FtSoA
6d ago
The Malaysian man never cared about Malaysia, just US politics. Odd.
Ahahahaha, are you not on Twitter at all? There's a notorious guy with this exact gig, and tons of non-Americans are obsessed with our politics.
But he was pretty interested in global politics, not just American. /r/worldnews was his jam.
https://x.com/stillgray?lang=en
But at the end of the day you're approaching this backwards. Coincidences happen all the time. There's no substantial evidence it's her, and even if it were her, it doesn't even matter, right?
The Malaysia placename does check out btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukit_Larut
Donald Trump didn't even enter politics that much until 2015-2016. He was mostly just a rich celebrity business mogul. And if you know anything about elites, even the literal politicians, they tend to get along surprisingly well anyway. Maybe the writer has no concept of being friends with people of different political beliefs, but it's a common thing.
I don't think you understand the argument here. If this were Ghislaine, what is she doing here saying derogatory stuff about Trump, her friend? About COVID? To what end? Also the posting went on until 2020, so I really do not understand what point you think you're making about Trump's political timeline.
This is exactly the sort of nonsense I'm talking about! If they're perfectly willing to say "Oh my god the account is still active, just look at this private message" then why are they so unwilling to just make a real post?
The cited PM says the guy thinks this is all pretty funny. I would too, were I him. Or her.
"Large numbers of people" but can only name a single group, the Worldnews moderation team who is directly incentivized to lie, is making suspicious and contradictory claims already
Uh, you're asserting "can only name" but that's not actually true just because the author didn't provide an exhaustive list.
I trust the market: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/7082/ghislaine-maxwell-confirmed-reddit-accout/
Man just skimming https://old.reddit.com/user/maxwellhill/comments/ shows it's very unlikely to be an elite socialite woman doing psyops on the internet. It definitely reads as someone who speaks pretty good Bri'ish Engrish as a 2nd language too, with slight verb, definite/indefinite article, and plural errors.
Examples:
Given the coronavirus situation in UK a couple of weeks ago, shouldn't the heir to the British throne canceled all those engagements? He is 71 years old.
Trump is a vindictive SOB and it’s scary to think that this unhinged US President is sitting on a pile of nuclear arsenals with the key code to unleash hell on earth.
Trump's behaviours such as this no longer tolerated by some European head of states.
WTF?! - how did a pedophile get a job in a children's detention centre in the first place? As this is one of several cases brought to light in recent weeks. So what's being done to prevent such incidents from recurring?
What do you think of the President Xi’s indefinite rule following the removal of presidential term limit? Is a good thing for China?
How would this change China’s foreign polices overal and in particular with the US now that Xi can focus on long term issues over a 10-20 years ahead. Knowing this how do you think Trump will manuever himself in order to cope Xi’s rising influence on the world stage?
So was Ghislaine trying extremely hard to consistently mimic the British English usage of a nonnative speaker spewing out median Reddit libtard views? Why?
I'm sorry if you read the comments from this account and think it's actually Ghislaine Maxwell instead of some Asian dude you have an incurable case of brain weasels. There's nothing but coincidences, tons of counterevidence, and it wouldn't even matter if true.
FtSoA
6d ago
Frankly I hold Mossad in too high of regard to believe any of this shit on incompetence grounds.
The Israelis are less risk-averse than their US counterparts as a general rule, but they aren't bumbling fools orchestrating haphazard sex-based coercion like this.
Also, to correct the record on Acosta claiming Epstein was told to go easy because Epstein "belongs to intelligence":
The OPR report also looked into allegations that have surfaced in press reports over the years that Epstein may have gotten special treatment because he was some sort of “asset” to U.S. intelligence agencies.
“Acosta stated to OPR that ‘the answer is no,’” the report said.
Rich Jewish guy hanging out with rich Jewish guys, some of whom have ties with the Israeli government, is not exactly enough evidence to show anything. Is anything about Epstein's alleged ties to the "arms world" actually proven?
