This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
At Auschwitz the documentary archives were essentially captured intact. 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. 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, in fact it contains precisely the opposite: reporting of death toll caused by epidemic typhus, with SS command ordering the death toll to be reduced "at all costs" in order to maintain a productive workforce.
In many cases the evidence was withheld by the Soviet Union themselves, like the Auschwitz Deathbooks- 45 volumes of from the camp political department registering the death of almost 69,000 prisoners from 1941 - 1943. Why would this evidence be withheld for so long? In other cases the evidence has been outright fabricated, 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.
So you have evidence which ought to be there if it had happened, but it is conspicuously and entirely absent- like any documentary reference to an extermination of a million people in the camp records or in the top-secret decodes; then you have evidence which is there- the gas chamber structure at Auschwitz itself, but it turns out it's fabricated post-war by the Soviet Union. The point being, the confession of Hoess is extremely important because without it the entire Auschwitz Extermination Camp narrative does not have a leg to stand on. 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.
When it comes to burning bodies, crematoria featured at many concentration camps which are not claimed to have had any gas chambers like Buchenwald (although it was originally claimed Buchenwald was a Death Camp with gas chambers this was disproven). So you have concentration camps like Buchenwald with state-of-the art crematoria, but the Treblinka extermination camp did not have any crematoria and allegedly used the most primitive means imaginable to allegedly dispose of 800,000 bodies.
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. At Treblinka the cremated remains of 800,000 people are allegedly buried in precisely known locations, although scientific excavation of those mass graves has never been done, with Jewish authorities citing the exact same reason as the Canadian tribes for forbidding excavation of the Kamloops Children's mass graves.
There was non-invasive GPR analysis of the grounds of Treblinka studied by Caroline Colls, which you referenced, but the results essentially disprove the possibility that ~700,000-800,000 people were buried there before all allegedly being unburied and cremated on makeshift open-air pyres. But Caroline Colls was forbidden from performing excavations of those ground disturbances.
No, there was no gas chamber at Dachau. Dachau originally was perhaps the most notorious "Death Camp" originally according to Allied Propaganda. You review this clip of Dachau from the Concentration Camps film submitted and screened as evidence at Nuremberg where the narrator claims:
The Mainstream position admits that this film submitted as evidence at the Nuremberg trial was a lie. It's true that they still claim the "Brausbad" at Dachau was a gas chamber, but it was never used. The Dachau museum for years had a sign in that room that labeled it "Gas chamber disguised as a shower room- never used as a gas chamber". So the mainstream admits, despite the evidence submitted at Nuremberg making the claim, there were no gassings at Dachau.
I would definitely encourage you to watch this Revisionist analysis of the Treblinka: Hitler's Killing Machine cited in your link. 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. The absurdity of that TV special is so profound it is just best to review that film if you're interested in the Revisionist analysis of that TV special. Let me know what you think of it if you do.
No, it's not possible at all. There's not a shred of evidence for gassing at Treblinka I, not a single mainstream historian claims there was. Mainstream historians simply ignore the issue, the only people who point it out anyway are Deniers. I can't even give you an explanation for how mainstream historians would square the round hole there. I can tell you though they wouldn't claim there were experimental gassings in 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. This includes the Psychological Warfare Division (PWD) "investigation" of Buchenwald which falsely claimed to uncover lampshades made of human skin and shrunken heads of murdered prisoners manufactured by the SS.
Wartime atrocity propaganda is ubiquitous in warfare and especially modern warfare where mass media makes public perception extremely important. It's important to moralize the home-front and demoralize the enemy and provide moral justification for your war in the international community. In World War I the British conspired to create widely believed but false propaganda regarding "German Corpse Factories" which are eerily similar to the claimed "extermination camps" where millions were lured on the pretext of taking a shower to Factories of Death. There is a huge amount of historical precedent for false atrocity propaganda, it's an issue we have to deal with now with atrocity claims made by both the Israelis and Palestinians. There is no historical precedent for the German "Extermination Camps", it stands out as an outlier among all of history.
If you consider the perspective of the Western Allies, finding a moral justification for the war was extremely important. Poland was not liberated, it was conquered by the Soviet Union along with half of Europe. Europe was essentially destroyed with tens of millions dead. 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. It's your own prerogative to trust the CIA, but in doing so you should at least understand the incentives involved in maintaining this narrative. Without it, a lot of historical and cultural perspectives we take for granted as black-and-white become much more ambiguous.
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?
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.
You don't have to convince me not to trust the Soviets by default.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
In revisionist Carlo Mattogno's work on Hoess's confessions the torture of Hoess was attested to by people involved in the interrogation:
The "confession" consists of interrogation minutes signed by Hoess on March 14, 1946. You are correct that Hoess reported on his own torture, but you left out the fact that Hoess claimed to not even know what was in the interrogation protocol he signed that constituted his confession.
This was his first "confession", and he was tortured into signing it even though he did not even know what was in it.
You can say that later iterations of the confessions, in which the fact pattern of those confessions so happened to evolve with the knowledge of his various interrogators (Mattogno documents this very well), were not extracted from torture but that's not saying much at all. It's built on a foundation of sand, there are many reasons why someone who was tortured into a false confession would maintain a confession later without actually being tortured.
Hoess was captured because his wife was threatened with having her and her children turned over to the Russians:
A Nuremberg witness described a conversation he had with Hoess during the proceedings, from Mattogno's work:
And this is on top of all of the known falsities and contradictions laden in these "confessions." 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.
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. But this is a good time to consider how far the mainstream has to reach to substantiate their outrageous claims. 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.
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.
Ah yes, using ashes to fertilize cabbage was one of the claims. It sounds diabolical doesn't it? But human ash is toxic to plant life due to the high amount of sodium in human cremains. They have various claims for where the ashes were dumped, what they don't have is any physical evidence the remains were dumped where claimed.
At Treblinka II it's claimed the ashes were all buried on site. But they've never been excavated. Colls found a clay tile though! It gets more absurd the more you think about it. 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.
Instead what Colls did was excavate a small number of bones in a marked Christian gravesite south of Treblinka I (i.e. not where 900,000 Jews are claimed to be buried) and claimed to have found a mass grave.
People believe the Holocaust narrative because of the media transmitted in popular culture and what they are told in school. The "Final Solution" was the deportation of the Jews to Palestine, Madagascar, or territory in what was supposed to be conquered Russian territory. Not gas chamber extermination. This is laid out in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, which was a 90-minute meeting of mid-level officials. It's the mainstream that claims the minutes of the meeting were forged to camouflage the undocumented discussion of some grand extermination conspiracy. The Revisionists claim the minutes of the Wannsee Conference are representative of the policy, it's the mainstream that disputes their authenticity because it contradicts their narrative of the German policy.
Yes, the Holocuast is used to force guilt onto gentiles and subsequent "compensation" in various forms. But it's based on a lie.
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?
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?
That's not what my sources say. Do you have better ones?
Why was the facility buried?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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:
Where did the millions of Jews go?
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link