Re: Comments on other threads.
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2026 10:49 am
I have read various denials and so-called debunking, but they are evidentially and logically flawed. I refer to that as denial, because it is not revisionism, as it fails to provide an alternative evidenced history. For example, Mattogno claims that documents that refer to special action or treatment at the Kremas, refer to hygiene actions that he can provide no witnesses or other evidence to prove that is what took place inside the Kremas.Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 8:27 amYes, they have debunked that. But why would you waste time reading the books and papers of people you call "deniers" ?
Please evidence that claim, quoting to and linking to a historian who has used documents from the Construction Office to corroborate witnesses and then stopped doing that, because the historian now accepts that Pressac was debunked.I didn't say that they did. I said that they no longer even try to use Pressac's so-called "criminal traces" to support the assertion that the morgues of Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria were turned into homicidal gas chambers at some point. They just reverted back to their only-testimonies methodology, like mere Ufologists and ghost hunters.
You have shown evidence that the newspaper rumours and prisoner claims Dachau had gas chambers and gassings took place, were debunked by the war crimes investigators and historians, who researched those claims and found evidence to contradict them. The SS camp staff denied gassings took place, and no evidence, such as an eyewitness who worked at the gas chambers, was found. Camp records also showed a trail for those who arrived, such that unlike arrivals at A-B, hundreds of thousands of prisoners did not go missing.I've provided enough evidence showing that the mass gassing at Dachau was regarded and portrayed as an established fact before the Dachau show trial had even begun! The "common design" trick and the "judicial notice" trick just made the use of false confessions to mass gassing at Dachau superfluous. No surprise. Who needs more bogus evidence of a so-called fact of common knowledge after all ? Unnecessary to get a 100% conviction rate and sell a "good versus evil" narrative, as the future has vastly demonstrated in the following years and decades. In 1945, the U.S. military didn't need the gas-chamber story more than all the other atrocity stories the Allied propagandists were telling abou the Enemy to strengthen the fictive moral high ground of the Allies and divert public attention away from the appaling results of their own bombing policy. They didn't need to focus on the gas-chamber story more than Netanyahu needs to focus on the decapitated-babies story to keep ethnically cleasing the lands singled out for future Jewish colonization. A general impression of good Allies versus evil Nazis & Japs was enough for that.Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2026 6:41 am That is because it is evidence that there was not a mass framing of Nazis for gassings. That flys in the face of your believe that there was such a conspiracy.
If that was the case, which it is not, why were the Dachau Nazis not all charged and convicted of mass gassings? You claim there was an assumption the gassings were true, and then produce evidence of that not being the case and a camp alleged to have had gas chambers, that none of the staff were tried for.
The evidence that was found at A-B, that you claim has been debunked, did not exist at Dachau. So, Dachau had SS staff denying gassings with no evidence to prove they were lying and A-B had SS staff who admitted to gas chambers and evidence to corroborate them.
You just don't get that, because your beliefs are not evidence based.
All camps were called death camps in 1945, due to the sheer numbers of dead found at each one. It was the subsequent war crimes investigations, that determined what camps had gas chambers that were used for gassings, how many were gassed and what camps had no gas chambers. Those investigations were evidence based, whereby testimonies, documents, physical and circumstantial evidence was gathered, to determine what happened. Historians later differentiated between the camps and the death camps have now come to mean those where mass gassings or shootings took place.You're lying. In 1945, all the Nazi camps were labelled as "death camps." That's why horror pictures of typhus victims at Buchenwald, Belsen and Dachau were so easily sold as undeniable graphic evidence of a Nazi extermination policy.
You have provided no evidence that an Allied bomb hit a transport to a camp that somehow caused the Jewish prisoners, but not the other prisoners to starve to death.
A big liar caught with his pants (on fire) down once again...![]()
Destroying the Reich's transport system was a primary military goal of the Allies.
Why did you think that Allies performed a big starvation experiment in Minnesota if they were not starving Europe with their obliteration bombing policy ?
It was believed in 1945, as camps were liberated that gas chambers had been operating till the very end. That was not the case. It is hardly surprising that in 1945, a lot was not yet known or understood about what had happened. As evidence was gathered, the narrative of all camps were death camps changed, to it was certain camps under certain operations, primarily Action Reinhardt.That's the late narrative. In 1945, Allied propagandists claimed that the Anglo-American armies had just captured Nazi extermination camps and that the horror pictures of emaciated camp inmates were the undeniable proof that all the Nazi camps had been mass murder factories ("so it was true," as they put it).Why would you expect autopsies performed on corpses in 1945, when gassings ended in 1944 and those corpses were cremated, to find evidence of gassed corpses? How could a gassed corpse from 1944 survive to 1945, to be autopsied?
![]()


































