Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Indeed, such pretend to have feared the guns & guard dogs of the SS more than they worried for the literal extermination of their entire people -- and presumably the condemnation of man and God, for knowingly helping the process along for... better rations? Warmer clothes? Seems strange. And don't get me started about Dario Gabbai. That film actor.
This is something a sentimental exterminationist friend of mine has commented on, innocently. She expresses a head-shaking disbelief that only 4 or 5 SS guards were present at each gas chamber to make sure 10-15 Sonderkommando did their jobs properly. A strangely depopulated prospect: under 20 persons literally shepherding up to 8,000 people into gassing cellars and ovens day after day after day. "Like sheep to the slaughter". One can tell that in her head she's working out how absurd it is, but the overlay of propaganda makes it impossible for her to consciously question it.
It was an early realisation of mine thanks to CODOH: on the one hand, we're told that Sonderkommando were used for a few weeks or months at most, then themselves gassed to prevent eyewitnesses. And yet there are several of them who, somehow, worked for ages and then were allowed to join the exodus from Auschwitz quite freely in 1945. One wonders how Gabbai, et. al., lived to tell us how he couldn't possibly be alive.
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
Haha. I don't want to take this thread away from it's original post, but just lastly to add that in Claude Lanzmann's Shoah, Filip Mueller, a sonderkommando blames the world for not doing anything. LOL.
Also, notice Merlin300's post. He's actually been inside the alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz. (True). How many here can say that?!
Waldgänger wrote:When I discovered Antony Beevor's book "Stalingrad" at age 15, my eyes lit up. I was too young to have a fully-formed opinion about the Holocaust narrative or the War. I had started to admire German uniforms and fighting prowess; [...] I became a WWII devotee after "Stalingrad". I spent many years learning all about the course of the War in Europe. What intrigued me was the manner in which Beevor highlighted the humanity of the 6. Army. Everything I learned about the War from that time onward was coloured by this fundamental datum: that the men of the 3. Reich were not machines, not "The Hun", nor brainwashed Jerry, Fritz, Heine, Demons, or Evil Itself. They were men. Just men.
Would you recommend Beevor's book on Stalingrad?
"Like sheep to the slaughter". One can tell that in her head she's working out how absurd it is, but the overlay of propaganda makes it impossible for her to consciously question it.
That's what is called cognitive dissonance.
A battle that rages in someone between the inconsistency of indoctrination & previous thoughts vs. recently acquired conflicting facts which cannot be refuted.
We see it all the time at this forum; Believers who are faced with rational thought, science, and logic that they cannot argue down.
Often the frustration builds to the point of anger, frustration, and of course where that can lead.
No doubt all Revisionists went through at least some of that phase.
HMSendeavour wrote:Would you recommend Beevor's book on Stalingrad?
I do recommend it, with the caveat that it has been more than 15 years since I read it. My perception of what is pro- and anti- German, and what is impartial or sympathetic, may have shifted considerably since then. The book remains pivotally excellent in my mind for its humanising depiction of the Rattenkrieg.
I'm not a historian unfortunately, but the the way I see it, British hegemony was responsible for both World Wars. WWII initially began as a 19th century style contractual war which subsequently became a war not so much against Hitler and the dreaded 'Naazis' but rather the industry and ingenuity of the German civilian population, who paid the heaviest price. WWII was not in anyway a Just War and those who still propagate this idea make me sick to be quite honest.
What eventually started to wake me up were the comments on numerous YouTube videos about the war, first seeing the International Red Cross statistics, then the truth about Anne Frank's diary, then the absurdities in the consumption of fuel that would have been required for the operation of the crematoria at the frequency alleged, then the open windows in some of the "gas chambers," and finally my own independent studies in theology which confirmed that today's Jews are in fact not the People of the Covenant, but Edomite impostors. I started casting my doubts about the "Holocaust" by the time I was 14 or so, and within a year fully embraced revisionism, around the same time that I turned to Catholicism and Fascism.
Granted, i never cared much about the Holocaust and in Portugal, what they teach about WWII is very selective, because they dont like to talk much about the fact that Portugal made business with both sides, so my knowledge about it was basically Gas Chambers, 6 million and Auschwitz.
But after I watched a David Irving speech at IHR (i think) on youtube (not even sure how i ended up there), i started going down the rabbit hole.
My senior year of high school we all got bused to watch this new movie called Schindler's list. It was so over the top that my friends and I was joking through it.
Even when I was an adamant believer in the Holocaust, it never made sense to me as to why Schindler's List is hailed as one of the greatest films of all time. Not only is the character development objectively poor, but the sappy and oftentimes laughable attempts at "tragedy" manage to make the film a case study in the comedy genre, if anything other than insidious propaganda. Liam Neeson's mangled German accent and the ridiculous portrayal of the "evil" Germans made it practically impossible for me to take anything seriously.
david2923 wrote:Go back to the time when you believed the narrative about the holocaust.
Now, ask yourself this question. What was "the thing" you learned that began to change your mind about the official narrative. What was that "Wait a minute" tid bit that got you thinking?
I will start it off:
For me, it was watching Cole and Zundel discussing the Auschwitz swimming pool at the pool on video. The rest of the video, I could not take my eyes off it. From this time on, I have been in this rabbit hole. I am not even sure why I clicked on it.
The David Cole Auschwitz series is what did it for me. Reconstructions passed off as originals? That really got to me. I found his 40-something questions on the internet and then I found out he had his life threatened. I then read Barbara Kulaszka's book on the first Zundel trial and that made me realize I had to stay on the path of holocaust revisionism. Mainly because an atheist Jew, Joseph Burg outright said many people who claimed to have seen gas chambers were liars and that as Jews, they didn't view their oath in a gentile Canadian court room as valid.
samanthakayee wrote:My senior year of high school we all got bused to watch this new movie called Schindler's list. It was so over the top that my friends and I was joking through it. The reaction of the adults planted a seed. "Why do they think this movie is 100% real? Also why is it so taboo for me to noticed how silly it is in parts?" From then on I thought the events happened but that they had added things like the number being stupid high. Internet comes along and I see I am not alone on newgroups.
I was about 13 or so when I saw it. I feel asleep during it. I remember feeling slightly guilty about it at the time.
My first impression of something being untrue concerning the traditional Holocaust narrative began when I was in high school, and I took a six week social-studies module focusing on the period of World War II and the National Socialist period of German history.
Like many children who grew up in the United Staes at that time, I had been subjected to a fair amount of Holocaust awareness (not being called that in those days), and I remember being taught the Anne Frank story in the third grade (when we were eight years old), and I remember not really believing the part where somehow, a large family had lived in, and hid between the walls of an apartment.
At any rate, I remember the teacher in the high school class explaining to us that it was actually a British soldier who was operating the bulldozer moving the bodies in the movie, “Nazi Concentration Camps”, and I remember wondering things like, who unclothed these bodies and piled them them into mounds for the bulldozer, why weren’t these bodies all black from Livor Mortis or Pallor Mortis, which should start setting in within hours of death, even though these bodies were supposed to have been laying around well before the British even took control of the camp, and shouldn’t the bulldozer have ripped these decaying corpses into shreds?
I would be puzzled by many aspects of the Holocaust narrative, and then changing my mind completely after reading the first edition of David Irving's book, "Hitler's War", with his writings on not agreeing with certain aspects which were widely accepted at that time.
attenuate wrote:I'm antiwar and have always had an aversion to WWII Allied propaganda. It was actually watching Schindler's List though at school in the mid-nineties which first got me thinking there was something false about the Holocaust narrative. Also around the same time I read about animal welfare laws in NS Germany and this caused me to suspect that the NSDAP had been misrepresented by the Allies and in one-sided media depictions.
Swindler's List portrays German guards as surreal 'killing machines'. However it treats homicidal gassings as a rumour that is then contradicted by the 'water from the showers'. Did Spielberg try to tell us something.
attenuate wrote:I'm not a historian unfortunately, but the the way I see it, British hegemony was responsible for both World Wars. WWII initially began as a 19th century style contractual war which subsequently became a war not so much against Hitler and the dreaded 'Naazis' but rather the industry and ingenuity of the German civilian population, who paid the heaviest price. WWII was not in anyway a Just War and those who still propagate this idea make me sick to be quite honest.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Britain HAD a great deal of HEGEMONY at this stage, since they still had their Colonial Empire consisting of dominions, colonies, dependent territories with India having some kind of in between role. That gave Britain the role of some sort of superpower at this stage. That some circles in Britain felt threatened by emerging German industrial power is threatened. Not only would British manufacturers have to compete with German sales on world markets. But German machinery sales would have enabled recently poorer nations to become manufacturers themselves and their consumer products would then be competing with British ones.
Admittedly, the British aren't really popular with many Afrikaners for their underhandedness in business. And well the ABO also had some influence on this. They also have a reputation of causing a conflict and then making it look like the other side that is additionally angered by the underhandedness is the "pig of the tale". People working with/for them did confirm this trait over and over to me and others. So, this isn't exactly an exception. But in all fairness I presume that there were at least two factions in Britain an Anti-German pro-war faction and a peace faction either pro-German or but probably mostly neutral. Not the former needed a "reason" to get the later faction on board for war. And that was achieved via the blank-cheque to Poland. A diplomatic instrument that predictably would increase tensions between Germany and Poland. Bear in mind that relationships between Germany and Poland actually improved between 1933-1935 before Jozef Pilsudski died. That changed after "Munich", which is portrayed as "appeasement", but was actually only a correction of borders in line with policies already agreed upon.
The Poles also occupied some Czechoslovak territory at the time, which is conveniently ignored by post-war commentators. Occasionally it's mentioned, but then treated as a non-issue. Hidden in broad daylight so to speak.
As for the bombing, it seems that not industries (which can be rebuild) were the main target, but workers and their families, which are far more difficult to replace. They often resided in high density areas, which makes bombing more efficient in terms of kill-ratio.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests