How Can Such a Strong Consensus Be So Wrong for so Long?

[ConfusedJew]

So you have over 180 posts, mostly off topic rambling, and you are just now finally getting around to trotting out the most commonly cited documents? And you obviously didn't read any of the links we provided you with or read any revisionist material? Pathetic.

This is a discussion forum. I am new to the topic and have been here less than a week. If you are pushing an extremely fringe narrative, it's up to you to educate me on this. I'm not asking you to do deep work, you claim to be experts on a topic and I am going well out of my way to see what you think about this. I needed to spent a little time scoping out the landscape and categorizing the different types of arguments and disagreements that existed before diving into the weeds.

In terms of the written records and speeches, these are some of the most crystal clear pieces of evidence in my opinion that the Nazis carried out the Holocaust. I did some research on the common denials of the evidence and I anticipated and preemptively responded to that.

Again, can we please avoid the insults and merely discuss the matter at hand. How do you deny the fact that the Holocaust happened when it was so clearly documented in the records, speeches, and diaries. This just scratches the surface of the evidence out there obviously.

Resorting to insults strongly suggests that you don't have the knowledge or ability to defend or explain your position so I'm trying to help you better advocate for yourself.

[ConfusedJew]

Lol at you trying to spin the euthanasia order. The existence of the euthanasia order is a big problem for you because you have to come up with excuses why the much larger extermination of the Jews lacks such documentation even though it would have required a far larger operation.

Both the Holocaust and euthanasia program were documented by historians and based on a large body of evidence, including firsthand testimony, bureaucratic records, photographs, and more. But the T4 euthanasia program was more centralized and bureaucratically controlled which led to clearer paper trails.

In contrast, the Holocaust evolved more gradually and covertly. Historians have not yet found a written order from Hitler but that doesn't mean one didn't exist. The Holocaust was carried out through a combination of orders, speeches, and bureaucratic procedures that left a massive documentary footprint — just not necessarily in a signed document.

There were massive paper trails from the SS, Gestapo, and German civil administration detailing deportations, camp construction, supply requests (like Zyklon B), and more. There are also all of the testimonies and Nuremberg Trials.

The lack of a signed extermination order is not unusual for covert or criminal state actions. Similar to how organized crime avoids written directives, which is also why the Nazis used euphemisms.

The idea of euthanasia started circulating in Germany before the rise of the Nazis. The Nazi euthanasia program began formally in 1939 with Hitler later signing a secret order (backdated to Sept. 1, 1939) authorizing the killing of disabled children and adults. This is new to me, but the Nazis started their use of large scale gas chambers in gas chambers with the euthanasia program. The gas chambers were camouflaged as medical or psychiatric institutions, but they were in fact killing centers. Victims were told they were taking showers. They were led into sealed chambers, and carbon monoxide gas was pumped in. Medical staff and bureaucrats coordinated the killings. The first euthanasia murder was of Child K, a severely disabled infant, and was ordered by Hitler.

In contrast, the first killing of innocent Jews began during Kristallnacht in 1938, before WW2 even started. 91 Jews were killed and hundreds more were beaten. Whether that marks the start of the Holocaust is debatable, but there was no documented order from Hitler but it clearly happened. Momentum for the massacre started with Goebbels having made fiery speeches which Hitler approved.

[Callafangers]

Both the Holocaust and euthanasia program were documented by historians and based on a large body of evidence, including firsthand testimony, bureaucratic records, photographs, and more. But the T4 euthanasia program was more centralized and bureaucratically controlled which led to clearer paper trails.

In contrast, the Holocaust evolved more gradually and covertly. Historians have not yet found a written order from Hitler but that doesn't mean one didn't exist. The Holocaust was carried out through a combination of orders, speeches, and bureaucratic procedures that left a massive documentary footprint — just not necessarily in a signed document.

Great job 'explaining away' why you admittedly do not have any written order from Hitler and are forced to assume 'maybe one existed'.

Most of what your AI-generated above text says is subjective: a 'large body', 'evidence', not to mention the mere assumption that it is T4 being more "centralized and bureaucratically controlled" that explains its available evidence (in contrast with non-evidence for a 'Holocaust').

What seems clearer is that the Allies (and their Jews) recognized the bad PR that the euthanasia campaign entailed, thus they found this as one of the narratives worth adapting and rolling into their claims of Jewish 'extermination'.

T-4 may be an important seed in the 'Holocaust' narrative, but lacks contiguity toward any notion of the 'Holocaust' as credible or realistic.

There were massive paper trails from the SS, Gestapo, and German civil administration detailing deportations, camp construction, supply requests (like Zyklon B), and more. There are also all of the testimonies and Nuremberg Trials.

Unfortunately (for you), things like "deportations, camp construction, supply requests (like Zyklon B)" have nothing whatsoever to do with any 'Holocaust' or absurd 'extermination/gassing' claims.

The trials were notoriously problematic, for reasons well-known and discussed at-length elsewhere (and briefly in recent threads).

The lack of a signed extermination order is not unusual for covert or criminal state actions. Similar to how organized crime avoids written directives, which is also why the Nazis used euphemisms.

Thank you, ChatGPT, for your poorly-informed, generic platitudes and more 'explaining away' the gaping lack of documentation for claimed extermination orders.

The idea of euthanasia started circulating in Germany before the rise of the Nazis. The Nazi euthanasia program began formally in 1939 with Hitler later signing a secret order (backdated to Sept. 1, 1939) authorizing the killing of disabled children and adults. This is new to me, but the Nazis started their use of large scale gas chambers in gas chambers with the euthanasia program. The gas chambers were camouflaged as medical or psychiatric institutions, but they were in fact killing centers. Victims were told they were taking showers. They were led into sealed chambers, and carbon monoxide gas was pumped in. Medical staff and bureaucrats coordinated the killings. The first euthanasia murder was of Child K, a severely disabled infant, and was ordered by Hitler.

Thank you again, ConfusedJew, for more or less copy-pasting ChatGPT. Very helpful.

Most of the especially 'shocking' or allegedly sinister elements of the T-4 program are based on postwar testimony with no documentary basis or corroborating evidence. But no one here denies that there was a T-4 program. Moreover, your attempts at shaming Germany in this regard is quite ignorant. You'll need to read this thread:

Aktion T4, What is true and what is not?
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=30

In contrast, the first killing of innocent Jews began during Kristallnacht in 1938, before WW2 even started. 91 Jews were killed and hundreds more were beaten. Whether that marks the start of the Holocaust is debatable, but there was no documented order from Hitler but it clearly happened. Momentum for the massacre started with Goebbels having made fiery speeches which Hitler approved.

See here:

Kristallnacht
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=193

It is a common view that 'Kristallnacht' cannot have been justified since, beyond the ~100 Jews killed and ~200 synagogues burned in these attacks (which seem to have spawned at first from local initiatives rather than being organized at a high level), Hitler/Germany subsequently banned insurance companies from paying out for structural damages to insured Jews and then further imposed a fine upon all Jews in Germany to cover for these damages.

