Where Myths Meet Their Demise
https://codohforum.com/
By German law qualified T4 staff were the only ones authorized to euthanize people; they had legal immunity. There were many elderly at places like Sobibor that were euthanized; others lived on and moved on.
Atrocity pulp.bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:17 amWhat do you think about all this "links about secrecy"
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=5314#p5314
So we have here a ranking of "ideal causes of death" - is this document real or not?
What about stuff like this?
Death and Deliverance page 247Faked documents? Misframing by the historians?The last point applied to people like a fifteen-year-old boy of 'gypsy' ancestry called L., who was killed at Kaufbeuren. L. was himself a little bully and a thief, but many of the staff seem to have felt rather affectionately towards him, organising his transfer to a work party to save his life.41 When L. stole again, despite a severe reprimand, Faltlhauser gave the order to kill him. This proved difficult. Clearly what we call 'street-wise', L. knew what was happening in the asylum; on one occasion he gave an orderly he liked a photograph of himself inscribed 'in memory'. He said he was not going to live much longer.42 L. refused to drink coffee which he detected had been laced with Luminal. However, it was noted that he was anxious about typhus in the paediatric department. His anxiety opened up other avenues of opportunity. Faltlhauser decided to delegate the job to the ubiquitous Pauline K. (i.e. to a professional murderess, brought in to Kaufbeuren for this sole purpose). She went upon L., all innocent, in the morning, informing him that he was to be inoculated against typhus. She gave him two injections. During the night, his face turned purple and he groaned heavily. Foam and powder were evident around his mouth. Although he had hitherto been in rude good health, L. died before the following morning. One day he was working and acting the fool, the next he was dead.43
At Hadamar, Alfred S. worked on the estate at Schnepfenhausen. In October 1942 the medical reports noted that he was 'unpleasant', and that 'he often told stories about the asylum in the town'. On 2 December he was restricted to the asylum, lest he again be 'let loose talking too much'. Three days later he was dead. The same fate befell anyone who complained about the conditions in the asylum.44 'Sometimes the nursing staff just wanted to lay hands upon a watch, a nice suit or a good pair of shoes belonging to a patient, who was then killed to satisfy their cupidity.'45
Patients who tried to escape were treated correctly, up to the point where they began talking to outsiders, about life and death in Hadamar. This normally resulted in their dying of 'pneumonia' shortly afterwards. Schutz S. was eighteen years old at the time of these entries in his patient records:
31 August 1942
has been employed in a work party for a few days. Transferred today to the [Schnepfenhausen] barges.
9 September 1942
industrious and very skilful. Ran away today. Was in Hundsdangen, by Limburg, for a day; is back.
17 September 1942
working again on the estate.
13 January 1943
still working as before on the estate. No complaints about his behaviour.
9 June 1943
has been working for a long time in the carpentry shop ... and is very reliable. Escaped in May or April, but was rapidly recaptured. Ran away again today. Received 20 Marks and ration cards from a female employee. Did not return from visiting the town.
20 June 1943
picked up yesterday in Neudorf near Wiesbaden, today unchanged. Threatens to escape again, and says he will tell things about the asylum. He tells the police various things about the asylum. Stays in bed.
30 June 1943
ill with pneumonia. Dead of pneumonia today.46
At the Kalmenhof in Idstein, where adolescent boys were beaten with an oxhide whip, or smashed in the mouth with soup ladles, or made to do five hundred breadests for minor infractions (the house regulations specifically banned any form of corporal punishment), anyone who stole or disobeyed orders was killed. This applied to those who inconvenienced the staff by persistent bed-wetting.
I think it's something worth digging into. The stuff about Reinhardt camps has been exhaustively covered by revisionists for the last few decades. If you want to contribute, T4 is ripe for that, if you're saying that's atrocity propaganda as well. Of course this is laughable from my perspective, I don't really show that because it feels like punching down, but it's quite comical to me.Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:16 pm Atrocity pulp.
Don't worry, I'm still working on vetting source material. I'm compiling information regarding a lot of this stuff. It is taking time. Rest assured, I have not forgotten. It is on the burner, just not the front burner, as I have other hot irons I'm hitting right now, right now.
I hear your criticism, trust me.bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:13 pmI think it's something worth digging into. The stuff about Reinhardt camps has been exhaustively covered by revisionists for the last few decades. If you want to contribute, T4 is ripe for that, if you're saying that's atrocity propaganda as well. Of course this is laughable from my perspective, I don't really show that because it feels like punching down, but it's quite comical to me.Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:16 pm Atrocity pulp.
Don't worry, I'm still working on vetting source material. I'm compiling information regarding a lot of this stuff. It is taking time. Rest assured, I have not forgotten. It is on the burner, just not the front burner, as I have other hot irons I'm hitting right now, right now.
But yeah, the T4 thing is completely unnecessary from a conspiracy point of view. From the conspirators' perspective: you're running literally a Holocaust-sized conspiracy to fabricate documents, coerce witnesses, silence and suppress millions who might contradict your narrative (like the resettled Jews), and you're worried about patient logs at Hadamar? No one knows about this stuff, barely anyone cares, even revisionists, but you're covering your bases to this extent, dragging false witness after false witness to perpetuate your story?
This is where revisionism of the kind you practice goes mask off. Any conspiracy becomes possible - in fact, such conspiracies MUST exist to explain away the mountains of corroborating evidence. No matter that there's no precedent for either the allies or the Soviets forging documents or coercing witnesses like this. The single German "perpetrator" who confessed to Katyn later recanted. He was in Soviet jail and they still couldn't stop him from recanting. https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... enced.html
From a rev perspective this is probably part of the psy op eh? To "show" that witnesses are not so easily coerced, therefore making the hundreds of perpetrators who confessed to false crimes more convincing. It's pretty easy doing what you do, not having to worry about evidence and the like. It's all self evident don't you see?
You really do think this.bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:42 pm I think the biggest difference is you believe things without direct evidence. Basically you find the stories implausible, which proves the hoax conspiracy. I would believe in the hoax conspiracy, if it was sufficiently evidenced. It's not even insufficiently evidenced though, there's nothing at all except circumstantial things which are arguable in each case, and from what I've seen from your posts are mostly resultant from your ignorance about source material. Eg the tube would have been noticed by everyone, if it was see through , like a fence, if there were no walls. But this is the opposite of what witnesses say
I've made this point before, but ultimately what you and others are doing is more akin to fiction than history. It's because of the lack of focus on evidence and more on your subjective speculations.
I should clarify, that when I say fiction obviously that's not from your perspective. But that's what you're doing when your assertions become speculative based rather than evidence based. Historians don't assert mass events and even minor events without direct evidence. Obviously you deviate from this standard. You're not doing historyStubble wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:50 pmYou really do think this.bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:42 pm I think the biggest difference is you believe things without direct evidence. Basically you find the stories implausible, which proves the hoax conspiracy. I would believe in the hoax conspiracy, if it was sufficiently evidenced. It's not even insufficiently evidenced though, there's nothing at all except circumstantial things which are arguable in each case, and from what I've seen from your posts are mostly resultant from your ignorance about source material. Eg the tube would have been noticed by everyone, if it was see through , like a fence, if there were no walls. But this is the opposite of what witnesses say
I've made this point before, but ultimately what you and others are doing is more akin to fiction than history. It's because of the lack of focus on evidence and more on your subjective speculations.
You also believe your perspective rests on direct evidence.
Such is part of the conundrum.
A gentle reminder, if I were just writing fiction, I wouldn't bother looking at evidence or vetting sources. I'd just make shit up.
Are you saying that I've been just making shit up about the people I have listed? Or about the sources I have critiqued?
Your last paragraph is a wild misframing.
Going to 'the tube' I never said they'd see, I said they'd notice. What, is the fucking thing soundproof now?
I'm very clear when I;bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:00 pmI should clarify, that when I say fiction obviously that's not from your perspective. But that's what you're doing when your assertions become speculative based rather than evidence based. Historians don't assert mass events and even minor events without direct evidence. Obviously you deviate from this standard. You're not doing historyStubble wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:50 pmYou really do think this.bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:42 pm I think the biggest difference is you believe things without direct evidence. Basically you find the stories implausible, which proves the hoax conspiracy. I would believe in the hoax conspiracy, if it was sufficiently evidenced. It's not even insufficiently evidenced though, there's nothing at all except circumstantial things which are arguable in each case, and from what I've seen from your posts are mostly resultant from your ignorance about source material. Eg the tube would have been noticed by everyone, if it was see through , like a fence, if there were no walls. But this is the opposite of what witnesses say
I've made this point before, but ultimately what you and others are doing is more akin to fiction than history. It's because of the lack of focus on evidence and more on your subjective speculations.
You also believe your perspective rests on direct evidence.
Such is part of the conundrum.
A gentle reminder, if I were just writing fiction, I wouldn't bother looking at evidence or vetting sources. I'd just make shit up.
Are you saying that I've been just making shit up about the people I have listed? Or about the sources I have critiqued?
Your last paragraph is a wild misframing.
Going to 'the tube' I never said they'd see, I said they'd notice. What, is the fucking thing soundproof now?
Regarding Sobibor
Neither are you doing history but blindly following what others have said, without concrete evidence. Most of the holocaust historians, not all, are Jews. As some historians have found out providing evidence contrary to the accepted narrative invites legal jeapody.
Can you do me a favor and link me to anyone else talking about the subject of this thread so I can know who I am 'blindly following'? I'd like to know, for posterity.Nazgul wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:16 pmNeither are you doing history but blindly following what others have said, without concrete evidence. Most of the holocaust historians, not all, are Jews. As some historians have found out providing evidence contrary to the accepted narrative invites legal jeapody.
I am talking about your statements about witnesses lying, documents being atrocity propagandaStubble wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:09 pmI'm very clear when I;bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 9:00 pmI should clarify, that when I say fiction obviously that's not from your perspective. But that's what you're doing when your assertions become speculative based rather than evidence based. Historians don't assert mass events and even minor events without direct evidence. Obviously you deviate from this standard. You're not doing historyStubble wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 8:50 pm
You really do think this.
You also believe your perspective rests on direct evidence.
Such is part of the conundrum.
A gentle reminder, if I were just writing fiction, I wouldn't bother looking at evidence or vetting sources. I'd just make shit up.
Are you saying that I've been just making shit up about the people I have listed? Or about the sources I have critiqued?
Your last paragraph is a wild misframing.
Going to 'the tube' I never said they'd see, I said they'd notice. What, is the fucking thing soundproof now?
A: present an opinion
B: ask a question
Neither of those should be construed as 'fiction'.
If I asserted it as fact, without evidence, that would be fiction. That's not what I'm doing.
None of this is constructive for the thread however and could be discussed in a separate thread or via direct message. No need to clutter this thread with it.
Lol, read of not are in your post. My bad. Carry on.