If any of this was true one would think Ari Ben-Menashe would be dead already for spilling state secrets.
FtSoA
6d ago
Oh sure, it's definitely not something that could be totally ruled out.
The 180 is hilarious to witness after all that build up.
FtSoA
6d ago
My apologies.
I was trying to specify the particularly looney part of the Left, not the whole Left.
Harder to make that distinction for the MAGA community, sadly.
FtSoA
6d ago
Doing it anyway like what has happened seems like a pretty bad idea, no?
Whole point is to keep things quiet.
I assure you there were serious theories about fake blood capsules. I saw this from both Right and Left people.
Nevermind the real bullets that killed real people.
FtSoA
6d ago
https://coagulopath.com/ghislaine-maxwell-does-not-have-a-secret-reddit-account/
Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.
Even most of the time.
FtSoA
6d ago
The only confirmed blackmail case is Bill Gates.
O rly? Confirmed you say?
This is like saying James Bond is a liar. Epstein lying to his clients about why he’s loaded and what connections he has is exactly what he would do if he were Mossad.
He was bragging about being a Mossad agent, though, is the thing. Very bad OPSEC. Kinda the opposite of what you want to do.
You are also ignoring very important evidence
I don't see any "very important evidence" about whether there was a black intel op involved here, no.
In 2017, "a former senior White House official" reported that Alexander Acosta, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who had handled Epstein's criminal case in 2008, had stated to interviewers of President Donald Trump's first transition team: "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to 'leave it alone'", and that Epstein was "above his pay grade".
So, if true, why did it end up this way? (And if were true, why is this Acosta guy blabbering about that in public? Who is "intelligence"? There are protocols for handling sensitive asset issues and this ain't it.)
FtSoA
6d ago
Are YOU saying that his claims of the election being stolen are credible, since you're here saying that he's honest about such serious matters?
Well Bondi hasn't investigated those yet.
/s
The overall problem is that Trump is not a reliable narrator. For this assassination attempt, he came out looking very good, by a centimeter or two. (Can you imagine what would have happened if like the side of his face was blown off, but he survived?)
That led to competing conspiracy theories:
- BlueAnon types thinking it was staged.
- QAnon types thinking it was a plot or at least allowed to happen by the Deep State, to actually kill him.
Since Trump came out against the theory favored by (some of) his supporters, that takes all the steam out of it. No reason to expect he would lie on this.
For elections, Trump says basically every one he's in is rigged. If he loses, it's rigged against him. If he wins, it's rigged against him (or they tried to, apparently, in 2024, per his Epstein tweet).
FtSoA
6d ago
Ross Ulbricht was not a Mossad asset, was he? Typically, one gives one's operatives some OPSEC training.
But also you just literally described where he didn't use his name as a handle. He disclosed his name while using the handle.
That's a very different kind of error.
It's fucking funny to even consider that a super sex coercion operative would also be used as a Reddit influencer using her real name. Was that really her competitive advantage for an intelligence agency in terms of effort or exposure risk?
Come the fuck on. Mossad is not retarded. Risk mitigation is a thing.
FtSoA
6d ago
Oh there are a lot more than four kinds.
MICE is super old, plus there's typically more than one motivation in the mix.
And I assure you that those who do it for the money pretty often just need to be found, or want to be found. Money is nice. People like it.
But, usually, people willing to put their life on the line as a covert operative are doing it for more than just money. Money as a primary motivator is typically not the best kind of asset.
FtSoA
6d ago
This is not how evaluating coincidences should work.
https://www.econlib.org/just-a-coincidence
What are the chances that out of 8 billion plus people in the world, it's you and me right now debating this? Astronomical really.
Someone with a massive public profile doing shady shit would have -10000% probability to put their last name as their Reddit handle where they were a power user and top mod.
It's far more plausible it's just a coincidence, unless there is strong evidence to even consider this hypothesis at all. (There isn't, which is why your merely privileging the hypothesis.)
