Comments on other threads.

[Nessie]

Callafangers;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20509#p20509

This, my friends, is called having your cake and eating it too.

i) Himmler's Ausrottung must be perceived genocidally and anything else is an issue, meanwhile
ii) Churchill's Exterminating Attack will be permitted to have multiple interpretations simultaneously so I can't be pinned down, and despite me doubling down that it's a genocide therefore so is Himmler

Himmler's use of ausrotung can mean both root and exterminate. The policy was to both root out and exterminate, but not all Jews who were rooted out were exterminated. Many were rooted out and allowed to leave, so long they paid and left their property behind. Others fled for fear of being rooted out. Others were not exterminated and instead used as slave labourers. Himmler, like other senior Nazis, wanted to create a smoke screen, especially in the West and with Western Jews, that they would be the subject of arrest and relocation.

Churchill was being more specific. He believed bombing would bring about the fall of Hitler, it was a means to win and end the war. He was not referring to the extermination of Germans and Germany.

[Nessie]

Bombsaway;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20531#p20531

Maybe you can talk about the difference between wanting to kill civilians en masse on purpose (which the brits for sure wanted to do) and genocide. The common way to interpret that is not genocide because of the military justification, but i dont agree with that

Churchill said, in 1918;

https://winstonchurchill.org/publicatio ... ng-policy/

“This is the moment to attack the enemy, to carry the war into his own country, to make him feel in his own towns and in his own person something of the havoc he has wrought in France and Belgium. This is the moment, just before the winter begins, to affect his morale, and to harry his hungry and dispirited cities without pause or stay. While the new heavy French machines.. .will strike by night at all the nearer objectives, the British, who alone at the moment have the experience, apparatus and plans already made to bomb not only by night but in broad daylight far into Germany, must be assured of the means to carry out their role.”

He was not discussing the extermination of Germany then. He was looking for a way to end the stalemate of trench warfare and he saw the newly invented aeroplane as a means to do that. To be a genocide, the aim is to destroy, eliminate, exterminate an entire people. Churchill is not wanting to do that to Germans and Germany, he wants to win the war, WWI.

"Some of the bombers that Churchill bought, built and armed were already in action in October 1918, attacking German railway junctions, steel works, chemical factories and aerodromes. Among the cities reached were Metz, Frankfurt, Coblenz, Bonn, Mainz and Karslruhe."

By November 1918, Germany had surrendered. The newly invented bombers hit military targets and bombed cities, just as the Germans had bombed military and civilian targets in the UK. Come WWII, and Churchill wants to retaliate and fight fire with fire;

"On 12 May 1940, two days after Churchill became Prime Minister—and as German bombers struck at the Dutch port of Rotterdam—the War Cabinet discussed whether it was right “on moral grounds” to bomb targets in Germany. Summing up the general tenor of the discussion, Churchill told his colleagues: “… we were no longer bound by our previously held scruples as to initiating ‘unrestricted’ air warfare. The enemy had already given us ample justification for retaliation on his country.”

WWII was unrestricted warfare. The Nazis set the bar and Churchill matched it. Now, the full "exterminating" quote;

"To Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Aircraft Production, Churchill wrote on 8 July 1940—in urging him to increase the resources being put into bomber as opposed to fighter production: “When I look round to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path. We have no continental ally which can defeat the German military power…. Should [Hitler] be repulsed here or not try invasion, he will recoil eastward, and we have nothing to stop him. But there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland.”

Churchill has written to the head of aircraft production, wanting an increased number of bombers, for attacks on Germany, as the only country left in Europe, that was able to fight the Nazis. It is a year before the Nazis attacked the Soviets, as the North Africa campaign had just started, with British and Italian forces engaging in the first tank battle in Libya. Aerial bombing was the only way to hit back at the Nazis, who had been bombing towns and cities all over Europe, from the first raid over Frampol in Poland.

Churchill was anticipating the Nazis would start air raids on the UK, and he was correct, with the first raid in August 1940. His words, were in the context of an anticipated aerial battle between the British and the Nazis, involving long range, heavy bombing. At no point, unlike Hitler discussing the Jews, does Churchill discuss the extermination, liquidation, elimination of all Germans and the ending of Germany.

[bombsaway]

"To be a genocide, the aim is to destroy, eliminate, exterminate an entire people."

Actually the definition is 'whole or in part'

"Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

[Nessie]

"To be a genocide, the aim is to destroy, eliminate, exterminate an entire people."

Actually the definition is 'whole or in part'

"Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

The context was that consistently, from WWI, Churchill believed that wars could be won with heavy bombers, rather than using them to commit genocide. Churchill's language, unlike Hitler, was never genocidal. He never spoke of ridding Europe of Germans or Germany, whereas Hitler consistently spoke about ridding Europe of Jews.

[Nessie]

Archie;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=673

My position has always been that in terms of the Holocaust debate, the goalposts are exactly where the Holocaust mainstream has decided to place them. And the Holocaust mainstream has set a very demanding standard for themselves in suggesting that the Holocaust has been factually proven with 100% confidence. They say the proof is so overwhelming that no debate can ever be permitted over the inherent historicity of it. And no one is allowed to question their interpretation of the evidence or present counterevidence.

Historians are in 100% agreement that there was a Holocaust, but not in 100% agreement about what the Holocaust involved. For example, there is disagreement when it started, how planned it was and over camp, massacre and overall death tolls. The historicity of the events of the Holocaust have been debated, resulting in many claims being dismissed as stories, fabrications, the best known of which is Jewish human soap. It is wrong to claim interpretation cannot be questioned or counter evidence presented, the issue is that so-called revisionist do not present evidence to back up alternative interpretations, for example, an eyewitness who worked inside Sobibor, who said it was used to give Jews mass showers, to prevent the spread of typhus from ghettos to the camps they were being transported to.

The Holocaust was a huge event, spanning most of Europe, lasting at least 5 years, so it is made up of numerous goalposts. The "Holocaust mainstream" is, to someone from the US, the English-speaking historians, who study what happened from a background of no involvement. To a German and Austria, it is their historians, some of whom have direct connections to individuals involved. I would love to know if any such historian asked a parent or grandparent, what did you know and got an answer that they knew a lot. Then there are the historians from countries not usually associated with the Holocaust, but they were directly involved. Latvian's are conflicted and historians there will avoid confronting how much assistance the Nazis were given. The Dutch are more open and admit to the assistance they gave, but the Dutch did not shoot Jews, whereas the Latvians did.

Under the 100% certainty standard, if revisionists are able to create even a small chance of doubt, say 1%, this would be of some significance as it would open the door to further debate which they are unwilling to have.

The problem with that notion, is that even if there was doubt about an event, such as the use of diesel engines in the AR camp gas chambers, that has no effect on the overall history of AR, let alone the Holocaust. Many so-called revisionist doubts, are details that have no serious impact on the history, or they are doubts over the evidence. For example, claims about the volume of graves at the AR camps, being too small to hold all of the corpses. They are too small, if you assume every single corpse was buried in them. They are not too small, if cremations started September 1942 and only corpses from the first few months of operation were buried.

So-called revisionists overplay their doubt, nit picking over details they have not properly researched and their default position is to illogically argue that because they cannot work out how gassings etc were physically possible, based on the evidence, much of which was destroyed, therefore there were no gassings.

[Callafangers]

So-called revisionists overplay their doubt, nit picking over details they have not properly researched and their default position is to illogically argue that because they cannot work out how gassings etc were physically possible, based on the evidence, much of which was destroyed, therefore there were no gassings.

Revisionists can't work these things out... so who can? Who is the expert, and how many corpses did they measure or somehow validate at scale?

[HansHill]

So-called revisionists overplay their doubt, nit picking over details they have not properly researched and their default position is to illogically argue that because they cannot work out how gassings etc were physically possible, based on the evidence, much of which was destroyed, therefore there were no gassings.

Revisionists can't work these things out... so who can? Who is the expert, and how many corpses did they measure or somehow validate at scale?

This has always been such a stupid gotcha. Nobody can work out how the gassings took place so lets just believe the semi-literate peasants and their contradictory descriptions of nonsensical processes on good faith.

[Nessie]

So-called revisionists overplay their doubt, nit picking over details they have not properly researched and their default position is to illogically argue that because they cannot work out how gassings etc were physically possible, based on the evidence, much of which was destroyed, therefore there were no gassings.

Revisionists can't work these things out... so who can? Who is the expert, and how many corpses did they measure or somehow validate at scale?

The Topf & Sons engineers worked out how to convert the Krema Liechenkellers into gas chambers. Documents and their testimony corroborate other witness descriptions about the undressing rooms, secured ventilated gas chambers with gas tight doors and multiple corpse cremation ovens that worked by continuously cremating corpses.

[Nessie]

So-called revisionists overplay their doubt, nit picking over details they have not properly researched and their default position is to illogically argue that because they cannot work out how gassings etc were physically possible, based on the evidence, much of which was destroyed, therefore there were no gassings.

Revisionists can't work these things out... so who can? Who is the expert, and how many corpses did they measure or somehow validate at scale?

This has always been such a stupid gotcha. Nobody can work out how the gassings took place so lets just believe the semi-literate peasants and their contradictory descriptions of nonsensical processes on good faith.

I can see how the Germans, with all of their engineering skills, could construct gas chambers, made to look like showers, that used exhaust fumes from a large, captured Soviet petrol engine to generate CO, pumping the gas into the chambers via pipes and values, and then venting the chambers by opening doors and roof caps. Much of the information as to how they worked, came from SS camp staff. They are corroborated by Jews who worked at the gas chambers.

It is only when second hand rumours and hearsay is conflated with the eyewitness evidence, that contradictions appear, such as steam was used instead of exhaust fumes.

It is only so-called revisionists who cannot work out how it was possible and then argue that means it cannot have happened.

[Nessie]

Borjastick makes a claim I want to challenge;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20563#p20563

The problem with Bombsaway and his bum chum Nessie is that they will not answer direct and awkward questions and accept one iota of truth from our side.

I cannot speak for Bombsaway, only for myself. Please give examples and links to questions I will supposedly not answer and where I have not accepted a truthful claim from your side.

[HansHill]

I can see how the Germans, with all of their engineering skills....

No you can't, genius. Not without dispensing the laws of nature, and completely ignoring common sense inquiries, just to hold your fairy tale in tact.

"B-b-but"

Just one example will suffice here, since you brought up the Reinhardt process: Nessie, what happens when you continuously pump exhaust into a hermetically sealed chamber? Sub-question: At what point does the engine stall due to hitting equilibrium? If you don't have an answer for these basic questions, then you can't "see" anything, except the dogshit propaganda you refuse to drop.

[Nessie]

I can see how the Germans, with all of their engineering skills....

No you can't, genius. Not without dispensing the laws of nature, and completely ignoring common sense inquiries, just to hold your fairy tale in tact.

"B-b-but"

Just one example will suffice here, since you brought up the Reinhardt process: Nessie, what happens when you continuously pump exhaust into a hermetically sealed chamber? Sub-question: At what point does the engine stall due to hitting equilibrium? If you don't have an answer for these basic questions, then you can't "see" anything, except the dogshit propaganda you refuse to drop.

Why do you think that the Germans continuously pumped exhaust fumes into the gas chambers until back pressure stalled the engine? Why do you think that they could not work out how long to run the engine for, before CO levels were fatal and then they just switched them off and waited?

For example, Gerstein's description of a gassing at Belzec;

https://alphahistory.com/holocaust/an-e ... lzec-1942/

"After 2 hours 49 minutes — the stop-watch had recorded it all well — the diesel started. Up till then, people were alive in these four chambers, four times 750 people in four times 45 cubic metres. Another 25 minutes went by. True, many were now dead. One could see that through the little glass window through which the electric light lit up the chamber for a moment. After 28 minutes only a few were still alive. At last, after 32 minutes everyone was dead."

There are issues. He describes a huge delay before the engine started "Hauptmann Wirth struck the Ukrainian who was supposed to be helping Heckenholt mend the diesel" and that he believed it was a diesel engine. But, why do you think the engine ran for the entire 32 minutes? Gerstein does not say that.

Erich Fuchs said;

https://remember.org/facts-aft-tri-test.html

"...a gassing experiment was carried out. If my memory serves me right, about thirty to forty women were gassed in one gas chamber. The Jewish women were forced to undress in an open place close to the gas chamber, and were driven into the gas chamber by the above mentioned SS members and the Ukrainian auxiliaries. when the women were shut up in the gas chamber I and Bolender set the motor in motion. The motor functioned first in neutral. Both of us stood by the motor and switched from “Neutral” (Freiauspuff) to “Cell” (Zelle), so that the gas was conveyed to the chamber. At the suggestion of the chemist, I fixed the motor on a definite speed so that it was unnecessary henceforth to press on the gas. About ten minutes later the thirty to forty women were dead."

Again, why do you assume the engine ran for the 10 minutes Fuchs stated it took before the women were dead? He is clearly stating that they experimented, to get the gassings to work. Do you not think that if the engine kept on stalling, they would know what to do?

You do not want to believe gassings happened, so you find issues to doubt. But here, we have two SS witnesses who corroborate how they worked to get the chambers operational. Getting a gas chamber to work, especially when the Nazis had no issues getting delousing chambers to work and they could fire rockets from France to London and build the best tanks and artillery, would be simple for them.

[Nessie]

Wahrheitssucher claims;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20573#p20573

1.) ‘the holocaust’ as a term encompasses a whole host of events and occurrences, most of which are accepted and are not being debated or contested. Deceitful arguments from promoters do not admit this fact as they want to portray critical investigators of its less credible and most promoted aspects, as irrational ‘deniers’ of ALL of it.
This is a DISHONEST tactic used by ALL the HolyH promoters.

Please evidence a historian who explicit states that Holocaust denial is the denial of everything attributed to the Holocaust, from Jews being identified, arrested, transported, imprisoned and used as slave labourers.

[pilgrimofdark]

The problem with that notion, is that even if there was doubt about an event, such as the use of diesel engines in the AR camp gas chambers, that has no effect on the overall history of AR, let alone the Holocaust. Many so-called revisionist doubts, are details that have no serious impact on the history, or they are doubts over the evidence. For example, claims about the volume of graves at the AR camps, being too small to hold all of the corpses. They are too small, if you assume every single corpse was buried in them. They are not too small, if cremations started September 1942 and only corpses from the first few months of operation were buried.

When you emailed Arad and Yad Vashem (book publisher) to tell them they were incorrect about the below, what was their response?

The last camp where cremation of the corpses was instituted was Treblinka. During Himmler's visit to the camp at the end of February/beginning of March 1943, he was surprised to find that in Treblinka the corpses of over seven hundred thousand Jews who had been killed there had not yet been cremated. The very fact that the cremation began immediately after his visit makes it more than possible that Himmler, who was very sensitive about the erasure of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany, personally ordered the cremating of the corpses there.

- Yitzhak Arad, The Operation Reinhard Death Camps. p. 215.

Will IU Press/Yad Vashem be changing the above in an updated edition of the book to reflect your view on this? It's in the 2018 version for now.

[Nessie]

The problem with that notion, is that even if there was doubt about an event, such as the use of diesel engines in the AR camp gas chambers, that has no effect on the overall history of AR, let alone the Holocaust. Many so-called revisionist doubts, are details that have no serious impact on the history, or they are doubts over the evidence. For example, claims about the volume of graves at the AR camps, being too small to hold all of the corpses. They are too small, if you assume every single corpse was buried in them. They are not too small, if cremations started September 1942 and only corpses from the first few months of operation were buried.

When you emailed Arad and Yad Vashem (book publisher) to tell them they were incorrect about the below, what was their response?

The last camp where cremation of the corpses was instituted was Treblinka. During Himmler's visit to the camp at the end of February/beginning of March 1943, he was surprised to find that in Treblinka the corpses of over seven hundred thousand Jews who had been killed there had not yet been cremated. The very fact that the cremation began immediately after his visit makes it more than possible that Himmler, who was very sensitive about the erasure of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany, personally ordered the cremating of the corpses there.

- Yitzhak Arad, The Operation Reinhard Death Camps. p. 215.

Will IU Press/Yad Vashem be changing the above in an updated edition of the book to reflect your view on this? It's in the 2018 version for now.

I doubt it. Historians disagree. I base my claim on Abram Krzepicki, who was in TII in September 1942, when he talked about Katyn and cremations starting. Either way, when both a Jewish prisoner and Himmler agree that mass graves of corpses were cremated, that is strong corroboration.