I saw a lot of counternarrative posts recently on Twitter about Auschwitz having a swimming pool/movie theater/arts theater/maternity ward/orchestra, library etc.
For heterodox people pushing that the camps weren't as bad as history tells us, what is their ultimate position?
That less died than reported?
That industrial scale extermination didn't happen at all?
Jewish cultural legacy is one of entitlement, subversion, and grievance. Its not a criticism. Same way that the American soul is one of humiliation and spite, it just is.
The Holocaust was a white culture recognizing the incompatibility of thay culture with its own, rejecting it, and what happened after.
Here's the critical piece. The narrative of Nazis is borderline mystical. They're suddenly for no reason at all arrival. Their magical instant mind control that dies with Hitler, their clockwork industrial perfection in efficiency and universal application of policy to rival mcdonalds in the fucking 40s.
What's the point? The Nazis rejected jews and wanted them gone. They attempted deportation which failed, they switched to concentration. Now what? Some were probably murdered by the camps staffed by people who hated them due to the above. Others starved because low priority people starve in war. And some were bombed by the Allies.
In the aftermath there is not SINGLE interested party who wants a nuanced conclusion. Europe wants somebody to blame, the Allies want a cover for their atrocities, the Jews want land and power. The Germans want to wash their hands as quickly as possible. Every single group has a vested interest in
Blaming Germany for everything
Germany having acted as evilly as possible.
The Nazis being both pure evil, and absolutely magnetic so the Germans can put it all behind them with minimal punishment.
These three goals directly incentivize maximizing the holocaust in terms of both intent and scale.
We end up with a Climate Change situation where the number has changed over and over to always make sure Jews juuuuust eek out to be the majority of casualties.
What's the point? The Nazis rejected jews and wanted them gone. They attempted deportation which failed, they switched to concentration. Now what? Some were probably murdered by the camps staffed by people who hated them due to the above. Others starved because low priority people starve in war. And some were bombed by the Allies.
So in this version, there's deaths in the camps from neglect and general wartime hardships, but no systematic gas chambers?
Is there still forced labor?
So in this narrative, Jews were literally being concentrated in areas but with no further plan while the war was still going other than segregation?
I'm asking these questions in good faith, trying to understand the more nuanced "Holocaust denier" labeled position.
I tried to find some of the "Auschwitz was full of amenities" posts on Twitter, but could only find this one. They may have been memoryholed.
Are you aware of the Japanese internment camps in America? Describe for us what you think they would have looked like 1-2 years after all American rail and supply lines are destroyed and the troops have been pushed back further inland. That’s how many picture Germany’s interment camps.
The North American POW and internment camps are a good counterexample of systems set up without the express purpose of genocide. POW camps also had some forms of forced labor AFAIK.
But again, is this the ultimate position that some Holocaust critics are arguing from?
That there were late war deaths of Jews from neglect and general disarray, but no actual systematic industrial scale genocide program?
Or that there was some but not as much as generally accepted?
A few bad egg camp/rogue commamders?
That Jewish extermination wasn't top-level Nazi party/command policy?
Frankly? I've no fucking clue what IS. But I know what it fucking isn't.
It's hard to get people to exterminate others. The "authority tells you to shock people" experiment is bullshit. It's hard to do. You can say a group deserves extermination and even convince people It's true, but getting those people to in lockstep achieve unheard of efficiency in something it usually takes decades of conditioning to convince somebody to do once.....
Then come the practical questions. Wooden doors. Magic furnaces. Magical chemical synthesis.
And in the end every new fact just happens to show that every atrocity against the German people and army was wholey justified, and now we get to vaporize entire cities because we're the good guys.
Put a shorter way. The exact same people who maintain the Holocaust at maximum and make questioning it illegal are the ones who call fighting ages, male economic migrants "terrified refugees" and will hold an infant in smoke to get a good photo op.
What's the point? The Nazis rejected jews and wanted them gone. They attempted deportation which failed, they switched to concentration. Now what? Some were probably murdered by the camps staffed by people who hated them due to the above. Others starved because low priority people starve in war. And some were bombed by the Allies.
Everyone killed Jews except the Nazis. These Nazis are some real big-time humanitarians.
In the aftermath there is not SINGLE interested party who wants a nuanced conclusion.
You want a 'nuanced conclusion'?
the number has changed over and over to always make sure Jews juuuuust eek out to be the majority of casualties.
More inhabitants of the USSR were murdered than Jews. And the USSR put emphasis on its people's suffering during World War II over anything that had been done to the Jews. Ironically, you are following the communist narrative. Then again, you have no idea what you're even saying.
OK, that's good, maybe you thought it was so obvious that you didn't need to specify. What it sounded like to me was the way I 'obtusely' expressed it. Nice that I was wrong.
I'd like an accurate one as opposed to the cartoon that you carry water for.
Great. Read any of the authoritative works of World War II history. They are nuanced and accurate. In fact, a significant school of historians has argued that the Nazis weren't totalitarian and repressive against the German population (e.g. Hans Mommsen). You know why? Because they wanted to argue that ordinary Germans are also to blame for the Nazi tyranny.
Camp casualties you numbskull Nobody gives a shit about the soviets.
I think the death numbers are likely inflated and that the event is exaggerated in order to use it as the building block of the current globalist world order.
Whenever any right wing politician is being considered, they quickly smear him as the next Hitler.
Whenever any powerful Jew is even slightly criticized, they can evoke the Holocaust as a golden shield to end the conversation.
A lot of globalist elites happen to be Jewish and they sadly do this all the time.
This creates hatred towards innocent Jewish people who have done nothing wrong.
I personally have nothing against the Jewish people as a whole. I know many good and decent Jewish people and I wish nothing but good things for them.
The problem is that the globalist elites are disproportionately Jewish and they use their background and the Holocaust narrative as a shield to push their agenda.
The Holocaust narrative has always been used to weaken right wing nationalism.
I personally don't care at all when it comes to debating details about the actual event itself.
Weakening the elite globalist narrative is all I care about
Whenever any powerful Jew is even slightly criticized, they can evoke the Holocaust as a golden shield to end the conversation.
I've never seen them respect this when it is a powerful Jew who gives money to Republicans. The same people who bristle at any mention of George Soros as 'anti-semitism' always have in their history numerous attacks on Sheldon Adleson.
They also called attacks on Tom Steyer (who is a Christian albeit a phony one) anti-semitic.
Basically, criticizing rich Democratic donors is anti-semitism whether or not they're Jewish, but criticizing rich Republican donors is not only fine but mandatory.
In The Gulag Archipelago, the author tells a story about a friend of his that was sent to the Nazi camps, was interrogated and possibly tortured for info, and then let go. It seems to him that they were mostly holding cells for prisoners and anything else is exaggerated
If industrial scale extermination were the goal, they would have simply left the cattle car doors locked for the three days it takes to die from dehydration, instead of wasting time and money building camps while short on resources. The official narrative is simply full of plot holes and hard to believe.
That's the critical meme to me. The narrative see-saws between "ruthless insanely perfect efficiency is the onlyvway they pulled this part off" and "they did this part as inefficiently as possible for no reason"
I saw a lot of counternarrative posts recently on Twitter about Auschwitz having a swimming pool/movie theater/arts theater/maternity ward/orchestra, library etc.
For heterodox people pushing that the camps weren't as bad as history tells us, what is their ultimate position?
That less died than reported?
That industrial scale extermination didn't happen at all?
That these camps were simply holding facilities?
Jewish cultural legacy is one of entitlement, subversion, and grievance. Its not a criticism. Same way that the American soul is one of humiliation and spite, it just is.
The Holocaust was a white culture recognizing the incompatibility of thay culture with its own, rejecting it, and what happened after.
Here's the critical piece. The narrative of Nazis is borderline mystical. They're suddenly for no reason at all arrival. Their magical instant mind control that dies with Hitler, their clockwork industrial perfection in efficiency and universal application of policy to rival mcdonalds in the fucking 40s.
What's the point? The Nazis rejected jews and wanted them gone. They attempted deportation which failed, they switched to concentration. Now what? Some were probably murdered by the camps staffed by people who hated them due to the above. Others starved because low priority people starve in war. And some were bombed by the Allies.
In the aftermath there is not SINGLE interested party who wants a nuanced conclusion. Europe wants somebody to blame, the Allies want a cover for their atrocities, the Jews want land and power. The Germans want to wash their hands as quickly as possible. Every single group has a vested interest in
Blaming Germany for everything
Germany having acted as evilly as possible.
The Nazis being both pure evil, and absolutely magnetic so the Germans can put it all behind them with minimal punishment.
These three goals directly incentivize maximizing the holocaust in terms of both intent and scale.
We end up with a Climate Change situation where the number has changed over and over to always make sure Jews juuuuust eek out to be the majority of casualties.
Watch American Krogan's pieces on Biosbock.
So in this version, there's deaths in the camps from neglect and general wartime hardships, but no systematic gas chambers?
Is there still forced labor?
So in this narrative, Jews were literally being concentrated in areas but with no further plan while the war was still going other than segregation?
I'm asking these questions in good faith, trying to understand the more nuanced "Holocaust denier" labeled position.
I tried to find some of the "Auschwitz was full of amenities" posts on Twitter, but could only find this one. They may have been memoryholed.
https://twitter.com/MarkFletcherOAC/status/1749558608872771742#m
Are you aware of the Japanese internment camps in America? Describe for us what you think they would have looked like 1-2 years after all American rail and supply lines are destroyed and the troops have been pushed back further inland. That’s how many picture Germany’s interment camps.
The North American POW and internment camps are a good counterexample of systems set up without the express purpose of genocide. POW camps also had some forms of forced labor AFAIK.
But again, is this the ultimate position that some Holocaust critics are arguing from?
That there were late war deaths of Jews from neglect and general disarray, but no actual systematic industrial scale genocide program?
Or that there was some but not as much as generally accepted?
A few bad egg camp/rogue commamders?
That Jewish extermination wasn't top-level Nazi party/command policy?
Frankly? I've no fucking clue what IS. But I know what it fucking isn't.
It's hard to get people to exterminate others. The "authority tells you to shock people" experiment is bullshit. It's hard to do. You can say a group deserves extermination and even convince people It's true, but getting those people to in lockstep achieve unheard of efficiency in something it usually takes decades of conditioning to convince somebody to do once.....
Then come the practical questions. Wooden doors. Magic furnaces. Magical chemical synthesis.
And in the end every new fact just happens to show that every atrocity against the German people and army was wholey justified, and now we get to vaporize entire cities because we're the good guys.
Awfully lucky ain't it.
Put a shorter way. The exact same people who maintain the Holocaust at maximum and make questioning it illegal are the ones who call fighting ages, male economic migrants "terrified refugees" and will hold an infant in smoke to get a good photo op.
Everyone killed Jews except the Nazis. These Nazis are some real big-time humanitarians.
You want a 'nuanced conclusion'?
More inhabitants of the USSR were murdered than Jews. And the USSR put emphasis on its people's suffering during World War II over anything that had been done to the Jews. Ironically, you are following the communist narrative. Then again, you have no idea what you're even saying.
I know you're obtuse but come on.
Nazis killed a lot of jews.
I'd like an accurate one as opposed to the cartoon that you carry water for.
Camp casualties you numbskull Nobody gives a shit about the soviets.
OK, that's good, maybe you thought it was so obvious that you didn't need to specify. What it sounded like to me was the way I 'obtusely' expressed it. Nice that I was wrong.
Great. Read any of the authoritative works of World War II history. They are nuanced and accurate. In fact, a significant school of historians has argued that the Nazis weren't totalitarian and repressive against the German population (e.g. Hans Mommsen). You know why? Because they wanted to argue that ordinary Germans are also to blame for the Nazi tyranny.
These are ordinary people.
My position on this issue is simple.
I think the death numbers are likely inflated and that the event is exaggerated in order to use it as the building block of the current globalist world order.
Whenever any right wing politician is being considered, they quickly smear him as the next Hitler.
Whenever any powerful Jew is even slightly criticized, they can evoke the Holocaust as a golden shield to end the conversation.
A lot of globalist elites happen to be Jewish and they sadly do this all the time.
This creates hatred towards innocent Jewish people who have done nothing wrong.
I personally have nothing against the Jewish people as a whole. I know many good and decent Jewish people and I wish nothing but good things for them.
The problem is that the globalist elites are disproportionately Jewish and they use their background and the Holocaust narrative as a shield to push their agenda.
The Holocaust narrative has always been used to weaken right wing nationalism.
I personally don't care at all when it comes to debating details about the actual event itself.
Weakening the elite globalist narrative is all I care about
I've never seen them respect this when it is a powerful Jew who gives money to Republicans. The same people who bristle at any mention of George Soros as 'anti-semitism' always have in their history numerous attacks on Sheldon Adleson.
They also called attacks on Tom Steyer (who is a Christian albeit a phony one) anti-semitic.
Basically, criticizing rich Democratic donors is anti-semitism whether or not they're Jewish, but criticizing rich Republican donors is not only fine but mandatory.
In The Gulag Archipelago, the author tells a story about a friend of his that was sent to the Nazi camps, was interrogated and possibly tortured for info, and then let go. It seems to him that they were mostly holding cells for prisoners and anything else is exaggerated
If industrial scale extermination were the goal, they would have simply left the cattle car doors locked for the three days it takes to die from dehydration, instead of wasting time and money building camps while short on resources. The official narrative is simply full of plot holes and hard to believe.
That's the critical meme to me. The narrative see-saws between "ruthless insanely perfect efficiency is the onlyvway they pulled this part off" and "they did this part as inefficiently as possible for no reason"