See also: https://coagulopath.com/ghislaine-maxwell-does-not-have-a-secret-reddit-account/
FtSoA
6d ago
What's the probability vs Ghislaine they would name themselves "maxwellhill?" Let's say indeterminate.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.
Bayes doesn't work if you don't accurately evaluate the evidence.
FtSoA
6d ago
The lowest circle of the Inferno, the ice is full of traitors. What has the US done, time and again? Turned spies against their country of origin. If the US government can find a reason to trust someone who commits the gravest sin below treachery to God, no doubt with as little slack as they're given, they can find a reason to trust a guy who lied at parties and fumbled around early in his career.
This is not how HUMINT agencies evaluate potential assets, no.
Most spies don't "need" to be "turned" against their country; they just need to be found.
Being a "traitor" is also very much an eye-of-the-beholder situation. Nathan Hale, patriot or traitor?
Personally, I'm very grateful to e.g. the "traitors" to communism in the USSR.
None of what you describe of his background is specifically disqualifying for his use as an asset.
Reliability and discretion matter quite a lot, in fact, for the value of an operational asset conducting sensitive missions.
They have reason to run a perpetual blackmail machine, including targeted those who appear to be on their side.
They also have reason to avoid ops that, if exposed, would cause major problems. Risk, reward.
I would ask, given what we know about his life and how often men like him skirt justice, is it probable that rather than torching literally any VIP he could draw from the list of flights, he instead just killed himself? It's not.
Well, he wasn't able to skirt justice, right?
There is also maxwellhill. Ghislaine Maxwell had a prominent hand in the general psy-opping of the giant psy-op that is Reddit. She was, maybe still is, an intelligence asset. What was Epstein, then?
You're just asserting that as proven fact? Somebody with her profile, especially if she was ever an actual intel asset, puts their fucking real name as their handle?
Come on. Be serious now.
FtSoA
6d ago
Well, Epstein was his friend.
It's totally plausible Trump participated in Epstein parties with those young girls Trump said Epstein liked so much. At this point, it's not very plausible that concrete evidence for such activities exists.
The Epstein Story is now an albatross around the Trump Admin's neck from their own supporter base.
It's not an unprompted reaction--there's a lot of strife in MAGA World right now over it. As I said in another comment:
"The MAGAtard Nation has just been spewing BS and is now the dog that caught the car while also driving the car." Including, of course, his present FBI director and deputy director.
Well besides any formal revelation of the documentation, I'd expect at least partial leaks of any juicy bits. Or at least semi-credible rumors.
For instance, there are allegations that there are never-released tapes of Trump saying very politically correct things on The Apprentice.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-trump-apprentice-tapes/story?id=57192712
For the Epstein stuff, I'm not aware of any specifics like that. Obviously, the typical person highly interested in Epstein is also pretty dang MAGA, and this tension has now been built in since Trump I. But it's not like the Epistemically Unsound Left hasn't tried to believe anything possible about Trump being a rapist. Or a Russian asset.* I loved BlueAnon believing the assassination attempt was faked.
So the simplest explanation is there's "no there, there." Can't leak what doesn't exist. The MAGA [REDACTED] Nation has just been spewing BS and is now the dog that caught the car while also driving the car.
The whole "intel black op theory" at least theoretically explains why no one is revealing any further details (if they even exist). Of course, if Epstein was supporting highly controversial totally black ops, one would hope the relevant intel agencies would have spirited him away, or conducted some kind of much cleaner cover up much earlier.
*For the record, RussiaGate did in fact find a lot of pretty bad shit that would have been unthinkable. But claims and expectations exceeded evidence; so some can pretend Trump was totally vindicated and it was all a hoax.
FtSoA
6d ago
I'm not debating whether Hoss was tortured.
I'm pointing out his gave a consistent account for a long time after that. Weird that his torturers allowed him to claim he had been tortured, but were able to force him to never recant his overall narrative.
