The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

For more adversarial interactions
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Nessie »

Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:52 am
bombsaway wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:24 am
Do you have any evidence of such things when it comes to the conspiracy you think happened? (concerning mass information suppression + fabrication)

Maybe a document which outlines the plan, how it was being carried out, and motivations for it, something like this?

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... zel-no365/

Obviously there is revisionist critique of this document and others like it but I bring it up to show a disparity - you are alleging a conspiracy that is not simply not evidenced in this way. It's based on inferred behavior, nothing concrete like the Wetzel note.
None of what you just wrote takes away from the victorious powers indisputably having had the motive, means, opportunity and behavior which aligns perfectly with revisionist assertions.
What motive did the Dutch have, to admit to a high level of assistance provided, resulting in very few Dutch Jews returning after the war, when the Danes got to be the heroes, by protecting the vast majority of their Jewish citizens?

What motive does Romania have, to admit to running its own separate mass killings?

What motive does Latvia and Lithuania have, to admit to assisting the EG with mass shootings?

What motive does France have, whereby it was split by the Nazis and the occupied side admitting to providing far more assistance and losing far more Jews, than the other?

What motive does the UK have, for admitting it refused to allow many Jews to escape?

You ignore that the victorious powers were also complicity, in different ways, in the Holocaust.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Nessie »

Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:33 am
bombsaway wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 5:05 am
You can ask Katyn revisionists about that. They're mirrors of you guys.
You've still deflected from:
  • 'Holocaust Denial' laws and sociocultural engineering (Hollywood, museums, 'survivor tales' at elementary school campuses, etc.) prevent falsification
  • The victorious powers had motive, means, opportunity, and action patterns that align seamlessly with revisionist assertions
I have visited Holocaust museums in the Netherlands and Latvia. They both admit to and apologise for their role in the Holocaust and their deaths of their Jewish citizens. What is their motive, means, opportunity and action patterns?
User avatar
Callafangers
Administrator
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2024 6:25 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Callafangers »

Nessie, you mad bro?
...he cries out in pain and proceeds to AI-slop-spam and 'pilpul' you...
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Nessie »

Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:00 am Nessie, you mad bro?
No, I am asking you what motives Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Greece, the Balkan states, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belorussia have for admitting to the assistance they provided to the Nazis? Why do Denmark and Finland get a pass and get to be the countries that refused to cooperate, saving the vast majority of their Jewish citizens? What about the UK and its role in preventing Jews escaping?

You are correct that establishing motive, opportunity, ability and guilty conduct are important parts of evidencing a crime. The Nazis had motive in spades. They hated the Jews, who they saw as a dangerous enemy of the state. WWII gave them the opportunity to rid Europe of Jews, a policy that was repeated by many senior Nazis. They had the ability to do that, especially with so much cooperation. Even the Danes, to that extent, cooperated, by getting their Jewish citizens to leave en masse to Sweden. Their guilty conduct is established by their use of killing as policy with T4 and 14f13 and the actions of the Einsatzgruppen, along with their cover-up, such as the exhumations and cremations at the AR camps and destruction of the Kremas at Birkenau.
User avatar
Callafangers
Administrator
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2024 6:25 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Callafangers »

Nessie wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:37 am
Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:00 am Nessie, you mad bro?
No, I am asking you what motives Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Greece, the Balkan states, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belorussia have for admitting to the assistance they provided to the Nazis? Why do Denmark and Finland get a pass and get to be the countries that refused to cooperate, saving the vast majority of their Jewish citizens? What about the UK and its role in preventing Jews escaping?
You've asked this question and been given high-quality answers from myself and other members here, many times. It's sad to see you forced to carousel around the same arguments every few days, pretending you didn't already see this addressed.

The countries you listed did not 'admit to the assistance'. Some of their politicians (you know, people with ambition, appealing to the Allied nations that just conquered the world, accepting bribes, etc.) made some of the [ignorant/false] 'admissions' you're referring to.
Nessie wrote:You are correct that establishing motive, opportunity, ability and guilty conduct are important parts of evidencing a crime. The Nazis had motive in spades. They hated the Jews, who they saw as a dangerous enemy of the state. WWII gave them the opportunity to rid Europe of Jews, a policy that was repeated by many senior Nazis. They had the ability to do that, especially with so much cooperation. Even the Danes, to that extent, cooperated, by getting their Jewish citizens to leave en masse to Sweden. Their guilty conduct is established by their use of killing as policy with T4 and 14f13 and the actions of the Einsatzgruppen, along with their cover-up, such as the exhumations and cremations at the AR camps and destruction of the Kremas at Birkenau.
Oh, no one denies Germany had plenty of motive to gas/boil/microwave Jews, let's agree on that much (this was war, after all). The question of means, opportunity, and pattern of action/behavior is exactly where you fail, though:
  • Show me the 'gas chamber', one where the evidence and reason align with the claims. Show me the graves filled with billions of human teeth and millions of kg of crushed bones (necessarily with a further tens/hundreds of millions of kg of wood ash). Show me the wood deliveries, or even some testimony about it. Without these, means and opportunity vanish out the window.
  • Show me the precedent for Germany 'gassing' civilian families, even Jews. Prove just one Jew was 'gassed' -- name a Jew, by name, and tell me which date and what location it has been documented that their 'gassing' occurred.
The combination of T4 and 14f13 (both euthanasia, based on necessity exacerbated in wartime) and Einsatzgruppen (security-focused, relative to partisan threat) altogether reflect desperate policies of limited scale, documented explicitly as such. If these are the same as your claims of Jewish 'gassings', why don't the latter have some explicit documentation as well, especially given the relative vastness in scale? You have cherry-picked the most relatively offensive or shocking German policies which align with your claims, apparently blind to the fact that anyone fabricating atrocity narratives about Germany would no doubt leverage factual narratives (albeit exaggerated) for crafting and promoting their larger atrocity lies.

If my goal is to get my enemy to release my criminal friend from prison via public pressure, I could claim that my enemy has been ass-raping my friend with a pineapple while he's in his jail cell. The imprisonment may be true, the pineapple isn't. 🍍
...he cries out in pain and proceeds to AI-slop-spam and 'pilpul' you...
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Nessie »

Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:05 am
Nessie wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:37 am
Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:00 am Nessie, you mad bro?
No, I am asking you what motives Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Greece, the Balkan states, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belorussia have for admitting to the assistance they provided to the Nazis? Why do Denmark and Finland get a pass and get to be the countries that refused to cooperate, saving the vast majority of their Jewish citizens? What about the UK and its role in preventing Jews escaping?
You've asked this question and been given high-quality answers from myself and other members here, many times. It's sad to see you forced to carousel around the same arguments every few days, pretending you didn't already see this addressed.

The countries you listed did not 'admit to the assistance'. Some of their politicians (you know, people with ambition, appealing to the Allied nations that just conquered the world, accepting bribes, etc.) made some of the [ignorant/false] 'admissions' you're referring to.
Officially, none of the countries I have listed, have claimed that during the war, none of their citizens or officials provided any form of assistance to the Nazis, in the process of identifying, registering, arresting & transporting Jews. You will find all have at one time issued apologies for what happened to their Jewish citizens. Histories and museums also record the acts of citizens and officials who collaborated with the Nazis.

I am using this as an example, but Wikipedia records every one of those countries as having had citizens or officials who worked with the Nazis, from helping to arrest, to shooting Jews. There is no official denial from any of those countries, about their Wikipedia entry. I am using Wikipedia, because it is so well known and such as common source of information for the public.

You cannot provide an evidenced motive as to why they admit to their roles in the Holocaust, when it is a hoax.
Nessie wrote:You are correct that establishing motive, opportunity, ability and guilty conduct are important parts of evidencing a crime. The Nazis had motive in spades. They hated the Jews, who they saw as a dangerous enemy of the state. WWII gave them the opportunity to rid Europe of Jews, a policy that was repeated by many senior Nazis. They had the ability to do that, especially with so much cooperation. Even the Danes, to that extent, cooperated, by getting their Jewish citizens to leave en masse to Sweden. Their guilty conduct is established by their use of killing as policy with T4 and 14f13 and the actions of the Einsatzgruppen, along with their cover-up, such as the exhumations and cremations at the AR camps and destruction of the Kremas at Birkenau.
Oh, no one denies Germany had plenty of motive to gas/boil/microwave Jews, let's agree on that much (this was war, after all). The question of means, opportunity, and pattern of action/behavior is exactly where you fail, though:
  • Show me the 'gas chamber', one where the evidence and reason align with the claims. Show me the graves filled with billions of human teeth and millions of kg of crushed bones (necessarily with a further tens/hundreds of millions of kg of wood ash). Show me the wood deliveries, or even some testimony about it. Without these, means and opportunity vanish out the window.
  • Show me the precedent for Germany 'gassing' civilian families, even Jews. Prove just one Jew was 'gassed' -- name a Jew, by name, and tell me which date and what location it has been documented that their 'gassing' occurred.
You get shown that evidence constantly, and you just reject it.
The combination of T4 and 14f13 (both euthanasia, based on necessity exacerbated in wartime) and Einsatzgruppen (security-focused, relative to partisan threat) altogether reflect desperate policies of limited scale, documented explicitly as such. If these are the same as your claims of Jewish 'gassings', why don't the latter have some explicit documentation as well, especially given the relative vastness in scale? You have cherry-picked the most relatively offensive or shocking German policies which align with your claims, apparently blind to the fact that anyone fabricating atrocity narratives about Germany would no doubt leverage factual narratives (albeit exaggerated) for crafting and promoting their larger atrocity lies.
The evidence for T4, 14f13 and the Einsatzgruppen is as good as the evidence for AR and gassings at Chelmno and A-B. Both have corroboration from Nazis, Jews, doucuments etc. But you accept one and reject the other.
If my goal is to get my enemy to release my criminal friend from prison via public pressure, I could claim that my enemy has been ass-raping my friend with a pineapple while he's in his jail cell. The imprisonment may be true, the pineapple isn't. 🍍
If someone in the Netherlands, had evidence that the majority of Dutch Jews survived the war, they would have exposed the hoax. Same with all the other European countries who also admit that during the war, some citizens and officials cooperated with the Holocaust.
b
bombsaway
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2024 2:23 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by bombsaway »

Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:33 am
bombsaway wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 5:05 am
You can ask Katyn revisionists about that. They're mirrors of you guys.
You've still deflected from:
  • 'Holocaust Denial' laws and sociocultural engineering (Hollywood, museums, 'survivor tales' at elementary school campuses, etc.) prevent falsification
  • The victorious powers had motive, means, opportunity, and action patterns that align seamlessly with revisionist assertions
I don't think it's seamless. Governments lie all the time about things, but there's a reason why they don't engage in wholesale fabrication of narratives and evidence. You get caught. So w Iraq invasion for example, the Bush admin + all private beneficiaries didn't manufacture evidence of WMDs even though it would have helped them to have this, they knew that doing so could lead to getting exposed which would lead to even greater political blowback.

W the Holohoax conspiracy you have hundreds of completely innocent "perpetuators" coerced into lying, millions of other witnesses suppressed in some way, thousands of documents suppressed, hundreds or thousands fabricated. Can you point to a government data manipulation a fraction of this size?

On top of that, yeah it's silly to presume historical events based on "motive, means, opportunity". Imagine if the Holocaust was asserted on these grounds, and even something like the Wetzel letter did not exist.
Last edited by bombsaway on Tue Sep 02, 2025 3:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
S
SanityCheck
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:26 pm

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by SanityCheck »

Stubble wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:01 am You're missing the point. None of them had experience with homicidal gassings. You'd think if those were a thing, then personnel familiar with the process would exist. They didn't.

Instead you have a truck driver designing and manufacturing the homicidal gas van and the homicidal gas chambers, because, no one else had the experience.

Yes yes, you are kicking back on the 'Kaiser's Koffee Kafe', and saying 'they had the experience. Yet, even as you say this, they apparently didn't share their knowledge with the people putting Aktion Reinhardt (there is a t there) together. Because they had to reinvent the gas van...

Now they are 'keepers of secrets'...

It's gone from 'they were chosen for their experience' to 'experience wasn't necessary because killing large groups of people is easy can can be done by a window fitter'.

That's quite the pivot...
This is a pathetic infinite-regress argument, akin to saying because something started at one point, because it hadn't earlier, it cannot have happened, effectively ruling out all innovation, improvisation and adaptation.

T4 personnel transferred to Lublin had worked in T4 centres which gassed psychiatric patients in 1940 to 41. The only other group with similar experience in 1940-July 1941 was Sonderkommando Lange in the Warthegau. There were also the technical advisors to T4, Albert Widmann, August Becker and Helmut Kallmeyer. All told around 500 personnel were working for T4 or were in Sonderkommando Lange, subtracting female secretaries still several hundred men who worked for new institutions/subunits that used carbon monoxide to gas people to death.

From August to November 1941, there was a transition to engine exhaust as a souce for carbon monoxide, with Widmann and Becker involved with both. They assisted other units, specifically Einsatzgruppe B and its staff in Mogilev and Minsk, and the RSHA motor pool section II D 3a in Berlin together with camp staff at Sachsenhausen, to test out engine exhaust gassing and devise engine exhaust gas vans. Those were then sent out to Sonderkommando Lange who set up Chelmno, and to the Eisnsatzgruppen in the east, with four arriving with Einsatzgruppe B, two in December 1941 and two in February 1942 (their dispatch/arrival is documented in both cases).

