The Question of Conspiracy

[TlsMS93]

Léon Blum died in Majdanek and then erased from the records. But the crushing of arms between two rolls continues. All this was attested by “irreproachable witnesses”.

[Stubble]

Katyn and Majdanek are examples of Soviet atrocity hoaxes and their fabricated evidence should be patent.

They aren't they only examples, just really good ones that shouldn't be arguable.

The Soviets lied. A lot.

They fabricated evidence for Katyn that is unlike evidence treated as definitive for Holocaust events

There's no evidence they fabricated for Majdanek, just made unfounded assertions about what went on there. Ditto Auschwitz w the 4 million dead.

So even in terms of circumstantial evidence for Holocaust hoax, the case is weak I would say.

My my, I'm going to put you in for The Flame of Lenin Comrade. For your heroic defense of The Heroic People's Red Army.

Have you killed a German today? If so, kill another.

[bombsaway]

Katyn and Majdanek are examples of Soviet atrocity hoaxes and their fabricated evidence should be patent.

They aren't they only examples, just really good ones that shouldn't be arguable.

The Soviets lied. A lot.

They fabricated evidence for Katyn that is unlike evidence treated as definitive for Holocaust events

There's no evidence they fabricated for Majdanek, just made unfounded assertions about what went on there. Ditto Auschwitz w the 4 million dead.

So even in terms of circumstantial evidence for Holocaust hoax, the case is weak I would say.

My my, I'm going to put you in for The Flame of Lenin Comrade. For your heroic defense of The Heroic People's Red Army.

Have you killed a German today? If so, kill another.

Yeah that's why I called them buffoons. Why couldn't they successfully coerce a single perpetrator testimony for German done Katyn or mass gassings at Majdanek (on the order of millions) but were able to get many for Holocaust?

[Stubble]

They fabricated evidence for Katyn that is unlike evidence treated as definitive for Holocaust events

There's no evidence they fabricated for Majdanek, just made unfounded assertions about what went on there. Ditto Auschwitz w the 4 million dead.

So even in terms of circumstantial evidence for Holocaust hoax, the case is weak I would say.

My my, I'm going to put you in for The Flame of Lenin Comrade. For your heroic defense of The Heroic People's Red Army.

Have you killed a German today? If so, kill another.

Yeah that's why I called them buffoons. Why couldn't they successfully coerce a single perpetrator testimony for German done Katyn or mass gassings at Majdanek (on the order of millions) but were able to get many for Holocaust?

You wouldn't call this a simplification, would you?

Something to consider, how much time was there to extract confession at majdanek vs let's say to build a case against and crack Hoss for example?

[bombsaway]

You wouldn't call this a simplification, would you?

Something to consider, how much time was there to extract confession at majdanek vs let's say to build a case against and crack Hoss for example?

No believe it or not there are no witnesses that speak of a steady stream of people coming to the camp and being murdered, in contrast to all the other extermination camps. There were trials from 46-48 in Soviet occupied Poland.

[Nessie]

All the revisionists here are keeping the conspiracy allegation for the Soviets only. They do not want to discuss what other European countries have confessed to.

The allegations that the Holocaust was a Soviet hoax ignore that they only briefly showed any interest in the Holocaust, in the immediate postwar period and in particular, Ukrainians who had been in the SS.

During the war, most of the reports came from the Polish government in exile and Slovakians who escaped from A-B. There is no evidence of Soviet influence there.

Soviet publicity of what had happened started only when camps were liberated, and they joined in with the Western Allies, to publicise the horrific conditions found. The Soviets, rather than keeping control of the narrative, handed over the camps to the Poles and left them to run trials and memorialise the sites. The Soviets themselves produced no histories of, or memorials to, the Holocaust. That is not the act of a country running a hoax, particularly the Soviets, where the state and Stalin normally controlled the narrative of their history. Indeed, instead of publicising the atrocities of the Holocaust, the Soviets publicised atrocities committed against themselves.

Whilst the Soviets were accepting no responsibility for what happened, every other European country occupied by or aligned to the Soviets, did. From France to Greece, Norway to Italy, national governments admitted cooperation with the Nazis that resulted in the loss of many of their Jewish citizens.

The idea of a Soviet controlled hoax is believable for conspiracy minded revisionists. The idea that the Soviets left the control of the narrative to others, and countries like France and Italy would be responsible for their parts of a huge hoax, as a succession of governments admitted to something they did not do, is so far-fetched that even revisionists cannot promote it.

That is why revisionists will not discuss all the other countries and their role in the supposed hoax and they stick only to the Soviets.

[Nessie]

You wouldn't call this a simplification, would you?

Something to consider, how much time was there to extract confession at majdanek vs let's say to build a case against and crack Hoss for example?

No believe it or not there are no witnesses that speak of a steady stream of people coming to the camp and being murdered, in contrast to all the other extermination camps. There were trials from 46-48 in Soviet occupied Poland.

The Majdanek trial was in 1944 in Poland. After 1948, the West Germans were the main prosecutors. After the fall of the Soviet Union, a united Germany has been the main prosecutor. The Soviets primarily ran trials where the accused were Ukrainian. That means the Soviets did not have and they could not control the narrative, so they could not run a hoax.

[Nazgul]

The Majdanek trial was in 1944 in Poland. After 1948, the West Germans were the main prosecutors. After the fall of the Soviet Union, a united Germany has been the main prosecutor. The Soviets primarily ran trials where the accused were Ukrainian. That means the Soviets did not have and they could not control the narrative, so they could not run a hoax.

Staff were arraigned before the courts on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed at Majdanek in the period between October 1, 1941, and July 22, 1944; this says little about the death of Jews. Despite the issues the Nuremberg Tribunal's charter stated that neither the prosecution, defendants, nor their counsel could challenge the Tribunal, its members, or their alternates. This set a precedent for subsequent trials as it was accepted the alleged crimes were self evident (judicial notice); people, if accused had to prove their non involvement. I will add that at the time being SS was not a crime, but against being SS was made a crime post war. Any person being involved in a criminal organization, especially SS was good enough reason for conviction due to the Nuremberg precedent. This is a pure travesty of Justice.

[HansHill]

My my, I'm going to put you in for The Flame of Lenin Comrade. For your heroic defense of The Heroic People's Red Army.

Have you killed a German today? If so, kill another.

Yeah that's why I called them buffoons. Why couldn't they successfully coerce a single perpetrator testimony for German done Katyn or mass gassings at Majdanek (on the order of millions) but were able to get many for Holocaust?

You wouldn't call this a simplification, would you?

Something to consider, how much time was there to extract confession at majdanek vs let's say to build a case against and crack Hoss for example?

This is such a strange hill to choose to die on from BA. The point doesn't make sense and is redundant for a number of reasons. Germany uncovered the massacre themselves in 1943. In 1943, NS Germany still existed. Who does BA suggest the Soviets would coerce, exactly? Additionally, calling them "buffoons" is telling, as we know the major Allies did initially attempt to co-ordinate with the Soviets to obfuscate any legitimate investigations into Katyn which would uncover Soviet intent to frame the Germans for war crimes:

From Sean McMeekin:

In retaliation for Sikorski demanding an impartial Red Cross investigation of the mass murder he and Beria had perpetrated, Stalin declared that he was breaking off all relations with the Polish exile government in London. Adding to its unpleasant effect, Stalin’s poison-pill letter was hand delivered to Churchill at his country house, Chartwell, where the overworked prime minister was enjoying a rare day of rest on Good Friday.21

It was a moment of truth for Churchill and Roosevelt. Would these signatories of the Atlantic Charter swallow Stalin’s slanders against the International Red Cross and the Polish government, on whose behalf the war had been fought in the first place?

The answer was yes. Churchill, who replied first, reassured Stalin on April 24 that Britain would “oppose vigorously any ‘investigation’ by the International Red Cross or any other body in any territory under German authority,” and promised to send his foreign minister to meet with Sikorski and “press him as strongly as possible to withdraw all countenance from any investigation under Nazi auspices.”

Emphasis mine.

Buffoons, quite.

[Nessie]

.... Who does BA suggest the Soviets would coerce, exactly? ...

Who did the Soviets coerce into supporting the Holocaust hoax? According to revisionists, all of Europe, except Denmark and Finland, who refused to play along and could show where their Jewish populations were in 1944-5. Then, after the collapse of the SU, who is coercing Latvia and Lithuania into still admitting they assisted the Nazis in shooting their Jewish citizens?

[HansHill]

.... Who does BA suggest the Soviets would coerce, exactly? ...

Who did the Soviets coerce into supporting the Holocaust hoax? According to revisionists, all of Europe, except Denmark and Finland, who refused to play along and could show where their Jewish populations were in 1944-5. Then, after the collapse of the SU, who is coercing Latvia and Lithuania into still admitting they assisted the Nazis in shooting their Jewish citizens?

What? Is that a real question? "Who did the Soviets coerce?"

The SU represented one fourth of the Nuremberg Tribunal Judiciary panel, and so are one-fourth responsible for the influence (coercion by lawfare) of the Nuremberg verdict on subsequent International bodies. One example I'll provide is when the United Nations sought to codify the legal principles of Nuremberg - you can read all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

We can broadly refer to this as the post-Nuremberg Liberal consensus.

[Nessie]

.... Who does BA suggest the Soviets would coerce, exactly? ...

Who did the Soviets coerce into supporting the Holocaust hoax? According to revisionists, all of Europe, except Denmark and Finland, who refused to play along and could show where their Jewish populations were in 1944-5. Then, after the collapse of the SU, who is coercing Latvia and Lithuania into still admitting they assisted the Nazis in shooting their Jewish citizens?

What? Is that a real question? "Who did the Soviets coerce?"

The SU represented one fourth of the Nuremberg Tribunal Judiciary panel, and so are one-fourth responsible for the influence (coercion by lawfare) of the Nuremberg verdict on subsequent International bodies. One example I'll provide is when the United Nations sought to codify the legal principles of Nuremberg - you can read all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

We can broadly refer to this as the post-Nuremberg Liberal consensus.

How did the Soviets coerce the French into admitting to assisting in the Holocaust, when it was all a hoax?

[bombsaway]

This is such a strange hill to choose to die on from BA. The point doesn't make sense and is redundant for a number of reasons. Germany uncovered the massacre themselves in 1943. In 1943, NS Germany still existed. Who does BA suggest the Soviets would coerce, exactly? Additionally, calling them "buffoons" is telling, as we know the major Allies did initially attempt to co-ordinate with the Soviets to obfuscate any legitimate investigations into Katyn which would uncover Soviet intent to frame the Germans for war crimes:

The Soviets asserted Nazi culpability during Nuremberg. So the Soviets could have coerced a German witness into taking the fall for it. Instead of confessions however, a German army officer in command in that exact district during the time said nothing had happened. This would be the equivalent of Hoess denying at Auschwitz https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-01-46.asp

Your claims about the Soviets being responsible for 1/4 coercion don't really help you, because there's no evidence of western allies coercing witnesses or fabricating evidence, period. My entire argument is your assertion about conspiracies here are unfounded and without direct evidence, therefore untenable from the perspective of anyone doing standard history. You are doing something else, again closer to fiction, or perhaps religion, where you're working your way backwards from an assumed truth.

[HansHill]

How did the Soviets coerce the French into admitting to assisting in the Holocaust, when it was all a hoax?

What on earth are you asking me? Have you been on the bottle? Are you strawmanning me into a position of Soviets as sole-conspirators? Where on earth did you get this from?

[HansHill]

The Soviets asserted Nazi culpability during Nuremberg. So the Soviets could have coerced a German witness into taking the fall for it. Instead of confessions however, a German army officer in command in that exact district during the time said nothing had happened. This would be the equivalent of Hoess denying at Auschwitz https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-01-46.asp

Your claims about the Soviets being responsible for 1/4 coercion don't really help you, because there's no evidence of western allies coercing witnesses or fabricating evidence, period. My entire argument is your assertion about conspiracies here are unfounded and without direct evidence, therefore untenable from the perspective of anyone doing standard history. You are doing something else, again closer to fiction, or perhaps religion, where you're working your way backwards from an assumed truth.

No coercion? Nice try:

What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen (shot while trying to escape)…I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…” (Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:) I then went to someone outside and said “Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.” The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.

Source: Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.