What is the revisionist account of where the jews went?

[the_bone_collector]

Many of the revisionist critiques of the traditional holocaust story seem quite compelling to me. But I've always wondered what the revisionist explanation of where the jews in Europe went if they weren't genocided.

Presumably revisionists agree that there were many millions of jews in the camps. Obviously they deny that they were intentionally genocided so this leaves open the question of where those jews went. Were they moved east? Did many die of starvation or disease? Something to do with population statistics.

Would be good to have an overview of the revisionist explanation (appreciating there may be multiple).

[Archie]

Welcome to the forum.

Here is a similar thread from the old forum.
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =2&t=13204

I am going to leave this here in this part of the forum since it is addressed to revisionists.

Of course this topic also comes up frequently in the Debate forum. For instance,
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=58

[bombsaway]

The most complete revisionist summary of resettlement can be found here

https://archive.org/stream/Exterminatio ... g_djvu.txt

Due to the presence of no evidence, these revisionists refrain from hypothesizing about the specifics of what happened to the deported Jews whilst under German control. It can be inferred from their writing that they believe the Jews were kept in camps by the Germans, and isolated from the native population. Then when the Soviets took over they hypothesize (here they do so on the "basis of sound logic") that they were deported by the Soviets to secretive Jewish only camps.

One might argue that the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews would not have gone unnoticed. However, among the more than one million Chechens, Kalmyks, Crimean Tartars, Greeks, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and other nationalities deported by the Stalin regime between 1944 and 1949, and among the even greater number of people (among them many Jews) returning during the same period to their homes in the western parts of the Soviet Union from the Russian interior and Siberia or Central Asia, to where they had escaped or been evacuated by the Red Army at the beginning of the war, the fly-by-night deportation of foreign Jews would have been only one incident of forced or voluntary population transfer among many.

There is also another, even more crucial reason to how this operation could have gone unnoticed: while the targets of the other forced Soviet population transfers were Soviet citizens, were registered in public records and their absence obvious to all in the local societies of which they had been part, the foreign German-deported Jews were not merely foreign transients and "displaced persons," the vast majority of whom no doubt could not communicate in Russian, but in fact, to borrow a term from Orwell, they were "unpersons," which in "Oldspeak (or standard English)" meant "non-existent persons."

This very much applies to the deported Jews in question: they were unpersons because the world considered them to be dead and because Stalin decided to consolidate this fraudulent report for his own ends. The Jews sent to Siberia or elsewhere were "living ghosts," unpersons whose disappearance was likely to go unnoticed by any significant number of people. In contrast, the forced transfers of other ethnic groups in the post-war Soviet Union were not kept secret, in fact official explanations for the transfers were often given, such as them targeting "banditism," "Kulaks" or as being punishment for (real or alleged) collaboration with the Germans during the war.

The above quoted news articles show that some people did in fact notice the deportations. Why, then, is it that the stream of reports appears to have ceased by the time of Stalin's death in 1953? The most likely explanation would seem to be that by then detailed news began to reach the West again from the Soviet-Jewish communities. The fact that the local Soviet Jews would have had nothing to tell of deportations affecting their communities - of which the deportees had (most likely) never been a part - would needless to say reinforce the skeptic opinion that the reports had been based upon mere rumors triggered by the measures taken against leading Zionist Jews during the last years of Stalin's regime.

By the early 1950s the orthodox holocaust story had been firmly cemented by the IMT and NMT trials, and it was unlikely that anyone besides isolated individuals would even have considered the possibility that the deportations had in fact taken place, but targeted another category of Jews, a group of displaced Jewish unpersons.

That none of the people involved in carrying out the operation have ever spoken of it - at least to our knowledge - following the fall of the Soviet Union could be explained by actual ignorance caused by the use of a need-to-know policy (possibly amounting to the misinformation of involved personnel) and the language barrier between the deportees and their guards, but also by 1) the possibility that some of these individuals were themselves purged as carriers of state secrets; 2) the likelihood that any involved who were still alive in the 1990s and considered speaking of their experiences would keep silent either because they lacked an outlet which would take them seriously or due to the possibility of facing official or unofficial repercussions.