Once evolved, there was no new special corps of gas van drivers or executors, like any other new weapons system or vehicle there was at best some advice and instruction, not requiring extensive training, based on earlier observations in the test phase (e.g. how much to use or rev the engine to get the best effect). The technical experts checked on this, as seen in August Becker's letter after he visited Einsatzgruppen C and D in spring 1942. The new staff with now acquired experience in devising gas vans, RSHA II D 3a, likewise observed the gas vans and made suggestions for improvement.

Entirely without the benefit of any technical advice, the Lager-SS at Auschwitz figured out how to use Zyklon-B in lieu of carbon monoxide in closed and fixed spaces - at best there was contact with 14 f 13 and Sonnenstein. Also entirely without the benefit of technical advice, some local policemen in Ukraine figured out how to use another chemical, Lorpicrin, to kill small numbers of Jews in one town (this is documented and witnessed).

T4 personnel were in Lublin in small numbers before mid-December 1941, at a time when Belzec had begun construction (from the start of November 1941). After Himmler met with Bouhler in mid-December 1941 to discuss 'euthanasia', more T4 personnel were sent to Lublin. Brack and Bouhler both confirmed this transfer in letters to Himmler and Bormann respectively in June and July 1942. Globocnik's personnel report on AR noted the transfer of 92 personnel from the Kanzlei des Fuehrers i.e. T4. When the Sobibor staff organised a road trip to Berlin in the summer of 1943, they were photographed in the company of T4 managers, who were also photographed attending the funerals of SS officers and men including Johann Niemann killed in the Sobibor revolt.

In April 1942, the Polish underground observing Belzec noted transports coming in but nobody leaving alive, recording also the stories circulating among the local population - some correctly stating gas, some incorrectly guessing electricity. The Polish workers who had been inside Belzec were undoubtedly sworn to secrecy so would not have trumpeted all the details to everyone, but evidently did to some. The underground report also identified the commandant of Belzec as Captain Wirth. Captain Christian Wirth is documented as working in T4 centres and was later documented as the Inspector of Einsatz Reinhardt, and was promoted to Major/Sturmbannfuehrer in spring 1943 along with other promotions from this group.

Belzec was not a preexisting psychiatric hospital requiring conversion of existing rooms to a gas chamber and a space for crematoria ovens. It was a camp - and the construction of the AR camps was directed by officers of SSPF Lublin, notably but not only Richard Thomalla, who was also with the ZBL Lublin. SSPF Lublin had experience setting up camps, with or without the assistance of the SS construction directorates. It knew how to do this. The guards provided for the camps were former Soviet POWs trained at Trawniki. The trainers had general experience instructing sentries, which is such basic knowledge it requires relatively little training, just practice. The experience of guarding workers in the preparation phase would have been a great help.

The decision to make available personnel from T4 was evidently discussed at the highest levels, between Himmler, Brack, Bouhler, and is irrefutably documented. Globocnik as SSPF Lublin thereby acquired manpower not requiring requests for more personnel from other branches of the SS-Police - not from the Security Police/RSHA, not from the Order Police, not from RuSHA, Vomi, the Waffen-SS or any other branch.

The SS-Police hierarchy could have gone to the trouble of setting up an Einsatzgruppe-sized force mixing all branches of the SS-Police, so with German guards instead of Trawnikis, as was done at Chelmno with a company sized force of Schutzpolizei (urban police, not Gendarmerie, from police stations and police battalions). The KZ system had guard battalions generally made up of Reich and ethnic Germans. However there was a shortage of such personnel so KL Lublin was in part guarded by a Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft battalion in 1942. This helps explain why the Trawnikis were used - a greater general comfort with using 'askaris' and colonial troops the further east one went.

If the SS-Police had had a battalion or Einsatzgruppe sized force to spare, it could easily have trained them in two and a half to three months to run a set of extermination camps. The main wave of arrivals from T4 at Lublin for Belzec was late December, not quite three months before the camp began operating.

The initial group of T4 personnel sent to Lublin and Belzec was heavy on SS and police veterans: Christian Wirth, Josef Oberhauser, Lorenz Hackenholt, Gottfried Schwarz, Johann Niemann and Friedrich Jirmann.

Oberhauser, Hackenholt and Niemann, as well as future T4-AR transfers like Werner Dubois and Siegfried Graetschus, had experience before or at the start of the war in the concentration camps, primarily Sachsenhausen; they were SS. Gottfried Schwarz had served at Dachau and with the Leibstandarte as well as in T4, he was obviously SS as well. Among other T4 veterans who were in Belzec by mid-March 1942 were Kurt Franz, who like Jirmann had served at Buchenwald.

Wirth was a policeman, and other policemen in T4 were also transferred - Gottlieb Hering, Franz Stangl in particular.

There were prewar SS men like Heinrich Gley, Robert Jührs, Karl Schluch and Erich Fuchs who had not been full-time in the KZs or Waffen-SS, but as Allgemeine-SS were on a par with other SS reservists, they were assigned to T4 then to AR.

There were eventually also men who served in T4 having been professional nurses, perhaps NSDAP and SA members, who switched to the SS later on.

But this was at its core a group of SS and Police officers and NCOs, starting off with a clear commander, Captain Christian Wirth, who had overseen T4 centres and been a roving inspector of sorts in this phase as well.

This is from German Wikipedia entries, cross-referenced against Sara Berger, Experten der Vernichtung (2013), who also provides the following reminders on the gassing experiments at Belzec before it 'opened' (pp.47-50)

Wirth and Hackenholt were the driving forces behind the experiments, both knew Widmann and Becker, and evidently knew of the new generation of gas vans using engine exhaust. Hackenholt was a trained bricklayer but had become a skilled mechanic and driver by the time of his service in Sachsenhausen. Other T4-AR personnel had construction experience as well, and the description of the first gas chambers at Belzec indicates they were a bit jury-rigged, not yet fully optimised - making them airtight was a challenge.

Hackenholt converted a vehicle to a gas van, and it continued to be available but was deemed impracticable for large scale operations - Chelmno had more experience with van operations and had three vans. CO bottles were ordered from the usual T4 channels but the supply of these was clearly going to be difficult. As noted in Robert Kuwalek's book on Belzec, a CO bottle was found buried on the grounds of Belzec in the 1960s, which parallels the discovery of CO bottles marked with explicit T4 noms de guerre (Jennerwein) at Majdanek. Static engine exhaust was the logical solution. The CO bottle feed was however still available for early gassings, as long as the supply held out.

Berger sees Kallmeyer's visit to Lublin as an opportunity for testing and calibrating the chambers, which seems correct. Kallmeyer rather betrayed himself when denying visiting Riga but admitting visiting Lublin, however much he waffled around his time there.


To reiterate, one does not need a professional corps of executioners to kill. Professional guillotine operators in Germany and professional hangmen like Pierrepoint in Britain certainly existed, and if one could bring them in, that meant fewer people who were exposed to the act. The Germans did not use hanging for legal executions, but began hanging people after summary courts-martials and on straightforward orders on a very extensive scale from 1939/40 onwards. Perhaps some influence from Austrian and Habsburg experiences, but not using the Habsburg method of strangulation from behind - the classic Anglo-American gallows scaffold is photographed repeatedly. Lynchings galore in the Deep South and countless suicides show how easy it is to hang other people or indeed, yourself.

Ditto with firing squads and shootings, the only issues arising were how to scale up to mass executions, but that did not prove too difficult, and different units learned the hard way how 'best' to carry out serial and mass executions by firearms.
User avatar
Stubble
Posts: 2216
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:43 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Stubble »

I'll reiterate, you are missing the point.

Check the record, they started from scratch for 'Aktion Reinhardt'.

This isn't and 'infinite regression' it is a huge plot hole in your narrative Sir.

If a trained monkey could have killed 1,700,000 people in 18 months, fine. That's not the claim however, and the claim, when weighed with the evidence, starts getting weird. Things stop making sense pretty fast.

This starts with the gas van being invented over and over again.

You know who did have and operate gas vans? The NKVD, they called them 'soul destroyers'...

Now, I understand, you have ink on paper that says someone said that they heard that there were nazi gas vans, and this goes into a whole 'nother rabbit trail. My point is, no one can tell you consistently what they looked like, how they worked, or who was using them. The record gets 'sloppy'.

It's like looking at the 'evolution' of 'Aktion Reinhard(t)'.

Was it 'chlorine from roof flaps'? Did they 'use the camp generator' with a 'fuel additive'? Was it 'electric floors'? Was there an 'underground Aktion Reinhardt metro' to 'take the dead to a central crematoria' after 'the floors opened up and dropped the dead in to carts'?

It is no wonder the judiciary told the prosecution 'pick one, and run with it'. It is mildly amusing in hindsight that the IMT picked 'steam chambers', and the Polish picked 'Diesel exhaust'. At one point, and even up to the Eichmann trial, there was a 'Soviet submarine engine'...

Look, I'm just a hayseed, trying to winnow the truth from the lies man. After 80 years, I get that you think you have all the kinks worked out with your narrative.

I'm still not buying it. I'd have to forgive 6,000,000 lies to accept the 1 truth you are selling, and it is 1 truth, to be taken whole with no deviation...otherwise I'm a holocaust denying transphobic homophobic racist misogynist bigot or whatever.

