Easily digestible redpills on Auschwitz:

@Proud_feminist2 I bet you can't refute the fact that the holocaust is a lie, you dirty kike.

@SecureYourSeats

Did you ever figure out that the holocaust was a lie? I bet you didn't. Try the easily-digestible redpills above.

https://voat.co/v/whatever/1132404/7046841

@alalzia

Did you ever figure out that your lie of a holocaust is no longer convincing to people?

https://voat.co/v/whatever/1132404

What is the difference between an ahistorical bitch and crensch?

Trick question.

Their is none.

His mama must be proud.

Hahahahaha

Crensch swallowed his tongue, being as the commandant talked about gassing evil juden in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

He was hanging, either way, therefore it made tremendous sense for him to WRITE A FULL AUTOBIOGRAPHY because the Auschwitz commandant was OBVIOUSLY in the EMPLOY OF THE JEWS.

FAGGOT LOSERS INSULTING GERMAN HEROES ARE JUST THAT.

Haha. Cat ate your tongue, you ahistorical faggot.

I have read more of your supposed heroes than you have. And they contradict you.

How does that make you feel, affenschwanz?

EICHMANN: … and please don’t try and confuse me on this after twelve years, whether it was called Kaufmann289 or Eichmann or Sassen, or Morgenthau,290 I don’t care. Something happened, where I said to myself: fine, then I must drop all my misgivings. Before my people bite the dust, the whole world should bite the dust, and then my people. But only then! I said this. I—and I tell you this as a conclusion to our matters—I, “the cautious bureaucrat,”291 that was me, yes indeed. But I would like to expand on the issue of the “cautious bureaucrat,” somewhat to my own detriment. This cautious bureaucrat was attended by a … a fanatical warrior, fighting for the freedom of my blood, which is my birthright, and I say here, just as I have said to you before: your louse that nips you, Comrade Sassen, does not interest me.292 My louse under my collar interests me. I will squash it. This is the same when it comes to my people. And the cautious bureaucrat, which of course I was, that is what I had been, also guided and inspired me: what benefits my people is a sacred order and a sacred law for me. Yes indeed. And now I want to tell you, as a conclusion to all these records,293 for we will soon be finished, I must first tell you: I have no regrets! I am certainly not going to bow down to that cross! The four months294 during which we have gone over the matter here, during the four months in which you have taken pains to refresh my memory, a great deal of it has been refreshed, it would be too easy, and I could do it cheaply for the sake of current opinion … for me to deeply regret it, for me to pretend that a Saul has become a Paul. I tell you, Comrade Sassen, I cannot do that. That I cannot do, because I am not willing to do it, because I balk inwardly at saying that we did anything wrong. No. I have to tell you quite honestly that if of the 10.3 million Jews that Korherr295 identified, as we now know, we had killed 10.3 million, I would be satisfied, and would say, good, we have destroyed an enemy. Now through the vagaries of fortune, most of these 10.3 million Jews remained alive, so I say to myself: fate wished it so. I have to subordinate myself to fate and destiny. I am just a little man and don’t have to fight against this, and I couldn’t, and I don’t want to. We would have fulfulled our duty to our blood and our people and to the freedom of the peoples, if we had exterminated the most cunning intellect of all the human intellects296 alive today. For that is what I said to Streicher,297 what I have always preached: we are fighting an enemy who, through many many thousands of years of schooling,298 is intellectually superior to us. Was it yesterday or the day before, or a year ago, I don’t know, I heard or read: even before the Romans had their state, before Rome had even been founded, the Jews there were able to write. This is an understatement. They should have said, aeons before the Romans erected their state, aeons before the very founding of Rome itself, they were able to write. Look at the tablets of the Ten Commandments. Look at a race that today has recourse to, may I just say, six thousand years of written history, a race that has been making laws for let us say five thousand years or six thousand years—and I am not wrong, I believe, when I estimate a seventh millennium. The fact that the Christian church today makes use of this law making299 is very depressing for me. But it tells me that this must be a race of the first order of magnitude, since lawmakers have always been great. And because of these realizations I fought against this enemy. And you must understand that this is my motivation when I say, if 10.3 million of these enemies had been killed, then we would have fulfilled our duty. (Pause for effect.) And because this did not happen, I will say to you that those who have not yet been born will have to undergo that suffering and adversity. Perhaps they will curse us. (Pause for effect.) Alone, we few people cannot fight the Zeitgeist. We have done what we could. Of course, I must say to you, human emotion also plays a role here. I too am not free of this, I too was defeated by the same weakness. I know this! I too am partly to blame for the fact that the real, complete elimination, perhaps foreseen by some authority, or the conception that I had in mind, could not be carried out. I gave you some small examples of this. I was an inadequate intellect and was placed in an office where in truth I could have done more, and should have done more. What I told you must serve as an apology: one, that I lacked a profound intellect. Second, that I lacked the necessary physical toughness. And third, that even against my will there were a legion of people who fought this will, so that while I myself already felt handicapped, I was then also curtailed in carrying out the other things that would have helped me to a breakthrough, because for many years I was bogged down in a struggle against the so-called Interventionists.300 I want to close by telling you this. Whether you will put this in the book, I do not know, perhaps it is not a good idea at all. And perhaps it should not go in. This is just by way of a conclusion, to what I have taken on in all these months of refreshing my memory, and which I also feel compelled to tell you.

...This suggestion, like many things in his last book, proves how easy Höttl found it to spend a lifetime saying things he didn’t believe. In one of his last interviews, he said: “As is so often the case, something I lied about came true.”285 It is remarkable that Eichmann should have named such a large figure at this point in time, prior to the notorious death marches from Budapest and prior to the gassing operation in Ravensbrück, with which he can also be linked. From his visits to Theresienstadt and the remaining concentration camps (Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, and Dachau) during the final months of the war, he obviously knew people were dying en masse in the abysmal conditions there. But Theodor Grell was not the only one who thought Eichmann was just boasting in 1944. Eichmann had had nothing to do with the Einsatzgruppen mass murders that started behind the eastern front in 1941, though he had heard reports about their scale. Still, he clearly wanted to take responsibility for the total. He therefore impressed upon everyone that the various extermination campaigns perpetrated against the Jews were all part of a single large project. Viewed from the periphery, much of it might have appeared improvised, actionistic, and arbitrary, but viewed from Berlin, every anti-Semitic attack was a realization of what the Nazis were striving for. Eichmann identified himself with “Project Genocide” the way a director sometimes does with his production, seeing his will enacted even when the actors are improvising or interacting with the set. The atmosphere of possibility created an effect that makes Eichmann’s identification with everything that happened in the German Reich understandable. He and others constantly fed the atmosphere of violence that led to innumerable atrocities. He was aware of it and voluntarily added all the murders to his own conscience. Even so, the fact remains that Eichmann gave a very close approximation of the number of people who we can now prove fell victim to the Nazis’ murder operation. Whether he said five or six million (or perhaps both, depending on the point in time and who he was speaking to), he came close to the correct figure decades before historians managed to gather enough material to prove it. This striking accuracy shows how well informed Eichmann was about the scale of the genocide and how deceitful were his later attempts, in both Argentina and Israel, to feign ignorance. Sassen and his associates turned to Eichmann because they were certain Höttl was lying, and only the man whom Höttl had claimed to be quoting could prove it. Eichmann had to make a public declaration that he had never mentioned that kind of figure. And so he spent months assuring Sassen that he too wanted to travel “the streets of truth” and disprove “the lie of the six million,” by giving another Eichmann quote—a real one, this time. But each document the Dürer circle read became a paving stone on an entirely different road. By the time Sassen noticed, it was too late to turn back: his own key witness had unexpectedly overtaken him in the inside lane and made the Argentine discussion group witnesses to a new confession that could not be refuted.

