Refutation of Holocaust Denialism
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:55 am
I am willing to discuss in earnest any points raised by "revisionists" wrt the holocaust, but only if a serious historical approach is taken.
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
gurugeorge wrote:Yet the curious thing is that initially the Allies did claim that the Western camps were death camps too. Initially, the narrative was that ALL all the camps were both work camps and death camps and that almost all of them had gas chambers. That was scaled back to "oops, it was just the Eastern camps" only relatively recently.
This is classic sniping. You seek to cast aspersion on Höss' testimony, then by extrapolation disproving anything and everything he stated. Yet the case for widespread gassing does not rely solely on Höss -- numerous first-hand accounts exist.gurugeorge wrote:Re. eyewitness accounts of guards: the Höss testimony, which is the key guard testimony (it's even quoted in the article you link) looks like it was extracted under torture.
Your argument as I understand it:Re. eyewitness accounts of prisoners: many of those have fallen apart down the years. A lot of it seems to be hearsay, particularly the recurring theme of people being taken away to be executed. One interesting example: a survivor guest on the Montel Williams show that had David Cole and Mark Weber making the revisionist case in the mid 90s, claimed his brother had been taken away and executed, he was really sure of it. He was later joyously reunited with his brother on a return appearance on the Williams show; and his brother had thought he had been taken away and executed!
Citations, please.gurugeorge wrote:... there is also eyewitness testimony from survivors that does not corroborate the gas chambers narrative - eyewitness testimony that corroborates that Auschwitz was in fact precisely what it said on the gates, a work camp.
Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.
You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
https://www.everplans.com/sites/default ... ss-750.jpgMatt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑This is classic sniping. You seek to cast aspersion on Höss' testimony, then by extrapolation disproving anything and everything he stated. Yet the case for widespread gassing does not rely solely on Höss -- numerous first-hand accounts exist.gurugeorge wrote:Re. eyewitness accounts of guards: the Höss testimony, which is the key guard testimony (it's even quoted in the article you link) looks like it was extracted under torture.
How do you explain away, for example, the testimony of Kurt Gerstein, an anti-nazi who infiltrated the SS, witnessed gassings, and was even responsible for supplying Höss with Zyklon B? Gerstein freely reported on the gassings, first to a Swedish diplomat, then to his french captors.
Oh shit, george -- facts.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.
You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
Hitler dindu nuffin.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ I am willing to discuss in earnest any points raised by "revisionists" wrt the holocaust, but only if a serious historical approach is taken.
I dunno, that might have something to do with the fact that there were about 6 million jews in Europe exclusive of Russia.gurugeorge wrote:The figure of "6 million" is also deeply suspicious in and of itself, since it was the stock figure for the estimate of the population of Jews in Europe through the early part of the 20th century (there are numerous newspaper articles from the 20s and 30s using that figure).
I can't help thinking that the problems of the Holocaust have been swept under the carpet...Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑I dunno, that might have something to do with the fact that there were about 6 million jews in Europe exclusive of Russia.gurugeorge wrote:The figure of "6 million" is also deeply suspicious in and of itself, since it was the stock figure for the estimate of the population of Jews in Europe through the early part of the 20th century (there are numerous newspaper articles from the 20s and 30s using that figure).
The pre-war census figures are very extensive and complete, and a comprehensive tally was conducted after the war. They came up 6 million Jews short worldwide:
http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Fil ... istics.pdf
(There's a minor tabulation error in that report, so feel free to reject the entire work of the governments of the nations' of the world.)
tally.png
As you can see, the missing European jews didn't show up anywhere else after the war. Of course, we can't rule out that they were wandering.
I wish that they'd be swept over here. I rarely would like mod cleanup, but somebody spilled sticky caramel in Aisle 1.Lsuoma wrote: ↑I can't help thinking that the problems of the Holocaust have been swept under the carpet...Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑I dunno, that might have something to do with the fact that there were about 6 million jews in Europe exclusive of Russia.gurugeorge wrote:The figure of "6 million" is also deeply suspicious in and of itself, since it was the stock figure for the estimate of the population of Jews in Europe through the early part of the 20th century (there are numerous newspaper articles from the 20s and 30s using that figure).
The pre-war census figures are very extensive and complete, and a comprehensive tally was conducted after the war. They came up 6 million Jews short worldwide:
http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Fil ... istics.pdf
(There's a minor tabulation error in that report, so feel free to reject the entire work of the governments of the nations' of the world.)
tally.png
As you can see, the missing European jews didn't show up anywhere else after the war. Of course, we can't rule out that they were wandering.
Something I forgot to mention, mammals are far more sensitive to HCN than insects. It takes a much higher dose to kill lice (around 1000 ppm if I remember correctly) and a longer exposure time than it does to kill humans.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Oh shit, george -- facts.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.
