When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.
When the only demonstrable proof you will accept is to look at some of the failures, you whittle yourself a bit of a nest, don't you.
Evidence to prove a hoax -
- whistleblowers, who were involved in organising the hoax.
- evidence as to what really happened and millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.
You have nothing.
Right.
Nothing at all...
Just, you know, forced confessions, that you unironically cite as 'proof', people faking gas chambers, OSS agents contaminating the Nuremberg trials by inserting themselves into propaganda films to be shown at the trial, psy war staging fake atrocity evidence, famous Hollywood directors making propaganda films, the exploitation of various piles of bodies, not victims of systematic genocide, but victims of starvation, pestilence and allied bombing presented as 'evidence' of genocide, the twisting of words and perversion of the truth like for example the continued misframing of Aktion Reinhardt as Aktion Reinhard, this list can get very long. But I've got nothing...
You've got a bunch of half truths built upon a layer of lies topped with ridiculous fantasies and fictions about brain bashing machines, human soap, gas chamber bicycle races, roller coasters of death, magical mythical gas chambers, missing persons after a war and show trials.
'Oh, but, you don't have a whistleblower, so, you don't have anything'.
When the only demonstrable proof you will accept is to look at some of the failures, you whittle yourself a bit of a nest, don't you.
Evidence to prove a hoax -
- whistleblowers, who were involved in organising the hoax.
- evidence as to what really happened and millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.
You have nothing.
Right.
Nothing at all...
Just, you know, forced confessions, that you unironically cite as 'proof',
There is no evidence that the vast majority of confessions were forced. You cherry pick the few where there is evidence, usually Hoess.
....people faking gas chambers,
There is no evidence of fakery, instead they were poorly done reconstructions.
OSS agents contaminating the Nuremberg trials by inserting themselves into propaganda films to be shown at the trial, psy war staging fake atrocity evidence,
Some atrocity claims were initially believed, that has changed.
famous Hollywood directors making propaganda films, the exploitation of various piles of bodies, not victims of systematic genocide, but victims of starvation, pestilence and allied bombing presented as 'evidence' of genocide,
It is evidence of motive.
... the twisting of words and perversion of the truth like for example the continued misframing of Aktion Reinhardt as Aktion Reinhard, this list can get very long. But I've got nothing...
Revisionists misframe AR, making all sorts of claims that they cannot evidence.
You've got a bunch of half truths built upon a layer of lies topped with ridiculous fantasies and fictions about brain bashing machines, human soap, gas chamber bicycle races, roller coasters of death, magical mythical gas chambers, missing persons after a war and show trials.
You concentrate on what have been identified as atrocity stories and claim show trials despite most of them having been run in Germany, by German prosecutors. An atrocity story is to be expected, it is not proof of a hoax.
'Oh, but, you don't have a whistleblower, so, you don't have anything'.
Blow it out your ass.
All those millions of potential witnesses and you got none.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:42 pm
by Stubble
The gas chambers at majdanek, at the Eiffel Tower, at dachau etc, aren't fake?
You can't show me film of jews going gassed, and i can't show you film of red commie bastards punching holes in the roof.
You are pointing out my bias and uneven standard of evidence.
I will reiterate, if it weren't for all of the lies and the betrayal of my trust by 'The Holocaust Industry' or whatever you want to call it, I'd be much more accepting of things and would have such a lopsided burden of proof.
You misunderstand me. I believe that the "commie bastards" punched holes in the roof. What I don't believe, is that this is good evidence of a larger campaign to fabricate a systematic operation to mass kill European Jews. But I can get into it in more depth if you want. Just give me the go ahead and I will justify my thinking about this particular event (the punching of holes).
I can also give you some things that would be good evidence. Documents saying it was happening, eg an order for subordinates to promulgate the story by fabricating evidence. Or one could get testimony from the subordinates carrying out this order. There's no uneven standard here, these things exist for the orthodox narrative - (the order being to mass kill Jews)
From having to ascribe genocidal intent to the wansee minutes, to having to ascribe to the lie of 'Aktion Reinhard', consider me apprehensive to the idea there was a campaign of genocide.
If the absolute annihilation of European jewry had been the goal, then European jewry would have been annihilated.
You wouldn't have 'the diary of a young girl' who died of typhus after being salvation marched into Germany proper. You wouldn't have the Nobel prize winner Elie Weasel. They'd have been annihilated in the most state of the art mass murder facility ever constructed and it would have been done with the ultimate efficiency.
Do you see how you've gone from trying to evidence any of the mass conspiracies you believe in to general plausibility concerns? As I've pointed out , there are enormous plausibility concerns about whatever you believe in, and the evidence for the Holocaust is clear, otherwise you wouldn't have to accuse many hundreds of witnesses of lying and assert that documents like the Just memo were fabricated.
Your concerns are weaker than you think, eg you say "absolute annihilation of European jewry" was the goal, according to orthodoxy, which is simply a tried and true revisionist strawman. It's clear from things like Wannsee and Goebbels diary that the intention was to hold over a considerable minority for labor.
I suggest we look at what you believe is the strongest evidence for your position. I can address that then, but I'm not going to respond to 5 or 10 things at a time. This will allow us to gauge the strength of your evidence, and I will also be able to better explain to you the correct approach to assessing evidence as I see it. It doesn't matter what you pick, it could be the Majdanek plaque or the Eiffel Tower "gas chambers", but think about it and pick what you think is very strong evidence.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:47 pm
by TlsMS93
bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:15 pm
"absolute annihilation of European jewry" was the goal, according to orthodoxy, which is simply a tried and true revisionist strawman.
So you think Yehuda Bauer was a revisionist? Because he maintained that this was the goal, to kill every man, woman and child the Nazis could get their hands on.
So does that mean that the 250,000 French Jews were all able to work and that's why they weren't deported, only the incapable ones were? That alone is a huge hole in the Holocaust.
bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:15 pm
"absolute annihilation of European jewry" was the goal, according to orthodoxy, which is simply a tried and true revisionist strawman.
So you think Yehuda Bauer was a revisionist? Because he maintained that this was the goal, to kill every man, woman and child the Nazis could get their hands on.
So does that mean that the 250,000 French Jews were all able to work and that's why they weren't deported, only the incapable ones were? That alone is a huge hole in the Holocaust.
The eventual goal may have been, but it's always clear that they were selecting a certain portion for work. Mostly unemployable were deported to the Reinhardt camps, Chelmno, selections were made at Auschwitz.
I think the evidence in France was they tried to deport all but failed. Not all deported Jews were killed, that's clear if you know anything about the orthodox narrative about Auschwitz.
The "hole" you see is a result of your own ignorance, I think.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:58 pm
by TlsMS93
The Nazis believed that 1.6 million Jews in Western and Southern Europe were living in peace under the Wannsee Protocol, that's a huge hole that you can't explain.
They tried but failed.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:59 pm
by Stubble
Dude, I'm currently swimming in the national archive microfilm from 1933-1955 (hunting these missing persons), I'm still penning rebuttal for the bullshit t4 garbage, now I've got treblinka shit on the table, and this is getting laid at my feet simultaneously? Not to mention my labor, which, is ever so slightly suffering.
I'll happily actually debate this with you at some point in the future, but, I'd like to stream it if that's ok with you. We would need a disinterested moderator.
The conspiracy is so blatantly obvious to me that I have not, at this juncture, framed out argumentation for and against. I've never entertained the idea that an honest party could not recognize it. I will need time to prepare for a debate on this topic.
In the mean time, I'm going to get back to it, there are other irons I have that require hammering right now.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:16 pm
by TlsMS93
The West German trials are often used to prove that the Germans themselves are upholding this story. Here is what Germar Rudolf thinks of this.
In the toxic and violently anti-German climate in Poland in the immediate post-war period, the new Polish-Stalinist regime held trials against many Germans who were accused of all sorts of atrocities during the war. Given all the circumstances, these trials could not have been anything other than Stalinist show trials. Guilty verdicts were virtually inevitable, regardless of the charges. The West German judiciary was well aware of the unreliable nature of the findings of these Stalinist tribunals, so that no West German court or prosecutor initially requested assistance from any institution in a communist country for West German criminal investigations against Germans accused of having committed atrocities during the National Socialist era. This changed, however, during 1958, when the International Auschwitz Committee lobbied to open criminal investigations against Wilhelm Boger, a former employee of the Political Department of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. The International Auschwitz Committee was a Polish communist propaganda organization established in 1952 with headquarters in Krakow, but since at that time few in the West took anything coming from a Polish communist organization seriously, they established a General Secretariat in Vienna, neutral Austria. (It is telling that their headquarters are now in Berlin.) From Vienna, communist and Auschwitz survivor Hermann Langbein led a campaign launched in 1958 to initiate a major trial in West Germany against former members of the SS garrison at the Auschwitz Camp (see Rudolf 2003). It is safe to say that Langbein was coordinating these attempts closely with his puppet masters in Krakow and Warsaw.
As soon as the investigations against Wilhelm Boger were officially opened in August 1958 – and were quickly expanded to include many more defendants – the Poles began to prepare a series of documents of great importance: Danuta Czech of the Polish Auschwitz Museum used the records she had to write a daily account of what the Polish communist authorities wanted the world to believe happened in the Auschwitz camp during the war. She was to create a simplified account supporting the conclusions already “established” by the show trials at the end of the war, mainly the Krakow Trial against the former camp commandant Rudolf Höss, and the Warsaw Trial against other members of the Auschwitz camp garrison. This simplified account was published in Polish and immediately also in German translation. To do this, the Auschwitz Museum created its own German-language periodical called Hefte von Auschwitz (see Czech 1959–1962, 1964a&b). Although German as a language was factually, if not legally, forbidden in all areas under Polish influence, and although speaking German in Poland in the immediate post-war period could have meant ruin and disaster for the offender, in the midst of all this anti-German frenzy we find the Polish government in conjunction with one of its museums publishing a German-language periodical. How can we explain this?
The smoking gun clearly points to this project which aims to decisively influence the expected Auschwitz Trial, which will soon take place in West Germany. And indeed, if one reads the records of the Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, one can find there references to the Czech Hefte von Auschwitz , which were even used as evidence; indeed, Danuta Czech herself appeared as an expert witness during the trial. But more importantly, it can be assumed that the Czech-created record was used to “train” Polish witnesses before they traveled west to testify in Frankfurt, making sure that they all gave a coherent story in line with what the Auschwitz Museum officials had ordered to be “the truth.” The fact that this massive manipulation of Polish witnesses had in fact taken place was revealed during the trial itself, as I have reported elsewhere (Rudolf 2019, pp. 110).
The strategy behind this was to force the Stalinist propaganda version of what happened at Auschwitz (and also elsewhere during subsequent trials) down the throats of the West German justice system, establishing it as the only acceptable narrative. Having the West German judiciary confirm the veracity of the enormous claims made by Polish historians (with the support or even at the behest of many Jewish historians, to be sure) would place a gigantic Mark of Cain on Germany, an admission of guilt of such absurd enormity that anything that happened to Germany and the German population at the end of the war and afterward could only be seen as well-deserved punishment for unfathomable crimes. It was the continuation of the war by means of psychological warfare. It was what the Germans call “Raubsicherungspolitik” – literally the Robbery Protection Policy, a policy designed to secure the spoils of the greatest robbery in history, the annexation of East Germany by Poland and the ethnic cleansing of its German population.
It worked. The Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt proved to be a watershed in German history. It was followed by a flood of similar trials, which continue to this day against 100-year-old geriatrics, all following the same script as the Stalinist show trials of the immediate post-war period. It transformed a once proud German nation into a nation of self-flagellating, cowardly creatures who agree that everything done to them during and after the war – massive bombings, mass murders of “unarmed enemy forces”, mass deportations to Siberia, ethnic cleansing, starvation policies, dismantling of Germany’s industrial equipment, theft of its patents – was a just punishment for all the crimes allegedly committed during the war.
Poland's participation in the Holocaust - By Germar Rudolf ∙ August 19, 2022
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:33 pm
by bombsaway
TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:58 pm
The Nazis believed that 1.6 million Jews in Western and Southern Europe were living in peace under the Wannsee Protocol, that's a huge hole that you can't explain.
So does that mean that the 250,000 French Jews were all able to work and that's why they weren't deported, only the incapable ones were? That alone is a huge hole in the Holocaust.
Why are the French still supporting a Soviet hoax, that they actively participated in assisting the Nazis, resulting in the deaths of 10,000's of its citizens?
The conspiracy is so blatantly obvious to me that I have not, at this juncture, framed out argumentation for and against. I've never entertained the idea that an honest party could not recognize it. ....
It is not blatantly obvious why you think that. The Poles, and some Slovakians, are responsible for the earliest reports of death camps, not the Soviets. The Soviets then did the least of any country to investigate or memorialise the Holocaust, leaving the research and narrative to the rest of Europe. That means they had little to no control over it.
Then why would so many countries support a Soviet hoax, that they assisted in killing their Jewish citizens? Why continue to do that now, long after the collapse of the SU? How did Denmark and Finland get a pass and be the heroic countries that protected their citizens?
Why do revisionists use Soviet failures as evidence of success, as they reel out known atrocity stories that did not happen and hoaxes that were exposed?
What is blatantly obvious is that you have not thought through what you are alleging and it is you who has fallen for a hoax.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2025 7:43 am
by Nessie
TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:16 pm
The West German trials are often used to prove that the Germans themselves are upholding this story. Here is what Germar Rudolf thinks of this.
...
It worked. The Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt proved to be a watershed in German history. It was followed by a flood of similar trials, which continue to this day against 100-year-old geriatrics, all following the same script as the Stalinist show trials of the immediate post-war period. It transformed a once proud German nation into a nation of self-flagellating, cowardly creatures who agree that everything done to them during and after the war – massive bombings, mass murders of “unarmed enemy forces”, mass deportations to Siberia, ethnic cleansing, starvation policies, dismantling of Germany’s industrial equipment, theft of its patents – was a just punishment for all the crimes allegedly committed during the war.
Poland's participation in the Holocaust - By Germar Rudolf ∙ August 19, 2022
Rudolf is being insulting to the German people. That cowardly retreat into admitting to crimes they did not commit, forced by the SU, is drivel of the highest order. Drivel, because it is not backed by any evidence. The Soviets could influence East Germany into maybe making admissions, but not West Germany. Ironically, East Germany hardly held any trials at all, the vast majority took place in the West. Rudolf ignores that Germany was split and talks as if it was one nation. West Germany was not subject to a harsh set of punishments, the Cold War meant it was quickly re-developed and returned to being the Wests economic superpower. It would have benefitted West Germany and its new allies, to reveal a Soviet Holocaust hoax.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2025 10:32 am
by TlsMS93
Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 7:43 am
Rudolf is being insulting to the German people. That cowardly retreat into admitting to crimes they did not commit, forced by the SU, is drivel of the highest order. Drivel, because it is not backed by any evidence. The Soviets could influence East Germany into maybe making admissions, but not West Germany. Ironically, East Germany hardly held any trials at all, the vast majority took place in the West. Rudolf ignores that Germany was split and talks as if it was one nation. West Germany was not subject to a harsh set of punishments, the Cold War meant it was quickly re-developed and returned to being the Wests economic superpower. It would have benefitted West Germany and its new allies, to reveal a Soviet Holocaust hoax.
Germar Rudolf explains this conspiracy better in his book “Dissecting the Holocaust”. By the way, you come to us as a revisionist and you don’t even seem to know what the best among us maintain.
