Is an intermediate/compromise position viable?

"Orthodox" Position: 5-6 million Jews died, most of whom were executed in death camps or by shooting squads as a consequence of intentional policy of the German state.

(Typical) Revisionist Position: No general extermination policy, no extermination camps, the number of Jews that died was therefore vastly smaller, perhaps 1M or even less.

From the orthodox end of the spectrum, a notable outlier is Gerald Reitlinger who estimated a death toll of 4.2-4.5M. Hilberg's 5.1M is also on the low end. But these authors published their figures very early, Reitlinger in 1953 and Hilbert in 1961. These two Jews writing in the pre-"Holocaust" era likely felt less constrained on this point (and evidently didn't give the figure much importance). In subsequent decades (and especially after revisionism became more prominent), things seemed to gravitate back toward the original six million figure. While the floor could said to be 4.2M (the lowest published figure), the floor for current scholars is probably higher (mid-fives?) and I doubt many are eager to test the limits of what would be acceptable.

In theory, you might expect there to be a range of opinion (6M, 5M, 4M, 3M, etc), but in practice it seems on the one hand you have people who accept the standard version, and then on the other virtually everyone who comes to doubt the standard history in any significant way ends up concluding it's substantially false/fraudulent, not that it's merely somewhat exaggerated. The distribution of views is therefore strongly bimodal.

That there are and have been variations and disagreements about how many died, is explained by the process of gathering and assessing evidence. Multiple historians, working at different times and places and using varying sources of evidence, some of which have come to light at later dates and so were not available to earlier historians, have obviously reached varying figures. That is to be expected and indicates no collusion or conspiracy.

Does anyone hold a truly intermediate or compromise position on the Holocaust? As of the mid-1980s, I am not aware of anyone who promoted such a position. Today there a few who claim to believe in something along these lines. All of them were previously more strongly revisionist. Mark Weber, David Irving, David Cole are the most notable ones. (I would not count Eric Hunt since as far as I can tell he now supports the standard Holocaust; he might be the only one who has been willing to go "all the way" to the other side). Jean Claude Pressac is another case. Pressac might be the most interesting because he went from revisionist to "believer" but with a lot of heterodox positions (his 1989 book is full of concessions). Then he moved back toward revisionism somewhat by the end of his life. Whereas Weber, Irving, and Cole all believe (or say they believe) in an AR camps but no Auschwitz version of the Holocaust, Pressac seemed to accept all of it but just kept lowering the numbers for the camps further and further. Black Rabbit is perhaps another. He seems to be keeping a low profile so I don't want to discuss him at length, but my impression from reading his posts is that he went so deep with his research he started doubting himself and ended up conflicted and uncertain.

My intention here is not so much to discuss the views and sincerity of these few individuals (which has been discussed quite a bit in various places). Whatever the situation, it's clear that such compromise positions are rare. But why are they so rare? And do any of these compromise positions make sense or are they inherently untenable?

I would argue that the intermediate positions are not really viable and are in some ways less coherent than the orthodox view. I think there are two main reasons for this.

1- The extermination program
This is, in my mind, a binary question. The Germans either had an extermination policy (where extermination=killing) or they didn't. The traditional story is that they had an explicit but secret program. The only potential for middle ground on this would be a) to accept that there was an extermination program but to say that it had limited success (I have never heard anyone argue this), or b) to say there was no extermination program but that it ended up occurring in some form more of less spontaneously (an extreme functionalism). Some people argue something along these lines but only to a point since it's taboo to say that the higher ups weren't involved with the Holocaust. Such narratives feel forced, a means of salvaging a weak position.

The Final Solution was a planned programme to rid Nazi occupied territory of Jews. The programme varied over time and place as to how that was done. Initially, Jews could buy their freedom and emigrate, leaving most of their property behind. Even when that was officially stopped in 1942, there were cases where Jews could still buy their freedom, such as some Hungarian Jews in 1944. After 1942, the policy was to imprison the Jews, steal their property, and use some for work and those not needed were killed, AR had been set up in 1941 to help facilitate that.

However, there were variations to that policy throughout the war. In the east, the vast majority of Jews were shot, often with the help of the local authorities. In the west, there was more protection for the Jews by their governments. Very few Danish Jews were sent to the camps to work and in 1943, most escaped to Sweden. The Hungarian Jews were protected until 1944 and then only the rural Jews were sent to A-B. The Jews of Budapest largely survived and some were able to buy their freedom. The Dutch were the most organised at identifying and rounding up their Jewish population, which is why as a proportion, the Dutch Jews had one of the lowest chances of surviving the war of any country.

The Nazi policy towards the Jews can be described as a loose one, that concentrated on removing them from occupied territory, by various means, including killing, that varied over time and place and stealing their property. Hitler and the most senior of Nazis distanced themselves from that policy when it involved killings.

2 - Interdependent Evidence
A lot of the testimonies etc are similar across camps. In a way, I find the AR but no Auschwitz position to be less coherent than the orthodox position. If Auschwitz is a lie, that implies scores of outright fraudulent testimonies and other false evidence. That many false confessions and invented gas chamber stories would be a foundational blow to the Holocaust and would compromise the whole thing. If Auschwitz is a lie, it becomes extremely difficult to then argue that the even thinner gas chamber testimonies at the other camps like Belzec are true. Einsatzgruppen is arguably more independent. But even there, once we've accepted that the death tolls for the camps are wildly inflated and that tremendous amounts of false evidence was generated at the war crimes trials, it's difficult to accept a seven figure death toll for Einsatzgruppen with anything but skepticism. In this sense, the evidence is interdependent. People will tend to accept or reject it all together.

There are probably other points as well, but I think those are the big ones. These sorts of positions seem to be adopted only in very specific circumstances: a revisionist who wants to take a softer stance for whatever reason but without entirely repudiating their past work.

If Auschwitz is a lie, that does not mean AR is also a lie. They were separate killing actions, along with Chelmno, the Balkan states, Romania and the EG in the east covering Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic countries. Area commanders in the west, where there were no killing centres, had the option to send their Jews east to a place where they could be killed. The earliest examples of that were German Jews sent to the Riga ghetto, where they were shot at Rumbula in Dec 1941, to the Dutch Jews sent to Sobibor in 1943, to the Hungarian Jews sent to A-B in 1944.

There is no possible, rational intermediate compromise position. Millions were killed, and that there is a disagreement as to how many million that was, that disagreement does not require a compromise. The policy of extermination is misunderstood by revisionists, based on inaccurate, usually media sources, as it was a policy to remove the Jews from Nazi occupied territory, not a policy to exterminate, that also allowed for mass killings. If a person wants to reject the use of A-B for mass killings, but accepts the use of the AR camps, that is an odd position to take, because evidentially, both are proved to have been used.

nazgul
🕵️

𝕰𝖗𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖑𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎

Posts: 1,192

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 12, 2022 9:21:49 GMT

Post by nazgul on Dec 12, 2022 9:21:49 GMT

If Auschwitz is a lie, that does not mean AR is also a lie.

The forums known as RODOH have shown high probability that both Auschwitz and the AR story pertaining to Jewish extermination are fabrications.

Wenn Sie lernen, die Reise zu lieben, werden Sie nie enttäuscht sein...Bob Lowe

been_there
✍️

Posts: 1,153

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 12, 2022 13:40:40 GMT

Post by been_there on Dec 12, 2022 13:40:40 GMT

"Orthodox" Position: 5-6 million Jews died, most of whom were executed in death camps or by shooting squads as a consequence of intentional policy of the German state.

(Typical) Revisionist Position: No general extermination policy, no extermination camps, the number of Jews that died was therefore vastly smaller, perhaps 1M or even less.

From the orthodox end of the spectrum, a notable outlier is Gerald Reitlinger who estimated a death toll of 4.2-4.5M. Hilberg's 5.1M is also on the low end. But these authors published their figures very early, Reitlinger in 1953 and Hilbert in 1961. These two Jews writing in the pre-"Holocaust" era likely felt less constrained on this point (and evidently didn't give the figure much importance). In subsequent decades (and especially after revisionism became more prominent), things seemed to gravitate back toward the original six million figure. While the floor could said to be 4.2M (the lowest published figure), the floor for current scholars is probably higher (mid-fives?) and I doubt many are eager to test the limits of what would be acceptable.

In theory, you might expect there to be a range of opinion (6M, 5M, 4M, 3M, etc), but in practice it seems on the one hand you have people who accept the standard version, and then on the other virtually everyone who comes to doubt the standard history in any significant way ends up concluding it's substantially false/fraudulent, not that it's merely somewhat exaggerated. The distribution of views is therefore strongly bimodal.

Does anyone hold a truly intermediate or compromise position on the Holocaust? As of the mid-1980s, I am not aware of anyone who promoted such a position. Today there a few who claim to believe in something along these lines. All of them were previously more strongly revisionist. Mark Weber, David Irving, David Cole are the most notable ones. (I would not count Eric Hunt since as far as I can tell he now supports the standard Holocaust; he might be the only one who has been willing to go "all the way" to the other side). Jean Claude Pressac is another case. Pressac might be the most interesting because he went from revisionist to "believer" but with a lot of heterodox positions (his 1989 book is full of concessions). Then he moved back toward revisionism somewhat by the end of his life. Whereas Weber, Irving, and Cole all believe (or say they believe) in an AR camps but no Auschwitz version of the Holocaust, Pressac seemed to accept all of it but just kept lowering the numbers for the camps further and further. Black Rabbit is perhaps another. He seems to be keeping a low profile so I don't want to discuss him at length, but my impression from reading his posts is that he went so deep with his research he started doubting himself and ended up conflicted and uncertain.

My intention here is not so much to discuss the views and sincerity of these few individuals (which has been discussed quite a bit in various places). Whatever the situation, it's clear that such compromise positions are rare. But why are they so rare? And do any of these compromise positions make sense or are they inherently untenable?

I would argue that the intermediate positions are not really viable and are in some ways less coherent than the orthodox view. I think there are two main reasons for this.

1- The extermination program
This is, in my mind, a binary question. The Germans either had an extermination policy (where extermination=killing) or they didn't. The traditional story is that they had an explicit but secret program. The only potential for middle ground on this would be a) to accept that there was an extermination program but to say that it had limited success (I have never heard anyone argue this), or b) to say there was no extermination program but that it ended up occurring in some form more of less spontaneously (an extreme functionalism). Some people argue something along these lines but only to a point since it's taboo to say that the higher ups weren't involved with the Holocaust. Such narratives feel forced, a means of salvaging a weak position.

