How many individuals helped

OK, I found the actual part in Hilberg's book. It's on page 289. What you posted is not a direct quote.

Nowhere does Hilberg say that you should subtract these members from the overall number of people operating

Do you assert every person was a combatant

This does count indigenous units no?

probably not the female employees and the administration, but the rest I see no reason for them not to be combatants

As auxiliary

no this doesn't count indigenous units, this is the core Einsatzgruppen unit. Indigeneous units were additional to this

“They rounded the Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians and Ukrainians as auxiliary police”

Maybe I’m missing something

But that say “auxiliary police” in the graph

oh, yes, the auxillary police included in that calculation are

but there were other indigenous people that assisted the Einsatzgruppen as well

Such as?

the holocaustcontroversies link I sent earlier talks about them

Which one

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-many-perpetrators-in-ussr-part_04.html

Yeah I read that

But it doesn’t mention how many?

It could’ve been 10 or 10,000

I'm looking through the Einsatzgruppen OSRs right now to see if any have an exact number for people assisting them, none do yet, but so far several say that the Wehrmacht is cooperating and that local people have also been engaging in pogroms and killings

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-einsatzgruppen-operation-situation-reports you can look at them yourself here

“again and again it has been observed in the larger cities that after such an action, all Jews have indeed been eradicated. But, when after a certain period of time a Kommando returns, the number of Jews still found in the city always surpasses considerably the number of executed Jews.”

????

What

“The mood was also influenced by the deportaion of Jews, Gypsies and Krimchacks from the Crimea during the period under report. The unfounded fear that the Germans would exterminate the entire population had subsided entirely a few weeks after the occupation of the Crimea. “

in other words, "we thought we got all of them, but we really didn't"

So where they deporting them or killing them?

“Surpass considerably”

Pretty shitty executioners

The Einsatzgruppen themselves were death squads, but that doesn't mean that there weren't also deportations from the east. It doesn't say that it was the Einsatzgruppe conducting those deportations.

So they were deporting then just to kill them

the report doesn't specify where they were deported so I can't answer that

On that note I need to really sleep

We’ll continue this tomorrow

good night

can we expect leaks soon?

@The_Don_73 If you read the Irving v Lipstadt trial decision, it says that the defendants case was that "approximately one million Jews were murdered by the use of gas at [Auschwitz.]" And when read in context Lipstadt is talking about the Soviet's statements regarding what was happening in Auschwitz. I've never read the full book and google books preview doesn't give access to the full book, so I can't say whether or not she provides an alternative number elsewhere. But certainly by at least 2000 when the case was decided she had changed her views, if she had originally believed the death toll to be four million. It's very possible she made a mistake.
Also, in *Denying the Holocaust,* she calls Raul Hilberg the "premier historian in this field." Hilberg provides a death toll of 1.1 million for Auschwitz, agreeing with Höss's death toll provided in 1946, as well as Reitlinger. Western historical consensus has been this number for a very long time. Historians who cite a different number fall outside of this consensus.

Gilbert is mostly known for his official biography of Churchill. I've never read any of his work on the Holocaust and I don't think he's considered to be a prominent Holocaust scholar. Again, like Lipstadt, he's talking about the Soviet's initial discovery of the camps. Looking at the pages provided by Google Book's preview, Gilbert cites Hilberg as a person he was grateful for in his acknowledgments, and also cites *The Destruction of the European Jews* in the main text.

Either way, neither of these two examples discredit the general claim that western historians have rejected the 4 million number. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.

"I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000." Affidavit signed by Commandant Rudolf Hoess, May 14, 1946, i can give the original affidavit if you want.

@agag

he revised that number because he considered it too high

revised it to 1.1 million

During his trial, Höss changed the figure in his confession to a total of 1,130,000 Jews that were gassed but declared "During my tenure at Auschwitz, millions of people died, whose exact number I cannot determine."

Eichmann told Hoess that 2.5 million Jews had been murdered at Auschwitz Birkenau.

