Post: #326

^ One of the first things you learn as a historian is that contemporary sources are the best. What someone said decades after the fact holds less value than contemporary, particularly when there's been a shift in power. Albert Speer avoided the death penalty. There is incentive there to go along. That doesn't mean he couldn't be telling the truth, but the problem with Holocaust studies is that normal historical procedure is not used. Not only is it not applied, normal procedure is illegal and carries long prison sentences.

The letters from Speer was "recently found" after his death. How do we even know they are authentic, have you seen them, have scientists been allowed to analyse them? Please answer this.

Second, Speer denied knowing about the Holocaust i 1969 directly going against what you claim.

Until you can show clear evidence that these letters are actually authentic, then the 1969 contemporary source must hold more weight.

This example illustrates the problems of refuting denialist claims, usually they're not based on hard factual evidence, but when you dig a little you never seem to find concrete proof. Where are these letters, have they been authenticated and by whom?

Last, even if Himmler wanted to kill all jews, that is not proof of anything, just a statement (if it was said).

You see, that would be "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

Regarding Eichmann, I simply ask for proof of his statements, show me the video of his day in court. Why is it so difficult to get these sources.

Post: #327

(09-06-2017 10:35 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  He mentions it in his books and in interviews. He did interview Nazi commanders and talks about those exterminations of entire villages. So in effect he talked to soldiers who did the actual killing and admitted it to him personally.

Also when asked about his estimation of Jewish deaths he speaks of 3.5-4 mio.

But I guess it is denying when you deny that some things were exaggerated.

Which book does he say it in?

Post: #328

nomadbrah Wrote:Regarding Eichmann, I simply ask for proof of his statements, show me the video of his day in court. Why is it so difficult to get these sources.

Not only is it extremely difficult to track down specific sources like videos, it's difficult to even find copies of the supposed major works of Holocaust scholarship. For example, Raul Hilberg wrote the definitive treatment on the Holocaust: a Three-volume work called The Destruction of the European Jews. Over 1,200 pages total. Go look for it on Amazon. It's not there. They only have a highly abridged 360 page "Student's edition" available (I suspect this is because it's extremely embarrassing for them to admit that out of 1,200 pages Hilberg only has enough material to write 24 pages about the alleged gas chambers). Jean-Claude Pressac was another very prominent Holocaust scholar, and none of his work is publicly available either.

It's almost like they don't want people to actually read this stuff, and just take their word for it instead. After all, when you read something you can actually go and look up the sources the authors used. It then becomes really awkward for them when you realize they are all relying on the same few dozen witnesses who made outlandish claims. This is how a historical mythology forms - the original sources are buried, the scholarly works based on those sources are enshrined without actually being read, and a historical priesthood that tolerates no dissent carefully guards the narrative.

Post: #329

(09-06-2017 01:50 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  ^ One of the first things you learn as a historian is that contemporary sources are the best. What someone said decades after the fact holds less value than contemporary, particularly when there's been a shift in power. Albert Speer avoided the death penalty. There is incentive there to go along. That doesn't mean he couldn't be telling the truth, but the problem with Holocaust studies is that normal historical procedure is not used. Not only is it not applied, normal procedure is illegal and carries long prison sentences.

The letters from Speer was "recently found" after his death. How do we even know they are authentic, have you seen them, have scientists been allowed to analyse them? Please answer this.

Second, Speer denied knowing about the Holocaust i 1969 directly going against what you claim.

Until you can show clear evidence that these letters are actually authentic, then the 1969 contemporary source must hold more weight.

This example illustrates the problems of refuting denialist claims, usually they're not based on hard factual evidence, but when you dig a little you never seem to find concrete proof. Where are these letters, have they been authenticated and by whom?

Last, even if Himmler wanted to kill all jews, that is not proof of anything, just a statement (if it was said).

You see, that would be "hearsay" and not admissible in court.

Regarding Eichmann, I simply ask for proof of his statements, show me the video of his day in court. Why is it so difficult to get these sources.

I'm not a lawyer, there are exceptions to the hearsay rules in some cases.

Holocaust studies does follow normal historical procedures, reading any of the vast corpus of scholarly books or articles would teach you that.