Some food for thought, timestamp, around 54 minutes;

https://codoh.com/wp-content/uploads/Jo ... 1-hb29.mp4

Tried to embed as media, embed failed.

Found the whole 5+ hrs on rumble. Timestamp is still around 54 minutes;



If you have the time, the whole interview is worth viewing.
Last edited by Stubble on Tue Sep 02, 2025 8:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If I were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Nessie »

Stubble wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 3:07 pm ... After 80 years, I get that you think you have all the kinks worked out with your narrative.

...
Only someone who has never been part of a major criminal investigation, or who has research a historical event that lasted for years, covering multiple countries, would think like that.

The kinks in the narrative show a lack of any narrative control, which means your conspiracy theory is wrong. There are just too many opportunities for mistakes, or whistleblowers, to control a hoax as large as the Holocaust.

The kinks are also explained by the cover-up, destruction of evidence and that it was a criminal as well as a historical event, with many participants attempting to avoid responsibility.
S
SanityCheck
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2024 8:26 pm

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by SanityCheck »

Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:05 am Great opinion but since when are assessment of motive, means, opportunity, and patterns of action/behavior not integral at the start of any investigation?
Where's your actual assessment?

Have you guarded against the risk of projecting the concerns of later decades onto the 1940s? Fully understood both the full range of concerns for the Allies, Soviets and the other European states, west and east, for the aftermath, and what they actually did with their investigations across the board, and the captured records? Clearly there was more going on than the persecution and murder of Jews as a concern.

The Holocaust wasn't even being called the Holocaust - it had no specific name for non-Jews at this time. "The camps" obscured and universalised things in some cases, the Soviets univeralised as well, and went out of their way to suppress what were seen as Jewish nationalist tendencies with the prevention of publication of the Jewish Antifascist Committee's Black Book.

IMT Nuremberg wasn't the only trial, it might have got most attention, but the exhibits and witnesses covered a whole range of topics, which aren't being quantified or correlated with the parallel investigations and trials. There's not even a clear quantification of gassing vs other methods, or the killing of Jews versus other groups. People were conflating and confusing the other KZs with the death camps for decades, with misunderstandings in several directions. But one still needs to put the discourse around camps into the proper context, all discussion of Nazis.

One can stipulate that later on the extermination of the Jews moved up in prominence, and that there were moments which broke through, such as Hoess's testimony at IMT being widely reported, but newspapers are turned into fish and chip wrappings in this era - the range of books and eventually films, documentaries and other media accumulate so that this became better known and understood, without that being a conspiracy or a deliberate program.

The political consequences of WWII as well as the changed architecture of international law all have to be considered empirically as well. IMT did not use the new term of genocide in its charges, and it was hardly used in the trial. But Lemkin's new term had a much broader meaning, the denationalisation of a people, very much with Germanisation in mind Accordingly the Poles embraced it wholeheartedly and were the first to use it in a legal context, before the UN Convention of 1948. The NMT RuSHA trial was a 'genocide trial' in the original Lemkin definition.

Nazi racism, imperialism (annexing Poland and planning to acquire Lebensraum in the Soviet Union), eugenics and biopolitics made for a lot of uncomfortable discussions after the war. They had after all taken some existing international trends to an extreme - other countries were sterilising the feeble-minded, other countries had colonial empires and other countries like the US had legal systems of discrimination, i.e. Jim Crow in the Deep South. In the 1930s the Nazi press certainly highlighted and reported on lynchings in America, even as those were going into decline. The retreat from 'scientific racism' began before what we now call the Holocaust, in reaction to the Nazis amping up the 'American model'.

Prewar and wartime Nazi conduct influenced the discussion of affirming human rights, something the UN was meant to help with; wartime conduct led to a new Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg code and much else.

It still took 15-20 years for the west European colonial empires to be largely dissolved, after Japanese conquests had fatally undermined European colonialism in Asia, with a whole variety of colonial wars and counterinsurgencies in the process. More than a few non-European critics of colonialism found it easy to make the comparison with the Nazis and even antisemitism, but few fixated on the gas chambers when doing so. British and French critics of the counterinsurgencies in Kenya and Algeria often labelled the behaviour of the colonial powers 'Gestapo tactics'. The Gestapo were a byword because of the common European myth of resistance in the early postwar decades.

It took 20 years for Jim Crow to be ended in the US - one should bear in mind that the spirit of liberalism and universalised interpretations of Christianity argued against such racial discrimination, and there was a growing level of criticism well before the Nazis came to power, the Holocaust or WWII. Even after those things, it still took time.

The entanglements in contemporary discussions can certainly be explored, and have been, but the simplistic gas chambers needed to free the Negroes line which some knuckle-draggers might deduce, post hoc ergo propter hoc, is complete nonsense.

For sure, the Eichmann trial and subsequent events like the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial provided much more detail and reminders of the specifics in the early 1960s. But the initial interpretations included universal ones - obedience to authority, the banality of evil - and provoked comparisons with American conduct in Vietnam. Thus Telford Taylor considering Vietnam in the light of "Nuremberg", and reviews of books about My Lai comparing that atrocity with Auschwitz and Dachau - further indicating a lack of understanding by today's standards of what Auschwitz was.

This is all without reviewing the way general experiences of WWII were portrayed and thought about in the first thirty years after the war. There was a rash of POW camp memoirs, from French, British and American former POWs - and a lot of movies and TV series resulted. The exploits of SOE and other agents and how they were taken to concentration camps to be executed were also in the mix.

It's absolutely certain that French 'political' prisoners who survived the Nazi concentration camps published more memoirs in the 1940s than did French Jews, and that prominent KZ survivors joined in condemning Soviet concentration camps. Thus the Kravchenko and Rousset affairs. One can see quite a lot of Gulag and Siberian exile memoirs published as well, from Poles, Polish Jews and Germans - and of course more attention after 1956 and after Solzhenitsyn, a long-running story. 'Totalitarianism' was a typical way of assimilating and understanding the Nazi experience in the 1950s.

The Holocaust didn't emerge fully as THE Holocaust until about thirty years after the war, so well after such events as decolonisation, the Civil Rights movement and even Vietnam, but also after such European events as West German Ostpolitik. We can see these as entangled events - people did make comparisons before 1975, and the legacies of WWII and Nazi occupation or rule did influence earlier discourses and discussions. But the opposite is also the case, that the Holocaust became more important culturally, intellectually and politically/diplomatically after parallel cases like decolonisation and the end of Jim Crow. And after other humanitarian disasters and massacres - Biafra, Bangladesh, Cambodia. That remains to be explored in more detail for the 1960s/1970s. It's beyond reasonable dispute that Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s were seen through a Holocaust/genocide lens and helped boost interest in the Holocaust.

It would be asinine to reduce the postwar histories of refugees, Gastarbeiter, colonial immigration and post-colonial immigration to the experiences of the 1930s and 1940s. The big refugee waves of note were often directly connected with the Cold War or major upheavals - the Hungarian refugees of 1956 (I was taught by one at university), the Vietnamese boat people (a friend at university had a Chinese Vietnamese-Australian girlfriend), the Iranian refugees after 1979 (my family lived next to Iranian refugees in the 1980s). The great irony of Gastarbeiter in West Germany is this was planned by officials who'd worked in the Nazi-era Reichsarbeitsministerium.

The expulsion of Ugandan Asians in the 1970s brought up some reminders and comparisons with the post-Kristallnacht Jewish refugees and Kindertransporte, but Britain had already taken in large South Asian and Afro-Caribbean populations, some having served the British in WWII, others because of 'imperial ties'. Debates about 'race' in Britain could for sure make comparisons with Jews - held up sometimes as a 'model minority' - but the political decisions around allowing and then restricting Commonwealth immigration were not influenced by the memory of WWII. The National Front peddling Harwood's pamphlet in the 1970s could barely find anyone making such comparisons; the connection was in the heads of neo-Nazis, not the rest of British society, which hadn't yet digested the Holocaust. The 'genocide' episode of The World at War is still the one talked about by the older generation, and it was broadcast in 1973.

Later on, one can certainly find invocations of the memory of the Nazis and Holocaust in relation to migration crises - this was explicitly the case in 2015 in Germany. Earlier? Not so much.



So many assumptions and presumptions on your part, and from other revisionists. So little concrete detail and so much omitted.
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Nessie »

Stubble wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 3:07 pm ...

It's like looking at the 'evolution' of 'Aktion Reinhard(t)'.

Was it 'chlorine from roof flaps'? Did they 'use the camp generator' with a 'fuel additive'? Was it 'electric floors'? Was there an 'underground Aktion Reinhardt metro' to 'take the dead to a central crematoria' after 'the floors opened up and dropped the dead in to carts'?

It is no wonder the judiciary told the prosecution 'pick one, and run with it'. It is mildly amusing in hindsight that the IMT picked 'steam chambers', and the Polish picked 'Diesel exhaust'. At one point, and even up to the Eichmann trial, there was a 'Soviet submarine engine'...

