Junk Folder for Derails

[Nessie]

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

To accurately determine what happened, gather evidence.

[Mod note: split from https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=320]

[Archie]

Going forward, posts like the above that don't meaningfully contribute to the thread topic will be moved to this thread.

[Nessie]

Seriously, like all the pathetic claims about the wooden gas chambers door, five minutes of basic research and the truth of the matter is established. That so many people cannot even manage that, explains so much. If people were educated to a higher standard, so they know better how to check and verify claims, there would be far less conspiracist dishonesty and downright lying.

You are so full of s**t Nessie - by far and away the people most ignorant of the Holocaust are those who affirm it. By raw volume, or by proportion. I could walk outside my apartment right now and pluck anybody from the street and if asked, they would look me in the eye and tell me 6 million jews were gassed at Auschwitz from fake shower heads.

"b-b-but those people don't matter because they are not actively applying their opinions to the debate"

Strawman fallacy. You just cannot help yourself, can you? Constantly misrepresenting what I am arguing. There is a lot of ignorance about what took place and that ignorance is all down to a lack of genuine research. The mistakes caused by that lack vary, from those who think all 6 million died at Auschwitz to those who think the wooden door with the window inside Krema I, was the door that led to the gas chambers in 1941.

Most of them will gladly use this """"""opinion"""""" as the main reason why White countries are not allowed to embrace Nationalist policies or seek ethnic homogeneity.

That reveals your agenda, proving you are not neutral and evidence driven.

Those people you see meming about the wooden doors, if curious enough may end up places like here. In fact, if you are so tired of debating the wooden doors and the 6 million cookies, tell your pals on Twitter about the codohforum and we'll give them an actual Holocaust education.

You are incapable of providing an education on how to conduct historical or criminal investigations, due to your lack of any relevant training.

[Nessie]

...

You're not "doing research"...

So-called revisionism is not genuine research. It is driven by people with agendas, who lack the ability to conduct genuine research, or otherwise chose to ignore normal research methodologies, to produce a non-history of what took place.

[Archie]

...

You're not "doing research"...

So-called revisionism is not genuine research. It is driven by people with agendas, who lack the ability to conduct genuine research, or otherwise chose to ignore normal research methodologies, to produce a non-history of what took place.

Nessie, I am going to start policing your posts more going forward. This sort of post is not acceptable.

-It makes a lot of sweeping, generic accusations about revisionists but fails to make any substantive points
-It is invidious in tone and seems intended to elicit angry responses (i.e, "bait")
-It is a good example of "unsupported disagreement"

If you are going to reply to people, you need comment on the substance of their posts.

[HansHill]

Was this supposed to be a defense of your position?

[Nessie]

Was this supposed to be a defense of your position?

Yes, I explain a major reason why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax and think it was faked.

[Archie]

Seriously, like all the pathetic claims about the wooden gas chambers door, five minutes of basic research and the truth of the matter is established. That so many people cannot even manage that, explains so much. If people were educated to a higher standard, so they know better how to check and verify claims, there would be far less conspiracist dishonesty and downright lying.

You are so full of s**t Nessie - by far and away the people most ignorant of the Holocaust are those who affirm it. By raw volume, or by proportion. I could walk outside my apartment right now and pluck anybody from the street and if asked, they would look me in the eye and tell me 6 million jews were gassed at Auschwitz from fake shower heads.

"b-b-but those people don't matter because they are not actively applying their opinions to the debate"

Strawman fallacy. You just cannot help yourself, can you? Constantly misrepresenting what I am arguing. There is a lot of ignorance about what took place and that ignorance is all down to a lack of genuine research. The mistakes caused by that lack vary, from those who think all 6 million died at Auschwitz to those who think the wooden door with the window inside Krema I, was the door that led to the gas chambers in 1941.

Most of them will gladly use this """"""opinion"""""" as the main reason why White countries are not allowed to embrace Nationalist policies or seek ethnic homogeneity.

That reveals your agenda, proving you are not neutral and evidence driven.

Those people you see meming about the wooden doors, if curious enough may end up places like here. In fact, if you are so tired of debating the wooden doors and the 6 million cookies, tell your pals on Twitter about the codohforum and we'll give them an actual Holocaust education.

You are incapable of providing an education on how to conduct historical or criminal investigations, due to your lack of any relevant training.

Nessie,

Crying "strawman" repeatedly is not productive. Everyone feels like the other side strawmans. You are one of the worst offenders.

Please focus on substantive rebuttals rather than making sweeping attacks about agenda, credentials, training, etc.

If someone has poor training and is making bad arguments, you should be able to rebut their arguments without appealing credentials (which cannot be verified on a forum like this in any case). To dismiss an argument because of alleged poor training is unsupported disagreement.

[Nessie]

POST-WAR STATEMENTS OF ATTENDEES OF THE WANNSEE CONFERENCE

Josef Bühler (16th February 1904 – 22nd August 1948)
....

During the years 1940 and 1941 incredible numbers of people, mostly Jews, were brought into the Government General in spite of the objections and protests of the Governor General and his administration. This completely unexpected, unprepared for, and undesired bringing in of the Jewish population from other territories put the administration of the Government General in an extremely difficult position.

Accommodating these masses, feeding them, and caring for their health-combating epidemics for instance — almost, or rather, definitely overtaxed the capacity of the territory. Particularly threatening was the spread of typhus, not only in the ghettos but also among the Polish population and the Germans in the Government General. It appeared as if that epidemic would spread even to the Reich and to the Eastern Front.

That is part of the evidence to prove that the Nazis were rounding up and imprisoning millions of Jews, 1941-2. That action continued until 1944.

At that moment Heydrich's invitation to the Governor General was received. The [Wannsee] conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.

Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsführer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Führer to round up all the Jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia.

Holocaust so-called revisionists like to suggest that is where the millions of Jews were resettled. That means, by 1944, there should be evidence of c5-6 million Jews in the northeast of Europe, which would be the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belorussia and Russia, though due to Soviet advances, by 1944, Russia was no longer occupied.

I asked him whether this meant that the further arrival of Jews in the Government General would cease, and whether the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had been brought into the Government General without the permission of the Governor General would be moved out again. Heydrich promised me both these things.

The Western and Southern European Jews who were being shipped east.

Heydrich said furthermore that the Führer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick Jews, and weak Jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future.

This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the Jews, if not for the sake of the Jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion. The removal of the Jews from the Government General was subsequently carried out exclusively by the Police.

… MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I shall quote three sentences from the typed transcript of the report. Please hand the original to the witness.
I quote three sentences from this document. It is Dr. Frank's speech:
"I should like to emphasise one thing. We must not be too soft-hearted when we hear that 17,000 have been shot. These persons who have been shot are also victims of the ever.... Let us now remember that all of us who are meeting together here figure in Mr. Roosevelt's list of war criminals. I have the honor of being Number 1. We have thus, so to speak, become accomplices in terms of world history".

This is where Buehler's claims fall apart. The court had evidence of mass shootings in the very place he suggests Jews were being resettled.

Your name is second on the list of those present at the conference. Do you not consider that Frank must have had sufficient grounds to number you among the most active of his accomplices in crime?

BÜHLER: About such statements of the Governor General I have already said all that is necessary.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Then you ascribe this to the Governor General's temperament?

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, that is not an answer to the question. The question was, do you consider yourself to be one of those criminals?

BÜHLER: I do not consider myself a criminal.

Pages 68 & 90 | 23rd April 1946. | NUREMBURG SHOW TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

Buehler fails to evidence actual resettlement taking place. The court has evidence of Jews being removed from, liquidated and shot the territory he suggests is the place of resettlement. Therefore, logically and evidentially, Buehler has been proven to be either lying, or he was mistaken and fooled into believing about resettlement.

[Nessie]

The figure of 11 million makes sense; after all, that was about how many Jews there were in Europe on the eve of the war. It is worth noting that not all of Europe was controlled by the Nazis - Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden - remained beyond their reach. Only a fraction of those 11 million were under the direct control of the Reich.

The countries you list accounted for, 6,000, 3,000, 18,000 and 8,0000 Jews, out of the 11 million, so a fraction. Those countries are in the B list of the minutes, countries not occupied by the Nazis, but including countries aligned to them. The A list is occupied territory, and the population of Jews has already dramatically decreased from pre-war figures.

There was also England, although it is not part of the continent - but it is Europe. In Europe itself the situation was uneven - in Italy, for example, until 1938 the Jews were not subjected to oppression at all - and then only partially deprived of their rights. Only in September 1943 did the deportation of Italian Jews to concentration camps begin. Hungary under Horthy also did not hand over its Jews to the AH. Only after Operation Margarethe did the deportation campaign of Hungarian Jews become possible and was carried out between May and July 1944. Thus, even if 10 or almost 11 million lived "under the axis" - the "axis" itself was not homogeneous, and only by 1944 did the Führer have the opportunity to reach almost everyone. But since this was also the time of the rapid retreat of the Reich on all fronts - this number again rapidly decreased almost immediately.

The Holocaust varied from country to country, depending on how cooperative that country was, towards the enforcement of the Nuremberg Race Laws. The least cooperative were the authorities in Denmark and Finland, the most were Latvia, Lithuania and Romania. Poland does not count, since it's government and authorities were removed and the Nazis took over everything, resulting in a high level of enforcement of the Race Laws.

But we are supposed to believe that those countries cooperated in hoaxing the Holocaust.

[Nessie]

.... Wahrheitssucher has just demonstrated very neatly that you are not only enforcing a very skewed and selective interpretation of this phrase, but in addition, that interpretation must at all times bend to whichever evidence best suits the Orthodox timeline.

We call that eating your cake and having it, too.

...

It is called studying history, gathering evidence to establish a chronology of events.

The flexibility you are referring to, is due to studying what happened 1941-4, across Europe, to the Jews. In the east, the Nazis found that they had a lot of cooperation from local people, as Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Romanians murdered their Jewish citizens. The reason why Einsatzgruppen operations were so successful, so quickly, was due to locals joining in with the killings. That is likely why the Einsatzgruppen were far more open, in their language, about what they were doing, executing, shooting, Jews.

Western and Southern Europe were far less cooperative and there was never going to be direct local assistance with the killings, which were to take place in the east, hence the planning was more about transportation. Those nations also varied in the level of cooperation, with the Dutch highly cooperative and the Danes very uncooperative.

So, of course the "orthodox" timeline bends about, as it has to, to accommodate Hungary, which was very uncooperative and then forced to be highly cooperative in 1944. The timeline follows the evidence, and the evidence varies over time and by country. Even within countries, there are different timelines. France was split between free and occupied, and the fate of its Jews varied depending on which zone they were in.

The Wannsee Conference attendees did not want to get their hands dirty, by referring to executions, especially when their main task was monitoring progress and transportations to the east. They were also dealing with the far less cooperative Western and Southern nations, where they had to be far more diplomatic and patient. They did not need to worry about the Eastern European reaction to mass killing of Jews, as there was widespread support.

Resettlement is a proven euphemisim, because the evidence is that on arriving in the east, Jews were killed, or imprisoned as slave labourers, neither of which is a resettlement action. There is zero evidence of actual resettlement, with settlements being built to house millions of Jews. Settlements were created in the east, in the form of ghettos, but by 1944, the last one at Lodz closed. That is the opposite as to what would be expected from a resettlement action, which would mean by 1944, there would have been hundreds of ghettos, accommodating millions of Jews. Resttlement can take the form of camps, but again, closures meant that in 1944, there was not millions of Jews in the camps. Auschwitz had a smaller population in 1944, than in 1943, the opposite of what would be expected with a mass resettlement programme.

To what extent the attendees at Wannsee knew about the mass murders, we do not know. Theoretically, they could have held that meeting with none knowing mass killings had been taking place in the East with the Einsatzgruppen and they were monitoring and supervising a mass resettlement and labour force action.

So-called revisionists cannot revise, they cannot produce an evidenced chronology of events. So, they attack the existing chronology, resulting in an inconclusive, unevidenced, non-history of what happened to the Jews arrested by the Nazis 1941-4.

[Nessie]

...It is OBVIOUS what myself and other revisionists are arguing...

I disagree. Revisionism is normally the presentation of evidence, often new, that leads to a revised version of a historical event. So-called revisionism is either out-and-out denial of the consensus as too much of what happened to the Jews arrested and imprisoned by the Nazis, or it argues, rather than evidences, a revised version of events.

Wannsee is a good example of that, whereby it is argued resettlement meant resettlement, despite all the evidence to the contrary and lack of evidence of millions of Jews resettled by 1944. So-called revisionists can only go as far as to argue there was resettlement, but when they are then asked to start evidencing details, such as the role of the AR camps, they fall apart and come up with conflicting, contradictory hypothesis, none of which they can evidence.

[Nazgul]

it is argued resettlement meant resettlement, despite all the evidence to the contrary and lack of evidence of millions of Jews resettled by 1944.

The intention is not always the result; this happens in war;"the vagaries of war". Doubt if many people were worried about the Jews, except of course the Jews.

[Archie]

Nessie, if you want to participate in the Wannsee thread, please make comments that show some evidence of having read and understood the Wannsee minutes.

[Nessie]

We can all get off our high horses about how logical we think we are and how the other side is completely illogical. One of either the exterminationist or revisionist camp is completely incorrect about what happened as it relates to the Holocaust. This is binary, the Holocaust can't have happened a little bit. In that sense it is ironically just like Flat Earth. The earth can't be a little flat sometimes.

If the exterminationists are wrong, it is likely due to the intense propagandising and guiltfarming since the tail end of WW2 which has only increased in recent decades. A subset of these might be holding onto political or ethnic grudges, who knows. This category is completely different than the "normie" holocaust affirmer, who likely doesn't know much about it at all. Auschwitz, 6 million, gas from shower heads and so on. I remove them from any meaningful discussion because they are not relevant necessarily.

If revisionists are wrong, it is likely due to following a pipeline of incomplete data, arriving at conclusions without necessary due diligence, or a stubborn defiance against status quo & contrarianism. A subset of these may also be holding political or ethnic grudges, again who knows.

It's really not looking great for whichever camp is incorrect

The historians are correct, because they have by far the best evidenced history.

So-called revisionists are wrong, because their various suggested histories are so poorly evidenced, they cannot even agree amongst themselves what the history was, and they cannot produce an evidenced chronology of events, that concludes with millions of Jews still alive in 1945.