2 - Interdependent Evidence
A lot of the testimonies etc are similar across camps. In a way, I find the AR but no Auschwitz position to be less coherent than the orthodox position. If Auschwitz is a lie, that implies scores of outright fraudulent testimonies and other false evidence. That many false confessions and invented gas chamber stories would be a foundational blow to the Holocaust and would compromise the whole thing. If Auschwitz is a lie, it becomes extremely difficult to then argue that the even thinner gas chamber testimonies at the other camps like Belzec are true. Einsatzgruppen is arguably more independent. But even there, once we've accepted that the death tolls for the camps are wildly inflated and that tremendous amounts of false evidence was generated at the war crimes trials, it's difficult to accept a seven figure death toll for Einsatzgruppen with anything but skepticism. In this sense, the evidence is interdependent. People will tend to accept or reject it all together.

There are probably other points as well, but I think those are the big ones. These sorts of positions seem to be adopted only in very specific circumstances: a revisionist who wants to take a softer stance for whatever reason but without entirely repudiating their past work.

...There is no possible, rational intermediate compromise position.
Millions were killed, and that there is a disagreement as to how many million that was, that disagreement does not require a compromise...

Great post Gibson.
I always enjoy reading your intelligent, well-informed and thought-provoking contributions to the topic of Holocaust revisionism. 👏👍

It hadn’t really struck me before that the estimates of Jewish mortalities/homicides during WW2 from the earliest academic publications (Reitlinger in 1953 and Hilbert in 1961) were arrived at BEFORE the narrative of the Jewish experience during that war had been awarded this quasi-religious significance and legally-protected, sanctified status. Good point.

This reply above by the resident troll, is also interesting as although it is an example of an unusually unintelligent and illogical ’true-believer’ knee-jerk, position of basic contradiction, it does demonstrate the inability of the true-believer mindset to even consider the possibility that their faith-based belief-system could be better served by some slight revision. For them it seems to be: ”it is all true, accurate and certain otherwise my whole world view crumbles including my sense of worth and self-identity”.

That is demonstrated by this bigoted, dogmatic, unflexible, illogical expression of unsupported absolute certainty: ”There is no possible, rational intermediate compromise position”.
That is an expression of dogmatic, rigid, emotionally insistent ’belief’, not reason or logic.
As, of course intermediate positions are possible: you Gibson just oulined some that are ”possible”. 🤦‍♂️🙄

This is a rather extremely stupid example of the true-believer defencisve position, but, in my experience ALL true-believer argument’s online — I say ’online’ but as far as I am aware there is no other place where true-believers even attempt to deal honestly, fairly and rationally with revisionist arguments — strike me as similarly irrational and dogmatic assertions.

And TV documentaries NEVER, EVER come close to dealing with the flaws, contradictions, illogicalities and refuting empirical evidence. Instead they pretend it doesn’t exist and that there is no legitimate revisionist argument to be answered. This is a core feature of official holyhoax dogma and it demonstrates that ironically it is the H true-believer position that is the genuine form of denial.

Further evidence of that is the most recent TV documentary about the holyhoax — and in fact the ONLY one I personally know of that pretended to address revisionist arguments — is the pathetic, dishonest, deliberate misrepresentation and denial-avoidance that the BBC subjected the British minions to using a racist-Jewish comedian called David Baddiel.
Instead of interviewing a knowledgeable, erudite, academically qualified, published revisionist who lived within miles of their tv studio, they chose instead to travel all the way to Dublin to misrepresent, ridicule and encourage physical violence against an unknown, Irishman with a rather eccentric delivery.

Similary, the second sentence I left in from our resident troll, demonstrates the other core weakness of the Holyhoax true-believer position: ”Millions were killed, and that there is a disagreement as to how many million that was, that disagreement does not require a compromise...”.

Of course millions of all nationalities, ethnicities and religious pursuasions were killed. There was a war going on. The most destructive, mechanised mass-killing in known history!!! H true-believers never seem to be able to understand this. For them their ’holocaust’ belief-system is totally removed from that mass-carnage context.

It is therefore — ironically — the true ’denier’ position to take regarding the genuine suffering and racist targeting of Jews.

I.e. To believe 1.) that there is no ”possible” intermediate position, and 2.) that however many Jews were actually deliberately killed because of their Jewish ethnicity/religion it makes no difference to the ’holocaust’ mass-gassing/planned-genocide belief-system can ONLY be sustained by a series of denial of basic facts.
It is delusional.

nazgul
🕵️

𝕰𝖗𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖑𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎

Posts: 1,192

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 12, 2022 19:37:47 GMT

Post by nazgul on Dec 12, 2022 19:37:47 GMT

1- The extermination program
This is, in my mind, a binary question. The Germans either had an extermination policy (where extermination=killing) or they didn't. The traditional story is that they had an explicit but secret program. The only potential for middle ground on this would be a) to accept that there was an extermination program but to say that it had limited success (I have never heard anyone argue this), or b) to say there was no extermination program but that it ended up occurring in some form more of less spontaneously (an extreme functionalism). Some people argue something along these lines but only to a point since it's taboo to say that the higher ups weren't involved with the Holocaust. Such narratives feel forced, a means of salvaging a weak position.

The Reich did implement Aktion 14f13, or "camp invalid euthanasia"; this took the lives of about 20 thousand invalids of all ethnicities in the camps. It is this that is reported by genuine witnesses with statements such as:

"They did see how the disabled and elderly in their transport were hauled on to tippers and driven into the camp on a narrow-gauge railway." Judith Eliazar and Bertha Ensel- Sobibor.