Only when taken out of context, however, can the events of 'Kristallnacht' appear especially harsh or abusive compared to what Germans endured as innocent victims to Jewish actions within the same period and preceding years. Providing the truth in-context eviscerates the common portrayal of this event as a 'vicious and unprovoked attack' against Jews in Germany. That said, it is necessary to understand that both Jews and Germans in this time period viewed one another (and themselves) collectively rather than as individuals, so any measure of cruelty or guilt must be understood and applied on collective (group) terms.

It is well-known that Germany faced immense challenges in the aftermath of World War I, with the Treaty of Versailles imposing unjustifiable 'reparations' upon Germany, leading in part to economic devastation and hyperinflation that shattered the livelihoods of millions of Germans (leading to many unfortunate deaths). The economic collapse was exacerbated by Jewish exploitation and influence within the financial sector. Jewish corruption in other sectors largely spearheaded the Weimar Republic, marked by political instability and social unrest, further deepening the crisis, and arguably justifying the rise of the National Socialist government, which sought to restore order and national dignity.

With Jews being disproportionately responsible for the extreme suffering of the German people through their involvement in international finance/politics/media/etc., tensions steadily increased. The National Socialist government, aiming to consolidate power and address these extraordinary threats, implemented policies to curb Jewish influence, which were met with Jewish-led opposition both domestically and internationally. Jews throughout the 1930s globally stoked hostility against Germany, sabotaging Germany's foreign relations and hopes to prevent another World War, directly exacerbating the tensions that led to 'Kristallnacht' in 1938.

In other words, 'Kristallnacht' itself was not an isolated incident but a culmination of these escalating tensions. The event reflects a period where Germany was increasingly threatened by Western powers, which were manipulated overwhelmingly by Jewish interests to instigate a second world war against Germany. The imposition of fines on Jews after 'Kristallnacht' reflected the broader sentiment that Jews, as a group, bore significant responsibility for Germany's suffering.

Thus, while 'Kristallnacht' is typically viewed as an act of aggression against Jews as a collective, it is essential to consider the backdrop of collective German suffering and the proven, irrefutable Jewish role in it. The National Socialist response was not even a proportionate reaction to the dire, existential threat experienced by most Germans, and was reflective of the legitimate historical grievances and national struggle that motivated Germany's actions during this period.

As for a lack of order for 'Kristallnacht', this is indeed because this event was not strictly planned in-advance. Hitler actually had issue with the events as they unfolded, though he later did not condemn the outcome as necessarily problematic (as evident via his directive regarding the insurance companies and imposition of fines).

[ConfusedJew]

Great job 'explaining away' why you admittedly do not have any written order from Hitler and are forced to assume 'maybe one existed'.

Most of what your AI-generated above text says is subjective: a 'large body', 'evidence', not to mention the mere assumption that it is T4 being more "centralized and bureaucratically controlled" that explains its available evidence (in contrast with non-evidence for a 'Holocaust').

What seems clearer is that the Allies (and their Jews) recognized the bad PR that the euthanasia campaign entailed, thus they found this as one of the narratives worth adapting and rolling into their claims of Jewish 'extermination'.

T-4 may be an important seed in the 'Holocaust' narrative, but lacks contiguity toward any notion of the 'Holocaust' as credible or realistic.

The existence of facts is purely objective. Everything else related to historical interpretation is subjective. Some things may be subjectively but may be far far far more likely to be true than others, depending on the strength and volume of the evidence.

I don't see why the absence of a signed directive from Hitler is necessary. Even the T4 order was secret. The Holocaust order may have been lost, but even if not, it doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't exist.

Just out of curiosity, do you acknowledge that the euthanasia program existed and if so, do you think it was morally unjustifiable?

Unfortunately (for you), things like "deportations, camp construction, supply requests (like Zyklon B)" have nothing whatsoever to do with any 'Holocaust' or absurd 'extermination/gassing' claims.

The trials were notoriously problematic, for reasons well-known and discussed at-length elsewhere (and briefly in recent threads).

All of those elements are core components of the documented machinery of genocide. But beyond that, the diary and speech are crystal clear. They used the term liquidate and extermination with respect to the Jews. I don't get how you can even try to explain that away?

The evidence exists so it's not OK to just dismiss it. Why don't you believe that? What do you think those things were done for? Why did Goebbels and Himmler use those very clear phrasings?

The Nuremberg Trials were imperfect like any human legal process, especially after a global war, but the irregularities had nothing to do with the credibility of the testimonies.

Some charges, like "crimes against humanity", were not clearly codified in international law before WWII. Critics argue this violated the principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law). I can accept that but it doesn't cast doubt on the existence of the Holocaust.

The Allies sat in judgment over the defeated Axis powers. No Allied war crimes (e.g., Dresden bombings, Soviet atrocities) were prosecuted. Same as before.

The USSR submitted falsified or misleading evidence in some cases (e.g., the Katyn Forest Massacre was wrongly blamed on the Germans). This incriminates the Soviets rather than absolves the Nazis.

Some detainees were allegedly mistreated during interrogation. Claims of torture have been made, though most key confessions and trial testimony were corroborated by independent evidence. Just because they treated him horribly, and I think even the worst human offenders possible should be afforded human rights, doesn't make his testimony false. His claims were corroborated with other pieces of evidence.

Thank you, ChatGPT, for your poorly-informed, generic platitudes and more 'explaining away' the gaping lack of documentation for claimed extermination orders.

What you consider to be a "gaping lack of documentation" is subjective as you pointed out above. That doesn't make it accurate or right. There will always be subjectivity involved in historical analysis and interpretation. You just happen to have a very fringe view. Why do you think nearly everybody else looks at the same facts and agrees that it overwhelmingly shows that the Holocaust happened?

Thank you again, ConfusedJew, for more or less copy-pasting ChatGPT. Very helpful.

Most of the especially 'shocking' or allegedly sinister elements of the T-4 program are based on postwar testimony with no documentary basis or corroborating evidence. But no one here denies that there was a T-4 program. Moreover, your attempts at shaming Germany in this regard is quite ignorant. You'll need to read this thread:

Aktion T4, What is true and what is not?
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=30

You are welcome. I take it that you don't have a response so you agree with the arguments and facts laid out in that passage?

Thanks, I'll take a look at the thread. But if postwar testimony corroborates the T-4 program, doesn't that indicate that postwar testimony was reliable? Why don't you deny that the euthanasia program too place? Do you see that as undesirable?

See here:

Kristallnacht
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=193

It is a common view that 'Kristallnacht' cannot have been justified since, beyond the ~100 Jews killed and ~200 synagogues burned in these attacks (which seem to have spawned at first from local initiatives rather than being organized at a high level), Hitler/Germany subsequently banned insurance companies from paying out for structural damages to insured Jews and then further imposed a fine upon all Jews in Germany to cover for these damages.

Only when taken out of context, however, can the events of 'Kristallnacht' appear especially harsh or abusive compared to what Germans endured as innocent victims to Jewish actions within the same period and preceding years. Providing the truth in-context eviscerates the common portrayal of this event as a 'vicious and unprovoked attack' against Jews in Germany. That said, it is necessary to understand that both Jews and Germans in this time period viewed one another (and themselves) collectively rather than as individuals, so any measure of cruelty or guilt must be understood and applied on collective (group) terms.

