Operation Reinhardt staff and the T4 connection

[Stubble]

I should clarify, that when I say fiction obviously that's not from your perspective. But that's what you're doing when your assertions become speculative based rather than evidence based. Historians don't assert mass events and even minor events without direct evidence. Obviously you deviate from this standard. You're not doing history

I'm very clear when I;

A: present an opinion
B: ask a question

Neither of those should be construed as 'fiction'.

If I asserted it as fact, without evidence, that would be fiction. That's not what I'm doing.

None of this is constructive for the thread however and could be discussed in a separate thread or via direct message. No need to clutter this thread with it.

I am talking about your statements about witnesses lying, documents being atrocity propaganda

A Year in Treblinka should be patently obvious as atrocity propaganda. The date, the channels it took, its nature.

Are you saying it is an honest presentation? Of course there are other examples, but, that's been discussed in this thread.

Then I touched on Mr Mentz. Are you saying he pushed thousands of jews in to a 50 foot flaming pit at the lazeret?

I mean, I don't know man, you seem to be making an unfair generalization here.

The 'atrocity pulp' comment is a preliminary assessment without vetting the source material based on prior experience. (I mean, you did ask for my opinion, did you not?)

[bombsaway]

I'm very clear when I;

A: present an opinion
B: ask a question

Neither of those should be construed as 'fiction'.

If I asserted it as fact, without evidence, that would be fiction. That's not what I'm doing.

None of this is constructive for the thread however and could be discussed in a separate thread or via direct message. No need to clutter this thread with it.

I am talking about your statements about witnesses lying, documents being atrocity propaganda

A Year in Treblinka should be patently obvious as atrocity propaganda. The date, the channels it took, its nature.

Are you saying it is an honest presentation? Of course there are other examples, but, that's been discussed in this thread.

Then I touched on Mr Mentz. Are you saying he pushed thousands of jews in to a 50 foot flaming pit at the lazeret?

I mean, I don't know man, you seem to be making an unfair generalization here.

The 'atrocity pulp' comment is a preliminary assessment without vetting the source material based on prior experience. (I mean, you did ask for my opinion, did you not?)

How do you define atrocity propaganda?

[Stubble]

According to the British Library, Atrocity Propaganda is “the spreading of information about the crimes committed by an enemy, especially deliberate fabrications or exaggerations. It is a form of psychological warfare.”

https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/03/23 ... ropaganda/

This seems very close to my personal interpretation of the phrase.

Another source I'd consider atrocity propaganda is 'The Death Factory: A Document on Auschwitz".

These are both Polish Atrocity Propaganda and both were promoted by the International jewish Community through various sympathetic outlets.

Of course, there are others.

Do you not consider these two (the death factory and a year in treblinka) to be atrocity propaganda?

[bombsaway]

Propaganda is defined as. "communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented"

So it could be objective. A Year in Treblinka could be entirely or mostly accurate and still be atrocity propaganda, meant to reveal to the world Nazi brutality and what he had gone through. Whether meant as a testimony or something meant to disparage is tough to say.

I think what you mean to say is the account is fundamentally a fabrication. This is speculative, non evidence based assessment.

[Numar Patru]

That’s certainly a novel theory…

Regarding Sobibor
Sick and disabled prisoners had already been hoisted onto tipper trucks and driven along a narrow-gauge railway straight to the so-called Lager III-he was herded back into the train and transported to the Lublin-Majdanek camp ...Elie Cohen

Those who could not walk were loaded onto dump trucks and driven into the camp on a narrow-gauge railway. Cato and a group of other unmarried girls were selected for work in another camp...Cato Polack

the elderly and the sick were thrown onto lorry carts...Josef Wins

The elderly and the sick were immediately hoisted onto lorries and driven away, while the others were directed to a large barrack where they had to hand over all their luggage...Ursula Stern

Only two kind of people wearing SS Uniform did not wear the SS rune on the lapel; Gestapo (SD) and T4 personnel. The man standing next to Johann Niemann (the officer) in the image below is not wearing a rune on his right lapel; he does not have the letters SD on his left arm, so is not Gestapo. This makes him T4.

