The Holocaust

submitted by Jesus from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Execution with bullets is the fastest, cheapest and most effective way of killing people. This is a fact

For ten people, yes. For ten thousand people, no.

Holocaust denialists: "The Nazis couldn't have run death camps because they were fighting a war!"

Also Holocaust denialists: "Even though the Nazis were fighting a war, it would have been easy for them to pull hundreds of thousands of SS troops from the front to murder Jews and Slavs by hand, one at a time."

When you are killing that many people at that sort of scale, there are only two alternatives: you either have hundreds of thousands of cold blooded killers shooting them, or you find some way to kill in industrial quantities using a much smaller number of people. Which is what they did.

Even then, the sheer volume of victims needing transport was a huge drain on Germany's ability to fight war.

It really isn't that easy to find killers willing to murder people in cold blood. In the heat of action, yes, in the middle of mob violence, yes, but to line up time and again, day after day, for months at a time, and cold-bloodedly shoot women and children and babies, over and over again, no.

As for your "analysis" of the burn pits, that's bullshit. They're pits, holes in the ground, and the earthen walls keep most of the heat in. The clue is in the name.

Burn-pits are efficient enough that they are still used today to dispose of trash if you don't care about the health of the people around them, which the Nazis didn't. (Apparently neither does the US government and army.) The efficiency also comes from the fact that most people, if they haven't been starved almost to death, have more than enough body fat on them to not just burn themselves but also another body, provided you collect it and don't just allow it to run off and be lost. The additional fuel is only needed to get the initial combustion going. We have photos of the burn pits in action.

So much ash was dumped in the rivers, marshes, and fields around Birkenau that to this day, the soil in the area is a different colour and texture to the surrounding land. Anyone says that the ash has just mysteriously disappeared is lying. Its right there, in the ground.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

where dem bones at shekelberg?

[–]jacques1102 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This person literally gives you evidence and everything op asked and you reply with an ad hominem.There's no point in trying to reason with you people since any evidence that goes against your narrative is jewish propaganda.But hey,let's listen to the people that think all jews are satanic demons who deserve to die because they're so evil.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

so you agree that burning bones is damn near impossible. okay.

[–]Notspendingmylife 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

'When you are killing that many people at that sort of scale, there are only two alternatives: you either have hundreds of thousands of cold blooded killers shooting them, or you find some way to kill in industrial quantities using a much smaller number of people. Which is what they did.'

So you're telling me that the 30k Eisnatzgruppen that allegedly shot 1.3 Million Jews in 1 year were sooo traumatized that they had to stop, and the Third Reich could not replace these people? Stop with this nonsense. 'The additional fuel is only needed to get the initial combustion going. We have photos of the burn pits in action.' This is BULLSHIT! In order to burn carcasses/corpses you constantly need to maintain burning material. They don't burn on their own, the net energy that they provide for burning is much much smaller than what they consume in the first place. Humans don't just burn on their own. This is another Holocaust bullshit claim. There are no aerial photographs of burn pits for humans. Holocaust supporters always claim something and then fail to substantiate. Aerial photographs over Auschwitz show very little smoke, however some burning pits (white smoke) are visible, most likely for trash burning.

'So much ash was dumped in the rivers, marshes, and fields around Birkenau that to this day, the soil in the area is a different colour and texture to the surrounding land. Anyone says that the ash has just mysteriously disappeared is lying. Its right there, in the ground.' And the most ridiculous thing saved for the end. Mate, if the only evidence you have that 1 Million(!!!!) people were burned to ashes and dumped into the surrounding areas is 'the forests look weird', then nothing more has to be said. This is called grasping at straws. If you are new to the Holocaust game, you have to learn that aski g dor physical evidence is tabu, because they don't provide any. The fact is that despite 4 Million people being destroyed and their ashes/remains dumped and burried on just 6 places, no physical evidence has been provided by Holocaust historians. No big exhumation, no big reveal, no chemical testing, no ground radar demonstration. (It is even prohibited to such thing on Treblinka). If there was any such evidence, they would stuff it into your face 24/7 instead of the meaningless shock pictures of stacks of corpses in Dachau. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13204

What about chemical analyises of the gas chambers that allegedly gassed up to 500.000 people? You ever heard about the Rudolf report? What about the 30k shot at Babi Yar? Have Holocaust supporters investigated the site there? https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14829&p=107434&hilit=Remains#p107434

It's over.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you're telling me that the 30k Eisnatzgruppen that allegedly shot 1.3 Million Jews in 1 year were sooo traumatized that they had to stop

The Einsatzgruppen operated for six years, not one.

And yes, they frequently complained about battle fatigue and mental anguish caused by shooting large numbers of women and children. The majority of them weren't monsters or psychopaths they still had human feelings. Even the most enthusiastic soldiers can suffer from mental distress from killing, especially when they are murdering helpless people in cold blood, and even more so when they are women and children.

