Page 2 of 3

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2026 6:47 am
by Hektor
bombsaway wrote: Sun Mar 01, 2026 5:28 pm eg someone saying I worked at the Crematoria in Auschwitz from 42-43 and never saw anyone get gassed there.
Well, that is virtually all that claim to be witnesses are saying. The few people that say this happened, did not see it themselves, but they imply that it happened based on seeing and cremating corpses.


But We are talking about your argument. And there:
"…There's no testimony from anyone stationed in extermination areas who said no extermination took place there…"
that statement simply is not true.
You should really read the transcripts of interrogations more thoroughly. And while they don't say it as directly as 'no that did not take place'... people will say that they did not know about this then. And that is an honest answer. Because they were not every where at any time, all they can say is that they did not notice anything of it.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2026 7:24 am
by bombsaway
Give me a single transcript from a perpetrator who worked in so called extermination areas but claims to not have known people were being killed there.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2026 8:03 am
by Wahrheitssucher
bombsaway wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2026 7:24 am Give me a single transcript from a perpetrator who worked in so called extermination areas but claims to not have known people were being killed there.
Oh dear! (Ho-hum :roll: )
Not this old, oft-answered, lame, appeal-to-ignorance canard.

How pathetic!

I have never yet come across a HolyH online-defender who argues honestly and intelligently and in good-faith. And I have been visiting revisionist and HolyH-truebeliever discussion groups for nearly two-decades!

That fact alone (lack of genuine debate) I take as definitive proof that there is no honest, intelligent reply to revisionist concerns / skepticism of the HolyH mass-gassing mythology.

These people like BA appear to be engaged in a deceitful game of factual whack-a-mole: viz. once they are defeated (struck down) on one point, they just move their argument to something else.

Anyone else noticing this tactic?

Image

I conclude these people like Bombsaway (what a disgustingly mass-murderous name to call yourself) ONLY reply so that any ‘unconvinced-either-way’, drive-by, casual visitors will think there ACTUALLY IS a credible argument supporting the mass-gassing Allied-propaganda deception.

SUMMARY: There isn’t a credible holyH argument. As if there was, we’d have heard it by now. And at least one book and one documentary would exist refuting the revisionist position with verifiable, irrefutable facts. But no such book or documentary exists.

REPLY to this Bogus challenge: “Give me a single TRANSCRIPT from a perpetrator who worked in so called extermination areas but claims to not have known people were being killed there.”

Anyone who worked in such an area was a target for a post-war, scapegoat lynching and so had the option to refute the charge and be executed, or play along and hope to get a short prison sentence. E.g. like the guy Erich Fuchs who falsely confessed with a demonstrably impractical narrative that he operated the allegedly Russian engine producing the alleged poisonous gas at the alleged ‘death camp’ Sobibor. That false-confession tactic worked for Fuchs — for the alleged mass murder of at least 79,000 people Fuchs got only four years imprisonment. That’s only fifty-four days in jail for each alleged murder. :lol:

Here’s two who did refute the Allied holyH atrocity claims:
Konrad Morgen.
Richard Bauer.

One survived his testimony refuting ‘extermination of jews’ in Birkenau and Auschwitz 1 BECAUSE he was an SS judge investigating Camp criminality and corruption, so could NOT credibly be accused of complicity in the fake charge. He was coerced into giving some credence to the Allied war-propaganda but cleverly did so by inventing a fictitious claim of witnessing it at Monowitz.

The other was the the last commandant of Auschwitz and he denied the charges alleged at Auschwitz completely. But the Allies left no “transcript” of his rebuttal and ‘suicided’ him in his cell before his trial.

There are others.
But we’ e been over this so many times, and Bombsaway isn’t interested in the reality so will probably raise another mole.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2026 3:11 pm
by bombsaway
Warheit, you didn't quote any testimony

I don't want to go through everything myself (these are your claims) but here's this on Baer:
In “Nazi Mass Murder”, Yale Uni. Press, 1993, on page 142, a
statement of Baer from Dec. 22, 1960, is quoted, with the
full source: “I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing
to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no
influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the
gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority”.