You may have heard of aktion 14f13, also called Sonderbehandlung (special treatment). 14f13 is also known as invalid or prisoner euthanasia, the sick, the elderly and those prisoners who were no longer deemed fit for work were separated from the rest of the prisoners. 14f13 applied to all konzentrationslager inmates, not just elderly or sick Jews. Pierre Berg (non Jew) who was an inmate at Birkenau got sick and thought he would cop a lead pill to the head. He was treated and regained his health.

The number of people euthanized under Aktion 14f13 is not certain but is estimated at between 15,000 and 20,000 people for the period ending in 1943.

This aktion has morphed into the full 6 million holocaust of today, including the gas chamber nonsense and other atrocities.
14f13 did get rid of useless eaters, a term Nessie constantly used over the years to explain to his "flock" the reason for the mass murder of Jews. The doctors at the "selections" were looking for typhus victims and those who were sick or elderly. They were dispatched at Sobibor by shooting. The majority of Jews continued to work in labour camps specifically for Jews to keep them isolated.

None of this proves the only people killed were sick.

[Stubble]

Propaganda is defined as. "communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented"

So it could be objective. A Year in Treblinka could be entirely or mostly accurate and still be atrocity propaganda, meant to reveal to the world Nazi brutality and what he had gone through. Whether meant as a testimony or something meant to disparage is tough to say.

I think what you mean to say is the account is fundamentally a fabrication. This is speculative, non evidence based assessment.

I mean, have you read it? You can call it speculation, but, have you read it? It's short, give it a page turn, tell me what you think.

For the record, while reporting actual atrocities committed by an enemy may be considered 'atrocity propaganda' I personally think that's just 'news'. My personal opinion is that the fabrications and embellishments constitute 'atrocity propaganda'.

Also for the record, this is from 'The Death Factory:Document on Auschwitz'.



Do you see a problem here? There are various other similarly ridiculous scenes throughout the book.

[bombsaway]

Propaganda is defined as. "communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented"

So it could be objective. A Year in Treblinka could be entirely or mostly accurate and still be atrocity propaganda, meant to reveal to the world Nazi brutality and what he had gone through. Whether meant as a testimony or something meant to disparage is tough to say.

I think what you mean to say is the account is fundamentally a fabrication. This is speculative, non evidence based assessment.

I mean, have you read it? You can call it speculation, but, have you read it? It's short, give it a page turn, tell me what you think.

For the record, while reporting actual atrocities committed by an enemy may be considered 'atrocity propaganda' I personally think that's just 'news'. My personal opinion is that the fabrications and embellishments constitute 'atrocity propaganda'.

Also for the record, this is from 'The Death Factory:Document on Auschwitz'.



Do you see a problem here? There are various other similarly ridiculous scenes throughout the book.

Well I think the issue is you jump totally to it is fundamentally a fabrication.

A few points to make:

Olere, the painter, #1 was clearly not a realist, this isn't his style

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAE

I'm not sure how closely that painting accords with reality. It's poor evidence because as far as I can see Olere didn't offer it up as fully realistic. There are reasons for him to deviate from reality, eg he was wasn't a realist, he wanted to create something that would emotionally appeal to people. You don't discount or address these possibilities, in a speculative way you say the only possibility is It Didn't Happen, in other words, the gas chambers are a lie, the Jews invented or willingly promulgated a false narrative about their own genocide. Your only other option here is to say you don't know, in broad strokes the narrative could be true (Jews were gassed en masse and the bodies destroyed). I don't think this your position though, you have near certainty.

I have near certainty as well, but all this comes from my understanding of the evidence (a valid historical practice) + the absence of any viable alternative hypotheses.

[Stubble]

Have you read the death factory? Trust me, that's a Polaroid of the ensuing eyewitness account.

There are also the racy SS bitches in other pieces in there who appear to be wearing only thigh high boots and a coat with big ole titties almost busting out holding cats of 9 tails with come hither looks and pouty lips.

/shrug

I get what you are saying, but, please, check the source.

So far as the rest goes, man, it ain't this picture that's the problem. There is a lot to unpack in that post. I'll just say I didn't wake up one morning, throw on a stalhelm and hobbed boots and say, you know what, the holocaust is bullshit and jews are all liars. That's not how I view things man.

I just don't believe in gas vans and gas chambers, because I don't think there is sufficient evidence. I also think the death tolls are propagandized.

I personally don't think there was intentionality behind the shoah. I think there was a war and people died. For various reasons. I don't think it was a fucking genocide though, because, again, I don't think the evidence supports it.

/shrug

[bombsaway]

I couldn't find 'death factory' so I haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

"I just don't believe in gas vans and gas chambers, because I don't think there is sufficient evidence."

Typically witness testimony alone is sufficient for historians, especially if there are no viable alternative hypotheses. A problem you have sheer volume of perpetrator testimonies. It's crazy enough to say, these Jews are all lying, they invented a narrative about their own people being genocided-- This is kind of psycopathic, I would say even to imagine Jews would do this is painting them in (ahem) a cartoonish light. But you go deeper than this and say all these Germans impugned their own country and none stood up for the truth of what happened at Chelmno, Reinhardt camps, the Crema complex. There's no direct eyewitness testimony refuting these claims by Germans who were in these facilities.

The documents are good, from what I've seen. There are many "authentic" things about them from signatures, to formal characteristics, to writing style and patterns, to even the typewriter analysis checking out (see FG report). At the very least they are highly highly sophisticated forgeries

[Stubble]

I couldn't find 'death factory' so I haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

"I just don't believe in gas vans and gas chambers, because I don't think there is sufficient evidence."

Typically witness testimony alone is sufficient for historians, especially if there are no viable alternative hypotheses. A problem you have sheer volume of perpetrator testimonies. It's crazy enough to say, these Jews are all lying, they invented a narrative about their own people being genocided-- This is kind of psycopathic, I would say even to imagine Jews would do this is painting them in (ahem) a cartoonish light. But you go deeper than this and say all these Germans impugned their own country and none stood up for the truth of what happened at Chelmno, Reinhardt camps, the Crema complex. There's no direct eyewitness testimony refuting these claims by Germans who were in these facilities.

The documents are good, from what I've seen. There are many "authentic" things about them from signatures, to formal characteristics, to writing style and patterns, to even the typewriter analysis checking out (see FG report).

'The death factory:document on Auschwitz' is the full title. It's damn hard to find online, but your library should have a copy, although I found 3 copies missing 1 page.

So far as 'all the jews lied' goes, no, a lot of the jews never saw people again (sometimes because they were transferred, sometimes because they ended up on the wrong side of the iron curtain, sometimes because they died etc). They assumed they were gassed, because that was the narrative.

Now, anybody that saw a 'homicidal gas chamber', yes, it is my opinion, they lied. Why did the perpetrators lie? Numerous reasons. Why didn't they recant? Well, many of them danced at the end of a rope. Those that didn't, surely didn't want to run through the ringer again.

We could talk about frau koch some time and see how that whole ball of string unraveled. It was, bad.

Look, 'the jews' didn't start the propaganda, and many of them bought it, hook, line, and sinker. Some jews played along. They aren't representative of 'the jews', they are some apples in the bunch.

In my opinion, there is enough blame for the 80 years of lies to go around. America gets some of it, so does England, and Russia is in there too.

If we want to talk about one document or another, we can start a thread or find an existing one. If we want to talk about one event or another, much the same. You and I, here in this thread though, we have walked far from just the t4 connection and 'Aktion Reinhard'.