The rest boarded the transports to be taken to labour camps. As the transports were Jewish ones, the invalids euthanized were all Jews with an assumption it were only they who were to be persecuted. This has morphed from a few selected to mass extermination of all Jews.

The definition of "genocide" can preclude mass murder. Segregation of the sexes to stop breeding is enough; so the Reich is guilty on that account. As there was no significant breeding, the only statistic is mortality which is high. Due to Ashkenazi Jews having genetic disorders, a sedentary business lifestyle their ability to survive outside home comforts would be much lower than rural working class people. Very few Jews were working class. It was calculated that during the war period 1.9 million Jews would have died of natural causes with no births.
Jewish natural mortality

This is not saying there were no atrocities committed against the Jews. Due to the million or so Heer and SS soldiers murdered on the Eastern from by Jews (with stories of horrific tortures) there must have been significant reprisals. The war in the East was one of annihilation. It was well known that the Germans had a code of summary execution for civilian combatants, so partisans, their supporters and families were open game.

What is lost is that 50 -55 million civilians perished in WWII, mainly Russian, Chinese, Indonesia and Germany. Their sacrifice is forgotten for the sake of a minority group who stand on the hill top screaming it was all about them.

Wenn Sie lernen, die Reise zu lieben, werden Sie nie enttäuscht sein...Bob Lowe

nazgul
🕵️

𝕰𝖗𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖑𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎

Posts: 1,192

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 12, 2022 20:55:16 GMT

Post by nazgul on Dec 12, 2022 20:55:16 GMT

The Final Solution was a planned programme to rid Nazi occupied territory of Jews. The programme varied over time and place as to how that was done. Initially, Jews could buy their freedom and emigrate, leaving most of their property behind. Even when that was officially stopped in 1942, there were cases where Jews could still buy their freedom, such as some Hungarian Jews in 1944. After 1942, the policy was to imprison the Jews, steal their property, and use some for work and those not needed were killed, AR had been set up in 1941 to help facilitate that.

You are going off topic, so expect this to be moved elsewhere.

You definition of "holocaust" is at variance with others. The WWII museum states.

The Holocaust was Nazi Germany’s deliberate, organized, state-sponsored persecution and machinelike murder of approximately six million European Jews and at least five million prisoners of war, Romany, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and other victims.

The latter part of 5 million is a complete lie. Wiesenthal admitted making up the figure to promote interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. JVL The number of non-Jewish civilians murdered for racial or ideological reasons in concentration camps, historian Yehuda Bauer estimates, was no more than half a million.

With such lies blatantly used over and over again it is no wonder that the rest of the narrative is under scrutiny.

This poster uses the same narrative over and over despite posters such as Prudent Regret producing excellent analysis on AR camps and their purpose. There is a failure to note that there were 230 Labour camps in Austria for Hungarian Jews up until wars end. The rout at the end meant the inmates simply disappeared fleeing with the guards. This was evidenced by a number of Jewish witnesses post war.

It is significant that the only people the Sobibor witnesses saw taken away were the disabled. It is significant that the transports to the AR camps stopped for significant periods of times at Labour Camp destinations on the way. The Sobibor witnesses speak extensively about trains being used to go from Labour camp to Labour camp, other witnesses mention trains going from camp to camp along the same route as the Treblinka trains.

To ask for evidence upon 3 existing "transport timetables" of specific people getting off or on is asinine. It is just that Treblinka was a Labour Camp with a Judenlager attached. This was evidenced by Marian Olszuk. Treblinka was also the end point of the labour camp transports coming from Poland and from Ostland. There is no reason to think people did not get off at locations en route. The people destined for the end point destination (Treblinka) were isolated in their own carriages and would have no idea what happened elsewhere when the trains stopped.

I do believe it is not the revisionists that is revising history but correcting the lies, falsehoods and deceit promulgated by a Jewish Minority. They use their links to establish powerful networks, then scream antisemitism when there is an attempt to expose their manipulations.

Wenn Sie lernen, die Reise zu lieben, werden Sie nie enttäuscht sein...Bob Lowe

Gibson
✍️

Posts: 115

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 13, 2022 2:14:25 GMT

Post by Gibson on Dec 13, 2022 2:14:25 GMT

If Auschwitz is a lie, that does not mean AR is also a lie.

It makes stories about the other camps, which rely on the exact same sort of evidence only weaker, very unlikely to be true. And it would mean that the mainstream Holocaust scholarship is totally bankrupt. I do not think you are fully recognizing how damaging it would be to the overall story if the Auschwitz component, the largest and most famous death camp, were admitted to be false.

There are dozens of gas chamber witnesses for Auschwitz. For example, Hoess gave several affidavits plus court testimony at multiple trials plus a supposed memoir, all of which speak in considerable detail of gassing millions at Auschwitz. If that is all false ... do I really need to explain why this would be a major problem for you or how it would compromise the broader Holocaust narrative? It would weaken the evidence for the other camps as well. In fact, Hoess is also a Treblinka witness, so in that case the Treblinka story would be weakened directly. If Hoess's confession is false, we can't very well turn around and accept the confession of Franz Stangl as gospel.

If Auschwitz is a lie, then the Vrba-Wetzler report is a lie. It would mean that Jewish groups at best passed off a bunch of rumors as reliable and at worse manufactured an outright hoax for propaganda. The rejection of Vrba-Wetzler (and dozens of other testimonies) will naturally lead to skepticism regarding the AR camp fake shower/gas chamber stories such as those offered by Gerstein and Wiernik.

Without Auschwitz, the six million number would also be impossible. The grand total would have to be lowered.

Nessie
🦕

𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)

Posts: 4,834

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 13, 2022 9:39:01 GMT

Post by Nessie on Dec 13, 2022 9:39:01 GMT

Dec 12, 2022 20:55:16 GMT nazgul said:

The Final Solution was a planned programme to rid Nazi occupied territory of Jews. The programme varied over time and place as to how that was done. Initially, Jews could buy their freedom and emigrate, leaving most of their property behind. Even when that was officially stopped in 1942, there were cases where Jews could still buy their freedom, such as some Hungarian Jews in 1944. After 1942, the policy was to imprison the Jews, steal their property, and use some for work and those not needed were killed, AR had been set up in 1941 to help facilitate that.

You are going off topic, so expect this to be moved elsewhere.

I was replying to Gibson's points about the "extermination programme" aka The Final Solution. My reply is bang on topic. I agree with him that "The Germans either had an extermination policy (where extermination=killing) or they didn't" and I explain that the extermination programme was a part of the Final Solution and other programmes to rid Nazi occupied territory of Jews. The exterminations were an option that was available to the area commanders, after 1941 until 1944.

You definition of "holocaust" is at variance with others. The WWII museum states.

The Holocaust was Nazi Germany’s deliberate, organized, state-sponsored persecution and machinelike murder of approximately six million European Jews and at least five million prisoners of war, Romany, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and other victims.

The latter part of 5 million is a complete lie. Wiesenthal admitted making up the figure to promote interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. JVL The number of non-Jewish civilians murdered for racial or ideological reasons in concentration camps, historian Yehuda Bauer estimates, was no more than half a million.

With such lies blatantly used over and over again it is no wonder that the rest of the narrative is under scrutiny.

This poster uses the same narrative over and over despite posters such as Prudent Regret producing excellent analysis on AR camps and their purpose. There is a failure to note that there were 230 Labour camps in Austria for Hungarian Jews up until wars end. The rout at the end meant the inmates simply disappeared fleeing with the guards. This was evidenced by a number of Jewish witnesses post war.

It is significant that the only people the Sobibor witnesses saw taken away were the disabled. It is significant that the transports to the AR camps stopped for significant periods of times at Labour Camp destinations on the way. The Sobibor witnesses speak extensively about trains being used to go from Labour camp to Labour camp, other witnesses mention trains going from camp to camp along the same route as the Treblinka trains.

To ask for evidence upon 3 existing "transport timetables" of specific people getting off or on is asinine. It is just that Treblinka was a Labour Camp with a Judenlager attached. This was evidenced by Marian Olszuk. Treblinka was also the end point of the labour camp transports coming from Poland and from Ostland. There is no reason to think people did not get off at locations en route. The people destined for the end point destination (Treblinka) were isolated in their own carriages and would have no idea what happened elsewhere when the trains stopped.

I do believe it is not the revisionists that is revising history but correcting the lies, falsehoods and deceit promulgated by a Jewish Minority. They use their links to establish powerful networks, then scream antisemitism when there is an attempt to expose their manipulations.

I do not disagree with that definition, except that there is disagreement over the numbers killed and how many millions it was. You suggest far more Jews survived the war than is otherwise considered, and you point to camps where they could have been. Your next step is to evidence thousands of Jews got off at stops on the way to the AR camps and that millions were alive and liberated from camps at the end of the war.

Is your intermediate position that yes Jews were killed, but not as many as claimed?

Nessie
🦕

𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)

Posts: 4,834

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 13, 2022 9:52:19 GMT

Post by Nessie on Dec 13, 2022 9:52:19 GMT

Dec 13, 2022 2:14:25 GMT Gibson said:

If Auschwitz is a lie, that does not mean AR is also a lie.

It makes stories about the other camps, which rely on the exact same sort of evidence only weaker, very unlikely to be true.

No it does not. Claims that people were gassed at Dachau or Bergen-Belsen being found to not be true, does not weaken the evidence for gassings at the AR camps or A-B. What it proves is that historians have checked the evidence critically and weeded out any false claims.

And it would mean that the mainstream Holocaust scholarship is totally bankrupt. I do not think you are fully recognizing how damaging it would be to the overall story if the Auschwitz component, the largest and most famous death camp, were admitted to be false.

If a historian came out with evidence that A-B as not used for gassings, it would be a huge story, but it would not mean the entire mass gassing claim would collapse. It would mean more investigation of the evidence for that camp and elsewhere. It would be more likely that the historian who claimed it was not used, would have a tough time proving his or her claim.

There are dozens of gas chamber witnesses for Auschwitz. For example, Hoess gave several affidavits plus court testimony at multiple trials plus a supposed memoir, all of which speak in considerable detail of gassing millions at Auschwitz. If that is all false ... do I really need to explain why this would be a major problem for you or how it would compromise the broader Holocaust narrative? It would weaken the evidence for the other camps as well. In fact, Hoess is also a Treblinka witness, so in that case the Treblinka story would be weakened directly. If Hoess's confession is false, we can't very well turn around and accept the confession of Franz Stangl as gospel.

