Where are the Goalposts?

[TlsMS93]

They needed a justification for pushing their war effort. And that required to portray the axis as an incarnation of evil.

Exactly, first they needed something to galvanize their troops. Portraying the enemy as the ultimate evil has always existed; the issue is that the West improved the propaganda and the means of disseminating all of this. Once the enemy is portrayed as a monster and defeated, it's necessary to corroborate that the propaganda wasn't a blatant lie. The Western allies were envious of the Soviets because the bulk of the supposed genocide happened behind the Iron Curtain and developed narratives of atrocities that later collapsed, such as gassing in Western camps. How did this collapse prevent a blatant lie from also being fabricated in the case of camps occupied by the Soviets? Sonderkommandos, who by nature see cremation as abject, could very well ride the populist wave of the time, pointing to their executioners as the perpetrators of the worst possible atrocities.

[Trebb]

Again, I am more of a reader trying to make up my mind about various things here. Posts from those more established (owners, moderator, regular posters) along with others, like yourself, I will also read and take measure of. There is a lot of baggage accreted to the whole question over the years which, annoyingly perhaps, I don't have to carry when reading, evaluating or participating in the relevant questions. And since Holocaust/WWII Atrocity Propaganda/Something Else (take your pick) awareness is now bubbling up thanks to the Gaza Holocaust/Plucky Israel's Stout Resolve/ Something Else that is occurring on the back of whatever license the Brazen IDF/ Heroic IDF are operating on, Revisionists and Orthocausts alike are going to be faced with people, like me, who will give opinions without feeling obliged to carry this weighty baggage.

If you're truly in the process of making up your mind, you should investigate the orthodox account and the revisionist account an in even handed manner. I think if you do this, you will see that the revisionist account has glaring flaws - much greater than what orthodoxy does, principally the lack of evidence for claims. To take one example...

As it goes, there seems to be lacunae on the Orthodox side that give me pause. The absence of any evidence of huge burning pits of mass murdered people in Allied aerial recognisance of Auschwitz at the alleged times being, perhaps, the most glaring lacuna (at least as far as Auschwitz goes). This further enlarges the necessary work of the already overworked crematoriums to clear the corpse backlog, under the Orthodox model. It would rather make the necessary National Socialist cover-up all the more canny and pervasive - and that's conspiracy talk.

[As I was saying] To take one example, revisionists typically believe millions of Jews were maintained inside the USSR in dedicated camps following the closure of most ghettos, something that has absolutely no direct evidence for it, in contrast to any recorded event in recent history, even events involving a tiny fraction of the population we see here. The retort to this is "mendacious allies --> mass cover up" or some such, which is a total deus ex machina, given the again lack of evidence for any such cover up....

Yeh, funny in't it? Okay, "the Jews certainly never went to Russia, that's Revisionist Sky Hook thinking", yet likewise The Holocaust did not happen in Auschwitz, absent an Orthodox Sky Hook.

... Katyn is usually the go to for proving propensity for conspiracy, but even with that you see a marked difference. No perpetrators gave false testimony about Katyn, no one was imprisoned/executed, no documents were produced, and the cover up failed (Soviet documents exist implicating them directly. Any issue in revisionism is resolved by pointing to the possibility of conspiracy, but this isn't how traditional history operates. We take an evidence, rather than possibility based approach.

I think there was a moderately successful cover-up by the actual perps, as alluded to in Wahreitssucher's response. The myth died in the end, I suspect, because the Germans had rather let the cat out of the bag with international observers when the Germans still occupied Katyn. Save for this, Katyn may well still be regarded as a National Socialist atrocity, capped in a gargantuan concrete hat.

Given my decades experience as (I'll vaguely state) a clinician as well as someone who has worked in evidence based medicine publication, there are many cover ups that have occurred in the supposedly hard (but remarkably soft and wet) health sciences over the past century or so. Not my particular area, but pretty much the whole body of evidence for the ill-effects of smoking fags is "observational", so not quite up to scratch, but pretty broad and persuasive. Of course we had decades of people denying the link, e.g., between smoking and lung cancer, like we had decades of vested interests saying asbestos did no harm, despite much correlational or "observational" evidence that it did. I listened to a cardiology consultant on a ward round once describing how doctors in the West pushed the benefits of smoking for decades after WWII owing to the fact that the link to cancer was discovered by the Third Reich and it would be unpatriotic to give them any credit. This grand lie did not take a conspiracy, though the process could have been abetted at times by the "undeclared conniving of vested interests". (I know, "conspiracy brain", to think tobacco companies did not openly and honestly declare their lobbying strategies the minute they planned them). Still, the cultural climate of the claim that cigarettes are chic, patriotic and harmless, or even good for you, eventually fell apart under mounting evidence.

