The Lies, Slips, Bungles and Perjuries of Filip Muller

[Stubble]

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... -of-filip/

An article from CODOH regarding the various inconsistencies from this 'witness'.

[Hektor]

This Filip Muller?
https://archive.org/details/three-years ... s-chambers

[Stubble]

This Filip Muller?
https://archive.org/details/three-years ... s-chambers

By golly, that's the rap scallion right there I tell you!

[Nessie]

Thanks, link downloaded.

[Stubble]

You'll also need this.

It's page 142 of the Polish language edition.

https://archive.org/details/bib244580_0 ... 4/mode/1up

It's the Himmler bit...

[Stubble]

For the record, I initially found this article on a conspiracy website that I will not link here because of the need to vet everything read there. It has a .io extension rather than .com or .org etc.

With this information presented by a source I could not take at face value, I began to vet the contents.

I later found this link to CODOH. When I did, I shared it here.

It is important to note the requirement of due diligence with sources. I don't take anything for granted and am a show me kind of guy.

[TlsMS93]

They say that the Sonderkommandos only lasted a short time in the camps until they were gassed themselves to prevent the story from being told if they escaped. However, we have this specimen that went unscathed and invisible, who says that he survived thanks to a miracle, he must have been protected by Yahweh to tell the world about the Nazi crimes.

The Sonderkommando that survives is the same as the, “the Nazis destroyed the evidence but it is the best documented event in history”.

[Nessie]

They say that the Sonderkommandos only lasted a short time in the camps until they were gassed themselves to prevent the story from being told if they escaped. However, we have this specimen that went unscathed and invisible, who says that he survived thanks to a miracle, he must have been protected by Yahweh to tell the world about the Nazi crimes.

There are multiple instances of Jews, who proved to be reliable workers, being kept alive and moving from camp to camp.

The Sonderkommando that survives is the same as the, “the Nazis destroyed the evidence but it is the best documented event in history”.

Despite Nazi widespread destruction of evidence, such was the extent of their crimes, that the Holocaust remains a well documented event. Revisionists fail to consider that it is impossible to hide the disappearance of millions of Jews.

[Stubble]

Hey, bombsaway, you should talk about, yo boi, Philly Muley.

We can, you know, go over his insane ramblings about Nazi vampire cannibals in Berlin, and his separation from the special potato battalion at Monowitz to come watch Himmler rant about how important designer clothing is, and how that led to the shower hoax, which involved getting jews to strip to be gassed!

We can talk about his various statements and how they evolved over time, and we can talk about how Germans are inherently evil!

Come on down buddy, and show those nasty revisionists how you believe this witness is credible and described exactly what he saw!

[bombsaway]

we can talk about how Germans are inherently evil!

I'm interested in this idea, and it's one you seem to be particularly hung up on, with your proclamation about hating all Germans (even modern ones who had nothing to do with Nazism) growing up - which I think I doubt. I think you want to believe that, because you're wedded to this narrative that the hoaxers were trying to instill hatred towards Germans or all white people. But no I don't really believe it, and if you really did believe that at the time, I think it would be phenomenally dumb.

There was a book about this idea - German "evil" - called Hitler's Willing Executioners, which the historical establishment roundly rejected.

Goldhagen's assertion that almost all Germans "wanted to be genocidal executioners" has been viewed with skepticism by most historians, a skepticism ranging from dismissal as "not valid social science" to a condemnation, in the words of the Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer, as "patent nonsense".[2][65][66] Common complaints suggest that Goldhagen's primary hypothesis is either "oversimplified",[67] or represents "a bizarre inversion of the Nazi view of the Jews" turned back upon the Germans.[3] One German commentator suggested that Goldhagen's book "pushes us again and again headfirst into the nasty anti-Semitic mud. This is his revenge."[68] Eberhard Jäckel wrote a very hostile book review in the Die Zeit newspaper in May 1996 that called Hitler's Willing Executioners "simply a bad book".[69] The British historian Sir Ian Kershaw wrote that he fully agreed with Jäckel on the merits of Hitler's Willing Executioners".[69] Kershaw wrote in 2000 that Goldhagen's book would "occupy only a limited place in the unfolding, vast historiography of such a crucially important topic-probably at best as a challenge to historians to qualify or counter his 'broad-brush' generalisations".[70]