Did you even skim the source I provided that discussed corroboration? Are you just gonna ignore the sources I provide and questions I pose and whine whine whine about how it's the mainstream that's incapable of engaging with reality?
But as I've already explained, the biggest problem of all is the lack of corroboration of these claims in the body of documentary or physical evidence.
What's funny is that when I provide such corroboration, or ask harder questions for you than you can ask of me, you seem to ignore it.
Were the camps merely for labor? If so, why destroy and bury them?
How would you expect the Nazis to conduct a secret operation and cover up?
This is funny, the tiles did not match witness accounts and the manufacturers logo would have been installed facing the structure, not installed with the logo facing outwards.
That's not what my sources say. Do you have better ones?
Why was the facility buried?
They claim 800,000 people were killed at the location they "investigate" but instead of excavating mass graves they find a clay tile and claim they have proven everything, while demonstrating their eagerness to overfit on the data by falsely interpreting a manufacturer's logo.
Well, as you love to point out, they haven't been allowed to do a full excavation. They found evidence of structures that matched accounts of the gas chambers and found tiles when they dug. What level of excavation would make you happy?
Revisionists claim that there were real sanitary facilities constructed in Treblinka II. This is supported by budget documents which explicitly have a line item for sanitation facilities to be constructed in TII. So a clay tile is also consistent with the Revisionist theory that this camp featured real sanitation facilities that were falsely claimed to be homicidal gas chambers.
Ok, so then why did the Nazis destroy and bury the structures? Do you expect the Nazis to be retarded enough to put: "Fake Sanitary Facility Actually Intended As A Means Of Mass Execution" in the budget documents? What level of evidence is actually reasonable to expect?
One funny anecdote from Colls scientific excavation is that she found a fossilized shark teeth from when Poland was a seabed millions of years ago! But if the cremated remains of 900,000 people were on that site, and each victim had an average of say 28 teeth, there would be over 25 million human teeth buried in this small area where she found fossilized shark teeth.
Not sure what your issue is. The human bones were ground up. The soil was disturbed/tilled, so a fossil could have been in the mix. If the shark tooth was so damning, you'd think that would have been covered up so clever Revisionists like you couldn't use it.
People believe the Holocaust narrative because of the media transmitted in popular culture and what they are told in school.
Did the media write Mein Kampf? Did it write the speeches Hitler made? Did it compile lists of Jews, make them wear stars, tattoo ID numbers on them, and put them into ghettos and camps?
Yes, the Holocuast is used to force guilt onto gentiles and subsequent "compensation" in various forms. But it's based on a lie.
Does any part of your mind wince a little bit when you notice that you can't stop focusing on the alleged gassing inconsistencies, and you fail to engage with what on earth were the Nazis up to with the Jews and where several million of them ended up? Do you cringe at all when you have to consider that the Nazis operated in a secretive manner with a cover up to hide and destroy evidence, such that imperfect evidence is what would be expected?
The "Final Solution" was the deportation of the Jews to Palestine, Madagascar, or territory in what was supposed to be conquered Russian territory.
Wait, the Nazis were supposed to be shipping the Jews out??? WOW WHAT A GIANT MISUNDERSTANDING THIS ALL IS.
Is that what Hitler meant by "annihilation"?
But the biggest question remains: WHERE DID THE MILLIONS OF JEWS END UP THEN??????????
Again, the biggest tell here is that you simply can't deal with the overarching facts that the Nazis hated the Jews, rounded them up, and then millions of them no longer existed. (The fact you haven't even tried to contend with this rather significant issue is pretty interesting. You have all kinds of ideas and sources re: Hoss and gas chambers and human remains, but not for Jewish population statistics apparently.)
You've also not addressed the false claims you've made about the COMINT/intercepts not having any evidence of the Holocaust. Do you see why people have a hard time respecting your views and the claim that actually you're just a no-nonsense realist concerned only with the truth?
So to sum up where I think we're at:
- Europe has a long history of negative beliefs towards and violence against the Jews
- Hitler wrote a popular book in 1925 that was highly critical of the Jews as significant problem
- The Nazis in general were highly concerned with identifying and controlling Jews in both rhetoric and action, before and during WWII
- Hitler "prophesied" a number of times about "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" and called them "enemies of the people"
- Hitler gave a speech to his senior leaders in late 1941 that led Goebbels to record in his diary: "Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that, if they yet again brought about a world war, they would experience their own annihilation. That was not just a phrase. The world war is here, the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence."
- The Nazis had a "Final Solution" for the Jewish Problem
- The Nazis systematically rounded up a lot of Jews and put them into camps
- There is clear evidence the Nazis tried to destroy/bury several of these camps, particularly towards the end of the war when the tide had turned - The "Final Solution" was the deportation of the Jews to Palestine, Madagascar, or territory in what was supposed to be conquered Russian territory
- ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
- The pre-war and post-war Jewish population of Europe, particularly Poland, has a gap of several million Jews
Where did the millions of Jews go?
Yes, the Holocuast is used to force guilt onto gentiles and subsequent "compensation" in various forms. But it's based on a lie.
Ah, is that why people hate the Jews so much? When they suffer, they deserve it, of course. But when they don't suffer sufficiently they have to lie about it?
Here's a joke I just came up with:
A Holocaust Revisionist dies and goes to Valhalla. He gets to meet Hitler.
The Revisionist says, "I tried my best to combat the lies they tell about you trying to exterminate the Jews."
Hitler responds, "Well thank you; we tried our best, but I'll always regret we didn't fully annihilate those bloodsuckers."
"Oh no, the Zionist propagandists got you too," cried the Revisionist.
I'll have to workshop it a bit.
FtSoA
7d ago
Yeah, in theory.
But, in practice, how often is there actual accountability? And a good way to fire them?
FtSoA
7d ago
Could just be a narcissism flare up.
I have a hard time believing there's any actually damning evidence against Trump or really anyone, or else someone would have leaked something by now. It's been a big issue for years, multiple administrations.
FtSoA
7d ago
There are many thousands of contemporary documents in the historical archive at Auschwitz, which is why the complete lack of documentary corroboration for the existence of an extermination plan that killed over a million people at the camp is so conspicuous.
It was a fairly secretive operation. And there was a cover up.
Or do you deny there is evidence of the Nazis trying to cover something up at these camps?
Even the top-secret decodes intercepted by the British, which captured top-secret communication between Auschwitz and SS command, contains not a single iota of reference to an extermination plan,
Are there not certain reports of death counts? A famous telegram, I believe?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-riegner-telegram
This one is a rehash, but highlights your mistake: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/01/secondworldwar.jamiewilson
What were they discussing at the Wannsee Conference anyway?
At least try to deal with the evidence I'm providing.
as we discussed recently David Cole in 1992 exposed that the "gas chamber" shown to millions of tourists on the tour at Auschwitz was actually fabricated post-war in Soviet-occupied Poland and presented deceptively as an original structure.
You don't have to convince me not to trust the Soviets by default.
There's no backup- the entire narrative rests on the reliability of this tortured confession extracted under duress during a World War which has been proven to be extremely unreliable in key respects, like the description of the sequence of events that led to the creation of the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
You're ignoring his memoirs and remarks made long after the alleged torture session, which itself was reported in his memoir. If he were a compelled witness, this is a very strange way to go about it. It feels like you didn't even skim the resource I provided dealing with these concerns head on.
And even burning a body does not remove the evidence: if 1 million people were cremated at Auschwitz-Birkenau, according to Grok that would produce 2,5000 metric tons of 5.5 million lbs of cremated remains, or 3,000 cubic meters of human remains by volume. These remains, though, have never been found or identified. They are just gone.
Well where did the millions of intact pre-war Eastern European Jews go? Are they not "just gone"?
Also, using ashes for fertilizer, dumping them in rivers, or any number of reported ways to hide them would seemingly explain this problem away quite easily.
No, there was no gas chamber at Dachau.
So the evidence I submitted is simply fabricated? Not that it matters, in that the Mainstream acknowledges it wasn't used.
Does the fact the Mainstream can acknowledge that indicate, perhaps, it responds to evidence?
They did not excavate any graves at Treblinka II, they found a clay tile and misrepresented a manufacturer's logo as being a Star of David intended to lure Jews into the gas chamber with a false sense of security.
Interesting though, isn't it, that the buried tiles matched the accounts of eyewitness accounts? And, sure, it only looked like a Star of David, though it was merely the logo of a Polish ceramics factory. Seems like a pretty understandable mistake to me. If you think about it, the fact the excavation pulled out tiles that matched eyewitness accounts is a little too convenient, right? But BUT, as you pointed out, they actually got it wrong initially that it was a Star of David vs. the logo of a Polish ceramics factory. That's kind of exactly what one would expect from an authentic find.
Why did the Nazis destroy and bury the site if it had a routine purpose?
Do you accept Colls found mass graves and artifacts at Treblinka I?
The precursor to the CIA- the OSS was the progenitor of many of these claims from the West Allies in the first place.
Deflection. The analysis was based on aerial photography which Revisionists have to pretend was doctored.
There was COMINT that indicated the Final Solution was indeed "final" as previously indicated.
There is no historical precedent for the German "Extermination Camps", it stands out as an outlier among all of history.
Well we can agree on that. One might conclude that perhaps it's not such an incredible outlier at all because it's not merely a figment of propaganda.
If you consider the perspective of the Western Allies, finding a moral justification for the war was extremely important.
This is really funny, because I actually went and read a bit of one of your recommended books--Debating the Holocaust--and that fine author pointed out at the end that the likes of Churchill and Eisenhower barely even mentioned the Jews in their war memoirs (and Churchill was quite philosemetic his whole life). The moral justification for the war is just fine if you pretend the Jews were never part of the equation, since Hitler was the aggressor, and the Allies didn't prioritize anything based on Jewish suffering. We nuked the Japs and they didn't even have any Jews to conduct medical experiments on or extract labor from.
Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, there were no mass gassings. Do you accept:
- Europe has a long history of negative beliefs towards and violence against the Jews
- Hitler wrote a popular book in 1925 that was highly critical of the Jews as significant problem
- The Nazis in general were highly concerned with identifying and controlling Jews in both rhetoric and action, before and during WWII
- Hitler "prophesied" a number of times about "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" and called them "enemies of the people"
- Hitler gave a speech to his senior leaders in late 1941 that led Goebbels to record in his diary: "Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that, if they yet again brought about a world war, they would experience their own annihilation. That was not just a phrase. The world war is here, the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence."
- The Nazis had a "Final Solution" for the Jewish Problem
- The Nazis systematically rounded up a lot of Jews and put them into camps
- There is clear evidence the Nazis tried to destroy/bury several of these camps, particularly towards the end of the war when the tide had turned
- The pre-war and post-war Jewish population of Europe, particularly Poland, has a gap of several million Jews
No wonder people believe the Holocaust narrative so easily, right?
Was Hitler wrong about the Jews? Were the Nazis wrong to have focused on them so much? Were their utterances merely rhetoric? The ideology of no import when it came to action? But seriously though, how wrong was Hitler about the Jews? Was his rhetoric correct, but he failed to act on it? Just how big of a problem were the Jews, objectively? Like, were they just a minor problem, not a major one? Or what? (At least he was right about the commies.)
Are the Jews really so crafty that they convinced the Nazis to be the perfect evil villains years in advance of the Holocaust? Did they plant the documentation of the Wannsee Conference and Einsatzgruppen reports? The tattooed numbers are a nice touch, too.
Arguing, correctly in some (but definitely no all) cases, that the Holocaust is surrounded by less-than-perfect eyewitness accounts, unknowns, exaggerations, propaganda, and all manner of historical flaws does not remotely begin to overturn the core evidence and present a more plausible account of what evidence we have--since creating and maintaining a conspiracy to manufacture a Nazi conspiracy is even harder to prove, and for which you have provided no actual evidence. Even if you had significantly weakened the hypothesis of the conventional take on the Holocaust, you have neither overturned it nor provided a remotely plausible alternative that explains things better.
The Holocaust is very important in providing a post-hoc moral justification for the war which is essentially the foundational myth for American global empire and 20th-21st century morality.
I think even you can recognize this is a pretty delusional take since the exact same people most up in arms about "Nazis" and "fascism" are also the most likely to be claiming that Jews are privileged White People, that Israelis are settler colonialists committing genocide, and that globalizing the intifada is a good thing to do. From the river to the sea.
Furthermore, the Allies did very little to prevent or mitigate the Holocaust, even rejecting many refugees. The American "global empire" left Israel basically to its own devices for the first few decades of its existence, when it faced overwhelmingly numerically superior foes in several wars. (Good thing Arabs are bad at war.) One might imagine we have wanted to compensate for that guilt a bit as time went on.
FtSoA
8d ago
Can you trust the Soviet investigators who "investigated" Auschwitz?
More than the Nazis who built the place I'd say. But notice that nowhere did I cite Soviet-only information as far as I can tell.
The authors of the Soviet investigation of the Katyn massacre, which falsely blamed the Germans for a crime that they had actually committed,
Funny, that episode is I believe a major reason why the Nazis wanted to burn evidence.
Can you trust the confession of someone that was extracted through physical torture, under duress with no access to legal representation and no access to documentary evidence?
Frequently, yes actually. Especially if corroborated with other forms of evidence. Especially given what Hoss wrote after his interrogations. He never admitted guilt, only following orders.
It's not about trust, it's about weighing the quality of the evidence against the nature of the claims being made.
Ok, sure. Let's agree on that.
Himmler's denial is relevant because Himmler's explanation for the conditions on the Eastern Front aligns with an enormous body of documentary evidence
By default, one expects a criminal to deny the accusation. By default, one expects a clever criminal to tell a lie that is plausible. By default, one expects a coverup if the circumstances allow it.
whereas the documentary evidence for gas chambers disguised as shower rooms performing executions of millions of people is completely nonexistent.
So you just don't understand how coverups work and deny the numerous witness accounts and artifacts? There were public accounts of the Holocaust in like 1942, Allied intelligence collected indications of it (which was not used at Nuremburg), and quite a bit of physical evidence for the whole shebang, including soil readings finding the relevant chemicals.
He also claimed there were gas chambers at Dachau and Mauthausen, which is known not to be true.
Is that known? https://www.ushmm.org/search/results/?q=dachau+gas+chamber+door
Best I can tell, there was a gas chamber at Dachau, but it was not used for extermination. The crematoriums did seem like they got some use though.
https://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/en/historical-site/virtual-tour/crematorium-area/
Seems the mainstream disagrees with you about Mauthausen, too: https://www.mauthausen-memorial.org/en/News/Concerning-Doubts-about-the-Existence-of-a-Gas-Chamber-at-the-Mauthausen-Concentration-Camp
You've demonstrated to me that I cannot trust anything you say about even the simplest of facts, including representing the "mainstream," so you'll excuse me for wanting you to at least make an attempt prove your assertions by default when you say things like "which is known."
According to mainstream historiography, there were no gassings at all, ever, in Treblinka I, which was a penal/labor camp.
Oh, so you do know what Treblinka I was? That's nice. You know, it is entirely possible one account gets any given detail wrong. As someone with some background in the interrogation business, I definitely agree that's an issue. But here it seems like you're trying to pull a stunt of "well if he got some things wrong the entire testimony is out" as if there isn't evidence the Nazis were using gas chambers for one thing or another since like 1939. Or other confessions. Or other material evidence. The general history seems to be that in the summer of 1941, mass killings started by the SS and they decided to switch to gas instead of bullets. More efficient that way. Cleaner. Thereafter, they built out the extermination program for the Jews in 1942.
