The CODOH Revisionist Forum

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?

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 7:35 am 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.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 11:02 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 7:35 am 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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 8:54 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 11:02 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 7:35 am 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.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 11:55 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 8:54 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 11:02 pm

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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 3:42 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 11:55 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 8:54 am

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.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 4:50 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 3:42 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 11:55 am

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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 9:25 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 4:50 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 3:42 pm

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?".

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 9:57 am ....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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 9:57 am ....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."

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm 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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm 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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

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.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 2:46 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 9:57 am ....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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm 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?

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm 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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

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?

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 3:25 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 2:46 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm
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.

No, erroneously putting a question mark at the end of a sentence is not enough to make it a question. Just a grammar error.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm 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?

A nonsensical challenge. Such deals of course involve a ban on spilling the beans about it afterwards.

Wilhelm Hoettl, the source of the six-million figure himself, saved his own ass with his false confession at the Nuremberg show trial.

















And there was also Rudolf Hoess, the Commandant of Auschwitz. But he had been beaten for 3 days. So his notorious false confession can't be counted as generated by a "perjury for immunity" strategy, I guess.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

"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.

No. A lie already debunked here.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

...

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?

Well tried. But the denazification of Germany had left no pro-Nazi sympathetic judges and prosecutors in charge at that time.

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?

Not those who were unworthy of life, those whose "life" was unworthy of being "lived". You realize that the 1st euthanized "person" of the 3rd Reich was a deformed kid so disabled his desperate parents asked Hitler for permission to kill their own child, don't you? Nazi euthanasia was actually about adminstering a mercy death ("Gnadentod "). It was about putting an end to miserable "lives" full of suffering and indignity, not about getting rid of useless mouths and eliminating carriers of genetic defects for eugenic purposes (the Nazi eugenics program had already been implemented and completed through surgical sterilizations during the previous years) like in Holohoax mythology.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 5:19 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 3:25 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 2:46 pm

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.

No, erroneously putting a question mark at the end of a sentence is not enough to make it a question. Just a grammar error.

Yet, you answered it....

Yes, some of them did.

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

A nonsensical challenge. Such deals of course involve a ban on spilling the beans about it afterwards.

IOW, you have no evidence, so I do not need to believe your claim.

Wilhelm Hoettl, the source of the six-million figure himself, saved his own ass with his false confession at the Nuremberg show trial.

















And there was also Rudolf Hoess, the Commandant of Auschwitz. But he had been beaten for 3 days. So his notorious false confession can't be counted as generated by a "perjury for immunity" strategy, I guess.

That does not evidence those who admitted mass killings took place, also cut deals.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

"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.

No. A lie already debunked here.

It is a fact that even by 1945, it was proven that millions of Jews arrested by the Nazis had been murdered.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm

...

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?

Well tried. But the denazification of Germany had left no pro-Nazi sympathetic judges and prosecutors in charge at that time.

It was still a very good opportunity, for Nazis to evidence what really happened. The Nazis safe in South America also had that opprotunity. But none did.

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?

Not those who were unworthy of life, those whose "life" was unworthy of being "lived". You realize that the 1st euthanized "person" of the 3rd Reich was a deformed kid so disabled his desperate parents asked Hitler for permission to kill their own child, don't you? Nazi euthanasia was actually about adminstering a mercy death ("Gnadentod "). It was about putting an end to miserable "lives" full of suffering and indignity, not about getting rid of useless mouths and eliminating carriers of genetic defects for eugenic purposes (the Nazi eugenics program had already been implemented and completed through surgical sterilizations during the previous years) like in Holohoax mythology.

OK, the Nazis would kill the disabled, Communists and partisans, but not the Jews, despite the years of anti-Jewish policy and rhetoric, blaming them for many of society's and Germany's ills and declaring them an enemy that needed to be destroyed, liquidated or removed. Why would the Nazis change to preserving Jewish lives?

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 7:22 pm Yet, you answered it....

I'd rather say that I addressed and refuted your grotesque innuendo.

IOW, you have no evidence, so I do not need to believe your claim.

First time ever you need evidence to believe a claim. Better late than never. Kudos.

That does not evidence those who admitted mass killings took place, also cut deals.

As shown above, Hoettl admitted the death of six million jews, mostly by mass killings, and the victors of 1945 left him free and unscathed as a reward for his helpful false confession at the biggest of all postwar show trials. Documented.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm It is a fact that even by 1945, it was proven that millions of Jews arrested by the Nazis had been murdered.

Not proven. Only asserted and supposedly exposed with miscaptioned horror pics of typhus victims.
Almighty victors don't need proofs of their claims. Their military victory is proof enough that their claims are the truth and nothing but the truth, isn't it?

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm It was still a very good opportunity, for Nazis to evidence what really happened.

... and go to jail as a so-called unrepentant Nazi criminal because of that. Tempting indeed.

And who would have believed them anyway?

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:08 pm OK, the Nazis would kill the disabled, Communists and partisans, but not the Jews, despite the years of anti-Jewish policy and rhetoric, blaming them for many of society's and Germany's ills and declaring them an enemy that needed to be destroyed, liquidated or removed. Why would the Nazis change to preserving Jewish lives?

Not preserving Jewish lives. Grouping the Jews in camps and ghettos until they could be kicked out of Europe once and for all (i.e. after the war in the event of an Axis victory), AKA the final solution, as planned by the guys who coined that term (i.e. the founders of Zionism).

For info, the partisans killed numerous German soldiers too. And the Nazis didn't kill the Communists as a policy. They arrested the biggest Communist agitators in 1933 and held them for a while, but they had released most of them by the end of that year (Weihnachtsamnestie, Christmas amnesty of 1933).