Chronology of the Holocaust

[Stubble]

You are completely missing my point.

So far as Soviet nazi gas atrocity propaganda goes, you will just eat whatsoever is put on the plate, won't you.

Further, a thought occurs to me, my agreement with your assertion is not necessary for the advancement of the chronology.

Perhaps we should mark this as a point of divergence.

It's not just a point of diversion, it's a point where I can't follow you at all. I disagree with your claims about shooting details like the Jews acquiescence to their fate invalidating much of the testimonial and documentary evidence, but even that's more understandable.

So maybe elucidate your point.

I already responded to your concerns about WHY and also your speculations about Hitler never agreeing to gassings.

The stuff about gassings against USSR too, also seems like a 'just cuz' rationale. If NS Germany had used gas in tunnels and stuff, this is also evidenced in Warsaw, how would we know? You're not relying on analysis and debunking of evidence, it feels like these are just predetermined conclusions on your part.

If this is your approach, then I think going further seems fruitless for me.

Fair.

Perhaps a break is in order for reflection and research then.

My adamant refusal to accept these allegations does not come from a dishonest place, and I feel a need to emphasize that.

I also reiterate, it isn't just because. Some of the things we are touching on are, in my opinion, foundational. Again, the only reason I can see for gas chambers for euthanasia, and I mean this sincerely, is that it is a cornerstone for non existent gas chambers in the east.

In my opinion, this is the only rationalization for it.

I understand that there is documentation that is presented in support, I understand that there are shared personnel. I understand all of these things. I also freely admit more diligence is due on my part.

Perhaps as an exercise it may be useful for you to see things from my point of view and look at the evidence and see if you personally find it 1) sufficient and 2) reasonable.

Then again, maybe not.

I'm not simply being contrarian here, rest assured, I'm am very leery to accept any gas chamber as a given, what's less a gas van. I know you haven't specifically mentioned them, but, in this discourse, that's coming, and I know it.

[bombsaway]

You are completely missing my point.

So far as Soviet nazi gas atrocity propaganda goes, you will just eat whatsoever is put on the plate, won't you.

Further, a thought occurs to me, my agreement with your assertion is not necessary for the advancement of the chronology.

Perhaps we should mark this as a point of divergence.

It's not just a point of diversion, it's a point where I can't follow you at all. I disagree with your claims about shooting details like the Jews acquiescence to their fate invalidating much of the testimonial and documentary evidence, but even that's more understandable.

So maybe elucidate your point.

I already responded to your concerns about WHY and also your speculations about Hitler never agreeing to gassings.

The stuff about gassings against USSR too, also seems like a 'just cuz' rationale. If NS Germany had used gas in tunnels and stuff, this is also evidenced in Warsaw, how would we know? You're not relying on analysis and debunking of evidence, it feels like these are just predetermined conclusions on your part.

If this is your approach, then I think going further seems fruitless for me.

Fair.

Perhaps a break is in order for reflection and research then.

My adamant refusal to accept these allegations does not come from a dishonest place, and I feel a need to emphasize that.

I also reiterate, it isn't just because. Some of the things we are touching on are, in my opinion, foundational. Again, the only reason I can see for gas chambers for euthanasia, and I mean this sincerely, is that it is a cornerstone for non existent gas chambers in the east.

In my opinion, this is the only rationalization for it.

So when you say "only" that means you have to make compelling arguments for why the other rationalizations I gave you shouldn't apply

You have to address why other countries used gas chambers for similar purposes (involuntary killing).

You have to address reasoning like this from Karl Brandt

Dr. Karl Brandt wrote in his personal notebook:[13]

“Adolf Hitler asked me which method, based on current considerations and experiences, was the mildest, that is to say the safest, quickest and the most effective and painless one. I had to concede that this was death through the inhalation of carbon monoxide gas. He then said that this was also the most humane. I myself then took on board this position and put to one side my medical concerns for external reasons… I am convinced that the procedure with carbon monoxide was right.”