A significant minority of SS troops refused to take part in the killings at all. In August 1941, Himmler witnessed an Einsatzgruppen mass execution and concluded that shooting Jews was too stressful for his men. By November he made arrangements that all SS men suffering ill health from having participated in the executions were to be provided with rest and mental health care, and ordered to a transition to gassing, especially the women and children. He also ordered the SS to recruit expendable auxiliaries who could assist with the murders. But even the gas vans didn't help -- SS-Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf complained to Himmler that his men found cleaning out the gas vans horrible, and besides they were far too inefficient, only killing about a dozen people at a time.

Plus:

  • The SS soldiers were needed for the war.
  • Mobile killing squads were needed for the Soviet Union, where the Nazis had not taken control yet, but would be wasteful for the rest of Europe. Why send mobile squads to search for victims, when you could use civilian police in the occupied territories to detain undesirables, and ship them to concentration camps for mass industrial murder?
  • Gassing victims fit right in with the world-view of the leading Nazis, especially Hitler and Himmler who considered Jews and Slavs "vermin". Hitler himself had a special horror of gassing due to his experiences in WW1 and would have thought it especially apt to murder Jews and Slavs by a means too horrible to use against people.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Humans don't just burn on their own.

No, they don't just spontaneously combust, we're too wet for that, but human tissue -- all that fat and protein -- contains more energy than is needed to evaporate the water in the body. You just need a sufficient high temperature to dry off the water and ignite the corpse, and you can use human corpses for fuel:

The trick is that a single body takes a lot of heat to dry out and ignite, but once that ignites, that can be used as fuel for the second body, and the second for the third, and so on. The more bodies you have, the more efficient it is. It is like burning green wood: it is very, very hard to ignite green wood, but if you get it started, you can keep throwing green wood onto a fierce fire and the process is self-sustaining.

The Nazis experimented with this and found that the most efficient method was to stack the bodies in layers: fat corpses followed by emaciated corpses, in alternating layers, would provide an even heat that needed only a relatively small amount of fuel to get started. Especially since they prepared the pits with channels so that melted fat could be collected and dropped back onto the pile. Waste not, want not.

This is called grasping at straws.

You can put your hands into the soil and see and feel the ashes. This is the direct proof you wanted. You wanted to know where the ash went, it is right there, in the soil, where you can see and feel it. You don't need "chemical testing" to recognise that the topsoil there is full of ash and is very different from the surrounding area. You just need to open your eyes and look.

Denialists ask were all the ash went. It went right there, into the ground, where to this day you can feel it and see it and sometimes even smell it. And your response is to call it "grasping at straws". Only one of us is grasping at straws, and it isn't me.

no ground radar demonstration. (It is even prohibited to such thing on Treblinka).

Not so. Ground radar conclusively shows that the ground around Treblinka has many large pits. The soil contains recognisable fragments of bone in such large quantities that they can only have come from a mass murder site.

You ever heard about the Rudolf report?

Yes, I think that Rudolf was treated abominably by the German and American governments. I think his treatment was a great injustice, and his sins relatively small to deserve the punishment he was given.

I also think that his analysis is completely wrong.

  • Rudolf's arguments are untrustworthy. He invents "sock-puppets", writes articles using aliases, and then references those articles as support for his arguments without mentioning that they are his own words. That is dishonest and deceitful and cuts his credibility.

  • Rudolf is often self-contradictory, for example he claims that chemistry is not an exact science and cannot be used to rigorously prove or disprove the Holocaust, while also claiming that throw chemistry he has rigorously disproved the Holocaust. The man is confused about his own ideas.

  • Rudolf frequently makes unsupported, evidence-free claims with nothing backing them up, such has his assertion that it would take "2 hours" to ventilate the gas chambers before it was safe enough for the Sonderkommandos to enter. There is nothing backing up that number, and the real figure is more like 20 minutes even under conservative assumptions.

  • He often misrepresents his sources. For instance, he references Pressac, who states that it takes about 15 minutes for the air extraction systems at Auschwitz to reduce the concentration of cyanide to a level safe to enter, but misrepresents him as saying that it takes 15 minutes for one single air exchange. Since Pressac is very clear about his calculation, we must conclude that Rudolf is deliberately misrepresenting him.

Regarding the presence of Prussian Blue, Rudolf himself acknowledges that Prussian Blue is unlikely to form. It formed in the delousing chambers, where the conditions were very different from the execution chambers. In particular, the delousing chambers were exposed to cyanide for many hours at a time, compared to only a few minutes for the execution chambers. (Insects are much more resistant to cyanide than people.) And the execution chambers were frequently washed down with water, which inhibits the formation of Prussian Blue. The delousing chambers were not. So it is hardly surprising that no Prussian Blue formed.

But why look only at Prussian Blue? That is only one of many cyanide compounds, and you don't need sophisticated chemical analysis to spot it, it is obvious to the naked eye due to its vivid blue colour.) The Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow tested for other cyanide compounds, and found that the execution chambers do contain cyanide. Leuchter and Rudolf are simply mistaken. Case closed.

Have Holocaust supporters investigated

Holocaust supporters? You mean Nazis?

[–]Notspendingmylife 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

'But why look only at Prussian Blue? That is only one of many cyanide compounds, and you don't need sophisticated chemical analysis to spot it, it is obvious to the naked eye due to its vivid blue colour.) The Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow tested for other cyanide compounds, and found that the execution chambers do contain cyanide. Leuchter and Rudolf are simply mistaken. Case closed.'

That would be THE SECOND test done by the Cracow institute on this matter. (The first one was done in 1990, with the same analysis method as Leuchter and Rudolf, which showed similar results). The re-test was done by Markiewicz where they purposely did not look for stable, water insoluble cyanide residue and only for water soluble. This means that the test by default would be useless to for showing cynide residue from 50 years ago. They tests only showed short term contaminations from the environement. Rudolf tested for WATER INSOLUBLE RESIDUE only. Rudolf's tests looked for ferrocyanide, ioncyanide, prussian blue-any long lasting cyanides you would find in brick, mortar, lime. According to the Markiewicz report the deeply blue stained delousing chambers had the same cyanide residue as the Krema II walls, with no discoloration whatsoever. Do you seriously want to me to give any faith to this garbage? The Markiewicz test is weasely and pathetic, and the obsession with prussian blue is a nice red herring to detract from the unsettling fact that total cyanide was under the detection limit. Bonus point, the humid cement mortar of Krema II and III are better suited for absorption of HNC than the lime mortar of the delousing chambers

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh please, the Leuchter tests were pure garbage. He ground up large chunks of brick and had them tested for cyanide compounds, instead of taking surface scrapings. This would dilute the concentration below the detection limit since no cyanide will find itself deep inside the brick, as he would know. Or maybe he didn't, since he actually was not a chemist or even an engineer, just a deceitful con man who sold execution equipment to American prisons.

Leuchter has no credibility: he lied about his qualifications, and he lied about his tests being "the first" forensic examination of Auschwitz.

The earliest forensic tests at Auschwitz occurred in 1945, and found visible layers of white substance on ventilation shafts, which where tested and found to contain cyanide. They also found traces of prussic acid in hair samples, pins, clasps, and spectacle holders. This alone is sufficient proof that cyanide was used at Auschwitz. Any further tests half a century later are redundant. If they come back positive they only confirm what we already know, that cyanide was used. If they come back negative, all that means is that the test failed to find cyanide for some reason.

In 1990, Markiewicz and his team did a preliminary study of 10 samples and 2 control samples from Auschwitz. They were able to confirm the presence of cyanide in Krema II while both control samples were negative, which suggests that the results are accurate. You claim that these tests found the same results as Leuchter and Rudolf, but that is untrue: the 1990 tests found cyanide. You are also wrong to say that the tests were unsuitable for testing for insoluble cyanide compounds. They used a spectrophotometer to detect an CN ions, so the form of the cyanide is irrelevant.

Most disturbingly, you completely invert the solubility argument. It is Leuchter and Rudolf who used a biased test with poor controls that would fail to detect soluble CN compounds, and who took their samples from without any concern for whether they had been sheltered from the elements.

Markiewicz's second test was more extensive and against confirmed the presence of cyanide in places it was expected to be found, and no cyanide in the control samples.

They tests only showed short term contaminations from the environement.

We all know that well into the 1990s everyone has easy access to cyanide leading to widespread contamination from the environment. Cyanide is everywhere! It's a wonder that people aren't constantly dying from it. Right?

How come the accommodation dwellings weren't exposed to this "short term contamination from the environment"?

According to the Markiewicz report the deeply blue stained delousing chambers had the same cyanide residue as the Krema II walls, with no discoloration whatsoever.

Rudolf himself stated that the formation of Prussian Blue (the discoloration) is very unusual. It is hardly a surprise that most places that had contact with cyanide had no discoloration. It would be surprising if they were discoloured. There is one documented case of a church basement being used for gassing which also formed Prussian Blue, and that's quite surprising. But in general, there is no reason to expect discolouration after the use of Zyklon B.

the unsettling fact that total cyanide was under the detection limit.

How could the amount of cyanide detected be under the detection limit? That makes no sense.

In any case, it is not true. Levels of cyanide detected were well within the detection limit:

  • In the fumigation chambers, the measurements ranged up to 900 μg/kg.
  • In the Kremas they ranged up to 640 μg/kg.
  • And in the controls (accommodation dwellings) were 0-1 μg/kg, which is close enough to zero.

Bonus point, the humid cement mortar of Krema II and III are better suited for absorption of HNC than the lime mortar of the delousing chambers

That is a red herring. The Krema were frequently washed down, which would also remove cyanide. And the delousing chambers were exposed to cyanide for many hours at a time, not 20 minutes. Even if the lime mortar was less suited to absorb HCN, it was exposed for a much longer time, and not washed down afterwards, so it is hardly a surprise that there are larger traces remaining.

[–]jacques1102 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I understand what you're trying to do but just to let you know there's no reasoning with these people.They're too blinded by their hatred for jews that any evidence you give them they'll write off as jewish propaganda,but we should totally trust these 3rd party websites that don't have their own bias.Hell, one of these people lied and said white mass shooters are actually jewish.