The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Bonesjones]

I've explained it to you repeatedly you fucking retard, go back to the first post of this thread and figure it out from there.

 

[Chugger]

. I don't think that this was a conscious policy, or even one that was issued through innuendo like Aktion Reinhard was, but rather simply an outpouring of various peoples' desire to deal with them while they had the chance.

What do you think Aktion Reinhard was exactly?

 

[Clorox Cowboy]

It didn't take 80 years. The tapes were known about in 1960, though no one cared too much. Eichmann had already confessed so the Holocaust was never in question.

I posted about these earlier in this thread ('the sassen tapes') . @Clorox Cowboy here is context for the first quote

View attachment 3461888
View attachment 3461890
View attachment 3461893

According the the article I linked.

The original tapes had been sold to a publishing house in Europe, and eventually bought by an anonymous firm which handed them over to the German federal archives in Koblenz, with instructions that they should be used only for academic research.

Kobi Sitt, a grandson of Holocaust survivors and the producer of the new documentary, made a movie for Israeli television about Hausner 20 years ago, and has wanted to access the Eichmann tapes ever since.

Finally the German archives agreed, believing, he said, that they would be treated respectfully. 'I'm not afraid of the memory, I'm afraid of the forgetfulness,' said Sitt. He said he wanted 'to provide a tool to breathe life into the memory' as the generation of survivors dies out.

Do you have any speculation as to why these tapes were not made available to the general public, digitized or other methods of making them widely available for academics outside whatever archive housed them? I agree with @Lemmingwise that it seems weird they've seemingly just been sitting around collecting dust, especially if it is "Proof against Holocaust deniers and a way to see the true face of Eichmann."

I have not been given a reason to doubt the authenticity of these tapes, but I feel if there is audio of someone high-ranking official admitting to his crimes at least an abridged version should be available. I doubt we (the general public) will even get access to the full 15 hours and it will just be whatever the documentary makers decide to use. Super frustrating.

 

[Chugger]

According the the article I linked.


Do you have any speculation as to why these tapes were not made available to the general public, digitized or other methods of making them widely available for academics outside whatever archive housed them? I agree with @Lemmingwise that it seems weird they've seemingly just been sitting around collecting dust, especially if it is "Proof against Holocaust deniers and a way to see the true face of Eichmann."

I have not been given a reason to doubt the authenticity of these tapes, but I feel if there is audio of someone high-ranking official admitting to his crimes at least an abridged version should be available. I doubt we (the general public) will even get access to the full 15 hours and it will just be whatever the documentary makers decide to use. Super frustrating.

I think I read somewhere they were digitized but the problem may stem from there being personal info on these tapes, since essentially they were recordings of social gatherings. If rights are still owned by Sassen, maybe they don't want all this info about old family and friends coming out. Sassen and his friends were Nazi sympthaziers and anti-semites, not a good look these days. If the tape is massively edited, deniers might still be suspicious, so what can you do?

Still, I wonder why deniers aren't putting more pressure here . . . If I were them I would make it my number one issue, since a full release of the tapes might settle the matter once and for all. Do the tapes go missing right before deniers get to listen to them? That would be suspicious even for me.

But to tell the truth, it doesn't seem deniers are much interested in the Sassen tapes. It seems more like they just want to forget they exist and move on to other topics, as you saw happen when I brought it up earlier in this thread. That's a pity because I want to hear the tapes, and a little pressure won't hurt.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Do you have any speculation as to why these tapes were not made available to the general public, digitized or other methods of making them widely available for academics outside whatever archive housed them?

I have been thinking about this. In any case it is convenient that these old tapes only part is made public and only in a time period where we have completely convincing AI voice replacement; although it doesn't seem to be the case, because if it had been a complete fabrication I'm sure they would have gone for a more damning text than " if we had" which isn't even a confession.

And now seeing broader context his next sentence is that it did not happen. What a surprise.

And considering jews hunted him down and eventually killed him in south america, him calling them enemies doesn't seem far off the mark either.

It didn't take 80 years. The tapes were known about in 1960,

A 25% difference is smaller than the difference between official claimed jewish deaths and actual jewish deaths during WW2.

62 years isn't much better.

