SanityCheck wrote:You're utterly delusional about the "reshaping of the postwar world".
Try clicking your heels when you say it, might stick if you do.
SanityCheck wrote:Talking of a "denazified new world order" is completely delusional since there was this little thing called the fucking Cold War that followed 1945. That wasn't a "new world order" but a global geopolitical rivalry between two blocs competing for influence over the rest of the world as well - with decolonisation thrown into the mix from the 1940s in Asia.
Do you honestly suppose the Cold War and 'denazification' were mutually exclusive? So, because both the USA
and the Soviet Union obtained the spoils of war from a defeated Germany (which included the 'right' to reshape the world in opposition to German ideals), the matter of ideological and looming physical warfare between the West and Stalin 'does not compute'? Good luck explaining this away, it might be your worst take yet.
*snap* back to reality -- no, these conditions were
not mutually exclusive; the Cold War served its own purposes as Stalin betrayed everyone in his path, continuing the Jewish tradition of trying to seize the world in Bolshevik style, and Western leaders resisting in their own way under the umbrella of 'democracy'.
None of this says anything whatsoever against the fact that the Allies shared a consensus toward 'denazification' efforts.
SanityCheck wrote:Europe didn't need much 'denazification' after 1945 since National Socialism was so resoundingly unpopular across the continent before, during and after the war.
It "didn't need much" and, yet, massive resources and decades of propaganda continued to pound it into public consciousness? Explain. Or don't, save us reading a few thousand words of empty nonsense.
SanityCheck wrote:National Socialism had also brought utter disaster and ruin onto Germany. More importantly: the core aims of National Socialism to create a German hegemony in Europe, at the very least, were henceforth impossible in the atomic age. The Nazi 'system' proved to be a flash in the pan, lasting only twelve years, which is less time than the Tory government of Britain between 1979 and 1997, much less the post-Stalinist Soviet Union or many other long lasting governments.
Cope harder, Nick. National Socialism lost a physical war against a network of physically superior enemies often at first onboarded through Jewish propaganda, subversion, persuasion. The NS system spoke volumes in its self-liberation from Jewish global tyranny -- a tyranny which was as undeniable in the 1930s as it is today. Comparisons to other, longer-lasting nations simply highlights the urgency Jewish networks placed on seeding global war against a nation that dare free itself from Jewish parasitism.
SanityCheck wrote:To account for the actual postwar order, you need to include NATO, the Bundeswehr, the Warsaw Pact, Bretton Woods, GATT, the WTO, United Nations, Comecon, the EEC, the consequences for the British, Dutch and French empires (in Asia then Africa), and a host of socioeconomic developments starting with television, increased car ownership, fridges and white goods, tourism (on both sides of the Iron Curtain) and soon enough jet travel, as well as the agrarian revolution which led to the formation of EEC butter mountains and west European farmers being paid off not to produce food once in a while. To name but a few manifestations.
Convenient that you focus mostly on irrelevant changes and leave out anything having to do with Jews and their power networks, which only expanded and increased dramatically since the end of WW2. Don't you suppose this element could be worth mentioning, given the centrality of it in the National Socialist program of resistance? You might think to mention that the vast majority of major media companies (subsequently conglomerates) have been Jewish-owned (later Jewish-chairman'd and Jewish CEO'd). Whether Hollywood, newspapers, TV news -- you name it, its Jewish. And given the significance of influence which media holds upon public opinion,
and public opinion upon a democracy, this can't be overstated.
Bretton Woods -- good mention, as it was conceived and rolled out by Jewish architects (Harry Dexter White, Henry Morgenthau), further expanding Jewish financial influences to the global sphere.
SanityCheck wrote:The postwar trials were a temporary phenomenon across Europe - much like UNRRA was as a relief agency. The UNWCC and mechanisms for seeking extraditions of accused war criminals was wound up in 1948. The Cold War accelerated the end of the remaining trials and the early release of almost all convicted war criminals, including from Polish and Soviet prisons.
The postwar trials were "business as usual" (show trials) for the Soviets and a securing of ideological dominance (internally and globally) for the other Allies and their Jews.
I'm not clear on your mention of war criminals being released but Jewish criminals were also released around this time (1970s), who were then sent to Brighton Beach, New York as the seed of what would become the so-called 'Russian' mafia in the USA (actually a Jewish mafia, hardly Russian at all). Whether or not intended specifically as such, its another chapter in how shaping of the post-war world has entailed Jewish global conquest and abuses of power as a key and defining element, recognition of which further validates National Socialist grievances and the truth of concealment/censorship of narratives, which supports claims of similar obfuscation/concealment (or fabrication) of claims like the 'Holocaust'.
