What is the Revisionist 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
Huntinger
Posts: 7508
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:14 am
It was accepted as fact that chambers were used for mass killings. It was accepted that those who worked at the camps did not know for certain how those inside the chambers were killed.
Jesus and Buraq are accepted as fact by religious communities and still millions world wide. The fact that it was accepted as fact does not make it so. Any real evidence please. :?:


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Amt IV


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


Turnagain
Posts: 8249
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie frantically weasel dodges but it's obvious that he didn't read my link to the Thomas Kues article. He even tries to omit what Bomba actually said. From Bomba:
B. I am pretty sure. And I know about it, I was there and I saw it. I was inside and not many people - maybe 2 or 3 of the people who worked in the second part of Treblinka are still alive. I was one of them, I know, I was there and I saw that."
"...I know, I was there and I saw that." Bomba hedges his bet but quickly recovers and goes on to claim that, "I was there and I saw that". If Nessie had actually read the source he would have seen that Bomba definitely claims to have been in the gas chamber and witnessed the gassing/asphyxiations. Oh well, just another lie by omission by Nessie.

As far as Rajchman's statements, Nessie simply lies. Rajchman DID say that the air was pumped out of the gas chamber and exhaust was pumped in. He also said that, as an experiment, the Germans pumped the air out of the chamber and left Jews inside for two days. He then claimed that some Jews were still alive when the vacuum chamber was opened. Nessie tries to claim that since some Jews were still alive then the Germans didn't pump any air out of the chamber. No, it just means that Rajchman claimed that a few Jews could survive a partial vacuum in a hermetically sealed chamber for two days. Rajchnam was lying of course. Lock 300-400 people in a small hermetically sealed chamber for two days and there won't be any survivors.

There weren't any gas/vacuum chambers at Treblinka. Nessie tries to dress up the fantasies of the witnesses as fact but fails miserably. No two witnesses tell the same story and even with Nessie's ever so careful cherry picking, he can't put a coherent story line together. Not even by shrieking, "stress", "hyperbole" and "exaggerations" and even a few "lies" thrown in.

Turnagain
Posts: 8249
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
It was accepted that those who worked at the camps did not know for certain how those inside the chambers were killed.
Nessie claims that he accepts that those who worked in the camp didn't know how the gas/vacuum chambers worked. Of course the witnesses all claim that they knew exactly how the gas/vacuum chambers operated. That's right, folks, don't pay any attention to what those so-called eyewitnesses said. Nessie will tell you what they actually meant. You betcha'!

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by been-there »

.
In an effort to direct the attention away from all the lies, exaggerations and physically impossible testimonies of the eye-witness/lie-witness “survivors”, a troll asked what is the Revisionist narrative??

So... Here is an alternative narrative:
Nearly eight decades after WW2 was over, a representative of a 'holocaust' group goes to see the Minister of Urban planning of a country and says: "we have a problem: there are not enough holocaust museums and memorials in our country. We need more money in reparations so we can build more of them."

The Minister replies: "But we have already given you money for this. We have already built many memorials and museums".

“Yes, but we want more” explained the representative of the 'holocaust' group. “We need to make sure people never forget this term called 'the Holocaust' and the unique and special suffering of a special group of people during WW2 that it represents. So we need to constantly be building new ones”.

The Minister asks him: "Is there any WW2 historic 'holocaust' event that occurred in any town or city that we can attach such building projects too?"

"No" came the reply.

The Minister asks him: “That's a pity. It would have been easier to justify the spending then.
Hmmmm? Well, are there many people living in any city that had relatives connected to any WW2 historic 'holocaust' event that we can dedicate such building projects to?"

The rep answered: "Maybe, but no city has relatives constituting more than about 2% of the population. And anyway, that misses the point. The extra memorials and museums aren't meant for victims or their relatives."

The Minister asked: "No? Who then?"

The rep answered: "It's for everyone else. Especially impressionable schoolchildren.
I already told you, people must never forget this term called 'the Holocaust' and the unique and special suffering of a special group of people during WW2 that it represents. We need places which schools can easily take their pupils to, so that the horrors of the holocaust narrative can be traumatised permanently into their consciousness in order that the descendants of the victims will be protected from prejudice, criticism or blame".

The minister asked: "I see. So you are saying these building projects have little actually to do with memorialising victims of persecution for the consolation of their relatives? You are saying you just want to traumatise everybody else with pictures of corpses and piles of shoes so they not only remember but will never forget this 'holocaust' narrative and the people whose narrative it is?"

"Yes" the representative replied.

"Ok. Well in that case why don't we collect a whole load of money worldwide and say it is to build something really huge and memorable in one of the places in Poland cited in the holocaust narrative?' suggested the minister.