Of course another advantage of releasing it late is that people with memories regarding him would be dead.

Some might question why the millions of victims of the great purge and holodomor haven't been dug up. How can we know it happened without the bodies?

It's not close to being in the same realm of political relevancy. When is the last time legislation got blocked or even reversed when invoking the specter of the holodomor?

When was the holodomor or the great purge ever used as context for wealth transfer?

Name movies or documentaries that cover the holodomor or great purge and I can, with ease, match you 10 for 1 with the holocaust.

In terms of political relevancy, it's like comparing US agricultural exports to the dutch agricultural exports.

 

[ShittlerNiggler]

Riddle me this: If Hitler was fighting three wars, why would he have expended resources to find and detain Jews? It seems contra productive to the war efforts.

The Holocaust never happened.

I would say it's definetly in a leaders interest to destroy the enemy within the borders just as much as the enemy outside. Especially if the group in question already wanted to see the leaders country destroyed years before the war.
Don't believe Hitler killed more than 1 million maximum tho as this would've completly overstreched it.

 

[Saint Agustin]

I would say it's definetly in a leaders interest to destroy the enemy within the borders just as much as the enemy outside. Especially if the group in question already wanted to see the leaders country destroyed years before the war.
Don't believe Hitler killed more than 1 million maximum tho as this would've completly overstreched it.

True. But the real threat was the Allies, not a bunch of Jews.

I get it is for patriotic sentiment and propaganda, but to actually round up jews, establish logistic lines, set up camps, resources, man power and what entails to be a massive manhunt of Jewish people across Europe is a stretch and something no leader fighting 2 fronts and helping another would do.

Jews really like to portray others as monsters though, so is no surprise (((they))) planted the idea that (((they))) were suffered massive genocide.

Jews are sketchy bastards. They like to lie and deceit. Plus, victimization runs in their blood.

If Hitler killed at tops 5 thousands of them across Europe I could believe it. 1 million is really fucking retarded and only idiots can belive that, especially considering how prevalent Jews are in today's society.

 

[Chugger]

Of course another advantage of releasing it late is that people with memories regarding him would be dead.

They're not releasing the tapes, but playing excerpts. This has done before eg here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4NGKCPz-n4 . The tapes were also covered during the trial in the 60s. Eichmann's defense fought to get them excluded and Eichmann said they were inadmissible as evidence because they were drunken ramblings or some such if I remember correctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kom8iVUG48w&ab_channel=EichmannTrialEN

If the tapes were faked, I imagine the defense would have tried to expose them fully, and thus establish the first strong evidence for the Holohoax(tm)

It's not close to being in the same realm of political relevancy. When is the last time legislation got blocked or even reversed when invoking the specter of the holodomor?

Well Holodomor has been invoked by Ukranian nationalists since before WW2 and is thus a probable factor in the pretty significant war that is happening right now. US and the West had reason to play up Soviet atrocities during the cold war. Putting my conspiracy hat on, I can see how these things at least to some extent could have been fabricated by questionable actors, which I believe is the official position of the current Russian goverment.

Nevertheless your position is the Holocaust is comparable to these other events in terms of evidence, yet should be viewed with much more skepticism due to the fact that various parties have profited from it or exploited it for political gain?

For this reason too, unprecedented archeological steps should be undertaken, eg excavating the tons of human cremains alleged to still be buried at the Action Reinhardt sites for DNA testing (to verify victim count, and that the remains are indeed human)

And now seeing broader context his next sentence is that it did not happen. What a surprise.

Yeah, he says they didn't kill 10.3 million, or even half that. Sassen circle was using Reitlinger's numbers (up until that point, the only academic treatment of the Holocaust). Reitlinger put the death toll at 4.5 million.

Furthermore he says they they tried and failed to kill 10.3 million ("a complete elimination"), but if they had done it "we would have fulfilled our duty". Does this support the denier position?

 

[Heckler1]

Ironically I think part of the reason people deny the Holo is because of Jews. Let me explain, when the information came out, the Jews thrust themselves front and center and made the entire thing about (((them))) , when it was really anyone who was seen as a potential agitator/enemy of the reich. So because they insisted on being dramatic attention whores, it actually lessens the true horror of what happened and makes the numbers not make sense.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Well Holodomor has been invoked by Ukranian nationalists since before WW2 and is thus a probable factor in the pretty significant war that is happening right now. US and the West had reason to play up Soviet atrocities during the cold war. Putting my conspiracy hat on, I can see how these things at least to some extent could have been fabricated by questionable actors, which I believe is the official position of the current Russian goverment.

Nevertheless your position is the Holocaust is comparable to these other events in terms of evidence, yet should be viewed with much more skepticism due to the fact that various parties have profited from it or exploited it for political gain?

My point is that in actual political relevancy of discussing one or the other is comparing a mountain to a molehill. I've given some examples as to why, and you don't seem to be disagreeing with those, so I presume you agree.

1. There are no significant transfers of wealth as a result of the holodomor
2. The amount of movies / documentaries made is probably somewhere between 50:1 or 1000:1 when compared between these events
3. Invoking the holodomor has not been used to block or reverse legislation as far as I know, but I could easily count to a dozen examples where the holocaust was used for this in european countries.

In regards to 3, to make it a little more relevant to my american friends, when's the last time there was a US holodomor remembrance day? Exactly.

The social and political value of questioning/verifying holodomor is of a completely different order of magnitude.

So when you try to do a what about holodomor question, why isn't there more call for those bodies being dug up, the easy answer is that not every child in the west is being educated at school and in media that the holodomor happened. My guess is that only roughly 50% people at most even know what it is across the west.

Is it historically relevant? Yes.
Is it worth investigating? Yes.
Should we be skeptical about all claims? Yes.

But you know it's not the same ballpark and you know you're just trying to misdirect things for your own advantage, again.

 

[Chugger]

But you know it's not the same ballpark and you know you're just trying to misdirect things for your own advantage, again.

the Holocaust as a singular event is surely more prominent in consciousness, though to be fair for American conservatives the crimes of the USSR are really big in defining their anti-socialist position. And people here are really really uneducated about the Holocaust. So I don't think it's big deal for most.

But let's not split hairs here. Fundamentally I disagree that "prominence" is a sound basis for launching an unparalleled campaign of corpse excavation. Rather, in all cases, such investigation should be conducted only if there is some kind of definable uncertainty about the matter. There seems to be none with the atrocities committed both by the USSR and Nazi Germany.

 

[Stoneheart]

There seems to be none with the atrocities committed both by the USSR and Nazi Germany.

those 2 were not the same..... one were starving their own people for shits and giggles while the other one was fighting globohomo...

 

[Lemmingwise]

And people here are really really uneducated about the Holocaust.

Through the survey, the Claims Conference calculated Holocaust "knowledge scores" using the percentage of millennials and Gen Z adults who met all three criteria: they have definitively heard about the Holocaust, the can name at least one concentration camp, death camp, or ghetto, and they know that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

Lmao, 6 million jews killed. Something you disagreed with earlier. People who say that 6 million didn't die are used as an example of being "uneducated" about the holocaust. I think you've agreed earlier, though perhaps it was another affirmer, that the number isn't 6 million and that even the sanctioned historians agree.

That number is used to support the claim that people are "uneducated".

Also your other answer doesn't even compare to my question. I'm used to that by now, but I won't stop pointing it out until you actually address what is asked.

 

[Chugger]

but I won't stop pointing it out until you actually address what is asked.

I agreed that the Holocaust as a singular event is much more prominent than any specific crime committed by the USSR, so what are you asking exactly?

 

[Bonesjones]

Why do you faggots never stop coming out of the woodwork with the most lame debunkings of all time? You start with physical evidence and move on from there. It doesn't matter how many signed confessions you point to if you have zero bodies to point to. Otherwise every self admitted serial killer list would be death tolls in the zillions.

 

[History Speaks]

Documentary evidence is the foundation of history. Contrary to the memes, it is the Holocaust deniers, not the mainstream, who exhibit an evidentiary double standard in this context, by dismissing evidence they accept as proof of other historical events. Deniers do not demand exact physical evidence to prove the Holodomor, or the Battle of the Somme.

That said, there is massive physical evidence for the Holocaust.

There is overwhelming chemical evidence that the gas chambers were exposed to hydrogen cyanide. For example, despite the fact that four of the five Auschwitz-Birkenau crema buildings (gas chambers) are in ruins, they still contain much more cyanide than the other buildings in Birkenau, excluding the (intact) delousing chambers. Why would the residue (mortar, etc) of these buildings, dynamited by the Germans and exposed to the elements for 80 years, still contain so much more cyanide than random buildings in Auschwitz?

By the way, there was a gas chamber in Majdanek that was not demolished by the Nazis, before liberation and contained the Prussian Blue staining you are obsessed with. See attached pic.

While repeating "muh mass graves" like trained parakeets, you ignore the numerous mass graves that have been found. For example the dozens of mass graves found in Belzec, which even denier Carlo Mattogno admits could accomodate 170,000 corpses. (This is a vast underestimate, due to Mattogno's failure to acknowledge how starved the Jews were, but still revealing.)

 

[Certified_Autist]

Documentary evidence is the foundation of history. Contrary to the memes, it is the Holocaust deniers, not the mainstream, who exhibit an evidentiary double standard in this context, by dismissing evidence they accept as proof of other historical events. Deniers do not demand exact physical evidence to prove the Holodomor, or the Battle of the Somme.

That said, there is massive physical evidence for the Holocaust.

There is overwhelming chemical evidence that the gas chambers were exposed to hydrogen cyanide. For example, despite the fact that four of the five Auschwitz-Birkenau crema buildings (gas chambers) are in ruins, they still contain much more cyanide than the other buildings in Birkenau, excluding the (intact) delousing chambers. Why would the residue (mortar, etc) of these buildings, dynamited by the Germans and exposed to the elements for 80 years, still contain so much more cyanide than random buildings in Auschwitz?

By the way, there was a gas chamber in Majdanek that was not demolished by the Nazis, before liberation and contained the Prussian Blue staining you are obsessed with. See attached pic.

While repeating "muh mass graves" like trained parakeets, you ignore the numerous mass graves that have been found. For example the dozens of mass graves found in Belzec, which even denier Carlo Mattogno admits could accomodate 170,000 corpses. (This is a vast underestimate, due to Mattogno's failure to acknowledge how starved the Jews were, but still revealing.)

I see you lurked for over a year just to shill your YouTube channel and repeat mainstream talking points.

Have a look at some of these images

Image 1) Points out the contradictions in claimed death counts at Auschwitz, as well as demonstrating the flawed basis for those claims
Image 2) points out many logical issues with the Holocaust narrative
Image 3) All camps were initally claimed to be death camps. However, image demonstrates that all camps inspected by the U.S. were proven to be labor camps and not death camps.
Image 4) is the official death toll by the count of the Red Cross
Image 5) is an explanation of why Cyanide was present at camps (delosuing clothes and bedding) and why it would have been impractical to use it as a means of mass murder.

 

[Bonesjones]

Are you telling me the Soviets would lie about mass murder? Next you'll tell me they tried to frame the Nazis for their own crimes. How can you not trust a communist!

 

[soy_king]

those 2 were not the same..... one were starving their own people for shits and giggles while the other one was fighting globohomo...

Lol, how are you not being carted away by ex Stasi right now? If you are, feel free to flee here to a country that still technically values freedom of speech.

I do find it interesting how a lot of revisionists seem to argue that the narrative was that all the Jews died in camps, when large numbers were liquidated in ghettos. And even if we were to get past the mass murder of people, how exactly can you argue that the Nazis were sympathetic to Jews or wouldn't have batted an eyelid at mass executions when Mein Kampf and decades of Nazi speeches label them as the great enemy to the Master Race, followed by the Nuremberg laws and the desecration of religious sites and cemeteries?

As for arguing that it was actually the Soviets who committed the atrocities, how can you argue that when the Soviets had a documented history of evacuating Jews from cities about to be occupied and had Jews in the ranks of the Red Army?

 

[Bonesjones]

I do find it interesting how a lot of revisionists seem to argue that the narrative was that all the Jews died in camps, when large numbers were liquidated in ghettos.

Hey look you just revised the holocaust!