It is well-known that Germany faced immense challenges in the aftermath of World War I, with the Treaty of Versailles imposing unjustifiable 'reparations' upon Germany, leading in part to economic devastation and hyperinflation that shattered the livelihoods of millions of Germans (leading to many unfortunate deaths). The economic collapse was exacerbated by Jewish exploitation and influence within the financial sector. Jewish corruption in other sectors largely spearheaded the Weimar Republic, marked by political instability and social unrest, further deepening the crisis, and arguably justifying the rise of the National Socialist government, which sought to restore order and national dignity.

With Jews being disproportionately responsible for the extreme suffering of the German people through their involvement in international finance/politics/media/etc., tensions steadily increased. The National Socialist government, aiming to consolidate power and address these extraordinary threats, implemented policies to curb Jewish influence, which were met with Jewish-led opposition both domestically and internationally. Jews throughout the 1930s globally stoked hostility against Germany, sabotaging Germany's foreign relations and hopes to prevent another World War, directly exacerbating the tensions that led to 'Kristallnacht' in 1938.

In other words, 'Kristallnacht' itself was not an isolated incident but a culmination of these escalating tensions. The event reflects a period where Germany was increasingly threatened by Western powers, which were manipulated overwhelmingly by Jewish interests to instigate a second world war against Germany. The imposition of fines on Jews after 'Kristallnacht' reflected the broader sentiment that Jews, as a group, bore significant responsibility for Germany's suffering.

Thus, while 'Kristallnacht' is typically viewed as an act of aggression against Jews as a collective, it is essential to consider the backdrop of collective German suffering and the proven, irrefutable Jewish role in it. The National Socialist response was not even a proportionate reaction to the dire, existential threat experienced by most Germans, and was reflective of the legitimate historical grievances and national struggle that motivated Germany's actions during this period.

As for a lack of order for 'Kristallnacht', this is indeed because this event was not strictly planned in-advance. Hitler actually had issue with the events as they unfolded, though he later did not condemn the outcome as necessarily problematic (as evident via his directive regarding the insurance companies and imposition of fines).

The attacks were not spontaneous. Kristallnacht was explicitly ordered by Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler while police were instructed not to intervene as SA and SS units destroyed thousands of Jewish businesses and synagogues. Goebbels' diary and internal Nazi communications confirm this orchestration.

Regarding your claim that Jews were responsible for the suffering of Germans due to the involvement in media, finance, and politics, that has not been substantiated by any means. Jews were a minority in all major sectors and scapegoated for complex socioeconomic issues, such as WWI reparations, the global depression, and political fragmentation.
Many Jews were themselves impoverished or persecuted during the Weimar period. They were < 1% of the Germany population and punishing an entire population for the actions of one individual (e.g., Herschel Grynszpan) is extremely unjust and dare I say evil.

The idea of collective guilt is a hallmark of totalitarian ideologies and violates fundamental legal and moral principles. Maybe you don't subscribe to those, so please let me know if you do.

I don't understand why people keep blaming Jews for the reparations from Versaille. The Treaty was negotiated by the Allied powers, not Jews. Key negotiators were Clemenceau (France), Lloyd George (UK), and Wilson (USA)—none of whom were Jewish. Germany’s economic collapse was due to postwar debt, poor policy decisions (e.g., passive resistance to French occupation), and the global depression.

I had a discussion with Stubble about this but he insulted me and refused to explain why he thought Jews had anything to do with the Weimar economic collapse.

Some Jewish groups and newspapers outside Germany called for boycotts of Nazi goods as protest against antisemitic policies—not war. Nazi propaganda inflated these acts to portray Jews as aggressors, justifying repressive measures at home.
Boycotts are legal nonviolent protest tools—not acts of war. You seem to be using a lot of propaganda and false information to justify Kristallnacht because there was zero reason for the Nazis to do that in my opinion and that of many others.

Kristallnacht marked the first large-scale, violent, state-sponsored assault on Jews in Nazi Germany, paving the way for the Holocaust. It was not a military or defensive act, but a pogrom aimed at terrorizing and disenfranchising Jews. Following Kristallnacht, 30,000 Jews were sent to concentration camps and Jewish emigration was effectively criminalized.

This logic was used by every genocidal regime in the 20th century: that group X posed a threat, so they had to be controlled, expelled, or eliminated. Whether it’s the Tutsis in Rwanda, Armenians in Turkey, or Jews in Nazi Germany—this reasoning follows the same pattern: invent an existential threat, then use it to justify atrocity.

Show me that "the Jews" poses any threat, let alone an existential threat, to Germany. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that amounts to anything like that.

That said, since there was no written directive for Kristallnacht, the initial episode of violence in the Holocaust, I don't see why that would have changed.

[ConfusedJew]

As a follow up, there is strong historical evidence that the Nazis were already planning violence against the Jews before the assassination of Ernst vom Rath. The assassination was used as a pretext.

The Nazi regime forcibly expelled 17,000 Polish Jews from Germany to the Polish border in a covert and aggressive operation (Polenaktion). Jews were made stateless, stripped of their property, and left stranded in squalor—a clear violation of international norms. Note here that this disgraceful act was also covert.

Goebbel's diary entries in late October and early November 1938 show a desire to escalate violence, “The Jews must feel the full consequences of their guilt. We will not rest until they are removed from German life entirely.” Goebbels later admitted in private writings that the assassination merely provided a "justification" for what he already wanted to implement.

The speed and scale of the violence—burning 1,400+ synagogues, smashing 7,500+ Jewish businesses, arresting 30,000 Jewish men—could not have been improvised in 48 hours.

Rath was shot on November 7, but didn’t die until the 9th. Hitler and Goebbels were already discussing retaliation before the death occurred, showing they were looking for a trigger, not reacting to a fatality.

SS officer Dietrich wrote in his memoirs that the assassination was “a welcome opportunity” to act on plans already being discussed. On Nov 10, the Nazi press featured headlines and editorials calling for purges, boycotts, and exclusion—clearly prepared in advance.

The 1938 Jewish expulsions, preceding Kristallnacht, were carried out without judicial process, administrative hearings, or rights to appeal. That, combined with their suddenness, made them illegal under international norms—and politically explosive.

[Callafangers]

The existence of facts is purely objective. Everything else related to historical interpretation is subjective. Some things may be subjectively but may be far far far more likely to be true than others, depending on the strength and volume of the evidence.

This is not even an argument. You've not specified anything here.

I don't see why the absence of a signed directive from Hitler is necessary.

You're pretending not to.

Even the T4 order was secret. The Holocaust order may have been lost, but even if not, it doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't exist.

What? The euthanasia order was not 'secret' enough to not be identified or corroborated post-war. Whereas that's exactly the case for every aspect of the 'Holocaust', all the way up and down the ladder.

Just out of curiosity, do you acknowledge that the euthanasia program existed and if so, do you think it was morally unjustifiable?

I already answered this. One thing I will not keep tolerating is you ignoring information provided to you, then making the same challenges as if that information was never provided. Others have called you out for this. There is not much that could get me to hit the 'ban' button here but tactics clearly and deliberately intended at minimizing the productivity of discussions are a problem.

For all of your future posts, please ensure you read carefully what has already been provided to you on each issue/topic before you attempt to challenge it. If you continue the same circular tactics, I believe Archie would be in agreement that your membership here will not be allowed to continue (see the forum posting guidelines "which are designed to limit the more unsavory and unproductive debate tactics").

Unfortunately (for you), things like "deportations, camp construction, supply requests (like Zyklon B)" have nothing whatsoever to do with any 'Holocaust' or absurd 'extermination/gassing' claims.

The trials were notoriously problematic, for reasons well-known and discussed at-length elsewhere (and briefly in recent threads).

All of those elements are core components of the documented machinery of genocide.

This is circular reasoning. You cited those items as themselves being the evidence of genocide. But they are not, so now you imply the 'real' evidence is 'documented' elsewhere. So... which documents, ConfusedJew?

But beyond that, the diary and speech are crystal clear. They used the term liquidate and extermination with respect to the Jews. I don't get how you can even try to explain that away?

Which diary? Which speech? And precisely which Jews?

You're just being lazy, now.

The evidence exists so it's not OK to just dismiss it. Why don't you believe that? What do you think those things were done for? Why did Goebbels and Himmler use those very clear phrasings?

Again, you're just being lazy here. You're providing no specific quotes, just shoveling shit out as fast as you can. There is not a single item in neither Hitler nor Goebbels' speeches, diaries, or written records that refer to any policy of 'exterminating' Jews in general. Some of the most critical examples are here (account/login may be required):

https://rodoh.info/thread/647/words-non ... r-goebbels

I hope you understand the only reason we have entertained your posts here thus far -- other than for principles of free speech and genuinely having the utmost confidence our position holds against anything you might put forth -- is because your posts provide energy and prompts for forum members here to produce insightful responses which will thereafter remain on-the-record.

If your posts are not contributing to this productivity, then there is no need to continue the same mindless shenanigans with you.

Here is what you DO get by being a member here:

• A chance to 'expose deniers' and defend the 'Holocaust' narrative before the eyes of the world.

Here is what you DO NOT get as a member here:

• The opportunity to monopolize the overall discussion aimed at limiting its productivity.

If it continues to appear that your primary intention is the latter option, you will be suspended/banned.

The Nuremberg Trials were imperfect like any human legal process, especially after a global war, but the irregularities had nothing to do with the credibility of the testimonies.

Not 'irregularities'. If you're going to claim 'irregularities', you need to describe and define them. Again, this is shit-shoveling, throwing out only general ideas, not an attempt to challenge any specific argument. Do better.

Some charges, like "crimes against humanity", were not clearly codified in international law before WWII. Critics argue this violated the principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law). I can accept that but it doesn't cast doubt on the existence of the Holocaust.

The Allies sat in judgment over the defeated Axis powers. No Allied war crimes (e.g., Dresden bombings, Soviet atrocities) were prosecuted. Same as before.

The USSR submitted falsified or misleading evidence in some cases (e.g., the Katyn Forest Massacre was wrongly blamed on the Germans). This incriminates the Soviets rather than absolves the Nazis.

Some detainees were allegedly mistreated during interrogation. Claims of torture have been made, though most key confessions and trial testimony were corroborated by independent evidence. Just because they treated him horribly, and I think even the worst human offenders possible should be afforded human rights, doesn't make his testimony false. His claims were corroborated with other pieces of evidence.

This entire section is your ChatGPT slop. It is clear you asked for various revisionist talking points and then simply added a sentence of your own to the end of each point or paragraph. Do you understand how transparent your shenanigans are? You're being given every opportunity to defend the 'Holocaust' more sincerely/honestly. Your shit will never stick to the wall, no matter how hard you keep flinging it.

What you consider to be a "gaping lack of documentation" is subjective as you pointed out above. That doesn't make it accurate or right. There will always be subjectivity involved in historical analysis and interpretation. You just happen to have a very fringe view. Why do you think nearly everybody else looks at the same facts and agrees that it overwhelmingly shows that the Holocaust happened?

Knowledge is about facts (which can be curated or obfuscated) and interpretations (which can be censored, ridiculed, etc).

Holocaust revisionists have the only scientific view on the Holocaust. The revisionist view is the only one which adheres to sound principles in logic/deduction, forensic investigation, critical thinking, and more. The methodology of Holocaust exterminationists violates every such principle and is forced to reinvent historiography and other investigative norms to justify itself.

The attacks were not spontaneous. Kristallnacht was explicitly ordered by Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler while police were instructed not to intervene as SA and SS units destroyed thousands of Jewish businesses and synagogues. Goebbels' diary and internal Nazi communications confirm this orchestration.

None of this was disputed by me. You're still clearly copy-pasting ChatGPT rather than at least integrating your own original thoughts and understanding.

If you do not make an attempt to understand and personalize the content you are posting, I do not think it should be allowed to continue.

Regarding your claim that Jews were responsible for the suffering of Germans due to the involvement in media, finance, and politics, that has not been substantiated by any means. Jews were a minority in all major sectors and scapegoated for complex socioeconomic issues, such as WWI reparations, the global depression, and political fragmentation.
Many Jews were themselves impoverished or persecuted during the Weimar period. They were < 1% of the Germany population and punishing an entire population for the actions of one individual (e.g., Herschel Grynszpan) is extremely unjust and dare I say evil.

Jews were over-represented in ALL major institutions and, most importantly, at key positions (e.g. owners, directors) therein.

Studies demonstrate that the contribution of German Jews to their country
during 1918–1933 was vastly disproportionate to their numbers. The roughly
600,000 German Jews who identified themselves as adherents of Judaism com-
prised no more than 0.9 percent of the total population. (Since anti-Semites
identified Jews on the basis of ancestry, not religious faith, it must be noted that
Jews professing Christianity were not listed as Jews in Germany’s census re-
ports.) Yet Jews held more than 3.5 percent of all positions in banking, com-
merce, and the professions (largely excluded from the judiciary and the civil
service,* they comprised 11 percent of doctors, 16 percent of lawyers and no-
taries, and 13 percent of patent attorneys). They owned 40 percent of Germany’s
textile firms and almost 60 percent of the wholesale and retail clothing busi-
nesses, and their establishments transacted 79 percent of the country’s depart-
ment-store business. About 50 percent of Germany’s private banks were owned
by Jews, with such names as Bleichroder, Bonn,* Mendelssohn, and Warburg*
being notable. Jews held key positions in science and industry—IG Farben*
employed several Jewish scientists and included a Jew on its board of direc-
tors—and, through the Mosse* and Ullstein* concerns, controlled Germany’s
two largest publishing houses. Highly visible in journalism, music,* art, and
literature, they were central to the Republic’s intellectual life. The bulk of Ger-
many’s progressive activists [Marxists] were also Jewish.