If Auschwitz is a lie, then the Vrba-Wetzler report is a lie. It would mean that Jewish groups at best passed off a bunch of rumors as reliable and at worse manufactured an outright hoax for propaganda. The rejection of Vrba-Wetzler (and dozens of other testimonies) will naturally lead to skepticism regarding the AR camp fake shower/gas chamber stories such as those offered by Gerstein and Wiernik.

Without Auschwitz, the six million number would also be impossible. The grand total would have to be lowered.

If any camp claimed to have gas chambers, was evidenced such that the majority of historians agreed the original claims were not true, it would be damaging to the entire narrative, but it would not collapse the narrative. Each and every camp would be reinvestigated to check the evidence. What you say has already happened, with Dachau and Bergen-Belsen and that did not collapse the entire narrative. It merely meant that the evidence for other camps was checked with a greater degree of scrutiny. The grand total has already been lowered, for A-B and overall and that has not collapsed the narrative. There have also been numerous claimed witnesses to the Holocaust who have been outed by historians and journalists as false or unreliable. That has not caused the entire narrative to collapse.

You have a conspiracist view of the Holocaust, where you think that if one piece of evidence fails, the entire fails. That is not how evidencing works. For the entire narrative to fail, all the evidence, every single witness, document, archaeological report, physical, photographic or circumstantial evidence has to fail. Think of the Holocaust as an iron bridge, where if one strut fails, the entire structure does not collapse. For the bridge to collapse would require most of its struts to fail.

nazgul
🕵️

𝕰𝖗𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖑𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎

Posts: 1,192

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 13, 2022 20:39:22 GMT

Post by nazgul on Dec 13, 2022 20:39:22 GMT

Dec 13, 2022 9:39:01 GMT Nessie said:

Is your intermediate position that yes Jews were killed, but not as many as claimed?

Jews got off trains at the labour camps along the exact routes of the Fahrplananordnung documents presented as evidence of people sent to Treblinka; this is how those Julags were staffed. Evidence has been presented of Jews transiting from one camp to another, Sedzisow to Kielce and Kielce to Siedlce by trains. Some of those Judenlagers had 8 thousand staff, inmates or whatever you wish to call them. As these were not SS camps these Jews were paid workers. It was only in the camps run by Globocnik that Jews were treated badly; that man was a law unto himself.

It is highly likely that the Fahrplananordnung documents presented were just ordinary documents showing transports from one labour camp to another. As Treblinka was cited as the final destination, true believers have decided these were holocaust trains. It is highly likely that holocaust trains, if they existed would not stop for hours at a time at precise locations of labour camps. There are many towns and villages along the way and other railway sidings for stops to occur. Water and coal refils are done in minutes not hours. One must remember that there was a Zwangarbeitslager at Treblinka as well as this TII which is why it was a final destination.

It may well be that there were holocaust trains going to Treblinka II but the Fahrplananordnung presented by the believers is not one of them.

When this forum was first created a post was made asking how many dead Jews make a holocaust; it was here that the distinction between genocide and holocaust was made. In fact there does not need to be any dead people for genocide, just sex segregation to prohibit breeding. Calculations were made how many natural deaths there would be in that period with no births to fill the losses. That came to 1.9 million.

The reality of the time is that in those times 55 million civilians died, Jews being a proportion of those civilian deaths. It must also be remembered that the German code was summary execution of civilian combatants, including those who gave moral support. As partisans killed over a million German soldiers, torturing them the reprisals would have been vicious. This was the role of Einsatzgruppen and Latvian Police.

As mentioned so many times there was also the camp euthanasia program which is clearly reported by the Sobibor witnesses who wrongfully thought it was all about Jews. It was likely that Heydrich was euthanized after the attempted assassination in Prague. It was more practical to euthanize seriously wounded soldiers than to treat them.

Of course people were murdered, including Jews by the Germans. If Otto Koch ordered the murder Walter Krämer and Karl Peix
killing a few jews would not bother him. Of course Koch was investigated by Konrad Morgan who convicted him and had him shot. Amon Leopold Göth was another despicable creature who faced full justice in the end. These men were war criminals who faced justice by the Reich and the allies post war. No doubt there were others; these criminals are of great interest and worthy of investigation.

Talking endlessly about draglines, hermetic seals and obvious lies detracts from the reality imposed on an incarcerated group of people with no protection from the law. Removing the citizenship from these people allowed such predators as mentioned above to take full advantage. These criminals also broke the SS code "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" (My honour is called loyalty) as they were only loyal to themselves as are all criminals, even today.

Despite the verdict at Nuremberg the majority of the SS were not criminals but followed the law. I am certain that Odilo Globocnik was a criminal. No one goes from a private to a General in the SS in a single week. He made a real nasty move in the Belzec Julags by not paying the Jews for services but also sequestering money from their relatives to pay for the running of the camps. This move fell flat on the face as not only could the Jews not pay, many refused. His stupid cops rounded up Jewish labourers from other important schemes sending them to Belzec where there was no food or accommodation. The Reich labour service was less than impressed with Odilo Globocnik and his klown polizei. The results of starvation, typhus should have been predictable to other people, but not Globus.

Jews did die from stupidity demonstrated above, lack of compassion, some murdered perhaps. Only idiots would send thousands of Jews to the Kaiserwald to live in carboard huts in such inclement weather expecting efficient work.

I suspect this is the "holocaust" in its essence. One does not need gaskammer or babies bashed against poles. Jews died at Skierniewic or a nearby labour camp filling bombs with toxic TNT; their skin became bright yellow. The same happened to workers in the UK who did the same job.

Wenn Sie lernen, die Reise zu lieben, werden Sie nie enttäuscht sein...Bob Lowe

nazgul
🕵️

𝕰𝖗𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖑𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎

Posts: 1,192

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 13, 2022 22:20:01 GMT

Post by nazgul on Dec 13, 2022 22:20:01 GMT

Claims that people were gassed at Dachau or Bergen-Belsen being found to not be true, does not weaken the evidence for gassings at the AR camps or A-B. What it proves is that historians have checked the evidence critically and weeded out any false claims.

The gaskammer at Dachau was modified by the US forces to make it appear to be functioning. It is a fact that Dachau was used as evidence of the Holocaust and still is with the following false information by the Minnesota Historical Society.

The horrors of the Holocaust became imprinted on the mind of the Allied forces that liberated the Concentration Camps in Germany. This photograph shows the gas chamber at Dachau Concentration Camp, where Jewish prisoners were murdered en masse.---mnhs.org

Publisher: Minnesota Historical Society
Date: 1945
Identifer: location P2449

The gas chamber at Dachau Concentration Camp, 1945

Most konzentrationslager in the Reich were once considered to have been locations of mass gassing events. The reality was due to the work of Dr Charles Larson, a forensic specialist. Dr. Charles Larson, one of America’s leading forensic pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses.

Dr Larsen said:
“never was a case of poison gas uncovered. The chief cause of death at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease, above all typhus”---allied-forensic-autopsies

The only "death camps" remained in areas of Soviet Jurisdiction for which there was no independent investigations. The Soviets at the time were still officially blaming the Germans for their Katyn massacre.

If a historian came out with evidence that A-B as not used for gassings, it would be a huge story, but it would not mean the entire mass gassing claim would collapse. It would mean more investigation of the evidence for that camp and elsewhere. It would be more likely that the historian who claimed it was not used, would have a tough time proving his or her claim.

That historian would suffer the same fate as David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Ursula Haverbeck and others. The European Court of Human Rights should have refrained from labelling the Holocaust narrative a clearly established historical fact for which denial constitutes ipso facto an “abuse of right". There are many Jewish heads of state and politicians who have little interest in the reality, which is why Jews with influence at Amazon, Google, You Tube and until recently Twitter have suppressed discussion by the masses.

If any camp claimed to have gas chambers, was evidenced such that the majority of historians agreed the original claims were not true, it would be damaging to the entire narrative, but it would not collapse the narrative. Each and every camp would be reinvestigated to check the evidence. What you say has already happened, with Dachau and Bergen-Belsen and that did not collapse the entire narrative. It merely meant that the evidence for other camps was checked with a greater degree of scrutiny. The grand total has already been lowered, for A-B and overall and that has not collapsed the narrative. There have also been numerous claimed witnesses to the Holocaust who have been outed by historians and journalists as false or unreliable. That has not caused the entire narrative to collapse.

Most historians are not interested in the holocaust; those who have (Irving) and disagree with the findings find themselves in ruin. Bit of a hot potato.

You have a conspiracist view of the Holocaust, where you think that if one piece of evidence fails, the entire fails. That is not how evidencing works. For the entire narrative to fail, all the evidence, every single witness, document, archaeological report, physical, photographic or circumstantial evidence has to fail. Think of the Holocaust as an iron bridge, where if one strut fails, the entire structure does not collapse. For the bridge to collapse would require most of its struts to fail.

Most of the struts have failed. The reality is that this alleged holocaust has very little hard evidence, just eye witnesses, many liars, many coerced and adminicles.

Those that were there or investigated could not find evidence of what is claimed.

Wenn Sie lernen, die Reise zu lieben, werden Sie nie enttäuscht sein...Bob Lowe

Gibson
✍️

Posts: 115

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 14, 2022 6:22:59 GMT

Post by Gibson on Dec 14, 2022 6:22:59 GMT

Dec 13, 2022 2:14:25 GMT Gibson said:

It makes stories about the other camps, which rely on the exact same sort of evidence only weaker, very unlikely to be true.

No it does not. Claims that people were gassed at Dachau or Bergen-Belsen being found to not be true, does not weaken the evidence for gassings at the AR camps or A-B. What it proves is that historians have checked the evidence critically and weeded out any false claims.

And it would mean that the mainstream Holocaust scholarship is totally bankrupt. I do not think you are fully recognizing how damaging it would be to the overall story if the Auschwitz component, the largest and most famous death camp, were admitted to be false.

If a historian came out with evidence that A-B as not used for gassings, it would be a huge story, but it would not mean the entire mass gassing claim would collapse. It would mean more investigation of the evidence for that camp and elsewhere. It would be more likely that the historian who claimed it was not used, would have a tough time proving his or her claim.

There are dozens of gas chamber witnesses for Auschwitz. For example, Hoess gave several affidavits plus court testimony at multiple trials plus a supposed memoir, all of which speak in considerable detail of gassing millions at Auschwitz. If that is all false ... do I really need to explain why this would be a major problem for you or how it would compromise the broader Holocaust narrative? It would weaken the evidence for the other camps as well. In fact, Hoess is also a Treblinka witness, so in that case the Treblinka story would be weakened directly. If Hoess's confession is false, we can't very well turn around and accept the confession of Franz Stangl as gospel.

If Auschwitz is a lie, then the Vrba-Wetzler report is a lie. It would mean that Jewish groups at best passed off a bunch of rumors as reliable and at worse manufactured an outright hoax for propaganda. The rejection of Vrba-Wetzler (and dozens of other testimonies) will naturally lead to skepticism regarding the AR camp fake shower/gas chamber stories such as those offered by Gerstein and Wiernik.

Without Auschwitz, the six million number would also be impossible. The grand total would have to be lowered.

If any camp claimed to have gas chambers, was evidenced such that the majority of historians agreed the original claims were not true, it would be damaging to the entire narrative, but it would not collapse the narrative. Each and every camp would be reinvestigated to check the evidence. What you say has already happened, with Dachau and Bergen-Belsen and that did not collapse the entire narrative. It merely meant that the evidence for other camps was checked with a greater degree of scrutiny. The grand total has already been lowered, for A-B and overall and that has not collapsed the narrative. There have also been numerous claimed witnesses to the Holocaust who have been outed by historians and journalists as false or unreliable. That has not caused the entire narrative to collapse.

You have a conspiracist view of the Holocaust, where you think that if one piece of evidence fails, the entire fails. That is not how evidencing works. For the entire narrative to fail, all the evidence, every single witness, document, archaeological report, physical, photographic or circumstantial evidence has to fail. Think of the Holocaust as an iron bridge, where if one strut fails, the entire structure does not collapse. For the bridge to collapse would require most of its struts to fail.

Nessie, there is a major inconsistency in your comment. You say: "What it proves is that historians have checked the evidence critically and weeded out any false claims." Go ahead and (unconvincingly) spin Dachau that way if you want. You could not possibly spin an Auschwitz retraction that way. If the Auschwitz story is false, that means the "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time and the court historians upheld an enormous lie for over 75 years. It would mean that they FAILED utterly to "weed out false claims."

Nessie
🦕

𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)

Posts: 4,834

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 14, 2022 9:54:12 GMT

Post by Nessie on Dec 14, 2022 9:54:12 GMT

Dec 14, 2022 6:22:59 GMT Gibson said:

.... Nessie, there is a major inconsistency in your comment. You say: "What it proves is that historians have checked the evidence critically and weeded out any false claims." Go ahead and (unconvincingly) spin Dachau that way if you want. You could not possibly spin an Auschwitz retraction that way. If the Auschwitz story is false, that means the "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time and the court historians upheld an enormous lie for over 75 years. It would mean that they FAILED utterly to "weed out false claims."

The inconsistency would only be if evidence was found that meant claims about mass gassings at A-B had to be retracted. At this time, there is no such evidence, so the claims are not being retracted, so there is no inconsistency.

The only way "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time, would be if evidence was found as to what happened, so eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas who would say what really happened, or for historians to come forward and explain how the gassing claims were faked, and evidence the witnesses to gassings were planted and those who knew what had happened kept quiet, which would mean tracing the c900,000 supposedly killed and proving they were still alive late 1944 into 1945.

nazgul
🕵️

𝕰𝖗𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖑𝖚𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖓 𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎

Posts: 1,192

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 14, 2022 10:24:37 GMT

Post by nazgul on Dec 14, 2022 10:24:37 GMT

Dec 14, 2022 9:54:12 GMT Nessie said:

The inconsistency would only be if evidence was found that meant claims about mass gassings at A-B had to be retracted. At this time, there is no such evidence, so the claims are not being retracted, so there is no inconsistency.

Evidence has been found but suppressed. Josef Ginsburg visited Auschwitz in 1945 & spoke to hundreds of surviving inmates. His testimony is being web erased by Jews.

The anti-Nazi Jew Ginsburg "formed the opinion that there were no 'extermination' camps at all, that gas chambers had never existed & that there had been no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe." Ginsburg said he could find no gas chambers which were not de-lousing stations, nor witnesses who had seen any. henrymakow.com

Dec 14, 2022 9:54:12 GMT Nessie said:

The only way "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time, would be if evidence was found as to what happened, so eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas who would say what really happened, or for historians to come forward and explain how the gassing claims were faked, and evidence the witnesses to gassings were planted and those who knew what had happened kept quiet, which would mean tracing the c900,000 supposedly killed and proving they were still alive late 1944 into 1945.

Burg testified that he spoke to hundreds of people who serviced and operated the crematoria but the people who operated gas chambers were impossible to find. Nobody had published anything in which it was claimed that he worked in a gassing institution for human beings. There was literature about gassing that was completely contradictory.

Dec 14, 2022 9:54:12 GMT Nessie said:

The only way "Holocaust deniers" had it right the whole time, would be if evidence was found as to what happened, so eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas who would say what really happened, or for historians to come forward and explain how the gassing claims were faked, and evidence the witnesses to gassings were planted and those who knew what had happened kept quiet, which would mean tracing the c900,000 supposedly killed and proving they were still alive late 1944 into 1945.

The real interest is not this pattern of obscene delusion but the ability of people who could survive post war. The world at the time was inundated with pictures from Belsen, lied to that these unfortunates were gassed. Ginsberg told the truth; this active suppression of his evidence is a conspiracy. A conspiracy supported by "Flipper".

Wenn Sie lernen, die Reise zu lieben, werden Sie nie enttäuscht sein...Bob Lowe

Nessie
🦕

𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)

Posts: 4,834

Is an intermediate/compromise position viable? Dec 14, 2022 10:48:14 GMT

Post by Nessie on Dec 14, 2022 10:48:14 GMT