You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
Something I forgot to mention, mammals are far more sensitive to HCN than insects. It takes a much higher dose to kill lice (around 1000 ppm if I remember correctly) and a longer exposure time than it does to kill humans.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑
The Western Allies weren't given access to the Eastern camps, so they were unable to verify the Russians' contentions. Also, insinuating mendacity isn't necessary when we have actual evidence of mendacity, in that the famous table with human lampshades, shrunken heads, and pieces of human skin with tattoos, in front of which streams of shocked Germans were paraded, was bogus psyops by the Allies.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑You insinuate intentional mendacity. Yet a much simpler and more rational explanation exists. The Western allies were aware of reports of mass exterminations being conducted in the East, including accounts of gassings. When they liberated Dachau & Buchenwald they found horrific conditions, with skeletal prisoners, heaps of dead bodies, and the remains of pyres. This initial impression alone would explain the belief that these were extermination camps.
Your statement that HCN evaporates slowly is incorrect. Hydrogen cyanide is quite volatile, has a low vapor pressure, low boiling point (78 F) and disperses rapidly in air. Before you say "But unless the room was above 78F it wouldn't evaporate" ask yourself how much water vapor is in the air around you and how much you are exhaling with each breath even though water has a low volatility and neither you nor the room you're in are anywhere near its boiling point. In Krema II and III the gas chambers were long, semi-subterranean rooms with powerful ventilation systems built into the walls. These systems are shown on the blueprints, which survive intact in several iterations, and are visible in the ruins. Assuming a year-round temperature of 55 degrees F, average ground temperature, all the HCN in Zyklon B pellets would evaporate in under three minutes. This is disregarding the fact that between 1500 and 2000 people crowded as tightly as possible in a confined space would quickly raise the temperature to well above the boiling point of HCN (78 F) before the pellets were even dropped in. At that temperature the HCN would flash boil and given the large surface area of the pellets, which was the point of using gypsum pellets in the first place, evaporation would be near instantaneous. There were four holes in the gas chamber roof spaced evenly down the length of the room to provide fast, even dispersal of the gas, and yes, these holes have been proven to exist, leading to wire mesh columns and one can of Zyklon was poured into each. While this was enough for a massive overdose of cyanide, it was hardly a "hell of a lot of cans of Zyklon B". You are correct in saying that at the point where the gas was evaporating there could be locally high enough concentrations to be flammable. The problem is that this condition would only exist for a short period and unless the Nazis were in the habit of allowing someone to stand next to the gas columns with a lit match while the pellets were being poured in, there is no source of ignition. According to the testimony of surviving Sonderkommando prisoners and a few of the SS involved the gas was poured in and after five to ten minutes the ventilation was turned on for twenty to thirty minutes before the door was opened and the bodies removed.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ Matt, I'm not going to respond to your strawmanning. I haven't been saying "here are a few problems, therefore it didn't happen". I'm saying "here are a few problems, maybe it didn't happen." And I'm not really that interested in carrying on a huge argument about this, mainly because I'm not all that sure of it myself. All I'm claiming is that there's quite a lot of room for doubt about the established Holocaust story. And I think there's enough of an accumulation of little problems to doubt the three main planks of the established Holocaust story:- 1) that there was an order for mass extermination, which 2) was effected by industrial-scale use of gas chambers, leading to 3) 6 million Jews deliberately exterminated by this process.
The Western Allies weren't given access to the Eastern camps, so they were unable to verify the Russians' contentions. Also, insinuating mendacity isn't necessary when we have actual evidence of mendacity, in that the famous table with human lampshades, shrunken heads, and pieces of human skin with tattoos, in front of which streams of shocked Germans were paraded, was bogus psyops by the Allies.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑You insinuate intentional mendacity. Yet a much simpler and more rational explanation exists. The Western allies were aware of reports of mass exterminations being conducted in the East, including accounts of gassings. When they liberated Dachau & Buchenwald they found horrific conditions, with skeletal prisoners, heaps of dead bodies, and the remains of pyres. This initial impression alone would explain the belief that these were extermination camps.
The horrific conditions and skeletal prisoners, the heaps of dead bodies and the remains of pyres at the first liberated Western camps are all consistent with a) mass transportation of prisoners from Eastern camps to Western as a response to the Russian advance, b) breakdown of food/medicine distribution and c) breakdown of Nazi governmental structure, as a result of d) heavy bombing by the Allies, leading to e) a great deal of starvation and disease in the consequently overcrowded Western camps. It's quite possible that if anyone's to blame for the heaps of dead bodies and starving, diseased humans that were found at Belsen, Dachau, etc. it's actually the Allies. We already know the Allies thought nothing of setting up a blockade which resulted in half a million Greeks dying, or diverting shipping from India in such a way that 2.5 million Bengalis died from starvation. These are not exactly Pure White Hats we're dealing with then, any more than they are now.
Of course none of this is conclusive - but then again, none of it is conclusive for the Holocaust story either. Moreover, one of the main reasons why people just assume the truth of the Holocaust story is precisely the images seared in our brains of the conditions from footage taken in the liberated Western camps. But we now know that the Western camps weren't extermination camps, and we have no comparable images or hard evidence from the Eastern camps that supposedly were gas chamber extermination camps.
Re. the flammability issue. The figures TheMudbrooker uses would be for an even dispersion, right? OK, so Zyklon B is basically gypsum pellets infused with hydrogen cyanide, which evaporates fairly slowly from the pellets (which is why the purpose built German fumigation chambers used heat with a proper ventilation system). But as I understand it, given the eyewitness claims of time to death (which range from instantaneous to around 20 minutes, with most in the range of around 5-10 minutes) you would have to massively overcompensate the amounts of Zyklon B used in order to have enough concentrated gas to be able to kill upwards of a few hundred or a thousand terrified human beings in a room just by emptying canisters of the pellets into the room, and at that point you would probably be risking localized explosions in areas where the gas was highly concentrated (which it would be nearest the pellets). (Incidentally, the shorter times from witness claims are just sheerly implausible on any account.)
