As a Jew sho has visited Auschwitz and read a lot of history from the period, I am naturally inclined to think historians have basically gotten the story right. However, I'm also naturally skeptical and even moreso after the massive psyops of recent years. Therefore, I'm willing to consider this article on its merits.
I think you're point regarding the possible confusion over the absolute numbers of Jewish deaths may be reasonable. There was no doubt room for confusion regarding Eastern European Jews who may have perished along with many others from the war itself. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that a massive extermination effort in the concentration camp occurred and that many of those Jews were transported from France, Germany and other Western and Central European countries. Earlier policy discussions among the Nazis regarding relocation of the Jews from Europe were given up when they realized they wouldn't have the resources (especially shipping) to do so, and especially as the war started to turn against them.
If the number that died from factory style extermination was less, what difference would that make in our understanding of a situation where an advanced Western country with prior liberal(traditional sense) democratic norms decides to use the state apparatus to purposefully commit genocide/ethnic cleansing? Would 3 million deaths instead of 6 million be insufficient to evaluate what happened and why? Or to try to prevent it in the future?
Auschwitz was a labor camp. That's bad, but bad at the level of Gulag.
Cyclon-B was an insecticide used to prevent typhus. The Germans had plenty of weapons-grade poison gases. Why would they use insectide for industrial scale murder?
What you saw in Poland is a postwar–built museum designed to provoke certain feelings. Not a real thing.
I wonder if you still think that the Germans made soap out of Jews?
I recommend you go to the Shoah Foundation website and do a keyword search for videos with "gas chambers" in the testimony.
When I did that I found a combination of obvious lies (e.g. a guy claiming to know things he could't have known, and things that were physically impossible), and extremely dubious-sounding things that could have just been fantasy.
I'm really not 100% sure either way. People do lie about things like this, and based on recent media behavior, the media colluding in a lie to benefit powerful Jewish interests is ... hardly unprecedented.
I agree. Kulak “Girl” (my guess is a middle aged, highly educated male) makes excellent points about the horror of the Eastern Front, but Arno Mayer has already assessed those conditions and incorporated them into a powerful and persuasive thesis in his great book “Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?”: the millions of Jews encountered by the Germans during their thrust into the Eastern Front led to a “supply” crisis and forced the Germans to improvise innovations of growing scale and lethality, ultimately producing the mechanisms and processes of industrialized mass murder.
Mayer was basically run out of Holocaust scholarship for demonstrating the Holocaust was almost certainly not the result of an a priori master plan to exterminate world Jewry, but it was certainly the deliberate application of industrial processes to murder as many Jews as possible.
I have many Armenian friends who are understandably outraged that Jewish people consistently refuse to designate the horror and mass murder to which the Armenian people was subjected by the Ottoman Empire as “genocide”.
So I think there’s good cause for reflection about why there has been throughout the Cold War and subsequent growth of the de facto American Empire such an insistence on the absolute uniqueness of the suffering and injustice endured by European Jews. As I’m learning to ask all the time these days, cui bono?
Uh, not middle age. He's a young dude. The "girl" thing rubs me, a Gen Xer, the wrong way. But he's smart as a whip. Having read "Ordinary Men" by Christopher Browning, I see Germans committed mass murder. I don't need to get wrapped up in the numbers. Yes, Stalin too. And the Turks. And Pol Pot. And Mao Tse Tung.
I try not to confirm my gender/identity. It is way harder to cancel someone or get them banned if you don't know whether they're male or female, cis or trans, straight or gay.
Says the author who wrote a cogent piece about the merits of dueling. A piece I might add that contributed to my decision to become a paid subscriber. But I get it, and I have no problem with anonymity or the quasi-anonymity we enjoy these days. Yet that doesn't have much to do with assuming a cat-girl persona.
All? No. Randomly sampled studies of jewish IQ show they tend to be slightly below average compared to europeans. They only have massively superior IQ when they get to pull the chinese trick of only testing their honour students.
I don't need a study to show that whites have a higher IQ than blacks. The state of any black majority city/country demonstrates that quite nicely.
As in developing science and technology? No of course not, but there are a billion ways for parasites to take credit for doing so without inventing anything of note.
Ok, so the germans ran out of food and had to improvise ways to reduce the prison population rather than face mass starvation. Better some die than everyone suffer. That story makes some kind of sense and it's the kind of "tragedy of war" thing I can genuinely see happening.
Only problem with this story is that it completely falls apart when the improvised execution methods did not involve the large amounts of guns and ammunition they had been issued, but instead involved building death rollercoasters, rooms with moving electrocution floors that could vaporise hundreds of men at once, diesel CO generators that break the laws of physics and caged wild animals that somehow only attack humans but never each other.
If they were running out of resources and wanted to kill inmates to reduce the load they would have just shot them. They wouldn't have come up with creative ways to use mountains of even scarcer resources just to achieve the same end.
"Nonetheless, there is no doubt that a massive extermination effort in the concentration camp occurred"
To the contrary there is every reason to doubt it.
To put it bluntly, if the germans wanted to kill the jews they would have shot them, then buried them. There is no good reason at all for them to ship them across europe, using desperately scarce strategic resources, then kill some of them them as inefficiently as possible using a variety of sci-fi and cartoonish techniques (eg. death rollercoasters, electric floors, u-bend shotguns, caged animals etc.), let the rest live together in matrimony and even provide them with maternity wards to procreate, then evacuate the survivors on converted cruise ships (ahead of your own troops) when the soviet front threatens to overrun the camps.
None of that story makes sense. Occams razor says they were enemy alien camps similar to those used by the rest of the allies and their purpose was to detain jews until they could be deported to Palestine after the war.
As for your question about what difference it makes whether they died in their millions due to extermination, or tens of thousands due to the same causes everyone else did during the war: It means Hitler did nothing the allied leaders weren't doing and there was no moral crusade, just a tawdry "great game" conflict to prevent an opponent regaining territory.
So why'd they build the "death camps"? The only attempted explanation I've seen for this is that the kind hearted ruthless serial killers were so disturbed by the act of shooting the chosen people that they had to build enormously inefficient rube goldberg machines to do it for them.
As for Babi Yar... we have that story from the soviets who used the site extensively for executions and mass graves. Given that they were previously caught lying about Katyn and trying to blame their executions on the Germans I think it's fair to admit the same is likely here.
Well, everything I've read about early 20th century German culture suggests the kind of bureaucratic obsessiveness that tends to overengineer everything while telling themselves how "efficient" they're being.
No they didn't. You were told they did, but they made remarkably few direct promises to kill any jews. Nor is there much documentation about any plan to do so.
And anyway you're missing the point. The point is that if they wanted to kill jews they would have simply killed jews the way anyone killed anyone in that period: Using bullets. Cheap and effective.
There simply is no reason for them go waste enormous amounts of resources killing them in a roundabout way using death rollercoasters, masturbation machines and caged animals (all claims from real holocaust memoirs that are illegal to question in many countries).
That's not proof they actually did it though, just an argument they were motivated to change their mind and start doing it.
It also doesn't fit the facts and the same holes in the argument still exist. If the germans were such kind hearted genocidal maniacs that they couldn't just be ordered to shoot them, why were they ok with shooting them in other places? They've been accused of shooting civilians en-masse and publicly murdering jews in all kinds of instances. If we argue they could not be ordered to shoot civilians then that automatically means some holocaust accusers are liars.
Why were the soviets and other armies able to just shoot people? It's not like all the soldiers at Katyn suddenly had a crisis of conscience and let the Polish officers go.
But ok, let's say that the Germans are a uniquely morally upstanding people and cannot bring themselves to shoot their enemies, I guess that explains how they lost the war. Why were they still shipping these people out into the middle of nowhere and killing them in the most inefficient and resource intensive manner possible? And why are the troops who are so squeamish about shooting people suddenly delighted to tear them apart in cages full of wild animals, or build death rollercoasters that shoot them head first into the world's most powerful furnace, or build gigantic underground rooms that can vaporise people using electricity. More importantly, why has no trace of these things ever been found?
These claims aren't just fantastic, they're impossible and in many places contradictory. The only logical conclusion is that at least some of your "survivors" are lying. And by the time we remove all of the contradictory, impossible and unproven claims there's fuck all left to substantiate the accusation. When we then factor in the accusers' loose relationship with the truth and the jewish people's long long history of exaggerating and outright fabricating persecution myths, it's pretty clear it's a false accusation.
All of the actions of the Germans suggests that they regarded jewish civilians as a dangerous and subversive group who must be separated from society and treated as enemy aliens. They rounded them up, shipped them off to internment camps and provided them with everything they could to make their stay comfortable, including swimming pools, musical instruments and sports fields. They allowed married couples to procreate and pregnant jewish women gave birth in dedicated maternity wards. Then, when the camps were about to be overrun by the soviets, they started evacuating them on cruise ships and trains *ahead of their own troops* and tried to keep them safe.
All of the above paragraph can be corroborated by both physical evidence and testimony from every side involved in the camps. None of it is consistent with a claim of genocide.
After having examined both sides of the debate I feel deeply ashamed for my gullibility in believing the official story. Even ignoring the impossible claims, the merely extravagant ones are so full of holes they're not even worth considering as a theory, let alone legally mandated truth.
The biggest problem for the authorities is that by now so many institutions, law and political theory have been based on the allied victory cult that modern globalism likely would crumble if it were ever doubted on a significant scale. So it MUST continue to be believed.
The strongest evidence for the official story being basically correct in my view is hitlers own words. He literally talks about gassing Jews in mein kampf, and later his “prophecy speech” saying the Jews would cease to exist in Europe if a world war broke out.
But the tribal-narcissistic idea that what the Jews suffered was somehow unique and more evil than the Armenian genocide or the gulag or the holodomor (carried out by the Jewish majority NKVD btw) or any other similar atrocity is obviously nonsense
Yes but Biden literally talked about nuking Americans who rebelled against the US government, and many republicans talked about nuking muslim countries in response to 9/11... the later of which didn't happen and the prior of which is unlikely.
Death Threats are correlated with homicide, but The majority of death threats do not end in homicide.
Notably the official holocaust narrative is that the plan for the holocaust was concluded at Wannsee was marked top secret, and was written in code with "Deportation" being code for murder, and no known official document ever EXPLICITLY stating an intent of mass murder.
It's kind of hard to argue it was an open secret and Hitler's rhetorical threats in his speeches were a clear statement of planning and intent... when the supposed documents that actually plan it out supposedly speak in code even when they're already top secret.
Hitler was a conspiracy theorist, he believed America especially was run by international jews who he could threaten by threatening the Jews in his camp...
He wasn't benevolent or anything, but him threatening jews, to his mind, would be analogous to Kim Jong Un threatening to Nuke south Korea or Japan as a threat to the US or to try and get concessions...
Again not stating I agree with the Holocaust deniers... but when people say there is no case to be made and we can dismiss them in summary judgement without it going to the trial of a public debate.... No, they have a shockingly good case. They have a massive uphill battle, and its not clear at all their arguments would be vindicated, but it seems like the kind of project which even if it failed has enough surprising findings behind it to significantly change or inform how history is discussed.
Neither of those things that Hitler said before the war prove that they happened. Ofc that also doesn't prove that they DIDN'T happen, but to play devil's advocate: if you were going to invent a story about someone doing something, the most obvious thing to accuse them of would be something they said they would do if they got the chance.
The most compelling argument against the gas chambers etc would simply be "why bother?". Working people to exhaustion and starvation doesn't require any outlay, plus you get some work out of them. It's a horrible kind of logic but it makes more sense than wasting gas or bullets on them
That's weak. Politicians use hyperbolic speech all the time and "cease to exist in territory X" isn't equivalent to a promise to murder them.
The simplest explanation for the camps is that they were deportation centers. The number of deaths is grossly overstated and certainly much lower than those in many german cities.
I know its a ridiculous thing to have to debate...
But then all of western morality depends on the Axiom that the Holocaust was WORSE than Holomodor or the Gulags, such that the entire censorship regime is set up to prevent contesting that.
So whether there were gas chambers or not, and whether the Holocaust was premeditated by Hilter and the regime, emerged naturally from systemic failure and increasing SS brutality, or was a retcon by the soviets to roll a lot of their massacres and war deaths from starvation into the Crimes of the Germans to justify crackdowns and terror...
That makes little difference to the Jews who suffered but that's core to the entire moral universe of the American, European, and Israeli regimes.
.
And the thing about those two claims: Nazi Premeditation and uniquely industrial genocide is that props up Allied Legitimacy without demanding more bodies.
.
This should just be an academic debate about one part of the horrors of the eastern front... (where 40 million died) however Western Regimes have staked so much of their legitimacy on the Nazis having been uniquely worse than communism or allied firebombing, that letting that debate happen could overturn regimes and governments if it happened and then went the wrong way.
The story is not the historical debate, it's the censorship in Canada, the UK, the EU and on American Campuses.
I think it's hyperbole to say that "all of Western morality depends on the Axiom that the Holocaust was WORSE than Holomodor or the Gulags". The US has always gone lightly on the evils of the latter two, because 1)there are so many communist sympathisers in academia, and 2)the government likes to gloss over our government's WWII propaganda to make "Uncle Joe" et al seem like friends, rather than necessary but temporary allies.
> "all of Western morality depends on the Axiom that the Holocaust was WORSE than Holomodor or the Gulags".
On the one hand, no serious historian argues that. On the other hand, someone who learned all he knows about history by osmosis from pop culture might very well be left with that impression.
It is not hyperbole. The Holocaust and German regime are the eternal evil in the founding myths of modern Managerial Liberal Democracy and modern Communism. All sides of mainstream Western political discourse refer to their opposition as Fascists or Nazis and all of their political projects are framed as either being designed to punish Fascists, to counteract the secret machinations of Fascists, or to prevent Fascists from achieving power.
This. It is the founding myth which powers the entire liberal crusade.
Without a God, we need a great evil to fight or we become listless and nihilistic.
We look for whomever is the most aesthetically similar to the third reich and make them the enemy. So South Africa had to be destroyed for a level or racial policy far less severe than in other parts of Africa or Asia.
Well, it is a simple test to go onto the Internet Movie database (IMDB.com) and do a cursory test of how many English language films over the years have either referenced the Nazi's or especially, the Holocaust. The results absolutely indicate that every generation of Americans be required to have this specific narrative story acid etched into their psyche, as a singularly horrific example of man's inhumanity to man. Pretty much to the exception of all others. Even tangentially, as with Clooney's new offering "for the Academy's consideration". It's a slam dunk way to get green-lighted (wink).
No, really, it's not. The majority of our institutions are based on the claim that jews were subject to the most uniquely brutal slaughter in history and we need tyranical global institutions to stop it happening again.
If it turns out to be a gypsy-scam writ large then heads will roll.
Go on the streets then. Ask people whether they think Fascism or Communism are worse. Ask people whether they think Gulags or Concentration camps are worse. Ask people if what they know about the Holocaust and then ask them if they even know what the Holodomor was.
I'm quite confident that the average person on the street knows what the holocaust was. Would be happy to place a wager on it with you and then run an experiment to settle it.
To me, the neighbors-turning-on-neighbors, Reichskristallnacht, Judenstern, and dehumanization aspects of the Holocaust were always the worst. Gas chambers and death camps are downstream from that.
Edit: Society ruptured into in- and out-groups. Fortunately, the Americans who declared open season on their countrymen didn't get as far as the Germans.
Wars, where declared enemies bomb the hell out of each other, are not like that. Getting firebombed in Dresden or Tokyo amounts to FAFO.
Some of the deaths, sure. The german red cross reported around 50,000 of them. But that's nothing sinister, people died in Ireland's internment camps too and no one has ever suggested they were murdered.
The gas chambers are a massive massive leap beyond "people were put in camps and some of them died before they got released." They also make no sense whatsoever if the goal of the operation was extermination.
I've heard this, but I've not independently verified with my own research.
I remember seemingly none of them being in western zones of control... but not sure if the allies liberated some, or not.
Interestingly the Germans seem to have been treated much worse than the Japanese post war in spite of the Germans not doing anything as horrific to Anglo POWs as the Japanese did to POWs...
But then I also don't know the revisionist takes on Japan aside from the pearl harbour revisionism
As a Jew sho has visited Auschwitz and read a lot of history from the period, I am naturally inclined to think historians have basically gotten the story right. However, I'm also naturally skeptical and even moreso after the massive psyops of recent years. Therefore, I'm willing to consider this article on its merits.
I think you're point regarding the possible confusion over the absolute numbers of Jewish deaths may be reasonable. There was no doubt room for confusion regarding Eastern European Jews who may have perished along with many others from the war itself. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that a massive extermination effort in the concentration camp occurred and that many of those Jews were transported from France, Germany and other Western and Central European countries. Earlier policy discussions among the Nazis regarding relocation of the Jews from Europe were given up when they realized they wouldn't have the resources (especially shipping) to do so, and especially as the war started to turn against them.
If the number that died from factory style extermination was less, what difference would that make in our understanding of a situation where an advanced Western country with prior liberal(traditional sense) democratic norms decides to use the state apparatus to purposefully commit genocide/ethnic cleansing? Would 3 million deaths instead of 6 million be insufficient to evaluate what happened and why? Or to try to prevent it in the future?
Auschwitz was a labor camp. That's bad, but bad at the level of Gulag.
Cyclon-B was an insecticide used to prevent typhus. The Germans had plenty of weapons-grade poison gases. Why would they use insectide for industrial scale murder?
What you saw in Poland is a postwar–built museum designed to provoke certain feelings. Not a real thing.
