Starving people to death takes time. Dachau could wipe out an entire trainload of people within 45 minutes from arrival. Having to keep people alive for weeks or even months is a huge waste of resources when you can do it in less than an hour. It also allows the camps to swell, and potentially cause rebellions. Starving people is only one aspect of an effort to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.
This is what happened in the Civil War, actually; one of the few Southern PoW camps had abysmal survival rates due to the fact that they just didn't have enough goddamn food to go around.
It's been a while since I cracked open the books, but IIRC, the commander in charge of said camp was one of the only Southern commanders that was executed after the war.
so that the winners could make themselves out to be the heroes while distracting everyone from all the atrocities they committed.
I never learned about the literal tornadoes of fire that the Allies inflicted upon a civilian population center when they firebombed the ever-loving fuck out of Dresden and then gunned down the survivors fleeing in the woods the morning after. Funny how they leave that part out of the history lessons in school.
This is a new interpretation: the Zionists had the Germans intentionally starve the jews to death to get the state of Israel as an elaborate plot. This is, frankly, the dumbest way to try and get statehood that I've ever heard but okay. The other stuff about allied countries not taking in jews is true. Yes Germany didn't exactly try to deport them, as much as exile them and rob them of all their possessions in Germany. Being socialists, the jews were considered a bourgeois race that had stolen all wealth they had accrued, thus all wealth could be taken back. And they would be deported to... Madagascar: a tribal and undeveloped island after being robbed of all worldly possession. In reality, deporting was never a solution because the goal was to exterminate jews as a whole because Judeo-Bolshevism suggested that they were a plague upon all nations already, so killing them would save Europe. Deporting them, on the other hand, would keep them alive, and keep them a threat to Europe.
This also ignores the fact that the holocaust was undertaken for speed and efficiency. Same reason you shouldn't be using bullets to shoot every jew in a war: you run out of bullets when you're trying to kill all the jews in Europe. Starvation is far too slow, and requires far too much space.
Even then, if we were to say that starvation as a method of execution was the only method in the holocaust, we can see that food was not rationed so tightly that it was impossible to feed jews. American POWs and Russian POWs were also starved in different rates depending on the political animosity that the Germans may have had towards the different groups. We see the Germans doing the same thing during WW1, as killing off the vast swathes of Russian prisoners by refusing to feed them happens in both wars, but it is the Russians being directly targeted with starvation over other groups. In WW2, the Jews get worse treatment than the Russians, which is really saying something.
So, all in all, there's plenty of issues with the original statement that could be disinformation, but there's other parts that aren't, but the real problem with it is actually just the fact that OP is asserting the jews conspired to commit the holocaust against themselves for Israel (which didn't exist yet).
This isn't so much about refuting claims as about responding to the idea that it's intentional disinformation. The claims are wrong, but are they disinformation, is it known to him to be intentionally false. Honestly, with Holocaust Deniers, it's hard to say. Genuinely, a lot of them are ideologically captured into this exclusively American National Socialist narrative that "the holocaust didn't happen but should have", where as none of the German National Socialists denied it. They accept why it happened, they accept that it should happen, but then they claim that somehow Hitler wasn't a massive hypocrite, tried to save the jews, but then the jews created this argument that he exterminated them.
That's certainly disingenuous enough to be considered something that is said to be intentionally false because it's so inconsistent, but adherence to Holocaust Denial seem to be entirely devoted to that contradiction (Excluding the weird realm of "holocaust skeptics" which aren't NatSocs but end up running around in circles trying to disprove it, and normally come to conclusions after years to: "Auschwitz doesn't real but Dachau is", or "It's not 6 million, it's 4 million, because we shouldn't count starvation or disease at concentration camps" or odd things like that... none of which are regularly presented here.)
So, I still want to explain my thinking about whether or not the comment is disinformation, opinion, or genuine belief, for transparency.
So why still remove the comment? Same reason I remove the comment even after explaining what it is when I remove it: that is still the official punishment for the comment.
The idea that people had to be killed via gassing is ridiculous when you consider they could just lock them up and simply not feed them.