Hell, even that name bothers me, because I've read what is said with it, and that's a pack of lies right there. It's not a simple misspelling, it is a deliberately misleading spelling and then the espousing of a narrative built on it.

How many lies would I have to forgive to just accept the official narrative?

Now, I don't have all the answers, and I still have questions, but, my investigation I must make on my own, and my conclusions i will have to find on my own.

Currently i have a hypothesis, i don't even have a theory.

I can tell you right now though, from where I'm standing, this t4 Operation Reinhardt bit doesn't look like 'people who used carbon monoxide to kill the infirmed were sent to Poland to murder jews in gas chambers'.

Hell, apparently they had to reinvent the wheel in Poland. They tried how much stuff before they reinvented the gas van? Then they decided to make the gas van stationary? Then they killed warehouses full of people in 15 minutes using 1 engine?

I understand that you don't think this sounds silly, and I understand that you believe people that say they saw it. I don't.

That doesn't mean I think 'the jews lied'. I think there are some specific jews who lied. For a few of them, I can demonstrate some of the lies, but, that's not enough to discredit 'their truth', now, is it.

No, I don't think 'the jews' invented their 'genocide'. I do think there are some jews who exploit it though, and furthermore, I think the whole thing started from the seeds of propaganda and took root and grew from there.

[Nazgul]

None of this proves the only people killed were sick.

The Sobibor witnesses state that the invalids including elderly crossed the rainbow bridge. A few who mentioned gas chambers did not see this but reported hearsay. There are reports of Sobibor being empty, which is because everyone apart from the invalids were sent elsewhere, though a few did stay for a while to sort out invalid clothes and baggage. Most of the Jews worked in labour camps, some went to over 15 camps. The children were sent to konzentrationslager. No proof of a non event is needed. There is enough circumstantial evidence to show that the labour camps supported the majority of the Jews. Most of the deaths would have occurred in the depravities of the rout of mankind at wars end, when all infrastructure, clean water, food, warmth and shelter were not available.
Jews suffer as a race from a number of congenital diseases, a DNA issue. Without medication many would have perished due to such diseases. Of course some were shot due to nefarious activities.

[Nessie]

... A Year in Treblinka could be entirely or mostly accurate and still be atrocity propaganda, meant to reveal to the world Nazi brutality and what he had gone through. Whether meant as a testimony or something meant to disparage is tough to say.

...

All the Jewish survivor testimony is emotive, for obvious reasons. The Nazi testimony is more matter of fact, again for obvious reasons. When the T4 staff who went on to work at TII, all corroborate the Jewish survivors and admit to their crimes and never waver from that, that is the strongest form of corroborating witness evidence.

That the witnesses are corroborated by physical and circumstantial evidence, is the slam dunk revisionists cannot cope with. So they misrepresent, misinterpret and out right lie.

[Stubble]

What, did you find a tank engine?

No?

A piece of tile the?

Ah, then it was obviously steam chambers, just like the witnesses said. Good call Nessie, I can pack it all up and go home now. Nothing more to say.

Everybody was steamed to death like lobsters everyone, at treblinka, all 6,000,000 of them. Or was it 26,000,000. I'll have to check with pravda.

[Nazgul]

When the T4 staff who went on to work at TII, all corroborate the Jewish survivors and admit to their crimes and never waver from that, that is the strongest form of corroborating witness evidence.

What crimes did they admit to? Who were they? Many of the Jewish survivors at Treblinka were Russian spies like Wiernik. You do realize that the "bund" organization he belonged to was Soviet, perhaps not. You do not do much research.

[bombsaway]

No, I don't think 'the jews' invented their 'genocide'. I do think there are some jews who exploit it though, and furthermore, I think the whole thing started from the seeds of propaganda and took root and grew from there.

moved the discussion here, https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=6065#p6065 more relevant thread