SanityCheck wrote:The Cold War also led to extensive equations of Nazi camps with Soviet concentration camps, and to emphasising other similarities between the dictatorships, at least in the west.
Yes, the West used what narratives they could against the Soviet Union. This doesn't mean they would desire to exonerate NS Germany in the process.
SanityCheck wrote:The legacies of the war *and* its aftermath hardly went undiscussed - Katyn suddenly became very useful in the Korean War, the repressions of the Soviets across Eastern Europe were manifest and the US was broadcasting propaganda via Radio Free Europe, with its role in the 1956 Hungarian Uprising much discussed. Meanwhile, East Germany commemorated Dresden as a way of striking back at Anglo-American barbarism, and the East Bloc could easily find former Nazis somewhere in the West German government or military because of the compromises (which were rational - enlisting the old elites was a necessity to turn the BRD into a proper partner in NATO).
None of that changed through to the 21st Century, the mobilisation of different memories or emphases on different crimes just fluctuated; in 2022 more European states could acknowledge the Holodomor and remember the Red Army mass rapes of 1945 because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The EU expanded and East European members emphasise double genocide, Nazi *and* Soviet crimes, West European members didn't experience Stalinism directly so those crimes resonate less, but still get researched and written about.
None of which has to do with Jews (hence, the Holocaust) but thank you for another delightful word salad.
SanityCheck wrote:In 1970 critics of America could recall WWII bombing and the threat of another Hiroshima because of Vietnam. In the 1980s the Reagan administration helped publicise the Holodomor (this is when it received its name) and was lambasting the Soviet Union as an 'evil empire'. Other parts of American society were interested in the Nazis, without this being necessarily competitive in the way you think it should be, since totalitarianism and dictatorship were both coded as objectionable - and the point about dictatorship was used to lambaste the hypocrisy of US tolerance for repressive military dictatorships in Central and Latin America.
The postwar trials were not the foundation of the postwar order.
That's some verbose evasion, Nick, bravo, but it doesn't address the core matter which is that National Socialism was an enemy and an ideology which was intentionally deconstructed and opposed via complex systems and initiatives (across multiple institutions and coordinated among nations) in the postwar era. The USA and the Soviets may have fought over some things but what was clear was their alignment in opposition to 'Nazism'. This has remained the case for the last 80 years.
SanityCheck wrote:Your whataboutery simply isn't a refutation of the points made.
Firstly, to reiterate, the likes of Hoess, Greiser and Jeckeln were also charged with inflicting mass death and suffering on large enough numbers of Poles and Soviet citizens that in comparison with others charged only with such crimes, we can see the trial outcomes would not have changed even if there had been no Jews in Auschwitz, the Warthegau or the Ostland.
Secondly, pretty much every official and officer was captured (subject to 'automatic arrest') and interrogated. The conditions for these trawls were such that it is not plausible that any one state could have enforced a false story via coercion or intimidation, or that all of the interrogated Germans would have remained silent about what "really" happened. By this I mean the revisionist minimum of no gassings in extermination camps and therefore dispersal elsewhere - the latter is what would have been the OBVIOUS alibi and refutation for accusations coming from Auschwitz survivors and others. If the Germans hadn't been exterminating Jews in camps with gas but instead dispersing them elsewhere, then their officials and officers would have said so, and given details. They did not.
Most officials would not have known exactly where and in what number Jews specifically ended up. Whether dispersed and diffused through a vast labor camp network or otherwise consolidated further East, these outcomes increasingly entailed military administration and probability that those who might have known about Jewish survival at each location having not survived the war. Moreover, those who could speak to Jewish survival would not be of particular interest, since the goal was to portray not survival but 'extermination' -- which is why the likes of Eichmann were [ultimately] placed front-and-center, despite his middle-management status, given his administration over the infamous
alleged 'trains of death', which his unit IV B4 in actual fact had no oversight of once passed beyond the Ostbahn administrative area (ended at the AR camps / Soviet demarcation line).
SanityCheck wrote:On the contrary, your claim of total, seamless coercion which left no trace on this specific issue is easily deniable, since there's just no evidence for it. As in, not one single later note from a defense lawyer, memoir, deathbed confession - there's nothing saying that Allied, Polish or Soviet interrogators twisted the arms of Germans in 1945-49 about extermination by gas.
The number of claims of being roughed up is ultimately minimal when contrasted with the number interrogated.
"General character of the trials" is just waffle. You are generalising hopelessly about not just trials but a whole variety of interrogation situations preceding any extraditions, indictments or hints that someone might be tried, and doing so regarding multiple military formations, agencies/investigative bodies, and then multiplied by the countries involved.
Moreover, to come back to the issue of the proper baseline, not only do you need to consider all trials not just statements about extermination camps, you need to consider all interrogations after the war. A much, much larger sample.
Then to note how so many Germans could disclaim knowledge or offer other defences, or outright deny a particular accusation, thus disproving the total-coercion necessary condition to maintain your irreducible delusion.
More fluff from you, sir. You roll-out the strawman-goalpost of "total, seamless coercion" but its as simple as the victors of war having the families of their enemies captive. Nothing else needs to be said here -- open and shut, especially once false 'confessions' initially started coming about,
which are then used as *evidence* against subsequent defendants, further guaranteeing narrative-compliance.
I could add more here, not worth it, you're already cooked.
SanityCheck wrote:Stop lying to yourself, it'll save on brainhurt and butthurt for you later on.
Are you seriously going to argue there's no contemporary wartime documentation of the extermination of the Jews, and of gassing? It's not true for the German documents and it's certainly not true for all contemporary sources.
Are you seriously going to say that NO physical evidence of cyanide traces, burnt remains, mass graves was found in the 1940s? Because that quite obviously isn't the conclusion reached in the mainstream.
Am I "seriously going to argue there's no contemporary wartime documentation of the extermination of the Jews, and of gassing"? Nick, how high are you?
Yes, I am 1,000% going to argue exactly that. Are you
really going to claim you can provide contemporary wartime documentation that actually reflects (in some/any reasonably-verifiable way) that actual 'gassings' of human beings (and not just atrocity lies and defamation or rumor) can be reasonably ascertained as having taken place?
If you're asking me to accept every claim of baby-bayonetting, lime train, vacuum chambers with electric floors that Shlomo Bergstein swears on his yarmulke killed 5,000,000 Jews then, sure, we can agree that contemporary wartime "documents" do exist of this kind. But only you and your camp would ascribe any authority to such "documents" at all.
As for physical "evidence" -- evidence of
what exactly? Are you really going to suggest that finding some ~20,000 corpses' worth (average reasonably inferred based on documented excavated findings at AR camps [strangely less at Treblinka], assumes the studies were honest) of material better reflects
'gassing' of millions than it does
obvious sanitary measures (burning of contaminated corpses in extreme epidemic in wartime)? Are you
really going to suggest this, even with no evidence of astronomic cremation pyres and fuel orders? If so, the ladies must really love you, Nick, because you are a very BOLD man.
SanityCheck wrote:Why did Eichmann discuss any gassing and killing sites to Sassen at all, if "Nazi gassings never happened"?
Nick, perhaps you missed it: please explain why Eichmann 'discussed' the Majdanek gassing which Browning concedes
never happened. Perhaps therein lies a clue why he would discuss other gassings which also did not happen.
Really, though.
SanityCheck wrote:That is the point; he continued to minimise things both in Argentina and after capture, as one would expect from someone being accused of complicity in enormous crimes. And over a decade after the war, memories can be easily confused on some aspects. But Eichmann should never have conceded or discussed gassing and killing in the first place, if "Nazi gassings never happened".
Again: no. Eichmann admits to spending years bored in his hideout and reading piles of articles about himself, clearly intrigued and fascinated by it all (he later hints at Sassen that he should be able to 'remember more' if only he could read Sassen's books which he [Eichmann] coveted). This then led to these stories becoming much of his persona in his new life in Argentina, which he embraced (hence extending the invite for the interviews to any number of strangers). There was no intrigue and no importance to him in a "non-Holocaust" context, so he simply played along. And when Sassen pissed him off, he played even harder. Little did he know, this would bite him in the ass once captured and deported to Israel for a trial he never expected, at which point more details emerged including his explicit denials of 'extermination' involvement, as posted recently in the thread on the Sassen-Eichmann tapes.