We all have to decide which way the mounting evidence is pointing, as regards what happened to the Jews during WWII, called by some the Holocaust.

There seems to be a lot of claims and counterclaims as to what happened to more than just the Jews. I sometimes notice debates, for example, over how many Germans, for instance, died under Allied fire bombings, or under Allied internment after the fall of Germany. Perhaps pro-National Socialists have exaggerated their estimates, perhaps those against National Socialists have minimised their estimates (though they will not have been jailed for "minimising" this particular Holocaust). It seems to me that the lands East of Germany were a bloodbath from group violence in the years following the end of WWII as well. I am not sure how accurate any death figures or "numbers murdered" for any group are or could be. It is something I will have to look into and learn about. You want to nail some Revisionist myths about Jews ending up in the USSR, I guess you are in the right place to test drive that idea (Wahrheitssucher says you are barking up the wrong tree, I note). But I find it very odd that the focus over the eight decades since the end of the war has been pretty much solely on the Jews. Granted, the Roma get the occasional look-in. Maybe if we looked at the movements and deaths of all the peoples involved we might actually realise something quite shocking about what happened to the Jews of Europe.

[Trebb]

PLUS… Jews were NOT the only ethnicity who lost millions of relatives during the mass-carnage that followed the WORLD war that jewish collectives initiated in 1939. Millions of people were registered as “missing” in the years immediately following the cessation of military hostilities. Deceiving and/or self-deluded HolyH promoters never, ever mention that fact.

Yes, as shocking as it was to learn the 6 million figure predated even World War I, what I find utterly disgraceful is the Zionist attitude to their Jewish coreligionists. David Ben-Gurion quotes are chilling

If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

That he said this in 1938 could blithely be added to the weight of evidence for the Holocaust, to me it shows a conniver not in the least interested in saving the lives of his own people, but rather hoping for a sacrifice to leverage the loss (he did not suffer) for his political aims. He was a fanatic. However many Jewish corpses were cremated on the flames, and for whatever proximate causes, they were, to this man, all grist to the mill. Literal burnt offerings, like the total unnecessary Holocausts of Dresden and Hamburg, who were offered up to Stalin.

By 1942, mid-war, he felt he could wash his hands of it.

The catastrophe of European Jewry is not, in a direct manner, my business.

Talk up a war, sit back and watch for opportunity, climb the ladder of chaos, wail at a wall.

Zionists love their Holocaust.

[Stubble]

Trebb, I think you have nailed a part of the animating factor with regard to the suffering of jews in the eye of the zionists.

You produced a quote, I shall produce another, and it covers the expropriation aspect rather than the supposed physical extermination of the jew.

It is essential that the sufferings of jews became worse. This will assist in the realization of our plans. I have an excellent idea. I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate jewish wealth. The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends

—Theodor Herzl

[bombsaway]

As it goes, there seems to be lacunae on the Orthodox side that give me pause. The absence of any evidence of huge burning pits of mass murdered people in Allied aerial recognisance of Auschwitz at the alleged times being, perhaps, the most glaring lacuna (at least as far as Auschwitz goes). This further enlarges the necessary work of the already overworked crematoriums to clear the corpse backlog, under the Orthodox model. It would rather make the necessary National Socialist cover-up all the more canny and pervasive - and that's conspiracy talk.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, I appreciate that. I'll tell you what I think about the physical evidence without getting into it too deeply because it's giant can of worms. I think revisionists are exercising really poor judgement in their assessment, that the results of the digs are clear evidence that the mass burial on the scale asserted by orthodoxy did not occur. I think they're misinterpreting the data. I'm not making argument against them with this, but there are climate scientists who think the earth is cooling. I see revisionists as doing science along these lines, though they will likely bash these scientists. That's fine, again I'm just telling you my opinion, about how I view them.

