Soviet POWs and Jews in the East

[Numar Patru]

1. Is evidence largely produced by and for "trials by the victors against the vanquished" what you consider "conventional"?

And there we have it. Because the past cannot be changed and in every past that exists, Germany lost, you will accept no evidence.

Why even bother arguing?

[TlsMS93]

New Wiki article just dropped:

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Evacuation

I would have more respect for revisionists if they were honest about the facts here.

For example, these statements should be included

----
There is not a single piece of direct evidence, whether documentary or witness, concerning the mass resettlement of perhaps millions of Jews from 1942 on, nor any Polish Jews.

Currently there is no known mechanism for this lack of evidence, no known mechanism by which potentially millions of witnesses could be silenced or otherwise suppressed, ditto for documents. Rather we are asserting the possibility of possibility, that a mechanism exists, it just can't be conceived of at the moment.
---

This last one I think is an important thing for revisionists, one that you see echoed in the case of Belzec https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=107&start=225

Revisionist posit that there is some explanation for the vast layers of ash mixed with sand that Kola describes, but after months have still not provided a firm rationale for why the bodies were even exhumed.

Possibility in general is a no no for conventional history, especially in the modern period where mass events are as a rule directly evidenced to some degree. Revisionists skip over this by attempting to prove possibility, but they even fail at this, because they do not offer even speculative scenarios for what really happened.

It would be as if orthodoxy was stating that Nazis murdered so and so many Jews, with zero direct evidence obviously, but also no specifics as to how the deed was carried out. From the revisionist perspective, one can see the attractiveness of such an approach. If you're not offering up a story, there's really nothing to criticize.

Revisionists generally do not say that Jews did not die in these camps and that the Germans were not responsible for these deaths.

Revisionists generally say that the Germans did not have the number of Jews at their mercy for the alleged number of deaths, nor that the Jews at their mercy were all killed.

However, the official narrative endorsed by the media and schoolbooks does not usually answer the shocking questions raised by revisionists and simply responds that the existential gaps are explained by the undocumented and unphotographed Aktion 1005.

The issue boils down to the lack of an extermination policy and the lack of proof of an ongoing murderous policy, namely the existence of gas chambers and mass shootings in the East. Although there is allegedly documentation showing changes in buildings or records of shootings of Jews in the East, they cannot be taken literally at face value or ignored in their context.

I don't think that if the Holocaust collapses it will change anything about the German question of accountability and guilt or the world's view of Hitler and the NS, but it's one thing to be irresponsible in rounding up people en masse and not having the resources to support them, it's another to deliberately go out and hunt people down solely to destroy them.

[Stubble]

Admittedly this is a dataset of one, I can't help but notice the statistical significance however.

https://ihr.org/journal/v13n1p45_weber-html

I'll search for more.

I find it extremely telling that the 1 man who shouted down David Cole about his dead brother just so happened to have a very alive brother that had been situated on the other side of the iron curtain.

After the war, everyone on the western side was told anyone they were not with had been murdered by the nazis, those on the eastern side were told the same. Both sides believed it.

/shrug

I lack the capacity to make this up.

2;
https://www.npr.org/2006/09/26/6144254/ ... ears-later

3;
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/worl ... years.html

4;
https://aish.com/77-years-after-the-hol ... y-reunion/

[TlsMS93]

Admittedly this is a dataset of one, I can't help but notice the statistical significance however.

https://ihr.org/journal/v13n1p45_weber-html

I'll search for more.

I find it extremely telling that the 1 man who shouted down David Cole about his dead brother just so happened to have a very alive brother that had been situated on the other side of the iron curtain.

After the war, everyone on the western side was told anyone they were not with had been murdered by the nazis, those on the eastern side were told the same. Both sides believed it.

/shrug

I lack the capacity to make this up.

2;
https://www.npr.org/2006/09/26/6144254/ ... ears-later

3;
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/worl ... years.html

This explains the mountain of “I was the only survivor of my family, the rest were gassed” cases.

This is substantial proof that the claim that they were taken to the occupied USSR has its merits, it is not something we pulled out of our asses.

[Numar Patru]

Stand up so we can hear you better.

[Stubble]

Admittedly this is a dataset of one, I can't help but notice the statistical significance however.

https://ihr.org/journal/v13n1p45_weber-html

I'll search for more.

I find it extremely telling that the 1 man who shouted down David Cole about his dead brother just so happened to have a very alive brother that had been situated on the other side of the iron curtain.

After the war, everyone on the western side was told anyone they were not with had been murdered by the nazis, those on the eastern side were told the same. Both sides believed it.

/shrug

I lack the capacity to make this up.

2;
https://www.npr.org/2006/09/26/6144254/ ... ears-later

3;
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/worl ... years.html

This explains the mountain of “I was the only survivor of my family, the rest were gassed” cases.

This is substantial proof that the claim that they were taken to the occupied USSR has its merits, it is not something we pulled out of our asses.

Wait until an exterminationist responds, it's going to be something to the effect of 'this proves nothing absolutely nothing, because it is literally a handful of cases and you are just counting hits and ignoring misses'.

Or, 'we know 6,000,000 jews died because we have the best documented genocide in history, it's 6,000,000 or you're a bigot'.

[Stubble]

Stand up so we can hear you better.

/dusts off hobbed boots

/stands at attention

*clears throat*

"What I had said was..."

[Callafangers]

I would have more respect for revisionists if they were honest about the facts here.

For example, these statements should be included

----
There is not a single piece of direct evidence, whether documentary or witness, concerning the mass resettlement of perhaps millions of Jews from 1942 on, nor any Polish Jews.

Currently there is no known mechanism for this lack of evidence, no known mechanism by which potentially millions of witnesses could be silenced or otherwise suppressed, ditto for documents. Rather we are asserting the possibility of possibility, that a mechanism exists, it just can't be conceived of at the moment.

Here you go:

Few surviving
- Brutal transports, tough conditions, possible killings (Soviet or German).
No one asking
- Neither historians nor Holocaust memorial organizations investigating for decades.
Active manipulation
- Victors of war clearly lying to chop up the post-war world in their favor

This isn't a "possibility of a possibility" . This is the most plausible analysis given the fact that your mass graves do not account for your missing Jews and that your victorious powers are sadists and liars.

This last one I think is an important thing for revisionists, one that you see echoed in the case of Belzec https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=107&start=225

Revisionist posit that there is some explanation for the vast layers of ash mixed with sand that Kola describes, but after months have still not provided a firm rationale for why the bodies were even exhumed.

Possibility in general is a no no for conventional history, especially in the modern period where mass events are as a rule directly evidenced to some degree. Revisionists skip over this by attempting to prove possibility, but they even fail at this, because they do not offer even speculative scenarios for what really happened.

It would be as if orthodoxy was stating that Nazis murdered so and so many Jews, with zero direct evidence obviously, but also no specifics as to how the deed was carried out. From the revisionist perspective, one can see the attractiveness of such an approach. If you're not offering up a story, there's really nothing to criticize.

While I appreciate the attempts to derail onto a more focused analysis of Belzec calculations (I'll be adding there shortly, in the appropriate thread), I'll decline to go into that here.

We aren't talking about mere "possibility", bombsaway. We are making sense of what actually happened based on all available evidence. Exterminationists are ignoring a whole lot of evidence (problematic patterns in witness testimony, problems with grave volume and composition, custodial chains, the fact of Soviet show trials, and much more), while also persecuting/censoring those who disagree.

You touch on matters of falsification (see: Karl Popper) but it is the exterminationist view that evades exposure for potential falsification, through aggressive means.

Given your witnesses are a laughable mix of liars and half-truthers, your physical evidence bogus and reflective of natural deaths in wartime, and the powers presenting your view exposed as scheming liars, my 'possibilities of possibilities' are all that remains, supported by official German policy and the other evidence discussed here and elsewhere, which you and others frequently dodge.

You have the burden of proof and you're not even close -- your vast network of liars have only portrayed that you are.

[bombsaway]

You have the burden of proof and you're not even close -- your vast network of liars have only portrayed that you are.

All historical narratives bear "the burden of proof". It's telling that this thread is about revisionists positive claims and yet it drifts off in this direction where you guys minimize the importance of providing that narrative.

The problems come for you when the parameters are shifted. Saying that there is some censorship, some people not speaking out, some documents suppressed or destroyed, this is clearly within the realm of possibility. But since none of these things have emerged, your narrative must encompass how this suppression was total, or virtually so. There's a world of difference between 50% and 99.99% suppression. It becomes exponentially more difficult as you approach the absolute, and you need to get close to that, or else you're relying on crazy coincidences like Jews not talking about or broadcasting their horrible experiences. Within your framing of Jews, these are master level complainers about the injustices that they faced. So your narrative needs a heavy conspiratorial element, eg the Soviets killing all the resettled Jews to prevent any of them talking about it.

The surviving witnesses are your chief problem. If they were treated well most would survive leaving an incredible amount of possible testimonies to be given. If most of them died that would speak to terrible conditions, which even in my conception of Jews, would lead the survivors to want to speak out and bear witness to those conditions.

[Nessie]

The Soviets, finding millions of abandoned Jews in camps and ghettos in Ukraine, the Baltic States and Poland in 1944-5, would have been a resource hungry logistical nightmare for them. Plus, it would also be a source of new fighters for them. To suggest that the Soviets could and would be able to keep quiet about finding, feeding, and recruiting from millions of people in 1944, is utter nonsense.

Then, why did the Nazis keep quiet about leaving millions behind? They were being accused of killing millions, so why did none think to claim that the Soviets now had them?

Dutch, French, Belgian, Italian and Greek Jews in the east would stand out. Information would leak out. Those countries would want to speak to the Soviets about their citizens. Poland and Hungary had the largest number of Jewish citizens outwith the SU, and again, to suggest the Soviets successfully hid millions from their to be partner Eastern Block neighbours, is utter nonsense.

Revisionists never think through their claims and speculations. They obsess about the physical possibility of gassings, but not hiding millions of people.

[Nazgul]

The Soviets, finding millions of abandoned Jews in camps and ghettos in Ukraine, the Baltic States and Poland in 1944-5, would have been a resource hungry logistical nightmare for them. Plus, it would also be a source of new fighters for them. To suggest that the Soviets could and would be able to keep quiet about finding, feeding, and recruiting from millions of people in 1944, is utter nonsense.

Then, why did the Nazis keep quiet about leaving millions behind?

For new viewers here are the Jewish Labour camp and konzentrationslager locations during the war. No more needs to be said. The poster is well aware of these images the locations obtained from a plethora of witnesses.
The images are 1942, 1944 and 1945. The westward drift of these camps is obvious.

[Nessie]

Nazgul like to post those images of camps, but he never posts the most important part, which is the total camp population in 1944 to 1945.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... ps-1942-45

"According to SS reports, there were more than 700,000 prisoners left in the camps in January 1945."

If millions of arrested Jews had not been killed, why was that number not millions of prisoners left in the camps?

[TlsMS93]

Nazgul like to post those images of camps, but he never posts the most important part, which is the total camp population in 1944 to 1945.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... ps-1942-45

"According to SS reports, there were more than 700,000 prisoners left in the camps in January 1945."

If millions of arrested Jews had not been killed, why was that number not millions of prisoners left in the camps?

Who said they didn't die? The difference is that you think there was a case of murder, while we think it was a result of the complexity of that war, or do you think that no German prisoners of war died in Allied hands? What's the difference between "deaths" and "were killed"? Could a Jew only die if he was murdered?

Your difference from us also lies in how many Jews there were in German hands, Houston, we have a problem.

[Nessie]

Nazgul like to post those images of camps, but he never posts the most important part, which is the total camp population in 1944 to 1945.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... ps-1942-45

"According to SS reports, there were more than 700,000 prisoners left in the camps in January 1945."

If millions of arrested Jews had not been killed, why was that number not millions of prisoners left in the camps?

Who said they didn't die? The difference is that you think there was a case of murder, while we think it was a result of the complexity of that war, or do you think that no German prisoners of war died in Allied hands? What's the difference between "deaths" and "were killed"? Could a Jew only die if he was murdered?

The difference between us is that I can evidence they were murdered, whereas, as you admit, you only think they were not murdered.

Your difference from us also lies in how many Jews there were in German hands, Houston, we have a problem.

You have a far bigger problem than me. I can evidence camp and ghetto populations and date they opened and closed down, so I can evidence by the autumn of 1944 there were no ghettos left, many camps had closed and the remaining camps had declining populations, whereas you cannot evidence millions of Jews still alive in the camps and ghettos, or millions dead from reasons other than murder.

[TlsMS93]

Nazgul like to post those images of camps, but he never posts the most important part, which is the total camp population in 1944 to 1945.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... ps-1942-45

"According to SS reports, there were more than 700,000 prisoners left in the camps in January 1945."

If millions of arrested Jews had not been killed, why was that number not millions of prisoners left in the camps?

Who said they didn't die? The difference is that you think there was a case of murder, while we think it was a result of the complexity of that war, or do you think that no German prisoners of war died in Allied hands? What's the difference between "deaths" and "were killed"? Could a Jew only die if he was murdered?

The difference between us is that I can evidence they were murdered, whereas, as you admit, you only think they were not murdered.

Your difference from us also lies in how many Jews there were in German hands, Houston, we have a problem.

You have a far bigger problem than me. I can evidence camp and ghetto populations and date they opened and closed down, so I can evidence by the autumn of 1944 there were no ghettos left, many camps had closed and the remaining camps had declining populations, whereas you cannot evidence millions of Jews still alive in the camps and ghettos, or millions dead from reasons other than murder.

You first need to prove that the amount of ash in the Reinhardt fields totals 1.7 million people. Since no one has done this, the conviction and historiography are purely based on testimonies and circumstantial evidence that customary law allows.

If this event were here in Brazil or where “positive law” prevails, none of this would be established, since it is necessary to make the evidence unequivocal. Here, what is written is valid and not what the courts understand from the evidence, although this is changing here.