are many hundreds of documents evincing genocidal policy + many hundreds of witness statements + archeological studies and observable physical evidence at alleged extermination sites https://t.co/sVtVbsQRO2 (see here, my posts have not really been addressed). There is no such evidence for the revisionist narrative as offered by the most respected authors in the field -- Mattogno, Graf, Kues, Rudolf.

Here we go with more assertions. As a word of advice, if you claim you have, e.g., archaeological evidence, unless you can deliver on this, you just end up looking foolish and it destroys your credibility. Hint: Muehlenkamp, a fervent holocaust promoter, claiming to have found small pieces of bone does not get us very far in determining whether hundreds of thousands of people were killed at the location in question.

You claim "hundreds" of witnesses. The number is irrelevant. It's the substance of the statements that matters. If you actually read them instead of just counting them you will see major contradictions, absurdities, recycled stories, etc.

[borjastick]

You say six million Jews died, with perhaps over four million being executed. And then the proof is to say that WE have to trace all their movements (which Jews prevent people from doing).

Exactly. Remember the quote from the chief Rabbi of Poland during the Sturdey-Colls Treblinka 'investigation' when he said to them 'you may dig here but if you find any bodies you have to stop'.

There was no co-operation post war between Stalin and his follow on presidents with the west, there was little info coming out of Romania, Ukraine, Poland et al until post 1990. Even Russia until just a few years ago said they had a piece of Hitler's skull. Problem was when tested it was found to be female.

There was and is no desire or need for the jews in any country, anywhere to offer information to us lot which undermines their very path to control and glory.

[fireofice]

To refresh your memory, this topic came up because of expressed skepticism about very concept of a resettling hundreds of thousands or millions of people in a virtual warzone, with me pointing out there would have at least been some deliberation about this. You claimed that a reason had been given, saying

"There's your answer. Their reasoning was that there was more space in the east than anywhere else."

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&start=30#p107929

Now it seems like you're not really answering my question at all, and just stating something that is completely obvious.

It seems you are the confused one. Your question of why they did it that way (if they did it that way) was answered. The reason would be because of space. I don't know what else you are looking for.

There isn't a Hitler order for a lot of things, eg the mass deportation of Jews from ghettos all across Eastern Europe, or the resumption of the euthanasia program in 1941. I agree Hitler would have had to have known about any systematic plan of killing, but there is no reason why he couldn't have given the go ahead to Himmler orally

An oral order wouldn't have worked, as explained in the article. Genocide is a massive crime. It's nothing like putting people in camps or euthanasia, which other countries did a lot (and I don't believe there is any good evidence that involuntary euthanasia happened on any large scale, I've looked and so far have come up empty). So the comparison is just silly. The decision to kill all the Jews of Europe was categorically different and would have required a written order. Also, elsewhere you cite this, an order from Himmler:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hi ... l-solution

So an order for that does exist. But an order to kill all the Jews of Europe would have required an order of the highest authority, as it had the highest stakes. And that would be an order from Hitler. No Hitler order for extermination, no holocaust.

I would never claim such a thing, logically it doesn't make sense. Rather the lack of evidence reveals a stark hypocrisy in revisionist thinking (the argument against the mainstream is that the evidence is shaky, would it be better if there was no evidence whatsoever?). In modern history events befalling hundreds of thousands or millions of people are traceable in the historical record -- see the case of Jews deported to Romanian occupied USSR -- so the shoulder shrug here is unconvincing to me.

The fact that no other evidenced hypothesis has been presented concerning the fate of the resettled Jews, of course makes the mainstream theory more likely. This applies to every historical hypothesis as well as scientific ones.

Again, if there is no "evidence" they were deported as you say, then they weren't deported. That doesn't prove they were killed. I keep repeating this and yet you continue to make this point as if it means something. Where is your evidence that anyone was killed? Because "there's no evidence they were deported to the east" doesn't cut it. You have also failed to show any mass graves exist. There is no physical evidence so you cling to this non argument, thinking it will salvage your narrative, but it won't.

Yeah I'm skeptical of this claim of no evidence because I've seen the evidence, and there's a lot of it, more so than for any other genocide in history.

Wrong. Even Mainstream historians agree the holocaust is not well documented.

https://codoh.com/library/document/is-t ... mented/en/

I've gone over specific documents in detail and evaluated the revisionist responses, which I have found to mightily lacking. I offered such criticism here with the Turner letter viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14881&p=108180#p108180 and my last post was not responded to.

The Turner letter, even if real, doesn't prove anything. My thread that I started was purely out of intellectual curiosity on how authentic it is. As I noted in the thread, I never paid much attention to it previously, since it did not sway my view on the holocaust one way or the other. I find your claims about "Canada" not very convincing, but it's not of much interest to me. There is no good documentation of the homicidal gas chambers or an extermination program, and I have not seen you demonstrating otherwise.

My last post re physical evidence was also not responded to viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850&start=60

There's no photographic evidence of any mass graves in that post.

[borjastick]

Plus the whole where did they go argument hangs on and is defined by the argument over numbers. The start point of the journey is crucial. There's no point discussing how to get from A to B if in reality your start point is F.

The 6m figure is clung on to by the believers and they often openly or privately think of the Wannsee Conference figures to justify where they are. The reality is there were nowhere near 6m jews in any form of control or movement of internment of therefore accountable after the war as having been displaced due to being in camps etc.

[Hektor]

Plus the whole where did they go argument hangs on and is defined by the argument over numbers. The start point of the journey is crucial. There's no point discussing how to get from A to B if in reality your start point is F.

The 6m figure is clung on to by the believers and they often openly or privately think of the Wannsee Conference figures to justify where they are. The reality is there were nowhere near 6m jews in any form of control or movement of internment of therefore accountable after the war as having been displaced due to being in camps etc.

It's a sort of begging the question fallacy. And it amazes, or rather shocks, me.how far it is taken as convincing argument.


Those that ask "Where did the Jews go then?" ( as an argument and not a serious question, as I will show)
They assume the truth of the conclusion they draw from "Jews not being at A anymore".
The Argument is actually:
- Shlomo doesn't stay in Amsterdam anymore
- Shlomo was in Westerborck during world War Two.
- Shlomo was gassed in Auschwitz, because that's where the trains from Westerbork went.

That's of course not how you can prove the death or cause of death of any person. But they still cling to it as highly persuasive.
If you point to them, that there are myriads of Jews that immigrated to other countries or did somehow 'appear' after the fall of the USSR, then they suddenly try to skip the subject, since they sense that this can get rather embarrassing, if their argument turns out to be the folly that it actually is.

If you told them that you believed in Aliens abducting millions of people per year. Most people would laugh. Now imagine you look very serious at them and ask: Where did the millions of people go, if they weren't abducted by Aliens?
Virtually anyone would break out into laughter about the stupidity of that argument. Not, so with the Holocaust. But that's because the subject is about a 'very serious matter' as well as emotionally of the sort, people would not start to laugh, like with a funeral or so.

Essentially any humane emotion is employed in the game, even disinterest and arrogance. But I think it's the abuse of compassion in all this, that is especially wicked.

What may actually shock those fools is, when they find out that apparently "there were no missing Jews after WW2". Jews that were looking for relatives and couldn't find them immediately were quickly told that they were "gassed in Auschwitz" or killed in some. any other way. This helped to dress those that got the message to become prof. "Holocaust Survivors" and of course it was a bonus for the Zionist cause at the time. If you have no other relatives anymore, why not go to a country that anyway wasn't hit as hard by WW2 and where there are others that can become your replacement family.