Given my decades experience as (I'll vaguely state) a clinician as well as someone who has worked in evidence based medicine publication, there are many cover ups that have occurred in the supposedly hard (but remarkably soft and wet) health sciences over the past century or so. Not my particular area, but pretty much the whole body of evidence for the ill-effects of smoking fags is "observational", so not quite up to scratch, but pretty broad and persuasive. Of course we had decades of people denying the link, e.g., between smoking and lung cancer, like we had decades of vested interests saying asbestos did no harm, despite much correlational or "observational" evidence that it did. I listened to a cardiology consultant on a ward round once describing how doctors in the West pushed the benefits of smoking for decades after WWII owing to the fact that the link to cancer was discovered by the Third Reich and it would be unpatriotic to give them any credit. This grand lie did not take a conspiracy, though the process could have been abetted at times by the "undeclared conniving of vested interests". (I know, "conspiracy brain", to think tobacco companies did not openly and honestly declare their lobbying strategies the minute they planned them). Still, the cultural climate of the claim that cigarettes are chic, patriotic and harmless, or even good for you, eventually fell apart under mounting evidence.

This comparison doesn't work because they definitely weren't able to suppress the evidence of smoking world wide. They just controlled the popular message.

We know that there was a diaspora of Jews from Eastern Europe after ww2. They emigrated everywhere, 300,000 left the USSR before the fall. No testimony supporting resettlement has emerged. ASking the LLM about suppression of smoking evidence it says it "largely wasn’t suppressed out of existence; it was contested and socially neutralized for decades". This is not the case with resettlement evidence, it's not there at all.

The suppression of all documents / witnesses would require an unfathomably large conspiracy. You have to be able stop publishers and newspapers and every historian researching this from disseminating testimonies that clash with orthodoxy in every country where Jews went. Not to mention the likely hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish witnesses who would have seen Jews being resettled.

If I gave you odds I would say 1/10,000 that an extremely motivated party would have been able to cover up all documentary evidence, including letters, diaries

I'd give you 1/10,000 that they would be able prevent all the perpetrators from recanting their false testimonies.

When it comes to the witness testimony I can't even conceive how they would be able to suppress any testimony from emerging, I'd give that a generous 1/100 000

Revisionists may disagree with all of this but there hasn't been a long form examination of this by them. They have not self examined. Kues conducted a long study here

https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... st-part-3/ but there's no evidence here. In one of the editions of TECOAR , Graf said "we are unable to produce German wartime documents about the destination and the fate of the deportees" https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... uated.html

But there aren't really any revisionists writers who are saying it's weird or even a problem that there's no evidence. To me this is gross evidence of their lack of judgement.

What I'm saying here is again, not meant as an argument. I'm not justifying the rightness wrongness of things as you normally would have to do. This is to give you an idea of what I think, and hopefully you see why I believe (assuming my assumptions are reasonable )that the theory shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Dishonest-deceiver Bombsaway resorts to the ‘BUT WHERE DID THEY GO?’ and ‘MISSING JOOZE’ canards,
and get’s fried.

…Jews were NOT the only ethnicity who lost millions of relatives during the mass-carnage that followed the WORLD war that jewish collectives initiated in 1939. Millions of people were registered as “missing” in the years immediately following the cessation of military hostilities. Deceiving and/or self-deluded HolyH promoters never, ever mention that fact.

…to me it shows [jewish-zionist PM David Ben Gurion to be] a conniver not in the least interested in saving the lives of his own people, but rather hoping for a sacrifice to leverage the loss (he did not suffer) for his political aims.
He was a fanatic.
However many Jewish corpses were cremated on the flames, and for whatever proximate causes, they were, to this man, all grist to the mill. Literal burnt offerings, like the total unnecessary Holocausts of Dresden and Hamburg, who were offered up to Stalin.

By 1942, mid-war, he felt he could wash his hands of it.

The catastrophe of European Jewry is not, in a direct manner, my business.

Talk up a war, sit back and watch for opportunity, climb the ladder of chaos, wail at a wall.

Zionists love their Holocaust.

Excellent analysis. Well said!