In 1996, the American historian David Schoenbaum wrote a highly critical book review in the National Review of Hitler's Willing Executioners where he charged Goldhagen with grossly simplifying the question of the degree and virulence of German Antisemitism, and of only selecting evidence that supported his thesis.[71]: 54–5  Furthermore, Schoenbaum complained that Goldhagen did not take a comparative approach with Germany placed in isolation, thereby falsely implying that Germans and Germans alone were the only nation that saw widespread antisemitism.[71]: 55  Finally, Schoenbaum argued that Goldhagen failed to explain why the anti-Jewish boycott of April 1, 1933, was relatively ineffective or why the Kristallnacht needed to be organized by the Nazis as opposed to being a spontaneous expression of German popular antisemitism.[71]: 56  Using an example from his family history, Schoenbaum wrote that his mother in law, a Polish Jew who lived in Germany between 1928–47, never considered the National Socialists and the Germans synonymous, and expressed regret that Goldhagen could not see the same.[71]: 56 

Hitler's Willing Executioners also drew controversy with the publication of two critical articles: "Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'Crazy' Thesis", by the American political science professor Norman Finkelstein and initially published in the UK political journal New Left Review,[72] and "Historiographical review: Revising the Holocaust", written by the Canadian historian Ruth Bettina Birn and initially published in the Historical Journal of Cambridge.[3] These articles were later published as the book A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth.[3] In response to their book, Goldhagen sought a retraction and apology from Birn, threatening at one point to sue her for libel and according to Salon declaring Finkelstein "a supporter of Hamas".[3] The force of the counterattacks against Birn and Finkelstein from Goldhagen's supporters was described by Israeli journalist Tom Segev as "bordering on cultural terrorism ... The Jewish establishment has embraced Goldhagen as if he were Mr Holocaust himself ... All this is absurd, because the criticism of Goldhagen is backed up so well."[73]

The Austrian-born American historian Raul Hilberg has stated that Goldhagen is "totally wrong about everything. Totally wrong. Exceptionally wrong."[4] Hilberg also wrote in an open letter on the eve of the book launch at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum that "The book is advertised as something that will change our thinking. It can do nothing of the sort. To me it is worthless, all the hype by the publisher notwithstanding".[5] Yehuda Bauer was similarly condemnatory, questioning how an institute such as Harvard could award a doctorate for a work which so "slipped through the filter of critical scholarly assessment".[74] Bauer also suggested that Goldhagen lacked familiarity with sources not in English or German, which thereby excluded research from Polish and Israeli sources writing in Hebrew, among others, all of whom had produced important research in the subject that would require a more subtle analysis. Bauer also argued that these linguistic limitations substantially impaired Goldhagen from undertaking broader comparative research into European antisemitism, which would have demanded further refinements to his analysis.

Tbh his book doesn't go nearly as far as you did, in your self proclaimed previous hatred of Germans. There's nothing in the history, no rational reason to believe such things about Germans, assuming orthodoxy is correct. It's just a cartoonish way of looking at the world.

[Stubble]

I see you want to move away from talking about Muller instantly and make this about a contextless comment made in a PM about miseducation to put me on the back foot.

Now, if we could talk about Muller and his Evil Nazi Cannibals from Berlin, his description of gassing, or anything else, he, said, we can move along.

If you want to talk about PM's, you could do that in a PM, though, I wouldn't be inclined to respond.

Congratulations on your new 'gotcha'. At least you have moved past responding to everything eventually with 'where'd they go'.

[bombsaway]

I see you want to move away from talking about Muller instantly and make this about a contextless comment made in a PM about miseducation to put me on the back foot.

You think this is some kind of tactic but really I'm just interested in a psychological sense. Revisionists that hated germans, really?

There was no question asked in that thread about where did they go. Rather the challenge was to describe how they thought witnesses were compelled to speak of such things

I'm trying to get you guys to talk about what you actually believe happened. This is interesting to, psychologically, because of how averse to it you seem

[Stubble]

You're also intentionally misframing what was actually said and baiting.

You could just post up what I said, instead of trying to drag me into arguing with you about it wasting time, space on the forum, and trying to wield me saying we shot Germans on the weekends in video games for fun as a slander against which I have to defend myself.

I'd ask you to do that in total, and in another thread though, because this thread is about Muller, not Stubble.

RE: what I think happened

jews went where jews are, simple as. Why I think that, because they aren't where I was told they were, and never have been in the dirt in Huge Mass Graves.

Neither of these subjects have one jot or one tittle to do with Muller however, and had just as much to do with Kula and his Columns.

[bombsaway]

what I think happened

jews went where jews are, simple

This statement typifies how avoidant you are about the subject of what happened. This includes as well the conspiracy or natural phenomenon of all the confessions and witness testimonies. You don't want to talk about that at any level of depth.

There is no subject in the field that I would avoid or have avoided. I am bombarded by countless questions and criticisms, I can't answer to them all. I just choose what is interesting to me.

[Stubble]

Are you going to talk about your 'reliable witness' Muller? Or just filibuster with non sequiturs?

Any time bombs, any time. We can start talking about your 'reliable witness' any time.