BA's thoughts on resettlement

[bombsaway]

Fork from another thread

You replied, but you dodged my very simple questions.

1) Proving resettlement is not strictly necessary.

2) You absolutely do use this as an argument for orthodoxy. It is in fact your favorite argument. I don't understand why you are backtracking.

3) I would take your argument more seriously if you made some attempt to develop it in detail and with specificity rather than simply chanting "zero evidence" over and over with no elaboration. If you were serious, you would be attempting to prove the negative and demonstrate that they definitely could not have survived.

1) Is "proving" something necessary when making assertions about historical events? Is the Holocaust an exception

2) It's circumstantial, not direct evidence. It's very strong circumstantial evidence, but it's not a reason to believe something happened. This is the logic you guys use to determine resettlement happened. If you look back at my last hundred or so posts, how many concern resettlement I wonder? It's something that comes up from time to time.

3) the importance is that it shows something is deeply wrong with the revisionist approach. If one is investigating history in an impartial manner, which should be the goal, a theory backed by little to no evidence should face serious scrutiny before being asserted. If you are asserting a mass event involving millions of people, the standards are elevated further. Yet revisionists, and you yourself in your above questions, downplay/avoid/deflect from this subject continuously. Even in threads about resettlement, the topic is clearly not one that is so interesting to revisionists https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=493

Stubble is the only poster on this forum that seems to take the issue seriously, but even his methodology is flawed. He assumes it happened, and policies and documents with no apparent relationship are treated as corroborating evidence https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14620#p14620

If the the Jews were all deported and the ghettos were liquidated, but there were no reports of killing, no witness testimonies attesting to that, no perpetrator documents or post war testimony about it, I wouldn't be here asserting that it happened. Do you think the Holocaust case would be stronger or weaker if none of this evidence existed?

[bombsaway]

To answer these questions

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

It should be easier to find evidence of survival than a one time execution. We know that when people are alive they continuously are active in the world, perceived by others, need food/lodging, represent security threats, communicate amongst themselves and to others. Even if the expectation is as much evidence generated or less, revisionists have put forward next to nothing, so even this is a fail. In the manner of Callafangers, you must argue that the expectation is many thousands of time less evidence could be expected to be generated, and even here you would expect something to slip through. But it hasn't.

[TlsMS93]

Knowing that the USSR was a closed country and that little information from outside or inside was available, it's plausible to assume that these Jews transferred there and absorbed them put down roots and lived their lives, marrying Russians and Ukrainians and trying to live without attracting the attention of Soviet intelligence agencies, which even during Stalinism weren't very lenient with them, much less so now with Stalin's insanity of a Jewish plot against his life.

We'd be talking about 2 million Jews from Central Europe. It may seem like a lot, but for the USSR, they were a needle in a haystack.

We in the West know almost nothing about Russia, this war in Ukraine makes this clear even to authorities with intelligence and espionage power, it is possible that the problem of how many Jews existed and still exist there is the same as in the USA where census issues can miss criteria that would otherwise denounce a much more prominent Jewish presence, in the USSR the criterion of Jewishness was by paternal lineage, while in the West it was by maternal lineage, creating a chaos of identity, besides the issue of fear of declaring oneself openly in censuses.

[Stubble]

Stubble is the only poster on this forum that seems to take the issue seriously, but even his methodology is flawed. He assumes it happened, and policies and documents with no apparent relationship are treated as corroborating evidence https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14620#p14620

There is an operator 'may' that you seem to have missed.

With that firewood, it's allocated to the NKVD. You have, anything, like that for the Bug River camps? No?

You have, grave space? No?

You have, anything other than your conspiracy theory of magic sand and evaporating bodies? No?

Anything to explain the lack of Iron Blue at Auschwitz? No?

Any explanation for Majdanek? No?

Carry on then Bombsaway, don't let me distract you from your unshakable belief.

I am still not sure about aggregate numbers. I have literal mounds of materials I'm going through. They are getting spit through a box, as we speak, and, if I can keep from melting the thing down (I might need to give it a break, temps are getting nutty) I will get you a book...

[bombsaway]

With that firewood, it's allocated to the NKVD. You have, anything, like that for the Bug River camps? No?

I think the issue that I'm pointing out is this. You're up in arms about supply of wood / gasoline for the burnings to the Reinhardt camps, but have no similar qualms about the far greater requirements for supplying / housing / feeding / securing 2 million people over weeks/months/years. You may "say" you do, but your faith in resettlement is actually unshaken by this even more glaring absence. There isn't even any indication these documents were destroyed like there is for Reinhardt. Globocnik says "all" paper work related to Reinhardt has been destroyed.

My point with the resettlement issue is again, not to prove they were killed/gassed but to show you that there are deep, likely psychological issues at play with your belief system that don't exist for mine. If the evidence for the Holocaust was as non-existent as the evidence for resettlement, I would not believe or assert it being real.

[Stubble]

With that firewood, it's allocated to the NKVD. You have, anything, like that for the Bug River camps? No?

I think the issue that I'm pointing out is this. You're up in arms about supply of wood / gasoline for the burnings to the Reinhardt camps, but have no similar qualms about the far greater requirements for supplying / housing / feeding / securing 2 million people over weeks/months/years. You may "say" you do, but your faith in resettlement is actually unshaken by this even more glaring absence. There isn't even any indication these documents were destroyed like there is for Reinhardt. Globocnik says "all" paper work related to Reinhardt has been destroyed.

My point with the resettlement issue is again, not to prove they were killed/gassed but to show you that there are deep, likely psychological issues at play with your belief system that don't exist for mine. If the evidence for the Holocaust was as non-existent as the evidence for resettlement, I would not believe or assert it being real.

The logistics are there in the TN and OT infrastructure near as I can tell...

So far as there being no proof of resettlement, I mean, there are piles of documents reflecting it.

Also, you seriously undersell the work of Fangers and The Wraith. They are looking for these missing persons as well, and they have sharp eyes.

[bombsaway]

With that firewood, it's allocated to the NKVD. You have, anything, like that for the Bug River camps? No?

I think the issue that I'm pointing out is this. You're up in arms about supply of wood / gasoline for the burnings to the Reinhardt camps, but have no similar qualms about the far greater requirements for supplying / housing / feeding / securing 2 million people over weeks/months/years. You may "say" you do, but your faith in resettlement is actually unshaken by this even more glaring absence. There isn't even any indication these documents were destroyed like there is for Reinhardt. Globocnik says "all" paper work related to Reinhardt has been destroyed.

My point with the resettlement issue is again, not to prove they were killed/gassed but to show you that there are deep, likely psychological issues at play with your belief system that don't exist for mine. If the evidence for the Holocaust was as non-existent as the evidence for resettlement, I would not believe or assert it being real.

The logistics are there in the TN and OT infrastructure near as I can tell...

So far as there being no proof of resettlement, I mean, there are piles of documents reflecting it.

Also, you seriously undersell the work of Fangers and The Wraith. They are looking for these missing persons as well, and they have sharp eyes.

If you say the proof has been located, I'm all ears, this thread is a great place for it.

[Stubble]

I think the issue that I'm pointing out is this. You're up in arms about supply of wood / gasoline for the burnings to the Reinhardt camps, but have no similar qualms about the far greater requirements for supplying / housing / feeding / securing 2 million people over weeks/months/years. You may "say" you do, but your faith in resettlement is actually unshaken by this even more glaring absence. There isn't even any indication these documents were destroyed like there is for Reinhardt. Globocnik says "all" paper work related to Reinhardt has been destroyed.

My point with the resettlement issue is again, not to prove they were killed/gassed but to show you that there are deep, likely psychological issues at play with your belief system that don't exist for mine. If the evidence for the Holocaust was as non-existent as the evidence for resettlement, I would not believe or assert it being real.

The logistics are there in the TN and OT infrastructure near as I can tell...

So far as there being no proof of resettlement, I mean, there are piles of documents reflecting it.

Also, you seriously undersell the work of Fangers and The Wraith. They are looking for these missing persons as well, and they have sharp eyes.

If you say the proof has been located, I'm all ears, this thread is a great place for it.

Still winnowing. Also, still digitizing in plain text and translating.

This is going to take time Bombsaway.

Currently, let's just say I've got a positive outlook for how the project is shaking out thus far.

You want proof, unimpeachable, verified, black and white proof. Ok, give me time.

In the mean time, if you wanted me to abort this project, you'd have to show me, 'where they goed'.

It's looking to me like 14f13, allied propaganda and rumors got turned into 'the evil nazis killed everyone'.

I can't find millions of pounds of firewood going to the bug river camps, but, I did find it going to the NKVD.

If there was a murder spree in the east, it unironically looks more like the folks what done it had a red star on their hat rather than a skull and crossbones.

[bombsaway]

Sorry you said "So far as there being no proof of resettlement, I mean, there are piles of documents reflecting it."

What are those documents, or are you just assuming that they are there, just haven't been found yet.

[Stubble]

Sorry you said "So far as there being no proof of resettlement, I mean, there are piles of documents reflecting it."

What are those documents, or are you just assuming that they are there, just haven't been found yet.

You've already seen plenty of them. They are unironically claimed to be proof of genocide, because 'it was a euphemism' or whatever.

Now, Bombsaway, Where, Did, They, Goed?

[bombsaway]

Sorry you said "So far as there being no proof of resettlement, I mean, there are piles of documents reflecting it."

What are those documents, or are you just assuming that they are there, just haven't been found yet.

You've already seen plenty of them. They are unironically claimed to be proof of genocide, because 'it was a euphemism' or whatever.

Now, Bombsaway, Where, Did, They, Goed?

This is a resettlement thread, not a Holocaust one. Resettlement is an alternative hypothesis.

Nevertheless, they went to the Reinhardt camps, to Chelmno, to Auschwitz. That's well attested to in the documentary and witness records.

W regards to the term resettlement being used in documents, it's obviously (following context) used as code for killing , even Mattogno admits this



So the mere mention of resettlement in documents isn't proof that it happened. There has to be more than that, context that makes this clear (like there is for killing)

[Stubble]

Show me the bodies in the dirt, and I will quit looking for the other half of the documentation.

You have piles of documents saying they were resettled and you've got insufficient grave space to show they were murdered at the Bug River camps.

You want me to find you their meal tickets, give me some time. From where I'm standing, it's looking like I'm going to find that.

You, need to show me the dead in the dirt at the Bug River camps if you expect me to believe they were murdered there.

[bombsaway]

Show me the bodies in the dirt, and I will quit looking for the other half of the documentation.

You have piles of documents saying they were resettled and you've got insufficient grave space to show they were murdered at the Bug River camps.

You want me to find you their meal tickets, give me some time. From where I'm standing, it's looking like I'm going to find that.

You, need to show me the dead in the dirt at the Bug River camps if you expect me to believe they were murdered there.

So this is the problem. This is a thread about resettlement not the graves. There are other threads for that. Instead of looking at the documents that quote resettlement and finding context that actually support that occurring you focus on a critique of the other sides hypothesis. As I said, there are other threads for this. You show your hypocrisy by scrutinizing only one narrative. All narratives should face equal scrutiny I say.

[Archie]

Show me the bodies in the dirt, and I will quit looking for the other half of the documentation.

You have piles of documents saying they were resettled and you've got insufficient grave space to show they were murdered at the Bug River camps.

You want me to find you their meal tickets, give me some time. From where I'm standing, it's looking like I'm going to find that.

You, need to show me the dead in the dirt at the Bug River camps if you expect me to believe they were murdered there.

So this is the problem. This is a thread about resettlement not the graves. There are other threads for that. Instead of looking at the documents that quote resettlement and finding context that actually support that occurring you focus on a critique of the other sides hypothesis. As I said, there are other threads for this. You show your hypocrisy by scrutinizing only one narrative. All narratives should face equal scrutiny I say.

I think the point they are making is that you are claiming millions of Jews were "resettled" in the ground. You are unbothered by your inability to demonstrate this, even though you only need to search a few acres even as you demand that we search the entire world.

[Stubble]

Show me the bodies in the dirt, and I will quit looking for the other half of the documentation.

You have piles of documents saying they were resettled and you've got insufficient grave space to show they were murdered at the Bug River camps.

You want me to find you their meal tickets, give me some time. From where I'm standing, it's looking like I'm going to find that.

You, need to show me the dead in the dirt at the Bug River camps if you expect me to believe they were murdered there.

So this is the problem. This is a thread about resettlement not the graves. There are other threads for that. Instead of looking at the documents that quote resettlement and finding context that actually support that occurring you focus on a critique of the other sides hypothesis. As I said, there are other threads for this. You show your hypocrisy by scrutinizing only one narrative. All narratives should face equal scrutiny I say.

And yet you vigorously defend but one side and duck, dodge and obfuscate from the very real and pressing problem.

After I get done, I'll come back. In the mean time you can't show me the dead, and I can't show you the living, so, I suppose we are at an impasse, although, to be fair, it should be much easier for you to show me where millions were buried...