[Trebb]

As it goes, there seems to be lacunae on the Orthodox side that give me pause. The absence of any evidence of huge burning pits of mass murdered people in Allied aerial recognisance of Auschwitz at the alleged times being, perhaps, the most glaring lacuna (at least as far as Auschwitz goes). This further enlarges the necessary work of the already overworked crematoriums to clear the corpse backlog, under the Orthodox model. It would rather make the necessary National Socialist cover-up all the more canny and pervasive - and that's conspiracy talk.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, I appreciate that. I'll tell you what I think about the physical evidence without getting into it too deeply because it's giant can of worms. I think revisionists are exercising really poor judgement in their assessment, that the results of the digs are clear evidence that the mass burial on the scale asserted by orthodoxy did not occur. ...

You do not seem to be talking about Auschwitz. Can you specify what digs (you may have to risk "a can of worms"??)?

...I think they're misinterpreting the data. I'm not making argument against them with this, but there are climate scientists who think the earth is cooling. I see revisionists as doing science along these lines, though they will likely bash these scientists. That's fine, again I'm just telling you my opinion, about how I view them.

I'm a pike man, I know what it is to spin lures. From what you say, you even doubt that Revisionists will seat themselves at the villain's seats you bid them set down on. Or, to resume the metaphor, they will only bite actual fish and not your spinner. My own view is to avoid conflating one controversy with another, we all know that there are and have been actual scientific and historical debates where there was a minority view, some played out as overturns of orthodoxy, some as rejection of the minority position and some a messy draw (both positions being modified by t'other amidst lots of general, residual uncertainty).

If you want me to nibble on your lure, the Climate Debate, being used metaphorically of course, can only map on the the Holocaust Debate haphazardly. Metaphors that don't breakdown cannot actually be metaphors, they can only be Instant Replays of the same event. Therefore, we should not expect too much of our metaphors above the illustration of single points. There is also the issue of a huge hostage to fortune in that debate.

The wider milieu of failed climate catastrophe predictions does tend to jade the observer. Also, night-and-day differences in extreme weather event survival, comparing now with the past, keep hammering away at the concern due to the Climate Change lobby. I am one now too jaded by it to show much concern to actively looking into it further, despite the We have new models now! plea. I offer the following to avoid thread derailment:

As it goes, I used to swim in those circles, socially, even having dined formally with senior and not so senior scientists of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), back in the 2000s (at a time when the IPCC shied away from catastrophsim). Some were indeed lured to engage in online debate and it fairly astonished me to see how unready PhD students, late on in their studentships, were to take on doubters. I was far better able to take on from my A-level biology studies the huge debates around origin-of-life than this puzzled shower turned out to be for their planet saving science. I guess there are little leaps of faith in all epistemology, even science (e.g., an untested hypothesis a theorist "feels" good about), but the unpreparedness of these specialists pointed to a wider faith-based glue holding them to their purpose. My current point estimate on the Climate Debate: Assumptions: 1, Carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas that is abundant enough to contribute meaningfully to the temperature of Earth. Motivation: I haven't really dissected the science at length/ seems reasonable and undisputed and supported by conditions of other planets with different "atmo"spheres/ faith in fellow scientists. 2, Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has and will raise the Earth's temperature. Motivation, as above. 3, This temperature rise would at some point become asymptotic, that is, further increase in carbon dioxide will result in positive but insignificant further increase in temperature. Motivation, as above. 4, Global level homeostatic mechanisms will compensate, at least to some degree, for such changes. Motivation For example.5, Climate has never been static/ has always changed. Motivation: historical and geological records. Are we heading for global climate catastrophe? Point estimate: No.

Given my decades experience as (I'll vaguely state) a clinician as well as someone who has worked in evidence based medicine publication, there are many cover ups that have occurred in the supposedly hard (but remarkably soft and wet) health sciences over the past century or so. Not my particular area, but pretty much the whole body of evidence for the ill-effects of smoking fags is "observational", so not quite up to scratch, but pretty broad and persuasive. Of course we had decades of people denying the link, e.g., between smoking and lung cancer, like we had decades of vested interests saying asbestos did no harm, despite much correlational or "observational" evidence that it did. I listened to a cardiology consultant on a ward round once describing how doctors in the West pushed the benefits of smoking for decades after WWII owing to the fact that the link to cancer was discovered by the Third Reich and it would be unpatriotic to give them any credit. This grand lie did not take a conspiracy, though the process could have been abetted at times by the "undeclared conniving of vested interests". (I know, "conspiracy brain", to think tobacco companies did not openly and honestly declare their lobbying strategies the minute they planned them). Still, the cultural climate of the claim that cigarettes are chic, patriotic and harmless, or even good for you, eventually fell apart under mounting evidence.

This comparison doesn't work because they definitely weren't able to suppress the evidence of smoking world wide. They just controlled the popular message.

This comparison precisely works. As I stated above, a metaphor or comparison can only be used to make a limited point. My point was made. The point was made that you don't need conspiracies to keep lies and myths alive for decades. Pointing out the inevitable differences that will exist between Event A and the somewhat comparable Event B, is just silly. Whatever happened to the Jews in WWII Europe was not still happening to them in the 1960s, but plenty of people were still smoking and not smoking cigarettes all over the World and were each an available datum for epidemiologists. At the same time the Holocaust was not available for similar direct observation.

The point was made better by, I think, Archie, who cited the enduring beliefs in the World's religions. Conceivably, one could be true, but they can't all be true, yet some have persisted for millennia, not just decades. The rebuttal made by an Orthodox poster was that religions have features of physical impossibilities, or some such. That only makes the Revisionist case stronger. Observing the further internal and comparative problems with religions makes that case stronger still.

And, indeed, in many ways, the secularisation of the West has left a vacuum whereby all sorts of pseudoreligions have been ushered in. Judaism itself, even Orthodox Judaism to some extent, has become secularised. Holocaustism has taken on many religious roles and features including Saints, idolatry, miracles, internal inconsistencies and has even given the West its Devil, Hitler himself.

The West, without God, and only a devil, has thus left some to observe that what we have is a hemisphere-wide death cult, which goes a long way to explain the strange suicide we see of the nations of the Western bloc. Propagandised anti-natalism, plunging birth rates, widespread abortion, marriage debasement, native replacement, open borders, limitless largess and forgiveness to foreigners, the minimisation of harms to natives, statist and democratic constipation through international organs and treaties, electorate management not electorate representation are all, it sadly seems, easy shoo-ins to a guilted and demoralised West.

We know that there was a diaspora of Jews from Eastern Europe after ww2. They emigrated everywhere, 300,000 left the USSR before the fall. No testimony supporting resettlement has emerged. ASking the LLM about suppression of smoking evidence it says it "largely wasn’t suppressed out of existence; it was contested and socially neutralized for decades". This is not the case with resettlement evidence, it's not there at all.

(Regarding smoking comparison/ metaphor, vide supra). This will sound harsh. This AI crutch is boring to the point of insult. The rest of your post is fine, but look at the total lack of quality here. The actual intent underlying the words you have pasted is very unclear, as is the meaning of your own words in which you have nested this paste. It even seems to have infected your point about the USSR. I am so unclear about what you are claiming. Look at what you said,

We know that there was a diaspora of Jews from Eastern Europe after ww2. They emigrated everywhere, 300,000 left the USSR before the fall.

Are you saying that only 300,000 Eastern European Jews moved from Eastern European states to the USSR at the end of WWII and then (?the same) 300,000 Jews left the USSR before the USSR fell? What do you want me to do with that? On its face, it seems a bit daft. It just confuses me on your other points that otherwise stand clearly enough.

Please, attempt to use AI only for searches of sources you actually read. Try to observe a rule to never paste AI output for posts on debate forums. LLM prediction is like a toddler ripping pages out of books from shelves an adult has pointed at. It is insulting to pass this on to other adults.

The suppression of all documents / witnesses would require an unfathomably large conspiracy. You have to be able stop publishers and newspapers and every historian researching this from disseminating testimonies that clash with orthodoxy in every country where Jews went. Not to mention the likely hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish witnesses who would have seen Jews being resettled.

If I gave you odds I would say 1/10,000 that an extremely motivated party would have been able to cover up all documentary evidence, including letters, diaries

I'd give you 1/10,000 that they would be able prevent all the perpetrators from recanting their false testimonies.

