Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Darorinag]

Re: Re: Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

Originally posted by Seapahn I understand why you want Fadix's input as he is obviously quite knowledgable and has many useful things to offer but Dan? Why the heck would you want to see what Dan has to say on this?

... unless you started this for entertainment purposes in which case it should probably be moved to the humor section ...

This is supposed to be an intellectual thread. If you can't refrain from making comments like this that take the thread off-topic, do not read the thread.

Fadix is no more of an authority on the "holocaust" than I am.
If he has an anti-revisionist viewpoint, I challenge him to debate this with me, WITHOUT personal attacks such as the ones in the Race thread.

[loseyourname]

What exactly are you proposing here, Dan? Jewish survivors can't be the only eyewitnesses to testify to the Nazi soldiers' attempts to kill off the slaves in the forced labor camps. What about Soviet and US soldiers that liberated the camps? What about the Nazi soldiers themselves, who claimed they were under orders to carry out killings?

Assuming there was a systematic plan to exterminate many of the Jews, there should be physical evidence of this. There would be many corpses that clearly did not succumb to typhus or any other disease. Some of them would have bullet holes in their heads.

Another thing. You've mentioned that the plan was simply to deport the Jews. But if that was the case, why were they enslaved? Why were they not only deported from Germany, but sectioned off into ghettos and eventually hauled into forced labor camps from other nations as well? It seems the plan was to completely remove all of them from Europe. Given that there would have been no place to put all of them at that time, what did the Nazis plan to do with them if not kill them? They couldn't have enslaved them forever, especially given that the Nazis were in no assured of victory. Should they lose the war, the Jews would have been released and allowed to return to their homes. Germany would have been back at square one. The only way to truly deal with a Jewish presence in Europe that is unwelcome is to systematically murder them off. Hitler and his cronies didn't seem too squeamish about murder. Why would they not plan to kill off all the Jews? What was holding them back, if your claim is correct?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname What exactly are you proposing here, Dan? Jewish survivors can't be the only eyewitnesses to testify to the Nazi soldiers' attempts to kill off the slaves in the forced labor camps. What about Soviet and US soldiers that liberated the camps? What about the Nazi soldiers themselves, who claimed they were under orders to carry out killings?

Assuming there was a systematic plan to exterminate many of the Jews, there should be physical evidence of this. There would be many corpses that clearly did not succumb to typhus or any other disease. Some of them would have bullet holes in their heads.

Another thing. You've mentioned that the plan was simply to deport the Jews. But if that was the case, why were they enslaved? Why were they not only deported from Germany, but sectioned off into ghettos and eventually hauled into forced labor camps from other nations as well? It seems the plan was to completely remove all of them from Europe. Given that there would have been no place to put all of them at that time, what did the Nazis plan to do with them if not kill them? They couldn't have enslaved them forever, especially given that the Nazis were in no assured of victory. Should they lose the war, the Jews would have been released and allowed to return to their homes. Germany would have been back at square one. The only way to truly deal with a Jewish presence in Europe that is unwelcome is to systematically murder them off. Hitler and his cronies didn't seem too squeamish about murder. Why would they not plan to kill off all the Jews? What was holding them back, if your claim is correct?

Many of the Nazi's that "confessed" were under duress by the IMT, ergo a losing party under the victors open to torture and coercion to confess. At that point it would be in the interest of the Nazi's to confess, anyway. The Nuremberg Trials have always been the pedestal, because all else emanates from that show trial.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Many of the Nazi's that "confessed" were under duress by the IMT, ergo a losing party under the victors open to torture and coercion to confess. At that point it would be in the interest of the Nazi's to confess, anyway. The Nuremberg Trials have always been the pedestal, because all else emanates from that show trial.

I'm aware. But they confessed to be under orders as a defense. Considering that they had to know they had no chance of defeating the prosecution, why would they lie about this? Why not simply deny that they killed anybody or that there were any orders? If they knew they would be imprisoned or executed anyway, don't you think they would have liked to maintain some shred of dignity, if indeed there had been no holocaust?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I'm aware. But they confessed to be under orders as a defense. Considering that they had to know they had no chance of defeating the prosecution, why would they lie about this? Why not simply deny that they killed anybody or that there were any orders? If they knew they would be imprisoned or executed anyway, don't you think they would have liked to maintain some shred of dignity, if indeed there had been no holocaust?

Since you don't know I'll tell you now. Nuremberg was a show trial. Denial was not permitted at Nuremberg. The IMT simply "accepted" that there was ipso facto, a "Holocaust" without proving anything. Furthermore, let's avoid calling it "no Holocaust", as it is a series of events. I maintain that Jews were killed or executed, by catalysts not working with the government.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Since you don't know I'll tell you now. Nuremberg was a show trial. Denial was not permitted at Nuremberg. The IMT simply "accepted" that there was ipso facto, a "Holocaust" without proving anything. Furthermore, let's avoid calling it "no Holocaust", as it is a series of events. I maintain that Jews were killed or executed, by catalysts not working with the government.

I know it was a show trial, but that's not my point. They would have been convicted regardless of what they said, so why would they implicate their superiors? Why not maintain your innocence all the way to the electric chair, as most murderers do? You can't force someone not to deny, unless you're proposing that their defense strategy was forced upon them by torture. Are you?

[Anonymouse]

Yes, that is what I am saying and the most famous torture was that of Rudolf Hoess, to sign that silly "confession".

[loseyourname]

Give me a link.

Another thing, too. I know I have a history of being very combative when I post to you, but I want you to know that I'm not going to do that here. I really don't know a whole lot about this, so all of my questions are sincere.

Do you have anything about the other issues I raised?

[Darorinag]

What about Soviet and US soldiers that liberated the camps? What about the Nazi soldiers themselves, who claimed they were under orders to carry out killings?

The Soviets installed fake showerheads in the alleged gas chambers upon entrance to the camps. The showerheads weren't connected to anything. Later on, "survivors" claimed the gas came from the showerheads. That is impossible.

The Allies had previous lied about the reasons behind the Dresden bombings. There were very few factories (and not directly making war machinery) in Dresden, mostly a civilian city. They fire-bombed it, alleging that it was an industrial center that aided the Nazi efforts in the war. A lot of the Allied claims were proven to be nothing more than propaganda, both in WWI and WWII. Their eyewitness accounts cannot be taken into consideration because they were in a position to claim anything and no one would be able to refute it if it was taken as "proof." Eyewitness accounts can never be taken as "proof." If you claim you saw me killing someone, that doesn't mean I will be sent to prison for killing that person, if there is NO other proof that I did kill. How would we know you weren't lying? Maybe you had something against me. Again, the ties between communists and jews, and the jews and the Allies are very significant here. Moreover, why would you need fake photos if you had the "eyewitness" accounts of both the Soviets and Allies? Or even censorship of anyone questioning the validity of holoaust claims? Surely if they've got nothing to lose, they would let people question publicly, no? After all, just because there is a disagreement about something doesn't mean it would incite hatred and that people would go out and kill each other. It's a slippery slope fallacy.

Now coming to the "confessions" of Hoess:

Hoess was first arrested and detained by the British, but later was handed over to the Polish communist authorities, who executed him around 1947. It is claimed (by many communists and others as well) that Hoess was "ordered" to write the story of his life, and that the original handwritten copies exist, but so far, no one has seen it.

It is reported that during his testimony at Nuremberg, Hoess had a blank look on his face and was "staring into space" while giving his "testimony." Torture and brainwashing techniques were used on Hoess and many of the detained Nazis.

Again, if the Nazis did have gas chambers, why would they not have destroyed the chambers instead of the crematorium, when retreating?

In addition, a lot of the crematoria and "chambers" were "rebuilt" by the Soviets when they entered the camps.

The claims of Soviets and Allies are far from being proven as "factual." Moreover, many Soviet and Allied accounts significantly differ from each other, AND from the Jewish survivors' accounts.

Assuming there was a systematic plan to exterminate many of the Jews, there should be physical evidence of this. There would be many corpses that clearly did not succumb to typhus or any other disease. Some of them would have bullet holes in their heads.

There are none. Null. Zero. Nada. Moreover, the claim that people were burned in ovens is far from being proven. The amount of ashes that would remain after so many people being burned is in no way possible. It doesn't exist. These are only claims that we take as "given." There is no proof to it. Where did all the ashes go? Again, there have been scientific measurements (Germar Rudolf & co.) about human ashes per body, etc.

You've mentioned that the plan was simply to deport the Jews. But if that was the case, why were they enslaved?

They were supposed to be taken to the east. The camps were supposed to be "transit" points. The Jews were staging uprisings and refused to leave the areas. There was no other possibility. If they had wanted to exterminate all Jews, why the effort and money to put them in trains and take them to concentration camps (and build concentration camps in the first place), whereas just shooting all of them wherever they lived would be more efficient and leave less "proof" against the Nazi party itself? Again, that there were concentration camps in USA for the Japanese during WWII doesn't "prove" that there was a Japanese holocaust in the camps.

Why were they not only deported from Germany, but sectioned off into ghettos and eventually hauled into forced labor camps from other nations as well?

Jews were already placed in ghettos. They were staging uprisings, such as in the Warsaw ghetto. It was affecting the morale of the Germans as well as of the troops. It was a threat to Nazi Germany.

It seems the plan was to completely remove all of them from Europe.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they exterminated them. If they wanted to exterminate them, why go through all the trouble and expenses of transporting them, etc.? Not to mention, treating ill Jews IN concentration camps instead of shooting them and be done with it... Besides, can you prove that they wanted to get rid of them through emigration because they disliked them or because they constituted a threat to the war efforts of Nazi Germany?

Given that there would have been no place to put all of them at that time, what did the Nazis plan to do with them if not kill them?

Hence the many concentration camps. Many of the Jews in Europe had emigrated after Hitler got to power. Half the Jews in Germany had left the country. The total number of Jews living in pre-war Europe was 6,500,000. 400,000 Jews left Germany before 1939. 500,000 Jews had emigrated from Poland at the beginning of the war. 1.5 million Jews emigrated to Britain, Sweden, Spain, and Palestine. 2 million Jews had emigrated to Russia. So in all, there were 3.5 million Jews in Europe. They could've easily been placed in concentration camps throughout the German-occupied territory.

They couldn't have enslaved them forever, especially given that the Nazis were in no assured of victory.

Again, Nazis had bad luck on the Eastern front. Their tactics weren't well calculated. Besides the fact that placing them in concentration camps or thinking about forcing them to emigrate doesn't mean they were trying to get rid of them or hold them in slavery forever. Emigration was the favoured choice, because given the way in which Jews were acting, there was a high chance that they were going to pose a danger to the security of Germans even if they had won the war. Just like Americans did in USA with the concentration camps for Japs, Nazis did the same with the Jews. That is war strategy. When you have an enemy on your land, you can either kill them all to make sure they're not spying on you or uprising against you, or you can put them in concentration camps. Again, that they put them in camps doesn't prove that they had OTHER plans.

Should they lose the war, the Jews would have been released and allowed to return to their homes. Germany would have been back at square one.

Isn't that the way wars go? If you lose, you start from point 0. That's a given. They hadn't thought about losing the war until the Jews staged their uprisings. Can you imagine the Japs in USA protesting AGAINST USA in USA while USA was at war with Japan? Are you telling me that they would've been able to do it? The Germans were more lenient in that respect than the Americans, who simply rounded up Japs and took them to camps without prior notice.

The only way to truly deal with a Jewish presence in Europe that is unwelcome is to systematically murder them off.

No, not necessarily. If they had won the war, they would've either enslaved them (if that was their aim), or kick them out of their borders. If they had lost it, they would've already lost it, and there's no question about what would've happened. Their plans hadn't taken into account that they could lose the war, because you wouldn't be able to do anything about it if you lose the war anyway. When you lose control over your country, you can't kick anyone out. It wouldn't be up to you.

Hitler and his cronies didn't seem too squeamish about murder. Why would they not plan to kill off all the Jews? What was holding them back, if your claim is correct?

Again, those are questions, not proofs. They don't prove anything. I don't know what was going on in Hitler's mind. NO ONE (Nazi, British, etc.) seemed too squeamish about murder (definitely not the communists!). What do you expect? It was a war. Many spies on all sides were killed.

What was holding them back, if your claim is correct?

The fact that killing off Jews was not in their plans. It would've required a lot of effort and money, such as maintaining and renewing the crematoria that worked at such fast rates as claimed by holocaust survivors. Moreover, if they had wanted to kill them all, why not shoot all those who wore yellow stars, instead of carrying them to camps? It would've been more efficient, and could've been passed in propaganda as violence between Jews and Germans and how evil Jews were, something that couldn't be stuck as an evil label on the forehead of the Nazi party forever. Again, this is not evidence. These are speculations. We must stick to the scientific proofs. It's all fine and dandy to ask these questions and wonder why they didn't do this and that, but revisionism is not based on such speculation. It is based on documents, scientific experiments of cyanide residues, alleged gas chambers, delousing stations, and so on.

There's even a swimming pool in Auschwitz, I believe. It was for inmates. This is usually not addressed by exterminationists, and if it is, it is considered to be for "drowning" purposes only. Again, no proof of it. Only claims.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname They would have been convicted regardless of what they said, so why would they implicate their superiors?

They weren't sure of it. Besides, you're delving in psychology here, and it's very slippery. It doesn't prove anything.

Why not maintain your innocence all the way to the electric chair, as most murderers do?

Most, not all. A lot of innocent people have "confessed" crimes they haven't committed with the hopes of minimizing the punishment, because there was no way to "disprove" the claims, because they were the only suspects. A lot of innocent people have been put to death, and later proven to be innocent, and who had confessed that they had committed the crime. It doesn't mean that they had committed it, does it? Under severe psychological states like that, who knows what the human mind might think or how it might function?

You can't force someone not to deny, unless you're proposing that their defense strategy was forced upon them by torture. Are you?

Their confessions were taken by torture. Example of that was the Hoess "written memoir" that the communists alleged he had been forced to write.

Again, confessions are not proof. Confessions can be false. Confessions can be manipulated through torture. Under such circumstances, you might even create things that didn't exist. Confessions might be due to fake "deals" not to kill them or incarerate them for life. Under such immense torture, would you have made such a deal or not?