Remember, Baer arrived at Camp I only at 1944; by that time,
there was indeed no gassing in Krema I in that camp – that
took place only in 1941-2, till the much bigger gas chambers
in Birkenau were built.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 6:29 am
by Wahrheitssucher
bombsaway wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2026 3:11 pm Warheit, you didn't quote any testimony
No, because you’ve been given it before and I don’t want to play holyH-whack-a-mole with you. Sorry!
{P.S. You spelt your abbreviation of my username incorrectly}

bombsaway wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2026 3:11 pm I don't want to go through everything myself…
Yes, exactly!
You don’t want to “go through” it, as you appear to not actually want the facts, truth and reality. As if you did want that, then you definitely WOULD “go through everything” yourself.

We revisionists have done that.
That is precisely WHY we doubt the official story and KNOW WITH CERTAINTY it is:
i.) a narrative built upon exaggerations, deceptions, wartime-propaganda and vengeful lies;
ii.) is a narrative maintained by intimidation, persecution, peer-pressure, avoidance, deceit and draconian legal protection.

So, if you want to prove my suspicions of you are unfounded and you actually are engaged in a genuine search for historical truth, then look up the “testimony” of Konrad Morgen and check if my summarisation was accurate, and therefore whether he fits your requirements.

In “Nazi Mass Murder”, Yale Uni. Press, 1993, on page 142, a statement of Baer from Dec. 22, 1960, is quoted, with the full source: “I commanded only Camp I at Auschwitz. I had nothing to do with the camps where the gassings took place. I had no influence over them. It was in Camp II, at Birkenau, that the gassings took place. That camp was not under my authority”.
Remember, Baer arrived at Camp I only at 1944; by that time, there was indeed no gassing in Krema I in that camp — that took place only in 1941-2, till the much bigger gas chambers in Birkenau were built.
Everyone interested in Baer will have to search the internet very thoroughly, as the jooish collectives who now police and censor the internet have only allowed info on him that DOES NOT include his denial of the holyH false charges that were made against him and the ENTIRE German people. (Check for yourself and see).

What you quoted is baloney!!!!
False!
That is what the holyH narrative has to resort to, to maintain its pseudo-history.

Here try this, if you are genuinely interested in another perspective:
Jewish, Zionist, German-Chief-Public-Prosecutor Fritz Bauer, (who had supplied the Israelis details of Adolf Eichmann's whereabouts, instead of his own government) was in the early 1960s, keen to press-on with what's now known as The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, which Talmudically began on December 20th, 1963:
22 Germans were tried;
17 convicted and imprisoned;
6 received life sentences.

Having a former commandant of Auschwitz on trial would surely have been the main draw at his planned show trial. But unfortunately for him, Baer refused to play ball.

According to reports in the French press, Baer adamantly refused to confirm the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz to his capturers. After two and a half years in custody, Baer officially had a ‘heart attack’ and died in prison awaiting trial.
He was aged 51.
His wife claimed that he was in excellent health.
He had spent the 15 years prior to his capture working as a lumberjack.

The autopsy report performed at the Frankfurt-Main University School of Medicine states "The ingestion of an odourless, non-corrosive poison... cannot be ruled out."
Jewish, Zionist, Fritz Bauer, launched no further inquiry into Baer's death, instead just ordered his body cremated.

…the masses have been television-programmed to dismiss anything they're conditioned to think is ‘antisemitic’. Consequently the details of Baer's cause of death are not easily found online.

But here:

“Richard Baer, the last commander at Auschwitz (from 1943) and therefore the most important witness, of whom the Parisian weekly Rivarol reported that he could not be dissuaded from his insistence that "during all the time he was in Auschwitz, he had never seen gas chambers, nor had he known that any existed."

Commander Baer died suddenly on June 17th, 1963 whilst being held under investigation, although two weeks previous to this he had been given a clean bill of health.

“I never made a secret of my having been at Auschwitz. When asked about the destruction of Jews, I answered that I knew nothing about that. I simply marvelled at how quickly the populace was willing to accept and believe the stories about these mass gassings, without any apparent resistance.”

SOURCES:
- The Liberty Bell Vol.7 (1979)
- The Capture and Death of Richard Baer - By J.Belling
- Radio Islam
Image
Richard Baer with Josef Mengele and Rudolf Höss in Auschwitz (l. to r.), July 1944

Image

Dec. 12, 1960 — Richard Baer (far right). For 10 years, he lived in Dassendorf near Hamburg where he worked in the forest as a lumberjack. He was arrested ten days after this photo was taken.


Image

Image

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 2:21 pm
by bombsaway
“I never made a secret of my having been at Auschwitz. When asked about the destruction of Jews, I answered that I knew nothing about that. I simply marvelled at how quickly the populace was willing to accept and believe the stories about these mass gassings, without any apparent resistance.”

Is this a real quote? I think it is bogus, otherwise revisionists would use it more. It shows up only 5 places online.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 2:31 pm
by Wahrheitssucher
bombsaway wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 2:21 pm
… Everyone interested in Baer will have to search the internet very thoroughly, as the jooish collectives who now police and censor the internet have only allowed info on him that DOES NOT include his denial of the holyH false charges…

“…the details of Baer's cause of death are not easily found online...”

“…When asked about the destruction of Jews, I answered that I knew nothing about that. I simply marvelled at how quickly the populace was willing to accept and believe the stories about these mass gassings, without any apparent resistance.”

…According to reports in the French press, Baer adamantly refused to confirm the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz to his capturers…

SOURCES:
- The Liberty Bell Vol.7 (1979)
- The Capture and Death of Richard Baer - By J.Belling
- Radio Islam
Is this a real quote? I think it is bogus, …It shows up only 5 places online.
Ha ha ha! :D :lol: :lol:

You are hilarious!

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 2:43 pm
by bombsaway
I don't think it's real, otherwise someone like mattogno or rudolf would have used it. Its just in random forums.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 3:41 pm
by Wahrheitssucher
bombsaway wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 2:43 pm I don't think it's real, otherwise someone like mattogno or rudolf would have used it. Its just in random forums.
:D
Oh boy! :roll:
And there we have it.
A HolyH believer / defender / promoter puts out a whack-a-mole challenge. They ask for just one name that meets a certain requirement.
He gets TWO names.
Yet he ignores one and denies the other.

Amazing!

CONCLUSION
This person just proved they are:
1.) NOT discussing in good faith;
2.) NOT actually interested in historical veracity but are only here to buttress (by any means) a quasi-religious belief system.
… According to various sources which, in turn, rely on reports that appeared in the French press, Baer adamantly refused to confirm the existence of "gas chambers" at the camp he once administered.

…Baer was no ordinary prisoner, but a man whose testimony could have had the greatest impact in the upcoming trial.
The suspicion that interested parties had Baer removed by means of poison — as has often been claimed — cannot be dismissed. The motives for such an action are obvious. If anyone at all knew the truth about the "gas chamber" allegation, it was Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz.

That he refused to give his authoritative confirmation to the "gas chamber" story is shown by the fact that the statements he made during his interrogation were not read into the trial record. They must have been of no value to the prosecution. What the main defendant had to say about the central accusation regarding Auschwitz was anything but a matter of indifference to the initiators of the trial.

Had Baer resolutely contested this allegation and been able to show its absurdity, he would not only have made it difficult for them to attain their primary objective — to reinforce the "gas chamber" myth and establish it as an unassailable "historical fact" — but he might also have caused the proceedings to take an entirely different course.

By his steadfastness, Baer would have set an example for the co-defendants to follow, and perhaps even influenced some of the other participants in the trial.

Hence, one should give some credence to the charge that Baer's refusal to play the role assigned him in the script is the reason the trial could not begin until after his death...

The fact is that the Auschwitz Trial did begin almost immediately after Baer's death.
Laternser is of the opinion that there was too much haste involved. However, the preliminary investigations were completed on October 19, 1962, as Langbein informs us, so nothing much really could have stood in the way of the start of the trial — except, of course, Baer's "stubbornness".

…Given such circumstances as the fact that Chief Public Prosecutor was a Zionist — for which reason he should not have been permitted to head the combined investigation — it is quite possible that the mighty arm of international Jewry was able to reach into Baer's cell, though for lack of conclusive proof this question must remain open.

At any rate, one may assume that Baer's sudden death came as a great shock to the other defendants.

Since his position on the "gas chambers" allegation must have been known to them, some of the defendants may have taken his unexpected and mysterious demise as a warning, and altered their stance accordingly.
For the promoters of the trial, Baer's death could only have been a welcome development.

~ from ‘The Auschwitz Myth’ by former German Judge Wilhelm Stäglich. (publ.1979]

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 4:14 pm
by bombsaway
I am asking for a source for the quote. I think that's pretty fair.

Secondary sources are the best you can do?

"Give me a single transcript " not sufficiently fulfilled then, in the case of Baer. Should we move on?

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 4:58 pm
by Wahrheitssucher
bombsaway wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 4:14 pm I am asking for a source for the quote. I think that's pretty fair.
No, that is NOT “fair”.
It falsely assumes we are on a level playing field and that evidence refuting the holyH mass-gassing mythology isn’t censored, banned, deleted.

Yours is an unfair position that denies the french newspaper reports existed and which were alluded to by Stäglich.

Yours is a dishonest approach that is in denial of the fact that Richard Baer WAS interrogated and yet those reports of his statements have not been made available. (Hmmmm? I wonder why?)

This is yet another reply proving you are a dishonest defender of a pseudo-historical narrative.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 8:38 pm
by bombsaway
I think that if you can't source a quote, you shouldn't use it.

'No level playing field' is just a possible explanation for why there aren't any contradictory testimonies, but yeah there aren't. Baer said mass gassings happened in Auschwitz II. Morgen gave extensive information on gassings at the Reinhardt camps.

Fuchs testified to Jews getting gassed.

I'll leave it at this I guess. Good luck.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2026 4:10 am
by Wahrheitssucher
bombsaway wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 8:38 pm 'Baer said mass gassings happened in Auschwitz II.
Oh dear!
You are clearly in DENIAL! (Oh, the irony).

There are TWO contradictory versions of what he said.
A.) You’ve picked the one that has him supposedly admitting there were gassings but not in his area of command. One that has no verifiable reference.

B.) You are denying the statements that have him supposedly categorically denying there were gassings at Auschwitz and he was amazed people were so gullibly believing the nonsense allegation.
Plus saying he had NO knowledge of ANY mass-gassings anywhere — not in Auschwitz or anywhere else.
The one that has references: i.) French newspapers of the time and ii.) the trial records omitting his ACTUAL testimony

C.) Plus you are denying that despite being in captivity for 2.5 years and being interrogated during that time, NO RECORD of his testimony has ever been released to the public NOR was presented at the trial he was supposed to appear at.

FAIL.

bombsaway wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 8:38 pm Morgen gave extensive information on gassings at the Reinhardt camps.
No he didn’t. Now you are blatantly lying. At his first appearance in court in Nuremburg he first denied any gassings. Then (curiously) on subsequent appearances he gave very little detail but narrated being aware of gassings at Auschwitz-Monowitz. Something that is not accepted as factual.
bombsaway wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 8:38 pm Fuchs testified to Jews getting gassed.
Wow! You’re a piece of work.
Yeah, Fuchs admitted administering the gassing of jooze on a very specificly described, but non-existent, Russian engine. :lol:

bombsaway wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 8:38 pm I'll leave it at this I guess.
Yeah, better leave it there, as your credibility is getting thoroughly destroyed.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2026 4:52 am
by bombsaway
Konrad Morgen denied ALL gassings? What are you smoking dude.

Post the testimony, and then I'll make it into a thread. I think it will illustrate the problem with you guys quite well. If you can't find the testimony - which is what I am expecting, I'll post what Morgen said. His consistent position was that the extermination program was real, and as a Nazi he was opposed and quite horrified by it and had tried to stop it.

Re: "best case for the Holocaust" essay question and metacommentary

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2026 5:04 am
by Stubble
It opens with him talking about the brothels and the scenic views. The judge asked him to clarify, so, he does. Then he gets into talking about corruption and misuse of 14f13.

You want the link from Avalon? Or should I link you The Green Series and provide the volume and page numbers?

I think the most curious part in his testimony is about magic nazi dust that makes bodies disappear. Will literally anyone ever tell me what this magic nazi dust was? Blobel never mentioned it.

I'll probably post it over here as well as starting a new thread.

viewtopic.php?t=375

Just let me know which way you want the testimony.