I wonder if you still think that the Germans made soap out of Jews?
You're denying first hand accounts of Auschwitz...probably just another anti-Semite.
I recommend you go to the Shoah Foundation website and do a keyword search for videos with "gas chambers" in the testimony.
When I did that I found a combination of obvious lies (e.g. a guy claiming to know things he could't have known, and things that were physically impossible), and extremely dubious-sounding things that could have just been fantasy.
I'm really not 100% sure either way. People do lie about things like this, and based on recent media behavior, the media colluding in a lie to benefit powerful Jewish interests is ... hardly unprecedented.
It’s sad how they immediately cry “antisemite” instead of engaging in a discussion on the merits of the issues.
First hand accounts of Auschwitz deny first hand accounts of Auschwitz. Someone has to be lying.
A lot of these testimonies later proved fake. Elie Wiesel being a prominent example.
I agree. Kulak “Girl” (my guess is a middle aged, highly educated male) makes excellent points about the horror of the Eastern Front, but Arno Mayer has already assessed those conditions and incorporated them into a powerful and persuasive thesis in his great book “Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?”: the millions of Jews encountered by the Germans during their thrust into the Eastern Front led to a “supply” crisis and forced the Germans to improvise innovations of growing scale and lethality, ultimately producing the mechanisms and processes of industrialized mass murder.
Mayer was basically run out of Holocaust scholarship for demonstrating the Holocaust was almost certainly not the result of an a priori master plan to exterminate world Jewry, but it was certainly the deliberate application of industrial processes to murder as many Jews as possible.
I have many Armenian friends who are understandably outraged that Jewish people consistently refuse to designate the horror and mass murder to which the Armenian people was subjected by the Ottoman Empire as “genocide”.
So I think there’s good cause for reflection about why there has been throughout the Cold War and subsequent growth of the de facto American Empire such an insistence on the absolute uniqueness of the suffering and injustice endured by European Jews. As I’m learning to ask all the time these days, cui bono?
Mayer’s great book is here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/233256/why-did-the-heavens-not-darken-by-arno-mayer/9781844677771
Uh, not middle age. He's a young dude. The "girl" thing rubs me, a Gen Xer, the wrong way. But he's smart as a whip. Having read "Ordinary Men" by Christopher Browning, I see Germans committed mass murder. I don't need to get wrapped up in the numbers. Yes, Stalin too. And the Turks. And Pol Pot. And Mao Tse Tung.
I try not to confirm my gender/identity. It is way harder to cancel someone or get them banned if you don't know whether they're male or female, cis or trans, straight or gay.
Says the author who wrote a cogent piece about the merits of dueling. A piece I might add that contributed to my decision to become a paid subscriber. But I get it, and I have no problem with anonymity or the quasi-anonymity we enjoy these days. Yet that doesn't have much to do with assuming a cat-girl persona.
Interestingly one thing all those mass murders have in common is that the target was a higher IQ and more successful subpopulation.
Interesting observation! True as well of the Tutsis massacred by the Hutus in Rwanda.
I really should have noted the Tutsis. I'm glad you pointed it out.
It’s communist policy to eliminate the intelligentsia
that's not interesting at all - if you should pick between killing someone you pity and someone you envy, who would you pick?
Jews don't have a higher IQ though, and the only areas they tend to be more "successful" in is parasitism.
> Jews don't have a higher IQ though,
Well, all the studies show they do. You know the same studies people like yourself love to cite to show that Whites have a higher IQ then Blacks.
> the only areas they tend to be more "successful" in is parasitism.
I suppose you consider science and technology to be "parasitism".
All? No. Randomly sampled studies of jewish IQ show they tend to be slightly below average compared to europeans. They only have massively superior IQ when they get to pull the chinese trick of only testing their honour students.
I don't need a study to show that whites have a higher IQ than blacks. The state of any black majority city/country demonstrates that quite nicely.
As in developing science and technology? No of course not, but there are a billion ways for parasites to take credit for doing so without inventing anything of note.
Ok, so the germans ran out of food and had to improvise ways to reduce the prison population rather than face mass starvation. Better some die than everyone suffer. That story makes some kind of sense and it's the kind of "tragedy of war" thing I can genuinely see happening.
Only problem with this story is that it completely falls apart when the improvised execution methods did not involve the large amounts of guns and ammunition they had been issued, but instead involved building death rollercoasters, rooms with moving electrocution floors that could vaporise hundreds of men at once, diesel CO generators that break the laws of physics and caged wild animals that somehow only attack humans but never each other.
If they were running out of resources and wanted to kill inmates to reduce the load they would have just shot them. They wouldn't have come up with creative ways to use mountains of even scarcer resources just to achieve the same end.
"Nonetheless, there is no doubt that a massive extermination effort in the concentration camp occurred"
To the contrary there is every reason to doubt it.
To put it bluntly, if the germans wanted to kill the jews they would have shot them, then buried them. There is no good reason at all for them to ship them across europe, using desperately scarce strategic resources, then kill some of them them as inefficiently as possible using a variety of sci-fi and cartoonish techniques (eg. death rollercoasters, electric floors, u-bend shotguns, caged animals etc.), let the rest live together in matrimony and even provide them with maternity wards to procreate, then evacuate the survivors on converted cruise ships (ahead of your own troops) when the soviet front threatens to overrun the camps.
None of that story makes sense. Occams razor says they were enemy alien camps similar to those used by the rest of the allies and their purpose was to detain jews until they could be deported to Palestine after the war.
As for your question about what difference it makes whether they died in their millions due to extermination, or tens of thousands due to the same causes everyone else did during the war: It means Hitler did nothing the allied leaders weren't doing and there was no moral crusade, just a tawdry "great game" conflict to prevent an opponent regaining territory.
> To put it bluntly, if the germans wanted to kill the jews they would have shot them, then buried them.
They did a good deal of that as well.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Babi-Yar-massacre-site-Ukraine
So why'd they build the "death camps"? The only attempted explanation I've seen for this is that the kind hearted ruthless serial killers were so disturbed by the act of shooting the chosen people that they had to build enormously inefficient rube goldberg machines to do it for them.
As for Babi Yar... we have that story from the soviets who used the site extensively for executions and mass graves. Given that they were previously caught lying about Katyn and trying to blame their executions on the Germans I think it's fair to admit the same is likely here.
Well, everything I've read about early 20th century German culture suggests the kind of bureaucratic obsessiveness that tends to overengineer everything while telling themselves how "efficient" they're being.
If you think death rollercoasters and masturbation machines sounds like typical 20th century german culture then you must have quite the reading list.
> If you think death rollercoasters and masturbation machines
Frankly that sounds like you're exaggerating the already somewhat exaggerated pop-culture version of the "official story".
"They said so, repeatedly and all the time."
No they didn't. You were told they did, but they made remarkably few direct promises to kill any jews. Nor is there much documentation about any plan to do so.
And anyway you're missing the point. The point is that if they wanted to kill jews they would have simply killed jews the way anyone killed anyone in that period: Using bullets. Cheap and effective.
There simply is no reason for them go waste enormous amounts of resources killing them in a roundabout way using death rollercoasters, masturbation machines and caged animals (all claims from real holocaust memoirs that are illegal to question in many countries).
That's not proof they actually did it though, just an argument they were motivated to change their mind and start doing it.
It also doesn't fit the facts and the same holes in the argument still exist. If the germans were such kind hearted genocidal maniacs that they couldn't just be ordered to shoot them, why were they ok with shooting them in other places? They've been accused of shooting civilians en-masse and publicly murdering jews in all kinds of instances. If we argue they could not be ordered to shoot civilians then that automatically means some holocaust accusers are liars.
Why were the soviets and other armies able to just shoot people? It's not like all the soldiers at Katyn suddenly had a crisis of conscience and let the Polish officers go.
But ok, let's say that the Germans are a uniquely morally upstanding people and cannot bring themselves to shoot their enemies, I guess that explains how they lost the war. Why were they still shipping these people out into the middle of nowhere and killing them in the most inefficient and resource intensive manner possible? And why are the troops who are so squeamish about shooting people suddenly delighted to tear them apart in cages full of wild animals, or build death rollercoasters that shoot them head first into the world's most powerful furnace, or build gigantic underground rooms that can vaporise people using electricity. More importantly, why has no trace of these things ever been found?
These claims aren't just fantastic, they're impossible and in many places contradictory. The only logical conclusion is that at least some of your "survivors" are lying. And by the time we remove all of the contradictory, impossible and unproven claims there's fuck all left to substantiate the accusation. When we then factor in the accusers' loose relationship with the truth and the jewish people's long long history of exaggerating and outright fabricating persecution myths, it's pretty clear it's a false accusation.