the attempt to refute the Jewish “lie of the six million” became a farce in two senses. The group read one murder statistic after another—tellingly, leaving out those they themselves had falsified over the preceding years.280 In 1953 Gerald Reitlinger arrived at 4.2 to 4.7 million; the report to the World Jewish Congress from June 1946 put it at six million; Léon Poliakov thought eight million was possible. The Sassen circle tried to analyze each figure in the Wannsee transcript and in Korherr’s report to Hitler from 1943. They read the statement by Camp Commandant Höß about the extermination capacity of Auschwitz. Sassen rounded the numbers down; Eichmann rounded them up. Eichmann exaggerated the number of survivors; Sassen cast doubt on this, and together they tried to extrapolate a figure. Reading this discussion sometimes feels like being in a bazaar: once again only numbers, not people, exist for Eichmann: “So, he [Reitlinger] says 65,000, I say 40,000, so let’s call it around 50,000.”281 Another instance: “381,000 is a little high, but it may have been around 300,000.”282 And whenever Sassen starts to be even slightly optimistic, Eichmann’s words invariably throw everything into confusion again. “Half of them always lived,” Eichmann claims on the selections in Auschwitz, and although this is an incredible underestimation of the murder rate for the transports from Hungary, Sassen’s reaction is almost panicked: “No, no, we worked out that the absorption capacity was around 250,000, but if two million went there in total …,” then a million Jews would have been gassed in Auschwitz alone.283 As we now know, this is close to the truth, but it certainly wasn’t what Sassen wanted to hear in 1957. The Sassen circle’s grotesque tug-of-war over the numbers reveals a cynical misanthropy that is almost as unbearable as the thought of the National Socialist genocide itself. The only emotions displayed during this discussion are impatience or annoyance at the slow progress being made. The participants make hardly a single allusion to the victims, let alone express sympathy, shame, or guilt. And still, the researcher who is listening to these men conduct their investigations in Sassen’s living room, and struggling through the transcript, notices that despite their will to deceive and to deny everything, they were unable to make any headway against the might of the facts. However hard they tried, they still heaped up number after number, even without meaning to. As the total grew under their sharpened pencils, the magnitude of this crime against humanity started to look like the writing on the wall. All the participants, apart from Eichmann, had clearly been so convinced that the systematic mass murder of the Jews was a propaganda lie that they really expected that a closer inspection would only confirm their view. Sassen figured that if “the Jews” were forced to provide lists of names, to prove exactly who had been killed, then it would emerge that the dead would be only a tiny proportion.284 The fact that this very method would prove the opposite over the following decades was something he began to sense only gradually. Ultimately, no one can examine something this closely without also reexamining their own views. For his part, Eichmann learned that the first “final balance” he had given in “The Others Spoke” was indefensible, and he grasped the fundamental problem of using statistics to back his lies. In Israel he would be more cautious, implying that the number of Jews murdered would never be known for certain. Paradoxically, the men in Argentina were moving closer to reality, precisely because they had imagined a very different reality. They delved into an area of research that had only just begun, with all its beginners’ mistakes. In the first decade after the war, all the historians who tried to work to high academic standards, using only figures that could be proved, arrived at totals that we can now see were much too low. But the beginnings of this research were incredibly difficult: contrary to the idea of a systematic murder operation carried out with Germanic efficiency, the extermination of the Jews was an improvised and sometimes chaotic crime. The Germans then tried to burn their records—but even they had no real overview of what they had done. What went on in the death camps bore no resemblance to the clinical, “humane” killing of Himmler’s plans for extinction, which were modeled on pest control. In the camps, where the sole aim was to produce mountains of corpses, it was probably inevitable that all sense of structure and procedure would collapse over time. To imagine that historical research could ever yield an exact number of victims is to idealize the circumstances of this gigantic crime. And anyone trying to gain an accurate picture of these processes would require access to many more documents than were available in the mid-1950s. At that point, only the perpetrators had any real details, even if some of the survivors had some idea of the scale of what had happened. Raul Hilberg estimated 5.1 million in 1961. Martin Gilbert’s estimate of 5.7 million in 1982 was not sufficiently backed by evidence. Only since the 1990s, and the opening of the Russian archives, have we understood that the true magnitude of the crime is close to the figure that Theodor Grell heard (and that Höttl claimed to have heard) from Eichmann in 1944. Ironically, Höttl’s statement is still regarded as unreliable. Much of what he told American investigators after the German defeat in 1945 was not information he had heard himself: he “borrowed” it from other people’s reports and added the occasional exaggeration of his own. It was a perverse attempt to make himself indispensable as a witness and to show his worth as a potential spy for the U.S. intelligence service. At that point, he was in contact with Theodor Grell and Dieter Wisliceny and would have been able to avail himself of their recollections as well. Höttl’s biggest problem was distracting people from his own role in the Nazi regime. His meeting with Eichmann in Hungary clearly had had nothing to do with historical research; he was sounding out his own position as the regime collapsed. Eichmann was in touch with Heinrich Himmler, who was one of the greatest unknown quantities in the plans that Höttl and his superiors were making to save themselves. Through Eichmann, he could also discover what the head of the Gestapo, Heinrich Müller, was planning. Höttl was no small cog in the machine either, but being a man of importance would do him no favors with the Allies. Instead, he managed to dodge any probing questions, loudly proclaiming a different story to distract people from his own. This is exactly what he did with his conversation with Eichmann in Budapest in August 1944. And we can’t rule out the possibility that this detailed story was a macabre attempt by Höttl to outdo his competition. Later, Höttl would unintentionally strengthen people’s doubts about his credibility. In his autobiography, he claimed to have been aware that this statement would make him a sought-after (and well-paid) witness to the Nazi period. In his final years he managed to start a television career based solely on this statement, then hinted several times that he had never really believed the scale of the Holocaust was so vast.

Already sentenced to death, or life in prison, crensch believes SS Officers were liars.

He can not explain any rational reason for them to lie.

This is where your "revisionism" turns into a puddle of laughable shit.

“In the spring of 1942, hundreds of blossoming people walked beneath the blossoming fruit trees of the farmstead, most of them never guessing they were on their way to the gas chambers, and to death. I can still see this image of growth and decay quite clearly.”

 Rudolf Höß, Kommandant in Auschwitz: Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen (1958; reprinted Munich, 2000), p. 194.

Höttl says that Eichmann had come to his Budapest apartment at the end of August 1944, as usual wanting information on the military situation. Höttl took this opportunity to ask him about the exact number of Jews murdered, and Eichmann answered: “Around four million Jews have been killed in the various extermination camps, while a further two million met their end in other ways, the majority being shot by the Security Police’s Einsatzkommandos during the Russian campaign.” Höttl emphasized Eichmann’s credibility as a source in some detail: “I have to assume that this information I had from Eichmann was correct: of all the relevant people, he was definitely the one with the best overview of the number of Jews murdered. Firstly, he ‘provided’ the Jews to the extermination camps, so to speak, using his special commandos, so he knew this number precisely. Secondly, as departmental head in Office IV of the RSHA, which was also responsible for Jewish affairs, he definitely had the best knowledge of how many Jews had died in other ways.” Eichmann had even written a report for Himmler, who thought his figures too low.

Wenn Sie explizite Aussagen von Handlungen, Fälschungen erhalten, werden Sie sie anrufen.

5 SHECKLE FOOT LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Crensch, how do you know so much about this? Do you work at Auschwitz?

There were two camps at Auschwitz, every single history book will tell you as much.

1) Three.

2) So?

3) Obviously debunking only the one they consider to be a death camp

4) Why have a separate labor camp/factory and a non-death camp if their goal was to murder more Jews than they possibly could in the ways described by lying kikes?

Way hq, op.

The holocaust does not stand under investigation. That would seem to be the reason there are laws against investigation.

If history has taught us anything, it is that you should not have mercy. Completely eliminate your enemy, no deportation, no incarceration.

Here are the points that have consensus. 1 Concentration camps were designed to be forced labor camps and the slogan was "Arbeit macht frei". 2 Liberated jews were about to die from starving. Those who already died of starving were cremated. This makes look useless the use of gas. 3 German doctors used jewish prisoners for medical experiments of any kind, involving death, the kind of experiments now practiced on animals. This makes think that gas was possibly used as experiment, but not as the usual tool of extermination. 4 Germans used manufacturing beer mugs from dead jewish skulls and gloves form dead jewish skin, which looks more like propaganda, because I don't understand who the fuck would use these disgusting items in the 20th centrury.

those salty downvoats tho

Let’s also go over the debunkings to the “debunkings” to the debunkings, too. There’s an ever-expanding set of traps used to “discredit” people talking about the truth, so we should fix as many of those debate trees as we can.

The supposed door is not airtight and looks like a regular old-time house door, but single-person-execution gas chambers all have extremely large, heavy, bank-vault looking door.

The response here is that the original doors were removed and replaced (and destroyed). To debunk that claim, we will need original blueprints of the facilities, as well as more data on the nature of air pressure in execution chambers (also why is there a window in the ‘gas chamber’ at Auschwitz?).

There WERE actually gas chambers - for clothing. For lice.

Speaking of which, I’ve heard people claim that Zyklon B (either by brand name or just the same formulation) was used at Ellis Island. Is there more information on this?

The four Auschwitz ovens cannot cremate 400 corpses in 5 minutes

The typical response is that these are “industrial crematoria” and that you cannot compare modern furnaces in crematoria (such as this one –note the amount of time they say a single body takes!) to those in Germany in the 1940s, because the latter are “weaker.” Has there ever been a resource assembled to disprove that statement?

Official Auschwitz murder numbers drop MASSIVELY

Speaking of reducing the death count, how about this letter hosted on the US government’s own Nuremberg Trial website where Heinrich Himmler explicitly states that the deaths must be reduced by any means necessary, calling for more doctors and improved facilities?

To the 1. Camp Doctors of the Concentration Camps Da., Sh. Bu., Neu., Au., Rav., Flo., Lu., Stu., Gr-Ro., Nied., Natz., Hinz., Mor., Herzog., Mau.,

Copy to Camp Commandants

In the inclosed a compilation of the current arrivals and departures in all the concentration camps is sent to you for your information. It discloses that out of the 136,000 arrivals about 70,000 died. With such a high rate of death the number of the prisoners can never be brought up to the figure as has been ordered by the Reichsführer of the SS. The 1. camp doctors must use all means at their disposal to reduce essentially this death rate in the various camps. The best doctor in a concentration camp is not the one, who believes that he must stand out for uncalled severity , but the one who by his supervision and exchange keeps the working capacity at the various labor commands at the highest possible level. The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the food of the prisoners and, with approval of the administration, submit improvement proposals to the camp commandants. These, however, must not only appear on paper, but must be controlled regularly by the camp doctors. Furthermore, the camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the the various labor places are improved as much as possible. To this purpose it will be necessary that the camp doctors inspect the labor places on the ground and convince themselves about the conditions of work.

The SS Reichsführer has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced. For this reason the aforementioned has been ordered and a monthly report on this matter is to be submitted to the Chief of the Department D III. The first report to be submitted on 1 February 1943.

SS Brigadeführer and Major General of the Arms

Nuremberg Trial Document PS-2171, Annex 2. NC&A Red Series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834.

I'll be using this post next time I need to red pill a friend about the holohoax

@Rainy-Day-Dream You created the best overall redpill thread yet, thought you'd appreciate the ping.

@PeaceSeeker

@SayTan - Since you seemed to have something to say about your removed-from-context and possibly mistranslated Hitler quote. Enjoy squirming out of this.

@kevdude finally made a post.

@Hey_Sunshine thought you might appreciate being pinged here.

@xenoPsychologist @Conspirologist @Tallest_Skil

@Psylent - I made a claim. Auschwitz, the largest contributor to the "6 million" number that is inseparable from the holocaust claim, was not a death camp. I did what you could not, despite your supposed "mountains of evidence", and my side supposedly "denying reality with gusto".

@kamtsa Enjoy the read, kike. You wouldn't defend your holocaust, so I brought the fight to you.

@bob3333 Finally made a positive claim (err, I'm pretty sure that's what I just did - correct me if I'm wrong)

@Alwaysmakingprogress More on Auschwitz.

@shariablizzard Remember when you said "DAE le Hitler did nothing wrong??? I too have never read a book"?