....
Again, sorry, but if you knew how a criminal investigation is worked, you would not ask those questions. There were multiple investigations, as you recognise, and they will have, based on the evidence available to them, "picked one and run with it".

The reason why they all picked people being suffocated in chambers, rather than "electric floors" etc, is that it was the best evidenced. The preference being, as happens in all criminal cases, eyewitness evidence being preferred to hearsay, which is usually inadmissible in court. Something that is often ignored by so-called revisionists, is that even with "electric floors", consistently, people died inside a chamber. The variation was how they died inside that chamber. The variation becomes even smaller, when it is between chlorine, steam, diesel or another fuel, that causes people to die.

All criminal investigators, lawyer and court, will expect that kind of variation between witnesses. Unless they collude and really work to get their stories straight, they will vary. If one event results in multiple trials, those involved will not expect everyone to say the same thing and the main narrative to stay the same.

By the time the trials take place, "electric floors" have been dropped, because there is no eyewitness speaking to them. It is hearsay, not acceptable as evidence in a court.

What is consistent between the Polish trials, Israeli trials and trials in West, East and unified Germany, is that all were sufficiently evidenced to prove the crime and the Nazis admitted to the crime. The IMT was not about the Holocaust and it involved senior Nazis not directly involved in the workings of the camps, or Einsatzgruppen.
User avatar
Callafangers
Administrator
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2024 6:25 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Callafangers »

SanityCheck wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 3:27 pm
Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 12:05 am Great opinion but since when are assessment of motive, means, opportunity, and patterns of action/behavior not integral at the start of any investigation?
Where's your actual assessment?
Here ya' go:

MOTIVE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

MEANS:
https://ithy.com/article/wwii-allied-vi ... d-k0np14rk

OPPORTUNITY:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain

PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_mas ... t_response
...he cries out in pain and proceeds to AI-slop-spam and 'pilpul' you...
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 2676
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:41 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Nessie »

Callafangers wrote: Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:34 pm ....
MOTIVE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
Your claim is that the Holocaust was faked, to end Nazism. Nazism was in fact ended by defeat in WWII and Germans, who were not Nazis, were able to regain power. It would have been in the interests of the West, for there not to have been a Holocaust, because that further demonised Germans amongst the public, at a time that West Germany became the most important country in Europe, for the West, due to its economic potential and geo-political position.
Your claim is that Allied victory was the means to faking the Holocaust. But the supposed fake Holocaust was started by the Polish in 1941, with the first reports of mass shooting and by 1942, reports of death camps and chambers where people were killed. So-called revisionists ignore the role of the Poles, because it is too unbelievable, even for them, to imagine a conspiracy to fool the world, concocted and run by the Polish.

You also have the problem of the Nazis knowing the Poles were accusing them of mass killings and running death camps during the war and they did nothing to end those claims. Instead, somehow, they hid millions of Jews, so supporting the fake Polish claim. That makes no sense and logistically, it was impossible to do.
Your claim is the Iron Curtain provided the opportunity for the Holocaust to develop as a hoax. So-called revisionists like to suggest it was a Soviet hoax. But Stalin and the Soviets ignored the Holocaust. If it was a hoax, they would have been primary promoters of it.

The Iron Curtain split Germany into a highly competitive East and West. If it was a Soviet hoax, why did West Germany never blow the hoax, by evidencing no mass killings and millions of Jews alive in 1945? Think of the damage that would have done to the East.

Why, then, did the rest of Europe take the opportunity to admit to a crime that did not happen, and their various roles in it?
Again, the Soviets, who faked that the Nazis killed Polish troops at Katyn. That hoax failed, but we are expected to believe that the far larger Holocaust remained a successful Soviet hoax, despite them doing nothing to promote it. Not only that, most of the promotion came from other countries, as they also accepted degrees of responsibility. How did the Soviets get the Dutch to admit to their high levels of cooperation that resulted in one of the highest death rates?
User avatar
Callafangers
Administrator
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2024 6:25 am

Re: The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

Post by Callafangers »

On the question of lighter labor, I feel this belongs on the thread:
Due to the Third Reich’s increasingly desperate manpower situation, Himmler amended the prere­qui­sites for inmates subject to euthanasia by stipulating on 27 April 1943 that

“in the future, only mentally ill prisoners may be processed by the medical boards created for Program 14 f 13. All other prisoners unfit for work (tuberculars, bedridden, crippled, etc.) are in principle exempt from this program. Bedridden prisoners should be assigned work that they can perform in bed.”
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/event/euthanasia/502/

So the question of who was "unfit" seems to be quite narrow, and increasingly so as the war advanced.
...he cries out in pain and proceeds to AI-slop-spam and 'pilpul' you...
Post Reply