Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30149
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:........
Image

For the comprehension-challenged, true-believer: here is a remedy for any cognitive dissonance you might be experiencing from looking at the above photo.

Step 1.
Look at the photographic evidence above.
So your condescending plan is trying to lead us by the hand to your desired conclusion. Lets see how well that works.
been-there wrote:Step 2.
Now ask yourself if she looks as though her face or the other woman's is smeared with fat ash or not.
Got an answer in your mind yet?
Yes I have an answer in mind. Her face is clean.
been-there wrote:Step 3.
When you have arrived at an answer hold onto it in your mind, and then compare it with this tearful, emotional, crying recollection:
"It [the crematory] was burning day and night. The flames were so high. Fat-ashes fell on the camp. We were always smeared ... our faces ..."
So she was recollecting the time her face was smeared with fat ash, which from the photo was not that point in time. Was her face always smeared with fat ash or not? In this photo it is not, but that does not mean it never happened. Do you understand that?
been-there wrote:Step 4.
Consider which is more credible: a). the photographic evidence OR b). her recollection aged 80?
We need more information. Was the photo staged? How good is recollection otherwise? Is there evidence of a time when her face would have been covered in fat ash?
been-there wrote:Step 5.
If you think version b). is more credible go back to step 1.

If you think version a). is more credible, proceed to step 6.
False dichotomy.
been-there wrote:Step 6.
Now consider why a newspaper would print an article that defies historical accuracy and is complicit in a racist, anti-German distortion of reality seven decades AFTER the events?
Loaded question
been-there wrote:All the above steps require the application of critical thinking.
Try not to be swayed by emotions.
Try to temporarily suspend any previously held belief-systems.
Good luck.
You have shown a complete lack of critical thinking and how you use a twisted logic to try and prove a desired outcome.
been-there wrote:P.S. Anyone know HOW Linda Breder came to own such a photo of herself taken in Birkenau?
Maybe she bought it?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9734
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by been-there »

Nessie wrote:
been-there wrote:Step 2.
Now ask yourself if she looks as though her face or the other woman's is smeared with fat ash or not.
Got an answer in your mind yet?
Step 3.
When you have arrived at an answer hold onto it in your mind, and then compare it with this tearful, emotional, crying recollection:
"It [the crematory] was burning day and night. The flames were so high. Fat-ashes fell on the camp. We were always smeared ... our faces ..."
Step 4.
Consider which is more credible: a). the photographic evidence OR b). her recollection aged 80?
So she was recollecting the time her face was smeared with fat ash, which from the photo was not that point in time.
Was her face always smeared with fat ash or not? In this photo it is not, but that does not mean it never happened. Do you understand that?
We need more information.
Ha ha ha. :lol:
Oh, my.
We need more information to know if she was telling the truth concerning whether their faces were ALWAYS smeared with fat-ash from the constantly burning crematoriums which had flames coming out of their chimneys?? ! :roll:

Holy moly.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30149
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:
been-there wrote:Step 2.
Now ask yourself if she looks as though her face or the other woman's is smeared with fat ash or not.
Got an answer in your mind yet?
Step 3.
When you have arrived at an answer hold onto it in your mind, and then compare it with this tearful, emotional, crying recollection:
"It [the crematory] was burning day and night. The flames were so high. Fat-ashes fell on the camp. We were always smeared ... our faces ..."
Step 4.
Consider which is more credible: a). the photographic evidence OR b). her recollection aged 80?
So she was recollecting the time her face was smeared with fat ash, which from the photo was not that point in time.
Was her face always smeared with fat ash or not? In this photo it is not, but that does not mean it never happened. Do you understand that?
We need more information.
Ha ha ha. :lol:
Oh, my.
We need more information to know if she was telling the truth concerning whether their faces were ALWAYS smeared with fat-ash from the constantly burning crematoriums which had flames coming out of their chimneys?? ! :roll:

Holy moly.
Clearly their faces were not always covered, as the photo shows. I am taking into account the use of hyperbole, which from the witnesses discussed here and elsewhere is common. It is not the only thing I said we need more information about. You have found a contradiction whereby the recollection of an 80 year old is not perfect.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9734
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by been-there »

been-there wrote: How to explain a picture of her looking well-fed, well-clothed, clean, happy and smiling? Happily, healthily smiling in Birkenau,the infamous "epicentre of man's cruelty and horrendous, "sadistic" mass-murder??
Oh... an evil 'Nazi' forced her and the other woman to smile.
Just believe it.
Don't think.

Step 6.
Now consider why a newspaper would print an article that defies historical accuracy and is complicit in a racist, anti-German distortion of reality seven decades AFTER the events?
___________

All the above steps require the application of critical thinking.
Try not to be swayed by emotions.
Try to temporarily suspend any previously held belief-systems.
Good luck.
Don't forget step 6 for those of you comprehension-challenged true-believers.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30149
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by Nessie »

Will you be given us any more of your wisdom about what life and death was like at Birkenau and the way in which you think the various histories of the place have got it wrong?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé »

Cerdic wrote:So Kramer originally said he didn't know anything about gas chambers, and then when confronted with evidence of his role in the gas chamber at Natzweiler, he admitted to their existence at both Natzweiler and Auschwitz.

BT's reaction is not to assume the most obvious, that Kramer was a liar (1st statement) and changed tactics when he was unveiled as one (2nd statement), but to charge his British captives with torturing or otherwise coercing him into saying gas chambers did exist, for which he has no evidence.

Sorry to upset your faith based reasoning Cerdic, but it was the Frenchman Major Jadin who got Kramer to admit to both the Natzweiler and Birkenau gassings.

Jadin interrogated Kramer without authorisation from the British; they had permitted an interrogation of Kramer by members of the French War Crimes team or by two member of the French National Defence, but the records clearly state Jadin interrogated Kramer "without authority from anyone".

Kramer "admitted" to the gas chambers at Birkenau (and described them fairly accurately) in a July 23 statement originally made in French; having previously denied the existence of gas chambers at Birkenau to the British in his affidavit dated May 22.

Jadin was almost certainly the Frenchman Alan Moorhead mentions, who was "sent up here specially from the French underground to do the job," and left Dr. Klein begging to be killed after an interrogation session.

Further evidence that your beliefs are misplaced is Major Winwood's account of first meeting his client Josef Kramer, who
... was most concenered [sic] to know whether there were any charges concerning the camp at Natzweiler, where he also had been a Commandant. He was relieved to hear that there were no such charges and I learnt afterwards that this was the camp at which inhuman medical experiments had been carried out.
Kramer clearly wasn't concerned about any wrongdoing at Birkenau.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

Bob
Posts: 3404
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by Bob »

Cerdic wrote:So Kramer originally said he didn't know anything about gas chambers, and then when confronted with evidence of his role in the gas chamber at Natzweiler, he admitted to their existence at both Natzweiler and Auschwitz.

BT's reaction is not to assume the most obvious, that Kramer was a liar (1st statement) and changed tactics when he was unveiled as one (2nd statement), but to charge his British captives with torturing or otherwise coercing him into saying gas chambers did exist, for which he has no evidence.
The most obvious is that Kramer told truth in his first statement, when he realized that this nonsense is an "undeniable truth" and denying it will make his position worse, he changed his strategy, typical approach.

Kindly provide us with evidence which was presented and which allegedly forced Kramer to admit to their supposed existence.

Bump.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9734
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Birkenau: examining the currently accepted narrative

Post by been-there »

Image
Caption: Laundry sterilising/autoclaves in the laundry at Birkenau (Auschwitz II - Birkenau) Nazi death camp. Oswiecim, Poland
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 8426
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Auschwitz liberation lie

Post by Huntinger »

No Snow: Russians Caught Out
Daily Mail: Monday, Nov 2nd 2020
Auschwitz Birkenau complex was annexed by the Soviets 27 January 1945, the middle of winter. A few km away at another camp (Stalag XXIIB at Marienwerder in East Prussia) this was said about the weather:
January the temperature was —30c to — 40c, and the snow was head high at the sides of the road. One of our tasks during the winter months was to keep the roads through and round the farm passable, by shovelling the deep drifts off the roads, around two miles in all.

A Holocaust survivor has claimed that photos showing the liberation of Auschwitz aren't real, because none were taken at the Nazi-occupied concentration camp.
Image
Anne Frank's step-sister Eva Schloss, 90, who was sent to the notorious camp in Nazi-occupied Poland at the age of 15, appeared on Good Morning Britain today to discuss the 75th anniversary of its liberation.

Eva was 23-years-old when her mother Fritzi married Otto Frank, making her the posthumous stepsister to Anne Frank, who had died eight years earlier in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945.


She spent eight months at Auschwitz before the camp was liberated, and avoided being taken on a death march by the Nazis who fled with prisoners to try to cover up their crimes, because she and her mother overslept and were left behind.

However, the survivor has alleged that pictures of Soviet Red Army liberating the camp are fake, because Russian soldiers hadn't brought cameras, and says there was a heavy snowfall at Auschwitz at the time, which isn't shown in pictures.

She claimed that the photos, which apparently show the liberation, were in fact taken at other camps, but she didn't give an explain her theory further in the interview.
She said: 'It wasn't just Auschwitz , they liberated all the camps in [Nazi-occupied] Poland and that is really not known.

'Another thing I wanted to point out, there are many pictures about the Russians liberating Auschwitz and there's never any snow.
Image


𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 37 guests