Atrocity Propaganda, Then and Now

[Nessie]

Is the allegation here, that people fell for atrocity propaganda about gassing the disabled and then after the war, the Nazis just accepted they had done something they had not? I presume all the supposedly gassed disabled people, that the Nazis kept somewhere in hospitals, or homes went home in 1945?

[Eye of Zyclone]

Is the allegation here, that people fell for atrocity propaganda about gassing the disabled and then after the war, the Nazis just accepted they had done something they had not? I presume all the supposedly gassed disabled people, that the Nazis kept somewhere in hospitals, or homes went home in 1945?

No, they were euthanized by lethal injections and only by lethal injections. No one has ever questioned the existence of the Third Reich's euthanasia program itself (which is documented, unlike the gas-chamber thing). Stop playing it dumb to muddy the waters. Clearly a crude deception tactic favored by liars.

[Nessie]

Is the allegation here, that people fell for atrocity propaganda about gassing the disabled and then after the war, the Nazis just accepted they had done something they had not? I presume all the supposedly gassed disabled people, that the Nazis kept somewhere in hospitals, or homes went home in 1945?

No, they were euthanized by lethal injections and only by lethal injections. No one has ever questioned the existence of the Third Reich's euthanasia program itself (which is documented, unlike the gas-chamber thing). Stop playing it dumb to muddy the waters. Clearly a crude deception tactic favored by liars.

I am right, you say people fell for the gassing claims. You explain all the missing disabled people by saying they died from lethal injection.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Is the allegation here, that people fell for atrocity propaganda about gassing the disabled and then after the war, the Nazis just accepted they had done something they had not? I presume all the supposedly gassed disabled people, that the Nazis kept somewhere in hospitals, or homes went home in 1945?

No, they were euthanized by lethal injections and only by lethal injections. No one has ever questioned the existence of the Third Reich's euthanasia program itself (which is documented, unlike the gas-chamber thing). Stop playing it dumb to muddy the waters. Clearly a crude deception tactic favored by liars.

I am right, you say people fell for the gassing claims. You explain all the missing disabled people by saying they died from lethal injection.

No, you implied that "the evil deniers" claim those euthanized patients didn't die ("went home in 1945"), what they never said (and was thus a lie), in order to make Holocaust revisionists sound like lunatics who speak nonsense.

[Nessie]

No, they were euthanized by lethal injections and only by lethal injections. No one has ever questioned the existence of the Third Reich's euthanasia program itself (which is documented, unlike the gas-chamber thing). Stop playing it dumb to muddy the waters. Clearly a crude deception tactic favored by liars.

I am right, you say people fell for the gassing claims. You explain all the missing disabled people by saying they died from lethal injection.

No, you implied that "the evil deniers" claim those euthanized patients didn't die ("went home in 1945"), what they never said (and was thus a lie), in order to make Holocaust revisionists sound like lunatics who speak nonsense.

I asked you an open question, if it was the case that so-called revisionists believed that the disabled were not killed and went home in 1945. The answer was no, they were euthanised, just not by gas. It was a reasonable question, since so-called revisionists claim that the Jews were not killed, with millions surviving till 1945.

[Eye of Zyclone]

I am right, you say people fell for the gassing claims. You explain all the missing disabled people by saying they died from lethal injection.

No, you implied that "the evil deniers" claim those euthanized patients didn't die ("went home in 1945"), what they never said (and was thus a lie), in order to make Holocaust revisionists sound like lunatics who speak nonsense.

I asked you an open question, if it was the case that so-called revisionists believed that the disabled were not killed and went home in 1945. The answer was no, they were euthanised, just not by gas. It was a reasonable question, since so-called revisionists claim that the Jews were not killed, with millions surviving till 1945.

No, it was not a question. It was patently a rhetorical question, that is, an affirmation. And it was even a false & mendacious affirmation, a poorly-disguised slander of Holocaust revisionists. You're playing it dumb again. Ridiculous.

[Nessie]

No, you implied that "the evil deniers" claim those euthanized patients didn't die ("went home in 1945"), what they never said (and was thus a lie), in order to make Holocaust revisionists sound like lunatics who speak nonsense.

I asked you an open question, if it was the case that so-called revisionists believed that the disabled were not killed and went home in 1945. The answer was no, they were euthanised, just not by gas. It was a reasonable question, since so-called revisionists claim that the Jews were not killed, with millions surviving till 1945.

