An exposition, Made in Russia, The Holocaust

[Stubble]

Presented without comment or commentary

[bombsaway]

Whitlock is definitively a mass forgery, vast conspiracy sort of guy, focusing on the Soviets. The thing is, the western allies found documents too, very shortly after the war (eg the Einsatzgruppen reports) . Maybe you want to claim the Soviets drummed them up beforehand and carefully placed them, you still have things like the British eavesdropped recordings and transcript which Irving located https://fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Bruns/

There's a lot more of these (you can borrow the book here) https://archive.org/details/tappinghitl ... 0neit_m7p7 and there are lots of reports of mass killings (particularly shootings, also some mass gassing stuff) . As you can see with the Bruns document, they're highly sophisticated, referencing various different events and even finding corroboration with existing documents (I showed the Lohse letter, which was an apparent response to Bruns' complaint). They also dovetail with the aspects of the "Holocaust" you find so deeply implausible and which have led to your apparent about face, "it's definitely a hoax". I don't mean to strawman you with that, maybe that's not your meaning but it's hard to parse your posts, which have become extremely silly to say the least.

In addition to documents, we have witnesses. There were trials conducted in West Germany that are "sound" procedurally with no evidence of coercion or extra legal practices. Revisionists have a bunch of justifications here, but it seems like a conspiracy is needed too. The specificity of a lot of these testimonies would necessitate "feeding of information"

So truly we should say a more honest full revisionist position would be "Holocaust: Made Everywhere"

[Stubble]

Did you watch it, or read his book?

[TlsMS93]

In addition to documents, we have witnesses. There were trials conducted in West Germany that are "sound" procedurally with no evidence of coercion or extra legal practices. Revisionists have a bunch of justifications here, but it seems like a conspiracy is needed too. The specificity of a lot of these testimonies would necessitate "feeding of information"

Now, is it the argument from authority that makes it real? How fair and legal is Germany's code of criminal procedure really? Germar Rudolf has an article on it.

I don't give the trial the air of infallibility that people do simply because it is a photographed human trial, that is, it is not a film that adapts to new findings and new interpretations. Some German defendants convicted at Nuremberg were posthumously acquitted, largely due to pressure from Western military attachés who had a different opinion from other personalities in the regime, that is, I didn't like their face.

[Stubble]

In addition to documents, we have witnesses. There were trials conducted in West Germany that are "sound" procedurally with no evidence of coercion or extra legal practices. Revisionists have a bunch of justifications here, but it seems like a conspiracy is needed too. The specificity of a lot of these testimonies would necessitate "feeding of information"

Now, is it the argument from authority that makes it real? How fair and legal is Germany's code of criminal procedure really? Germar Rudolf has an article on it.

I don't give the trial the air of infallibility that people do simply because it is a photographed human trial, that is, it is not a film that adapts to new findings and new interpretations. Some German defendants convicted at Nuremberg were posthumously acquitted, largely due to pressure from Western military attachés who had a different opinion from other personalities in the regime, that is, I didn't like their face.

Interesting hollywierd fact, after a test screening, the film 'Nuremberg' had to be reworked because the audience had too much sympathy for the nazis.

[bombsaway]

Did you watch it, or read his book?

I read it a while ago. A major assertion about documents is that they don't exist in original form, rather like photocopies and translations / transcriptions, missing signatures and identifying marks. This is just blatantly false. Take a look at the gas van documents https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ts-on.html

All the most incriminating ones are here in full color and you can see signatures, formal details

Porter saw this is evidence of conspiracy, but really he didn't spend enough time in the archives and a lot of them weren't as accessible then as they are now.

In addition to documents, we have witnesses. There were trials conducted in West Germany that are "sound" procedurally with no evidence of coercion or extra legal practices. Revisionists have a bunch of justifications here, but it seems like a conspiracy is needed too. The specificity of a lot of these testimonies would necessitate "feeding of information"

Now, is it the argument from authority that makes it real? How fair and legal is Germany's code of criminal procedure really? Germar Rudolf has an article on it.

I don't give the trial the air of infallibility that people do simply because it is a photographed human trial, that is, it is not a film that adapts to new findings and new interpretations. Some German defendants convicted at Nuremberg were posthumously acquitted, largely due to pressure from Western military attachés who had a different opinion from other personalities in the regime, that is, I didn't like their face.

