Aapje58
3d ago
which raises a lot of questions on how that mechanically actually happens.
We still have people who are pronounced dead, but weren't, despite modern medical knowledge and tools. So it probably happened a lot more often in the past.
The bible explains that the Roman soldiers didn't follow the correct crucifixion procedure, where the legs of the person were broken. So it makes sense that Jesus could have barely survived, recovered a bit after being placed in a cool tomb, then wandered around a little in a stupor, and then died.
Then add a bit of embellishment and you have a resurrection narrative, with him transcending to heaven (aka actually dying) shortly after a faux death.
Aapje58
3d ago
For the same reason why Venice is no longer Italian. Too many tourists driving out the natives.
Imagine that your hobby spot gets disrupted constantly by tourists who gawk at you like you are a zoo animal. I bet that you'd find a more obscure spot that they can't find.
It's just as likely that men who are forced to become fathers become inattentive or abusive fathers.
That is a different topic and one that I cannot do justice with a brief reply. The point is still that sex-having tends to heavily correlate with being in a long-term relationship, and those are very much on the decline, in part due to reasons that I mentioned.
Also, you are completely wrong on the fact that mot men don't want children; actually, more men want children than women do.
The studies on this topic do not capture the fairly obvious reduction in willingness to sacrifice/compromise to actually have children. Also, I never said that a lesser interest in being a parent doesn't also affect women, although not for the exact same reasons, although the male and female reasons do interact in various ways.
First of all, why the fuck is this arrangement good for men? Why do men need to be "groomed" into being better people by women?
Good relationships require men and women to be attractive/pleasant to each other, which requires grooming. Note that this grooming is just one specific form of civilizing enculturation, which is needed for people to be able to live and prosper together in general.
Traditionally, a lot of this was done by women to their partner. Of course, society could have come up with a different arrangement, but it didn't, and in modernity, the societal grooming is often counterproductive, teaching men to act in a way that is not attractive to women.
Note that women are affected by bad societal grooming as well, with female 'incels' often being confused why acting how feminists say they should act, is often anti-attractive to men. However, due to a bunch of reasons, women are less affected by this.
This is utterly toxic and manipulative; most men would take the modern arrangement.
I don't get the impression that young men/boys are generally very happy with very high standards for getting into a relationship, and a lack of (actual) guidance of what those standards actually are and how to meet them. Supposedly, young men are increasingly seeking out traditionalist or semi-traditionalist mentors, to the dismay of leftist media.
Also, again, it's just as likely that the "rough diamond" stays rough, and the women is stuck with an abuser.
First of all, a rough diamond is not at all the same as an abuser. A passive nerd who needs to learn to be more assertive, be more ambitious, dress better, etc, is a rough diamond as much as a tough guy who needs to reign that in a bit.
Also, women don't tend to like the most safe men at all, since they tend to put great value on the ability of their partner to protect, so it is certainly not the case that the current model where women have high standards, makes them choose only meek geeks with little strength, and thereby keeps them rather safe from partner abuse.
The issue is that people become less malleable when time goes on, so the longer men stay single, the harder it is to enculture them. And they also simply miss experience. As it is, we have women chasing a fairly small percentage of men, and this enables bad actors who can play the role of an attractive man, but who only want sex, or who are abusive.
Also, we have much more loneliness and such, because people spend so much of their lives single.
I agree that women often politicize their relationships, but they don't blame the "right" for their relationship issues.
Nonsense. If they don't believe that, then why do so many demand that a partner is left-wing? Demanding something from a potential partner automatically means that it is a relationship issue.
I read the media, the propaganda is constantly sending the message that women deserve feminist men who clean, work less, obey women as slaves, etc.
Aapje58
15d ago
Maybe Destiny went temporarily nuts
Like that time he admitted to almost murdering someone (and his family): https://x.com/Anc_Aesthetics/status/1967993916478853354
And he's promoted and defended violence before. This guy is not temporarily nuts, but permanently so, just hiding it most of the time.
