Why Do you Guys Think the Holocaust is Fake?

[Wahrheitssucher]

I would not expect all of those witnesses to be 100% accurate or even truthful. After what many of those people went through, I think it would be appropriate for them to utterly despise the group of people that persecuted them and their families in such a way.

Here we go. The ‘special suffering’ emotional appeal that is supposed to trump accurate research and objective analysis.
THE REALITY appears to be that in contradiction to the atrocity propaganda, most of the jews in Europe “went through” what millions of other people went through during WW2. Plus some other peoples had it considerably worse and met more cruel and horrific deaths. But you probably won’t enquire about that as your whole issue is to promote the myth of ‘special suffering’ of your perceived kin. Isn’t it, CJ?

Rather revealingly I don’t remember YOU ever showing any concern — let alone feelings of sympathy — for the hundreds of thousands currently being maimed, massacred, bereaved, orphaned and made homeless in occupied Palestine.
Why is that, CJ?

As predicted this pompous person didn’t show any interest in discussing or learning about people who “went through” worse experiences than ‘jews’ did during WW2.

Nor does CJ have any interest in the ongoing genocide and cruel mass-murder being perpetrated bu jews NOW in occupied Palestine.

Very revealing!

[borjastick]

fullsizeoutput_ed.jpeg (15.45 KiB) Viewed 79 times

[Nessie]

....

This is a lie;

Revisionists point out that the evidentiary basis for the Holocaust (to the extent there has even been any attempt to justify it in terms of evidence) largely consists testimonies collected after the war, a surprisingly weak and unreliable foundation for such extraordinary claims. These witnesses simply do not hold up under scrutiny as their stories are full of serious contradictions, errors, and absurdities.

There is far more evidence from sources other than witnesses, than you suggest and there is a high level of consistency amongst the eyewitnesses, who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, as to what happened. They all describe the same process, varying only in details, which is to be expected.

....

Calling other posters liars is a violation of the forum rules. You in particular have a bad habit of accusing people of "lying" merely for disagreeing with your opinions. We say the evidence is weak. You say we are "lying" because, in your opinion, it is strong. Grow up.

You dispute my claim that the Holocaust historiography, especially on the gas chambers and other key points, has long been dominated by testimonial evidence. Do you really doubt this? Would you like me to develop this point further and show that you are wrong and it is you who is misrepresenting the mainstream literature?

If you only read the narrative histories of the Holocaust, which emphasise the eyewitness evidence, as it is the best narrative evidence, then you get the wrong impression that the Holocaust "largely consists" of testimonies. If you read the archive and archaeological evidence, which I regularly link to, then you see all the other evidence of the Holocaust.

To say that the eyewitness evidence is "weak" and "unreliable" ignores all the studies of witness behaviour and recollection and that the Nazi, Jewish and other civilian witnesses all agree with each other on the major events. When so many different people, who would not collaborate or collude, agree, that is strong corroborative witness evidence.

You cherry-pick the most emotive claims, or hearsay and mix that with the eyewitness evidence, to create a false narrative of "weak" witness evidence, that supposedly does not hold up "under scrutiny". Your idea of scrutiny, is to find any excuse to dismiss witness evidence you do not want to believe, which results in your dismissal of 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked or otherwise went inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas. You have denied that before, but you cannot name a single person who worked in one of those places, who you believe their description of what took place. Since over 2 million people went inside those places, for you not find a single witness you are happy to accept, is extraordinary. It shows that your method of "scrutiny" is flawed.

You know all of that, since you accuse me of being repetitive, as I repeatedly tell you about the flaws in your claims. That is why I say you are lying, because you know it is not true to claim the witness evidence is "weak" and cannot survive "scrutiny".

[ConfusedJew]

As predicted this pompous person didn’t show any interest in discussing or learning about people who “went through” worse experiences than ‘jews’ did during WW2.

Nor does CJ have any interest in the ongoing genocide and cruel mass-murder being perpetrated bu jews NOW in occupied Palestine.

Very revealing!

I have no interest in discussing anything with you further and you shouldn't expect a response on anything. I'm only responding to this so other people know why I will be ignoring your messages.

I will be only be responding to serious, relevant, and respectful comments and people from now on.

[Archie]

If you only read the narrative histories of the Holocaust, which emphasise the eyewitness evidence, as it is the best narrative evidence, then you get the wrong impression that the Holocaust "largely consists" of testimonies. If you read the archive and archaeological evidence, which I regularly link to, then you see all the other evidence of the Holocaust.

Backtracking already, I see. It seems you concede that the histories are dominated by testimonial evidence. Your excuse here is that this is for "the best narrative." Wrong. Hilberg if anything seems to prefer documentary evidence in general but when it comes to the gas chambers he cites testimonies, overwhelmingly. Not for stylistic or storytelling reasons. Because he had to. And as for physical evidence, go ahead and look for all the physical evidence that's presented. It's not there. Or try show me this wealth of physical evidence presented by Arad.

With the trials we see the same thing. The IMT and NMT (Hilberg's main sources) do not have any physical evidence to speak of either. The main investigative report on Auschwitz was USSR-8 which is completely ludicrous and propagandistic. There is some documentary evidence that could be cited as general evidence but for gas chambers there's almost nothing as far as documents. I had a whole other section of the FAQ discussing the documentary evidence at a high level.

The only archaeology that has been is the super early stuff done by the Communists and super late stuff like Kola and Sturdy-Colls. The Communist excavations were performed by demonstrably unreliable parties, there is little properly reported data from them, and they do not seem to have been known in the West much at all and were rarely if ever even referred to. If you want to know about them the best place to go is MATTOGNO. And for the Kola study, again Kola is best source! This is rather telling. It is therefore misleading to claim that archaeological excavations were of major importance in "proving" the Holocaust. They just weren't. And it is misleading for you to continue claiming this.

[Nessie]

If you only read the narrative histories of the Holocaust, which emphasise the eyewitness evidence, as it is the best narrative evidence, then you get the wrong impression that the Holocaust "largely consists" of testimonies. If you read the archive and archaeological evidence, which I regularly link to, then you see all the other evidence of the Holocaust.

Backtracking already, I see. It seems you concede that the histories are dominated by testimonial evidence.

That is not a back track or concession. I have never said anything other than histories are dominated by eyewitness evidence.

Your excuse here is that this is for "the best narrative narrative." Wrong. Hilberg if anything seems to prefer documentary evidence in general but when it comes to the gas chambers he cites testimonies, overwhelmingly. Not for stylistic or storytelling reasons. Because he had to. And as for physical evidence, go ahead and look for all the physical evidence that's presented. It's not there. Or try show me this wealth of physical evidence presented by Arad.

As historians, they are presenting a chronological narrative, something that so-called revisionists cannot do. Events that spanned years, many countries and involved millions of people, result in a complex narrative. Hilberg and Arad's general histories of the Holocaust, cannot cite every piece of evidence. They select what they think best evidences and explains the chronology. Where historians concentrate on parts, such as what happened in the Netherlands, or at A-B, more evidence specific to those events is presented.

Historians are not archaeologists, so they tend not to present the archaeological evidence and vice versa. C S-C references witnesses in her thesis on the geophysical survey of TII, but she concentrates on her specialist subject.

With the trials we see the same thing. The IMT and NMT (Hilberg's main sources) do not have any physical evidence to speak of either. The main investigative report on Auschwitz was USSR-8 which is completely ludicrous and propagandistic. There is some documentary evidence that could be cited as general evidence but for gas chambers there's almost nothing as far as documents. I had a whole other section of the FAQ discussing the documentary evidence at a high level.

The 1945 Polish war crimes commission organised surveys of the AR camps were for use at trials. Since no Nazi denied that those camps contained mass graves, that evidence was not challenged. When West German prosecutors ran the AR camp trials, they were allowed access, by the Poles, to visit the camp sites. Again, since none of the SS staff on trial denied that mass graves had been dug, or corpses exhumed and cremated and they instead described what happened, that physical evidence is not challenged.

The only archaeology that has been is the super early stuff done by the Communists and super late stuff like Kola and Sturdy-Colls. The Communist excavations were performed by demonstrably unreliable parties, there is little properly reported data from them, and they do not seem to have been known in the West much at all and were rarely if ever even referred to. If you want to know about them the best place to go is MATTOGNO. And for the Kola study, again Kola is best source! This is rather telling. It is therefore misleading to claim that archaeological excavations were of major importance in "proving" the Holocaust. They just weren't. And it is misleading for you to continue claiming this.

You can hand wave away the 1945 survey work all you want. Fact is, and you HATE this part, since no SS camp staff denied mass killings, or graves, or cremations, as is normal at any trial, the physical evidence is NOT challenged. There is not a court in the world, where an accused admits to something, such as mass graves, that then allows defence lawyers to challenge physical evidence of mass graves and dispute their existence. Think about how bizarre that would be. A person admits to something and then his lawyer denies it! That is tantamount to the lawyer calling his client a liar.

[TlsMS93]

Even people involved in an event simply going around saying what happened doesn't prove anything. If they denied it, it wouldn't do any good for their records, since the so-called "facts" were "common knowledge."

At Nuremberg, everyone denied it because it was necessary to prove their innocence to avoid the death penalty. In subsequent trials in the 1960s, the death penalty wasn't on the table, so confessing and informing on others would be of great value in reducing sentences; there was no reason to fear death.

I like black and white. After all, that's why you exterminationists are here. You're not here because we like you or because we allow you to express your views. You're here largely to try to fill in the gaps that truly exist, and you completely ignore this and feel entitled to go around accusing anyone as if you were in your own home.

In fact, we are permissive with your bravado here, the moderation would be advised to only allow truly valuable comments to remain in the topics, something to add in some way to the discussion, I know it is a herculean task and even somewhat subjective in purpose but it is something to think about.