ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 9:23 pm
I'll address those one by one. I imagine you'll have some response to that but we will see where it takes us.
1. Regarding the claim that diesel engines don't produce enough CO to be lethal:
It's true that modern diesel engines at idle produce less carbon monoxide, but WWII-era diesels, especially under load and with poor maintenance, produced deadly concentrations of CO, especially in enclosed spaces. Multiple SS perpetrators, including Franz Stangl (Treblinka) and Kurt Gerstein (Belzec), testified that engine exhaust was used for mass killing.
Various survivors and members of the SS described dead bodies with blue coloration which is a well documented symptom of CO poisoning.
I know a ton of people doubt eyewitness testimony, despite there being thousands of people corroborating a similar picture across multiple locations, but how do you argue that they are all either lying or mistaken?
You need to quantify your claim of 'WWII-era diesels', insofar as how you claim they differ. "Trust me bro, they were poorly maintained so the Holocaust happened" doesn't cut it.
On Kurt Gerstein:
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... -kurt/307/
And Franz Stangl:
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... franz/856/
2. Regarding the claim that gas chambers would require reinforcement to withstand extreme pressure buildup:
There was no extreme pressure buildup needed in the gas chambers. Zyklon B and diesel CO were used in ventilated or semi-ventilated rooms, not pressure vessels. The gas was introduced and dispersed, not pressurized.
Some key witnesses have claimed they were hermetically sealed. If you dispute this, you refute the credibility of those witnesses more broadly. Whichever direction you choose, your story doesn't add up.
3. Regarding the claim that cremating millions would require massive wood supplies but there was no record of them.
Many eyewitnesses, SS officers, and Nazi documents confirm the use of rail lines, forests, and woodlots near camps like Treblinka for cremation. Several camps were dismantled in Aktion 1005, an operation to exhume and cremate corpses, often using massive open-air pyres, not modern crematoria.
As I mentioned in the prior post, Caroline Sturdy Colls’s forensic work at Treblinka documented many burn layers, bone
fragments, and ash pits. How do you describe what she found?
There is archaeological, documentary and testimonial evidence all showing that large-scale cremation took place.
Let's make this as easy as possible: please list what specific evidence Sturdy-Colls found which you believe is evidence of a significant quantity of cremated humans.
Spoiler alert: your list will contain exactly zero (0) items.
4. Regarding the claim that physical remains don't match the victim count and only tends of thousands of corpses were found.
Nazi cremation and ash-dispersal policies, combined with intentional site destruction, were specifically designed to eliminate remains. Again, archaeological excavations have still recovered cremation pits, human ash layers, thousands of bone fragments, and even gas chamber foundations.
You're claiming 'ash-dispersal policies' which you completely invented and for which not a single document exists supporting your claim. You're also clearly underestimating the quantities of ash we are dealing with, here. You also seem to have circumvented the issue of fuel (wood) entirely, as well, among others.
5. You claim that no record shows Jews arriving at Treblinka II specifically.
Trains went from ghettos (Warsaw, Bialystok, Radom) to Treblinka II. That claim is demonstrably false because there are archives of train records (both arrivals and departures) from the Jewish council, Deutsche Reichsbahn train logs, and SS memos confirm deportations and arrivals.
You missed the point. None of the documents show arrival to
T-II, specifically. Malkinia was a major juncture and station where arrivals were common for transit purposes. All of the documents you're referring to mention either "Malkinia" or "Treblinka". Treblinka II was a distinct site, and is where Jews are said to have arrived. But there is no documentation showing they arrived here, specifically.
6. Regarding the argument that a lack of HCN residue proves no gassings occurred.
Zyklon B does not need to leave deep blue staining to be lethal. The presence of iron cyanide compounds depends on temperature, wall composition, exposure duration, and ventilation. Gas chamber exposure (short, high concentration) differs from delousing chambers (long, lower concentration). That’s why delousing rooms show more blue staining.
Multiple independent forensic teams found traces of Zykon B in Krema walls. Even revisionist "expert" Germar Rudolf admitted to detecting HCN—he simply disputed its significance.