When it comes to the witness testimony I can't even conceive how they would be able to suppress any testimony from emerging, I'd give that a generous 1/100 000

Revisionists may disagree with all of this but there hasn't been a long form examination of this by them. They have not self examined. Kues conducted a long study here

https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... st-part-3/ but there's no evidence here. In one of the editions of TECOAR , Graf said "we are unable to produce German wartime documents about the destination and the fate of the deportees" https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... uated.html

But there aren't really any revisionists writers who are saying it's weird or even a problem that there's no evidence. To me this is gross evidence of their lack of judgement.

What I'm saying here is again, not meant as an argument. I'm not justifying the rightness wrongness of things as you normally would have to do. This is to give you an idea of what I think, and hopefully you see why I believe (assuming my assumptions are reasonable )that the theory shouldn't be taken seriously.

Thank you for the links, they were interesting. I see the problem you highlight: we are missing 2.3+ million Jews. I cannot precisely explain this, of course, as I have said I have only made my way eastward to Treblinka, where I am examining claims there (no very strong conclusion as yet, but tilting more to Revisionism, as it currently stands).

There is also the problems of Auschwitz. I specifically mentioned the Allied aerial recognisance showing tidy, cultivated fields where huge pyres should have been burning at the time of the alleged open-air, mass cremations (Rudolf).

There is also the problem of the alleged gas chamber chemistry. I understand that that would be one of those cans of worms, for you. Fair enough, the study of WWII is large and encompasses many fields. There are many fields I am weak on. I am a reasonable chemist, but not an expert at near the level of Rudolf. Until someone gives him a good run for his money, he seems to be on the money, for me, as regards the chemistry of Auschwitz.

I want to know where those 2.3+ million ended up and I want to know the actual truth, or as close as we can get to it, no matter how varied or not their fates were.

Then there is the wider question of why the Germans were singled out for unique blame, given the harshness they endured from the punishing victors of WWI, two decades before WWII began.

[Trebb]

.
Dishonest-deceiver Bombsaway resorts to the ‘BUT WHERE DID THEY GO?’ and ‘MISSING JOOZE’ canards,
and get’s fried.
[some quotations]
Excellent analysis. Well said!

Thank you, Wahrheitssucher.

Then there is the wider question of why the Germans were singled out for unique blame, given the harshness they endured from the punishing victors of WWI, two decades before WWII began.

(I speak as a Briton.)

This is beginning to astonish me. Our current political class foists on us the dissolution of our own nations, whereby the "elected" get to replace the native electorate, rather than the other way round, and that we can only complain on pain of early morning arrest. This should, one would think, lead us to a natural readiness to reassess the guilt of foreigners in our two "Great Wars". Namely, and particularly, the Germans.

But as this enemy was European and white, no such reevaluation is permissible. Allowing this would also remove a pretext of our rulers to oppress through hate-lawfare. Empathy remains highly fashionable and is by obligation lavished on those with the freshly rebooted terms 'asylum seeker' and 'refugee'. The EU's France must be a horribly oppressive state for these peoples of colour to flee from.

Of course, the 'European' European Union must be valorised at every opportunity, despite its ongoing replacement and erasure of actual European cultural diversity.

It has become prohibitively difficult to deport even individual serial criminals, even rapists, back to their homelands because of very binding European Convention of Human Rights legislation. This distance between what would be reasonably expected in such cases and the desperate aspiration to have our nations resemble what they use to be, seems to be designed to blot out all hope for native Europeans.

More and more Europeans are beginning to find sympathy for the plight of the German nation in the era of World War. Concerning what followed the first "Great War", more and more Europeans are seeing the value of deportation or the ridding of troublesome elements that can be imported into nations. We see that the Crusades were not the unjustified insanity that we have been taught to think of them as. Internationalism has suffered suspicion of being such a troubling element. This is new. Also new is the growing number of those that wonder what cost has Zionism obliged us to all pay. More of us are shocked to be entertaining questions of Jewish culpability in the World Wars. Something is changing.

We are beginning to notice all sorts of ways that Germany was brutalised and unfairly treated, that we never heard about in school history lessons or on television. In the years immediately after WWII, my father was often admonished to finish his meals because "Children are starving in Europe". He told me of this through my own childhood. Yet, I'd never heard tell of Allies merrily blockading and starving Germany to the tune of 900,000 lost lives. Of course, under the United Nations definition of genocide, framed following WWII, this is certainly genocide.

