Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:27 am
No, I don't think 'the jews' invented their 'genocide'. I do think there are some jews who exploit it though, and furthermore, I think the whole thing started from the seeds of propaganda and took root and grew from there.
You're dancing around the question of who "invented" it, but clearly you think someone did. This is where you deviate from historical norms, where the foundation is direct evidence. You're looking at set of facts, essentially, which you view as atrocity pulp, and then extrapolating back from that the existence of some conspiracy. Historians simply don't do this. Mass events, and even minor events always have a grounding in direct evidence. Otherwise you can't assert with confidence, all you can say is maybe. Historians do say maybe sometimes, but you're not saying 'maybe'. You're saying it was invented, by some agency. The Jews were directed by someone.
On my end I can say that when we look at witness testimonies and even documents, they are not wholly reliable, in that humans are prone to biases, gaps in memory. Sometimes blatant dishonesty. We know some accounts of the period are fabricated https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/bo ... dkbx4.html(this is where 'masturbation machines' comes from btw) . But again, you're saying something else, you believe in a conspiracy, probably from both the Soviets and the western allies, probably with them collaborating with one another.
This is the difference between you and I, and why I think you're not doing something that would be properly understood as history.
What? No. What a wild misframing.
Look, how many jews were steamed to death at treblinka? How many jews died on an electric conveyor belt of death at Auschwitz? This list can get very long.
So far as 'atrocity pulp' goes, there is lots of it.
The 'invention' of the 'holocaust' was a group effort and many parties held a brush and painted on the canvas.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2025 4:34 pm
by borjastick
The 'invention' of the 'holocaust' was a group effort and many parties held a brush and painted on the canvas.
The jews admitted after the war that the large part of the holocaust atrocity stories were made up in the camp itself by the jews themselves.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:27 am
No, I don't think 'the jews' invented their 'genocide'. I do think there are some jews who exploit it though, and furthermore, I think the whole thing started from the seeds of propaganda and took root and grew from there.
You're dancing around the question of who "invented" it, but clearly you think someone did. This is where you deviate from historical norms, where the foundation is direct evidence. You're looking at set of facts, essentially, which you view as atrocity pulp, and then extrapolating back from that the existence of some conspiracy. Historians simply don't do this. Mass events, and even minor events always have a grounding in direct evidence. Otherwise you can't assert with confidence, all you can say is maybe. Historians do say maybe sometimes, but you're not saying 'maybe'. You're saying it was invented, by some agency. The Jews were directed by someone.
On my end I can say that when we look at witness testimonies and even documents, they are not wholly reliable, in that humans are prone to biases, gaps in memory. Sometimes blatant dishonesty. We know some accounts of the period are fabricated https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/bo ... dkbx4.html(this is where 'masturbation machines' comes from btw) . But again, you're saying something else, you believe in a conspiracy, probably from both the Soviets and the western allies, probably with them collaborating with one another.
This is the difference between you and I, and why I think you're not doing something that would be properly understood as history.
What? No. What a wild misframing.
Look, how many jews were steamed to death at treblinka? How many jews died on an electric conveyor belt of death at Auschwitz? This list can get very long.
So far as 'atrocity pulp' goes, there is lots of it.
The point would be that these are explicable without the need for a conspiracy, some directed plan to invent/manufacture. You can't prove your conspiracy this way, if there are alternatives. You need evidence for that, following the methods of historiography. You can say *maybe* a conspiracy existed.
You're dancing around the question of who "invented" it, but clearly you think someone did. This is where you deviate from historical norms, where the foundation is direct evidence. You're looking at set of facts, essentially, which you view as atrocity pulp, and then extrapolating back from that the existence of some conspiracy. Historians simply don't do this. Mass events, and even minor events always have a grounding in direct evidence. Otherwise you can't assert with confidence, all you can say is maybe. Historians do say maybe sometimes, but you're not saying 'maybe'. You're saying it was invented, by some agency. The Jews were directed by someone.
On my end I can say that when we look at witness testimonies and even documents, they are not wholly reliable, in that humans are prone to biases, gaps in memory. Sometimes blatant dishonesty. We know some accounts of the period are fabricated https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/bo ... dkbx4.html(this is where 'masturbation machines' comes from btw) . But again, you're saying something else, you believe in a conspiracy, probably from both the Soviets and the western allies, probably with them collaborating with one another.
This is the difference between you and I, and why I think you're not doing something that would be properly understood as history.
What? No. What a wild misframing.
Look, how many jews were steamed to death at treblinka? How many jews died on an electric conveyor belt of death at Auschwitz? This list can get very long.
So far as 'atrocity pulp' goes, there is lots of it.
The point would be that these are explicable without the need for a conspiracy, some directed plan to invent/manufacture. You can't prove your conspiracy this way, if there are alternatives. You need evidence for that, following the methods of historiography. You can say *maybe* a conspiracy existed.
Part of the problem here is the hindenburg fallacy.
We are talking about an event in history that stretches across a timeline and involved a significant portion of the globe. It consists of a series of events, some of which are fabricated, some are exaggerated and some are true.
You can't digest it as 'which person made it up'. It was a group effort, and without a doubt, just like any lie, there are grains of truth here or there.
It was a group effort by interested parties, not an effort by a single group or one person or anything.
It was a group effort by interested parties, not an effort by a single group or one person or anything.
Sure multiple governments, probably coordinating with one another, but within each entity you have a lot of coordination. It's much more than individual actors unwittingly spreading a totally false historical narrative. This is the conspiracy of which I speak, of which there is no direct evidence of.
It was a group effort by interested parties, not an effort by a single group or one person or anything.
Sure multiple governments, probably coordinating with one another, but within each entity you have a lot of coordination. It's much more than individual actors unwittingly spreading a totally false historical narrative. This is the conspiracy of which I speak, of which there is no direct evidence of.
Ok, look, did the English broadcast in the German language propaganda into the Reich?
During these broadcasts, did they tell the Germans that they were gassing the jews to death in concentration camps?
Is there extant memoranda surrounding this propaganda effort from functionaries at the low level, administrators at the mid level and arbiters at the high level?
Was this not a sophisticated propaganda campaign by the British Government during the war?
It was a group effort by interested parties, not an effort by a single group or one person or anything.
Sure multiple governments, probably coordinating with one another, but within each entity you have a lot of coordination. It's much more than individual actors unwittingly spreading a totally false historical narrative. This is the conspiracy of which I speak, of which there is no direct evidence of.
Ok, look, did the English broadcast in the German language propaganda into the Reich?
During these broadcasts, did they tell the Germans that they were gassing the jews to death in concentration camps?
Is there extant memoranda surrounding this propaganda effort from functionaries at the low level, administrators at the mid level and arbiters at the high level?
Was this not a sophisticated propaganda campaign by the British Government during the war?
This was based on evidence that they were receiving, like reports from the Polish Underground. The claims didn't come out of nowhere. This is propaganda, sure, but not promulgation of known falsehoods, which is what you don't have evidence of, and what you have to show. Or evidence being fabricated in the first place by these powers.
There's also the issue of the destroyed evidence (of Nazis maintaining the non-employable Jews) and the suppression of the millions of witnesses to resettlement. The conspiracy you are asserting is immensely large and evidence for it is zero, in terms of what historians would accept.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:38 pm
by Stubble
I'll get you some memoranda attesting to how 'factual' the British thought the propaganda was.
So far as 'suppression' of relocated jews goes, how would a fellow know he was supposed to have been gassed if he was not gassed.
You consider a great effort where not so much is needed in my opinion.
There is no doubt a real number of people who died in concentration camps during the war. That there is a direct correlation between deaths in the camps and allied tonnage dropped on infrastructure should be a clue, shaggy.
Pestilence also claimed many lives.
People died.
They weren't victims of extermination and there was no plan for genocide.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:57 pm
by bombsaway
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:38 pm
So far as 'suppression' of relocated jews goes, how would a fellow know he was supposed to have been gassed if he was not gassed.
You consider a great effort where not some much is needed in my opinion.
This is kind of a tell that you're not really familiar with the history. Small scale resettlements of Jews into Occupied USSR, like German Jews into Belarus in 41/42 and Romanian Jews into Transnistria, are evidenced in a thousand different ways. Diaries, German records, witness statements from Germans, surviving Jews, the native population. I can show you if you want.
What happened with the Polish Jews was an apparent resettlement 10x larger than both these combined and you have nothing for it. Nor do you have anything for Jews within USSR who were "resettled" when the ghettos were closed down. https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... to_16.html
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:38 pm
So far as 'suppression' of relocated jews goes, how would a fellow know he was supposed to have been gassed if he was not gassed.
You consider a great effort where not some much is needed in my opinion.
This is kind of a tell that you're not really familiar with the history. Small scale resettlements of Jews into Occupied USSR, like German Jews into Belarus in 41/42 and Romanian Jews into Transnistria, are evidenced in a thousand different ways. Diaries, German records, witness statements from Germans, surviving Jews, the native population. I can show you if you want.
What happened with the Polish Jews was an apparent resettlement 10x larger than both these combined and you have nothing for it. Nor do you have anything for Jews within USSR who were "resettled" when the ghettos were closed down. https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... to_16.html
And you still don't have a 'homicidal gas chamber'.
Some food for thought, a snapshot, not a whole picture, but, an event that is worth examining.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2025 6:06 pm
by bombsaway
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:58 pm
And you still don't have a 'homicidal gas chamber'.
From a historical perspective, these things are well evidenced. Witness testimony is all you need. There are also documents which have strong claims to authenticity. EG https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... on-of.html
Something like this would have required the allies to have found a specific kind of typewriter, and broken it in a very precise way.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:58 pm
And you still don't have a 'homicidal gas chamber'.
From a historical perspective, these things are well evidenced. Witness testimony is all you need. There are also documents which have strong claims to authenticity. EG https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... on-of.html
Something like this would have required the allies to have found a specific kind of typewriter, and broken it in a very precise way.
Or for, you know, the Oh So Social guys to have asked Remington for one...
So far as specifically breaking a typewriter for a forgery, that's not the most elaborate deception I think I've ever heard of.
I added a media link to my last post. It is worth a look and is food for thought.
So far as specifically breaking a typewriter for a forgery, that's not the most elaborate deception I think I've ever heard of.
Then they explicitly don't put a signature on it, and "lose" the carbon copy in the hopes that someone will chance upon it in the future and be smart enough to run the typewriter analysis. It's all possible but for me these are indicators of authenticity. If you want to call a document fabricated, the arguments have to be very strong.
The broader point is that the Holocaust (including homicidal gassing aspect) is evidenced sufficiently by historical standards, in fact I would say it is the strongest evidenced genocide in history. On the other hand your conspiracy/conspiracies are not directly evidenced whatsoever, so if historians began to assert them they would be doing something unprecedented in the field.
So far as specifically breaking a typewriter for a forgery, that's not the most elaborate deception I think I've ever heard of.
Then they explicitly don't put a signature on it, and "lose" the carbon copy in the hopes that someone will chance upon it in the future and be smart enough to run the typewriter analysis. It's all possible but for me these are indicators of authenticity. If you want to call a document fabricated, the arguments have to be very strong.
The broader point is that the Holocaust (including homicidal gassing aspect) is evidenced sufficiently by historical standards, in fact I would say it is the strongest evidenced genocide in history. On the other hand your conspiracy/conspiracies are not directly evidenced whatsoever, so if historians began to assert them they would be doing something unprecedented in the field.
Is the original historiography regarding majdanek bullshit?
Was it a result of propaganda and conspiracy?
Now, this is a keyhole, I'll give you that, but, peer into it, what does it tell you.
Re: The Question of Conspiracy
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2025 6:30 pm
by bombsaway
Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 6:22 pm
Is the original historiography regarding majdanek bullshit?
Was it a result of propaganda and conspiracy?
Now, this is a keyhole, I'll give you that, but, peer into it, what does it tell you.
It's not historiography, it was faulty Soviet assumptions. This is not direct evidence of a conspiracy to mass fabricate and suppress evidence (documentary/witness), which is what you think happened.