Albert Speer could claim whatever he wanted to claim. If you look at ex-Nazi memoirs of the time, they ALL deny knowing about the Holocaust. This is a completely separate issue, but most of these Cold War memoirs attempt to allow former Nazis to situate themselves in West German society, or to avoid prosecution. And, Speer's book actually does say he was aware of the high mortality rate among forced laborers and was aware of Auschwitz.

Eichmann's testimony is considered accurate, and your attempts to wave it away as "well, he's tortured, so it's inaccurate" are nonsense. The documents are easily accessible. This is his testimony about Wannsee: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_upload...timony.pdf

Post: #330

(09-06-2017 12:33 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Yes, the numbers are probably exaggerated—I'll concede that. But it does seem, as I've previously written about, that many people don't want it to be true in any way because to do so would be to admit "fair enough, Jews had it tough", which would make it hard for them to be so anti-semitic. This will be my last post on this thread. If anyone wants further discussion, PM me.

The top part of your post was excellent. This part I though, I think doesn't help because if a lot of people are outright lying and exaggerating about their experiences or actions during the war, it strongly hurts credibility and makes others continue to dig for more truth. Also, no person on Earth lies without motives. Even compulsive/grandiose liars like that Dr. Park guy in the Spielberg videos was lying for attention or because he might have a personality or behavior disorder, instead of (((them))).

It's like Building 5 from 9/11 or the immediate shipping of the wreckage to China of all places. It just doesn't help.

While it does not seem like figuring out just how many they killed has any value, there will always be value in being closer to the truth of any event.

Post: #331

To me the subject is no different than other historical points, but it is instantly called "revisionism". When I say that I rather see our history more represented with the books by Carroll Quigley (Stanford historian and once official historian of the CFR - also mentor of Bill Clinton), then I am a conspiracy theorist. But there is less pushback on those points, because there hasn't been constructed this great narrative around it. So I can more freely claim that there hasn't been a non-globalist controlled US president since 150 years - I won't be called a Nazi, just a conspiracy theorist.

If I apply the same guideline towards the Holocoust then I am instantly a Holcoust denier, a revisionist, a Nazi. If I say that I have Jewish family, then I am at least a 1/16th self-hating Jew.

Get the fucking emotions out of it.

Post: #332

I don't doubt for a second that many nazis wanted to kill all jews. The question is if they did and if they did, to what extent was it an industrial organised and widely supported thing.

People kill people all the time. Tribal genocide of the Armenians, have not led to Turkey not being allowed to have a military or forced to accept a Kurdish state for example.

The Holocaust is elevated above such atrocities as the Nanking massacre and the Armenian genocide, because it is claimed to be the deliberate, widely supported, industrial genocide of a group of people. Some people going rogue in camps, even by gassing, would not be enough for it to have that status.

These things matter. The fact is that the Holocaust is the "original sin" of modern man. It is the almost literal replacement of Christian myth by a new "fall of man" myth, where the jews are elevated to a near divine position. This modern foundational myth acts just as strongly as Christianity did previously.

Post: #333

(09-05-2017 11:43 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 11:02 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 09:12 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Note, I pointed out the Wannsee conference protocols in detail here, and TT has not responded. The Wannsee protocols are claimed to be where the nazis planned the Holocaust but few people read it. Then when you actually read it, it's nothing like historians would have you think.

You're getting to a good issue and one that I'd like to discuss. In Holocaust studies (which is a subfield of history), there are two broad camps, called functionalism and intentionalism. Intentionalism supposes that the process was "top down," Hitler gave orders to the SS/SA/Wehrmacht generals, they gave orders down the hierarchy and then the killings started. This was a very popular view between (roughly) 1945 and the 1970s/early 80s. This is where a lot of the question of "was there a specific written order?" comes from, and that's why that question (of specific documentary evidence) was pursued for so long, apparently to no avail.

The other view is that of functionalism, that the process was basically bottom up. So far as I can tell (this is not my subfield; my subfield is something else, actually), this is the majority view today. This view supposes that the process really didn't start with Hitler and the Nazis, it started at the grassroots level, as many anti-Semitic movements have throughout the ages.

Wikipedia is not a good source, but the article is actually decently referenced. If I were forced to classify myself, I'm between the synthetic view and the moderate intentionalist view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional...#Synthesis

The Wannsee conference minutes are known to be misleading, as there was a desire to avoid putting references to mass genocide in it.

What primary sources do you want to see? 99% of them are available online.

Two fields of study trying to make a narrative without evidence work is all i'm reading here. "Since there's no evidence of a top down order then let's see if we can make a bottom up narrative work". Then just say "Ze germans were being careful not to note their genocidal plans formally". You can't prove a negative so of course this unprobvable claim is the cornerstone of the reasoning.

Sounds to me like an academic thesis created because it's a slam dunk for getting a Ph.d

Subfields of Holocaust study? Give me a break. This gets more absurd by the minute.

History is like that if you did not know. Because there is simply too much subject matter to research and become a "Subject Matter Expert", people specialize in a particular area(s).

If you meet one, that is not a generalist that teaches grade school, you typically ask them for what area they specialize in. A historian of Japanese history likely is not a subject matter expert on every period. They probably know one or two periods extremely well, with perhaps a general overview of the rest.

There is alot of nuance to this stuff, not because people want to be pretentious assholes, but because the amount of work required to investigate and research can be enormous for what most think is just a small matter.

For example, if you asked me about the California Gold Rush for an overview, I would not really be able to break that down much or not at all. Ask me about Reconstruction or the Antebellum South? Then yes. The time periods are not much different or the same with some overlap, but the two events have tremendous amounts of facts and information within them. For example I know an Alamo historian, who is a beast on all things Alamo. He could not tell you anything about the Mexican Border Wars or what Mexican California was like. I probably know just as much as him about the rest of the war, but nowhere near the same as him on Alamo.

Post: #334

(09-06-2017 02:09 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  This is his testimony about Wannsee: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_upload...timony.pdf

Quote:Presiding Judge: ... Now in connection with the Wannsee conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh
that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about means of
extermination. Systems of killing.
A: Yes.
Q: Who discussed this subject?
A: I do not remember it in detail, Your Honor. I do not remember the circumstances of this conversation.... I might say furthermore, Your Honor, that I would not have remembered this
unless I had later remembered that I told myself

Quote:Q: Not details in general, what did he say about this theme?
A: I cannot remember it in detail

Quote:Q: Did they discuss killing by poison gas?
A: No, with gas no.

Quote:Q: So, who was it, who brought the technical details to the Conference?
A: Well, no one discussed the technical details.

Quote:Q: Can you remember this?
A: What did you mean, Your Honor; I did not understand it.
Q: You did not understand? All right I will read it out to you once again: Dr. Meyer and Dr. Buehler that their
opinion was that preparatory work should begin immediately for the "final solution" in the various areas, but at
the same time to avoid unrest and anxiety on the part of the population.
A: Ah, yes...
Q: To which preparatory work does this refer?
A: I cannot imagine anything, but...
Q: Don't imagine! My question is and I put it to you, as the Attorney-General put it to you before and all the time
what can you remember? This was a turning point, in fact

If you ask a policeman or lawyer what a coerced statement looks like, the above would be a clear example. No recollections of details, weaving answers, having to be coached along.

Post: #335

The documentary titled Shoah.

/thread

Post: #336

(09-06-2017 02:04 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Not only is it extremely difficult to track down specific sources like videos, it's difficult to even find copies of the supposed major works of Holocaust scholarship. For example, Raul Hilberg wrote the definitive treatment on the Holocaust: a Three-volume work called The Destruction of the European Jews. Over 1,200 pages total. Go look for it on Amazon. It's not there. They only have a highly abridged 360 page "Student's edition" available (I suspect this is because it's extremely embarrassing for them to admit that out of 1,200 pages Hilberg only has enough material to write 24 pages about the alleged gas chambers). Jean-Claude Pressac was another very prominent Holocaust scholar, and none of his work is publicly available either.

Amazon stocks what sells on a regular basis, which is generally not specialist academic literature (like Hilberg's book). This is an issue with academic publishing, but let's not get off track. Hilberg's book was originally published as one volume, for what it's worth.

It probably doesn't help matters that the thing is 200 dollars for a three volume set.

http://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/978030009...opean-jews

Post: #337

(09-06-2017 03:53 PM)Stakes Is High Wrote:  The documentary titled Shoah.

/thread

Shoah is so long as to be nearly unwatchable, but yes, the evidence within is pretty conclusive to any honest observer.

Post: #338

It's not so implausible to think that the numbers are exaggerated and/or some of the events never took place at all. Just over 20 years ago the Western MSM was screaming bloody murder about another alleged "genocide" that took place: that of the Serbian military against Albanians and Bosnians. Not only was much of it totally fabricated, but it turns out atrocities were committed by both sides, often in revenge. Nowadays if you're reading accounts about the Balkan conflict, the Serbs are universally condemned for conducting a this ridiculous "genocide" when in fact much of their actions were fueled by either self-defense or vengeance.

Historians are just as vulnerable as other groups of people to be full of shit. They are biased and they have motivations other than the search for truth. As George Carlin used to say, "everyone is completely full of shit".

Post: #339

(((I))) have recently been to Auschwitz/Birkenau and unless the entire place and all of its remains/documents (not just gas chambers) have somehow been reconstructed and forged from scratch, I'd say the evidence that mass murder or very large proportions happened there is quite convincing. Was it in gas chambers or through starvation or some other method? Was it 6, 4 or 2 million? It's an extremely serious crime nonetheless, and deserves condemnation. To quote our favorite politician, "At this point, what difference does it make?" It was something vile no matter how you put it.

However, what that place does not deserve is its legally protected status in form of absurd Holocaust denial laws. Why aren't criticisms of other historical events also banned? Give me a break, folks. Give me a break.

What that place also does not deserve is all the teeth gnashing from modern (((intellectuals))) who compare everything and everyone to Holocaust/Hitler. None of the events or people recently so accused bear any resemblance to this event, and such comparisons are simply dishonest.

Finally, what that place does not deserve the most of all is camp educators who refer to camp personnel as "Germans" instead of "Nazis", implying that entire Germany several generations later was somehow in on this thing and that it deserves its demographic replacement/suicide.

You'd think that if these things really happened as we are being taught, then leftists (and especially Jewish ones) would have way more respect for it, and would definitely not go around bashing even the mildest critics on the head with it to bully them into submission, nor would they need to engage in censorship and threats of imprisonment.

Conclusion: something is rotten in the story of Holocaust.

Post: #340

Come on HCE, you are trashing the blue print for all modern political talk.

Something bad happened that has me so upset if you don't do what I say you are Satan.

Post: #341

(09-11-2017 08:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  (((I))) have recently been to Auschwitz/Birkenau and unless the entire place and all of its remains/documents (not just gas chambers) have somehow been reconstructed and forged from scratch, I'd say the evidence that mass murder or very large proportions happened there is quite convincing. Was it in gas chambers or through starvation or some other method? Was it 6, 4 or 2 million? It's an extremely serious crime nonetheless, and deserves condemnation. To quote our favorite politician, "At this point, what difference does it make?" It was something vile no matter how you put it.

However, what that place does not deserve is its legally protected status in form of absurd Holocaust denial laws. Why aren't criticisms of other historical events also banned? Give me a break, folks. Give me a break.

What that place also does not deserve is all the teeth gnashing from modern (((intellectuals))) who compare everything and everyone to Holocaust/Hitler. None of the events or people recently so accused bear any resemblance to this event, and such comparisons are simply dishonest.

Finally, what that place does not deserve the most of all is camp educators who refer to camp personnel as "Germans" instead of "Nazis", implying that entire Germany several generations later was somehow in on this thing and that it deserves its demographic replacement/suicide.

You'd think that if these things really happened as we are being taught, then leftists (and especially Jewish ones) would have way more respect for it, and would definitely not go around bashing even the mildest critics on the head with it to bully them into submission, nor would they need to engage in censorship and threats of imprisonment.

Conclusion: something is rotten in the story of Holocaust.

I agree HCE, it is nasty stuff regardless. I can't read the Wannsee protocols without feeling uncomfortable and I don't flinch when presented with usual propaganda (crying, starving third world children etc).

However, facts are important. It's important to know that Nazism was a re-actionary movement to communism.

What's the lesson to learn?

If "conservatives" won't stand up to (((socialists))) like the people want, then eventually some nasty people will.

Post: #342

(09-11-2017 11:21 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 08:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  (((I))) have recently been to Auschwitz/Birkenau and unless the entire place and all of its remains/documents (not just gas chambers) have somehow been reconstructed and forged from scratch, I'd say the evidence that mass murder or very large proportions happened there is quite convincing. Was it in gas chambers or through starvation or some other method? Was it 6, 4 or 2 million? It's an extremely serious crime nonetheless, and deserves condemnation. To quote our favorite politician, "At this point, what difference does it make?" It was something vile no matter how you put it.

However, what that place does not deserve is its legally protected status in form of absurd Holocaust denial laws. Why aren't criticisms of other historical events also banned? Give me a break, folks. Give me a break.

What that place also does not deserve is all the teeth gnashing from modern (((intellectuals))) who compare everything and everyone to Holocaust/Hitler. None of the events or people recently so accused bear any resemblance to this event, and such comparisons are simply dishonest.

Finally, what that place does not deserve the most of all is camp educators who refer to camp personnel as "Germans" instead of "Nazis", implying that entire Germany several generations later was somehow in on this thing and that it deserves its demographic replacement/suicide.

You'd think that if these things really happened as we are being taught, then leftists (and especially Jewish ones) would have way more respect for it, and would definitely not go around bashing even the mildest critics on the head with it to bully them into submission, nor would they need to engage in censorship and threats of imprisonment.

Conclusion: something is rotten in the story of Holocaust.

I agree HCE, it is nasty stuff regardless. I can't read the Wannsee protocols without feeling uncomfortable and I don't flinch when presented with usual propaganda (crying, starving third world children etc).

However, facts are important. It's important to know that Nazism was a re-actionary movement to communism.

What's the lesson to learn?

If "conservatives" won't stand up to (((socialists))) like the people want, then eventually some nasty people will.

Disagree, I'm with Aurini and Vox Day , German self destruction/arrogance has basically remained. As has their appetite for socialism. Things aren't so different now than in 1933 if you boil it down to the meta values. Nazism was a reaction ,definitely not reactionary. The battle lines then were whites against other whites for supremacisitic control of the world, things could not be more different today. While there was political persecution , everyone from socialists, independent (anti war) socialists ,communists maybe even the odd anarchist would support the NS Regime. The battle lines today are purely cultural, sure there are some differences within nations but its not always clear cut. I've met shitlib proles in Eastern Europe and the odd one out based guy in the west.



Death camps or not ,people died. I personally would rather be gassed or shot with good aim than die in war bleeding out slowly and painfully. Globalist Jews are no different than the Nazis with their rationalist constructivism, lack of ego check and ruin everything for everyone. The only thing funner than trolling shitlib Germans is shitlib Jews(basically 99.9999999999 percent of coastal Jews) . Getting high of their own supply

Post: #343

I would recommend everyone listening to this talk by David Irving - start at 01:30 hours where he goes into the Holocoust issue as the other parts are concerned with his personal life.





https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/09/David...er%20.html

Personally I consider the issue whether Hitler knew about the Jewish extermination not overly relevant. It could very well be that Hitler was like a politician not overly anti-semitic. There are historians now out there in Austria who said so about his time in Vienna. Also there are some strange orders and anomalies where he tries to protect the Jewish people at times or calls their treatment in his last will "more humane than the Allied bombings of civilians".

What I find more interesting is the account of Irving and the sources he quotes - deputy commander of Ausschwitz, also other documents regarding the operation Reinhardt as well as deliberate fake documents in the letters especially of Himmler despite the fact that Himmler knew what has been happening.

On Ausschwitz:

+ the total numbers of deaths are estimated to have been up to 300.000 since this was a labor camp. The deputy commander confirms that there was a White House and a Black House where even gas-murders happened when they got a "shipment" of frail, sick or old Jews from the Reich. Then they put in sometimes 200 people into those rooms and used the same gas that was applied for the de-lousing. The massive crematoriums and gas-chambers that you can visit were created in 1948.

+ But - and this is a big but to the so-called real complete irrational revisionists - there were massive extermination camps in the East.



Those camps were part of a deliberate money-grab and extermination operation. Irving found plenty of documents detailing even the numbers of watches, golden teeth, valuables they confiscated before the Jewish people were transported to those 3 major extermination camps. There is nothing to see there as there are only big green patches. But Irving quotes the texts and documents which state that at least 1.2 million Jews were killed in the Operation Reinhardt just in the year 1942. In 1943 the estimates according to the monetary flows are about 1 mio. So even if you assume that the operation was cut short due to the progress of the war in the east, you can easily make the claim that at least 3-4 mio. were systematically targeted and killed in major extermination camps.

The question is why make Ausschwitz such a sight?

Personally I think that the movers and shakers preferred to pick a location where the buildings remained, that was close to a major tourist city and where they could sort of create a tourist-friendly location.

There are Himmler letters where he wrote that the Reinhardt camps should be razed and the land given to a Ukraine farmer after they were done. There are Himmler letters where he jokingly corresponded with a major Reich doctor that there were no cancer deaths in the concentration camps and whether they had stumbled upon a cure of cancer - sick psychopath that he was.

Personally I prefer to have truth reign supreme. I consider Irving to be the more credible historian - though even he is basing his conclusions on information he has access to. There is probably another level if he could sift through the CFR archives or the Ford Foundation archives in New York, but I doubt that he would find there that the extermination camps in East Europe and the mass shootings of almost all Jews in cities like Minsk never happened. He knows that they happened because at times Irving talked with SS commanders who personally said that they killed sometimes 2000 Jewish folk in one day. Just drove them to the woods and machine gunned them down in pits.

In my book that is terrible enough. Though not terrible to doom an entire people now. Especially when you find out that many Wehrmacht generals did not even know what was happening to their Jewish co-workers and friends.

It's really strange if you think about it. The real victims of the Holocoust died in millions to the east in nameless graves and razed camps while they picked a labor camp that had a swimming pool and a brothel in it and show this as the ultimate sign of evil. True evil is most often silent and the victors paint the history they want to have. In a way I could even understand their pick of the location as it rammed home the point in a better way than the grass-fields on the Ukrainian border could, but still...

In any case - I recommend you guys listen to Irving - to the last 45 minutes.

The funny part is that I have Jewish family and will be looking to get some property in Israel. But to touch this subjects with Jewish buddies will be even tougher - though we will see.

Post: #344

(11-27-2017 12:07 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I would recommend everyone listening to this talk by David Irving - start at 01:30 hours where he goes into the Holocoust issue as the other parts are concerned with his personal life.





https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/09/David...er%20.html

Personally I consider the issue whether Hitler knew about the Jewish extermination not overly relevant. It could very well be that Hitler was like a politician not overly anti-semitic. There are historians now out there in Austria who said so about his time in Vienna. Also there are some strange orders and anomalies where he tries to protect the Jewish people at times or calls their treatment in his last will "more humane than the Allied bombings of civilians".

What I find more interesting is the account of Irving and the sources he quotes - deputy commander of Ausschwitz, also other documents regarding the operation Reinhardt as well as deliberate fake documents in the letters especially of Himmler despite the fact that Himmler knew what has been happening.

On Ausschwitz:

+ the total numbers of deaths are estimated to have been up to 300.000 since this was a labor camp. The deputy commander confirms that there was a White House and a Black House where even gas-murders happened when they got a "shipment" of frail, sick or old Jews from the Reich. Then they put in sometimes 200 people into those rooms and used the same gas that was applied for the de-lousing. The massive crematoriums and gas-chambers that you can visit were created in 1948.

+ But - and this is a big but to the so-called real complete irrational revisionists - there were massive extermination camps in the East.



Those camps were part of a deliberate money-grab and extermination operation. Irving found plenty of documents detailing even the numbers of watches, golden teeth, valuables they confiscated before the Jewish people were transported to those 3 major extermination camps. There is nothing to see there as there are only big green patches. But Irving quotes the texts and documents which state that at least 1.2 million Jews were killed in the Operation Reinhardt just in the year 1942. In 1943 the estimates according to the monetary flows are about 1 mio. So even if you assume that the operation was cut short due to the progress of the war in the east, you can easily make the claim that at least 3-4 mio. were systematically targeted and killed in major extermination camps.

The question is why make Ausschwitz such a sight?

Personally I think that the movers and shakers preferred to pick a location where the buildings remained, that was close to a major tourist city and where they could sort of create a tourist-friendly location.

There are Himmler letters where he wrote that the Reinhardt camps should be razed and the land given to a Ukraine farmer after they were done. There are Himmler letters where he jokingly corresponded with a major Reich doctor that there were no cancer deaths in the concentration camps and whether they had stumbled upon a cure of cancer - sick psychopath that he was.

Personally I prefer to have truth reign supreme. I consider Irving to be the more credible historian - though even he is basing his conclusions on information he has access to. There is probably another level if he could sift through the CFR archives or the Ford Foundation archives in New York, but I doubt that he would find there that the extermination camps in East Europe and the mass shootings of almost all Jews in cities like Minsk never happened. He knows that they happened because at times Irving talked with SS commanders who personally said that they killed sometimes 2000 Jewish folk in one day. Just drove them to the woods and machine gunned them down in pits.

In my book that is terrible enough. Though not terrible to doom an entire people now. Especially when you find out that many Wehrmacht generals did not even know what was happening to their Jewish co-workers and friends.

It's really strange if you think about it. The real victims of the Holocoust died in millions to the east in nameless graves and razed camps while they picked a labor camp that had a swimming pool and a brothel in it and show this as the ultimate sign of evil. True evil is most often silent and the victors paint the history they want to have. In a way I could even understand their pick of the location as it rammed home the point in a better way than the grass-fields on the Ukrainian border could, but still...

In any case - I recommend you guys listen to Irving - to the last 45 minutes.

The funny part is that I have Jewish family and will be looking to get some property in Israel. But to touch this subjects with Jewish buddies will be even tougher - though we will see.

I agree Irving is excellent, but didn't he go back on a lot of the things he said in recent years just to get some peace?





Incoming deluge:

This bishop went to jail for it:





This brave elderly German woman just recently went to jail for it and will die there.





This British historian go his arse kicked to the curb for it and the book he wrote. Particularly good articulate interview.






When Irving talks about only enough coke visible to burn a single days worth of bodies from aerial photographs EVER SEEN....that was what my brain start to remould on this idea and I couldn't get enough. I'm only interested in WHAT CAN PHYSICALLY HAPPEN AND IS POSSIBLE, by eliminating what's not possible, not what many people thought or would prefer to have happened!

Whatever abuses the Germans did was more than paid for (a sickening shaky tenuous premise at the best of times) by the fucking horror and that's right....holocaust the average person suffered afterwards when the Allies decided to have a go at ethically cleansing the country from history.

"You have them beat well? Fair enough."

"But hey lets stop at that, lets leave a hole so deep in their cultural memory it'll never be erased, why not firestorm civilians just to melt them, run them over reverse over them just to make sure." Sticking the knife in and and then twisting it.

And the horror is few will ever know or even care if they did.
No apology could ever make up for it anyway.

No surprise that Churchill's military staff were aghast at the some of the shit they were being ordered to do and had to get out.

This is one of the only books that made me openly heartbroken in a depression for days afterwards, the descriptions make hell more homely. Strong stomach needed. I have never found so hard to progress in a book, not wanting to turn the next page but almost impossbile to put down at the same time. Some very graphic descriptions of horrible, inhuman behavior, absent the justifying propaganda we have been fed as truth. I'm getting jittery just thinking about it now. I know you men here are of tougher ilk then the average person but I still have to warn you.

From a review on Amazon:

Allies of the West with their air power - carpet bombing, flatten every city on it's path, bombs were designed to exterminate mass population. Allies of the East with wave of men power to destruct every life on the ground - physically and psychologically. None of atrocities from Allies happened at random, it must had calculated, planed before the war even began, systematically executed. Make concentration camps almost too “humane”.

This book is brutally shocking in its eye-witness accounts of what happened to German citizens and soldiers as their nation fell to the Allies in World War Two. Many of these stories have never been told - particularly the role that the Western Powers played in the complete destruction of German civilian cities and the utter subjugation of the country's non-combatants. To those who think it was only the Russians who savaged Germany's women and children in the race to conquer Nazi Europe, think again. This is an eye-opening and unforgettable read -- a tragedy of epic proportions.


https://www.amazon.com/Hellstorm-Death-N...=hellstorm

Post: #345

Bumping this one because today is International Holocaust Rememberable Day!

Aloha!

Post: #346

My view of the Holocaust is that it is irrelevant to the modern west and trying to debate it with the public is a bad idea. Just move on.

Post: #347

Post: #348

(01-28-2018 01:08 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  

After all Hitler did not kill himself when he saw the gas bill, he saw the electricity bill!

Post: #349

What kind of technology/punishment method is this? First time hearing about it, don't think anybody in media or history books mentioned this. What is the impact of this on the official story?

Post: #350

(01-27-2018 06:20 PM)Kona Wrote:  Bumping this one because today is International Holocaust Rememberable Day!

Aloha!

In some circles, this is known as International Getting All Worked Up Over Nothing Day.