Most likely the Jewish deportees were not sent to the ordinary GULag camps and "special settlements," but to special ad-hoc camps for Jews. Romanov's assertion that such a deportation can be excluded because we have available statistics on ethnicity for the prisoners of the GULag camps and "special settlements" is thus rendered moot.

[borjastick]

As Hanover used to say 'jews went where jews are'. In other words they went everywhere and many did it quietly and got on with their lives. Only those zionist loons made a song and dance about it when they arrived in Palestine and proceeded to kill and steal land as if it belonged to them. In fact they haven't stopped doing just that so at least we can call them consistent.

When you say there were millions of jews in the camps I would slightly disagree with you. Sure there were hundreds of thousands rising to a million or two but if, like me, you believe that the number of jews under German control was no more than about 4 million then it is easy to work out how many actually went into the camp system.

We know that something in the order of 400,000 left Germany prior to the war. We know that Russia moved up to two million out of Poland, Ukraine etc as things got sticky and we know that General Patton was told to be ready to house up to a million jews in Germany at the immediate end of the war. This bunch would presumably have been counted as missing, holocausted, deaded and definitely not expected to be in Germany at that time.

So using the above figures we can easily account for about 3,000,000 of the 4m under German control plus those who were sent east into the Russian hinterlands to be outside German control.

Given the lack of gas chambers, lack of massive piles of human cremains and any evidence of industrialised mass murder such as film and photos as claimed happened in their holocaust I am pleased to be able, ladies and gentlemen,

Elephantintheroom.jpeg (87.17 KiB) Viewed 343 times

to give you an elephant in a room.

[TlsMS93]

In the General Government there would be 1.7 million Jews, adding the 250 thousand in the Reich and around 1 million deported from Western and Southern Europe according to Wolfgang Benz's Dimension des Völkermords, we arrive at 3 million under German control. After the war there would be around 1.5 million Jews in Europe, so half of them can be classified as dead or missing. Nothing can be said in the case of the USSR for obvious reasons and this is the real elephant in the room.

Now how they died is what needs to be proven, whether it was gas chambers on an industrial scale.

[Archie]

The OP is using some disposable email. Lol, probably a sock by bombs (or one of his buddies).

[bombsaway]

This is the research thread, so I'm just sharing revisionist views.

MGK certainly take the Korherr report at its word. In addition, because many of the Jews sent to Auschwitz also "disappeared" in terms of paper trail and witness record, they believe many of these Jews were resettled in Occupied USSR as well. According to Kues, almost 2 million Jews were sent there. We also know mass "resettlements" were conducted in Occupied USSR such as in Volhynia in 1942, and ghettos in there were dissolved. This would push the total Jews to be resettled there to close to 3 millionf, I would say, as a revisionist friendly number (or at least granting the assumptions of MGK)

[bombsaway]

Btw Archie if you and other posters don't want me to post here anymore, and are convinced I have some duplicitous purpose beyond trying to understand you guys and see if it is possible to change your mind, I won't post here in any form. I think you know what my "approach" is, which is largely a sympathetic one, so you won't see any more of this.

[Archie]

Btw Archie if you and other posters don't want me to post here anymore, and are convinced I have some duplicitous purpose beyond trying to understand you guys and see if it is possible to change your mind, I won't post here in any form. I think you know what my "approach" is, which is largely a sympathetic one, so you won't see any more of this.

Like it says in the posting guidelines, if you are "collegial and not overly disruptive" you can post here.

Specific factual contributions, things like that - ok. Even opinions are okay if they are fresh and interesting.

Lame concern trolling - no. Being argumentative - no. Talking points everyone has heard six million times - no.

[Callafangers]

The OP is using some disposable email. Lol, probably a sock by bombs (or one of his buddies).