It seems to me that there's just this fishy contradiction about the gas chambers story. The Germans had developed proper, sophisticated chambers and systems of delivery for fumigation, with ways of getting gas at measured doses swiftly into and out of a room, yet we're expected to believe that when it came to the industrial scale mass murder of hundreds of human beings in a single space, they decided not to have sophisticated systems of delivery and ventilation, and just blithely emptied out what would have had to have been a hell of a lot of cans of Zyklon B, into rooms with wooden doors and the like, and with no proper way of getting the gas out quickly once the people had been murdered (so you could get all the corpses out ready for the next batch), when actually by that method, given the large amount of pellets they would have had to have used to get that effect, they would have risked localized high concentrations of the gas, leading to a danger of localized explosions. (IOW, the gas probably could have been at high enough concentration for accidental explosion nearest the pellets, given that you needed sufficient gas concentration to kill at the extremities of the room furthest away from the pellets, in the context of rooms without proper systems of ventilation like the fumigation chambers had.)
I understand that it's absolutely terrifying to contemplate all this given the enormity of the possibility of it being false. Every fiber of my being revolted against looking into this myself initially. I initially felt queasy looking into the revisionist claims. But it doesn't need to be the improbable thing - a deliberate Big Lie. If you think of it as similar to the development of a religion, or to the development of the UFO cult based on some sticks and tinfoil in the desert, it makes a lot more sense. As I said initially, what happened to the Jews was bad enough, and actually a much stronger basis to build a Holocaust religion on than the sticks and tinfoil that were enough to start the UFO religion. But it's a similar thing: initial Allied wartime psyops rumours, a lot of terrified hearsay passing between victims of a very real persecution, added to a convenient way for Russians to deflect attention from their own atrocities, culminating in a neat way of more or less instantaneously de-Nazifying an entire population.
As always, the sceptical question in these sorts of circumstances is: if it's so slam-dunk, why is questioning it so verboten? Why do people questioning it have to go to jail? Ostensibly because if you question the Holocaust you're at the very least a closet Nazi who wants to reboot national socialism. But the very reason rebooting national socialism is considered a bad thing is because the national socialists are believed to have committed the Holocaust. It's completely circular.
Do you think there were decadanal censuses in Galicia and Lithuania 100 years ago? 6 million Jews in far Eastern Europe was the estimate from early in the 20th century, an estimate that is still the best guess today, and in the absence of any evidence to change that number it's not the least bit surprising it was a number that was primarily used for a few decades. Hell, I still commonly hear people giving spitballing population estimates for Canada and the U.S. of 25 and 250 million respectively, even though these numbers have been far surpassed, because those are the numbers they grew up with.gurugeorge wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:57 pmIt might have been a "best estimate" at some point in the time from 1900 to the 1940s, but it seems like an oddly static population estimate for a period of nearly 40 years.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:08 amBut even if the 6 million figure was universal, that was the best estimate for the time. It was about half the total Jewish population of Europe, so, if the Nazis also wound up exterminated about half the Jews of Europe, is that just too much of a coincidence for you to bear, and a conspiracy can be the only explanation.
But you're right, it would be interesting to see if there were any non-6-million estimates in the papers for that period.
No, you've stated flat out that you believe the absence of gas chambers and of a specific plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is the most likely explanation, not maybe. You're just posing as a JAQ'er, which almost all Holocaust deniers do when they're trying to convince others.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ I haven't been saying "here are a few problems, therefore it didn't happen". I'm saying "here are a few problems, maybe it didn't happen." And I'm not really that interested in carrying on a huge argument about this, mainly because I'm not all that sure of it myself. All I'm claiming is that there's quite a lot of room for doubt about the established Holocaust story.
The science here (and some in the rest of your paragraph, but the above comment struck me in particular) doesn't jibe with the science here, which includes a graph from a 1942 Zyklon B usage guide. From the graph there it looks like you wouldn't even get 100% yield even after an hour at 59 F. The article also addresses some of your other comments (e.g. mass body heat.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑Assuming a year-round temperature of 55 degrees F, average ground temperature, all the HCN in Zyklon B pellets would evaporate in under three minutes.
The firebombing of Dresden isn't relevant, what's relevant is that the Allies could be callous; and that, combined with the fact that they definitely used some false propaganda to de-Nazify Germans, means it wasn't beyond them to fabricate the whole Holocaust story based on semi-plausible evidence at the time. That should be part of one's "priors." In that case "what the Nazis did" isn't clear.To address another of your points, no, the Allies didn't have clean hands in WWII. What of it? Even if the only reason Dresden was firebombed was for the pure bloody minded joy of burning people alive, how does that magically change anything the Nazis did?
I don't know - do you know? If you don't then this is irrelevant. Also, the 6 million figure was supposed to include all European Jews killed in the Holocaust, not just Jews from Eastern Europe. So in that case we have the strange coincidence of the estimated population of Eastern European Jewry specifically just happening to be the same as the number of all European Jews killed in the Holocaust.jugheadnaut wrote: ↑Do you think there were decadanal censuses in Galicia and Lithuania 100 years ago?
Some of them also called a "holocaust" be it noted. Before the war started.But let's keep in mind your overall argument here. You're saying 6 million Jews in peril was a narrative established long before WW2, which basically greased the wheels to a false narrative about 6 million dead Jews in the Holocaust. As support, you have a source listing pre-WW2 newspaper stories using this figure. But the newspaper stories are mostly referring to a real circumstance distinct from the Holocaust,
My "argument" is simply that the figure's appearing consistently prior to WW2 and then appearing as the number of Jews killed by the Nazis is suspicious. It's too pat, too neat, too much like a kind of set propaganda trope that's used again and again.and the source was specifically looking for the use of "6 million" and isn't evidence that this became a magic number. It's the equivalent of a completely uncontrolled scientific study and that's what you're clinging to. It's just an incredibly weak argument.
Well, it's true that the claims of Holocaust historians have mellowed over the years (partly under pressure from revisionists, be it noted). But that in itself is a bit worrying - especially considering the stronger claims aren't being corrected for the public. Again, it's like the Christian thing - academics know how sketchy the evidence for Jesus' existence is, but that can't be allowed to disturb the faithful ...The second major argument you're employing is that there were exaggerations and even outright fabrications in early days after the war about Nazi crimes. So what? Today's body of knowledge is based on rigorous, diligent and professional study, which you seem to be completely ignorant of. The fact that there were early incorrect allegations when emotions were still running hot has no impact on this body of knowledge.
Oh here we go :roll:Another incredibly weak argument, and it makes it hard to believe you're just on an indifferent search for truth. It appears much more likely that for reasons best known to yourself, you have a preferred outcome and are on a search for evidence appearing to support that outcome.
But there's no such claim of a special basket arrangement for many other alleged gas chambers at other camps. A lot of the stories seem to be about straightforward shower rooms with pellets dropped from the ceiling, and indeed that's the image most people probably have in their minds, isn't it? So how did the Nazis keep things safe under those circumstances?In the gas chambers designed for mass killings (i.e. the Birknau ones) Zyklon B pellets were lowered in a column within a moveable wire mesh basket, inside a fixed column of three wire mesh lattices. So there was explicit protection from sparks and flame at close range to the pellets in the gas introduction design. If you can't concede that the line of argumentation you were making here is a dead end, it makes it nearly impossible to believe you are just on a search for truth.
"Seems" the most likely explanation I think I've said. I'm also still reading into the pro side. Emotionally I'm still careening about, so I may overstate it sometimes, but soberly speaking I really am not sure, just trending more and more towards sure the more I look into it.No, you've stated flat out that you believe the absence of gas chambers and of a specific plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is the most likely explanation, not maybe.
Oh I'm "posing" now. Great, another mind-reader.You're just posing as a JAQ'er, which almost all Holocaust deniers do when they're trying to convince others.
OK, tell that to all the holocaust museums, to the millions of people who have been told for decades, and who believe, that it was a singular event. Also tell them that the numbers have been scaled down considerably over the years.
As I said elsewhere, this is (as so much of the Holocaust is starting to look to me now) circular reasoning. As I've pointed out, and AFAIK, nowhere in that document is there any literal talk of extermination. You can only construe "final solution" as talking about extermination, you can only think of the language in the document as coded references to extermination, if you already believe there was ordered, deliberate extermination; it can't be used to support the proposition that there was ordered, deliberate extermination unless there is independent evidence of ordered, deliberate extermination - e.g. evidence of actual gas chambers and crematoria that could plausibly have industrially dealt with many hundreds, or thousands, exterminated per day, or (for the Aktion Reinhardt group) actual mass graves with actual masses of bodies (such as those exhumed at Katyn).Wannsee was concerned with the non Warthegau (ie the General Govt esp Warsaw) Polish Jews and those of southern and Western Europe.
It was specifically concerned with:
+ communicating the end of confusion over the JQ - their time was up.
+ ensuring the middle managers were all on the same page
+ aspects of logistics
+ locking in Heydrich as overall project owner
Like any high order plan it dealt with vision, outcome and command/control - not operational specifics. The mechanisms were still being sorted at the functionary level.
So this makes sense as a possible way of looking at it, yes, but only in a way analogous to the way people read St. Paul as talking about a flesh-and-blood Jesus, when actually he doesn't mention that sort of Jesus at all, only a spiritual one.On the one hand the Warthegau authorities were getting pissed that they were being sent the left over German Jews. The General Govt was pissed that the real deportations to slave labour in Russia weren’t eventuating and dirty ghettos were stabilising which were consuming resources. What’s the plan bob? In Summer the mid managers went to Berlin but were sent packing with orders to be patient.
Meanwhile the racially driven Jewish / Communist war in the east was radicalising. The Einsatzgruppen progressed from killing communists to male Jews to all Jews within a 6 month period. And then December 1941 happened. America had spent 1941 escalating its stance against Germany, sinking Uboats and shit. Hitler saw Roosevelt as the stooge of international Jewry and the American initiatives as another front in his racial war. When Japan attacked he formalised a war he felt was already being waged. As early as 1939 Hitler had publicly announced a World Jewish War would see the destruction of European Jewry. With 3 million Polish Jews at large, in late 1941 he gave the nod and the gears ground into action. No more confusion.
