Where'd They Go? (An inverted question from exterminationists)

[bombsaway]

I don’t agree.
There is definitely an ethical dimension to spreading wicked lies that have been the cause of extremely sadistic violence, persecution, imprisonment and mass-murder of Germans, Ukranians, Palestinians and historical researchers for eight decades.

So there definitely is a “moral judgement” that can be made about people who take pleasure in deceitfully or unintelligently promoting that hate-producing, vengeance-causing historical deception.

But I don't think it's a lie, right. I think it's really what happened.

This is kind of simplistic way of looking at the world.

I also think that imprisonment of people for free speech issues is wrong, like many taking part in this debate from the orthodox side, like HC blog. We're ethically in the clear.

[Keen]

But I don't think it's a lie..You . We're ethically in the clear.

Lying POS. You know for a fact that the Sobibor holohoax tale is TOTAL bullshit, yet you continue to spread the lie. And your spreading of that lie, and others like it, gives power to the laws that imprison people for free speech - for speaking the truth about lies like the Sobibor lie.

That's why you don't have the courage, integrity or character to accept a HOLOCAUST ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX CHALLENGE.

The very fact that you run from that challenge is all one needs to know that you are either a lying POS, or a mentally ill coward who is afraid to admitt the truth - or both.

Not one of you HC scumbags has a nutsack, much less the nuts that are supposed to be in them.

No nuts and no guts.

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. YOU.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I don’t agree.
There is definitely an ethical dimension to spreading wicked lies that have been the cause of extremely sadistic violence, persecution, imprisonment and mass-murder of Germans, Ukranians, Palestinians and historical researchers for eight decades.

So there definitely is a “moral judgement” that can be made about people who take pleasure in deceitfully or unintelligently promoting that hate-producing, vengeance-causing historical deception.

But I don't think it's a lie, right. I think it's really what happened.

Ok… er… that reply does rather answer my last question to you.
I.e. it proves you are of low intelligence and can’t follow simple arguments /can’t comprehend simple statements.

RECAP: Of course the holyH “happened”.

That isn’t the ‘lie’ and ‘deception’ being referred to.

[bombsaway]

I don’t agree.
There is definitely an ethical dimension to spreading wicked lies that have been the cause of extremely sadistic violence, persecution, imprisonment and mass-murder of Germans, Ukranians, Palestinians and historical researchers for eight decades.

So there definitely is a “moral judgement” that can be made about people who take pleasure in deceitfully or unintelligently promoting that hate-producing, vengeance-causing historical deception.

But I don't think it's a lie, right. I think it's really what happened.

Ok… er… that reply does rather answer my last question to you.
I.e. it proves you are of low intelligence and can’t follow simple arguments /can’t comprehend simple statements.

RECAP: Of course the holyH “happened”.

That isn’t the ‘lie’ and ‘deception’ being referred to.

The lies that you think are wicked to clarify

Like the gassings of millions of people. That's something I just believe in, no ethical dimension to it, just like your beliefs. There would be ethical dimension if you were dishonest about your beliefs and doing it to harm the Jews or whatever, but I don't think that is true, with almost all revisionists. Even somebody like Keen, who is a troll. He probably has genuine conviction and is just lashing out in frustration.

[Keen]

Like the gassings of millions of people. That's something I just believe in, no ethical dimension to it, just like your beliefs. There would be ethical dimension if you were dishonest about your beliefs and doing it to harm the Jews or whatever, but I don't think that is true, with almost all revisionists. Even somebody like Keen, who is a troll. He probably has genuine conviction and is just lashing out in frustration.

But you cannot prove, yet you claim it's been proven, which proves you are a liar. But you don't just believe that million of jews were gassed, you believe that it has been proven that they have been gassed, buried, dug up, burned in physically impossible ways, and then the remains were put right back into the very pits they were dug out of and covered over "with a thick layer of sand." You believe that lie even after it's been proven to be a lie. That makes you a delusional retard. Unless your just lying again here to cover up your previousl lies - or both.

Even somebody like Keen, who is a troll. He probably has genuine conviction and is just lashing out in frustration.

Yet another lie from the lying coward. And I never get frustrated. I just love each and every opportunity that you give me to rub your hooked nose in your lies and cowardice. If I do get frustrated, it's only because I don't have enough opportunities to do more of the same.

Tell us bombsaway, how does it feel to have me expose your lies and cowardice over and over and over again?

How does it feel to have your nose rubbed in it?

[bombsaway]

How does it feel to have your nose rubbed in it?

It feels fine, because I think you're a troll and more so I feel sorry for you. Likely there is a pathology or underlying mental illness.

[Keen]

Keen:

Tell us bombsaway, how does it feel to have me expose your lies and cowardice over and over and over again?

How does it feel to have your nose rubbed in it?

bombsaway:

It feels fine

BTW bombsaway, do you remember what the title of this thread is?

Where'd They Go?

We decided to get more specific and we've put the question to the misssing 249,989 jews of Sobibor here: viewtopic.php?p=15778#p15778

Care to join us?

Or are you too afraid that your lies and cowardice will be exposed yet again?

[Callafangers]

The evidence of EG operations in 1942, AR 1942-3 and Birkenau 1943-4, along with the complete lack of evidence of resettlement taking place, proves that actual mass resettlement in the east, was not part of the Final Solution. Some of those at Wannsee may well not have known about the intention to introduce mass gassing later in 1942.

You keep calling it a "complete lack of resettlement" while also saying all explicit indications of "resettlement" are in fact a code word.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

You have been given evidence of mass grave sites all over Eastern Europe, Ponary, Rumbula, Maly Trostenets, the AR camps and Chelmno are examples. You have been given evidence of Action 1005 and the destruction of as many corpses as possible, to make body counts, identification and establishing cause of death nigh on impossible.

"Given" by whom, Nessie? Be specific for your specific claims, do not Gish gallop away about 'Holocaust' testimony in general -- tell me who exactly (by name) made the claims that support your position, what their political leanings are, what their background is, and the context of where and when their statements were said and collected. It'd be a start. I would wager you cannot even answer these questions, which means you blindly trust 'Holocaust evidence', unaware of its origin in the vast majority of instances of your 'belief'. Ridiculous.

I knew you would refuse to look for millions of Jews resettled in the countries where the mass graves are located.

Another 'whopper' from Nessie. Where are these graves located? Can we agree that unphotographed, barely-documented Soviet 'findings' don't count?

Around half of Estonia's 4,500 Jews fled and avoided arrest.

According to who, exactly?

The rest were killed by the EG, many at Kalevi-Liiva, along with Jews transported there and many Roma.

Or so you believe.

There was no Nazi ghetto for Jews in Estonia, which is the opposite of what would be expected of a genuine resettlement operation.

No, since Jews were being sent East, and there are locations east of Estonia. Moreover, even if we assume the totality of Estonia's handful of Jews were executed, this may very well speak to partisan reprisals and the like, of which a few thousand executed is not beyond the realm of contextual justification in such extremes (that is, of frequent partisan attacks, significant German casualties, damage to infrastructure, etc.).

[Nessie]

The evidence of EG operations in 1942, AR 1942-3 and Birkenau 1943-4, along with the complete lack of evidence of resettlement taking place, proves that actual mass resettlement in the east, was not part of the Final Solution. Some of those at Wannsee may well not have known about the intention to introduce mass gassing later in 1942.

You keep calling it a "complete lack of resettlement" while also saying all explicit indications of "resettlement" are in fact a code word.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

I keep calling it a "complete lack of EVIDENCE of resettlement". You missed out the word evidence, to create a strawman, that sounds stupid. Your strawman is so blatant, it makes you look stupid. The lack of evidence of actual resettlement, is why I say references to resettlement were euphemistic.

I have always argued that to determine what someone means, look at the evidence of what took place. You don't work with evidence, you just go by your opinion.

You have been given evidence of mass grave sites all over Eastern Europe, Ponary, Rumbula, Maly Trostenets, the AR camps and Chelmno are examples. You have been given evidence of Action 1005 and the destruction of as many corpses as possible, to make body counts, identification and establishing cause of death nigh on impossible.

"Given" by whom, Nessie? Be specific for your specific claims, do not Gish gallop away about 'Holocaust' testimony in general -- tell me who exactly (by name) made the claims that support your position, what their political leanings are, what their background is, and the context of where and when their statements were said and collected. It'd be a start. I would wager you cannot even answer these questions, which means you blindly trust 'Holocaust evidence', unaware of its origin in the vast majority of instances of your 'belief'. Ridiculous.

I know that you are aware of the archaeological evidence from the Polish criminal investigations, various universities such as Staffordshire and named archaeologists such as Sturdy-Colls, Haimi and Kola and the searches by Father Desbois.

Their backgrounds and qualifications can be found on the internet. Their expertise is easy to establish and their reports are readily available online. Most sites have been studied more than once, so their findings are generally corroborated.

You on the other hand, blindly hand wave away the evidence they have traced, because it does not fit with what you want to believe.

I knew you would refuse to look for millions of Jews resettled in the countries where the mass graves are located.

Another 'whopper' from Nessie. Where are these graves located? Can we agree that unphotographed, barely-documented Soviet 'findings' don't count?

The majority of the tracing of mass graves has come after the collapse of the SU. The Soviets were not interested in the Holocaust, or tracing and memorialising Jewish dead.

I know you would refuse to look for evidence of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in the east in 1944.

Around half of Estonia's 4,500 Jews fled and avoided arrest.

According to who, exactly?

The rest were killed by the EG, many at Kalevi-Liiva, along with Jews transported there and many Roma.

Or so you believe.

No, I searched "Estonia Holocaust" and had a read of the first three results.

There was no Nazi ghetto for Jews in Estonia, which is the opposite of what would be expected of a genuine resettlement operation.

No, since Jews were being sent East, and there are locations east of Estonia. Moreover, even if we assume the totality of Estonia's handful of Jews were executed, this may very well speak to partisan reprisals and the like, of which a few thousand executed is not beyond the realm of contextual justification in such extremes (that is, of frequent partisan attacks, significant German casualties, damage to infrastructure, etc.).

Provide evidence of partisan attacks by Jews in Estonia and then name camps and ghettos east of Estonia and show their Jewish population in 1944.

[Callafangers]

You keep calling it a "complete lack of resettlement" while also saying all explicit indications of "resettlement" are in fact a code word.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

I keep calling it a "complete lack of EVIDENCE of resettlement". You missed out the word evidence, to create a strawman, that sounds stupid. Your strawman is so blatant, it makes you look stupid. The lack of evidence of actual resettlement, is why I say references to resettlement were euphemistic.

Or... I just got lazy? Fixing my [accidental] misquote doesn't actually change my argument. Here you go:

"You keep calling it a "complete lack of evidence of resettlement" while also saying all explicit indications of "resettlement" are in fact a code word."

This still applies, and still makes you look like a goof. Evidence of resettlement is the word "resettlement" written down, documented, which you claim is "code words" because you drool.

I have always argued that to determine what someone means, look at the evidence of what took place. You don't work with evidence, you just go by your opinion.

Yes, look at the chemical composition of the 'chamber' walls. Wait, we did that. It didn't go well for you.

"Given" by whom, Nessie? Be specific for your specific claims, do not Gish gallop away about 'Holocaust' testimony in general -- tell me who exactly (by name) made the claims that support your position, what their political leanings are, what their background is, and the context of where and when their statements were said and collected. It'd be a start. I would wager you cannot even answer these questions, which means you blindly trust 'Holocaust evidence', unaware of its origin in the vast majority of instances of your 'belief'. Ridiculous.

I know that you are aware of the archaeological evidence from the Polish criminal investigations, various universities such as Staffordshire and named archaeologists such as Sturdy-Colls, Haimi and Kola and the searches by Father Desbois.

Sturdy-Colls found plates and spoons when she was supposed to find 800,000 corpses. Father Desbois brought claims, not proof. Kola found trace layers which account for less than ~1% of what you need to be there. Why are the forests not cleared, Nessie, despite the Waldkommando working day and night? Why do the graves look so much more like corpse disposal for sanitation purposes than the incineration of an entire race of people?

Mainly, it's clear you rely on Soviet reports and embittered Jewish testimony, perhaps a few Poles here and there, etc. This isn't compelling evidence to any serious and thinking person. Ranting about Sturdy-Colls' qualifications and credentials is a distraction, polishing a turd.

Or so you believe.

No, I searched "Estonia Holocaust" and had a read of the first three results.

I am sure this was enough for you to dust off your hands and feel you've done some great research.

[Nessie]

You keep calling it a "complete lack of resettlement" while also saying all explicit indications of "resettlement" are in fact a code word.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

I keep calling it a "complete lack of EVIDENCE of resettlement". You missed out the word evidence, to create a strawman, that sounds stupid. Your strawman is so blatant, it makes you look stupid. The lack of evidence of actual resettlement, is why I say references to resettlement were euphemistic.

Or... I just got lazy? Fixing my [accidental] misquote doesn't actually change my argument. Here you go:

"You keep calling it a "complete lack of evidence of resettlement" while also saying all explicit indications of "resettlement" are in fact a code word."

This still applies, and still makes you look like a goof. Evidence of resettlement is the word "resettlement" written down, documented, which you claim is "code words" because you drool.

Evidence from a document is insufficient. You need more evidence than that, but you do not look, because you know there is none. There is zero evidence, from any source, documents, witnesses anything, of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944. In 1942, when the document was written, there was already evidence of mass murders and transports to camps to work. There was scant evidence, even then, of actual resettlement taking place and you have still not explained why it records drops in the Jewish population in the east, which is the opposite of a resettlement taking place there.

I have always argued that to determine what someone means, look at the evidence of what took place. You don't work with evidence, you just go by your opinion.

Yes, look at the chemical composition of the 'chamber' walls. Wait, we did that. It didn't go well for you.

There is forensic evidence the ruins of the Kremas were exposed to HCN. The levels are lower than in delousing chambers because of easily explained, rational reasons.

"Given" by whom, Nessie? Be specific for your specific claims, do not Gish gallop away about 'Holocaust' testimony in general -- tell me who exactly (by name) made the claims that support your position, what their political leanings are, what their background is, and the context of where and when their statements were said and collected. It'd be a start. I would wager you cannot even answer these questions, which means you blindly trust 'Holocaust evidence', unaware of its origin in the vast majority of instances of your 'belief'. Ridiculous.

I know that you are aware of the archaeological evidence from the Polish criminal investigations, various universities such as Staffordshire and named archaeologists such as Sturdy-Colls, Haimi and Kola and the searches by Father Desbois.

Sturdy-Colls found plates and spoons when she was supposed to find 800,000 corpses. Father Desbois brought claims, not proof. Kola found trace layers which account for less than ~1% of what you need to be there. Why are the forests not cleared, Nessie, despite the Waldkommando working day and night? Why do the graves look so much more like corpse disposal for sanitation purposes than the incineration of an entire race of people?

Mainly, it's clear you rely on Soviet reports and embittered Jewish testimony, perhaps a few Poles here and there, etc. This isn't compelling evidence to any serious and thinking person. Ranting about Sturdy-Colls' qualifications and credentials is a distraction, polishing a turd.

IOW, it is all evidence that you do not want to accept, so you hand wave it away.

Or so you believe.

No, I searched "Estonia Holocaust" and had a read of the first three results.

I am sure this was enough for you to dust off your hands and feel you've done some great research.

It is more than you can do, as you are pretty much an evidence free zone.

Where is your evidence of millions of Jews the Nazis and their allies arrested 1939-44, still alive in 1944?

[Keen]

Where is your evidence of millions of Jews the Nazis and their allies arrested 1939-44, still alive in 1944?

There's not just evidence Nessie, there's proof:

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 96 graves / cremation pits in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of -

ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - PROVES - NO MASS GRAVES, WHICH - PROVES - NO MASS MURDER

https://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Stubble]

Men were fucking hung over a pack of lies, and the very system meant to seek truth in the name of justice instead, refined, codified and cobbled together a story which the accused were not allowed to defend themselves from.

This whole fucking thing is so abhorrent, so evil, so wicked it is hard to define or put in to words.

Germans were executed for a whole variety of war crimes and crimes against humanity. You focus on just one aspect.

The legal history is pretty clear: acquittals were not uncommon in most systems (including IMT and NMT, even Polish courts acquitted a significant number of Germans), many death sentences were commuted, prison sentences were truncated due to early releases, many escaped any kind of justice.

The national programs inevitably focused heavily on crimes against the majority, and the British and Americans did likewise, on crimes against their servicemen and then other Allied nationalities; hardly any of the British and US zonal trials dealt with the Holocaust at all. The British and Americans sentenced quite a few SS men to death for crimes in Germany or in 'normal' KZs who had been involved in the Final Solution in Poland: Stroop, Schoengarth, Entress, Moll. They could also extradite Germans accused of involvement in the extermination of the Jews to other countries, only for those countries (like Poland) to put them on trial for killing the majority nationality and ignoring the Holocaust.

It's hard to see how Hoess as the commandant of the most lethal KZ for registered inmates could have escaped a death sentence if there were going to be trials; the same for Gauleiter Greiser and others (including various Nuremberg defendants) who were accused of crimes against non-Jews as well as Jews. There was enough on Friedrich Jeckeln that he would have dangled from a gallows in Riga even if there had been literally no Jews in the Ostland at all.

All these accused had every opportunity to explain themselves; and there were plenty of defenses available for many: my department wasn't involved in the killing part and I didn't have need-to-know and didn't know; it was the SS; it was that part of the SS and not mine; these defenses worked.

The ones who really did know and were involved could still have explained themselves. Some were able to name KZ prisoners or Jewish notables who they had known - that level of knowledge means it should have been quite easy to explain the workings of 'transit' and 'resettlement', or point to people who could provide an alibi ('yes I took these deported Jews off his hands').

Achieving the level of coercion and intimidation claimed by revisionists was impossible even in 1945-49, and beyond impossible in the long run.

The Third Reich collectively whiffed on coming up with plausible alibis for what was happening to the Jews in 1941-45; their cover up was incompetent and the cover stories lacking support. Then the Germans whiffed in 1945-49 in the phase of intensive investigations and trials across Europe. Other Germans who had made their escape also whiffed from 1945 to 1958, both outside Europe (in the Latin American enclaves) and in the two Germanies and Austria from 1949-58 when states were restored and occupations ended. Two out of three successors were democracies, there were entire networks of former Nazis and various far right parties but none delivered the alibi. Eichmann especially whiffed and affirmed mass murder rather than the hoped-for denial of it, when he was well beyond the reach of anyone. Then they all whiffed again from 1958 with renewed investigations, scrutiny and more trials. Still the same networks of former Nazis and far right parties who still failed to provide the alibi.

Where are the missing persons Mr Terry, where did they go? Where are they?

They aren't in the ground along the Bug River in tightly packed mass graves Mr Terry. They went somewhere. Where did they go?

As far as mounting a legal defense, once Hoess's confession was extracted, there was no argument 'of the fact'. No judge was going to hear it. Instead the judges in the various trials said 'streamline it' and they convicted men on testimony alone. No real investigation, no identification of the dead, nothing.



Any of the Soviet ever swing for the purge? The holodomor? Any allied pilot ever swing for dam busting or firebombing?

It wasn't about justice, truth, warcrimes or anything else, it was a witchhunt to neuter the German intelligentsia.

Still crickets?

[bombsaway]

Germans were executed for a whole variety of war crimes and crimes against humanity. You focus on just one aspect.

The legal history is pretty clear: acquittals were not uncommon in most systems (including IMT and NMT, even Polish courts acquitted a significant number of Germans), many death sentences were commuted, prison sentences were truncated due to early releases, many escaped any kind of justice.

The national programs inevitably focused heavily on crimes against the majority, and the British and Americans did likewise, on crimes against their servicemen and then other Allied nationalities; hardly any of the British and US zonal trials dealt with the Holocaust at all. The British and Americans sentenced quite a few SS men to death for crimes in Germany or in 'normal' KZs who had been involved in the Final Solution in Poland: Stroop, Schoengarth, Entress, Moll. They could also extradite Germans accused of involvement in the extermination of the Jews to other countries, only for those countries (like Poland) to put them on trial for killing the majority nationality and ignoring the Holocaust.

It's hard to see how Hoess as the commandant of the most lethal KZ for registered inmates could have escaped a death sentence if there were going to be trials; the same for Gauleiter Greiser and others (including various Nuremberg defendants) who were accused of crimes against non-Jews as well as Jews. There was enough on Friedrich Jeckeln that he would have dangled from a gallows in Riga even if there had been literally no Jews in the Ostland at all.

All these accused had every opportunity to explain themselves; and there were plenty of defenses available for many: my department wasn't involved in the killing part and I didn't have need-to-know and didn't know; it was the SS; it was that part of the SS and not mine; these defenses worked.

The ones who really did know and were involved could still have explained themselves. Some were able to name KZ prisoners or Jewish notables who they had known - that level of knowledge means it should have been quite easy to explain the workings of 'transit' and 'resettlement', or point to people who could provide an alibi ('yes I took these deported Jews off his hands').

Achieving the level of coercion and intimidation claimed by revisionists was impossible even in 1945-49, and beyond impossible in the long run.

The Third Reich collectively whiffed on coming up with plausible alibis for what was happening to the Jews in 1941-45; their cover up was incompetent and the cover stories lacking support. Then the Germans whiffed in 1945-49 in the phase of intensive investigations and trials across Europe. Other Germans who had made their escape also whiffed from 1945 to 1958, both outside Europe (in the Latin American enclaves) and in the two Germanies and Austria from 1949-58 when states were restored and occupations ended. Two out of three successors were democracies, there were entire networks of former Nazis and various far right parties but none delivered the alibi. Eichmann especially whiffed and affirmed mass murder rather than the hoped-for denial of it, when he was well beyond the reach of anyone. Then they all whiffed again from 1958 with renewed investigations, scrutiny and more trials. Still the same networks of former Nazis and far right parties who still failed to provide the alibi.

Where are the missing persons Mr Terry, where did they go? Where are they?

They aren't in the ground along the Bug River in tightly packed mass graves Mr Terry. They went somewhere. Where did they go?

As far as mounting a legal defense, once Hoess's confession was extracted, there was no argument 'of the fact'. No judge was going to hear it. Instead the judges in the various trials said 'streamline it' and they convicted men on testimony alone. No real investigation, no identification of the dead, nothing.



Any of the Soviet ever swing for the purge? The holodomor? Any allied pilot ever swing for dam busting or firebombing?

It wasn't about justice, truth, warcrimes or anything else, it was a witchhunt to neuter the German intelligentsia.

Still crickets?

You're just stating your assumptions, it's not really much to respond to.

It's like me having a post where I'm like, the physical evidence shows that there was mass burial and body destruction and I leave it that.

[Stubble]

The dead don't fit as a liquid Bombsaway...

They don't fit, as a liquid...

Let that sink in...