No one is talking about 'deep blue staining', as though it needs to be visible. But it does need to be measurable within a reasonable range suggesting it ever could have been at a certain concentration reflecting at least the possibility of thousands/millions 'gassed'. Your reference to temperature, wall composition, exposure duration, ventilation (as well as weathering, humidity, and every other conceivable variable) have already been comprehensively accounted for in the most authoritative forensic study on any alleged 'gas chamber' to-date, on either side of debate -- in Germar Rudolf's report, the 'Chemistry of Auschwitz', here:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 2-tcoa.pdf
If you wish to challenge this, you are going to have a
very difficult time, as every chemist who has tried has failed in impressive fashion.
7. You claim that aerial images show no smoke or activity from cremation.
In reality, US reconnaissance images from 1944 show increased traffic, darkened ground, and changes consistent with cremation activity. Many photos were taken at altitude, in poor resolution, and without the intent to document crimes as the Allies didn't fully understand what was happening on the ground at the time.
You need to specify which site you are talking about. There are air photos of many alleged 'extermination sites' (Babi Yar, Auschwitz, etc.). Overwhelmingly, the key (and necessary) criminal traces are consistently missing. No massive burnt areas at Babi Yar, no rutted grounds suggesting mass activity, no cleared forests at any alleged mass cremation site, etc. At Auschwitz (which was mainly where my previous point was focused), the crematoria and/or outdoor pyres are frequently not in operation even in periods where they necessarily should have been. When you're claiming constant, industrialized 'gassing' and cremation, it's necessarily concerning when the photos taken at random points throughout that period do not show mass cremation activity in proportion to your claims.
8. You claim that there was no explicit extermination order from Hitler.
Nazi leaders frequently used euphemisms (“special treatment,” “resettlement,” “Final Solution”) to hide the nature of their operations. Himmler, Heydrich, and Goebbels all orchestrated mass murder under his authority. Evidence of this can be found in Himmler's notes, Goebbels's diaries, Eichmann’s confessions, and SS orders show the program in action. Historian Christian Gerlach uncovered a December 1941 directive in which Hitler approved “the destruction of the Jews.” Such activities couldn't have logistically been implemented without the knowledge and approval of Hitler. The fact that a smoking gun memo doesn't exist, doesn't prove that it didn't happen. Absence of evidence doesn't prove that something didn't happen.
LOL, so code words? Got it. You have tacitly conceded that there is indeed no explicit extermination order from Hitler, you've just also deflected and moved the goalposts.
Your excuses about "code words" is identical to an argument like, "my dog ate my homework". You do not have such orders (homework), so you claim it was all 'coded' or destroyed (my dog ate it).
As for your Gerlach 'directive', you are apparently referring to Goebbels' notes (per his diary as cited by Gerlach) on a meeting with Hitler of December 12, 1941, where Hitler refers back to his 'prophecy' from 1939, where it is 100% clear he was
not referring to 'extermination' -- nobody within the field of Holocaust studies even claims Hitler had decided to exterminate Jews as of 1939:
Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to clear the table.
He [in 1939]
warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own
destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of
the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for
us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German
people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in
the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their
lives.
p. 785:
https://holocaust.umd.umich.edu/news/up ... annsee.pdf
This 1939 'prophecy' was about a global awakening of all nations to rid themselves internally of Jewish power (and territorially of Jews themselves). This of course would entail the executions of the Jews who have organized the world war, which is also what the prophecy pertained to. This altogether would be the destruction of 'Jewry' which was marked by its parasitism upon other nations. This had nothing whatsoever to do with genocide of all Jews or its related 'gassing' claims. Such a connection is baseless in fact.
9. You claim that witness testimony is unreliable.
This can be true as no human memories are perfect. But how do you explain hundreds of independent Nazi testimonies matching thousands of independent survivor accounts? Did they all meet up and conspire and if so, why did they do that? Nearly all of them described the existence of gas chambers, deportation trains, and cremation pits.