This only proves that Jews are insects.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑Something I forgot to mention, mammals are far more sensitive to HCN than insects. It takes a much higher dose to kill lice (around 1000 ppm if I remember correctly) and a longer exposure time than it does to kill humans.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Oh shit, george -- facts.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑A little info about HCN in air, at 50 ppm it's fatal in about an hour without medical intervention. At 300 ppm it's fatal in about five minutes. According to witnesses the amount of Zyklon used in the gas chambers would have produced 3000-5000 ppm. The lower explosive limit (LEL) is 56,000 ppm. In other words, the Nazis would have had to use ten times an already greatly excessive amount for it to become flammable.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Do you have evidence that delousing involved lower 'doses' than what was allegedly used to gas prisoners? How much, exactly, is the difference between a 'delousing' dose vs. a 'jew-killing' one?Obviously you don't need that degree of care with de-lousing doses of the stuff. But I think it's reasonable to suppose that you would if you were using the stuff in lethal doses, since the gas is hyper-flammable.
No, Prussic acid is lethal in pretty much any dose. Which is why the manufacturer of Zyklon B included an eye irritant agent as a warning. A gas mask and gloves will protect you, though. Obviously, as that is what fumigators wore. Coincidently so did the camp guards.
You keep harping about its “hyper-flammability”. How was it beyond the capability of the SS to handle this stuff without blowing themselves up, when for 60 years folks had been safely fumigating ships and train cars and buildings with it?
First off, you're right, I did make a few errors. First, the 50 ppm of HCN figure I quoted as lethal after and hour is wrong, it's tolerable for 30-60 minutes. 100 ppm is fatal in that time period but the 300ppm figure being rapidly fatal is correct. Second, I had my concept of vapor pressure ass-backwards (after all, it has been 30 years since high school chemistry) I was under the mistaken idea that lower vapor pressure meant easier evaporation when the opposite is true. HCN has an extremely high vapor pressure, so high in fact, that even at temperatures of -20C when the HCN is frozen solid it still evolves lethal concentrations of gas. Lastly, I was badly wrong about the evaporation time, the correct amount is closer to 20% rather than 100% in that amount of time at that temperature. Unfortunately for your case, this is still far above the lethal threshold. Which brings up the Rightpedia article you cite. It's almost entirely based on the wildly, if not deliberately, inaccurate Rudolf Report with a few references to other denier works. The Rudolf Report is at best very slightly more reliable the the work of Fred Leucter. See this http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust- ... affweb.pdf for a refutation of Rudolf's claims. The chart you mention is Rudolf's, not Dagesh's usage guide.gurugeorge wrote: ↑The science here (and some in the rest of your paragraph, but the above comment struck me in particular) doesn't jibe with the science here, which includes a graph from a 1942 Zyklon B usage guide. From the graph there it looks like you wouldn't even get 100% yield even after an hour at 59 F. The article also addresses some of your other comments (e.g. mass body heat.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑Assuming a year-round temperature of 55 degrees F, average ground temperature, all the HCN in Zyklon B pellets would evaporate in under three minutes.
Incidentally, "crowded as tightly as possible" always strikes me as contradictory to at least those proposed scenarios in which unsuspecting prisoners were filed into shower rooms. When the shower room is starting to get overcrowded to the point at which you've got several people under any given shower head and people are still pouring into the room, the subterfuge of a fake shower room seems like it wouldn't be of any use.
The firebombing of Dresden isn't relevant, what's relevant is that the Allies could be callous; and that, combined with the fact that they definitely used some false propaganda to de-Nazify Germans, means it wasn't beyond them to fabricate the whole Holocaust story based on semi-plausible evidence at the time. That should be part of one's "priors." In that case "what the Nazis did" isn't clear.To address another of your points, no, the Allies didn't have clean hands in WWII. What of it? Even if the only reason Dresden was firebombed was for the pure bloody minded joy of burning people alive, how does that magically change anything the Nazis did?
That's very, very weak.gurugeorge wrote: ↑Some of them also called a "holocaust" be it noted. Before the war started.
The use of"holocaust" as "devastation" that had already been common since at least the late Middle Ages (and in this case, rather interestingly, it was already used to an anti-Jewish pogrom, and by a writer who approved of the pogrom).As for the Turkish atrocities ... helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust – these were beyond human redress." (Winston Churchill, The World in Crisis, volume 4: The Aftermath, New York, 1923, p. 158).
There had been already extensive use of the word "holocaust" to refer to the Armenian genocide:The earliest use of the word holocaust to denote a massacre recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary dates from 1833 when the journalist Leitch Ritchie, describing the wars of the medieval French monarch Louis VII, wrote that he "once made a holocaust of thirteen hundred persons in a church", a massacre by fire of the inhabitants of Vitry-le-François in 1142. As this occurred in a church, it could be seen as a religious offering. The English poet John Milton had used the word to denote a conflagration in his 1671 poem Samson Agonistes, in which the massacre was clearly divinely dedicated.[7] The word gradually developed to mean a massacre thereon, taking on a secular connotation.[8][9]
The first association of the word "holocaust" to Nazism was already made in 1933, in the context of book burning.The Armenian Genocide is referenced in the title of a 1922 poem "The Holocaust" (published as a booklet) and the 1923 book "The Smyrna Holocaust" deals with arson and massacre of Armenians.