So it kind of a shit show of who to believe. The first figure was 3 million then he was off by almost half, but then adds he doesnt really know that Eichmann knew. He says that 2.5 million jews were killed, so presumably several hundred thousand non jews were killed as well.

@agag

I'll respond a bit later I'm doing something else right now

also yes several hundred thousand non-jews died at auschwitz as well

I'll probably respond tomorrow

Amazing how historians claim 6 gorillion died but then change it to 4 million and later to 1 million

You know, trivial mistake of several million people

Either you know how many died or you are pulling numbers out of your ass

Even though the British used the 4 million figure when prosecution the companies that produced the gas

HOW DARE YOU111!!!1!111111!1 MY GRANDPA WENT THROUGH THE MASTUBATON MACHINES AND THE HOLOCAUSTER 6000000 MILLION GORILLIAN TIMES @Noxar

@The_Don_73 I've been personally gassed 6 gorillion times

Horrible shoah, horrible

this is the relevant section from Höss's memoir

Höss says Eichmann gave the larger number to him, but also the figures used to calculate the 1.13 million

later historians have done estimates and found the revised number to be the correct one

it's not really a "shit show of who to believe" because Höss's revision is corroborated by later estimates

@Noxar congrats on demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about the Holocaust

revising the Auschwitz plaque to the number that was already long-standing consensus in the West is not a problem for the 5-6 million number

that number can be calculated from population estimates before and after the war

Population "estimates" - what's 1948 almanach anyway

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html#worldalmanac

Oh I guess that's not *the right one*

So Eichmann was wrong with that, but correct when he gave the estimate of 6 million?

That’s where the estimated 6 million comes from

Which is hearsay anyways

yes, it's possible that Eichmann could have been wrong in one place and right in another

and the 5-6 million is not estimated based on Eichmann's testimony

@agag you know it's funny, because If the holohoax didn't happen, it's a win for me, If it happened, it's still a win, means the parasites have actually been purged

<:FeelsLELMan:356316501105442817>

yes, celebrate the deaths of millions of innocent people

Yes it is it’s what gave to credence

@agag You aren't going to guilt me into getting bred out of existence and shoving civic nationalism down my throat

@The_Don_73 remember, never apologize

I'm not trying to, you're the one who said that you would celebrate the deaths of millions of innocent people because you consider them parasites

It was his testimony that “proved” it

that's not guilting you into civic nationalism

@The_Don_73 then why does Hilberg not cite 6 million and instead gives his own estimate of 5.1 million

I don’t know I’m not in his head

@The_Don_73 https://youtu.be/8yA35B3CmI8

Very good video for when you feel demoralised by the degeneracy <:OKTrump:356316632567513088>

Hilburg relies on shitty witnesses

Hoss is unreliable

@agag bottom line is I don't care if, how many or how they died there.
Today educating people about holocaust serves no other purpose but to demoralise our people, it's subversiom

He gives two different stories

It’s only believed because it Coincides with the narrative

@Noxar are you scared of your people learning their history?

The KGB defector Bezmenov told the truth

Public education has been infiltrated and is used to demoralise our population

In which they succeeded

So either Eichmann and Himmler and there deputies are wrong or Hoss is wrong or perhaps maybe the foundations of this myth I wrong

@The_Don_73 https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/

another good read

Höss is in fact reliable

@agag No, my problem is that holohoax is pushed as DA GREATEST DISASTER IN HUMAN HISTORY, NAZIS EVIL, RIGHT WINGERS EVIL, WE MUST OPEN OUR BORDERS TO PREVENT ANOTHER HOLOCAUSTER

Fuck right off with that

it is absolutely one of the largest genocides in human history, certainly in recent human history

portraying it as a great disaster is true, not subversive propaganda

I wonder why we are told over and over again about the shoah. taken on trips to fucking Auschwitz multiple times.

Noone ever hears a word about the Arabs enslaving millions of Europeans, about Armenian genocide, about persecution of Christians by communists.

Hell no attention is paid even to the majority of supposed holocaust victims - the non Jew goyim

@agag

It only matters if it's the poor Jews, the chosen people

your education was different than mine then, because I was taught about the Armenian genocide and also about the non-Jewish victims (not the majority by the way, it's either evenly split or with the Jews as a slight majority) of the Holocaust. All the nations that were persecuted by the Nazis have plaques at Auschwitz.

the jews are the focus of Holocaust education because the jews were the focus of the Holocaust

@agag that's because USA isn't as fucked as Europe in regards to public education

by far the largest single group killed in the camps

and overall including in the east from the einsatzgruppen

@agag public education is public enemy number 1

And always will be

when it disagrees with you, it must be public enemy number 1

when it doesn't fit your narrative

No, it's dangerous even if they preached my viewpoints

I support abolition of public education in favour of private schools and home schooling

poor students will be marginalized by that

@agag education is not a human right

in a modern technological society where human capital is becoming increasingly important it's something you want to be as widespread as possible

"no kid left behind" program really is "no kid allowed to Excell"

you're putting your nation at a disadvantage if you don't educate your whole population

or close to your whole population

I'm not saying don't educate population

@Noxar have advanced classes to account for that

in the US we have AP system

You wouldn't have to send your children to school but they have to know how to write, read, etc.

If they pass those exams, it's ok

I want the parents to bring up the children, not the state, especially when their minds are the most vulnerable @agag

there is a public benefit to having the state have control over education

Ofc, the state can indoctrinate the children and make them obedient wage slaves

Wonderful for the state, true

do you want large segments of your nation given a poorer education and placed at a disadvantage for the future

Who says they will be dosadvantaged

I want companies to hire based on skills, not based on degrees

skills don't materialize out of thin air

No, and neither do manual labour skills for example materialize out of sitting behind the desk in school for 8 hours every day

manual labor jobs are decreasing in number

That's an example

you could reform public education to make it less sedentary without abolishing the system altogether

@agag I don't want people spending quarter of their life in what is basically an indoctrination facility learning fuckall and then ending up in a shitty job anyway

childhood is an indoctrination process

whether or not it's parents doing it or schools doing it or both

Modern public education has its roots in Prussian school system, which has been since it's conception a tool to make the population obedient soldiers

Nothing else

then reform the system, throwing it all away isn't the only solutoin

Reform it to not indoctrinate children with bullshit?

Ok so we remove certain things from the curriculum, great.

A couple years later different government is elected, they put the same shit in, wonderful. @agag

That's not a solution

Return to traditional education is

I was saying reform it so they don't learn fuckall and spend the whole time sitting if that's what you have a problem with

education is indoctrination

no matter who's doing it, childhood education is indoctrination

What's the fucking incentive to have children if you have no control over how they are raised

The children quite literally belong to the state

you still have control over how they're raised

No you don't

perhaps not as much as "traditional education" but children are still raised by their parents

They are surrounded all the time by other indoctrinated children in school, you have zero influence

as their parent you have a huge amount of influence, especially when they're younger

Sure you do lol, from age 3 in kindergarten, from age 6 to 18 in school and then they leave

Wow so much influence

Recently they tried to push the kindergarten entry age here to 2

Disgusting

Luckily it failed

they're not spending their whole lives in school they still interact with their parents daily, in normal households at least

if you don't want your kids going to public school then you can send them to private school if you can afford it

and you can homeschool your kids if you want to

I'm going to get off now, good night

@agag has the original ever been found

Hoss’ memoirs

the manner in which the alleged extermination of Jews is described. This was supposed to have been carried out by a “special detachment” of Jewish prisoners. They took charge of the newly arrived contingents at the camp, led them into the enormous “gas-chambers” and disposed of the bodies afterwards. The S.S., therefore, did very little, so that most of the S.S. personnel at the camp could be left in complete ignorance of the “extermination programme”.

So either the S.S were the ones in the know about it, and were the guilty party as “proven” elsewhere or as Hoss describes Jewish brigades, that have no documentary or eye witness proof

While there were Jews who helped the Nazi that much is true but it’s simply the assignment of blame to them that I find ridiculous

Hoess is supposed to say that the Jehovah’s Witnesses at Auschwitz approved of murdering the Jews because the Jews were the enemies of Christ. When you have the literature say otherwise

Garbe claims members of the group were special objects of hatred by the SS, receiving beatings, whippings and public humiliation and given the dirtiest and most laborious work details for refusing to salute, stand at attention or sing Nazi songs.

So someone is wrong

Or maybe they’re both right haha

Höss says the opposite of that though. He says that the SS were involved. Jewish Sonderkommando are a well known part of the operation of the gas chambers, but the SS were still very much involved in the process. And yes, they're both right. Höss actually corroborates Garbe.

detachment of SS involved from the start

on JWs

Okay but nothing about the S.S’s involvement with the gas chambers. So when Hoss says they approved of kill of the Jews but they were also being prosecuted by the Nazis

That makes no sense

Höss also writes about the procedure on page 44, and he's a bit more specific on exactly who's doing what on that page. Sonderkommando were heavily involved in the process, but the actual pouring of the gas crystals was done by "disinfection squads," not the Sonderkommando. He doesn't specify that the disinfection squads were necessarily SS, but from other witnesses it's known that the gassing was done by SS men. Dragon is one example of a witness who attests to this.
*Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp* directly states that it was SS men pouring the gas.

The JW's make sense. They were religious fundamentalists who were so committed to their faith that they were happy about being imprisoned in the name of their religion. I don't know why you find it unbelievable that they would approve of the Jews being persecuted, considering that their approval was also based on their religious views.

>the ss man

Lmao

funny holobunga meme

Hey, can anyone link me to some accurate midterm polls?

here's a list of some polls https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.html

Yeah just like the eyewitness to the bear and hawk cage

Or the lampshades

ffs

>when jewish blood is flammable

Look at all these eyewitness

how reliable

what twitter did with the NPC accounts , they tested it first with the groypers very effectively. but with the groypers they actually killed the meme before it spread and for the first time i made sense to some of what the progs say...that they try hard, they can block ideas so those ideas don't spread. NPC was faster and not twitter dependant. so let's see what happens.

the leader of the groypers made this for me back then. RIP

@The_Don_73 lmfao

Flammable Jewish Blood

Next level shit

<:FeelsLELMan:356316501105442817>

OH NOW THE HOLOBUNGA MAKE SENSE

If Jew blood flammable like oil, then Jew blood can be used as oil which the Germans needed, that's why they gassed them, because if they shot them they would bleed, then they burned their bodies and- wait they just lost all the fuel and used tons more to burn the bodies, nevermind.

@The_Don_73 I’m not aware of the “bear and hawk cage,” but lampshades, along with soap and shrunken heads, are addressed here http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/11/nazi-shrunken-heads-human-skin.html.

Not all witnesses are created equal. Testimony from people who were known to have worked as Sonderkommando, such as Shlomo Dragon, and testimony from officials, such as Höss, will obviously have greater weight than testimony from a nobody testifying 50 years later. In this case, Peer very clearly contradicts Höss's testimony that only one girl was ever found to have survived a gassing. It can be thrown out.

A trial from 1946 using the Soviet number does not mean that the Soviet number has been the long-standing consensus of western historians.

Other witnesses attest to crimes like those claimed in that newspaper article. Neither of the two highlighted there seem particularly unbelievable.

Ka-Tsetnik (aka Yehiel De-Nur) is a fiction author. No historian would consider his books to be legitimate testimony.

"Reported rumors."

Witnesses corroborate that Klaus Barbie's dog was trained to mount women. It's possible to train a dog to do this. Barbie wasn't called the Butcher of Lyon without reason. I see no particular reason to doubt this account, since it's corroborated and within the realm of possibility.
https://www.jta.org/1987/05/27/archive/six-witnesses-identify-barbie-who-was-ordered-back-to-court
https://web.archive.org/web/20141218013334/https://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bchalmersv2vpaper.pdf

Olère made that claim in a private conversation to Pressac at an advanced age. It's possible that he had mentally deteriorated by that point, or that after several decades he had internalized a rumor as true. This certainly seems to be what Pressac is implying when he says that he "recounted anything that came into his head." This is the only source for that claim, so Olère does not seem to have been claiming this before his interaction with Pressac, or at least not publicly. One-off testimony decades after the war does not diminish the authenticity of paintings that he began making shortly before Auschwitz was closed up until 1962, 19 years before he made any claim of human sausages.

Blood is not flammable, this is true. But, gasoline is less dense than blood and would float on top of it. It's possible that he saw gasoline floating on top of blood burning. Even if this wasn't the case, one aspect of his testimony not holding up does not mean that the rest of it doesn't.

Do you find it impossible for prisoners to be killed by having a tree cut down from under them? Would such a method not work? This is simply a quote taken from a Nuremberg proceeding, it is not an argument on its own. Incredulity is not an argument, stranger things have happened.

Kurt Franz’s dog Barry being ordered to bite prisoner’s genitals is well-attested to. From *Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps*

Rachel Auerbach’s *Oyf di Felder fun Treblinke*, the source of these claims, was published in 1947, very shortly after the war. It’s possible that the blood as a combustible material claim comes from the same story or a similar one to the one you posted earlier. It is true that women cremate more easily, or faster, than men, and that body fat was in fact used as fuel for ovens and burning pits. Tauber talks about this for incineration of bodies in ovens, saying that “During the incineration of such corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat.” (https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/) So the rest of the claims here do make sense.

I won’t bother responding to your last meme. The people at Holocaust Controversies have already done a good job with debunking most of the retarded Holocaust memes. The only one I'll touch on is the masturbation machines one; this comes from *Stolen Soul*, which is a fraudulent book. Bernard Holstein's real name is Bernard Brougham, and he is a fraud.

https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote

https://m.govexec.com/management/2018/10/white-house-announces-intent-withdraw-us-international-postal-agency/152102/?oref=GovExecTCO

you know

recently, i was wondering

Is it common for christians couples to have sex before marriage now?

we all know that it is for non christians

<:Thonk:362811285869559808>

Protestants Def yes catholic and orthodox depends on the region

@CaptainDynamite Orthodox Christian here- NO! I don't know if the youngins in my church do it behind closed doors but it's always said that Pre-marital sex is a sin as sex is meant to be something enjoyed between husband and wife!

People who take their faith seriously don't do it

but plenty of people are only Orthodox in name

Thoughts?

The article name for anyone wishing to read it is called *One Nation, Slightly Divisible (2001) by David Brooks*

Basically describes why there will always be race divided by culture and the best we can do is segregate in a very npc tone

Tranny regrets sex change

/instant regret/

I have a better formatted version of this that I made

https://i.imgur.com/EPMxMDu.png @Noxar

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x3jnx/support-for-trump-is-the-single-greatest-factor-uniting-the-alt-right-on-twitter?utm_source=mbfb&fbclid=IwAR3taSQOmyuyD7aR0nH3Fm-bcMbY_oA1JKLz2ipRgxuSgsTJ_Brn6PNdQxs

@NormieCamo oh thanks

why is that the life of a guy who works for the washington post (and it's arab) is sooooo important? how is that one news company has still so much power and can influence the foreign policy of an entire nation? <:HyperThinking:356316737588690944>

it's a mystery

honestly i don't know why anyone links vice articles because it's painfully obvious that they're 100% total clickbait of no real substance and often overt nonsense

giving them page views is just counterintuitive at this point

So we should just make archive.is copies and link them instead? Or just not bother with them?

when people link them it's usually to laugh at them so I guess use archive.is for that

but there's almost no reason to link a vice article in any semi-serious context

**Cole and Ohanian have included in their model one of the most flawed, least effective,
and weakly enforced pieces of New Deal legislation, NIRA. The discussion above points
out that the codes required by this law were not intended primarily to boost economic
growth. It seems fair to ask what would happen if Cole and Ohanian’s model were
modified to take into account all of the major New Deal laws, or at least those thought of
by liberal economists as pro-growth. It would be well-nigh impossible to build such a
model, but there are many reasons to think that it would show that the New Deal greatly
improved growth in the 1930s and even later. ** @agag