No, it was not a question. It was patently a rhetorical question, that is, an affirmation. And it was even a false & mendacious affirmation, a poorly-disguised slander of Holocaust revisionists. You're playing it dumb again. Ridiculous.

It was an open question and you are dodging my point that so-called revisionists believe that the Nazis would murder the disabled, but not the Jews.

[Eye of Zyclone]

I asked you an open question, if it was the case that so-called revisionists believed that the disabled were not killed and went home in 1945. The answer was no, they were euthanised, just not by gas. It was a reasonable question, since so-called revisionists claim that the Jews were not killed, with millions surviving till 1945.

No, it was not a question. It was patently a rhetorical question, that is, an affirmation. And it was even a false & mendacious affirmation, a poorly-disguised slander of Holocaust revisionists. You're playing it dumb again. Ridiculous.

It was an open question and you are dodging my point that so-called revisionists believe that the Nazis would murder the disabled, but not the Jews.

No, it was not an open question. It was a vitriolic innuendo.

And I didn't dodge your "point." Putting an end to the pathetic pseudo life of lunatic or deformed creatures whose only prospect was a few more years or decades in sordid asylums is not murder. That's a merciful help. If the sanctimonious & hypocritical Western democracies can get away with the intrauterine killing of millions of healthy fetuses every year by calling it "women's rights" and "reproductive freedom," I fail to see why the painless killing of a few thousands of Mother Nature's biggest blunders should be regarded as a problem. That being said, the revisionist-exterminationist contention is not about "Would the Nazis murder the Jews?", but "Did the Nazis murder millions of Jews, mostly in gas chambers, during WW2?" and "What are the proofs that they did?".

[Nessie]

....No, it was not an open question. It was a vitriolic innuendo.

These questions are both open, as they can be answered yes, or no.

Question 1 - Is the allegation here, that people fell for atrocity propaganda about gassing the disabled and then after the war, the Nazis just accepted they had done something they had not?
Question 2 - I presume all the supposedly gassed disabled people, that the Nazis kept somewhere in hospitals, or homes went home in 1945?

And I didn't dodge your "point." Putting an end to the pathetic pseudo life of lunatic or deformed creatures whose only prospect was a few more years or decades in sordid asylums is not murder.

Yes it is. Disabled people, given the right support, can lead productive, happy lives.

That's a merciful help. If the sanctimonious & hypocritical Western democracies can get away with the intrauterine killing of millions of healthy fetuses every year by calling it "women's rights" and "reproductive freedom," I fail to see why the painless killing of a few thousands of Mother Nature's biggest blunders should be regarded as a problem. That being said, the revisionist-exterminationist contention is not about "Would the Nazis murder the Jews?", but "Did the Nazis murder millions of Jews, mostly in gas chambers, during WW2?" and "What are the proofs that they did?".

Akton T4 proved that the Nazis would use murder to achieve policy ends, killing people they believed did not deserve life, like the disabled, and Jews.

[Eye of Zyclone]

....No, it was not an open question. It was a vitriolic innuendo.

These questions are both open, as they can be answered yes, or no.

Nope. "Question" 2 is an innuendo. It is even not grammatically a question. Questions don't start with the words "I presume."

Question 1 - Is the allegation here, that people fell for atrocity propaganda about gassing the disabled and then after the war, the Nazis just accepted they had done something they had not?

Yes, some of them did. "Perjury for immunity" was of course the best defense strategy under such circumstances. No one could hope to get a light or no sentence before that kind of courts by calling the almighty accusers liars. Would habe been useless and even suicidal in such Soviet-style show trials with "facts of common knowledge" (i.e. the victors' atrocity stories selected for posterity) not needing to be proven.



That defense strategy was very beneficial from a personal perspective. Some Jews even complained later that too many Nazis got ridiculously light prison sentences in those postwar show trials. No surprise. False confessions were part of the deal to secure those false confessions before kangaroo courts.

Question 2 - I presume all the supposedly gassed disabled people, that the Nazis kept somewhere in hospitals, or homes went home in 1945?

Already answered. The contention is about the unproven use of gas chambers in some German asylums, not about euthanasia itself.

And I didn't dodge your "point." Putting an end to the pathetic pseudo life of lunatic or deformed creatures whose only prospect was a few more years or decades in sordid asylums is not murder.

Yes it is. Disabled people, given the right support, can lead productive, happy lives.

Depends on the nature and seriousness of their disability. And certainly not with the very limited medical means available in the 1940s and in the grim asylums of that time.

That's a merciful help. If the sanctimonious & hypocritical Western democracies can get away with the intrauterine killing of millions of healthy fetuses every year by calling it "women's rights" and "reproductive freedom," I fail to see why the painless killing of a few thousands of Mother Nature's biggest blunders should be regarded as a problem. That being said, the revisionist-exterminationist contention is not about "Would the Nazis murder the Jews?", but "Did the Nazis murder millions of Jews, mostly in gas chambers, during WW2?" and "What are the proofs that they did?".

Akton T4 proved that the Nazis would use murder to achieve policy ends, killing people they believed did not deserve life, like the disabled, and Jews.

No, it only proves your own opportunism and hypocrisy. You sound much less sensitive about the mass killing of the normal (i.e. not deformed or insane) Germans butchered by the Allies during that war. Blatant double standards & crocodile tears detected. Ditto with the terrible lot of the Palestinians "guilty" of living in the land that was allegedly promised to you by your made-up god thousands of years go.

[Nessie]

....No, it was not an open question. It was a vitriolic innuendo.

These questions are both open, as they can be answered yes, or no.

Nope. "Question" 2 is an innuendo. It is even not grammatically a question. Questions don't start with the words "I presume."

It can be answered yes, or no, so it is an open question. It suggests an answer, but it gives the answerer the opportunity to say no and disagree.

Question 1 - Is the allegation here, that people fell for atrocity propaganda about gassing the disabled and then after the war, the Nazis just accepted they had done something they had not?

Yes, some of them did.

Who exactly? What Nazi admitted to a crime, for which there was no evidence, or evidence to the contrary?

"Perjury for immunity" was of course the best defense strategy under such circumstances. No one could hope to get a light or no sentence before that kind of courts by calling the almighty accusers liars. Would habe been useless and even suicidal in such Soviet-style show trials with "facts of common knowledge" (i.e. the victors' atrocity stories selected for posterity) not needing to be proven.

It was because the gassing narrative had so much supporting evidence, that the Nazis who worked on T4, 14f13 and AR all accepted it happened. A "fact of common knowledge" is where all sides accept that the crime the accused are being tried for, did take place. It is where the crime has been proven, so it does need to be proven again during the trial.

...

That defense strategy was very beneficial from a personal perspective. Some Jews even complained later that too many Nazis got ridiculously light prison sentences in those postwar show trials. No surprise. False confessions were part of the deal to secure those false confessions before kangaroo courts.

How were the trials run by German prosecutors, in Germany, kangaroo courts? Many Nazis did get light sentences, from sympathetic judges. Where is your evidence of false confessions to secure deals?

Question 2 - I presume all the supposedly gassed disabled people, that the Nazis kept somewhere in hospitals, or homes went home in 1945?

Already answered. The contention is about the unproven use of gas chambers in some German asylums, not about euthanasia itself.

And I didn't dodge your "point." Putting an end to the pathetic pseudo life of lunatic or deformed creatures whose only prospect was a few more years or decades in sordid asylums is not murder.

Yes it is. Disabled people, given the right support, can lead productive, happy lives.

Depends on the nature and seriousness of their disability. And certainly not with the very limited medical means available in the 1940s and in the grim asylums of that time.

You are digging a hole for yourself.

That's a merciful help. If the sanctimonious & hypocritical Western democracies can get away with the intrauterine killing of millions of healthy fetuses every year by calling it "women's rights" and "reproductive freedom," I fail to see why the painless killing of a few thousands of Mother Nature's biggest blunders should be regarded as a problem. That being said, the revisionist-exterminationist contention is not about "Would the Nazis murder the Jews?", but "Did the Nazis murder millions of Jews, mostly in gas chambers, during WW2?" and "What are the proofs that they did?".

Akton T4 proved that the Nazis would use murder to achieve policy ends, killing people they believed did not deserve life, like the disabled, and Jews.

No, it only proves your own opportunism and hypocrisy. You sound much less sensitive about the mass killing of the normal (i.e. not deformed or insane) Germans butchered by the Allies during that war. Blatant double standards & crocodile tears detected. Ditto with the terrible lot of the Palestinians "guilty" of living in the land that was allegedly promised to you by your made-up god thousands of years go.

You admit that the Nazis would kill those it deemed to be not worthy of life. That included the Jews. Why would they kill the disabled, but not the Jews, when they were considered a serious threat to Germany, far more so than the disabled?