Hans wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:47 pm
Wahrheitssucher wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:13 am
Hans wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:55 am
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?
Hans wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:47 pmAnd 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?
Hans wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:47 pm
Wahrheitssucher wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:13 am
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.
Hans wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:47 pmHistorical 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 and 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 any-one can know with certainty and unless we just believe the consensus view, we are both ‘naughty’ and ‘wrong’.
Please feel free to correct that view if you disagree with it.