"Hmmmm?" the holocaust group's representative murmured appreciatively, "I like the sound of that. But, it would have to be very memorable and impressionable".

"Ok", said the minister, "then I think I have an idea for something we could do that would be really memorable and suitably traumatising. To explain it, let me tell you a story. We could do something like this but just on a bigger scale.
The other day my dog came into the house early in the morning holding my neighbour's white rabbit dead in it's teeth.
I knew I was in trouble and needed a solution. So I took the lifeless pet away from my dog, scrubbed it clean, got all the blood marks off until it was pure white again. As it was early in the morning I managed to sneak into their garden and put it back in their rabbit hutch before they had got up.
Later that day I heard wailing and screaming from my neighbour's garden and saw the neighbour's children running around hysterically. I went out into the garden looked over the hedge and asked as innocently as I could 'what has happened?'
My neighbour replied 'I can't believe it. Snowy the rabbit is lying dead in its hutch and the kids are going absolutely crazy.'
'Sorry to hear that" I replied nervously. "But why are they reacting quite so hysterically?'
'Well the strange thing is' he said 'we buried it in the garden a couple of days ago'.”

The minister waited for the laugh to his outrageous joke.
But the holocaust group's representative didn't show any amusement at all. He merely paused then replied:
"Nah. We couldn't attempt anything like that. In our case it would not be possible. There are no bodies at any of the alleged sites".
:D
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29137
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

Huntinger wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:16 am
Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:14 am
It was accepted as fact that chambers were used for mass killings. It was accepted that those who worked at the camps did not know for certain how those inside the chambers were killed.
Jesus and Buraq are accepted as fact by religious communities and still millions world wide. The fact that it was accepted as fact does not make it so. Any real evidence please. :?:
You cut this important explanation;

Like a stabbing where witnesses all agree that a person was stabbed to death, but vary over what type of sharp instrument was used. The important part is that the witnesses agree on the main event. It is expected, when witnesses do not collude to make up a story, that details will vary.

That is nothing like your religious analogy. You cut my explanation and introduced a strawman. Your use of logical fallacies continues.
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
Nessie
Posts: 29137
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:09 am
Nessie frantically weasel dodges but it's obvious that he didn't read my link to the Thomas Kues article. He even tries to omit what Bomba actually said. From Bomba:
B. I am pretty sure. And I know about it, I was there and I saw it. I was inside and not many people - maybe 2 or 3 of the people who worked in the second part of Treblinka are still alive. I was one of them, I know, I was there and I saw that."
"...I know, I was there and I saw that." Bomba hedges his bet but quickly recovers and goes on to claim that, "I was there and I saw that". If Nessie had actually read the source he would have seen that Bomba definitely claims to have been in the gas chamber and witnessed the gassing/asphyxiations. Oh well, just another lie by omission by Nessie.
Nowhere does Bomba clearly state he SAW a gassing or use of a vacuum. He never said he saw dead bodies being removed. A check of chronology finds if he was in a gas chamber, it was the old one, not in use, as the new one had been built.

I omitted nothing, as shown here;

viewtopic.php?p=173880#p173880

You cut most of that out, because it does not suit your claims, which is lying by omission.
As far as Rajchman's statements, Nessie simply lies. Rajchman DID say that the air was pumped out of the gas chamber and exhaust was pumped in.
viewtopic.php?p=173880#p173880

I said "Rajchman did not say pumping air out was the common procedure. He said that both pumping the air out and CO were used and then they tried to just pump the air out and not use any CO, but it did not work."

Where is the lie?
He also said that, as an experiment, the Germans pumped the air out of the chamber and left Jews inside for two days. He then claimed that some Jews were still alive when the vacuum chamber was opened. Nessie tries to claim that since some Jews were still alive then the Germans didn't pump any air out of the chamber.
No, it means they did not pump enough air out to create a vacuum, obviously some air remained, hence some were still alive.
No, it just means that Rajchman claimed that a few Jews could survive a partial vacuum in a hermetically sealed chamber for two days. Rajchnam was lying of course. Lock 300-400 people in a small hermetically sealed chamber for two days and there won't be any survivors.
That makes various assumptions on your part.
There weren't any gas/vacuum chambers at Treblinka. Nessie tries to dress up the fantasies of the witnesses as fact but fails miserably. No two witnesses tell the same story and even with Nessie's ever so careful cherry picking, he can't put a coherent story line together. Not even by shrieking, "stress", "hyperbole" and "exaggerations" and even a few "lies" thrown in.
You cherry pick statements, looking for parts that suit your desired narrative and you ignore likely explanations, such as there being a switch from an old gas chamber to a new one at the time Bomba and Rajchman arrived. They are clear that the use of a vacuum was something that had happened in the past, so old gas chamber and that engine exhaust was then use, which is the new gas chamber.
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.