Yeesh, that "book burning" connection seems more of a stretch than anything you're imputing to me :)Kirbmarc wrote: ↑So basically you have a word that had a history of use in the context of massacres and persecutions, and also a history of being associated to persecution of Jews, whose original meaning is about "burnt" things, being associated to a regime which engaged in public book burning and publicly persecuted the Jews.
And before that, in 1933 we have:-Great Britain has it within her power to throw open the gates of Palestine and let in the victimized and persecuted Jews escaping from the European holocaust."
Well, were the Nazis engaged in "human destruction" and had Jewish life "ceased to be of any value in the cruel land of bloody Germany" in 1933? Hitler assumed dictatorial powers on 24 March of that year. In April of that year, Jewish civil servants, professors, etc., were kicked out of their jobs. But what one might tolerably consider a genetic sort of holocaust, an ethnic sort of holocaust - the restrictions on Jewish marriage, etc., as enacted in the Nuremberg Laws - that didn't happen till 1935. Maybe that is indeed what the 1936 article is referring to.At this period of human persecution and of human destruction, when life, especially Jewish life has ceased to be of any value in the cruel land of bloody Germany, when the lives of hundreds of thousands are tortured and hang in the balance - during this holocaust [...]
The headline for that article (quoted here) is: “Judea Declares War on Germany – Jews of All the World Unite – Boycott of German Goods – Mass Demonstrations.” And the boycott was serious, it had a serious impact on German economic interests (10% reduction in German exports by one estimate).[...] the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government.
With that in mind, do Hitler's actions shortly thereafter look like he's leading or following? Even some Jews thought the situation worth some caution. One Rabbi Wise (actually a Zionist himself), said in response to the metaphorical Jewish call to arms:-The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses... by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed.
The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time.... In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.
Well he wasn't heeded. The boycott continued, the Nazis counter-boycotted in April (with SA paramilitaries standing outside Jewish businesses with signs saying; "Germans! Defend yourselves! Don't buy from Jews!"). The laws kicking middle class Jews out of their positions were implemented then too.Whereas there was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated.... A stabilization appears to have been reached in the field of personal mistreatment.... I feel hopeful that the situation which has caused such widespread concern throughout this country will soon revert to normal.
360 million logically necessary human teeth? I'll let you solve the equation for yourself.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ c) how the remaining "big" claims seem increasingly silly and vastly unsubstantiated- e.g. 900,000 buried somewhere at Treblinka, though nobody seems to have found even one of the approximately 360 million logically necessary human teeth (although a recent archaeological investigation did find a shark's tooth from the time when Treblinka was a watery region, and some very old human remains near a Christian gravesite - claimed as evidence of a "mass grave" natch).
I could still be wrong, obviously, but I can only call it as I see it. If I do 23andMe and it turns out I am a Jew, maybe I'll have to join the camp of righteous self-hating Jews!
I'm not strawmanning, you fucking mong. You made completely retarded assertions and got called on them.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ Matt, I'm not going to respond to your strawmanning
"Holocaust" is Greek for 'burnt offering'. It's in the freaking Septuagint and had been used for ages in a variety of contexts. A word already in use, with the literal meaning of 'burning entirely', was a natural choice to describe the extermination of the jews.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ It's really not even remotely suspicious to see the word "holocaust", which had already been used for the (also very public) Nazi book burnings, being associated to anti-Jewish actions of the Nazi regime in the press of English-speaking (and probably even French-speaking) countries.
Not just a "reasonable estimate": the actual census data compiled by several nations. The nazis gained control over c. 6 million European jews, and pretty much wiped them out.As others have explained the number of 6 million was also a reasonable estimate of Eastern European Jews before World War Two.
Must be her own dulcet farts, considering she has her head up her ass.MacGruberKnows wrote: ↑ the point is, WTF is Vickie breathing?
C3 and C4 are the strawmen I was specifically referring to, as shown by my use of the word "therefore". If I wanted to present an apodeictic argument, I'd present an apodeictic argument, not a tentative questioning of the received wisdom.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑I'm not strawmanning, you fucking mong. You made completely retarded assertions and got called on them.
Which of the six conflicting versions of Kurt Gerstein's alleged testimony would you be referring to? For example, was it the case that "several thousand homosexuals [...] disappeared into the oven on a single day," as 4 versions say, or did several hundreds of homosexuals disappear over some days, as one version says? Or is this just me "sniping"?Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑gg: Amon Höss' testimony was given under torture.
Matt: Yeah, what about Kurt Gerstein's testimony?
Proof by census is dubious (what are the criteria for a Jew for the purposes of the count?), which is why I'm not interested in going down that rabbit hole. Note also that the AJC says there, re. the European figure: "estimates based on reports received by the JDC from European sources." Well, I suppose that settles it then, better shut up - can't gainsay "European sources" received by the JDC now, can we?Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑gg: '6 million jews' is just a meme from a bunch of old newspaper headlines.
Matt: Here are international census figures showing 16 million jews in 1939 but only 10 million in 1946.
A "detailed, scholarly report on tons of physical evidence" which amounts to an attempt to harmonize several bits of contradictory testimony with some blurry photographs.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑gg: There is no physical evidence of gas chambers or crematoriums.
Brive: Read this detailed, scholarly report on the tons of physical evidence of gas chambers & crematoriums.
Dealing with that elsewhere.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑gg: Zyklon B was too highly flammable to have been used.
Mudbrooker: Actually, here are the facts & figures proving it wasn't.
I don't think I said it would've been impossible, I said where are the remains of 900,000 bodies? (Specifically relating to Treblinka here, haven't yet looked into the Sobibor or Belzec stuff yet. But the article Brive linked is definitely challenging.) No evidence of those gigantic pits turned up on the LIDAR investigation in that Channel 5 archaeological investigation, that's for sure. A full football stadium is around 90,000, so we're talking about the burnt remains of ten football stadiums worth of people that are supposed to be buried somewhere around a relatively small camp area. (And just to note: there are several totally contradictory "plans" for the camp, and a model, from several different "eyewitness" sources.)Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑gg: It would've been impossible to dispose of all those bodies.
Brive: Read this detailed, scholarly report explaining how it was entirely possible.
False equivalence. We're not talking about evidence in relation to an abstract theory, we're talking about evidence for a claimed fact that's on the same epistemological level as the facts that are in evidence.This is how creationists respond to evidence of evolution.
Yes, unfortunately it's the brain of a heretic. I thought you had the brain of a heretic too?Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑There is something seriously wrong with how your brain functions.
That's wheatfields to you, thank you very much ;)Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑Now fuck off and enjoy playing with Vickie in the cornfield.
Never mind vehicles, I haven't quibbled with there being some evidence of gas trucks, and I'm not too bothered about hypothetical gas tanks at the AR camps either, it's kind of plausible and I wouldn't expect there to be evidence of them.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ but if there are no vehicles remaining that were rigged to suffocate people then it is proof they didn't exist.
"Everybody's telling you, told us, don't eat, don't eat, because it's hard to die when they give you the gas, because your stomach is so full - we knew we were going to the gas chamber, eh? But by some miracle - I don't know how, what, when - water came down, instead of the gas!"
Projection, it's a helluva drug.Prove them wrong on some point, they change the subject.
It seems to have you addicted to it.Projection, it's a helluva drug.
Poisoning the well - "neo-Nazi" is only this horrific thing if the Holocaust is true, but that's what's at issue.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... estimonies
By the way that neo-nazi website that you got the clumsily edited statement by a holocaust survivor from
ffs, for the hundredth time, nobody's saying bad things didn't happen to the Jews during the war, bad things happened to Jews, bad things happened to other groups too. Slave labour camps are an evil, ripping families apart, etc., is an evil. The fact that tens of thousands of people died in the overcrowded Western camps at the end of the war from Typhus, and other diseases, malnutrition, dysentery (which if prolonged causes the skeletal look), etc., that's also a horrific tragedy (but note that this last is where the images and film clips come from - yet the sense we have that those demonstrate genocide is pure suggestion, and admittedly so, since historians no longer think that the camps those images come from - Dachau, Belsen, Ohrdruf- were gas chamber death camps).showed 30 seconds of an interview that was taken from the above youtube channel. Maybe you would care to look at what they really are saying rather than some poorly executed slaezy attempt at quote mining to try and discredit survivor stories.
There are a lot of hours of survivor testimonies there so maybe if you look hard enough you may find some real inconsistencies in their stories and not that half witted attempt to try to prove the shower ruse was a myth.
If you're talking about Treblinka, they weren't supposed to have been properly cremated as they would be in a crematorium, i.e. to ashes, the system was supposed to have been a makeshift system out in the open built on railway lines, which would still leave masses of bones, etc., which were then supposed to have been re-buried, and you're talking about a supposed 8-900,000 dead supposed to have been buried in 3 massive trenches. Moreover the claims were that the trenches were enormous - that's what the "eyewitness" testimony said, that's what the contradictory "plans" are supposed to show. And no evidence of any enormous trenches were found by the C5 archaeologist's LIDAR test.By the way, if you are asking how they disposed of the remains of all those people, you could fit the cremated remains of 5 or 10 people in a cubic foot. At that rate, the footings excavation of a good sized grocery or department store could hold a million or millions of people.