This is a common (and quite ridiculous) tactic of 'Holocaust' apologists: any outright lies or outrageous falsehoods were simply 'imperfect memories'. This is too stupid of a claim to engage with further. Lies and patterns thereof cannot reasonably be interpreted as 'imperfect memory'. It is really that simple.
'Nazi testimonies' were easily coerced and captured given that every 'Nazi' had their entire families held captive with the implicit threat of deportation to Siberia or worse throughout the course of their trials. Moreover, some defendants were tortured and others knew, regardless, that their best legal defense was to acknowledge the truth of the narrative while denying personal guilt. Only with total disregard of postwar power dynamics and the nature of 'victor's justice' can one even begin to suggest that the judicial historiography of the 'Holocaust' has been a mission of truth and its products ('confessions') as credible forms of evidence.
10. You claim that no physical gas vans have been found so they are basically mythical.
There are tons of different kinds of evidence that show there were gas vans. German blueprints, SS correspondence, and wartime memos describe the “Sonderwagen” (special vans). There's an abundance of independent survivor and perpetrator testimony that confirm their use. Even the Soviet investigators and trials documented them after the war.
There were no blueprints. You either just lied there, or you're just ignorant. Either way: nope.
'Special vans'? Your local grocer likely has 'special vans', or your dentist, or your delivery driver. 'Special vans' is such a broad term so as to be hilarious for anyone to claim this counts as evidence of 'homicidal gas-mobiles'. Testimony about absurdities against one's mortal enemies in the heat of wartime and in the theme of revenge which are
totally uncorroborated by verifiable evidence of any kind simply do not hold up.
11. You argue that the existence of legal restrictions on Holocaust denial show the Holocaust narrative can’t survive scrutiny.
Holocaust denial is prohibited in some countries in the EU but not in the US and many other countries. Laws against Holocaust denial exist because it is weaponized as hate propaganda, not because the facts are weak.
An obnoxious and stupid claim, here, not worth addressing further.
Basically all revisionist histories consistently rely on cherry-picked data, misleading science, and discredited experts. There basically are no revisionist narratives that hold up to scrutiny. Occasionally they may get a few things right but on the whole the vast majority of revisionist arguments are demonstrably false or weak arguments.
More ass-talking. Hot methane and aerosolized turd vapor is all you bring us.
I'm not an expert on this.
No kidding.
Yes, you've made quite clear you are first and foremost a "ConfusedJew".
I am recruiting help from somebody who has looked very deeply into Holocaust "revisionism".
Ah yes, your wise and noble mentor, Mr. ChatGPT.
I may have made a few small mistakes which doesn't disprove everything that I say. If there's something that you disagree with, we can go through it point by point. Ultimately, it's important to find a baseline of facts that we agree on and then we can discuss how to interpret them.
Yes, but you know nothing about the 'Holocaust' nor about revisionist arguments, which is why you just keep panic-spamming your ChatGPT outputs and Google results. Maybe read some books or at least spend a few weeks reading through some forum threads before you continue pretending you have enough context and understanding to challenge anyone here.
For example, I imagine you don't deny the existence of a ton of eyewitness and survivor reports, but you may not believe that they are fully accurate. We can debate that kind of thing once we agree that those reports do exist.
Oh yes, there are tons of
claims. But what the evidence clearly shows is highly-incentivized "continuation of the war effort" in which seeking reparations, revenge and advancing 'denazification' efforts came in the form of fabricating narratives which portrayed Germans as the 'ultimate evil'. No story was too absurd, too gruesome, too completely ridiculous to be omitted from consideration post-war. And those which were the least ridiculous (even though still completely false and easily challenged with modest scrutiny) managed to advance into our official definition of the 'Holocaust'.
Truly, ConfusedJew, spent a few weeks at least putting together your
very best effort at disrupting the revisionist position. Not this half-assed, copy-paste nonsense you have given us thus far. I want you to 'disprove Holocaust denial' just as much as you do but, from experience, I would say that is highly unlikely to become the case.