Turnagain
Posts: 8249
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
Nowhere does Bomba clearly state he SAW a gassing or use of a vacuum. He never said he saw dead bodies being removed. A check of chronology finds if he was in a gas chamber, it was the old one, not in use, as the new one had been built.
Bomba said:
"After we were finished with this party, another party came in, and there were about 140, 150 women. They were all already taken care of, and they told us to leave the gas chamber for a few minutes, about five minutes, when they put in the gas and choked them to death. (...) [We waited] outside the gas chamber and on the other side. Well, on this side the women went in and on the other side was a group of working people who took out the dead bodies - some of them were not exactly dead. They took them out, and in two minutes - in one minute - everything was clear. It was clear to take in the other party of women and do the same thing they did to the first one."
Then we have:
"They took us to the place - we had never been over there, no one from Treblinka where we were, at our place, ever went across that big door going in to what we knew already was the gas chamber. They took us over there and we cut the women's hair. That was another thing that was horrible. Unbelievable. They took the women in, they undressed themselves and we were supposed to do a job. They didn't know they were going into the gas chamber. They didn't know they were in the gas chamber. They knew there was a little place called the barber's shop where they would have their hair cut, afterwards they would have a shower and everything would be finished and they would be back to work."
More from Bomba:
"B. (...) Going in they had put some benches, where the women could sit so they would not have the idea that this was their last way, the last time they were going to live or breath or know what was going on.

C.L. Can you describe how the gas chamber looked?

B. It looked like a simple room, closed from 2 sides with an opening on the other sides, like a door from this side and a door on the other side. But on these [other] 2 sides there was no door, nothing. At the ceiling there was like a shower head, to give the idea that the women going into the gas chamber were taking a bath - not that from the shower head poison gas or chankali(?) [read: cyankalium] or other things were going to come in."
Right, Bomba didn't actually say, "I saw a gassing" so if he didn't use those exact words then he didn't see the women get gassed. I mean, just because he worked as a barber inside the gas chamber, described the interior of the gas chamber and waited outside for a few minutes while the women were being gassed doesn't mean that he actually said, "I saw a gassing".

Nessie said:
Rajchman did not say pumping air out was the common procedure. He said that both pumping the air out and CO were used and then they tried to just pump the air out and not use any CO, but it did not work.
Evacuating the air and replacing it with engine exhaust WAS the common procedure. As far as the Jews surviving the partial vacuum, only a few supposedly managed to do that. Nessie tries to make the vacuum experiment sound a total failure. It wasn't. All of that is according to Rajchman.
That makes various assumptions on your part.
Yeah, that makes the assumption that humans can't survive without oxygen.

Your last statement is gibberish. The original three room gas chamber was NOT decommissioned after the new 10(?) room gas chamber was built. There are accounts of it being used when large numbers of Jews arrived and extra gassing capacity was needed and during slack periods when only a few Jews arrived at Treblinka. Your claim that it was put out of service is bullshit.

It should be noted that all of the above is predicated on the existence of gas/vacuum chambers actually existing. They didn't. Neither gas nor vacuum chambers existed at Treblinka. They were pure fantasies on the part of the Jew lie-witnesses. The German supposed witnesses? They said what they had to say. Finito. End of story.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29137
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:15 pm
Nessie wrote:
Nowhere does Bomba clearly state he SAW a gassing or use of a vacuum. He never said he saw dead bodies being removed. A check of chronology finds if he was in a gas chamber, it was the old one, not in use, as the new one had been built.
Bomba said:
"After we were finished with this party, another party came in, and there were about 140, 150 women. They were all already taken care of, and they told us to leave the gas chamber for a few minutes, about five minutes, when they put in the gas and choked them to death. (...) [We waited] outside the gas chamber and on the other side. Well, on this side the women went in and on the other side was a group of working people who took out the dead bodies - some of them were not exactly dead. They took them out, and in two minutes - in one minute - everything was clear. It was clear to take in the other party of women and do the same thing they did to the first one."
Then we have:
"They took us to the place - we had never been over there, no one from Treblinka where we were, at our place, ever went across that big door going in to what we knew already was the gas chamber. They took us over there and we cut the women's hair. That was another thing that was horrible. Unbelievable. They took the women in, they undressed themselves and we were supposed to do a job. They didn't know they were going into the gas chamber. They didn't know they were in the gas chamber. They knew there was a little place called the barber's shop where they would have their hair cut, afterwards they would have a shower and everything would be finished and they would be back to work."
More from Bomba:
"B. (...) Going in they had put some benches, where the women could sit so they would not have the idea that this was their last way, the last time they were going to live or breath or know what was going on.

