The Chelmno Trials

[Archie]

The tidbit at the end however was as unnecessary as it would be for me to tell you to piss up a rope.

Makes for a spicy exchange, but, it doesn't do much for constructive dialogue.

Honestly, spending 2 weeks travelling to Ludwigsburg, Chelmno, Warsaw — combined with sightseeing — is not exactly unbearable burden for anyone who genuinely wants to study this extermination camp in depth.

And this reply demonstrates why those who DID do deep-dive investigations, who visted the sites, who DID comb through the archives and then wrote and published their research-findings, don’t waste their time arguing about the facts on internet discussion forums with obfuscators and deludes.

We have people like Hans, N.Terry, Bombsaway, Spink, ConfusedJew, etc., who appear not to be in discussion to seek clarity and truth. They appear to be here to conceal and confuse.

Like Hans here, they rely on the fact that extremely few people have the time, resources or money to “spend 2 weeks travelling to Ludwigsburg, Chelmno, Warsaw — combined with sightseeing — [to] genuinely study this extermination camp in depth”.
The preposterous implication here is that if you haven’t done that then you aren’t “genuinely” studying the hopelessly flawed mass-gassing narrative.
Which is piss-poor reasoning.
Plus transparently ingenuine.

If you think about it, what Hans is saying contradicts the mainstream position rather dramatically. Would the mainstream tell you that you need to make a special trip to visit archives in Poland to prove the Holocaust? Absolutely not. They think there's "overwhelming evidence" for it, that it has been proved many times over, and that this proof has been readily available for many decades. It would be news to them that the decisive evidence for the Holocaust remains unpublished even now in 2025!

[Stubble]

If I'm being honest Archie, I don't think these trial minutes are going to prove a holocaust at chelmno. People don't get a couple years in prison for murdering over a hundred thousand people.

There has to be some, stuff, in those minutes. I want to hear the defense, something I rarely get to do.

I hear a lot from prosecutors, both in the IMT and from the court of historians. You don't really hear much from the Germans and what you do hear from them is after they have lost, had their families threatened and been beaten.

/shrug

[Wahrheitssucher]

Honestly, spending 2 weeks travelling to Ludwigsburg, Chelmno, Warsaw — combined with sightseeing — is not exactly unbearable burden for anyone who genuinely wants to study this extermination camp in depth.

And this reply demonstrates why those who DID do deep-dive investigations, who visted the sites, who DID comb through the archives and then wrote and published their research-findings, don’t waste their time arguing about the facts on internet discussion forums with obfuscators and deludes.

I would largely agree — with exceptions. Take me, for example: I have done deep-dive investigations. I’ve visited all the sites mentioned, combed through the archives, published some of my research findings.

Thanks for replying.
I personally am impressed that you have taken the time to do that. I assume that shows someone who isn’t prepared to just obediently accept without checking for themselves. If that WAS your motivation then you have my respect.

I have two questions for you. Both have two parts. Here’s the first question:
After all that ‘deep-dive investigation’:
Q1a.) what advantage has that given you in the quest to be certain about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED in the Aktion Reinhard camps and in the Birkenau and Auschwitz1 camp?
Q1b.) What specific and relevant facts do you now know, that someone who hasn’t visited the sites can not know?

And yet, I still "waste" my time debating facts with obfuscators and deluded types on internet forums. Just calling it a "waste" is too harsh, maybe it's a bad habit, but one that does not do much harm.

I’m genuinely interested to know whether you really and sincerely think that well-informed revisionists and researchers like Zündel, Faurisson, Fritz Berg, Scott Smith, Kennady (Samuel Crowell), Dalton, and people here such as Archie, Callafangers, Stubble, Hans Hill, Wetzeltrad, myself, etc., are deliberately “obfuscating”?
Q2a.) I understand that if you yourself truly believe the mass-gassing narrative is accurate, will consider these persons ‘deluded’. But do you genuinely believe all these persons named have an agenda to ‘obfuscate’?
Q2b.) Either way, WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVE for debating deludes or deceitful obfuscators?

Like Hans here, they rely on the fact that extremely few people have the time, resources or money to “spend 2 weeks travelling to Ludwigsburg, Chelmno, Warsaw — combined with sightseeing — [to] genuinely study this extermination camp in depth”.
The preposterous implication here is that if you haven’t done that then you aren’t “genuinely” studying the hopelessly flawed mass-gassing narrative.

If your goal is to radically overturn an established consensus on any major, then yes, you'd better master the topic. I guess that's also precisely the intention of the OP.

You’ve moved the goalposts, Hans. As my avatar name signifies, I participate in online discussion to ascertain what is true. I’m open to being corrected and welcome reasoned, honest discussion that attempts to help me correct false understandings. I’m not here to “radically overturn an established consensus”. I’m here to see if there is any one who can give a credible, verifiable defence of the flaws I see in it.

Historical sources, many preserved in archives, are the major ingredient to modern history. It’s one thing to complain that not all archives over the world have yet fully digitized and made their collections freely available online. That's a fair discussion. But it’s something entirely different to deny that understanding the primary sources is a prerequisite for drawing radically different conclusions from the historical consensus.

I agree with you that “understanding the primary sources is a prerequisite”.
I’d add that this applies regardless if your motivation is to defend or critically analyse a genuine historiography.

When I first became astonished and disturbed by what I regarded as the deceits, exaggerations and illogicality of the currently consensus view, I went as much as possible to the primary sources for confirmation.
Interestingly Nick Terry implied that doing so was a ‘wrong’ research methodology, so he demanded to know which books I’d read by kosher holocaust historians before he’d engage in conversation with me.
As I see it, your two views combined, are arguing that there is no way anyone can know with certainty and that THEREFORE unless we just believe the consensus view, we are people who are being both ‘extremely naughty’ and ‘wrong’.
Please feel free to correct that view if you disagree with it.