Vincent, C. Paul (1997) A Historical Dictionary of Germany's Weimar Republic, p. 229

The idea of collective guilt is a hallmark of totalitarian ideologies and violates fundamental legal and moral principles. Maybe you don't subscribe to those, so please let me know if you do.

"Please write more for me, goy... just keep writing very irrelevant, personal, distracting stuff that's likely already addressed elsewhere in this forum. Just keep writing, goy... waste all of your time on me. "

I don't understand why people keep blaming Jews for the reparations from Versaille. The Treaty was negotiated by the Allied powers, not Jews. Key negotiators were Clemenceau (France), Lloyd George (UK), and Wilson (USA)—none of whom were Jewish. Germany’s economic collapse was due to postwar debt, poor policy decisions (e.g., passive resistance to French occupation), and the global depression.

Strawman.

I had a discussion with Stubble about this but he insulted me and refused to explain why he thought Jews had anything to do with the Weimar economic collapse.

I think my above excerpt helps answer that. Jews outside of Germany and Europe also helped assist in Jewish takeovers, such as American-Jewish dollars in the Soviet Union collapse and the establishment of Marxist movements and Jewish banks in Germany.

Some Jewish groups and newspapers outside Germany called for boycotts of Nazi goods as protest against antisemitic policies—not war. Nazi propaganda inflated these acts to portray Jews as aggressors, justifying repressive measures at home.
Boycotts are legal nonviolent protest tools—not acts of war. You seem to be using a lot of propaganda and false information to justify Kristallnacht because there was zero reason for the Nazis to do that in my opinion and that of many others.

In the years prior to 1938, Hitler recognized (accurately) that one of the most important battles being fought globally was one of public opinion. It became clear as of around this exact point in time (mid-late 1938) that global public opinion had become irreversibly hostile due to Jewish propaganda initiatives, Jewish-led international boycotts, etc. This made it clear that diplomatic solutions with the West were becoming nearly impossible and that conflict would become inevitable.

Germany had just "bootstrapped" itself out of mass starvation/poverty and worse, on account of Jewish influences and world war. Thus, the interpretation of Jewish-led international boycotts and propaganda placing Germany further back into an impoverished and war-threatened state was very much a legitimate grievance, one which experience confirmed. Hitler's response toward 'Kristallnacht' reflected the desperate situation faced by Germans, and a willingness to place Germany's Jews into a similarly precarious position, likely in part as a warning to global Jewry.

Kristallnacht marked the first large-scale, violent, state-sponsored assault on Jews in Nazi Germany, paving the way for the Holocaust. It was not a military or defensive act, but a pogrom aimed at terrorizing and disenfranchising Jews. Following Kristallnacht, 30,000 Jews were sent to concentration camps and Jewish emigration was effectively criminalized.

Was warmongering and cutting off all supplies to Germany not also "terrorizing and disenfranchizing" Germans? Jews were the first to commit a collective offense against Germans, across any conflict you wish to point to between them. There is absolutely no measure of reason which can suggest that Jews have ever been a victim of the Germans. Even if the 'Holocaust' had happened, the suffering of Germans (in the broader struggle between Jews vs. Germans) is the real tragedy; not that of the Jews.

This isn't to say there is not some sympathy to be felt for individual Jews who had committed no crime and were caught up in this collective warfare. But for each one, there are far more Germans worthy of that same sympathy.

This logic was used by every genocidal regime in the 20th century: that group X posed a threat, so they had to be controlled, expelled, or eliminated. Whether it’s the Tutsis in Rwanda, Armenians in Turkey, or Jews in Nazi Germany—this reasoning follows the same pattern: invent an existential threat, then use it to justify atrocity.

Yes, every group that is motivated to work against any other group likely has come to believe the other group is a threat. Your premise is already false, though, that Germany had to 'invent' Jews as an existential threat. Jews have an indisputable pattern as a legitimate threat to any nation -- subversives are truly enemies of the state. There is no question about this.

Show me that "the Jews" poses any threat, let alone an existential threat, to Germany. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that amounts to anything like that.

You hand-wave it, you obfuscate it, you downplay it, etc. There is no point in showing YOU anything. You're a Jew here defending his tribe. Nothing you say prioritizes truth or sincerity.

[TlsMS93]

What a whine. Always the same script, boycott of 33, Nuremberg laws, Night of Broken Glass, preludes to the Holocaust. Showing what matters is nothing, I want the decree, do you have it or not?

[Stubble]

Looking through 'Fangers post, I see that I was mentioned.

I feel the need to make a clarification to the board as this description by CJ strikes me as slander.

I did call CJ either dishonest or ignorant, that was an observation, not an insult.

I also provided him with some links to winnow out himself. He didn't.

Mods, please do feel free to look at the dm log between he and I and if you can not read them (on most boards that can be read with Admin access), I will provide the exchanges, or even my log in information if that would be required for clarity.

I have been as patient, courteous and charitable as I feel I possibly could have been with CJ. I put him on iggy yesterday after a series of, in my opinion, dishonest dialogue on his part.

I apologize for the distraction this causes to the thread, it is not my intention to get into some kind of shit flinging contest with this fellow, I had intended to simply walk away.

Apparently, he fails to keep my name out of his mouth however, and accuses me of insulting him.

If I were insulting him, I would have been much harsher in my language and tone.

I believe that that little faggot may sit down to pee.

[Archie]

Just out of curiosity, do you acknowledge that the euthanasia program existed and if so, do you think it was morally unjustifiable?

I already answered this. One thing I will not keep tolerating is you ignoring information provided to you, then making the same challenges as if that information was never provided. Others have called you out for this. There is not much that could get me to hit the 'ban' button here but tactics clearly and deliberately intended at minimizing the productivity of discussions are a problem.

For all of your future posts, please ensure you read carefully what has already been provided to you on each issue/topic before you attempt to challenge it. If you continue the same circular tactics, I believe Archie would be in agreement that your membership here will not be allowed to continue (see the forum posting guidelines "which are designed to limit the more unsavory and unproductive debate tactics").

Yes, ConfusedJewPT is definitely on thin ice.

Below is a list of his offenses. If these things are not resolved quickly, ConfusedJew will be shown the door.

-Posts excessively while contributing very little to the debate in terms of research and arguments
-Refuses to stick to a topic (his threads have been all over the place)
-Keeps bringing up extremely common points but refuses to read links and prior discussions
-Repeatedly plagiarizes from LLMs
-Annoying and disingenuous "just asking questions" routine
-Seems to be trying to bait people into endless, unproductive discussions

Consider yourself warned, CJ.

[Archie]

Mods, please do feel free to look at the dm log between he and I and if you can not read them (on most boards that can be read with Admin access), I will provide the exchanges, or even my log in information if that would be required for clarity.

We do not monitor or read people's PMs in any way. Private messages are private. The phpBB software makes these messages viewable only with the account password. I do have access to the database, so I'm sure it's possible to "hack" in and see the messages, but I would not do that.

If a user receives a harassing, threatening, spammy, or otherwise inappropriate PM, the message can be reported by clicking the little exclamation point in the corner. This works just like reporting a post. If a PM is reported, then we will see the message in the moderation panel.

[Stubble]

...

DM sent

[ConfusedJew]

This is not even an argument. You've not specified anything here.

I was providing context into the subjective side of history. There is always some degree of human judgment involved for interpretation and connecting the dots from disparate facts.

You're pretending not to.

I'm not pretending. It's factually just not necessary for there to be a signed directive from Hitler for there to have been a genocide.

What? The euthanasia order was not 'secret' enough to not be identified or corroborated post-war. Whereas that's exactly the case for every aspect of the 'Holocaust', all the way up and down the ladder.

Hitler kept the T4 program a secret from the public. There was no basis for it in German law. Rather than launching the program through official legislation or a public decree, Hitler used a private letter to authorize the program and backdated it to the very start of the war. The program was later managed through a front organization called the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses and then later by the T4 office in Berlin. False death certificates were then later given to families of the deceased. Towards the end of the war, the Nazis destroyed many of the T4 files, including Hitler's original written authorization, but typed copies were found in various sources.

I already answered this. One thing I will not keep tolerating is you ignoring information provided to you, then making the same challenges as if that information was never provided. Others have called you out for this. There is not much that could get me to hit the 'ban' button here but tactics clearly and deliberately intended at minimizing the productivity of discussions are a problem.

I don't recall you ever answering a question specifically about euthanasia. Somebody mentioned that most people here saw the concept of a Holocaust as unnecessary and undesirable. Maybe that was from you, but it doesn't clearly apply to euthanasia which is very different.

For all of your future posts, please ensure you read carefully what has already been provided to you on each issue/topic before you attempt to challenge it. If you continue the same circular tactics, I believe Archie would be in agreement that your membership here will not be allowed to continue (see the forum posting guidelines "which are designed to limit the more unsavory and unproductive debate tactics").

My main goal here is to debate facts and arguments to see at a fundamental level where we agree or disagree. I have like 8 people here debating me and I'm relatively new to this perspective so I promise you that I am not intentionally doing anything to distract or deflect from the debate.

Unfortunately (for you), things like "deportations, camp construction, supply requests (like Zyklon B)" have nothing whatsoever to do with any 'Holocaust' or absurd 'extermination/gassing' claims.

You are dismissing this claim without providing a counterargument. You could say this isn't a smoking gun, but it's not proper to dismiss it completely out of hand.

The trials were notoriously problematic, for reasons well-known and discussed at-length elsewhere (and briefly in recent threads).

From what I've seen, the trials had issues, like any case, but there were few, if any, doubts on the veracity of the testimonies. We might disagree on this, but I will bring this up at a later thread when we can take a very close look at why you don't believe they were true.

This is circular reasoning. You cited those items as themselves being the evidence of genocide. But they are not, so now you imply the 'real' evidence is 'documented' elsewhere. So... which documents, ConfusedJew?

I'm not sure I understand your point. There is a difference between evidence and proof. You can have a lot of evidence that points you towards a specific conclusion that isn't necessarily true, but those things would have all been used for the Holocaust.

Which diary? Which speech? And precisely which Jews?

You're just being lazy, now.

I spelled this out in a prior post. I referenced the Himmler speeches and Goebbels diaries. You are accusing me of being lazy and intentionally ignoring evidence but you have just done what you accused me of doing. There's really no need to get upset about stuff like that in my opinion but I do wish you wouldn't be so aggressive towards me of doing what you are doing.

Again, you're just being lazy here. You're providing no specific quotes, just shoveling shit out as fast as you can. There is not a single item in neither Hitler nor Goebbels' speeches, diaries, or written records that refer to any policy of 'exterminating' Jews in general. Some of the most critical examples are here (account/login may be required):

https://rodoh.info/thread/647/words-non ... r-goebbels

I provide some direct quotations in a recent post. You're accusing me of being lazy again when you just haven't read my prior posts. These exact quotations that I provided are strongly incompatible of your claim of 'exterminating' Jews in general.

I hope you understand the only reason we have entertained your posts here thus far -- other than for principles of free speech and genuinely having the utmost confidence our position holds against anything you might put forth -- is because your posts provide energy and prompts for forum members here to produce insightful responses which will thereafter remain on-the-record.

If your posts are not contributing to this productivity, then there is no need to continue the same mindless shenanigans with you.

That's fine but this would work better if I am not bombarded by so many people making different arguments. I'd like to go through each one point by point. My direction quotations were overlooked and they are important to this disagreement.

Here is what you DO get by being a member here:

• A chance to 'expose deniers' and defend the 'Holocaust' narrative before the eyes of the world.

Here is what you DO NOT get as a member here:

• The opportunity to monopolize the overall discussion aimed at limiting its productivity.

If it continues to appear that your primary intention is the latter option, you will be suspended/banned.

I am by and large posting in threads that I have created myself and have not hijacked other people's threads. I'm not sure where you get the impression that my intention is to be disruptive.

Not 'irregularities'. If you're going to claim 'irregularities', you need to describe and define them. Again, this is shit-shoveling, throwing out only general ideas, not an attempt to challenge any specific argument. Do better.

I just described the irregularities immediately below your comment. When you say things like that, it strongly suggests that you didn't read the full post before responding.

This entire section is your ChatGPT slop. It is clear you asked for various revisionist talking points and then simply added a sentence of your own to the end of each point or paragraph. Do you understand how transparent your shenanigans are? You're being given every opportunity to defend the 'Holocaust' more sincerely/honestly. Your shit will never stick to the wall, no matter how hard you keep flinging it.

They are facts based on the allegation that the Nuremberg Trials were not legitimate due to irregularities. However, no specifics were provided. I asked what the irregularities were and none of them disproved the truth of the testimonies from the trial. If that list was missing something, feel free to add to it.

Knowledge is about facts (which can be curated or obfuscated) and interpretations (which can be censored, ridiculed, etc).

That's why we are here having this debate. Once we agree on the facts, which I don't think will be very hard, we can debate how they should be interpreted. Given how many facts suggest that the Holocaust happened in my opinion, it seems to me that your arguments are really twisted the facts but we will have to go into more detail on that.

Holocaust revisionists have the only scientific view on the Holocaust. The revisionist view is the only one which adheres to sound principles in logic/deduction, forensic investigation, critical thinking, and more. The methodology of Holocaust exterminationists violates every such principle and is forced to reinvent historiography and other investigative norms to justify itself.

That's not true and is a very dogmatic argument. Most people would say that your arguments are based on distorted interpretations of the fact, but that is a subjective judgment. You can have two people look at the same set of facts or data points and logically draw very different conclusions. History involves a lot of induction, as well as deduction, which is especially where logical opinions can diverge. My goal is to distill this disagreement to its more fundamental parts because I want to see how you argue your case and on what basis. Like I've said before, if it is really as strong as you think it is, I will adopt some or all of your position as my own but we will have to get to the core of the debate first.

None of this was disputed by me. You're still clearly copy-pasting ChatGPT rather than at least integrating your own original thoughts and understanding.

ChatGPT merely gives me answers to questions that I ask it. They are based on my own thoughts and understanding. My thoughts and understanding are always evolving. However, you did strongly dispute this.

You had previously written "As for a lack of order for 'Kristallnacht', this is indeed because this event was not strictly planned in-advance. Hitler actually had issue with the events as they unfolded, though he later did not condemn the outcome as necessarily problematic (as evident via his directive regarding the insurance companies and imposition of fines)." I had provided evidence that the attack was planned in advance and supported the attacks.

If you do not make an attempt to understand and personalize the content you are posting, I do not think it should be allowed to continue.

I understand what I am posting and I'm providing simple facts and arguments. A lot of my arguments are being passed over or misunderstood so I would like to go back over those with you.

Jews were over-represented in ALL major institutions and, most importantly, at key positions (e.g. owners, directors) therein.

This is true but misses the mark. Jews were less than 1% of the population in Germany. So even if they were overrepresented by 5x, that would make them only 5% of major institutions. If there were any issues at the top positions, you'd have to be much more specific and the actions of an extremely small number of Jews shouldn't have been used to collectively punish the entire population of Jews. Why do you think Jews got to be overrepresented? Weimar was a democracy. Is there any evidence that they collectively cheated on a massive scale? I really don't think so but if you can provide that evidence, I will update my view. Jewish culture values education and hard work which tends to be very important in modern society.

Studies demonstrate that the contribution of German Jews to their country during 1918–1933 was vastly disproportionate to their numbers. The roughly 600,000 German Jews who identified themselves as adherents of Judaism comprised no more than 0.9 percent of the total population. (Since anti-Semites identified Jews on the basis of ancestry, not religious faith, it must be noted that Jews professing Christianity were not listed as Jews in Germany’s census reports.)

This doesn't make sense. Anti-semites identified Jews on the basis of ancestry and not religion but Christians with Jewish ancestry were not identified in the census?

Yet Jews held more than 3.5 percent of all positions in banking, commerce, and the professions (largely excluded from the judiciary and the civil service,* they comprised 11 percent of doctors, 16 percent of lawyers and notaries, and 13 percent of patent attorneys). They owned 40 percent of Germany’s textile firms and almost 60 percent of the wholesale and retail clothing businesses, and their establishments transacted 79 percent of the country’s department-store business. About 50 percent of Germany’s private banks were owned by Jews, with such names as Bleichroder, Bonn,* Mendelssohn, and Warburg* being notable. Jews held key positions in science and industry—IG Farben* employed several Jewish scientists and included a Jew on its board of directors—and, through the Mosse* and Ullstein* concerns, controlled Germany’s two largest publishing houses. Highly visible in journalism, music,* art, and literature, they were central to the Republic’s intellectual life. The bulk of Germany’s progressive activists [Marxists] were also Jewish.

Vincent, C. Paul (1997) A Historical Dictionary of Germany's Weimar Republic, p. 229

Only representing 3.5% of positions in banking and commerce is obviously tiny. The hyper inflationary problems from Weimar came from overwhelming reparations from Versaille and economic mismanagement of the economy thereafter. Jews really had very little, if anything, to do with that problem.

Assuming these facts are accurate, and I'm not sure if they are, Jews were still small minorities in every field other than textile firms (40%) and clothing businesses (60%). I don't see how those could have been problematic at all.

I'm not sure how to make sense of Jews owning 50% of Germany's private banks while the text also says that they only comprised 3.5% of all positions in banking. I don't see the problem with this. I would need specifics as to how these negatively impacted Weimar or why all Jews should be punished for this.

This says that the Jews are responsible for both capitalism and Marxism in Weimar. How does that make sense?

"Please write more for me, goy... just keep writing very irrelevant, personal, distracting stuff that's likely already addressed elsewhere in this forum. Just keep writing, goy... waste all of your time on me. "

This is very unnecessary. I have not insulted you or called you names. Goy is not even necessarily an insult but it depends on the context. Yes, collective punishment is a truly evil act. It is still supposedly being practiced in NK where family members of escapees are killed. Maybe you are OK with that behavior, you seemed to have justified it in your prior post.

I don't understand why people keep blaming Jews for the reparations from Versaille. The Treaty was negotiated by the Allied powers, not Jews. Key negotiators were Clemenceau (France), Lloyd George (UK), and Wilson (USA)—none of whom were Jewish. Germany’s economic collapse was due to postwar debt, poor policy decisions (e.g., passive resistance to French occupation), and the global depression.

Strawman.

How is that a straw man??? If there's a logical fallacy in there, which there isn't, please explain why it's wrong rather than trying to throw it out without an explanation.

I think my above excerpt helps answer that. Jews outside of Germany and Europe also helped assist in Jewish takeovers, such as American-Jewish dollars in the Soviet Union collapse and the establishment of Marxist movements and Jewish banks in Germany.

Marxism and even German banks didn't have anything to do with the Weimar economic collapse. It was fiscal mismanagement by the Weimar government and the overwhelming burden of debt from Versaille reparations. I personally know economics very well. I think perhaps Hitler really had no clue about that stuff and didn't know what was causing the hyperinflation so he blamed it on the Jews who had very little if anything to do with it. I can walk you through the economic mechanisms by which that happened. Although, I did that with Stubble and he just insulted me and said that he wouldn't speak to me anymore.

In the years prior to 1938, Hitler recognized (accurately) that one of the most important battles being fought globally was one of public opinion. It became clear as of around this exact point in time (mid-late 1938) that global public opinion had become irreversibly hostile due to Jewish propaganda initiatives, Jewish-led international boycotts, etc. This made it clear that diplomatic solutions with the West were becoming nearly impossible and that conflict would become inevitable.

You'll have to be more specific on this. I don't know much about what you are saying. I don't see any accurate evidence to believe that Jews had anything to do with global opinion turning against Weimar which was caused by the racist Nuremberg Laws, rearmament, and territorial aggression.

Any boycott or protest seemed to be in response to Germany's internal repression. Hitler gave that famous speech trying to scapegoat the Jews for the war while threatening their annihilation of the Jewish race. Keep in mind that Hitler is the one who provoked WW2 by invading Poland but also by annexing Czechoslovakia and Austria earlier. He also clearly threatened annihilation of the Jews so I don't know how you explain that he didn't intend to commit genocide when he was very explicit about that before the war.

"“If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”
— Adolf Hitler, Reichstag speech, January 30, 1939"

Germany had just "bootstrapped" itself out of mass starvation/poverty and worse, on account of Jewish influences and world war. Thus, the interpretation of Jewish-led international boycotts and propaganda placing Germany further back into an impoverished and war-threatened state was very much a legitimate grievance, one which experience confirmed. Hitler's response toward 'Kristallnacht' reflected the desperate situation faced by Germans, and a willingness to place Germany's Jews into a similarly precarious position, likely in part as a warning to global Jewry.

This is merely repeating Nazi propaganda "disinformation" and isn't grounded in what actually happened. The Weimar hyperinflation crisis of the early 1920s was over by the late 1920s—well before Hitler came to power—and not caused by Jews, but by structural war debt, reparations, and poor fiscal management. The boycott of German goods, launched in 1933 by Jewish and anti-fascist groups in places like the U.S. and the U.K., was a peaceful, decentralized protest against Nazi antisemitism—not an act of war or aggression. It also had limited economic impact on the German economy.

The conspiracy theories agains the Jews were false so there was literally zero justification for Kristallnacht. You seem to be blindly accepting Nazi propaganda without having investigated whether or not it was true for yourself. It was not a “desperate” response to hardship, it was a pre-planned escalation of antisemitic policy that had been the result of years of anti-semitic disinformation.

Was warmongering and cutting off all supplies to Germany not also "terrorizing and disenfranchizing" Germans? Jews were the first to commit a collective offense against Germans, across any conflict you wish to point to between them. There is absolutely no measure of reason which can suggest that Jews have ever been a victim of the Germans. Even if the 'Holocaust' had happened, the suffering of Germans (in the broader struggle between Jews vs. Germans) is the real tragedy; not that of the Jews.

None of this is remotely true or supportable with evidence. The idea of a global Jewish conspiracy waging war on Germany was a fiction invented by Nazi propaganda. Germans suffered economically and socially after World War I but that was not caused by "the Jews". This is where you are starting to reveal serious prejudice and falsely present the victimizers as victims. The Jews did almost nothing that you accused them of, let alone kill Germans and destroy their property. Kristallnacht was completely unwarranted. Neither was Germany “cut off” from supplies in any significant way.

This isn't to say there is not some sympathy to be felt for individual Jews who had committed no crime and were caught up in this collective warfare. But for each one, there are far more Germans worthy of that same sympathy.

Yes, this is extremely anti-semitic and also not based in factual reality. That you admit the Nazis killed innocent Jews is maybe a positive, but you have provided zero evidence that the Jews did anything to harm Germany during that period. And that is because barely any evidence exists. You have uncritically accepted false information as true without questioning it.

Yes, every group that is motivated to work against any other group likely has come to believe the other group is a threat. Your premise is already false, though, that Germany had to 'invent' Jews as an existential threat. Jews have an indisputable pattern as a legitimate threat to any nation -- subversives are truly enemies of the state. There is no question about this.

OK you are making baseless claims here without even attempting to support them with any evidence at all. There was no existential threat. You have a tendency to deny arguments without providing any real counterargument like the above.

You hand-wave it, you obfuscate it, you downplay it, etc. There is no point in showing YOU anything. You're a Jew here defending his tribe. Nothing you say prioritizes truth or sincerity.

Again, I asked you to provide even a sliver of evidence that any Jews provided an "existential threat" to Germany prior to WW2 and you have failed to provide any support.

Saying that nothing I say prioritizes "truth or sincerity" because I am a Jew is an empty accusation. I'm not here defending "my tribe", I am here defending truth. Half these claims you have made in the last response completely lack evidence or are extremely weak and exaggerated. Use any AI you want even please but this last response was extremely inadequate in many places which I have pointed out.

[ConfusedJew]

Looking through 'Fangers post, I see that I was mentioned.

I feel the need to make a clarification to the board as this description by CJ strikes me as slander.

I did call CJ either dishonest or ignorant, that was an observation, not an insult.

I also provided him with some links to winnow out himself. He didn't.

Mods, please do feel free to look at the dm log between he and I and if you can not read them (on most boards that can be read with Admin access), I will provide the exchanges, or even my log in information if that would be required for clarity.

I have been as patient, courteous and charitable as I feel I possibly could have been with CJ. I put him on iggy yesterday after a series of, in my opinion, dishonest dialogue on his part.

I apologize for the distraction this causes to the thread, it is not my intention to get into some kind of shit flinging contest with this fellow, I had intended to simply walk away.

Apparently, he fails to keep my name out of his mouth however, and accuses me of insulting him.

If I were insulting him, I would have been much harsher in my language and tone.

I believe that that little faggot may sit down to pee.

I looked at your links and they didn't provide any answers to my questions.

You claim to not insult me and then just called me a f*ggot.

I explained to you how Weimar hyperinflation happened because this is fundamental economics and your response was:

"I'm not going to stop looking for missing jews to talk race and economics with you. If you want to know about the issues with economics in weimar, you are going to have to do some research, I've done mine, I didn't catalog it to have it on tap. Personally I think you are well aware anyhow and you are here to disrupt and to create further animus."

You admitted that you didn't have the answer to my question of how Jews had anything to do with the hyperinflation after I explained to you how hyperinflation actually works. It was massive debt from Versaille and the Reichbank's decision to print currency to purchase foreign currencies in order to repay the debt that created a vicious cycle that spiraled out of control. The decision to impose massive reparations had nothing to do with Jews, nor did the bad economic response from Weimar's central bank.

There's nothing dishonest about providing that kind of an explanation.

[Callafangers]

That's fine but this would work better if I am not bombarded by so many people making different arguments. I'd like to go through each one point by point. My direction quotations were overlooked and they are important to this disagreement.

You say your intention is not to be disruptive. Hilarious. But let's play ball.

Do what you say you'd "like to" do, above. This means cutting the bullshit where you pretend you have an answer to every argument here by simply running it through ChatGPT and passing it all entirely off as your own.

Your claim of being overwhelmed is bogus -- you said you joined the forum out of curiosity, first and foremost to learn and understand. As others have mentioned, you completely blew that bogus claim out of the water with your attempts to respond to revisionist arguments with your ChatGPT-spamming before you have actually learned anything at all. It is pathetic, transparent, and very Jewish.

You are in no position to effectively challenge revisionist arguments. It's stupid and quite obviously disingenuous when you pretend you are. You walked into this 'room' two days ago, obviously knowing nothing on the topic yet acting as though you have any room to lecture anyone at all (on either side of the debate) on absolutely anything. You're a white belt, a padawan, a newbie -- you know exactly fuck-all; nothing more. Nobody on the planet is going to come to you seeking information on the 'Holocaust' or lack thereof. You're functionally useless on this topic.

To pretend you are anything else at all is transparent, obviously disingenuous, and looks very stupid (and Jewish).

[ConfusedJew]

That response was so unwarranted. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I use ChatGPT as a research tool, which I have never denied, to do research on arguments point by point. I have already learned a lot very quickly by going through this. If you have a counterpoint, I am strongly encouraging you to present it.

AI happens to be very disruptive because a lot of people with "expert knowledge" such as doctors and lawyers and historians will soon be rendered obsolete and proven to be incompetent with this new technology.

The dialectical process is very important because it shows you where each person may have blindspots and makes both sides of the argument stronger.

I am not blindly copying LLM responses. I go through it, closely evaluate each response, and counter with the best arguments and evidence that I find. It can be a bit annoying to read text like that which I can edit stylistically I guess but it is a red herring since I'm focused on the information and logic.

Your very obvious Jew hatred clearly undermines the credibility of your arguments. Stubble at least admitted his bias but to find truth you need to consciously struggle to overcome natural biases rather than feed information that will reinforce them.