SanityCheck wrote:To repeat:
1. The Nazi regime failed to offer a plausible cover story, point to Potemkin villages or alibis, or explain what was happening to the deported Jews in a believable way, long after it had been repeatedly accused of mass murdering Jews by mass shootings, gas vans and then extermination camps in 1942. Pointing to Theresienstadt, as one propagandist did in mid-1944 after yet more reports of gassings, is clearly inadequate as a proper response. It isn't even good deflection, it's just incompetent. 'Resettlement' was apparently just as secret as extermination - it just wasn't discussed publicly. But it clearly should have been, as that left the field wide open for the ever accumulating number of accusations. Anyone sympathetic to the National Socialists should be utterly ashamed of their complete PR and propaganda incompetence.
The 'Nazi regime' was not a monolith -- individual men were pulled aside, knowing their families were terrified and threatened under an enemy regime. Some of their fellow men had already added weight to the enemy atrocity narrative, which these men often would not have known enough to thoroughly deny but just as often
could have known enough within the narrative's framework such that it would be necessary for them to 'play along' to save their skin. This isn't rocket science. You say what you need to say to protect yourself and/or your family. Eventually, direct threats and coercion are not needed. You can see what the enemy wants and recognize the implicit or explicit consequences if you do not comply. It was written on the wall.
SanityCheck wrote:2. Not one German interrogated in 1945-49 in the postwar investigations and trials could point with concrete details to a 'resettlement' camp or reservation and explain the whereabouts of the known deportees. The best they could offer were vague ideas of 'somewhere in the east'.
Resettlement is better thought of as a process than a destination. Jews were "sifted through the camps in the GG" and then sifted further and further East, balancing the needs of a labor force and security matters all along the way, but with working Jews often keeping their families housed nearby. Accommodations become increasingly unclear as the transit moves further into the East, which is expected given that
everything becomes increasingly unclear as it moved this way.
SanityCheck wrote:3. No German who escaped Europe did so, either, and that obviously includes Eichmann.
Jews sent past the Ostbahn territory were under military administration, not overseen by Eichmann/Novak/etc. Novak said as much at the Eichmann trial, which I recall quoting for you at RODOH last year.
SanityCheck wrote:4. No German did so from 1949-58 when the trials had died down and before the establishment of the Zentrale Stelle in Ludwigsburg, renewing war crimes investigations.
Again, whether from East German trials, to Nuremberg and beyond, few would know exactly where Jews ended up but all could observe the 'gassing' and 'extermination' narratives which threatened them (and directly or by extension, their families). It is obvious that this creates conditions where men make statements to save their skin, and that it does NOT make sense in such conditions to deny the broader narrative entirely (which showed time and time again to get one killed in trying, see this classic:
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... 5&start=15).
SanityCheck wrote:5. No German did so after 1958, before or after the Eichmann trial.
Same, same.
SanityCheck wrote:Callafangers wrote:Overall, selective readings of evidence and documentation is unbecoming of an historian, Nick. Are your students reading this? How will they feel, seeing their esteemed professor forced to veer so far from sound intellectual/scientific methodology? Notice I left out 'historical method', which seems more and more to have become defined by [source-uncritical] 'Holocaust scholarship', rather than the other way around.
The selective readings of evidence are coming from your side, I'm afraid.
"I'm afraid" that your response to my last paragraph here totals to an insane
twenty-three (23) paragraphs. Nick, pardon my French, but what the fuck?
Sorry, none of your gigantic word buffet there has challenged the point that accepting baseless accusations as hard 'evidence' has become a standard practice in 'Holocaust historiography'. A simple reading of the Notes/Sources section of the USHMM or Yad Vashem Encyclopedias unsurprisingly reveals an overwhelming majority of citations to be Yizkor books, ChGK reports, an occasional German document about partisan shootings or other naughty policies, postwar 'gap-filling', and literature derived from these. In other words: the foundation of your house of cards is defamatory turds made of atrocity lies.
Moreover, while you remain confident in statements like "the brute fact of mass gassing at Auschwitz-Birkenau - is superabundantly confirmed from numerous other sources independent of Hoess", you pull the rug over embarrassing narratives like that of the alleged "First Gassing" at Auschwitz, which Mattogno has elegantly shown to be an extraordinarily chaotic pile of crap constructed by liars and 'witnesses' who sound very much like those same 'witnesses' you rely on, e.g. Sonderkommando (who themselves are shown to be saturated heavily with provable liars). Oh, there's also Gerstein. Oh, and hundreds/thousands of others who repeat the same lies and patterns, all weighed against your 'underground reports' and handful of storytellers with an over-110 IQ actually able to keep their story semi-believable.
Altogether, you remain a premier knight of a dying narrative, one which has misled minds for half a century but will certainly never do so again.
)