You have to show definitive, rather than speculative reasoning for why Hitler would have unequivocally opposed use of gassing. We know the reason why he didn't order use of gas in a prominent way in warfare, there was a policy of mutual deterrence , similar to use atomic weapons during the cold war

. In a military conference in May 1943, recorded in Hitler’s War Directives and other wartime documents, he stated that Germany would not initiate chemical warfare:

“Under no circumstances should Germany be the first to make use of gas. This prohibition remains in force under all circumstances, except, of course, in the case that our enemies use gas against us.”

So he says explicitly here that he would use it, just not first. It turns out that Churchill didn't end up using it first so this never was tested.

FTR I don't think you're being dishonest.

[Stubble]

To be frank, I feel no actual compelling need to address a false equivalence with execution gas chambers, almost exclusively located in the United States, and a euthanasia program. I do not find the argument that somehow these are the same thing compelling.

In a medical facility, instruments of murder are numerous when applied in the incorrect way. The need to introduce a new murder weapon in such circumstances is absolutely superfluous. This reminds me of a manufacturing facility I worked at for a period that attempted to institute a 'no knife' policy. For the record, this policy would have interfered with my execution of my responsibilities which included opening various boxes and containers, most expediently, specifically, with a pen knife.

Now, at one point, I addressed the plant manager directly, and we conversed about different equipment and different materials at the plant. It was at the point when I addressed something called a 'no touch' tool that the conversation ended and the proposed policy was terminated.

For inquiring minds, the 'no touch' tool was for manipulating red hot iron and was specifically a 3 foot or there about 12lb steel rod.

The idea of introducing a novel murder weapon to a hospital, to me, is absolutely irrational and fails the test of reason.

[Archie]

It's noteworthy that revisionists like John Wear seem to confirm gassings, and he's not even evaluating most of the evidence

We discussed that in an earlier euthanasia thread. It seems he decided to make a tactical concession and in turn use it to argue that this undermines rather than supports the broader Holocaust narrative. Wear seems to be in the minority (most seem to think this concession is way premature barring better evidence), but there is some logic to what he's saying.

[Archie]

Mein Kampf is from 1925-1926. Too early. More informed anti-revisionists stopped quoting that passage years ago.

Hitler's obviously talking about the notorious chemical warfare of WWI. Hitler himself was gassed during the war. He's saying the Jews as a whole didn't do their part for Germany in the war.

Another thing you are ignoring here was that Germany was sitting on a large stockpile of Sarin and other chemical weapons yet Hitler refused to use it. In contrast, we have Churchill on record as being eager to use chemical warfare against the Germans (thankfully it seems that maniac didn't get his way). So, yes, I think we can argue that Hitler did show some disinclination to use gas, certainly compared to Churchill.

I think you're wrong here, but we can get check this if you want in another part of the site. I wasn't bringing this up for reasons of evidencing extermination of Jews, you are very debate-pilled my friend.

The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Soviet resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[87] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[87] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[88] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimushkay quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[89] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushkay were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[88]

In February 1943, German troops stationed in Kuban received a telegram: "Russians might have to be cleared out of the mountain range with gas."[90] The troops also received two wagons of toxin antidotes.[90]

I think you know what I'm referring to since you yourself later quoted it.

. In a military conference in May 1943, recorded in Hitler’s War Directives and other wartime documents, he stated that Germany would not initiate chemical warfare:

“Under no circumstances should Germany be the first to make use of gas. This prohibition remains in force under all circumstances, except, of course, in the case that our enemies use gas against us.”

In WWII histories, there are few if any mentions of these supposed limited gas attacks in Soviet territory (sourced from people named Israelyan) which if true would be minor compared to the extensive gas warfare of WWI (undeniably the true context of the MK passage). You will however find lots of discussion in WWII books about the lack of use chemical weapons. A paragraph right before what you selectively quoted (and which you did not link).

Your unlinked source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... rld_War_II

The Nazis' decision to avoid the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield has been variously attributed to a lack of technical ability in the German chemical weapons program and fears that the Allies would retaliate with their own chemical weapons.[83] It also has been speculated to have arisen from Adolf Hitler's experiences as a soldier in the German army during World War I, where he was injured by a British mustard gas attack in 1918.[85] After the Battle of Stalingrad, Joseph Goebbels, Robert Ley, and Martin Bormann urged Hitler to approve the use of tabun and other chemical weapons to slow the Soviet advance. At a May 1943 meeting in the Wolf's Lair, however, Hitler was told by Ambros that Germany had 45,000 tons of chemical gas stockpiled, but that the Allies likely had far more. Hitler responded by suddenly leaving the room and ordering production of tabun and sarin to be doubled, but "fearing some rogue officer would use them and spark Allied retaliation, he ordered that no chemical weapons be transported to the Russian front."[81] After the Allied invasion of Italy, the Germans rapidly moved to remove or destroy both German and Italian chemical-weapon stockpiles, "for the same reason that Hitler had ordered them pulled from the Russian front—they feared that local commanders would use them and trigger Allied chemical retaliation."[81]

Churchill said in 1944 that he wanted "a cold-blooded calculation ... as to how it would pay to use poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard."

"I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing, uniformed defeatists which one runs across now there, now there."

On the moral aspect of it, he said: "It is simply a question of fashion changing, as she does between long and short skirts for women."

"I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention."

Note that Churchill wanted to "drench the cities," i.e., use it on civilian populations.

I think Hitler comes out looking pretty good in this comparison.

[bombsaway]

To be frank, I feel no actual compelling need to address a false equivalence with execution gas chambers, almost exclusively located in the United States, and a euthanasia program. I do not find the argument that somehow these are the same thing compelling.

In a medical facility, instruments of murder are numerous when applied in the incorrect way. The need to introduce a new murder weapon in such circumstances is absolutely superfluous. This reminds me of a manufacturing facility I worked at for a period that attempted to institute a 'no knife' policy. For the record, this policy would have interfered with my execution of my responsibilities which included opening various boxes and containers, most expediently, specifically, with a pen knife.

Now, at one point, I addressed the plant manager directly, and we conversed about different equipment and different materials at the plant. It was at the point when I addressed something called a 'no touch' tool that the conversation ended and the proposed policy was terminated.

For inquiring minds, the 'no touch' tool was for manipulating red hot iron and was specifically a 3 foot or there about 12lb steel rod.

The idea of introducing a novel murder weapon to a hospital, to me, is absolutely irrational and fails the test of reason.

Homicidal gas chambers were used in Lithunia, USSR, and North Korea as well, for executions. They're not the same thing, but they're both forms of involuntary killing, whereas you're drawing comparisons to voluntary euthanasia. This is also not the same as involuntary euthanasia, yet you seem to view them as equivalent, which I think is logically unsound.

Voluntary euthanasia was conducted in Germany at this time, so we're talking about something completely new.

You seem to make an argument that a novel weapon was being introduced, but this doesn't seem to be the case, since the T4 program began in late 1939. There was no conventional way of doing things. This argument is further reduced, in my mind, because it's obvious that "novel weapons" can be introduced in these situations and they have been. Lethal injections were in fact introduced in the US only in the late 20th century, before that gas chambers, electric chair were the most common method. So none of this stuff is convincing to me for that reason. I think you're working back from a predetermined conclusion, this isn't intentional, but a result of strong biases on your part.

You will however find lots of discussion in WWII books about the lack of use chemical weapons. A paragraph right before what you selectively quoted (and which you did not link).

I'm disinclined to having conversations with you because of stuff like this, accusations of dishonesty on my part. It's speculative for you to say I purposefully didn't include that out of deceptive reasons, which I think is the implication.

There's obviously a difference between frontline use of chemical weapons and chemical weapons used in this limited way to smoke out insurgents and entrenched units in mostly urban warfare.

[Stubble]

To be frank, I feel no actual compelling need to address a false equivalence with execution gas chambers, almost exclusively located in the United States, and a euthanasia program. I do not find the argument that somehow these are the same thing compelling.