Aapje58
15d ago
This is so much less true today than during peak woke (roughly 2017-2020).
The mainstream left is protecting leftists who are calling for the murder of right-wingers. Moderates still don't matter aside from being complicit by staying quiet.
Aapje58
15d ago
It used to be that if you got pregnant or impregnated someone, you were expected to become a couple and stay a couple. This meant that the man was forced to have a big stake in being a parent, but also was very rarely deprived of the father role (as part of an actual family, not the modern 'weekend father'). Nowadays, a man who impregnates a woman can never get the chance to be a father, or can easily be deprived of the father role when the woman splits up. So there is less reason nowadays for men to want to have children or to build themselves up to be a good father. Instead, a lot of guys prefer infinite adolescence. In turn, this means that women see a lack of men who make good fathers, and even go looking for sperm donors and intentionally become single moms.
Women traditionally 'groomed' promising men into being good providers/fathers/etc. The taboo on splitting up meant that the risk of marrying a rough diamond was offset by the benefits of getting a better husband than the woman could get otherwise. But the ease by which relationships can be ended, resulted in women being increasingly picky and only wanting the finished product, since a perfectly groomed husband can just trade her in. However, the lack of grooming by women means that many men miss out on becoming this finished product, so everyone suffers.
All the lies about men and women being equal, logically results in the conclusion that when men have different preferences from women, this is all just bad culture that they need to change. So in a way feminism was right when they coined the term 'the personal is political,' in that women increasingly politicize their relationships, and demand leftism in their mates, with the assumption that those men then share their preferences. However, this just drives men further into right-wing politics, who do allow them to be themselves, while women get in this spiral of blaming the right wing for their relationship issues.
Aapje58
27d ago
assaulting cops on video is a genuine crime deserving of long punishment.
It is a crime, but did the perpetrators actually serve less time than others who have beaten up someone? I don't really agree that abuse of cops should result in much longer sentences, since cops themselves are protected from prosecution to an absurd degree and cops often violate people's rights, so then also give extra high punishment for assault on cops, makes the injustices in the way the police interacts with the populace, even greater.
Besides, I think that equal crimes should result in equal punishments, not that perpetrators get off much easier if they abuse the 'right' people.
Unless there's proof that they went past legal guidelines in sentencing
The problem is that when there is a legal 'conspiracy*', the process we have to determine that what the actual proper sentence is, is broken, so it is not reasonable to expect justice on the individual level. There is no parallel justice system that is free from these immense biases and that can determine an actually fair sentence. And Trump does not have the ability to change sentences.
It is an established legal principle that legal injustices can result in sentences that are not actually fair in the individual case, like people going free over illegally gathered evidence that does actually prove the guilt of the person. In those cases, we value the long term view more, where we accept an injustice in an individual case to maintain global standards in the prosecution of people. We draw a line in the sand that we will not allow it.
So I see nothing wrong with Trump drawing a line in the sand against political persecutions.
* Really just collective bias.
Even Vance agreed it's obvious that violent criminals should not be sent into the general public. Yet what happened?
Vance is not the president. Get back to me when Vance is president and something similar happens.
It sends a message that if you do violent crime in the name of the president, he'll be soft on it.
No, it sends the message that if the legal system commits political persecutions, politicians are going to intervene (of course).
Also, the claim that these people committed violence 'in the name of the president' is not a framing that I accept as fact. Trump did not call for violence.
Aapje58
1mo ago
Take, for example, conservative fascination with firearms as a political tool.
What I notice is that when conservatives talk about using firearms to defend from an oppressive government, they don't actually tend to call for people to actually go do that. In general, I would classify almost all of them as LARPers, who fancy themselves heroes in a fantasy. That doesn't make them violent revolutionaries.
The acceptance of violence, or the tendency to see the use physical force as a acceptable or effective solution to problems, seems to be so pervasive among the right that it has become "baked in" to the point where it doesn't even register, like a fish in water.
I see acceptance of violence against individuals in self defense, or as legal retribution, but again, neither of these make one a violent revolutionary.
Or greater support for state sanctioned killing to achieve policy goals, like the death penalty.
Killing political opponents as a way to get your policies enacted is very different from violence being part of the policy itself.
Aapje58
1mo ago
But not every single one. Why pardon rapist cop beaters? That's the exact opposite of condemnation.
My understanding is that the Trump pardons for Jan 6th are based on the (IMO correct) belief that this was a political persecution, where people were persecuted for non-crimes, and those that actually committed crimes were usually given excessive sentences. Many people who were pardoned did serve time, so it's not like they weren't punished.
I feel that it is a mistake to interpret a blanket clemency as individual pardons, where only the specifics of the case matter, rather than the desire to rebuke the establishment in general.
Aapje58
1mo ago
But with the Holocaust we are told the order to kill all the Jews was communicated through Mind Reading, and no that is not a straw-man those are direct words.
Where do you get that claim from, that the narrative says that they communicated through mind reading?
It's pretty obvious that orders can be given in person, with no records being kept.
Aapje58
1mo ago
Your intuition is correct that it is outlandish to think the Germans could make millions of bodies from these camps just disappear, they couldn't and they didn't.
Yet very large numbers of Jews did not return after WW 2, so where did they go, if they were not murdered?
Aapje58
1mo ago
But I don't know why the death camps were all on the USSR side.
They weren't. One of the first death camps was in Brandenburg, to the west of Berlin. This was part of Aktion T4, the precursor to the Holocaust, where mental patients were killed (and they later extended Aktion T4 to Jews on a small scale, until they later scaled up massively as part of a new program). At that location, they experimented with carbon monoxide gassings in a gas chamber disguised as a shower room. They closed that facility after complaints by the locals about the smoke.
There is no official document about why they chose Poland for most of the large scale program, but you only have to look at a map to see that Poland is an obvious choice if you want to do it outside of Germany, but within easy reach of Berlin. The Netherlands, Belgium or France are also close to Germany, but on the side of Germany that is far away from the capital.
I suspect that they preferred a foreign country, and especially an Eastern-European country because it is much easier to get things done if you are not beholden to an established bureaucratic system, and a populace that is used to appealing to that system. The idea was to establish a new nation in Eastern Europe, so then there effectively were no existing rules holding them back.
Aapje58
1mo ago
But evidence shows they weren't on some mission to "kill all the Jews" and there was no such policy.
What evidence shows this?
And does the testimony of Felix Landau, Erwin Bingel, Petras Zelionka, Halina Jankoska and Edward Anders, who recounted the shooting of Jews, not count as evidence? Do you deny that this testimony exists?
And what about the testimony of Siegfried Schuchardt, Julius Bauer and Wilhelm Findeisen, about the use of gas vans by Einsatzgruppen to murder Jews?
Aapje58
1mo ago
I do believe they were herded into gas chambers and probably more or less knew what was going on.
So how do you explain testimony from survivors of Auschwitz where they tell very consistent stories about how they had no clue that the fires they saw in the distance were crematoria, and that they didn't understand what the Kapos meant when they whispered things to them like "You’re young and healthy!" and "everyone is healthy" ? In hindsight, they understood that these were instructions on what to say (or not say) to the sorting officer who would decide who would go to the work camps or to the gas chambers.
What motivation would these people have to lie (consistently) or what mechanism would result in them coming to believe a false story, very quickly after liberation?
To believe that the arriving prisoners could identify the gas chambers for what they were, you need to go a lot further than to believe that the prisoners knew that Auschwitz was (in part) an extermination camp, which already contradicts the testimony, but you also need to believe that they knew the manner of execution (even though using gas for executions was novel at the time), and that they either knew that the gassing would happen straight after arrival or somehow be able to recognize that a fake shower room is not a shower room.
I believe that SS's claim is that these people starved to death because logistics broke down late in the war and they didn't get sufficient food.
What I want him to explain is why prisoners of war didn't suffer similarly high casualty rates (or vice versa, why Jews didn't have much lower casualty rates like the prisoners of war), because if the cause was a shortage of food, rather than deliberate actions to cause Jews to die, then one would expect similar food shortages for all prisoners and thus similar casualty rates.
Furthermore, his narrative would logically mean that almost all of these deaths would have happened very late in the war, because it would be absurd to argue that the Nazis fought for years without enough food. So then the Nazis would suddenly end up with huge piles of bodies. We know that these were not found by the liberating soldiers. They found very limited numbers of dead bodies at the camps, not millions of them.
So I want SS to explain how the Nazis were able to make those bodies disappear, and how such a solution is possible logistically. Because the way I see it, this would require a narrative that is way more unbelievable than that the Nazis murdered the Jews and cremated the bodies, over a much longer period of time.
I don't believe that the Jews that just arrived were aware of the procedure at the camp, and I have explained extensively why I believe that this is the case. If you want to argue with someone who accepts the claim that they knew this, then you need to find someone else to argue with.
It is claimed that no more than 2-4 Germans guarded the entire extermination operation at Birkenau
This is an utterly deceptive way to frame it. So deceptive in fact, that I have a hard time believing that you are making this argument in good faith. Again, the size of the actual security force was way bigger than this, consisting mostly of Trawniki and Kapo 'volunteers' (who in reality were heavily coerced, as doing this job greatly increased their chance of survival or of living longer).
Given your clear interest in the extermination camps, I find it just about impossible to believe that you have not heard of the Trawniki and Kapos.
Let me be absolutely clear. The story you are countering here is not the actual mainstream claim. It is highly distorted in a way that makes it seem way less feasible.
The question is why would a group of thousands of people achieve this level of group coordination in achieving their own execution
You are just begging the question here. It has not been established that they knew that that they were getting executed, nor have you established that they got anywhere close to the 'up to' amount you claimed when operating normally and it has not even been established that they ever hit that figure. It could be like one of these 'up to' figures that you see in advertising, and that is only possible in conditions that are perfect in every way.
The number of people that were actually put in the gas chamber was one of the few things that the Nazis did not actually seem to keep records of, so who knows how many people were actually in there on average? But again my question is why you think that this even matters?
Also, this narrative you keep pushing that merely walking into a room and getting pushed further and further into the wall or others, by people pushing into you, is actually some sort of North Korean coordinated mass event, is beyond absurd. That is not coordination in any way, but pure reaction.
Anyway, if you want to prove that historians make up all kinds of details, or accept claims from witnesses that are likely to be false, etc, etc; then it's not like this is the smoking gun you need. There are examples aplenty. But that kind of general criticism of history as a profession, doesn't actually do anything to prove that your narrative is better than the official one, because your narrative would suffer from the same kind of criticisms of the evidence you use, that has been presented by historians.
There is no room for guards inside the building to manage a panicking crowd
You have some really strange ideas. A crowd that is sufficiently densely packed is obviously going to control itself, because the people have no autonomous control over their movement.
Yet at the same time it's even less plausible that this crowd behavior reliably and routinely emerged, many times on a daily basis without fail, when the crowd knew they were cramming themselves inside their execution chambers.
Again, this is because you ignore that these people had already been crammed into overcrowded box cars. So the people who resisted going into those crowded box cars, had already been beaten and perhaps killed days ago, or even earlier. So why do you assume that people who had already accepted overcrowding, would suddenly not accept that anymore?
Again, your story is build on ignoring the immense weaknesses of your narrative, and making assumptions that you absolutely cannot prove.
If any Jews were hesitant to walk inside the gas chamber any guard would be in a very confined space with 2,000 people- machine gun or not would not be able to manage a riot if the crowd rushed the exit.
Your narrative makes zero sense again. Earlier you argued that simply entering through a supposedly small entrance would itself be a huge hindrance to getting in at a somewhat decent pace, but now these people could somehow rush out with such speed that they would overwhelm the guards. You are not applying consistent logic.
And again, you have not established at all that there was a decent chance of panic or revolt.
You cannot imagine a scenario where these people thought that they were actually getting showered, and would finally get food, shelter, and a chance to lie down, after a brutal trip. But you can only imagine a scenario where these people could somehow magically tell that an execution was about to happen, and they would somehow suddenly revolt after missing out on opportunity after opportunity to revolt in ways that would have a better chance of success; or would panic despite there not really being a more important reason to panic than earlier on.
One of these scenarios makes a whole lot more sense, and it is not the one you believe.
It takes a long time and requires everyone's cooperation. A couple of people panicking could stall or derail the entire operation.
They had a bunch of aggressive guards exactly to hurry people along, and to pull people out of the line who caused an issue, 'convincing' these people to be more cooperative, or alternatively, to take a little rest until their dead body was taken away.
What is your claim anyway? That gas chambers are impossible because getting people inside them takes too long? You do realize that they could just make the next group wait at the railway station, and could even leave entire trains parked without letting people out? The Nazis had transit/buffer camps, so it's not like they had to let the Jews go free if there was insufficient capacity to gas all of them right away. It just meant that the Holocaust took them longer.
Treblinka was supposed to by run by something like a couple dozen Germans...
Is this a joke? Surely you must know that the Germans were outnumbered by the Trawniki. And then you had the Kapos, prisoners who had security duties. The actual security force was way bigger than the Germans who were present.
I have explained why the Germans would not design an execution system that so heavily relied on the perfect cooperation of large crowds of people.
A big mistake you make is that you seem to believe that the Nazis made a plan on paper and that it is unbelievable that this plan would work out perfectly.
But in reality, they experimented with a lot of solutions, where most of these failed to do what they wanted. So they made all kinds of evolutionary steps along the way. Going from shootings to exhaust fumes, to poison gas, to odorless poison gas (hint: that was to reduce/prevent panic). Similarly, they changed the gas chamber designs along the way. Surely they also simply looked at what security detail was sufficient, and brought enough people.
The very nature of evolutionary solutions is that they can easily go against what common sense tells you should work, and that they can be very efficient, being just good enough to work, without being overengineered.
But many users here do not find that explanation believable because the Jews would have been able to see through the ruse.
Yes, based on 20/20 hindsight.
But put yourself into the shoes of a Jew of the time, being fed propaganda about relocations/forced labor, which is perfectly believable in itself because the Nazis employed a lot of forced labor of even their fellow Aryans. Then surely there were all kinds of rumors floating around, but lots of those rumors would be wrong, and even those with an element of truth would suffer from the Chinese whispers' distortions that completely distorts rumors that start out true. It would have been common sense to assume that the more extreme rumors are nonsense. And then the Jews would mostly be transported to a transit camp at first, which would be a lot closer to the places of origin of the Jews. So the archetypal camp that people would be most familiar with, would be a camp that did not feature gas chambers, and that was unpleasant, but generally survivable.
For example, Westerbork was in The Netherlands, so Dutch people would be familiar with that camp in all sorts of ways, like delivering goods there, or passing by. Prisoners in the camp would even send letters to other Dutch people. Yet how do you imagine that Dutch people would get information about Sobibor or Auschwitz? Dutch people would not make deliveries to those camps, would not pass by on their way to work, would not go there on holiday, would not get letters from prisoners at these camps, etc. Back then, travel was highly restricted, requiring permits, so it was not like people could go without permission. And why would the Nazis ever give permission all but those who were actually needed to run the camp, which would be a small group of German soldiers, picked for being amoral bastards, and the rest would all be locals.
I have failed to see an explanation why the Jews would quickly come to the realization upon arrival at an extermination camp that they would be gassed there, rather than believe that this is a work camp (which Auschwitz actually was for some of the Jews that arrived there). Don't forget that a whole bunch of Jews actually had the experience of traveling from a transit camp to a work camp. If they had revolted thinking that they arrived at an extermination camp, they would have done something very stupid.
Don't forget that rejecting the idea that the Jews believed in the ruse, and that they would have panicked/resisted, is utterly inconsistent with the fact that Jews had many an opportunity to resist/panic way before arriving at the concentration camp. For example, they could have attacked the police/gestapo with a knife upon their arrest. And the ones that provably showed up for transport voluntarily, could have gone into hiding/fled/etc instead of showing up. And they could have organized a revolt in the transit camp. And they could have panicked/revolted when brought to the railway station at the transit camp.
But apparently it is not at all unbelievable that they didn't revolt/panic at any of these moments, but that they didn't revolt/panic at the entrance of the gas chamber, which was designed to not look like a gas chamber, is somehow unbelievable.
So the narrative that the Jews knew that they would be killed, and that they would become non-compliant because of that, requires you to either reason away all kinds of facts that are very inconvenient for that narrative, or to believe in an epiphany-narrative, where people collectively go from not knowing something, to being sure about it, in the space of a few hours or even minutes, and without seeing any slamdunk evidence.
Aapje58
1mo ago
It is claimed that up to/at least 2,000 people were gassed at a time in gas chambers that were by all accounts and according to construction documents (although they were documented to be Morgues) 7m x 30m. That means it is claimed there were stacked 9.5 victims per square meter. Here's an image to scale showing what that would look like.
First of all, I have no idea whether your 'it is claimed' actually reflects strongly held beliefs by historians. And my strongly held belief is that lots of historians take bad estimates by eye witnesses as gospel, or simply copy claims by other historians, no matter how weakly supported that claim is, or they just make stuff up that sounds good to them. There is a reason why a lot of sensible people try to validate historical records through practical methods.
Anyway, because of this, the more specific historical claims get, the more likely that they are wrong. And historical records get more believable the more independent evidence there is, and the more we stick to more generic claims. For example, I am a lot more confident that the Battle of Actium happened, than that the claimed number of ships and men are correct.
So my belief that the Holocaust happened and involved intentional mass murder and gas chambers is not based on a specific figure being correct that is allegedly being claimed, but because there is a lot of evidence all pointing in the same direction, supporting a much more generic claim, that is thus not dependent on a single data point being true. Your narrative that these people died due to food shortages and the like, does not merely require you to reason away the gas chambers, but also gas vans, the development of an odorless Zyklon-variant, the mass executions behind the Eastern Front, various experiments in clinics/camps early on, etc. Essentially, there is a very clear progression in the methods used, and a lot of independent evidence, which adds a lot of credibility to the claim that there was a plan to annihilate the Jews.
In contrast, your narrative of deaths due to chaos near the war's end, completely fails to explain such things as why such a small fraction of deported Jews survived, versus prisoners of war. Because if the Jews were not targeted but just victims of chaos, then logically, that chaos should impact all prisoners somewhat equally. And your narrative requires you to explain why there weren't a ton of bodies lying about. Because how does it make sense for there being mass starvation late in the war due to chaos, but for the Nazis to then still be able to neatly dispose of almost all of the bodies? And with immense speed, since it the deaths would occur over a much smaller period than in the Holocaust narrative.
Here's an image to scale showing what that would look like.
According to your own image, 2000 people is actually quite possible if you have 30% children in the mix. You provide no reason why 30% children is the upper limit. In fact, we have records for a transport of 1,196 children and 53 adults. That is less than 2000 people, but I have no clue whether the figure of 2000 is supposed to actually have been reached, or whether it is a calculation.
You realize a person at the door pushing people inside would do nothing in the face of panic towards the door from a crowd like that.
Again, according to this reasoning it would be impossible for people to be pressed to death at a festival/stadium, because people would panic and press back again the people applying pressure. Yet we know for a fact that people get pressed to death in such circumstances, and that survivors report panic, but are unable to push back. So your narrative goes against established facts on how people behave.