I presume it is someone taking their first college WW2 history course, thinking they had a 'gotcha' moment and thought they'd swing by to dish out the ol' 1-2 punch. Unfortunately for this individual, the burden of proof is theirs.

"If my neighbor Larry didn't kill my grandma, then where did she go???"

Is the above enough to throw Larry behind bars? Or might we need some forensic evidence, namely a corpse and a murder weapon?

[fireofice]

The OP is using some disposable email. Lol, probably a sock by bombs (or one of his buddies).

I presume it is someone taking their first college WW2 history course, thinking they had a 'gotcha' moment and thought they'd swing by to dish out the ol' 1-2 punch. Unfortunately for this individual, the burden of proof is theirs.

"If my neighbor Larry didn't kill my grandma, then where did she go???"

Is the above enough to throw Larry behind bars? Or might we need some forensic evidence, namely a corpse and a murder weapon?

Well I think the better analogy here is if you kidnap someone and it's been established that you kidnapped someone, and the person you kidnapped is missing, that you murdered them is a reasonable inference. This appears to have precedence in case law as well. According to Matthew Cockerill:

American courts adjudicating homicide cases recognize that the disappearance of people is circumstantial evidence for their deaths. For example, in 1982, the court in the murder case Epperly v. Commonwealth held that the disappearance of a person was “circumstantial evidence entitled to the same weight as bloodstains and concealment of evidence.” If the disappearance of one person is probative evidence, what to make of the disappearance of millions of people? Or, more specifically, what to make of the disappearance of millions of Jews from Nazi custody in the camp system—enclosed spaces from which they could not leave under penalty of death?

https://www.unz.com/article/the-evidenc ... holocaust/

The case he cited:
https://casetext.com/case/epperly-v-commonwealth

In the Nazi case, it is clear that many Jews were legally "kidnapped" by the Nazi state and thus their disappearance, in a vacuum, could be circumstantial evidence that they killed them. Now I think it's not a vacuum and that there are other decent reasons not to accept the extermination claims, I just wanted to correct what I saw as some flaws in your analogy.

[Nazgul]

In the Nazi case, it is clear that many Jews were legally "kidnapped" by the Nazi state and thus their disappearance, in a vacuum, could be circumstantial evidence that they killed them. Now I think it's not a vacuum and that there are other decent reasons not to accept the extermination claims, I just wanted to correct what I saw as some flaws in your analogy.

Legally kidnapped is an emotional term; they were interned as unwanted people, especially as they declared economic war on the Reich in the early 30s. When the real bullets started flying they had to be removed as potential 5th columnists. No different to Germans interned by MI5 in the UK.

[Callafangers]

The OP is using some disposable email. Lol, probably a sock by bombs (or one of his buddies).

I presume it is someone taking their first college WW2 history course, thinking they had a 'gotcha' moment and thought they'd swing by to dish out the ol' 1-2 punch. Unfortunately for this individual, the burden of proof is theirs.

"If my neighbor Larry didn't kill my grandma, then where did she go???"

Is the above enough to throw Larry behind bars? Or might we need some forensic evidence, namely a corpse and a murder weapon?

Well I think the better analogy here is if you kidnap someone and it's been established that you kidnapped someone, and the person you kidnapped is missing, that you murdered them is a reasonable inference. This appears to have precedence in case law as well. According to Matthew Cockerill:

American courts adjudicating homicide cases recognize that the disappearance of people is circumstantial evidence for their deaths. For example, in 1982, the court in the murder case Epperly v. Commonwealth held that the disappearance of a person was “circumstantial evidence entitled to the same weight as bloodstains and concealment of evidence.” If the disappearance of one person is probative evidence, what to make of the disappearance of millions of people? Or, more specifically, what to make of the disappearance of millions of Jews from Nazi custody in the camp system—enclosed spaces from which they could not leave under penalty of death?

https://www.unz.com/article/the-evidenc ... holocaust/

The case he cited:
https://casetext.com/case/epperly-v-commonwealth

In the Nazi case, it is clear that many Jews were legally "kidnapped" by the Nazi state and thus their disappearance, in a vacuum, could be circumstantial evidence that they killed them. Now I think it's not a vacuum and that there are other decent reasons not to accept the extermination claims, I just wanted to correct what I saw as some flaws in your analogy.

If we are going to add more context, we will need to go even further:

• My family and Larry's family have been in an extreme, violent, back-and-forth feud with one another for years.
• Larry's family gains some power for a few years and they keep my family locked up behind bars during that time.
• Recently, my family gained absolute power and control over the entire town, its police department, archives, and everything in-between.
• Nobody denies my family wanted revenge on Larry's family, and we indeed carried out violent acts against them, but there were limitations on what we could "get away with" in the broader public eye.
• Winning over the "public eye" was extremely important for us, in order to maintain power and to keep Larry's family permanently in-check.
• During the earlier feud, Larry's family had reportedly transported my grandma to an undisclosed area -- one which my family now controls, 100%.
• My family and I promise that we never found my grandma there, once we took over, and we swear that Larry's family tortured her to death with hot pokers and battery acid... but we offer no verifiable/forensic evidence of any kind to support our claims.

Do you believe me (and my family)?

[curioussoul]

I'll keep it short in case OP is actually interested and not trolling: the Jews were deported to the Occupied Eastern Territories, where the Germans were planning on settling them by the end of the war. These "Jewish regions" were slated to become semi-independent 'states' where Jewry could live outside of Europe. This policy is extremely well-documented. What's less well-documented is exactly where they went, how they ended up there and what happened to them after the war. Thomas Kues wrote some wonderful articles about this topic about a decade ago, if you search CODOH for "Evidence for the Presence of 'Gassed' Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories".

I've posited the idea (along with many others, such as Butterfangers) that most of the Jews deported from Poland and transited through the Reinhardt camps ended up in (essentially) open-air shelters and probably starved to death or died from deprivation by the end of the war. It's hard to fathom how extensive the German camp system in the Occupied Eastern Territories was, and to this day most camps are virtually unknown.

What's clear is that German military leaders and local SS authorities in Eastern Europe were swamped on a weekly basis by tens of thousands of deported Jews they had no means of accomodating. The drivers of the deportation policy were in Berlin and, in typical German "leadership fashion", local commanders were simply told by higher-ups to get things done and solve massive logistical problems that simply could not be solved in any serious way, sometimes in mere days or even hours. This created a situation wherein literally millions of people were haphazardly deported to be resettled "in the East" but where local commanders found no way to seriously accomodate them until the end of the war. And when the frontline started shrinking, these people were simply left behind to flee, starve, die, rebel, or be caught up with the Soviets, who sometimes reported on the thousands of Western and Polish Jews who "somehow" had ended up in the far east of Europe. But for the most part, the Soviets did not report on these people because it sought to bolster the narrative of mass extermination they had been disseminating since 1941.

[curioussoul]

• My family and Larry's family have been in an extreme, violent, back-and-forth feud with one another for years.
• Larry's family gains some power for a few years and they keep my family locked up behind bars during that time.
• Recently, my family gained absolute power and control over the entire town, its police department, archives, and everything in-between.
• Nobody denies my family wanted revenge on Larry's family, and we indeed carried out violent acts against them, but there were limitations on what we could "get away with" in the broader public eye.
• Winning over the "public eye" was extremely important for us, in order to maintain power and to keep Larry's family permanently in-check.
• During the earlier feud, Larry's family had reportedly transported my grandma to an undisclosed area -- one which my family now controls, 100%.
• My family and I promise that we never found my grandma there, once we took over, and we swear that Larry's family tortured her to death with hot pokers and battery acid... but we offer no verifiable/forensic evidence of any kind to support our claims.

Do you believe me (and my family)?

That parable should be easy to digest for most people.