In a medical facility, instruments of murder are numerous when applied in the incorrect way. The need to introduce a new murder weapon in such circumstances is absolutely superfluous. This reminds me of a manufacturing facility I worked at for a period that attempted to institute a 'no knife' policy. For the record, this policy would have interfered with my execution of my responsibilities which included opening various boxes and containers, most expediently, specifically, with a pen knife.

Now, at one point, I addressed the plant manager directly, and we conversed about different equipment and different materials at the plant. It was at the point when I addressed something called a 'no touch' tool that the conversation ended and the proposed policy was terminated.

For inquiring minds, the 'no touch' tool was for manipulating red hot iron and was specifically a 3 foot or there about 12lb steel rod.

The idea of introducing a novel murder weapon to a hospital, to me, is absolutely irrational and fails the test of reason.

Homicidal gas chambers were used in Lithunia, USSR, and North Korea as well, for executions. They're not the same thing, but they're both forms of involuntary killing, whereas you're drawing comparisons to voluntary euthanasia. This is also not the same as involuntary euthanasia, yet you seem to view them as equivalent, which I think is logically unsound.

Voluntary euthanasia was conducted in Germany at this time, so we're talking about something completely new.

You seem to make an argument that a novel weapon was being introduced, but this doesn't seem to be the case, since the T4 program began in late 1939. There was no conventional way of doing things. This argument is further reduced, in my mind, because it's obvious that "novel weapons" can be introduced in these situations and they have been. Lethal injections were in fact introduced in the US only in the late 20th century, before that gas chambers, electric chair were the most common method. So none of this stuff is convincing to me for that reason. I think you're working back from a predetermined conclusion, this isn't intentional, but a result of strong biases on your part.

You will however find lots of discussion in WWII books about the lack of use chemical weapons. A paragraph right before what you selectively quoted (and which you did not link).

I'm disinclined to having conversations with you because of stuff like this, accusations of dishonesty on my part. It's speculative for you to say I purposefully didn't include that out of deceptive reasons, which I think is the implication.

There's obviously a difference between frontline use of chemical weapons and chemical weapons used in this limited way to smoke out insurgents and entrenched units in mostly urban warfare.

You seem to be trying to draw some ethical distinction here that equates all execution with some uniformity. Hanging and gassing are not equivalent, for example.

Now, in a hospital, a hospital, the last thing, and I mean this literally, the last thing that comes to mind as a murder weapon is a gas chamber.

[bombsaway]

You seem to be trying to draw some ethical distinction here that equates all execution with some uniformity. Hanging and gassing are not equivalent, for example.

Now, in a hospital, a hospital, the last thing, and I mean this literally, the last thing that comes to mind as a murder weapon is a gas chamber.

I'm not following your argument here. The killings were conducted in mental hospitals btw, I don't think any in regular hospitals.

[Stubble]

You seem to be trying to draw some ethical distinction here that equates all execution with some uniformity. Hanging and gassing are not equivalent, for example.

Now, in a hospital, a hospital, the last thing, and I mean this literally, the last thing that comes to mind as a murder weapon is a gas chamber.

I'm not following your argument here. The killings were conducted in mental hospitals btw, I don't think any in regular hospitals.

I've been as concise as practical in my use of language as I feel I could have been. I don't know how else to put it. Such is the way of things sometimes I suppose.

This is like a group of people, who built ballistic missiles and jet aircraft decided one day to construct homicidal gas chambers out of ceramic tile over gypsum board on wooden sticks, because apparently they were looking at multi ton steel sheet gas chambers and being inspired, but, also needed to do it 'differently' to make it their own, so, they used a different gas, but, only in some places, because, in other places they did use cyanide gas, but not like everyone else, oh no, they but their own spin on that too, except that when you test these makeshift hydrogen cyanide homicidal gas chambers, you don't find anything above trace residue, which I'm almost certain I would find if I sampled the wall of my swimming pool.

Add to that the ridiculous tales and preposterous fables, and also look at it pragmatically, and tell me what you think buddy.

You may be selling Kaiser's Koffee Kafe, even at a discount price, but I sir, am still not buying it.

It's almost as if everyone thinks a mechanical separator, frankly not too dissimilar from a cotton gin, was somehow beyond the capability of German engineering, or that simply locking a train and leaving it on the tracks for a week in Poland in winter was somehow impossible, or that gas chambers for entire trains using hydrogen cyanide gas, a holocaust staple, didn't exist.

[bombsaway]

I've been as concise as practical in my use of language as I feel I could have been. I don't know how else to put it. Such is the way of things sometimes I suppose.

This is like a group of people, who built ballistic missiles and jet aircraft decided one day to construct homicidal gas chambers out of ceramic tile over gypsum board on wooden sticks, because apparently they were looking at multi ton steel sheet gas chambers and being inspired, but, also needed to do it 'differently' to make it their own, so, they used a different gas, but, only in some places, because, in other places they did use cyanide gas, but not like everyone else, oh no, they but their own spin on that too, except that when you test these makeshift hydrogen cyanide homicidal gas chambers, you don't find anything above trace residue, which I'm almost certain I would find if I sampled the wall of my swimming pool.

So it's the cost issues that make the idea of T4 gassings deeply implausible to you? Is it the technical difficulty of conducting gassings? Be specific

[Stubble]

I've been as concise as practical in my use of language as I feel I could have been. I don't know how else to put it. Such is the way of things sometimes I suppose.

This is like a group of people, who built ballistic missiles and jet aircraft decided one day to construct homicidal gas chambers out of ceramic tile over gypsum board on wooden sticks, because apparently they were looking at multi ton steel sheet gas chambers and being inspired, but, also needed to do it 'differently' to make it their own, so, they used a different gas, but, only in some places, because, in other places they did use cyanide gas, but not like everyone else, oh no, they but their own spin on that too, except that when you test these makeshift hydrogen cyanide homicidal gas chambers, you don't find anything above trace residue, which I'm almost certain I would find if I sampled the wall of my swimming pool.

So it's the cost issues that make the idea of T4 gassings deeply implausible to you? Is it the technical difficulty of conducting gassings? Be specific

No, it's that the entire contrived narrative is incomprehensible, unnecessary and ridiculous.

/shrug

[bombsaway]

]
No, it's that the entire contrived narrative is incomprehensible, unnecessary and ridiculous.

/shrug

We are talking about t4 gassings now, following chronology. What is incomprehensible about it, be specific

Maybe think about this for a day or two

[Stubble]

]
No, it's that the entire contrived narrative is incomprehensible, unnecessary and ridiculous.

/shrug

We are talking about t4 gassings now, following chronology. What is incomprehensible about it, be specific

Maybe think about this for a day or two

I do needs to step back for a bit. I'm tying myself in a knot with some frustration here.

If we just took the euthanasia bit, by itself, in isolation, it wouldn't look as absolutely retarded as it does when you take that braid and run it into the larger homicidal gas chamber tapestry, so, I suppose that's something.

Even when it is isolated however, I still can't just sit here and look past the sheer volume of simpler, easier, cheaper and more easily concealed murder weapons in a hospital.

Again, if you don't want people yo know they are executing people, as that's a factor in the calculus of this entire premise, then why would you build a death chamber and dedicate staff to it instead of just telling a nurse to go give a round of sedatives (in reality a lethal cocktail) to the condemned so they can be transported. Then, the agent of death has no idea what they've done. No, instead you have a whole series of people, completely aware of what they are doing, somehow high fiving over the fact that they don't need to remove a strip of clothing because they got the condemned to remove their own clothes, like that was the important part of something.

/shrug

I'll see ya next week. I'm going to go do other stuff, and things.

[bombsaway]

Sure, I'll respond to this post in a few days. Until then I would ask that people don't move forward too far in the chronology

In the meantime I might check out the links I provided previously and here's a book https://oceanofpdf.com/authors/michael- ... -download/

[Numar Patru]

I’ll throw in that Henry Friedlander’s book *Origins of Nazi Genocide* is worth reading.