It is interesting that Revisionists always have to bend over backwards to demonstrate no possibility of support, or sympathy with even the supporters of Third Reich National Socialism. See the video Germar Rudolf and Michael G. Vann Debate the Holocaust where it is the Revisionist who has to clear his throat in this way, when faced with a desperate debate opponent. The Revisionist goes on to cite radical Zionists using Orthodox narratives to justify their crimes. Well said, but there is more than just this on that side of the ledger.

Hitler endured the brutalisation of WWI as a valiant soldier, his service was honourable (I don't think this can be disputed as fact). He lived through the national privations following the loss of that war. He had to endure the humiliation of the Allie's depredation and the moral rot of the Weimar culture. He survived through and witnessed it all. And we are supposed to eternally regard him as some sort of insane sadist rather than a man who wanted to pull his nation out of this Hell. So we are supposed to discard great magnitudes of sacrificed soldiers and starved Germans. We are supposed to discount the genocides perpetrated by the Allies, using their own terms, later concocted ex post facto only ever to indict the Germans - we never look back and think what utter shits we were to the Germans.

Whole packs of bastards since, can justify any form of cruelty as long as it is against their enemies. This is true ever after their UN decided to retroactively blame National Socialist Germany. These standards and the laws still never apply to the victors of WWII. To wit:

Israeli Defence Force "clearing 90% Gazan housing stock" ?
Not a bother!

Half a million dead Iraqi children, sanctioned to death ?
Not a bother!

Lesley Stahl

We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.

National Socialist Germany decided to deport Jews before the outbreak of war, iirc. They started by bringing Polish Jews to Poland and Poland refused to accept their own Jewish citizens. It looks to me like there was indeed a deportation plan. It is very hard to believe that there would be as many Jewish dead as there were after the war if Britain had stayed out of Germany's border quarrel with Poland. At the point that we instead decided to ally ourselves with Stalin, I think we lost all moral bearings and perspective. In any event, the tragedy is clearly much wider than the likely exaggerated figure the Zionists always hoped for. I certainly have abandoned much of the tiresome baggage of guilt we heap on Hitler. We need to smell ourselves.

[curioussoul]

I think revisionists are exercising really poor judgement in their assessment, that the results of the digs are clear evidence that the mass burial on the scale asserted by orthodoxy did not occur. I think they're misinterpreting the data.

We can quibble about interpretations of grave sizes until the cows come home. But we're at a point with the cremation narrative where claiming the Reinhard cremations were possible amounts to complete delusion and mental illness, because no serious person, scholar, scientist or layman, can look at the known science of body cremation (let alone in primitive outdoor pits during winter) and claim that the story holds up.

Mattogno summed it all up in his recent article at CODOH because the science is so glaringly incompatible with the official story that this fact alone topples most of the Holocaust lore surrounding the Reinhard camps and Aktion 1005.

https://codoh.com/library/document/inco ... ion-camps/

[bombsaway]

I think revisionists are exercising really poor judgement in their assessment, that the results of the digs are clear evidence that the mass burial on the scale asserted by orthodoxy did not occur. I think they're misinterpreting the data.

We can quibble about interpretations of grave sizes until the cows come home. But we're at a point with the cremation narrative where claiming the Reinhard cremations were possible amounts to complete delusion and mental illness

That's your opinion and it is valid for you to have. Revisionists writers have spent thousands of pages describing why. Orthodoxy supporters have published their rebuttals, again thousands of pages probably, about why impossibility has not been demonstrated and that the sites actually evidence the acts in question - see burial here
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... elzec.html

Yet among revisionist writers, resettlement is a mostly no effort situation. No one has put time into describing the conspiracy necessary to suppress millions of witnesses - of such a scale unprecedented in human history. No prominent revisionist has so much as batted an eye really.

One poster on this board has talked to me about it (Callafangers) but I view him as fundamentally unreasonable, even by revisionist standards - and this is true no matter what we're talking about. The key thing I want to point out is the hypocrisy that you see from revisionists by not interrogating this conspiracy, or even debating its existence. It's brushed under the rug completely. If orthodoxy didn't mention it would never come up. The reasons why revisionists believe in it is through a 'process of elimination' approach that is antithetical to how history works. They're not in the Reinhardt graves so they must have made into Russia.

This comparison precisely works. As I stated above, a metaphor or comparison can only be used to make a limited point. My point was made. The point was made that you don't need conspiracies to keep lies and myths alive for decades.

Yet this isn't what I'm talking about and the main point I'm making to you. Your statement here is not something I would dispute, no sane person would I think. I'm talking about your apparently blase acceptance that the experiences of millions of people during one of the most important time periods in human history would go completely unrepresented, whether by accident or design.

[Trebb]

This comparison precisely works. As I stated above, a metaphor or comparison can only be used to make a limited point. My point was made. The point was made that you don't need conspiracies to keep lies and myths alive for decades.

Yet this isn't what I'm talking about and the main point I'm making to you. Your statement here is not something I would dispute, no sane person would I think. I'm talking about your apparently blase acceptance that the experiences of millions of people during one of the most important time periods in human history would go completely unrepresented, whether by accident or design.

You are perhaps crossposting, or replying to me as if I am another person. What experiences of millions of people do I have blasé acceptance of going completely unrepresented? My query concerns Auschwitz and, for example, the lack of necessary aerial photo evidence supporting huge open air pyres to support the Orthodox claim of mass murder in that camp / the actual existence of date-relevant Allied aerial photo evidence exonerating the Germans.

Other than that we were addressing your general query of how would it be possible for false narratives/ myths to be sustained without conspiracy. You seem to believe that this is impossible in principle; I think I and others have shown you that it clearly is possible.

[bombsaway]

What experiences of millions of people do I have blasé acceptance of going completely unrepresented?

The resettled Jews.

Other than that we were addressing your general query of how would it be possible for false narratives/ myths to be sustained without conspiracy. You seem to believe that this is impossible in principle; I think I and others have shown you that it clearly is possible.

I seem to believe it is impossible? I said no sane person would dispute this, but that the situation with the 'no evidence' surfacing for resettlement is a fundamentally different critique.

[Hektor]

They needed a justification for pushing their war effort. And that required to portray the axis as an incarnation of evil.

Exactly, first they needed something to galvanize their troops. Portraying the enemy as the ultimate evil has always existed; the issue is that the West improved the propaganda and the means of disseminating all of this. Once the enemy is portrayed as a monster and defeated, it's necessary to corroborate that the propaganda wasn't a blatant lie. The Western allies were envious of the Soviets because the bulk of the supposed genocide happened behind the Iron Curtain and developed narratives of atrocities that later collapsed, such as gassing in Western camps. How did this collapse prevent a blatant lie from also being fabricated in the case of camps occupied by the Soviets? Sonderkommandos, who by nature see cremation as abject, could very well ride the populist wave of the time, pointing to their executioners as the perpetrators of the worst possible atrocities.

At first it was useful for the war effort, but it became something like a noble lie. It spared politicians in the US or Allied countries to be questioned about their undertakings and it kept returning soldiers calm. It did however become more than that. For the Western Allies it became a tool for reeducation and the Communists used it to bash any Anti-communists....

....
I seem to believe it is impossible? I said no sane person would dispute this, but that the situation with the 'no evidence' surfacing for resettlement is a fundamentally different critique.

That there is 'no evidence' for resettlement simply isn't true. There is plenty of this, it just gets peddled as evidence for a genocide, for which there is actually no evidence.

[TlsMS93]

That there is 'no evidence' for resettlement simply isn't true. There is plenty of this, it just gets peddled as evidence for a genocide, for which there is actually no evidence.

There is evidence, it's just not enough for those who deny it. In that case, there would be less evidence of genocide than of resettlement.

In the case of the Reinhardt camps, their "conclusive proof" is the Höfle report, which records passages through certain places marked with initials, but that's all. Considering that there were different organizations that managed the railways in certain regions, it is assumed that the trail of these people did not necessarily end there.

The problem for the exterminationists is that they think we deny executions on the Eastern front, or cremations in certain camps, whether in crematoriums or in the open air; our only disagreement is the purpose and scale of it all.