C.L. Can you describe how the gas chamber looked?

B. It looked like a simple room, closed from 2 sides with an opening on the other sides, like a door from this side and a door on the other side. But on these [other] 2 sides there was no door, nothing. At the ceiling there was like a shower head, to give the idea that the women going into the gas chamber were taking a bath - not that from the shower head poison gas or chankali(?) [read: cyankalium] or other things were going to come in."
Right, Bomba didn't actually say, "I saw a gassing" so if he didn't use those exact words then he didn't see the women get gassed. I mean, just because he worked as a barber inside the gas chamber, described the interior of the gas chamber and waited outside for a few minutes while the women were being gassed doesn't mean that he actually said, "I saw a gassing".
That fits with he worked in the old gas chamber and people went to the new gas chamber to be gassed. It is also not clear if he is describing the old gas chamber or the new one, when he describes the actual gas chamber itself.

Note how he makes it clear, gas was used.
Nessie said:
Rajchman did not say pumping air out was the common procedure. He said that both pumping the air out and CO were used and then they tried to just pump the air out and not use any CO, but it did not work.
Evacuating the air and replacing it with engine exhaust WAS the common procedure. As far as the Jews surviving the partial vacuum, only a few supposedly managed to do that. Nessie tries to make the vacuum experiment sound a total failure. It wasn't. All of that is according to Rajchman.
That makes various assumptions on your part.
Yeah, that makes the assumption that humans can't survive without oxygen.
The witnesses with the greatest knowledge of how the chambers worked, such as Wiernik and Fuchs, only said that gas from an engine was used. They made no mention of air being pumped out.
Your last statement is gibberish. The original three room gas chamber was NOT decommissioned after the new 10(?) room gas chamber was built. There are accounts of it being used when large numbers of Jews arrived and extra gassing capacity was needed and during slack periods when only a few Jews arrived at Treblinka. Your claim that it was put out of service is bullshit.
I said is use was explained by Bomba's claim he cut hair in the gas chambers.
It should be noted that all of the above is predicated on the existence of gas/vacuum chambers actually existing. They didn't. Neither gas nor vacuum chambers existed at Treblinka. They were pure fantasies on the part of the Jew lie-witnesses. The German supposed witnesses? They said what they had to say. Finito. End of story.
The problem you ignore (and even ridicule) is what happens when we check for evidence as to what did happen if the gassing did not.
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.

Turnagain
Posts: 8249
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
That fits with he worked in the old gas chamber and people went to the new gas chamber to be gassed.
That's pure idiocy. It doesn't even come close that what Bomba said.
The witnesses with the greatest knowledge of how the chambers worked, such as Wiernik and Fuchs, only said that gas from an engine was used. They made no mention of air being pumped out.
Of course they didn't. No two alleged witnesses told the same story. As far as Fuchs, tell me which engine built by the Soviets fits the description of a gasoline 200 hp V-8.

There weren't any gas/vacuum chambers at Treblinka. As the witnesses in the USC film clips stated, it was a transit camp.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29137
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the Revisionist Narrative??

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:00 pm
Nessie wrote:
That fits with he worked in the old gas chamber and people went to the new gas chamber to be gassed.
That's pure idiocy. It doesn't even come close that what Bomba said.
He said he worked inside a gas chamber, he said he cut hair. He did not say which chamber he was referring to and he did not say he saw an actual gassing and the bodies being removed. It makes sense that the chambers he described being in were the old ones and that gassings happened at the new ones.
The witnesses with the greatest knowledge of how the chambers worked, such as Wiernik and Fuchs, only said that gas from an engine was used. They made no mention of air being pumped out.
Of course they didn't. No two alleged witnesses told the same story. As far as Fuchs, tell me which engine built by the Soviets fits the description of a gasoline 200 hp V-8.
If those witness gave evidence that was the same as any other, that would evidence collusion. It is normal to have inconsistencies between eye witnesses, even when they saw exactly the same thing at the same time.
There weren't any gas/vacuum chambers at Treblinka. As the witnesses in the USC film clips stated, it was a transit camp.
They did not claim it was a transit camp. They were very specific that they were selected to work and left the rest behind at TII.

Your narrative TII was a transit camp falls at the first hurdle, as you cannot evidence daily mass transports back out the camp, but there is evidence of daily mass arrivals, the trains that left were either empty or carrying clothing and personal items and very limited arrivals at Budzyn and Majdanek.

Your demand that we believe the Nazis could transport and then feed, clothe and accommodate c840,000 people from mid 1943 onwards, without leaving any evidence at all, is utterly ridiculous.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests