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 it depends on the person and the evidence that individual has seen and studied.
It’s similar to 9/11 - there is an “official narrative”, but that has had so many holes poked through it all we really know for sure is that it is far from the “real” story.
My biggest take away from the discussion can be boiled down by the old Norm Macdonald bit:
It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?
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.
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 it depends on the person and the evidence that individual has seen and studied.
It’s similar to 9/11 - there is an “official narrative”, but that has had so many holes poked through it all we really know for sure is that it is far from the “real” story.
My biggest take away from the discussion can be boiled down by the old Norm Macdonald bit:
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.