Starving people to death takes time. Dachau could wipe out an entire trainload of people within 45 minutes from arrival. Having to keep people alive for weeks or even months is a huge waste of resources when you can do it in less than an hour. It also allows the camps to swell, and potentially cause rebellions. Starving people is only one aspect of an effort to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.
This is what happened in the Civil War, actually; one of the few Southern PoW camps had abysmal survival rates due to the fact that they just didn't have enough goddamn food to go around.
It's been a while since I cracked open the books, but IIRC, the commander in charge of said camp was one of the only Southern commanders that was executed after the war.
Andersonville and to your point eyewitness accounts had guards dying due to lack of food. So no one had food.
I never learned about the literal tornadoes of fire that the Allies inflicted upon a civilian population center when they firebombed the ever-loving fuck out of Dresden and then gunned down the survivors fleeing in the woods the morning after. Funny how they leave that part out of the history lessons in school.
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Post Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
This is a new interpretation: the Zionists had the Germans intentionally starve the jews to death to get the state of Israel as an elaborate plot. This is, frankly, the dumbest way to try and get statehood that I've ever heard but okay. The other stuff about allied countries not taking in jews is true. Yes Germany didn't exactly try to deport them, as much as exile them and rob them of all their possessions in Germany. Being socialists, the jews were considered a bourgeois race that had stolen all wealth they had accrued, thus all wealth could be taken back. And they would be deported to... Madagascar: a tribal and undeveloped island after being robbed of all worldly possession. In reality, deporting was never a solution because the goal was to exterminate jews as a whole because Judeo-Bolshevism suggested that they were a plague upon all nations already, so killing them would save Europe. Deporting them, on the other hand, would keep them alive, and keep them a threat to Europe.
This also ignores the fact that the holocaust was undertaken for speed and efficiency. Same reason you shouldn't be using bullets to shoot every jew in a war: you run out of bullets when you're trying to kill all the jews in Europe. Starvation is far too slow, and requires far too much space.
Even then, if we were to say that starvation as a method of execution was the only method in the holocaust, we can see that food was not rationed so tightly that it was impossible to feed jews. American POWs and Russian POWs were also starved in different rates depending on the political animosity that the Germans may have had towards the different groups. We see the Germans doing the same thing during WW1, as killing off the vast swathes of Russian prisoners by refusing to feed them happens in both wars, but it is the Russians being directly targeted with starvation over other groups. In WW2, the Jews get worse treatment than the Russians, which is really saying something.
So, all in all, there's plenty of issues with the original statement that could be disinformation, but there's other parts that aren't, but the real problem with it is actually just the fact that OP is asserting the jews conspired to commit the holocaust against themselves for Israel (which didn't exist yet).
Fuck off.
Your comment does a fine job refuting his claims (or providing an alternative explanation) so why the need to delete his comment?
Ya’ll stick together that’s for sure.
This isn't so much about refuting claims as about responding to the idea that it's intentional disinformation. The claims are wrong, but are they disinformation, is it known to him to be intentionally false. Honestly, with Holocaust Deniers, it's hard to say. Genuinely, a lot of them are ideologically captured into this exclusively American National Socialist narrative that "the holocaust didn't happen but should have", where as none of the German National Socialists denied it. They accept why it happened, they accept that it should happen, but then they claim that somehow Hitler wasn't a massive hypocrite, tried to save the jews, but then the jews created this argument that he exterminated them.
That's certainly disingenuous enough to be considered something that is said to be intentionally false because it's so inconsistent, but adherence to Holocaust Denial seem to be entirely devoted to that contradiction (Excluding the weird realm of "holocaust skeptics" which aren't NatSocs but end up running around in circles trying to disprove it, and normally come to conclusions after years to: "Auschwitz doesn't real but Dachau is", or "It's not 6 million, it's 4 million, because we shouldn't count starvation or disease at concentration camps" or odd things like that... none of which are regularly presented here.)
So, I still want to explain my thinking about whether or not the comment is disinformation, opinion, or genuine belief, for transparency.
So why still remove the comment? Same reason I remove the comment even after explaining what it is when I remove it: that is still the official punishment for the comment.