The problem with facile "gotcha" documents (prooftexts)

[Hektor]

...
When Hitler referred to the "vernichtung" of Jewry in January 1939, was he, in your opinion, referring to a plan to murder them?

If so, why were they still discussing the Madagascar plan in 1940?

If "vernichtung" does NOT mean killing in that speech, what implications might this have?

It pretty obviously wasn't referring to 'killing'. More in the sense of destruction of their presence in Europe. And that was even conditional.

In military or political German vernichten had a different meaning than in post-war colloquial German.

[TlsMS93]

...
When Hitler referred to the "vernichtung" of Jewry in January 1939, was he, in your opinion, referring to a plan to murder them?

If so, why were they still discussing the Madagascar plan in 1940?

If "vernichtung" does NOT mean killing in that speech, what implications might this have?

It pretty obviously wasn't referring to 'killing'. More in the sense of destruction of their presence in Europe. And that was even conditional.

In military or political German vernichten had a different meaning than in post-war colloquial German.

In a military sense, annihilation has to do with rendering something or someone powerless. Hitler spoke of annihilating France, but this in no way refers to the extermination of the French people or even the end of the French state, but rather to rendering it geopolitically powerless.

As for the Jews, he clearly saw them as an element of “bad fermentation”. They did not have the same ethos as the people they lived among and, as they had international connections, encouraged disunity, so only by removing them from Europe could peace be possible.

I do not see what the reason would be for killing them and what benefit this would have for them. If they did not want to reproduce, it would have been enough to sterilize them.

[Nessie]

... Hitler spoke of annihilating France, but this in no way refers to the extermination of the French people or even the end of the French state, but rather to rendering it geopolitically powerless.

The reason why you think that, and no one would disagree with you, is because of the evidence of millions of French people still alive in 1944, with no evidence of their mass murder. Unless they were Jewish and lived in occupied France, having fled from Germany as refugees, in which case, their population dropped dramatically and there is evidence they were killed.

[TlsMS93]

... Hitler spoke of annihilating France, but this in no way refers to the extermination of the French people or even the end of the French state, but rather to rendering it geopolitically powerless.

The reason why you think that, and no one would disagree with you, is because of the evidence of millions of French people still alive in 1944, with no evidence of their mass murder. Unless they were Jewish and lived in occupied France, having fled from Germany as refugees, in which case, their population dropped dramatically and there is evidence they were killed.

From his fiery speeches you have already seen that the Holocaust cannot be sustained. So this issue is settled.

Even in Goebbels' diaries, he only used genocidal expressions at the end of the war, almost as a form of repentance, so the entries from 1942-43 at the so-called height of the Holocaust, either he didn't even know what the Final Solution was about or it didn't happen as the Allies and Jewish organizations claimed.

[Nessie]

... Hitler spoke of annihilating France, but this in no way refers to the extermination of the French people or even the end of the French state, but rather to rendering it geopolitically powerless.

The reason why you think that, and no one would disagree with you, is because of the evidence of millions of French people still alive in 1944, with no evidence of their mass murder. Unless they were Jewish and lived in occupied France, having fled from Germany as refugees, in which case, their population dropped dramatically and there is evidence they were killed.

From his fiery speeches you have already seen that the Holocaust cannot be sustained. So this issue is settled.

Even in Goebbels' diaries, he only used genocidal expressions at the end of the war, almost as a form of repentance, so the entries from 1942-43 at the so-called height of the Holocaust, either he didn't even know what the Final Solution was about or it didn't happen as the Allies and Jewish organizations claimed.

Hitler and Goebbels used genocidal expressions. There is evidence to prove the expressions, when applied to the Jews, did refer to a genocide.

[TlsMS93]

Hitler and Goebbels used genocidal expressions. There is evidence to prove the expressions, when applied to the Jews, did refer to a genocide.

I don't want an argument from authority, there's no point in affirming something, I want justification.

[Callafangers]

Hitler and Goebbels used genocidal expressions. There is evidence to prove the expressions, when applied to the Jews, did refer to a genocide.

This has been abundantly disproven, so I don't know why you keep saying it.

On Hitler:
https://rodoh.info/thread/647/words-non ... r-goebbels

On Goebbels:
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=354

[TlsMS93]

Nessie is the guy who uses the argument that if we don't have millions of Jews alive it's because they were killed. What a rotten argument.

[Nessie]

Hitler and Goebbels used genocidal expressions. There is evidence to prove the expressions, when applied to the Jews, did refer to a genocide.

I don't want an argument from authority, there's no point in affirming something, I want justification.

It is not an argument from authority. I look at evidence as to what happened and that evidence determines the meaning.

[Nessie]

Hitler and Goebbels used genocidal expressions. There is evidence to prove the expressions, when applied to the Jews, did refer to a genocide.

This has been abundantly disproven, so I don't know why you keep saying it.

On Hitler:
https://rodoh.info/thread/647/words-non ... r-goebbels

On Goebbels:
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=354

You have tried to argue that is not what they meant. I use evidence to determine what they meant. Typically for a so-called revisionist, you prefer argument over evidence. For example, the French. When annihilate is used in relation to the French, there is evidence of millions of French people still alive in 1944 under Nazi rule and no evidence of mass killings. Except, for the Jews, where there is evidence of mass arrests, a large population drop and mass killings.

[Nessie]

Nessie is the guy who uses the argument that if we don't have millions of Jews alive it's because they were killed. What a rotten argument.

That is not my argument. My argument, that is logically and evidentially sound and no so-called revisionist has ever been able to dispute it, so the misrepresent it, is;

There is evidence of mass murder.
There is no evidence of mass survival.
Therefore mass murders happened, not mass survival.

[Nazgul]

There is evidence of mass murder.
There is no evidence of mass survival.
Therefore mass murders happened, not mass survival.

The so called evidence is what is being discussed. It is weak, disinformation in many aspects with much speculation. You believe in lies for the most part and reject real information like Marion Olszuk provided, and of course the extended stops at jewish labour camps by transports.

[Nessie]

There is evidence of mass murder.
There is no evidence of mass survival.
Therefore mass murders happened, not mass survival.

The so called evidence is what is being discussed. It is weak, disinformation in many aspects with much speculation. You believe in lies for the most part and reject real information like Marion Olszuk provided, and of course the extended stops at jewish labour camps by transports.

You cherry-pick one witness, who provides very little information, who does not evidence what TII was used for, if it was not a death camp. Your dismissal of all the camp workers, is because you do not want to believe them, rather than because it is proven they all lied. The extended stops were explained, by evidence YOU provided!

Now, explain why the list of camps you are so dependent on, has a majority of camps closing before 1944, when, if the camp population was supposedly rising, to accommodate millions of arrested Jews, camps would need to open, rather than close. Explain why the population of Jews in each camp is missing and how that supports your claim the camps were where the Jews were being accommodated.

[Nazgul]

You cherry-pick one witness, who provides very little information, who does not evidence what TII was used for, if it was not a death camp.

I believe the farm worker, a man of the earth. I do not believe spies and agent provocateur's as being a reliable source of information. Olszuk gave the following information to Faurisson:
Marian Olszuk passed close by the 'extermination camp' every day that he went to work at the quarry, and when he worked on the family plot, he was also right near the 'extermination camp.'

Even though, of course, he never entered the camp area, every day people gathered in groups outside the front gate, openly engaging in barter and black market dealing. Traffickers came from Warsaw to sell goods to the Ukrainian guards who, in turn, would do business with the Jewish prisoners to whom they sold food. Some of those Jews bought ham and sausages, which were luxury items at that time. The existence of the two camps at Treblinka was common knowledge, and a good many of the Jewish inmates seemed to have money, gold, or jewelry.

Had Marian Olszuk ever noticed signs of homicidal activities by the Germans in this 'extermination camp?' His answer was No... Treblinka
This description shows TII as a Judenlager not an extermination camp. That was its sole purpose.

The extended stops were explained, by evidence YOU provided!

Out of the towns and cities en route to the final destination, the trains only stopped at the sites of Jewish Labour Camps, no where else except railway junctions to other labour camps. The camps were serviced by trains as testified by Alex Cohen from Sobibor and a Treblinka escapee.

Now, explain why the list of camps you are so dependent on, has a majority of camps closing before 1944, when, if the camp population was supposedly rising, to accommodate millions of arrested Jews, camps would need to open, rather than close. Explain why the population of Jews in each camp is missing and how that supports your claim the camps were where the Jews were being accommodated.

Camps moved west as the Soviets advanced, which means closing the eastern camps in Poland and relocating people to new camps. You know nothing of the labour camps, as 99% of the documentation is missing for some reason. This is the hoax, probably Soviet inspired with their 15 million workers of the Russian and Polish extraordinary commissions. Of course this information is not for you, but people who are genuinly concerned with the fake narrative provided by people like yourself.

[curioussoul]

Yeah, the Vergasungskeller document, which has been touted as an outright proof of the Holocaust, was treated much more cautiously by Pressac himself. I've never considered it as problematic as some people seem to think.

I wrote a more lengthy post on the old CODOH forum, but all you have to do to 'debunk' the exterminationist interpretation of this document is to just look at what the text actually says rather than hyperfocus on the word "Vergasungskeller". He's literally saying that because of the effects of frost, the undressing room could not be used, but that's okay, because the gas chamber can be used instead. He then goes on to explain that the ventilation system has not yet been installed due to freight delays, meaning no gassings could possibly have taken place either way. Is it possible for the gas chamber to serve as the undressing room simultaneously? Not really, if we are to follow the orthodox version of the gassing story. Either way, this would have been a purely provisional solution, meaning the "gas chamber" could have served the purpose of Leichenkeller 2 for a limited period of time, until the planking of the reinforced concrete ceiling could be removed. But because there was no ventilation system, this 'purpose' could clearly not have been to gas Jews. As Mattogno has been able to demonstrate based on documentary evidence, there was an association made, for a limited period of time, between Crematorium II and disinfestation, indicating that bringing these two purposes (cremation and disinfestation) into the same building was not out of the question.

In The Real Case for Auschwitz, Mattogno also highlights the fact that there is a documentary void surrounding this document. Based on the correspondence there should have been numerous other documents shedding some light on what exactly was being discussed. For whatever reason, those documents do not exist, and it's not at all far-fetched to assume Soviet tampering or destruction of 'inconvenient' documentation which would refute exterminationist interpretations of the document in question.

Just to note, I would avoid calling it a 'gas chamber' at all, which could be interpreted as a concession that this is what the language actually says (it doesn't). A more literal translation would be "gassing cellar" (Vergasungskeller; as opposed to 'gaskammer', i.e. "gas chamber"), which is even less aligned with orthodox 'Holocaust' interpretations, and better aligned as a reference to the technical process of fumigation.

You're right, 'gassing cellar' would be the correct translation, which would also align it with actual delousing facilities in the camp that also started with 'Vergasungs-'.