The consensus of historians is that the holocaust indeed did happen and the estimates have held steady for many years, unless the "everywhere you look" is a bunch of marginalized crackpots like Irving, Zundel, and a few denialists on the internet.Basically, everywhere you look, and the deeper you look into it, what we seem to be dealing with is The Incredible Shrinking Holocaust
Scratch a holocaust denial website a couple of microns and you'll almost always find white supremacism and anti-Semitism. The neo-Nazi label fits quite distinctly from their holocaust denial. They try to cloak it but just can't help themselves.gurugeorge wrote: ↑Poisoning the well - "neo-Nazi" is only this horrific thing if the Holocaust is true, but that's what's at issue.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... estimonies
By the way that neo-nazi website that you got the clumsily edited statement by a holocaust survivor from
And more abject ignorance. Most of the Allied information about Nazi atrocities received during the war came from Enigma intercepts (remember those?) From those intercepts, they knew about the Einsarzgruppen, about trains shipping Jews to the East, even death figures from the camps reported directly by the SS, which the Allies originally attributed to horrific conditions. They also had high quality airborne surveillance pictures of Auschwitz-Birknau, although most of those weren't studied until after the war. In 1944, the Vrba-Wetzler Report authored by two Auchwitz escapees was passed to the Allies. Far from it being full of "crazy shit", modern day historians believe it had laudable accuracy given its ambitious scope.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ That narrative seems to have evolved from an initial bunch of over-the-top atrocity propaganda during the war (propaganda which included all sorts of crazy shit, including the use of gas chambers as one variant), concocted initially by Jewish resistance fighters and the like, who fed it to the British, who then fed it back to the Jews in the ghettos, which then got narrowed down and refined to the specific final shower/gas chamber narrative by the Russians (IOW the other, more extreme variants of atrocity propaganda were dropped - although a few of them still made their way to the Nuremberg trials, but reputable researchers don't believe them today), which then served as a handy means of de-Nazification after the war.
And back to the completely spurious argument that because some figures concerning Nazi atrocities were wildly exaggerated in the close aftermath of the war, all figures supporting a massive genocide, even when based on completely different and much more solid evidence can be subject to dismissal on their face. It's a tangential point, since Majdanek clearly had the most exaggerated estimates, but you just love making shit up that is even more exaggerated. Please find me a reference that shows a claim of 13 gas chambers there. Or your previous figure of 22 million dead. Just goes to the extreme lack of rigor of your putative thought processes.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ That "filtering down" process is suspicious in itself (i.e. redolent of a made-up narrative), as is the fact that the claims have continually been pushed back under pressure from revisionists, although that pressure is unacknowledged. e.g. filtered down from all the camps including the Western ones being death camps, to all the Polish camps, to just the AR camps now. Or from Auschwitz's famous tourist "gas chamber" that thousands of people have been shepherded through being now officially admitted
to be a Russian reconstruction. Or from Majdanek's initial supposed 13 "gas chambers" have now been filtered down to 2.
Only to someone deep in the throes of confirmation bias, as you are. You come to an idiotic conclusion based on two garbage arguments, and then find a way to dismiss anything contradicting these conclusions. Eye witness testimonies? Can all be thrown away, because you can find a handful of inaccuracies in a few testimonies. Unless, of course, you can find a snippet of one that you believe supports your argument. Contemporaneous Nazi documents? Soviet forgeries. Pre and post war census results? Unreliable, because they don't rigorously validate ethnicity. Speaking of which, is it your claim that millions of Jews in post-war censuses were hiding their Jewish identification in a coordinated effort to manufacture a holocaust story? If not please elaborate on your dismissal of census data, which, BTW, is the primary source of the 6 million figure, not a summation of death estimates from the various camps. Hence there was never a need to amend the 6 million figure after historians concluded the original death estimates from Aushwitz-Birknau and Majdanek were way too high.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ Basically, everywhere you look, and the deeper you look into it, what we seem to be dealing with is The Incredible Shrinking Holocaust.
The Treblinka death camp had access to large excavators used in the gravel pit of the nearby labor camp, and they did indeed dig deep trenches for bodies.gurugeorge wrote: ↑ If you're talking about Treblinka, they weren't supposed to have been properly cremated as they would be in a crematorium, i.e. to ashes, the system was supposed to have been a makeshift system out in the open built on railway lines, which would still leave masses of bones, etc., which were then supposed to have been re-buried, and you're talking about a supposed 8-900,000 dead supposed to have been buried in 3 massive trenches. Moreover the claims were that the trenches were enormous - that's what the "eyewitness" testimony said, that's what the contradictory "plans" are supposed to show. And no evidence of any enormous trenches were found by the C5 archaeologist's LIDAR test.
Because many legislators thought that through banning Holocaust denial they could curb neo-fascism and neo-nazism. In many European countries where Holocaust denial is illegal it's also illegal to use Nazi symbols. It's the same reason why many are pushing for hate speech laws in an attempt to curb racism. I don't think that those bans are wise, or productive, but that's the rationale that people who support those bans offer.Otherwise why the hell has it has been made illegal to question it? Why the hell should people be serving years in prison for questioning it? If sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if the Holocaust is such a slam-dunk issue, then surely the appropriate course would have been to continue arguing with the revisionists?
I SO want this movie to be made one day, especially if we they can still have Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu. It'd be the best campy shlockfest/semi-parody ever put on screen. "This...is my Mecca! Ahahahahahaha!"
Nic Cage can't play a normal human being. If you ask him to show normal human emotions he's going to be dull and boring. Just let him go crazy on stage, and in the right kind of movie (something as insane and ridiculous as "She-Werewolves of the SS") he's freaking hilarious. He was pitch perfect as the crazy father/vigilante in Kick Ass.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:25 pmNicolas Cage, one of my 2 least favorite actors, the other being Jeff Goldblum. There was however one scene he was in that made the whole movie "The Wicker Man" worth watching: