The Question of Conspiracy

[TlsMS93]

No surrender allowed, meaning those inside are condemned to starve due to the encirclement. This document was presented at Nuremberg and it sounds pretty bad to me, worse than any public (or even private) statements made by Churchill or Roosevelt. This is just the beginning really. Are you seriously arguing that within the orthodox understanding of Nazi intentions and how they conducted the war, particularly in the east, that is ethically superior or even on the same level as what the western allies were doing?

The judges at the High Command trial – a United States military court convened to judge German war crimes – ruled that the siege of Leningrad was not criminal: "the cutting off every source of sustenance from without is deemed legitimate. ... We might wish the law were otherwise, but we must administer it as we find it". Even such actions as killing civilians fleeing the siege was ruled to be legal during the trial. The Soviet Union was not successful at banning the use of starvation in the 1949 Geneva Convention; though imposing some limits, it "accepted the legality of starvation as a weapon of war in principle".Starvation was criminalized later in the twentieth century.

No demand for surrender reached the Germans, so is it not certain that they would not accept? Much of what the Germans initially thought was later revoked as the order of the commissars.

[bombsaway]

No surrender allowed, meaning those inside are condemned to starve due to the encirclement. This document was presented at Nuremberg and it sounds pretty bad to me, worse than any public (or even private) statements made by Churchill or Roosevelt. This is just the beginning really. Are you seriously arguing that within the orthodox understanding of Nazi intentions and how they conducted the war, particularly in the east, that is ethically superior or even on the same level as what the western allies were doing?

The judges at the High Command trial – a United States military court convened to judge German war crimes – ruled that the siege of Leningrad was not criminal: "the cutting off every source of sustenance from without is deemed legitimate. ... We might wish the law were otherwise, but we must administer it as we find it". Even such actions as killing civilians fleeing the siege was ruled to be legal during the trial. The Soviet Union was not successful at banning the use of starvation in the 1949 Geneva Convention; though imposing some limits, it "accepted the legality of starvation as a weapon of war in principle".Starvation was criminalized later in the twentieth century.

No demand for surrender reached the Germans, so is it not certain that they would not accept? Much of what the Germans initially thought was later revoked as the order of the commissars.

The 'surrender will not be accepted' was an order by Hitler, by which he can rightfully be judged. This says something about Nazi policy. The Judge's "fairness" about that ruling is something you should take note of. It's all about the Holocaust eh

[TlsMS93]

The 'surrender will not be accepted' was an order by Hitler, by which he can rightfully be judged. This says something about Nazi policy. The Judge's "fairness" about that ruling is something you should take note of. It's all about the Holocaust eh

Tried for what? Was he tried based on that order? What was his sentence?

[bombsaway]

The 'surrender will not be accepted' was an order by Hitler, by which he can rightfully be judged. This says something about Nazi policy. The Judge's "fairness" about that ruling is something you should take note of. It's all about the Holocaust eh

Tried for what? Was he tried based on that order? What was his sentence?

Who, Hitler? No, he died earlier.

[TlsMS93]

Who, Hitler? No, he died earlier.

So what? Bormann was tried in absentia and sentenced to death.

[bombsaway]

Who, Hitler? No, he died earlier.

So what? Bormann was tried in absentia and sentenced to death.

If I'm not mistaken Bormann's death wasn't confirmed. Don't know what this has to do with anything. The point of this thread was to show Stubble that the conspiracy he believes in is woefully underevidenced, and thus he nor anyone else should have full hearted belief in it, unless you're deviating substantially from historical norms, inventing a new kind of way of assessing historical events.

[Stubble]

You are asserting a lack of evidence and you are ignoring or minimizing what is presented.

/shrug

Another thing you are doing is demanding the 'single party' responsible be shown. It wasn't a single party. It was a group effort.

Then you take the first majdanek trial and executions and point at that to prove the Soviets were incapable of fabricating evidence or extracting confessions.

You ignore that the majdanek lies stood tall for over 50 years and that the people who didn't confess were long since buried by the time Hoess's torture began.

I don't even know how to start to show you what you refuse to see.

/shrug

[bombsaway]

You are asserting a lack of evidence and you are ignoring or minimizing what is presented.

/shrug

Another thing you are doing is demanding the 'single party' responsible be shown. It wasn't a single party. It was a group effort.

Then you take the first majdanek trial and executions and point at that to prove the Soviets were incapable of fabricating evidence or extracting confessions.

You ignore that the majdanek lies stood tall for over 50 years and that the people who didn't confess were long since buried by the time Hoess's torture began.

I don't even know how to start to show you what you refuse to see.

/shrug

Do you know what direct evidence is? Is there any direct evidence for a conspiracy to fabricate Holocaust documents, witness testimonies (the basis of why historians believe the Holocaust happened).

[TlsMS93]

Ian Kershaw has called Otto Strasser's claims and the OSS reports about Hitler's paraphilias anti-Hitler propaganda.

So even historians believe whatever they want about their own worldview.

British intelligence provided fake maps of the division of South America to the Axis allies so Roosevelt could socially engineer the war. They were capable and well trained, it is much easier to create a fake than to expose one.

[Stubble]

You are asserting a lack of evidence and you are ignoring or minimizing what is presented.

/shrug

Another thing you are doing is demanding the 'single party' responsible be shown. It wasn't a single party. It was a group effort.

Then you take the first majdanek trial and executions and point at that to prove the Soviets were incapable of fabricating evidence or extracting confessions.

You ignore that the majdanek lies stood tall for over 50 years and that the people who didn't confess were long since buried by the time Hoess's torture began.

I don't even know how to start to show you what you refuse to see.

/shrug

Do you know what direct evidence is? Is there any direct evidence for a conspiracy to fabricate Holocaust documents, witness testimonies (the basis of why historians believe the Holocaust happened).

Do you know what the hindenburg fallacy is? Even if I show you fabrications, witness manipulation and coercion etc, it is insufficient for you. Because you take it in isolation like it happened in a vacuum.

[bombsaway]

You are asserting a lack of evidence and you are ignoring or minimizing what is presented.

/shrug

Another thing you are doing is demanding the 'single party' responsible be shown. It wasn't a single party. It was a group effort.

Then you take the first majdanek trial and executions and point at that to prove the Soviets were incapable of fabricating evidence or extracting confessions.

You ignore that the majdanek lies stood tall for over 50 years and that the people who didn't confess were long since buried by the time Hoess's torture began.

I don't even know how to start to show you what you refuse to see.

/shrug

Do you know what direct evidence is? Is there any direct evidence for a conspiracy to fabricate Holocaust documents, witness testimonies (the basis of why historians believe the Holocaust happened).

Do you know what the hindenburg fallacy is? Even if I show you fabrications, witness manipulation and coercion etc, it is insufficient for you. Because you take it in isolation like it happened in a vacuum.

Don't get the relevance of the hindenburg fallacy:

"The "Hindenburg fallacy" refers to the misconception that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by a single, easily identifiable factor, like sabotage or a simple spark, when in reality, it was likely a complex issue of multiple contributing factors. "

If you have direct evidence of the Allies fabricating Holocaust evidence, show me.

What I can tell you is that historians require direct evidence for any claims, and you have two major claims, "systemic effort to fabricate evidence and witness testimony" + "large scale maintenance of non-employable Jews by the Nazis", and you have not provided this. It's a double fail. Historians don't assert minor events, much less mass events, without direct evidence.

[Stubble]

I mean, there is majdanek.

There is the death toll revision at Auschwitz.

There are various 'confessions', but, we can start with Hoess. The guy was beaten, told his family would be murdered etc. I mean, come on man, look at that.

There is the fact that 22 camps were classified as death camps right after the war, later that was revised to 6, now 5.

There are the gas chamber hoaxes at the Eiffel Tower and at dachau.

This list could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

I can go get you intelligence memos about atrocity propaganda, I can show you the OSS monitoring 'seeded' stories etc.

Is 'the holocaust' a single conspiracy? No, it's not even a single event.

In this context, the hindenburg fallacy is thinking that it is an event that happened on one night at one time in one place. A single thing. It simply isn't.

What we call the holocaust (personally I prefer kerfuffle, but will settle for 'shoah') is a series of events, some of which were fabricated, some are exaggerated and some happened.

There is no doubt there were 'some troubles' during ww2 and the jews were certainly put through it during ww2.

There was no extermination campaign. There were no gas chambers. There were no gas vans. There was no jew soap.

[bombsaway]

I mean, there is majdanek.

There is the death toll revision at Auschwitz.

There are various 'confessions', but, we can start with Hoess. The guy was beaten, told his family would be murdered etc. I mean, come on man, look at that.

There is the fact that 22 camps were classified as death camps right after the war, later that was revised to 6, now 5.

There are the gas chamber hoaxes at the Eiffel Tower and at dachau.

This list could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

I can go get you intelligence memos about atrocity propaganda, I can show you the OSS monitoring 'seeded' stories etc.

Is 'the holocaust' a single conspiracy? No, it's not even a single event.

In this context, the hindenburg fallacy is thinking that it is an event that happened on one night at one time in one place. A single thing. It simply isn't.

What we call the holocaust (personally I prefer kerfuffle, but will settle for 'shoah') is a series of events, some of which were fabricated, some are exaggerated and some happened.

There is no doubt there were 'some troubles' during ww2 and the jews were certainly put through it during ww2.

There was no extermination campaign. There were no gas chambers. There were no gas vans. There was no jew soap.

What's the strongest piece of evidence? I'll tell you where you're going wrong but I don't want to cherry pick. I also assume that since I asked, you have no direct evidence of hoax by the government.

[Stubble]

I mean, there is majdanek.

There is the death toll revision at Auschwitz.

There are various 'confessions', but, we can start with Hoess. The guy was beaten, told his family would be murdered etc. I mean, come on man, look at that.

There is the fact that 22 camps were classified as death camps right after the war, later that was revised to 6, now 5.

There are the gas chamber hoaxes at the Eiffel Tower and at dachau.

This list could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

I can go get you intelligence memos about atrocity propaganda, I can show you the OSS monitoring 'seeded' stories etc.

Is 'the holocaust' a single conspiracy? No, it's not even a single event.

In this context, the hindenburg fallacy is thinking that it is an event that happened on one night at one time in one place. A single thing. It simply isn't.

What we call the holocaust (personally I prefer kerfuffle, but will settle for 'shoah') is a series of events, some of which were fabricated, some are exaggerated and some happened.

There is no doubt there were 'some troubles' during ww2 and the jews were certainly put through it during ww2.

There was no extermination campaign. There were no gas chambers. There were no gas vans. There was no jew soap.

What's the strongest piece of evidence? I'll tell you where you're going wrong but I don't want to cherry pick. I also assume that since I asked, you have no direct evidence of hoax by the government.

'The government'.

Which one?

There simply isn't a 'the government' here.

[bombsaway]

I mean, there is majdanek.

There is the death toll revision at Auschwitz.

There are various 'confessions', but, we can start with Hoess. The guy was beaten, told his family would be murdered etc. I mean, come on man, look at that.

There is the fact that 22 camps were classified as death camps right after the war, later that was revised to 6, now 5.

There are the gas chamber hoaxes at the Eiffel Tower and at dachau.

This list could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

I can go get you intelligence memos about atrocity propaganda, I can show you the OSS monitoring 'seeded' stories etc.

Is 'the holocaust' a single conspiracy? No, it's not even a single event.

In this context, the hindenburg fallacy is thinking that it is an event that happened on one night at one time in one place. A single thing. It simply isn't.

What we call the holocaust (personally I prefer kerfuffle, but will settle for 'shoah') is a series of events, some of which were fabricated, some are exaggerated and some happened.

There is no doubt there were 'some troubles' during ww2 and the jews were certainly put through it during ww2.

There was no extermination campaign. There were no gas chambers. There were no gas vans. There was no jew soap.

What's the strongest piece of evidence? I'll tell you where you're going wrong but I don't want to cherry pick. I also assume that since I asked, you have no direct evidence of hoax by the government.

'The government'.

Which one?

There simply isn't a 'the government' here.

Any government, even the Soviets