ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 2:57 pm
I don't know exactly what these things demonstrate other than the fact that these camps were not normal prison camps.
Why do you think the concentration camps existed in the first place?
Who did they decide to put in there and why?
Was their internment justifiable in any reasonable sense?
Were they treated fairly?
Were Jews randomly killed for no reason?
Would there ever be a valid reason to kill an inmate? Maybe in self defense, but I don't think that was the case in the vast majority of murders that we saw in the camps.
Do you acknowledge that Jews were randomly killed in the camps? If so, were they targeted more than other kinds of prisoners?
We can start from there.
There are alot of questions here, I will gladly walk through them one by one - however you may wish to start a new thread on "camp conditions", or other such topics as required.
Before doing so however, please do at least a little bit of prerequisite research for example:
If CJ is going to engage in the Bergen Belsen thread, I will be required to read his posts. As such, I have removed him from ignore.
I would appreciate greatly if CJ would use his own faculties for any rebuttal and form his own words.
AI can be useful for research and brainstorming, and that's fine, but, statements taken and clipped whole cloth from AI and used in place of any independent thought are not only useless (in my opinion) but undermine credibility and should likewise be avoided.
I apologize for the aside. Carry on.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
HansHill wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 3:03 pm
The David Irving book I cited from is called "Nuremberg - The Last Battle" and the citation visible in the screenshot is 435. That citation brings you directly to the affidavits of those three men. You can surely find a copy of the book online and verify his integrity.
It's not even a matter of credibility or integrity for me. It could be the world's smartest and ethical human and this is such a nuanced issue that I would want to check the underlying logic.
I trust ChatGPT much more than these other sources even though it can make small mistakes from time to time which is why you bounce it off other humans.
HansHill wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 3:03 pm
The David Irving book I cited from is called "Nuremberg - The Last Battle" and the citation visible in the screenshot is 435. That citation brings you directly to the affidavits of those three men. You can surely find a copy of the book online and verify his integrity.
It's not even a matter of credibility or integrity for me. It could be the world's smartest and ethical human and this is such a nuanced issue that I would want to check the underlying logic.
I trust ChatGPT much more than these other sources even though it can make small mistakes from time to time which is why you bounce it off other humans.
Wait hang on - that's odd.
Why would you trust an LLM over David Irving given you don't mistrust his credibility or integrity? The citation was right there for you as well, not as if it were obfuscated.
HansHill wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 4:38 pm
Wait hang on - that's odd.
Why would you trust an LLM over David Irving given you don't mistrust his credibility or integrity? The citation was right there for you as well, not as if it were obfuscated.
I looked up his book and found the citation but when I googled it, nothing came up.
I trust an LLM because I can easily fact check it myself. If something is wrong, I can figure it out in short order. With somebody like David Irving, who was found guilty of Holocaust denial by a court process, I have to audit everything he says in much more granular detail.
Being convicted by a court itself is not enough because I have to audit the details and judgment of that court case. It is much faster to do that with LLMs.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 2:26 pm
Ya you don't understand the argument that you are making. If there are going to be many false positives, you'd expect to find way more false cases of reunited survivors and you simply don't see even a fraction of as many as you'd expect if the Holocaust was fake. Like not even within the same solar system.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 2:26 pm
Ya you don't understand the argument that you are making. If there are going to be many false positives, you'd expect to find way more false cases of reunited survivors and you simply don't see even a fraction of as many as you'd expect if the Holocaust was fake. Like not even within the same solar system.
If they are false positives, there is no reunion.
Ya so how do you know that those "reunions" are actual reunions and not just false positives? You don't. But if you would expect there to be a lot of false positive, that means the reported number of reunions, which isn't even that many, is over reported.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 7:51 pm
Ya so how do you know that those "reunions" are actual reunions and not just false positives? You don't. But if you would expect there to be a lot of false positive, that means the reported number of reunions, which isn't even that many, is over reported.
You're an assclown. People do not fly out to 'reunite' with anyone before confirming they know who that person is, that they are related.
More dishonest chat-engineering from you, Mr. Bergfeld.
Pretty much all of the witnesses are from war-crimes trials administered by Germany's conquerors. You ignore that context.
That is not true, as you now go on to admit;
You pretend these testimonies just fell out of the sky. You say they made these confessions against their self-interest but that is far from obvious. Speer went along with the extermination story and he got a relatively lighter sentence. At the Belzec trial, all of the defendants went along with the Holocaust story and they all had their charges dropped except for one guy who got 4 years. Your spin on that will be that it proves that the German government was still pro-Nazi or whatever but the other way to read it is that they were had incentivize to be cooperative.