All of the actions of the Germans suggests that they regarded jewish civilians as a dangerous and subversive group who must be separated from society and treated as enemy aliens. They rounded them up, shipped them off to internment camps and provided them with everything they could to make their stay comfortable, including swimming pools, musical instruments and sports fields. They allowed married couples to procreate and pregnant jewish women gave birth in dedicated maternity wards. Then, when the camps were about to be overrun by the soviets, they started evacuating them on cruise ships and trains *ahead of their own troops* and tried to keep them safe.
All of the above paragraph can be corroborated by both physical evidence and testimony from every side involved in the camps. None of it is consistent with a claim of genocide.
TL;DR : Jews lie, news at 11
When I read that the death toll for auschwitz had been officially reduced from 4 million to max 2 million, I wondered how the number of Jews killed in the holocaust did not go down to 4 million also. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-07-9202100662-story.html
From the article: "The fiction that more than a million non-Jews died here was a myth created by Poland`s communist leaders."
After having examined both sides of the debate I feel deeply ashamed for my gullibility in believing the official story. Even ignoring the impossible claims, the merely extravagant ones are so full of holes they're not even worth considering as a theory, let alone legally mandated truth.
The biggest problem for the authorities is that by now so many institutions, law and political theory have been based on the allied victory cult that modern globalism likely would crumble if it were ever doubted on a significant scale. So it MUST continue to be believed.
Cease your investigations
The strongest evidence for the official story being basically correct in my view is hitlers own words. He literally talks about gassing Jews in mein kampf, and later his “prophecy speech” saying the Jews would cease to exist in Europe if a world war broke out.
But the tribal-narcissistic idea that what the Jews suffered was somehow unique and more evil than the Armenian genocide or the gulag or the holodomor (carried out by the Jewish majority NKVD btw) or any other similar atrocity is obviously nonsense
Yes but Biden literally talked about nuking Americans who rebelled against the US government, and many republicans talked about nuking muslim countries in response to 9/11... the later of which didn't happen and the prior of which is unlikely.
Death Threats are correlated with homicide, but The majority of death threats do not end in homicide.
Notably the official holocaust narrative is that the plan for the holocaust was concluded at Wannsee was marked top secret, and was written in code with "Deportation" being code for murder, and no known official document ever EXPLICITLY stating an intent of mass murder.
It's kind of hard to argue it was an open secret and Hitler's rhetorical threats in his speeches were a clear statement of planning and intent... when the supposed documents that actually plan it out supposedly speak in code even when they're already top secret.
Hitler was a conspiracy theorist, he believed America especially was run by international jews who he could threaten by threatening the Jews in his camp...
He wasn't benevolent or anything, but him threatening jews, to his mind, would be analogous to Kim Jong Un threatening to Nuke south Korea or Japan as a threat to the US or to try and get concessions...
Again not stating I agree with the Holocaust deniers... but when people say there is no case to be made and we can dismiss them in summary judgement without it going to the trial of a public debate.... No, they have a shockingly good case. They have a massive uphill battle, and its not clear at all their arguments would be vindicated, but it seems like the kind of project which even if it failed has enough surprising findings behind it to significantly change or inform how history is discussed.
Neither of those things that Hitler said before the war prove that they happened. Ofc that also doesn't prove that they DIDN'T happen, but to play devil's advocate: if you were going to invent a story about someone doing something, the most obvious thing to accuse them of would be something they said they would do if they got the chance.
The most compelling argument against the gas chambers etc would simply be "why bother?". Working people to exhaustion and starvation doesn't require any outlay, plus you get some work out of them. It's a horrible kind of logic but it makes more sense than wasting gas or bullets on them
That's weak. Politicians use hyperbolic speech all the time and "cease to exist in territory X" isn't equivalent to a promise to murder them.
The simplest explanation for the camps is that they were deportation centers. The number of deaths is grossly overstated and certainly much lower than those in many german cities.
So the pogroms, cattle cars, concentration camps, and deaths were real, but not the gas chambers? Be a Mensch.
I know its a ridiculous thing to have to debate...
But then all of western morality depends on the Axiom that the Holocaust was WORSE than Holomodor or the Gulags, such that the entire censorship regime is set up to prevent contesting that.
So whether there were gas chambers or not, and whether the Holocaust was premeditated by Hilter and the regime, emerged naturally from systemic failure and increasing SS brutality, or was a retcon by the soviets to roll a lot of their massacres and war deaths from starvation into the Crimes of the Germans to justify crackdowns and terror...
That makes little difference to the Jews who suffered but that's core to the entire moral universe of the American, European, and Israeli regimes.
.