We'll never know, but it's entirely possible Hoss witnessed some experimental gassings at Treblinka I. Or his mind was addled and he mixed up the sites (there were three in Operation Reinhard: Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka). Or, actually, his statement need not be read as his visit taking place in June 1941 either. Given the rest of his statements about the extermination of the Warsaw Ghetto Jews at Treblinka II, that aligns with July of 1942. Of course, that seems to conflict a little bit with Hoss also saying that his subordinate Fritzsch came up with the whole Zyklon B idea in August 1941. Hoss also says that at Treblinka the victims knew it was coming, whereas Auschwitz fooled 'em, which conflicts with at least later accounts of Treblinka also trying to fool victims. (But what did happen to all those hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?)
Here's a historical analysis of Hoss's memoirs: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/
That's an impressive level of corroboration from multiple other accounts for a conspiracy this large, and over some decades too. I love that Hoss got the estimate of the exterminated at Auschwitz down to merely 1.1 million later on. Weird way to be a coerced witness. "Yeah it was mass murder, but less massive."
There's no documentary record or physical evidence to corroborate the claims of millions of people gassed in secret extermination facilities.
How, on earth, can you say this if you're even remotely aware of the mainstream evidence on the matter? It's all made up? Multiple nations, thousands of witnesses? Hoss is just a total liar, as are the other confessors telling similar stories? The showers with airtight doors are just an outcome of German over-engineering and commitment to hygiene?
Where did all the Jews in those Jewish communities in Europe end up then? Spirited to Heaven? What were these trains doing? https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau7292
Your view is something like:
The real conspiracy isn't that the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews, it's that the Allies and Jews created the appearance of the Nazis trying to exterminate the Jews. Which was believable, given how much Hitler and the Nazis seemed to have it in for the Jews. Yeah, sure, the Nazis really didn't like Jews. But the "Final Solution" didn't involve mass murder, let alone with gas chambers and ovens. Just some forced labor. Deaths from disease. Actually, it's better to trust the Nazis denials over any confessions, or eyewitnesses--Jewish or otherwise--or intelligence reports, or aerial photography, or soil samples. Instead, this was all a massive concoction to ...
... to do what exactly? The Nazis had lost the war. No one needed to execute them just for fun.
Reminds me of my favorite antisemitic sentiment (common in the Middle East) is: "Obviously the Holocaust is a Jewish myth; sure would be cooler if it wasn't though."
There have been no excavations of any mass graves on the site. The ground radar has not "found evidence", or any more evidence than the same ground radar evidence at Kamloops Indian Reserve found evidence for the mass graves of children.
I was hoping you'd mentioned the Canadians.
So this is fabricated? https://www.livescience.com/44443-treblinka-archaeological-excavation.html
Last I checked the Canadians hadn't found anything or even pretended to. Also no corroborating evidence.
Frankly I trust the NSA and CIA on this analysis. Would be weird if they, decades after the fact, were still really committed to the bit using previously unpublicized information.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305894?objectPanel=transcription https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-quarterly/sigint_and_the_holocaust.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D-PURL-LPS92209/pdf/GOVPUB-D-PURL-LPS92209.pdf
You really gotta admire the competence of the international, multigenerational commitment to this fabrication across so many information sources.
Do you have any evidence there was intent and planning to construct such a false narrative?
FtSoA
9d ago
Oh we don't have to start an econ flame war here. Usually, when someone unironically uses the phrase "socialist" they do mean some kind of actual Marxist. And while I believe you that you do not support totalitarianism, the problem is that, empirically, a "large degree of command economy" instituted under Marxist ideology turns into a totalitarian nightmare.
If it's the kinder gentler kind of non-Marxist socialism it just leads to economic stagnation. Not nearly as bad.
If it is Ghislaine, she was really committed to the bit by making constant small Bri'ish Engrish grammatical errors.
More options
Context Copy link