If the Soviets discovered ‘death camps using gas’ why did Stalin not write about it?

[HansHill]

Nessie: I have flagged your post for mod attention.

I invite the mods to review this thread. My position could not be clearer: Key decision makers and authority figures often distanced themselves from ridiculous hoaxes for credibility reasons. This is consistent with how we know these decision makers thought and behaved, as has been demonstrated throughout this thread. I have cited two sources for this, along with two examples. Wetzelrad has done similar.

Your badgering to be "shown evidence" of Stalin not commenting on hoaxes is f**king deranged, and you come across very poorly. Ending with ad hominems is hilarious, I'm not offended of course, but am using this as a vehicle to flag your slop to the mods because your output is just that: slop.

Mods: enjoy!

[Nessie]

Nessie: I have flagged your post for mod attention.

I invite the mods to review this thread. My position could not be clearer: Key decision makers and authority figures often distanced themselves from ridiculous hoaxes for credibility reasons. This is consistent with how we know these decision makers thought and behaved, as has been demonstrated throughout this thread. I have cited two sources for this, along with two examples. Wetzelrad has done similar.

Your badgering to be "shown evidence" of Stalin not commenting on hoaxes is f**king deranged, and you come across very poorly. Ending with ad hominems is hilarious, I'm not offended of course, but am using this as a vehicle to flag your slop to the mods because your output is just that: slop.

Mods: enjoy!

The best known Soviet hoax, was Katyn. It is reasonable for me to ask you for evidence that Stalin, distanced himself from Katyn, as it was a hoax. It is clear that you have no evidence, from Stalin's reported speeches and writings, that he never referenced Katyn. Your response to my request for evidence, elicited my response.

https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studi ... ing-field/

There is evidence Stalin ordered Katyn, that he told a Polish general that the missing soldiers were still alive, but had gone missing, that he refused a request by the Polish Government in London, for an investigation by the Red Cross and he was active in discussions with Churchill to persuade him the Soviets were not responsible and the Nazis were lying.

"When the Polish government-in-exile in London demanded an international inquiry, Stalin used this as a pretext to break relations. The Western allies objected but eventually acquiesced. Soon thereafter, the Soviet dictator assembled a group of Polish Communists that returned to Poland with the Red Army in 1944 and formed the nucleus of the postwar government. Stalin’s experience with the Katyn affair may have convinced him that the West, grateful for the Red Army’s contribution to the Allied military effort, would find it hard to confront him over Poland after the war."

There is evidence Stalin did not distance himself from the Katyn massacre hoax and he actively supported it.

[HansHill]

Nessie: I have reported this post too.

The Katyn Hoax wasn't that a massacre happened. The Katyn Hoax was that Germany committed it.

[Nessie]

Evidence Stalin bribed a US journalist, into supporting his claims that Katyn was a Nazi massacre;

https://www.coldwarradiomuseum.com/voic ... -massacre/

"In January 1944, as a journalist and her father’s representative when he was U.S. ambassador in Moscow, she helped to save Stalin’s reputation in a secret report she wrote for the State Department in Washington by misinterpreting the evidence of one of his most cruel atrocities, which became known as the Katyn Forest massacre. In a victory for Soviet propaganda, she exonerated him of the brutal murders of thousands of Polish military officers who became prisoners of war in Russian captivity after the Soviet Union attacked Poland in September 1939 in alliance with Hitler’s Germany. Stalin was grateful to the Harrimans for literally helping him get away with murder..."

He gave the journalist and her father each a horse, as a gift and thank-you. You do not get much more active in supporting a hoax, than that.

So, since it is proven Stalin actively supported the Katyn hoax, protecting and promoting it, is there any evidence he did the same regarding the Holocaust?

[Nessie]

Nessie: I have reported this post too.

The Katyn Hoax wasn't that a massacre happened. The Katyn Hoax was that Germany committed it.

I have produced evidence to prove Stalin actively supported a hoax. Your rather confused response was to admit to "his handling of various other Soviet "hoaxes"" and then say, about how he handled hoaxes, that "He didn't."

Fact is, as shown by the evidence I found, he handled the Katyn hoax by actively supporting and protecting it. Can you evidence him doing the same for the Holocaust?

[HansHill]

Evidence Stalin bribed a US journalist, into supporting his claims that Katyn was a Nazi massacre;

https://www.coldwarradiomuseum.com/voic ... -massacre/

"In January 1944, as a journalist and her father’s representative when he was U.S. ambassador in Moscow, she helped to save Stalin’s reputation in a secret report she wrote for the State Department in Washington by misinterpreting the evidence of one of his most cruel atrocities, which became known as the Katyn Forest massacre. In a victory for Soviet propaganda, she exonerated him of the brutal murders of thousands of Polish military officers who became prisoners of war in Russian captivity after the Soviet Union attacked Poland in September 1939 in alliance with Hitler’s Germany. Stalin was grateful to the Harrimans for literally helping him get away with murder..."

He gave the journalist and her father each a horse, as a gift and thank-you. You do not get much more active in supporting a hoax, than that.

So, since it is proven Stalin actively supported the Katyn hoax, protecting and promoting it, is there any evidence he did the same regarding the Holocaust?

"Secret report"

Keep digging, Nessie. This is as distanced as it gets.

For those reading in future - I am flagging Nessies posts for mod review with the tags "repetitive, time wasting, and dishonesty".

[Nessie]

Evidence Stalin bribed a US journalist, into supporting his claims that Katyn was a Nazi massacre;

https://www.coldwarradiomuseum.com/voic ... -massacre/

"In January 1944, as a journalist and her father’s representative when he was U.S. ambassador in Moscow, she helped to save Stalin’s reputation in a secret report she wrote for the State Department in Washington by misinterpreting the evidence of one of his most cruel atrocities, which became known as the Katyn Forest massacre. In a victory for Soviet propaganda, she exonerated him of the brutal murders of thousands of Polish military officers who became prisoners of war in Russian captivity after the Soviet Union attacked Poland in September 1939 in alliance with Hitler’s Germany. Stalin was grateful to the Harrimans for literally helping him get away with murder..."

He gave the journalist and her father each a horse, as a gift and thank-you. You do not get much more active in supporting a hoax, than that.

So, since it is proven Stalin actively supported the Katyn hoax, protecting and promoting it, is there any evidence he did the same regarding the Holocaust?

"Secret report"

Keep digging, Nessie. This is as distanced as it gets.

For those reading in future - I am flagging Nessies posts for mod review with the tags "repetitive, time wasting, and dishonesty".

Stalin successfully influenced a US journalist to write a report for the eyes of the US government, exonerating the Soviets for Katyn and putting the blame on the Nazis, and in return he gave her and her father, horses.

Did Stalin do anything like that, to promote the Holocaust? That is the subject of this thread.

[Nessie]

Did Stalin ever talk about the Holocaust?

"AI Overview
While there's no evidence that Stalin directly addressed the Holocaust, it's a complex topic with some key points to consider. He did not publicly acknowledge the systematic extermination of Jews by the Nazis during World War II, though the Soviet Union was actively fighting against Nazi Germany at the time. The Soviet Union did report on Nazi atrocities, but the focus was often on the broader suffering of the Soviet people rather than specifically on the Holocaust."

Why he did not address the Holocaust, is explained by his emphasis on the suffering of the Soviets. He was prepared to support hoaxes, as proved by his support for the Katyn hoax. That he kept quiet about the Holocaust, is not evidence that it was because it was a hoax and he was circumspect about supporting hoaxes.

[HansHill]

No. As has been explained to you back on page 1 by Wetzelrad:

None of their heads of state made more than vague allusion to the atrocity propaganda, probably because, just as it is with propaganda today, it is extremely discrediting if your head of state goes public with some obvious fabrication.

Stalin did not expose himself publicly and openly with these various hoaxes, such as bizarre gas chamber hoaxes, Jew soap hoaxes, electroction plate hoaxes, or any such crap.

For you to rebut this you would show me where he documents these atrocities in for example, his memoirs. Instead, what you have produced is a "secret report" which supports my position that he did not publicly and openly endorse these hoaxes.

You are an utter embarrassment.

[HansHill]

Also - apologies to the Mod team for the multiple flagged posts. I believe it was Archie who requested this before, so hopefully this was what he had in mind when suggesting this.

I know the Mods are doing good work here, so hopefully I have not annoyed them and I trust they will agree with the reasons why I have flagged these posts!

[Nessie]

No. As has been explained to you back on page 1 by Wetzelrad:

None of their heads of state made more than vague allusion to the atrocity propaganda, probably because, just as it is with propaganda today, it is extremely discrediting if your head of state goes public with some obvious fabrication.

Stalin did not expose himself publicly and openly with these various hoaxes, such as bizarre gas chamber hoaxes, Jew soap hoaxes, electroction plate hoaxes, or any such crap.

For you to rebut this you would show me where he documents these atrocities in for example, his memoirs. Instead, what you have produced is a "secret report" which supports my position that he did not publicly and openly endorse these hoaxes.

You are an utter embarrassment.

How is influencing the US and British governments to accept a hoax, whether that was done publicly, or between the governments, evidence leaders will distance themselves from hoaxes, to avoid discrediting themselves?

You have failed to produce evidence that Stalin, or any other leader, did not voice public support of the Holocaust, because they knew it was a hoax. That is speculation.

I have produced evidence Stalin would support a hoax, to other leaders. Is there evidence he did anything to support the Holocaust, in any report to the US or British governments? Did he give any journalist gifts, to write about the Nazi mass murder of Jews at the AR camps?

[Archie]

It is a so-called revisionist meme on X, to question why none of the Allied leaders, Churchill, Eisenhower or De Gaulle, wrote about gassings, or much about the Holocaust at all. Interestingly, they never ask about Stalin. I was recently told, here, he was a Jew, and the Soviets are often accused of being a major player in the Holocaust hoax. If that is the case, why was Stalin not front and centre, speaking about, or writing about, gassings and the Holocaust?

It is not just that he said, or wrote nothing, he also did not allow any Soviet history of, or memorial to the Holocaust. Indeed, the Soviets and Stalin, hardly acknowledge it happened at all.

I do not understand what this thread is about. What is your argument exactly? Stalin did not write about the Holocaust, therefore the Holocaust is true? That would be a strange argument. Or are you merely arguing that because Stalin did not write about it that we should not expect Churchill et al to write about it either? I assume your argument is the latter.

One immediate problem with your argument is that there is a vast difference in volume of writings about the war produced by Stalin vs the others which renders irrelevant the comparison you are attempting to make. Churchill published a SIX VOLUME history/memoir of the war. Eisenhower published a memoir of over 500 pages. General de Gaulle published three volumes of war memoirs. Stalin published nothing like this. If he had, I suspect "the Holocaust" would NOT have been a major theme. But since he didn't, there isn't much to say. (Incidentally, the original point you are trying to respond to is that in this huge mass of war memoirs, there is, from a modern perspective, a shocking lack of emphasis on what we now call "the Holocaust." Why? Because the Holocaust as a cultural phenomenon did not become truly prominent until much later).

Another problem with your argument is that even if hypothetically Stalin had written lengthy war memoirs, if he had not mentioned any "Holocaust stuff," this would simply reinforce the original point. If he had hypothetically mentioned it, I suppose that could be used as a counterpoint to the Churchill et al, but it would not really be that significant either way. Again, Stalin did not actually publish anything like this, so it is all a moot point.

Regarding the Soviet history more generally, it is true that they generally placed even less emphasis on what we now call "the Holocaust" than did Western historians and commentators. You find this confusing and contradictory, but this is only because you misunderstand both the revisionist arguments and the geopolitical perspectives. You, with your characteristic lack of nuance, think that revisionists think the Soviets are the ones primarily behind the Holocaust hoax. We do point to the fact that the evidence for the Holocaust does depend to a great extent on Soviet evidence (because they had control of all of the relevant territory), but they were not thinking in terms of "the Holocaust" in the modern sense. In Russia, the narrative on WWII is a bit different. The call it "the Great Patriotic War," and they generally do not emphasize Jews as is done in the West. Their narrative was that the Germans were exterminating basically everybody, not just Jews. In contrast, in the West, the narrative became more Jew-centric with time.

[Archie]

Also - apologies to the Mod team for the multiple flagged posts. I believe it was Archie who requested this before, so hopefully this was what he had in mind when suggesting this.

I know the Mods are doing good work here, so hopefully I have not annoyed them and I trust they will agree with the reasons why I have flagged these posts!

I think the very premise of this thread is hopelessly muddled. I guess I will leave the Katyn stuff for now since there wasn't anything coherent to derail. I do not understand what Nessie is trying to say with any of this.

As far as post reports, yes, for a possible solution to the NQ I want to see how it goes if we have more reports and fewer replies. Excessive reports I'm sure would get annoying but we are not anywhere close to that level. Usually we get very few reports. Reporting posts is generally associated with "waaah he called me a mean name," i.e., it's thought of as a "bitch move" or whatever, so people don't report posts. But I was thinking it could be possible tool for maintaining discussion quality. Reviewing a few reported posts is far preferable to me to having to place problem users under moderation and having to approve every single one of their posts. I'll make a thread in Housekeeping to clarify a bit more.

[HansHill]

I do not understand what this thread is about.

Don't worry Archie, i got you

[Nessie]

It is a so-called revisionist meme on X, to question why none of the Allied leaders, Churchill, Eisenhower or De Gaulle, wrote about gassings, or much about the Holocaust at all. Interestingly, they never ask about Stalin. I was recently told, here, he was a Jew, and the Soviets are often accused of being a major player in the Holocaust hoax. If that is the case, why was Stalin not front and centre, speaking about, or writing about, gassings and the Holocaust?

It is not just that he said, or wrote nothing, he also did not allow any Soviet history of, or memorial to the Holocaust. Indeed, the Soviets and Stalin, hardly acknowledge it happened at all.

I do not understand what this thread is about. What is your argument exactly? Stalin did not write about the Holocaust, therefore the Holocaust is true? That would be a strange argument.

Indeed, it is a strange argument, and my point is that so-called revisionists use that strange argument, to suggest that because Churchill, Eisenhower and de Gaulle did not write about the Holocaust, therefore the Holocaust is not true.

Or are you merely arguing that because Stalin did not write about it that we should not expect Churchill et al to write about it either? I assume your argument is the latter.

No, my argument is that just because Stalin, Churchill etc did not write, much, about the Holocaust, that is not evidence there was no Holocaust.

One immediate problem with your argument is that there is a vast difference in volume of writings about the war produced by Stalin vs the others which renders irrelevant the comparison you are attempting to make. Churchill published a SIX VOLUME history/memoir of the war. Eisenhower published a memoir of over 500 pages. General de Gaulle published three volumes of war memoirs. Stalin published nothing like this. If he had, I suspect "the Holocaust" would NOT have been a major theme. But since he didn't, there isn't much to say. (Incidentally, the original point you are trying to respond to is that in this huge mass of war memoirs, there is, from a modern perspective, a shocking lack of emphasis on what we now call "the Holocaust." Why? Because the Holocaust as a cultural phenomenon did not become truly prominent until much later).

That is correct. There was a lot of shame across Europe, at how cooperative most countries had been, with the Nazis, in identifying, arresting, transporting and even killing Jews. Even the British failed, by refusing to allow Jews to escape, to the UK, or Palestine and failing to protect the Channel Island's small Jewish community. That is why, not just the main war leaders were quiet about the Holocaust, it is why all European postwar governments were quiet. They had failed their Jewish citizens.

Another problem with your argument is that even if hypothetically Stalin had written lengthy war memoirs, if he had not mentioned any "Holocaust stuff," this would simply reinforce the original point. If he had hypothetically mentioned it, I suppose that could be used as a counterpoint to the Churchill et al, but it would not really be that significant either way. Again, Stalin did not actually publish anything like this, so it is all a moot point.

If the Soviets had liberated millions of Jews, many of whom were Western Jews, why would Stalin not capitalise on that major success? He would be able to claim a huge victory, liberating all the western Jews that those countries had allowed to be arrested and transported east. The West would not need to be grateful to the Soviets, for the great liberation of their citizens. Millions of Jews from most countries in Europe, could be handed back, with great ceremony, with each government thanking Stalin personally, for his success.

Regarding the Soviet history more generally, it is true that they generally placed even less emphasis on what we now call "the Holocaust" than did Western historians and commentators. You find this confusing and contradictory, but this is only because you misunderstand both the revisionist arguments and the geopolitical perspectives. You, with your characteristic lack of nuance, think that revisionists think the Soviets are the ones primarily behind the Holocaust hoax. We do point to the fact that the evidence for the Holocaust does depend to a great extent on Soviet evidence (because they had control of all of the relevant territory), but they were not thinking in terms of "the Holocaust" in the modern sense. In Russia, the narrative on WWII is a bit different. The call it "the Great Patriotic War," and they generally do not emphasize Jews as is done in the West. Their narrative was that the Germans were exterminating basically everybody, not just Jews. In contrast, in the West, the narrative became more Jew-centric with time.

According to so-called revisionists, millions of Jews supposedly not killed by the Nazis, ended up behind Soviet lines in 1944-5. The Soviets hid those Jews, and promoted the idea those Jews had been murdered.

You correctly identify the lack of effort Stalin in particular, and the Soviets in general, put into promoting the hoax, which makes no sense, when they put a lot of effort into hiding millions of Jews and producing evidence they had been murdered.

You claim I find this confusing and do not understand so-called revisionist arguments. In fact, it is so-called revisionist arguments that are confusing, as well as lacking in evidence.