And the thing about those two claims: Nazi Premeditation and uniquely industrial genocide is that props up Allied Legitimacy without demanding more bodies.
.
This should just be an academic debate about one part of the horrors of the eastern front... (where 40 million died) however Western Regimes have staked so much of their legitimacy on the Nazis having been uniquely worse than communism or allied firebombing, that letting that debate happen could overturn regimes and governments if it happened and then went the wrong way.
The story is not the historical debate, it's the censorship in Canada, the UK, the EU and on American Campuses.
I think it's hyperbole to say that "all of Western morality depends on the Axiom that the Holocaust was WORSE than Holomodor or the Gulags". The US has always gone lightly on the evils of the latter two, because 1)there are so many communist sympathisers in academia, and 2)the government likes to gloss over our government's WWII propaganda to make "Uncle Joe" et al seem like friends, rather than necessary but temporary allies.
> "all of Western morality depends on the Axiom that the Holocaust was WORSE than Holomodor or the Gulags".
On the one hand, no serious historian argues that. On the other hand, someone who learned all he knows about history by osmosis from pop culture might very well be left with that impression.
It is not hyperbole. The Holocaust and German regime are the eternal evil in the founding myths of modern Managerial Liberal Democracy and modern Communism. All sides of mainstream Western political discourse refer to their opposition as Fascists or Nazis and all of their political projects are framed as either being designed to punish Fascists, to counteract the secret machinations of Fascists, or to prevent Fascists from achieving power.
This. It is the founding myth which powers the entire liberal crusade.
Without a God, we need a great evil to fight or we become listless and nihilistic.
We look for whomever is the most aesthetically similar to the third reich and make them the enemy. So South Africa had to be destroyed for a level or racial policy far less severe than in other parts of Africa or Asia.
Well, it is a simple test to go onto the Internet Movie database (IMDB.com) and do a cursory test of how many English language films over the years have either referenced the Nazi's or especially, the Holocaust. The results absolutely indicate that every generation of Americans be required to have this specific narrative story acid etched into their psyche, as a singularly horrific example of man's inhumanity to man. Pretty much to the exception of all others. Even tangentially, as with Clooney's new offering "for the Academy's consideration". It's a slam dunk way to get green-lighted (wink).
No, really, it's not. The majority of our institutions are based on the claim that jews were subject to the most uniquely brutal slaughter in history and we need tyranical global institutions to stop it happening again.
If it turns out to be a gypsy-scam writ large then heads will roll.
I'm with Mitch. You guys think the internet is "real life." Your "it's not hyperbole" is based on Twitter / Reddit. Not the same thing.
Go on the streets then. Ask people whether they think Fascism or Communism are worse. Ask people whether they think Gulags or Concentration camps are worse. Ask people if what they know about the Holocaust and then ask them if they even know what the Holodomor was.
They don't know any of those things. That was part of my point.
I'm quite confident that the average person on the street knows what the holocaust was. Would be happy to place a wager on it with you and then run an experiment to settle it.
To me, the neighbors-turning-on-neighbors, Reichskristallnacht, Judenstern, and dehumanization aspects of the Holocaust were always the worst. Gas chambers and death camps are downstream from that.
The modern, albeit tamer parallels are why COVID policy was so shocking. https://youtu.be/zI3yU5Z2adI
Edit: Society ruptured into in- and out-groups. Fortunately, the Americans who declared open season on their countrymen didn't get as far as the Germans.
Wars, where declared enemies bomb the hell out of each other, are not like that. Getting firebombed in Dresden or Tokyo amounts to FAFO.
Some of the deaths, sure. The german red cross reported around 50,000 of them. But that's nothing sinister, people died in Ireland's internment camps too and no one has ever suggested they were murdered.
The gas chambers are a massive massive leap beyond "people were put in camps and some of them died before they got released." They also make no sense whatsoever if the goal of the operation was extermination.
Were extermination camps only discovered by Soviet troops?
I've heard this, but I've not independently verified with my own research.
I remember seemingly none of them being in western zones of control... but not sure if the allies liberated some, or not.
Interestingly the Germans seem to have been treated much worse than the Japanese post war in spite of the Germans not doing anything as horrific to Anglo POWs as the Japanese did to POWs...
But then I also don't know the revisionist takes on Japan aside from the pearl harbour revisionism
The japanese didn't hold a rothschild to ransom.
This is NOT a list; it is only an image. I can only wonder what the author is trying to hide. (Jan 13, 2024)
Austrian lagers (Mathausen, Gusen), Dachau and Sachsenhausen were discovered by the Wallies.