You are saying that the Jews would have exhibited the same level of cooperation as those Japanese train passengers
I indeed think that it is quite plausible that malnourished, dehydrated people who had just suffered from horrible conditions during a long transport, and who know that they get beaten if they do not comply, act in a docile manner.
I am saying they would not have cooperated like that.
How could you know? Do you have experience being a person with 1940's Jewish culture, who has experienced a long train ride in a packed box car, and has been beaten by Nazis or has seen his fellows get beaten by the Nazis? Or are you just projecting your modern beliefs on the past?
It's my opinion that projecting modern beliefs on the past, rather than actually understanding how people of the time thought, is a huge cause for false beliefs of history.
But you are saying the Jews would not have panicked, even though they knew they were being killed
I never claimed that there was no panic, or that the Jews knew that they would be killed before the Zyklon-B was administered. At that point the doors would be closed.
What I am claiming is that your narrative that panic must have happened at the moment and to such an extent that it would have prevented the people from being packed tight is being disproved by the fact that people do end up packed tight and unable to resist this, at festival/stadium tragedies where people get pressed to death.
not only that but the Germans knew the Jews wouldn't panic so they didn't foresee an issue with a very light security detail simply telling thousands of Jews to arrange themselves inside the gas chambers.
You completely ignore that the Nazis scaled up their operations gradually. So your narrative that they gambled that thousands of people would revolt, does not match the historic record, where they experimented and learned what worked, and thus could simply scale down their security to a level that was sufficient, based on experience.
And it is a fact that occasionally, the Nazis did not actually know what security was sufficient, like at Sobibor, where there was a semi-successful revolt (but again, this was planned).
The lack of contemporary documentary evidence for the operation is one of the biggest problems, with probably the biggest problem of all being the lack of physical evidence.
Yes, it is truly damning for the Holocaust narrative that there is no video where the Nazis demonstrate exactly how the gas chambers work. It's not like they had a policy of keeping it a secret, with them using code words, destroying the evidence, etc. And all the witnesses who gave testimony shortly after the war were obviously all coerced into making that testimony, even though there is a total lack of evidence for that coercion happening. It's utterly believable for there not to be a whole bunch of Nazis who would complain about that coercion if it had happened.
Aapje58
1mo ago
Thousands go in, no one comes out, do the guards just tell everyone else they were loaded into buses in back and sent to another camp?
You do know that Auschwitz consisted of about 40 camps? So it would indeed be perfectly plausible for them to be marched to a different (sub-)camp, potentially quite a bit away. And the Nazis would obviously not be worried about making them do quite a long march.
And why do you think that it would make sense for people to be brought out of the showers back to the railway station? Why would they leave again, right after arriving?
Just the first of many logistical problems that make this obviously implausible.)
Do you have any actually convincing problems, that are not simply because you don't understand that these camps consist of separate areas with a purpose (and indeed, separate sub-camps also with a different purpose), and people would not come back to places like the railway station unless they were leaving?
Aapje58
1mo ago
but there was found to be a significant psychological effect on the soldiers doing the killings.
And the Jews also had a tendency to run away. Early on in the war, Jews fleeing further to the East was considered a benefit by at least one Ensatzgruppe leader, but I think that once they recognized that the war was not going well, they put more emphasis on killing the Jews quickly, rather than 'we'll get to it.'
Aapje58
1mo ago
Getting that many people into these narrow entrances to stand with extremely high density in these small rooms requires military-discipline level of coordination by the victims.
Ehhh, no. They could just make them walk in and then once the natural density has been reached, push more people in, and those people will push the people who are already inside, etc. This is also what they do for Japanese trains: https://youtube.com/watch?v=o9Xg7ui5mLA
What part of this requires military discipline? Do you imagine that the Jews marched in, in formation, and they took specific designated spots? What discipline is required to move when you get pushed?