Not just Belzec, but Chelmno, Sobibor, TII, Majdanek and A-B. The majority of the camp staff were tried in West, East and since unified Germany. Next, were the trials in Poland and Israel, who cannot be considered to be amongst Germany's conquers.
As for being incentivised to cooperate, you have no evidence of that. You ignore that the mass murders were evidenced, which explains why no defendant denied them.
You have created a false context to support your false beliefs.
Lol, West Germany was what got conquered. It was under the American thumb after the war.
Postwar Poland was Communist and was under the Soviet sphere.
Israel as a state did not exist during the war, but International Jewry most definitely was among Germany's conquerors.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 7:51 pm
Ya so how do you know that those "reunions" are actual reunions and not just false positives? You don't. But if you would expect there to be a lot of false positive, that means the reported number of reunions, which isn't even that many, is over reported.
You're an assclown. People do not fly out to 'reunite' with anyone before confirming they know who that person is, that they are related.
More dishonest chat-engineering from you, Mr. Bergfeld.
???
In the case that you sent me, the man was adopted at a very young age and didn't even know his birth name. They had no way of knowing whether or not he was a false positive.
Brah, you are calling me an assclown when you are flat out wrong.
No AI used or needed for that response. You don't understand statistics or genetics and it's revealing your massive bias when you make arguments that you clearly don't understand.
Archie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 1:10 am
Lol, West Germany was what got conquered. It was under the American thumb after the war.
Postwar Poland was Communist and was under the Soviet sphere.
Israel as a state did not exist during the war, but International Jewry most definitely was among Germany's conquerors.
You don't understand geopolitics.
How did International Jewry conquer Germany? Did they do it alone? What weapons did they use? How was Germany so weak to succumb to International Jewry?
Archie wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 3:45 pmThere is some interesting astronomy that's relevant to the flat earth "debate," but I have never felt even the slightest desire to debate a flat earth person. I would maybe consider reading a pamphlet of watching a video about it for fun and curiosity. As far as actually interacting with them, I suspect I would lose interest after a few days at most.
Exactly. Hearing out conspiracy theories is a form of entertainment - see for example the History Channel - but arguing against them is not something that can be done as a hobby. The arguments for flat earth quickly deplete themselves. The field is very shallow. Likewise for QAnon and aliens and many other topics. Amusing from afar but if you take it seriously for, as you say, a few days it becomes boring. Bombsaway has been at this for years now.
Incidentally, that is also why I don't engage very much in Holocaust debate. The believers come back day after day citing something well tred like the Wannsee Conference, then when it's demonstrated how that actually vindicates revisionists they run to a different piece of evidence and never concede their original mistake. It wouldn't be worth my trouble to keep engaging if it were other than a mass delusion with the whole globe in its thrall.
Despite all the frustrations, I have found there are some benefits to engaging with the opposition, at least some of the time. In most domains, feedback is useful, and being tested is the best way to find out which of our arguments are strong and which ones can be countered.
The issue with debate is that when you have two sides working from completely different assumptions, things tend to get bogged down over those core disagreements and you end up rehashing the same things over and over.
I think the optimal ratio is probably something like
70% reading/research
20% discussion
10% debate (to keep us honest)
Archie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 1:10 am
Lol, West Germany was what got conquered. It was under the American thumb after the war.
Postwar Poland was Communist and was under the Soviet sphere.
Israel as a state did not exist during the war, but International Jewry most definitely was among Germany's conquerors.
You don't understand geopolitics.
How did International Jewry conquer Germany? Did they do it alone? What weapons did they use? How was Germany so weak to succumb to International Jewry?
It has often been remarked that Jews are like their own underground nation spread out among all the other nations. "International Jewry." The Jews were undeniably a major player in the war via their influence over the US, UK, and USSR. They played a huge role at Nuremberg and in running postwar Germany. After the war, in fact many German Jews did return to Germany as conquerors with the US Army.
In 1939, Chaim Weizmann wrote to Chamberlain and told him "the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies." And they did.
Archie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:23 am
It has often been remarked that Jews are like their own underground nation spread out among all the other nations. "International Jewry."
Am I part of International Jewry? I used to live in London for a bit but I moved back to the US.
Archie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:23 am
It has often been remarked that Jews are like their own underground nation spread out among all the other nations. "International Jewry."
Am I part of International Jewry? I used to live in London for a bit but I moved back to the US.
