Nessie wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 2:25 pmWhich makes sense for a secretive operation. As for logistics, they were located next to railway lines and had railways built into them.
Does it, though? A large chunk of the exterminating is suppposed to have happened right in the open in Auschwitz-Birkenau, next to busy highways and towns. Everyone supposedly knew of the "terrible secret" and would occasionally feel the smell from the crematoria. What specific logistical purpose did three more extermination camps in the middle of nowhere on the Soviet border serve, other than to radically complicate the cremation process? Sorry, they first forgot they would need to cremate the corpses, so they first buried them and then dug them up from frozen soil to cremate them in the open air.
Interesting choice of word, as it an admission you cannot evidence what follows...
I thought you were getting serious for a second, but you're back to rhetoric again after just one post. Not impressed.
But they were not at those places. If the train change was the point of the camps, why were they not located at the point of the change? Why is there no evidence to back up that hypothesis?
They were located on the Soviet border. That alone doesn't definitively prove anything either way, but it certainly doesn't bolster the extermination hypothesis given that there isn't any logical reason for these camps to be located there, logistical or otherwise.
The Nazis had a huge task on their hands, to rid their society of people undeserving of life, whom they saw as a risk to the Reich. It makes sense to split large tasks into smaller more manageable ones. Hence, Action T4, 13f14, AR, the Einsatzgruppen, Chelmno and finally A-B.
That doesn't answer any of the questions, though. If the geography of the Holocaust came down to logistics and secrecy, what logistical purpose did placing extermination camps in the middle of nowhere on the Soviet border serve, and what 'secrecy' was achieved by mass murdering Jews right in the open in Auschwitz-Birkenau and then ramping it up even more in 1944 when word had allegedly already started getting out?
The first gas chambers at A-B, were for 13f14, the euthanising of prisoners.
You mean 14 f 13?
And no, the first gas chambers are A-B were not for euthanising prisoners but, allegedly, for gassing Jews.
You clearly have no grasp of the timeline.
As for resources, the Nazis made a lot of money from murdering Jews.
Right, but you were asking about Soviet resources, not German resources. Pivoting to the Germans isn't going to help your case here.
The liberated concentration camps were referred to as death camps in 1945, because of the dead prisoners. That term was then also applied to the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B. But A-B was both a concentration camp and a death camp. Gradually, the term death camp came to be applied to the AR camps etc. It is still not unreasonable to refer to Bergen-Belsen in 1945, when it was liberated, as a death camp.
Right... What Callafangers pointed out was that the accusation that most or all German concentration camps were extermination camps was not accurate and that upon further inspection only the concentration camps liberated by and controlled by the Soviets remain alleged extermination camps.
It made sense, especially after the scandal of Action T4, for the Nazis to send Western Jews to obscure camps in the middle of nowhere.
No, it really didn't make sense, because the T4 program had formally ended already by mid 1941. That's before most orthodox historians even claim that an extermination order was in place. After all, Western Jews kept being sent to and allegedly exterminated in Auschwitz long after the end of the T4 program. So the question remains, what specific purpose was served by routing Dutch Jews to Sobibor and Treblinka when they could have been exterminated in Auschwitz just as easily and much more efficiently, especially given their insignificant numbers.
What date are you referring to? How many Jews lived in Western and Central Europe in 1939 and then in 1944?
Some half a million Jews came under German control during the Western campaign, according to Reitlinger and others. So the idea that concentrating all of the extermination camps to odd places in Poland because they had the most Jews doesn't really make logistical sense. The Germans had camps all over Western and Central Europe that could have served as extermination camps if the geography of the camps served a logistical purpose, as you asserted.
They were not going to risk mass murdering Western and Central European Jews in Germany. The first German Jews to be mass murdered, were sent to Latvia and shot in the forest at Rumbula in 1941.
Based on what, exactly? The Germans had allegedly been mass murdering, expelling, imprisoning and persecuting Jews for almost a decade at this point, and they were in the middle of a war. What exactly were they "risking"? By 1941, the extermination order had allegedly not even been issued, meaning there was no point for extermination camps to even exist at this point in time.
The Western world had the most amount of access to witnesses, as the majority of witnesses fled west. Even witnesses, such as the Topf & Sons engineers, who were tried by the Soviets, were originally arrested and interviewed by the Americans. The Soviets had very limited control over what the witnesses said, so how could they control the narrative?
The discussion is not so much about whether the Soviets were able to control the narrative, as opposed to the Soviets being in control of all the camps later deemed extermination camps. There was absolutely no oversight into the chain of custody and integrity of documents or witness testimony. Tellingly, Soviet and Allied witnesses from the Sonderkommando told wildly differing stories that are not compatible with the modern story of the Holocaust at Auschwitz.
The Soviets did not have the resources to deal with the liberation of millions of Jews, 1944-5. It was to their benefit that they largely found empty camps and ghettos and it was the Western Allies, who had to divert resources in early 1945, to deal with the camps they liberated. The Soviets would regard nearly 3/4 of a million French, Dutch, Belgian, German, Austrian and Italian Jews as a major security threat. There is zero evidence of them finding such Jews, in any numbers.
I agree that the Soviets would have considered such Jews major security threats and potential Western spies and outsiders, hence why they were apparently dealt with by being deported deeper into the Soviet interior and disappeared (those that did not forcibly integrate into Slavic societies after the war). In this regard the Holocaust story was to the benefit of the Soviets because they didn't need to actually deal with the Jews they encountered in a resource-intensive way.
Another admission you lack evidence.
We do know from reports that hundreds of thousands of living Jews were stuck behind the Iron Curtain after the war, we just don't know with any degree of certainty what the Soviets did to them or how many they were because of the isolation of Sovet societies from the Western world.
Kues clutched at straws
That's your opinion. His studies were nonetheless revolutionary because he was able to evidence what revisionists had up until that point, functionally speaking, only hypothesized. It goes to show that, although it is not incumbent upon revisionists to definitively prove alternative scenarios to the Holocaust, what revisionists did debunk of the Holocaust story also materialized as evidence for the alternative hypothesis, namely resettlement. So in that sense Kues' work was truly invaluable.
In 1944 to 1945, as the Soviets advanced, they needed all their resources to advance, or risk being held back, or even collapse against Nazi resistence. If the Soviets had found millions of Jews, many of whom were men of fighting age and women and children who could work, why is there no evidence of millions of liberated Jews joining with the Soviets to fight?
Hundreds of thousands/millions of starving Jews in open-air camps, ghettos and provisional camps, spanning an area of over a million square kilometers, many of whom would have essentially been walking dead, was obviously of absolutely no use to the Soviets and in fact would have threatened the extermination myth at its very core. Having them "disappear" was obviously to the benefit of the Soviets. Despite the Soviet policy of keeping the lid tight on issues regarding Jews in liberated territories, everyone in the Red Army was obviously not up to speed because reports did leak out on the liberation of Western Jews in countries like Ukraine - inexplicably so, if we are to follow the orthodox story of the Holocaust.
The Soviets left the Poles to do the majority of reporting about and investigation of the Holocaust.
Poland was under Soviet occupation, so there's not even a pretense of independence in that regard. I know this is the line you've been attempting for a few months now, but it's not really working out very well. As for the rest of your comment, please stay on topic.
Agreed?