For comparison, you can look at various tragedies at festivals, stadiums and such, where crowds got packed tight by people pushing from behind, which can easily cause extreme density at the far end. I'm not sure where you get the claim from that there was some extremely high density in the gas chambers anyway.
So if it turns out that claim is false (which it is) then mainstream historians are categorically unable to answer those other questions with respect to the Holy 6 million.
It seems to me that this is actually your problem if you reject the gas chambers, since then you need to account for where all those people went that provably disappeared. Where is your explanation?
Just like it actually seems to be you for whom the 6 million is Holy and it somehow matters if the actual number is 3 million, and those people where mostly executed by firing squads or gassed in trucks and box cars (but not gas chambers that looked like showers).
The evidence of the Holocaust is overwhelming, but you seem to believe that you merely need to prove one part wrong and then suddenly all that evidence will disappear.
Of course if someone doesn't cooperate digging, you shoot him and it's a little inconvenient.
I don't understand your logic here. You seem to claim that when people are forced to dig their own grave, then any resistance is going to be individual and can be dealt with easily due to that. But when people are merely asked to walk into a room, then that would somehow set off a coordinated riot. Why? How?
Note that this doesn't make much sense anyway, since the separation of the Jews into workers and those who got sent to the gas chambers, would be a much more logical place to riot, when you have not just strength of numbers, but the most healthy & strong Jews would still be present. Women, children, the elderly and the ill would be over-represented in the group being sent to the gas chamber.
A full-blown riot of a thousand people is a massive security threat to what is supposed to be a top-secret operation.
Which is why Sobibor was razed to the ground after the revolt. That was actually a carefully planned operation though, not a riot. And the workers of Sobibor were much more suitable for a revolt, being mostly healthy adults.
You have failed to explain why the Nazis would be particularly afraid of a riot by starved Jews who had been forced to stand for an average of 4 days, where many of those Jews would be women, children and the elderly, and where those Jews would have no particular reason to revolt then as they would not know the procedure at the camp (in fact, their previous 'arrive at a concentration camp' experience would have been at a non-extermination camp, so if anything they would assume that this is another camp where they would stay for a while).
That's why the shower room cover story is so important. Such a sensitive task would not have, by design, fundamentally relied on the cooperation of the victims.
Cooperation of the Jews with the Nazis has been documented every step of the way, so why would it be notable, or a weak spot in the narrative for that to also have happened at the extermination camps? The notable situations are when there was a revolt (Warsaw & Sobibor). And those were planned, not spontaneous.
Your narrative greatly suffers from double standards anyway. The Nazis also gassed some Jews in box cars. And Jews were packed tightly in box cars for transport. Yet you don't question the official story that has Jews being packed tight in the box cars for transport or for gassing, but suddenly when the Jews were packed tight in a gas chamber that looks like a shower, this required military discipline. Yet apparently no military discipline was required to be packed tight in box cars? And it was not logical for the Jews to revolt when being packed tight in the box cars, but somehow when being led to the showers, it is so unbelievable that they would not resist, that this supposedly undermines the entire narrative.
Aapje58
1mo ago
To do so would have been heroism, not the expected human response.
No, defiance. Which makes it even less likely, because defiance requires being an asshat just out of spite, usually at the expense of yourself. And anyone who was so inclined had plenty of chances to do so earlier, and would have not been on the train.
Heroism requires that there is at least a slight chance of success, which there isn't really, with a single person acting alone.
The claim is not that he was inciting genocide, but that a genuine desire to harm people merely for having a different political opinion is not compatible with a position of power. Especially being an Attorney General, where he would be required to serve the legal interests of all Virginians, not just those that agree with him politically.
Aside from that, there is also the issue that these statements make him a risk to the safety of government employees and politicians that he would encounter in his job. If he sees lethal violence as a solution to conflicts, then a workplace conflict could logically lead to a workplace shooting.
More options
Context Copy link