Of course witnesses can be fallible, witness statements have an inherent unreliability. In judicial proceedings there is always some level of coercion being put on people being tried by the state, this is just an inevitability. The issue revisionist claims and what we can infer from the framework go far beyond this, even if they're hesitant to make assertions along these lines, which sound silly. That's the implication. Witnesses were told what to say/threatened, not just under some passive pressure to plead guilty,

When it comes to "information feeding" , revisionists focus on the discrepancies in testimonies (which as I said are an inevitability) but gloss over all the specific things that they get right, which can't be assumed to be product of chance. So for example when specific people are named, incidents related. There are hyper specificities here that can only be explained by forces behind the scenes "writing the narrative". There is also an assumption that all these Germans outright lied to reduce sentences , whilst incriminating themselves and their country generally. There isn't a single person, from the rev perspective that dared tell the truth (eg I was at Treblinka, there were no gassings there). It seems anti-German, racist tbh, to me to think they would so easily sell out their country -- rather it seems more likely from the rev perspective they were threatened extra legally to conform, like do this or we are going to do great harm to your family. This is the extra legal stuff that I absolutely can't follow you guys on, if you believe that.

[Stubble]

Plenty of people told the truth, it simply didn't make it into the record.

How many people interviewed by the red cross said anything about homicidal gas chambers? How many people submitted testimony that was never considered because it was inconvenient or not supportive of the predrawn conclusion?

You are counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

[bombsaway]

Plenty of people told the truth, it simply didn't make it into the record.

How many people interviewed by the red cross said anything about homicidal gas chambers? How many people submitted testimony that was never considered because it was inconvenient or not supportive of the predrawn conclusion?

You are counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

We don't know how many misses there were because there's no one who claimed to work at these specific facilities and didn't see anything (contradictory testimonies). There are people who claimed not to know about the gassings, and some of this is plausible but doesn't contradict orthodoxy. Like Auschwitz was a big camp, the biggest in fact, extermination only occurred in a tiny part.

What's true is everyone accused of these crimes and who could have told the truth about what happened sold out their country, not telling that truth

A) I was there, it didn't happen, is different than saying

B) I wasn't there, I don't know anything about it

Not a single German in a public trial where they easily could have said A actually said it.

They sold out their country, from the rev perspective, all of them. Even with silence or feigned ignorance (assuming they knew the truth). I just have a higher opinion of Germans than this.

[Stubble]

They either sold out their country to save their neck, or their mens neck, or they committed suicide.

They definitely did sign a piece of paper written for them though, after being tortured, and then gave testimony after being coached.

How many murderers have been exonerated by DNA regardless of confession?

To quote a famous NKVD officer 'we have ways of making them talk'...

Hell, look at witch trials...

Do you honestly think any counter testimony would have been tolerated?

[TlsMS93]

Maria van Herwaarden denied at the Zundel trial that she had seen mass murders at Birkenau. Thies Christophersen was another witness who testified that the alleged genocide of Jews during World War II never happened.

Christophersen, a Wehrmacht soldier assigned to Auschwitz, supervised about 300 workers, many of them Jews, from January to December 1944. On several occasions during this period, he visited Birkenau, where hundreds of thousands of Jews were allegedly being gassed to death. In his memoir The Auschwitz Lie, first published in Germany in 1973, Christophersen wrote that during his time at Auschwitz he did not see the slightest evidence of mass gassings. In March 1988, at the trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto, he also successfully answered numerous pointed questions from the prosecutor about his experiences at Auschwitz. After The Auschwitz Lie was published, Christophersen received thousands of letters and phone calls. He wrote about these letters and phone calls:

“Many of those who contacted me can confirm my statements, but are afraid to do so publicly. Some of them are SS men who were brutally mistreated and even tortured in captivity by the Allies. I also immediately contacted those who claimed to know more about mass gassings. My experiences were exactly the same as those of the French professor Paul Rassinier. I did not find any eyewitnesses. Instead, people told me that they knew someone who knew someone else, who talked about it. In most cases, the alleged eyewitnesses died. Other alleged eyewitnesses would quickly start stammering and stammering when I asked them a few pointed questions. Even Simon Wiesenthal finally had to admit before a Frankfurt district court that he had never actually been to Auschwitz. All the reports I heard about were contradictory. They all seemed to tell a different story about the gas chambers. They could not even agree on where they were supposed to be located. This also applies to the so-called academic literature, which is full of contradictions.”

Another eyewitness who saw no evidence of the genocide of the Jews is Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich. Dr. Stäglich, a German judge, visited Auschwitz several times during World War II as a German orderly in an anti-aircraft detachment. Stäglich published the following account of his visits to Auschwitz:

“On none of these visits did I see gassing installations, crematoria, torture instruments or similar horrors. The camp gave the impression of being well maintained and very well organized.

The camp reminded me of the German Labor Front camp where I served my six-month stint in the Labor Service, except that Auschwitz was, of course, considerably larger. None of the inmates behaved as if they were afraid of ill-treatment, much less of death.

So to say that everyone admitted that there had been gassing is nothing more than a fallacy.

[bombsaway]

What leads you to believe that these people you bring up were in a position to know there were no gassings?

Saying there were no gassings is much different than saying I didn't see anything.

[Stubble]

What the hell makes you say there were mass gassings? Where were they bombs? Where were they?

They didn't happen in Krema 1. They didn't happen in Krema 2 or Krema 3, maybe they all happened in Krema 4 and Krema 5? Or in 'the red house' or 'the white house'.

The Germans had facilities to gas entire trains with zyclon...entire trains...

Instead, they packed 3,000 people into a thimble and gassed them in a facility that couldn't handle the burden for at least 2 weeks, assuming the insane cremation times are accurate.

Then, since you are doing multiple gassings per day, you what, move the dead jews into the undressing room so you can fit the undressing jews into the gas chamber for the next gassing so you can be a month behind? And then you do the same thing tomorrow?

You unironically don't see a problem here, or a problem with the entire lack of any physical evidence the purported gas chambers were ever exposed to more than background levels of hydrogen cyanide gas.

[bombsaway]

What the hell makes you say there were mass gassings? Where were they bombs? Where were they?

They didn't happen in Krema 1. They didn't happen in Krema 2 or Krema 3, maybe they all happened in Krema 4 and Krema 5? Or in 'the red house' or 'the white house'.

The documentary and witness evidence.

There's many ways to approach this, I just believe in evidence like this (from Tapping Hitler's Generals)

THOMA: [. . .]
In the paper today there are details of the mass poisonings, that gas
business. I know it’s true, because the people who did it told me about it
themselves.
BASSENGE: I don’t know, but I presume it is . . . 100 per cent correct.
THOMA: Yes, I heard of it from a man who had to do it. It was SS men and
Gestapo youths who rounded up the Jews and so on, and as they had no
technical experts amongst their own numbers, chemists who were in the
gas department of the Ordnance Branch, had to work with them.235 One
man told me himself with horror that that time in RUSSIA was the most
appalling time of his life; I said I wouldn’t have done it.
THOMA: When I’ve got both the German and English news service I can
roughly sift out what’s true.
BASSENGE: Obviously everyone lies like a trooper in war-time and here
one has the opportunity of hearing both sides–
THOMA: We get a clearer picture than the Generals in command at the
front.
BASSENGE: We were never so well-informed as we are here.

SCHAEFER: After the stories you’ve told me one might think one was
really no longer bound to the FÜHRER.
KITTEL: We can’t think that.
SCHAEFER: I mean in our hearts; when one goes over all the crimes that
have been committed, it makes one’s hair stand on end.
KITTEL: 18,000 people were shot in ROSTOV, there are about 60,000
people in mass graves near LUBLIN.299
SCHAEFER: One can only say that if GERMANY is destroyed it is justice
and nothing else. It is a tragedy that so many millions of decent people
should be wiped out, and towns too, for the sake of men who are leading
a gangster existence–there’s no other way of describing it. I simply
cannot swallow it.
KITTEL: In UPPER SILESIA they simply slaughtered the people
systematically. They were gassed in a big hall.300
SCHAEFER: When was that done?
KITTEL: Up till the spring, then it was stopped.
SCHAEFER: Who are the people concerned?
KITTEL: I don’t know. There’s the greatest secrecy about all those things.
SCHAEFER: One can hardly believe that such a thing could happen in the
world.

I'm not sure why gassings couldn't have happened in these places you mention. It seems to me like you're working backwards from what you want to believe is true. The impression I get with revisionists in general is that you're just fixated on a certain version of history. You probably less than other people. I don't know if you're still struggling, but I understand it's painful. It was clearly painful for these German Generals as well to come to grips with what their country did, " I simply cannot swallow it."

[Stubble]

Again, you don't see the problem...

So far as working backward, no, I actually started on the other side of the fence and couldn't see how anyone could doubt it.

Then I fucking looked at it.

Do me a favor, look at majdanek, dachau, all the other claimed 'death mills', then, tell me why you still believe in the Auschwitz myth.

I'll leave the Reinhardt myth for now. We will just talk about zyklon gas chambers...

[bombsaway]

Again, you don't see the problem...

So far as working backward, no, I actually started on the other side of the fence and couldn't see how anyone could doubt it.

Then I fucking looked at it.

Do me a favor, look at majdanek, dachau, all the other claimed 'death mills', then, tell me why you still believe in the Auschwitz myth.

I'll leave the Reinhardt myth for now. We will just talk about zyklon gas chambers...

You do realize that I see an immense qualitative difference between Dachau/Majdanek and Auschwitz?

There's literally no direct evidence of mass gassings at these places. They fail even before we can examine whether there is direct evidence, because there's no evidence of mass transports there that would support hundreds of thousands being gassed.

I would imagine, if there was indeed a conspiracy to frame up evidence, they would have gotten confessions at these places. They didn't. There was a gas chamber at Dachau, but the people who built it didn't even think it was used, according to their testimonies. At Majdanek gassings were conducted on a limited scale, no one says anything else, unlike at Auschwitz where people talk of mass transports.