Reminder: We are winning...

[Nessie]

....
Revisionist research has not stalled out but even if there were no new research at all, we already have enough ammo to win, whenever circumstances become propitious...

The ammo you need to win, is evidence, witnesses, documents, archaeology, etc. You do not have any of that. You cannot even name one single witness who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who states something other than gassings took place and there were no gassings. Revisionists will never produce an archaeological report to prove undisturbed ground where witnesses state mass graves had been located. Plenty of archives have been searched and nothing has been found to prove mass resettlement in the east in 1944, and millions liberated in 1945.

By circumstances improving, you can only mean the disturbing scenario, where history is rewritten, without any evidence.

[Nazgul]

By circumstances improving, you can only mean the disturbing scenario, where history is rewritten, without any evidence.

I mentioned a scenario where two juries watched a trial, unknown to each other. On the same facts both juries reached different verdicts. You or interested others may watch this series here: The Jury: Murder Trial
We are discussing the same evidence, and frankly are not satisfied with the supposed evidence you and your ilk find compelling. To demand more evidence when it is known that much of that evidence has somehow been sequestered is asinine. Repeating the evididential assertions on this forum may get you into bother with Archie. Doing this adds nothing to the discussion.

[Nessie]

By circumstances improving, you can only mean the disturbing scenario, where history is rewritten, without any evidence.

I mentioned a scenario where two juries watched a trial, unknown to each other. On the same facts both juries reached different verdicts. You or interested others may watch this series here: The Jury: Murder Trial
We are discussing the same evidence, and frankly are not satisfied with the supposed evidence you and your ilk find compelling. To demand more evidence when it is known that much of that evidence has somehow been sequestered is asinine. Repeating the evididential assertions on this forum may get you into bother with Archie. Doing this adds nothing to the discussion.

You can disagree with the evidence, but you cannot evidence an alternative. That means the evidence you disagree with is the only evidenced event. That logically means your disagreement is wrong.

[Nazgul]

You can disagree with the evidence, but you cannot evidence an alternative. That means the evidence you disagree with is the only evidenced event. That logically means your disagreement is wrong.

If a jury acquits someone it is the cops job to find the culprit. not those who disagree with the prosecution to find some alternative.

[Nessie]

You can disagree with the evidence, but you cannot evidence an alternative. That means the evidence you disagree with is the only evidenced event. That logically means your disagreement is wrong.

If a jury acquits someone it is the cops job to find the culprit. not those who disagree with the prosecution to find some alternative.

In a historical context, it is up to the claimant to produce evidence of the history they allege. Revisionists variously refuse to do that, or when they try they cannot agree and come with wildly varying versions of events. That proves revisionism is bogus history that uses a flawed methodology.

[SanityCheck]

It's a little bit ridiculous to claim that this would have been the case "since circa 2010", given the vast amounts of quality primary research published by revisionists between 2010 and 2024.

Almost all by one writer, Carlo Mattogno. Revisionism used to be a research community of sorts, and could stage conferences, but there have been none since the 2000s (the Teheran conference was about the last such event, and was a bit B-list). Once upon a time revisionism could publish an edited collection, Dissecting the Holocaust, in 2023 Germar Rudolf had to write a large encyclopedia almost single handedly.

It's not healthy if all the eggs are placed into just a couple of baskets, what happens when Mattogno grows too old?

In 2010, things were somewhat healthier because Mattogno was co-writing with Graf and Kues, but Kues vanished in 2013 and Graf returned to Switzerland and retired from active revisionism (although he has put out some recaps in German under a pseudonym), and is now apparently battling illness.

This is the usual gaslighting.

It's not gaslighting to ask what happens when Mattogno grows too old, or to point out that there used to be more of a research community which could hold conferences and publish collections, while in 2023 an encyclopedia was authored almost single-handedly by one author. Those are pretty straightforward observations.

curioussoul noted that there have been many publications since 2010, which is when I first started to wonder about the health of the scene. This is true, but they're written increasingly only by the same people, now mainly Mattogno and Rudolf. And both of those repeat themselves an awful lot, while it becomes a bit tedious to wade through two dozen books by Mattogno just on Auschwitz, can't he summarise his argument and make it sharper? Might it in fact be a problem if he spends eight pages trying to defuse a particular docment and seems to be bogging the discussion down?

It doesn't help that there are still countless outright errors in the 'Holocaust Handbooks', assertions which turn out to be entirely untrue or easily falsified. And much which needs to be addressed properly rather than continuing to assume a book written in 2009 would withstand scrutiny fifteen years later.

But, you guys do you.

Revisionist research has not stalled out but even if there were no new research at all, we already have enough ammo to win, whenever circumstances become propitious. After a certain point, the research becomes too arcane to matter as far as the public debate is concerned. Sometime the future, I think people will look back at all of this and see it as absurd overkill.

What's "winning"? The old school wanted to be taken seriously alongside mainstream historians and be seen as a school of revisionists compared to exterminationists. This outwardly hasn't died away entirely in the CODOH promotion messaging. According to Germar Rudolf, the Holocaust Handbooks series books "are designed to have the power to both convince the common reader as well as academics in this field." So far they're failing to convince academics, despite this being one of the ostensible target audiences for the series.

If winning means converting public opinion in the current idiocracy, then the world will have far bigger problems to worry about. But public opinion is more likely to be moved on more contemporary issues, which is why activists, radicals, populists, MAGA types and the rest are much more focused on other things, and can't be bothered with revisionism. There is clearly a lot more energy and momentum within anti-Zionism and much more of a squabble over present-day Israel. What happened 80 years ago in Europe does not loom large in the total bandwidth of conversation.

This activism has certainly included challenging academic 'consensus' around critical race theory, gender identity and other identitarian issues - because they connect with everyday lives and because the consensus is entirely ideological, so it becomes vulnerable to refutation. Chris Rufo and others have shown what can be achieved from the 'outside', while there are enough centrists and liberals who dislike the extremes of progressivism to make for a potential pushback from the inside - which may yet unfold, as is happening in the UK over gender identity. Plus there are the pragmatists who now realise how much some of the progressive shibboleths have alienated voters.

That could happen with US support for Israel, but Trump's early nominations for foreign policy etc positions are going down like lead balloons with the anti-Israel crowd. It might take the arrival of a new generation of Democrats to alter the calculus there.

The Holocaust is a lot less high profile and does not affect everyday considerations domestically or internationally that often. It's not exactly a new or live issue these days, whereas thirty years ago there was still some unfinished business from the war which came up after the collapse of communism. But that was the case for Stalinism and communism as well.

Plus one has to repeat the exercise of shifting the Overton window not just in the US but in several dozen countries, especially in Europe. While populism will surely make further advances, the examples of Hungary and Poland don't bode well for a great revisionist victory. Most of Europe sees the Holocaust through national lenses, but that might mean wanting to emphasise their own national suffering over that of the Jews, or equate communist and Nazi crimes (basically: Eastern Europe, which is also much less affected by non-European immigration). Elsewhere there is currently more emphasis on colonialism and other themes, which might appall some right-wingers but which adds to the problems of what to roll back. One could push back against Kendi-style DEI wokery but this might not change anything about the history of different empires or the history of slave societies, or whether there is interest in them. Because those histories are not in fact dependent on swallowing Kendi et al, who are pretty poor guides to history full stop.

[Callafangers]

It's not gaslighting to ask what happens when Mattogno grows too old, or to point out that there used to be more of a research community which could hold conferences and publish collections, while in 2023 an encyclopedia was authored almost single-handedly by one author. Those are pretty straightforward observation.

curioussoul noted that there have been many publications since 2010, which is when I first started to wonder about the health of the scene. This is true, but they're written increasingly only by the same people, now mainly Mattogno and Rudolf. And both of those repeat themselves an awful lot, while it becomes a bit tedious to wade through two dozen books by Mattogno just on Auschwitz, can't he summarise his argument and make it sharper? Might it in fact be a problem if he spends eight pages trying to defuse a particular docment and seems to be bogging the discussion down?

It doesn't help that there are still countless outright errors in the 'Holocaust Handbooks', assertions which turn out to be entirely untrue or easily falsified. And much which needs to be addressed properly rather than continuing to assume a book written in 2009 would withstand scrutiny fifteen years later.

There are numerous 'errors' of your own, of Browning, of nearly any author in history over the years (I've pointed out several over the last year, and not including the obvious gaps in physical evidence, problematic testimony, etc.). Pointing out errors is not an 'own' unless you're suggesting revisionists are still making the same erroneous arguments. Certain views become more obsolete, e.g. certain earlier revisionist takes on T-4 or Einsatzgruppen. New or more focused interpretations or evidence become available and revisionists acknowledge what can be demonstrated as true and valid. The willingness to make these concessions is a sign of integrity and emphasis on truthful narratives. This is precisely the characteristics which mainstream historiography lacks, given the pattern of "but it still happened, 100%!" despite the inconsistencies, problems, lies, etc., exposed by revisionists in any particular area. I.e. not even a "maybe there is more to this story, so we should stop prohibiting and persecuting our opponents", enough to see some level of activism by academics and others into this direction.

What's "winning"? The old school wanted to be taken seriously alongside mainstream historians and be seen as a school of revisionists compared to exterminationists. This outwardly hasn't died away entirely in the CODOH promotion messaging. According to Germar Rudolf, the Holocaust Handbooks series books "are designed to have the power to both convince the common reader as well as academics in this field." So far they're failing to convince academics, despite this being one of the ostensible target audiences for the series.

How revisionism looked in its infancy is not evidence of any sort of regression since then. It is a sign of the times, and of circumstance. It was previously thought, perhaps, that the general public would be more receptive to a more formalized approach (what you call 'wanting to be taken seriously') however given the taboo and marginalization of revisionist thought via a century of propaganda and totalitarian control in academia, this formality had little benefit, so it was gradually done away with in favor of simply writing/publishing, sharing literature, and marketing (where possible) 'in the background'. Revisionists now realize we (they?) are pressing for an increase in the overall saturation of revisionist thought, pushing for a gradual paradigm shift, which does not happen from meetings at the DoubleTree Inn, conventions in Iran, nor necessarily in business-formal attire but by presenting a consistent, fact-driven narrative over a protracted period of time, even if only in print and online. And guess what: it's working. Interest in revisionism is rapidly increasing. The higher level of formal organization will come, in due time. This is true even despite the laws, hostile social norms, etc. working against it.

If winning means converting public opinion in the current idiocracy, then the world will have far bigger problems to worry about.

You say, "the [Western] world is run by idiots." I say, "the [Western] world is run largely by scheming Jews." Who is correct?

But public opinion is more likely to be moved on more contemporary issues, which is why activists, radicals, populists, MAGA types and the rest are much more focused on other things, and can't be bothered with revisionism. There is clearly a lot more energy and momentum within anti-Zionism and much more of a squabble over present-day Israel. What happened 80 years ago in Europe does not loom large in the total bandwidth of conversation.

It does not 'loom large' due to the fact that the general public has, at most, only begun to start questioning the relevant history. They will continue to catch-on, over time. Holocaust propaganda has lost its 'teeth'.

Plus one has to repeat the exercise of shifting the Overton window not just in the US but in several dozen countries, especially in Europe. While populism will surely make further advances, the examples of Hungary and Poland don't bode well for a great revisionist victory. Most of Europe sees the Holocaust through national lenses, but that might mean wanting to emphasise their own national suffering over that of the Jews, or equate communist and Nazi crimes (basically: Eastern Europe, which is also much less affected by non-European immigration). Elsewhere there is currently more emphasis on colonialism and other themes, which might appall some right-wingers but which adds to the problems of what to roll back. One could push back against Kendi-style DEI wokery but this might not change anything about the history of different empires or the history of slave societies, or whether there is interest in them. Because those histories are not in fact dependent on swallowing Kendi et al, who are pretty poor guides to history full stop.

The history of 'evil white colonialism' is a whole 'nother animal but similar in its pattern of deception to that of the 'Holocaust', though with more obvious and consistent political motives. Kendi is far from the 'king' of Marxist thought, which has been subverting historiography for many decades, by now, portraying the 'evil' of European excellence over the last centuries and beyond.

I agree with you regarding the unique challenges of shifting the Overton window in much of Eastern Europe. 'Anti-Nazism' seems at the core of Russian (and former Soviet) mainstream political thought, which makes it an uphill battle to promote any ideas which could de-vilify 'Nazis', let alone portray the Soviet Union in an even more negative light. This is despite the fact of the greatest mass rape campaign in recent history by the Soviets against German women, and the fact of East German show trials, Katyn, and other mendacious schemes notoriously committed by the Soviet Union, highlighting the case for even greater deception than is widely acknowledged.

[Archie]

It's not gaslighting to ask what happens when Mattogno grows too old, or to point out that there used to be more of a research community which could hold conferences and publish collections, while in 2023 an encyclopedia was authored almost single-handedly by one author. Those are pretty straightforward observations.

You are selective with your metrics, dates, etc. You want to create the impression that revisionism is dead for purposes of demoralization, and you look for data to support that predetermined/motivated conclusion while ignoring data to the contrary.

If you look at Holocaust Handbooks vs the JHR, I think there is quite a bit of progress there, objectively speaking, from the 80s until now. And even if we had produced nothing since the 80s it still wouldn't invalidate all of the original arguments which have never really been addressed.

The main challenge with the movement is that it has been forced under ground and that has hurt the leadership and organization. We are probably less organized than in the 80s in a lot of ways, but on the plus side the internet has made possible more crowd-sourcing of research and information.

The reality is that if the Holocaust goes down it will probably not be because revisionists find new documents or anything like that. It will be because political circumstances will change such that the Holocaust side will no longer enjoy a presumption of truth and the basic arguments we have been making for decades will finally have to be addressed.

[SanityCheck]

It's not gaslighting to ask what happens when Mattogno grows too old, or to point out that there used to be more of a research community which could hold conferences and publish collections, while in 2023 an encyclopedia was authored almost single-handedly by one author. Those are pretty straightforward observations.

You are selective with your metrics, dates, etc. You want to create the impression that revisionism is dead for purposes of demoralization, and you look for data to support that predetermined/motivated conclusion while ignoring data to the contrary.

No, I've been very consistent in the metric, which is whether there is a functioning research community with a number of researchers and authors active and knowing each other. In the 1980s-1990s there was such a revisionist research community, but this shrunk after the Irving-Lipstadt trial and the suspension of the JHR, not yet too drastically, because there were alternative platforms (like the Teheran conference) and journals continued throughout, although VffG ceased publication in 2006.

Germar Rudolf did fill the gap left by Mark Weber throwing in the towel with the IHR/JHR, and even his deportation and imprisonment did not stop this. When he returned to the US, he regained control of the Holocaust Handbooks series from The Barnes Review, and was not too shabby in marketing new editions.

BUT this was also when the 'new edition' trick became routine; a lot of relatively minor incremental changes to older books so these would run to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th editions. This has continued through to the current rebranding with ARMREG reissuing everything.

If you look at Holocaust Handbooks vs the JHR, I think there is quite a bit of progress there, objectively speaking, from the 80s until now. And even if we had produced nothing since the 80s it still wouldn't invalidate all of the original arguments which have never really been addressed.

I wouldn't dispute that the Holocaust Handbooks represent an advance on the mayhem and cacophony of the 1980s to 1990s. Someone elsewhere just posted about the Lueftl report, which never seemed to be that widely cited by other revisionists, so I allowed my eyes to glaze over when reading it, and they highlighted an absolute porkie of a claim about all the factories making Zyklon B being bombed in early 1944. It's no surprise that no one serious in the revisionist scene, like Mattogno or Rudolf, has repeated this, which is the 'peer review' test.

By 2010-2011, Mattogno with Graf and then joined by Kues had completed 'Handbooks' on all the major extermination camps, and Mattogno had written up books on the major Auschwitz sites, including Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity/The Real Case for Auschwitz, a big critique of Van Pelt and Pressac. The only thing that was truly missing was a book on the Einsatzgruppen, which came along from Mattogno in 2016, after Graf and Kues couldn't follow through with the project. Alvarez had published his revision/expansion of Pierre Marais' 1990s book on the gas vans by 2011 as well.

So for all intents and purposes, the major claims were largely complete by 2010-2011, especially about the key camps. The Handbooks series certainly grew, but it also started to sprawl and repeat itself. Some of the additions recycled older books, e.g. vol. 36 by Graf was already published in German in the 1990s. Mattogno's replacement for Graf's critique of Hilberg as vol.3 was actually largely written in Italian at the end of the 2000s but did not appear until May 2021 in English. Both versions focused mainly on Hilberg's 2nd edition while the 2021 version had only a limited amount on Hilberg's 3rd edition.

The main introductions in the Handbooks series all predate 2011 in their original versions. Butz is apparently still the best-seller and goes back to 1976 with the 'revised' editions being mostly new footnotes from Rudolf to newer Handbooks. Dalton's book dates back to 2009 and is now onto a fourth edition as of 2020. Kollerstrom dates back to 2011 and is now on a seventh (!) edition in 2024. Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust is onto a fourth edition as of 2023, and dated back to 2005 or so in the English version (I would see this as a total rewrite compared to the 1990s German original).

But the most telling moment, which might be when the series jumped the shark fully, was including Sanning's Dissolution of European Jewry, despite this dating back to 1983, about thirty-five years later. One of the Teheran conference participants had a white paper on demographics which he presented, but then vanished. So there wasn't anyone in the scene who could sit down and deliver the demographic style argument in updated form, to build on Rassinier and Sanning and update them. Which was a crying necessity because there had been several mainstream edited collections on the numbers/demographics issue by then.

The main challenge with the movement is that it has been forced under ground and that has hurt the leadership and organization. We are probably less organized than in the 80s in a lot of ways, but on the plus side the internet has made possible more crowd-sourcing of research and information.

Again, I don't doubt the power of the internet to help with crowd-sourcing or the potential to nurture new protagonists and authors. Samuel Crowell was probably the main voice to emerge out of alt.revisionism, the old CODOH forum produced denierbud and Thomas Kues.

But things changed in the wider culture after the start of the 2010s, this was when all kinds of bright shiny things caused distractions and when millennials started their YouTube channels and podcasts, with an inbuilt bias towards considering many topics. Foxes proliferated while hedgehogs focused on one thing became rarer. If they were hedgehogs they likely had newer stories to tell and to sell. This was when the flat-earth revival kicked in; all the jokes that might have been made comparing xyz to flat-earthers suddenly came true.

I think also the post-9/11 truther conspiracism with Alex Jones, James Fetzer and others then seizing on arguments about 'crisis actors' and going in so hard with Sandy Hook denialism was another bad, bad moment. By then it was fairly clear that a lot of people on the internet had fallen so far down their rabbit holes it made the formerly moderate contrarians look just as lunatic. And then denialism went mainstream, where it has stayed. It's a very different mood to the 2000s. There is just that much more competition for market share, and if any ideas do gain traction they're packaged together with other contrarian ideas.

Note that Amazon first banned Sandy Hook denialist books before the hammer fell on Holocaust denial.

I also don't disagree that the prevailing trends through to Amazon banning revisionist books in 2017 reduced the incentives for outsiders to become involved. There were several authors in the early to mid 2010s who were not publishing through Rudolf or in the Handbooks series, like Peter Winter, but they seem to have drifted off or vanished.

I'm also realistic about how one rebuilds. You yourself were noting in the 'lessons learned' thread of the need to write things down, to do more research. That does not have to be definitive books, it can be articles, blog posts, Substacks, and other contributions. I'm sure there will be some, and I'm also sure Germar Rudolf would love the help.

Decline isn't death. Even if everything at CODOH stopped and the entire site vanished overnight, the revisionist literature is mirrored in so many places it will survive and persist. Someone can revive it in the future. But unlike Francisco Franco revisionism is not dead yet.

The reality is that if the Holocaust goes down it will probably not be because revisionists find new documents or anything like that. It will be because political circumstances will change such that the Holocaust side will no longer enjoy a presumption of truth and the basic arguments we have been making for decades will finally have to be addressed.

The problem is the Holocaust has also been treated comparatively as an example of genocide and mass violence; it unfolded amidst mass violence in WWII, but revisionism hasn't been very good at acknowledging these contexts and comparisons. It's unlikely that something changes to mean nobody acknowledges any genocides in modern history or any cases of mass violence, or that the standards for accepting them (outside of nationalist or reactionary circles in a country which perpetrated extreme violence) will suddenly change.

[Callafangers]

I see you miss out evidence. You are well and truly losing when it comes to evidence. Revisionsists cannot evidence, let alone agree on what really happened. That seriosuly undermines your claims about winning logically and intelectually.

Exterminationists sit in control of the largest pile of documentary 'loot' (archives, etc.) ever acquired after having won world war and yet still can't seem to come up with any explicit, contemporary evidence for their most central claims of German 'evil'. The major disparity (the most problematic) is firmly in your camp.

There is evidence of wood being delivered for camp construction from Polish sawmills, so it would not be hard to get suitable wood delivered for pyres. That there is little surviving evidence just means there is little evidence, it is does not therefore mean no wood got delivered.

Ridiculous. Nessie, provide a total figure (in metric tons) of how much wood you believe would be required for all cremations for each of the major camps. Then explain where/how, exactly, you believe it would have arrived. Nobody talks about wood, no witnesses describing these constant and massive shipments coming in, just like no claims of the largest manual logging operation in history, no documents, no cleared forests.

Is isn't there.

You provide no details, just assertions, as to expected and found quantities of remains. It is a denier tactic, to minimise the physical evidence found at the camps.

You are wrong here and you know it. I have calculated exactly (at least, as close an approximation as I have seen anyone provide) for the AR camps, which I shared at RODOH. Sobibor had at most ~50,000 corpses' worth of remains, if I recall correctly, but likely much less than that. The other camps were much lower, proportionally. My analysis was generous toward exterminationist interpretations. I will provide a more detailed summary here, in due time.

(EDIT: just reviewed my notes on Sobibor, it is closer to an upper maximum of ~48,000, with a generous interpretation; but this is without the most recent outdoor cremation data shared in a recent thread here, which reduces this figure to less than one-third, i.e. closer to ~15,000 at most. As for Belzec, physical evidence alone, with generous interpretation, similarly suggests very low tens of thousands at maximum; as for Treblinka, there is essentially nothing at all, despite the lion's share of AR Holocaust claims being associated here. For those unfamiliar, corpses in these low figures for Sobibor/Belzec reflect the need for clearing corpses from ghettos, or that of executed partisans, etc.; nobody denies that the ghettos were literally being cleared of people and their belongings, and that cremation facilities within the ghettos were lacking. Removal of corpses on the same transports is expected.)

There is evidence the inside of the Kremas were exposed to HCN.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"- Forensic report by Jan Robel (Cracow Forensic Institute) of 25 December 1945 on qualitative determination of cyanide on sheet zinc ventilation grills assigned to the crematoria 2 or 3 by Polish investigating judge Jan Sehn
- Chemical investigation of the gas chamber's ruins by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala and Jerzy Labedz (Cracow Forensic Institute) and their quantitative determination of (non-Prussian Blue) cyanide residues in the gas chamber's walls [Markiewicz et al., A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps] (related Revisionist arguments are discussed by chemist Richard Green here)

Everywhere in Birkenau was exposed to cyanide. Again -- you know this. Fumigation was a top priority, of all areas where disease could spread. This certainly included morgues (where lice-infested corpses were stored).

There is an obvious reason why exterminationists almost never talk about iron-cyanide (FeCN). They talk about free-form cyanide, as you did above, exclusively. FeCN is the only compound that matters, yet an understanding of this compound and its formation (or, more importantly, its stability over time) eviscerates your views on the exposure of Krema brick/mortar to your alleged quantities of Zyklon-B.

It is merely your biased opinion that asserts the evidence for gas vans is spurious and should all be dismissed.

No, Nessie -- it is a fact that, as I said, "No 'gas van' nor any blueprints, drawings, etc. for such a vehicle has ever been found."

This is precisely why you rely on a pool of documentation and statements saturated with lies, inconsistencies, etc.

There are no surviving documents from the AR camps themselves. That means there is an explanation as to why there is documentation relating to wood deliveries. Getting wood delivered, when trains ran into the camps, would not have been as difficult as you suggest.

This just as well explains missing documentation for Jews delivered in/out of there as well. By your own standard: show the proof of wood deliveries, or it didn't happen.

Aerial photos are just a tiny snapshot and for most of the time, the camps were out of range during their operations. Photos at A-B show smoke where witnesses describe outdoor pyres and the AR camps are shown to have been razed to the ground and containing large areas of disturbed ground that had been planted over, consistent with the cover up.

The air photos should have served as supporting evidence for the claims of witnesses but have instead shown a clear pattern of challenging or refuting those claims.

The splitting and shunting of trains into camps such as TII is described by Polish railworkers and witnesses who were on the trains.

The Hofle Telegram records over 700,000 arriving at TII by the end of 1942 and the mass transports to the camp are supported by ghetto transport records, the Ganzenmueller Letter and Stroop Report.

You are again making false claims to minimise the actual volume of evidence. You do that to deflect from the revisionist lack of evidence and to support your desired belief.

These claims are minimal, relative to the scale of alleged arrivals. The Hofle telegram, etc. does not mention "T-II" at all.

Whoever the operation was named after, the evidence is that it was the operation to clear ghettos and kill the remaining Jews, whilst stealing the last of their possessions. PRs theory fails to evidence what happened to the Jews once they had left the ghetto and had all their property stolen from them, so it is incomplete.

That Aktion Reinhardt was not named after Reinhard Heydrich is a massive concession to revisionism, for reasons PrudentRegret has explained in the thread already linked.

There is a Hitler Order for T4, proving that he approved of the killing of people who did not fit the Nazi Aryan ideal. That virtually all of the AR staff came from T4, proves a direct connection between the operations. That codes words were used for killing makes sense. The revisionist claim that those code words actually refer to resettlement, makes no sense.

You have zero evidence T4 was strictly or even primarily about any "Aryan ideal", Nessie. You pulled that right out of the most mendacious propaganda you could get your hands on, surely. T4 was about resources, about the national/collective good, and about a compassionate release for those suffering due to inability to contribute to an increasingly-threatened and desperate German society, facing another world war and in serious need of precious medical resources (nurses for the frontlines, etc., who would otherwise be assigned to these hospitals filled with suffering invalids). This was also at a time when euthanasia was being taken seriously around the world and when disabled people were being holed away in abysmal institutions, everywhere.

To say this policy in Germany and its characteristics (most likely by lethal injection, alone) are starkly at odds with claims of Jewish mass 'extermination' with DIY-makeshift delousing fumigant and submarine exhaust chambers... is an understatement.

Everyone involved in AR was required to sign a document regarding the secrecy of the operation. The Nazis were hardly going to publicise their work during the war, especially after they knew they would likely lose it. Then, secrecy switched to cover up.

The AR camps primarily operated 1941-3, when the British were not yet decoding a lot of enigma transmissions. The significance of those camps was not understood at that time. In 1944, the priority was the Normany invasion, not a camp in Poland, so as messages were being decoded and were established to be irrelevant to planned operations, they were dumped.

After the war, every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admitted to their use for mass gassings. Not one broke ranks or accidentally blew the supposed hoax. The Nazis safe in South America kept quiet, when they could have defended their collegues on trial in Europe or Israel.

There is no evidence from any source, of millions of Jews in Nazi camps in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

Every argument you make for 'secrecy' and 'cover-up' is duly noted, for the next time we discuss any lack of train records for transited Jews, or for the specifics of the quarantine sites Goebbels refers to in his diary, etc.

That 'every single witness', as you claim, testified any particular way is hardly of significance in questions of what really happened. People were not talking about AR camps, for several decades post-war. These were one topic in a series of a endless trials taking place post-war, all with varying levels of credibility but with a clear pattern of vengeance and injustice. Nobody at AR camps, for the most part, 'denied' anything, since the only people asking questions were those who were either directly incentivized to do so (e.g. a handful of Jewish/Polish/etc witnesses), or those who were coerced to give a particular answer (the status quo for Germans on trial post-war, well aware of the 'lynching party' that surrounded them, sometimes tortured, and with their families universally held captive).

Germans having escaped to South America were seldom (if ever) asked about these specific camps. They were in hiding, starting new lives.

Your assumptions provide no support to your position.

Revisionist assessment of the witness evidence is based on zero experience of gathering witness testimony, interviews and the numerous studies into witness behaviour, memory and recollection. It is just biased opinion that wants to disblieve, resulting in the extraordinary conclusion that 100% of the witnesses, Jewish and Nazi, all lied and despite millions of people having been inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, not one person can be traced, who speaks to a function other than gassings.

You're constantly on-the-run to try and explain away massive lies. You cannot provide as many provable lies for any other narrative in history as revisionists have easily been able to produce for the Holocaust. The lies of the Holocaust (and especially of atrocity lies) vastly eclipse - in quality, quantity, and proportion to overall testimony - the lies of any other historical narrative, and it isn't even close.

The "in-group" is extraordinarily disparate, with German and Ukrainian SS, German civilians, Polish civilains and Jewish prisoners from multiple countries. They spoke different languages, most never met and they had very different agendas. Yet, they all agree, gassings took place.

For the most part, the people asking the questions AND the people giving the answers shared a common desire to see Germans crushed (and apparently burned, raped, etc.). No one held the Soviets accountable for their abuses against Germans, no one held any group accountable for their abuses against Axis citizens... The questions and the answers were coordinated to form a postwar narrative; an extension of the 'denazification' effort. The truth was only ever secondary, at best.

The Nazis on trial all admitted to their crimes. That is why no survivor witness was subject to cross examination to dispute their testimony as lying. That witnesses made exaggerated, hyperbolic and mistaken claims during trials, is normal for witnesses and it does not prove lying.

Wrong. Some of them 'denied', and they were hung for it. Some "came clean" but denied their own involvement and managed to survive. Trials are about defending yourself against allegations, by whatever means, and especially in the context of trials by an enemy power which holds your family captive.

The majority of AR camp and various A-B camp trials took place in West and unified Germany, run by Germans, under German law.

Revisionists like to suggest the Holocaust was a Soviet hoax. It was in the wests interest to expose that as a hoax and have West Germany and the Germans in general exhonerated from such a false accusation.

I have addressed the West German trials at RODOH. You are pretending you still have weight, there. You also cannot dismiss the East German trials, nor the fact that the Soviets had a judge at Nuremberg, nor that all sides were caught submitting false evidence in one way or another. You also didn't address the issues of lacking cross-accountability, etc.

If it was a Soviet hoax, it was very much in the interests of the governments of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine to expose that hoax in the 19990s, when they gain their independence. Instead, they all continue to admit to their roles in assisting the Nazis with the killings.

None of what you said here diminishes the significance of the Iron Curtain being cast over the entire, vast region to which Jews were somewhere relocated within. We do not know precisely where these Jews were kept, nor whether the half-century-later independent Baltic state governments would necessarily be aware of all specific activities conducted under Stalin.

It was the Polish who originated and drove the early narrative of camps for mass killings and who went on to conduct numerous camp trials and to memorialise and publicise what happened. It does not work, even for the strongest conspiratorial mind, to believe that the Poles can fool the world, but they can believe the Jews have such power.

The above was your response to Zionism as a contributing factor. In other words, you did not address Zionism as a factor at all (you deflected). This is despite the fact that I addressed Polish motivations separately.

People who spread an unevidenced, false narrative, based on anti-Semitic tropes, designed to create hate for Jews, do get suppressed. They have fallen for a bizarre hoax that is on the same level as the earth is flat, so of course they will be cricised and any academic who falls for it, ostracised.

This is your nonsense speculation and fallacy. Not worth addressing further.

GERMANY WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE JEWS
- There is no question that Israel has been an atrocious, subversive, dishonest, and hostile element in Palestine (just ask Palestinians). Moreover, there is no question that Jewish power has been maintained (through media, finance, and other institutions they were once accused of subverting in Germany) as communist/leftist ideologies have increased within all Western nations, as their economies have frequently plummeted, with increased inflation (generally proportionate to the level of Jewish control there). Those informed on the matter have reasonably concluded Israel had a foremost role in the 9/11 attacks (control of all key positions in every major institution surrounding 9/11, from the Twin Towers themselves to media conglomerates, FBI's criminal division, airline security, etc.; along with massive geopolitical motives in the "War on Terror"), likely orchestrated the JFK assassination (JFK's intention was to require Israel to register as a foreign agent and to require inspection the Dimona nuclear facility, there is clear evidence of Jewish coordination of JFK's visit to Texas, Jack Ruby [killer of JFK's shooter] is actually Jack Rubenstein, a Jewish mobster), and other major events which have shifted global power in their favor. Israel has the most notorious record of false flags and early forms of terrorism, even by establishment history's open admission.

That is evidence to prove Holocaust denial appeals to anti-Semitic conspiracists.

Hilarious. Let me spare you the embarrassment of trying to disprove any of what I said, there.

Revisionism is doomed to always lose, as it cannot produce a contemporaneous, chronologically evidenced history of what happened and it relies on logically flawed arguments and lies about the evidence.

You repeatedly say the above as though it carries weight of some kind; as though revisionists should feel some inadequacy at lacking resources to provide you a "contemporaneous, chronologically evidenced history of what happened". LOL. What nonsense. You (i.e. exterminationists) have made a claim which is unsubstantiated and driven above-all by conflicted statements and documents filtered or sometimes even fabricated by world powers with an axe-to-grind, with every global resource at their disposal. Rather than explain further, here were my recent comments (at RODOH) to SanityCheck on essentially the same question:

Revisionism, once again, does not "need to account for the origins of the 'story'". You saying it repeatedly does not change this. Although, you might try stamping your foot when you demand it... it might have stronger effect when you do it this way.

- Bob, a frequent liar, says, "Jerry burned an effigy of myself, then buried it in my yard!".
- Jerry says, "That is stupid, you're insane."
- Bob says, "I have documents claiming you did; see here, my own diary! And my wife also wrote about it in her diary -- corroboration!".
- Jerry says, "Fuck you, Bob. Let us dig up the effigy, if it's there."
- Bob says, "No, you bastard, haven't you traumatized me enough?!"

Do we believe Bob? No... no, we don't. Bob is lying.

Jerry doesn't need to prove 'what really happened' in Bob's yard. It doesn't matter if Jerry (and Tom, another neighbor who thinks Bob is lying) disagree on what happened in Bob's yard, exactly (Tom thinks Bob's wife is the one who started the lie). The consensus is that Bob and his wife are both liars.

Bob's claims - and yours (i.e. 'Holocaust') - are unsubstantiated. This is what revisionists have shown. To show 'what really happened' is a separate effort and in no way necessary to the core question of whether the evidence and interpretations of the 'Holocaust' are true and valid.

Bob is lying, Nessie. Rational, intelligent people do not believe Bob.

[Nessie]

I see you miss out evidence. You are well and truly losing when it comes to evidence. Revisionsists cannot evidence, let alone agree on what really happened. That seriosuly undermines your claims about winning logically and intelectually.

Exterminationists sit in control of the largest pile of documentary 'loot' (archives, etc.) ever acquired after having won world war and yet still can't seem to come up with any explicit, contemporary evidence for their most central claims of German 'evil'. The major disparity (the most problematic) is firmly in your camp.

The lack of explictness, such as a document recording numbers gassed, is due to the cover up of the crime. There was a lot of explictness about destruction of Jews, using terms associated with death, rather than relocation.

You do not get much more explict than documents recording the construction of undressing rooms, gas chambers and fast acting, multiple corpse ovens inside the Kremas for a special action involving Jews.

There is evidence of wood being delivered for camp construction from Polish sawmills, so it would not be hard to get suitable wood delivered for pyres. That there is little surviving evidence just means there is little evidence, it is does not therefore mean no wood got delivered.

Ridiculous.

Why? Poland had huge forests and sawmills to supply wood.

Nessie, provide a total figure (in metric tons) of how much wood you believe would be required for all cremations for each of the major camps. Then explain where/how, exactly, you believe it would have arrived. Nobody talks about wood, no witnesses describing these constant and massive shipments coming in, just like no claims of the largest manual logging operation in history, no documents, no cleared forests.

Is isn't there.

I provided a quote from Erwin Lambert;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor."

If they can get suitable wood delivered for construction, they can get it delivered for pyres. They did not clear the woods near to the camps to construct them. You are acting as if wood was something not often found in Poland!

You provide no details, just assertions, as to expected and found quantities of remains. It is a denier tactic, to minimise the physical evidence found at the camps.

You are wrong here and you know it. I have calculated exactly (at least, as close an approximation as I have seen anyone provide) for the AR camps, which I shared at RODOH. Sobibor had at most ~50,000 corpses' worth of remains, if I recall correctly, but likely much less than that. The other camps were much lower, proportionally. My analysis was generous toward exterminationist interpretations. I will provide a more detailed summary here, in due time.

(EDIT: just reviewed my notes on Sobibor, it is closer to an upper maximum of ~48,000, with a generous interpretation; but this is without the most recent outdoor cremation data shared in a recent thread here, which reduces this figure to less than one-third, i.e. closer to ~15,000 at most. As for Belzec, physical evidence alone, with generous interpretation, similarly suggests very low tens of thousands at maximum; as for Treblinka, there is essentially nothing at all, despite the lion's share of AR Holocaust claims being associated here. For those unfamiliar, corpses in these low figures for Sobibor/Belzec reflect the need for clearing corpses from ghettos, or that of executed partisans, etc.; nobody denies that the ghettos were literally being cleared of people and their belongings, and that cremation facilities within the ghettos were lacking. Removal of corpses on the same transports is expected.)

You are guestimating at best. Your calculations are intent on minimising the numbers. What you present is only convincing to you and those who also want to deny the killings. It has no academic authority. You are certainly not an expert witness.

There is evidence the inside of the Kremas were exposed to HCN.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"- Forensic report by Jan Robel (Cracow Forensic Institute) of 25 December 1945 on qualitative determination of cyanide on sheet zinc ventilation grills assigned to the crematoria 2 or 3 by Polish investigating judge Jan Sehn
- Chemical investigation of the gas chamber's ruins by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala and Jerzy Labedz (Cracow Forensic Institute) and their quantitative determination of (non-Prussian Blue) cyanide residues in the gas chamber's walls [Markiewicz et al., A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps] (related Revisionist arguments are discussed by chemist Richard Green here)

Everywhere in Birkenau was exposed to cyanide. Again -- you know this. Fumigation was a top priority, of all areas where disease could spread. This certainly included morgues (where lice-infested corpses were stored).

So why did you claim there are no traces?

There is an obvious reason why exterminationists almost never talk about iron-cyanide (FeCN). They talk about free-form cyanide, as you did above, exclusively. FeCN is the only compound that matters, yet an understanding of this compound and its formation (or, more importantly, its stability over time) eviscerates your views on the exposure of Krema brick/mortar to your alleged quantities of Zyklon-B.

Why is FeCN the only compound that matters? Traces of both FeCN and HCN would indicate the use of Zyklon B. Your views, and my views, do not matter. The evidence does.

It is merely your biased opinion that asserts the evidence for gas vans is spurious and should all be dismissed.

No, Nessie -- it is a fact that, as I said, "No 'gas van' nor any blueprints, drawings, etc. for such a vehicle has ever been found."

This is precisely why you rely on a pool of documentation and statements saturated with lies, inconsistencies, etc.

It is merely your opinion that the documents and statements are saturated with lies. Your stated aim is to dismiss the evidence that does not suit your beliefs, so of course you will believe it to be all lies.

There are no surviving documents from the AR camps themselves. That means there is an explanation as to why there is documentation relating to wood deliveries. Getting wood delivered, when trains ran into the camps, would not have been as difficult as you suggest.

This just as well explains missing documentation for Jews delivered in/out of there as well. By your own standard: show the proof of wood deliveries, or it didn't happen.

Nazis destroying documents that would prove their innocence makes no sense. They knew they were being accused of mass murder, so why destroy evidence to prove the accusations were false?

Aerial photos are just a tiny snapshot and for most of the time, the camps were out of range during their operations. Photos at A-B show smoke where witnesses describe outdoor pyres and the AR camps are shown to have been razed to the ground and containing large areas of disturbed ground that had been planted over, consistent with the cover up.

The air photos should have served as supporting evidence for the claims of witnesses but have instead shown a clear pattern of challenging or refuting those claims.

Any examples?

The splitting and shunting of trains into camps such as TII is described by Polish railworkers and witnesses who were on the trains.

The Hofle Telegram records over 700,000 arriving at TII by the end of 1942 and the mass transports to the camp are supported by ghetto transport records, the Ganzenmueller Letter and Stroop Report.

You are again making false claims to minimise the actual volume of evidence. You do that to deflect from the revisionist lack of evidence and to support your desired belief.

These claims are minimal, relative to the scale of alleged arrivals. The Hofle telegram, etc. does not mention "T-II" at all.

There are multiple Nazi documents recording mass arrivals at AR camps. That is inconvenient for you, so you minimise them.

Whoever the operation was named after, the evidence is that it was the operation to clear ghettos and kill the remaining Jews, whilst stealing the last of their possessions. PRs theory fails to evidence what happened to the Jews once they had left the ghetto and had all their property stolen from them, so it is incomplete.

That Aktion Reinhardt was not named after Reinhard Heydrich is a massive concession to revisionism, for reasons PrudentRegret has explained in the thread already linked.

Historians have not conceeded to PR! PR has a half baked theory that has an incomplete conclusion. He cannot account for the people once all of their property has been taken from them.

There is a Hitler Order for T4, proving that he approved of the killing of people who did not fit the Nazi Aryan ideal. That virtually all of the AR staff came from T4, proves a direct connection between the operations. That codes words were used for killing makes sense. The revisionist claim that those code words actually refer to resettlement, makes no sense.

You have zero evidence T4 was strictly or even primarily about any "Aryan ideal", Nessie. You pulled that right out of the most mendacious propaganda you could get your hands on, surely. T4 was about resources, about the national/collective good, and about a compassionate release for those suffering due to inability to contribute to an increasingly-threatened and desperate German society, facing another world war and in serious need of precious medical resources (nurses for the frontlines, etc., who would otherwise be assigned to these hospitals filled with suffering invalids). This was also at a time when euthanasia was being taken seriously around the world and when disabled people were being holed away in abysmal institutions, everywhere.

To say this policy in Germany and its characteristics (most likely by lethal injection, alone) are starkly at odds with claims of Jewish mass 'extermination' with DIY-makeshift delousing fumigant and submarine exhaust chambers... is an understatement.

T4 and AR are directly linked by the staff used. Both were actions to kill off people the Nazis considered to be unworthy.

Everyone involved in AR was required to sign a document regarding the secrecy of the operation. The Nazis were hardly going to publicise their work during the war, especially after they knew they would likely lose it. Then, secrecy switched to cover up.

The AR camps primarily operated 1941-3, when the British were not yet decoding a lot of enigma transmissions. The significance of those camps was not understood at that time. In 1944, the priority was the Normany invasion, not a camp in Poland, so as messages were being decoded and were established to be irrelevant to planned operations, they were dumped.

After the war, every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admitted to their use for mass gassings. Not one broke ranks or accidentally blew the supposed hoax. The Nazis safe in South America kept quiet, when they could have defended their collegues on trial in Europe or Israel.

There is no evidence from any source, of millions of Jews in Nazi camps in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

Every argument you make for 'secrecy' and 'cover-up' is duly noted, for the next time we discuss any lack of train records for transited Jews, or for the specifics of the quarantine sites Goebbels refers to in his diary, etc.

Why destroy evidence that proves innocence? It is obvious why evidence to prove guilt is destroyed.

That 'every single witness', as you claim, testified any particular way is hardly of significance in questions of what really happened. People were not talking about AR camps, for several decades post-war. These were one topic in a series of a endless trials taking place post-war, all with varying levels of credibility but with a clear pattern of vengeance and injustice. Nobody at AR camps, for the most part, 'denied' anything, since the only people asking questions were those who were either directly incentivized to do so (e.g. a handful of Jewish/Polish/etc witnesses), or those who were coerced to give a particular answer (the status quo for Germans on trial post-war, well aware of the 'lynching party' that surrounded them, sometimes tortured, and with their families universally held captive).

Germans having escaped to South America were seldom (if ever) asked about these specific camps. They were in hiding, starting new lives.

Your assumptions provide no support to your position.

You are trying to play down your lack of any witness evidence. Just like the documents recording mass resettlement that would prove innocence, that you oddly claim would have been destroyed, you claim it is not odd that no Nazi witness came forward to give evidence for mass resettlement.

Revisionist assessment of the witness evidence is based on zero experience of gathering witness testimony, interviews and the numerous studies into witness behaviour, memory and recollection. It is just biased opinion that wants to disblieve, resulting in the extraordinary conclusion that 100% of the witnesses, Jewish and Nazi, all lied and despite millions of people having been inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, not one person can be traced, who speaks to a function other than gassings.

You're constantly on-the-run to try and explain away massive lies. You cannot provide as many provable lies for any other narrative in history as revisionists have easily been able to produce for the Holocaust. The lies of the Holocaust (and especially of atrocity lies) vastly eclipse - in quality, quantity, and proportion to overall testimony - the lies of any other historical narrative, and it isn't even close.

You provide no psychological or other scientific evidence, to back up your claims that 100% of the witnesses to gassings lied. You merely assert it is the greatest lie in history and great claims need great evidencing.

The "in-group" is extraordinarily disparate, with German and Ukrainian SS, German civilians, Polish civilains and Jewish prisoners from multiple countries. They spoke different languages, most never met and they had very different agendas. Yet, they all agree, gassings took place.

For the most part, the people asking the questions AND the people giving the answers shared a common desire to see Germans crushed (and apparently burned, raped, etc.). No one held the Soviets accountable for their abuses against Germans, no one held any group accountable for their abuses against Axis citizens... The questions and the answers were coordinated to form a postwar narrative; an extension of the 'denazification' effort. The truth was only ever secondary, at best.

A large number of the witnesses, were German, who gave evidence in front of Germans in courts in Germany.

The Nazis on trial all admitted to their crimes. That is why no survivor witness was subject to cross examination to dispute their testimony as lying. That witnesses made exaggerated, hyperbolic and mistaken claims during trials, is normal for witnesses and it does not prove lying.

Wrong. Some of them 'denied', and they were hung for it. Some "came clean" but denied their own involvement and managed to survive. Trials are about defending yourself against allegations, by whatever means, and especially in the context of trials by an enemy power which holds your family captive.

Name an accused Nazi on trial for gassings at any AR camp, Chelmno or A-B, who was staff at the camp, who denied that gassings took place.

The majority of those trials have taken place in West, East and unified Germany.

The majority of AR camp and various A-B camp trials took place in West and unified Germany, run by Germans, under German law.

Revisionists like to suggest the Holocaust was a Soviet hoax. It was in the wests interest to expose that as a hoax and have West Germany and the Germans in general exhonerated from such a false accusation.

I have addressed the West German trials at RODOH. You are pretending you still have weight, there. You also cannot dismiss the East German trials, nor the fact that the Soviets had a judge at Nuremberg, nor that all sides were caught submitting false evidence in one way or another. You also didn't address the issues of lacking cross-accountability, etc.

You cannot get away from the bulk of the trials took place in West Germany in the 1960s, and it would have been in their and the western Allies interest to use those trials to expose a Soviet hoax.

If it was a Soviet hoax, it was very much in the interests of the governments of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine to expose that hoax in the 19990s, when they gain their independence. Instead, they all continue to admit to their roles in assisting the Nazis with the killings.

None of what you said here diminishes the significance of the Iron Curtain being cast over the entire, vast region to which Jews were somewhere relocated within. We do not know precisely where these Jews were kept, nor whether the half-century-later independent Baltic state governments would necessarily be aware of all specific activities conducted under Stalin.

Again, you cannot get away from the fact it would have been in the best interest of those newly independent, former Warsaw Pact countries, to expose a Soviet hoax and deny their involvement in the Holocaust.

Millions of Jews resettled in the Baltic region and Ukraine and living there in 1944 would have left a lot of evidence.

It was the Polish who originated and drove the early narrative of camps for mass killings and who went on to conduct numerous camp trials and to memorialise and publicise what happened. It does not work, even for the strongest conspiratorial mind, to believe that the Poles can fool the world, but they can believe the Jews have such power.

The above was your response to Zionism as a contributing factor. In other words, you did not address Zionism as a factor at all (you deflected). This is despite the fact that I addressed Polish motivations separately.

The Polish witnesses were a mix of Jewish and Christian. Not all Jews are Zionists and whilst many Polish Jews did emigrate during the 1930s, many more remained behind. For the reports of mass killing to be believed, they had to be evidenced. That evidence did not just come from the Polish authorities, who were for Jewish emigration to Palestine. That is where the significance of the Nazi corroboration comes in.

People who spread an unevidenced, false narrative, based on anti-Semitic tropes, designed to create hate for Jews, do get suppressed. They have fallen for a bizarre hoax that is on the same level as the earth is flat, so of course they will be cricised and any academic who falls for it, ostracised.

This is your nonsense speculation and fallacy. Not worth addressing further.

Revisionism is riven with anti-Semitism and relies on anti-Semitic tropes regarding unified collaboration, the power to influence all governments and greed. The scale of the hoax alleged is enormous, rivalling the claim the earth is flat.

GERMANY WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE JEWS
- There is no question that Israel has been an atrocious, subversive, dishonest, and hostile element in Palestine (just ask Palestinians). Moreover, there is no question that Jewish power has been maintained (through media, finance, and other institutions they were once accused of subverting in Germany) as communist/leftist ideologies have increased within all Western nations, as their economies have frequently plummeted, with increased inflation (generally proportionate to the level of Jewish control there). Those informed on the matter have reasonably concluded Israel had a foremost role in the 9/11 attacks (control of all key positions in every major institution surrounding 9/11, from the Twin Towers themselves to media conglomerates, FBI's criminal division, airline security, etc.; along with massive geopolitical motives in the "War on Terror"), likely orchestrated the JFK assassination (JFK's intention was to require Israel to register as a foreign agent and to require inspection the Dimona nuclear facility, there is clear evidence of Jewish coordination of JFK's visit to Texas, Jack Ruby [killer of JFK's shooter] is actually Jack Rubenstein, a Jewish mobster), and other major events which have shifted global power in their favor. Israel has the most notorious record of false flags and early forms of terrorism, even by establishment history's open admission.

That is evidence to prove Holocaust denial appeals to anti-Semitic conspiracists.

Hilarious. Let me spare you the embarrassment of trying to disprove any of what I said, there.

Revisionism is doomed to always lose, as it cannot produce a contemporaneous, chronologically evidenced history of what happened and it relies on logically flawed arguments and lies about the evidence.

You repeatedly say the above as though it carries weight of some kind; as though revisionists should feel some inadequacy at lacking resources to provide you a "contemporaneous, chronologically evidenced history of what happened". LOL. What nonsense. You (i.e. exterminationists) have made a claim which is unsubstantiated and driven above-all by conflicted statements and documents filtered or sometimes even fabricated by world powers with an axe-to-grind, with every global resource at their disposal. Rather than explain further, here were my recent comments (at RODOH) to SanityCheck on essentially the same question:

Revisionism, once again, does not "need to account for the origins of the 'story'". You saying it repeatedly does not change this. Although, you might try stamping your foot when you demand it... it might have stronger effect when you do it this way.

- Bob, a frequent liar, says, "Jerry burned an effigy of myself, then buried it in my yard!".
- Jerry says, "That is stupid, you're insane."
- Bob says, "I have documents claiming you did; see here, my own diary! And my wife also wrote about it in her diary -- corroboration!".
- Jerry says, "Fuck you, Bob. Let us dig up the effigy, if it's there."
- Bob says, "No, you bastard, haven't you traumatized me enough?!"

Do we believe Bob? No... no, we don't. Bob is lying.

Jerry doesn't need to prove 'what really happened' in Bob's yard. It doesn't matter if Jerry (and Tom, another neighbor who thinks Bob is lying) disagree on what happened in Bob's yard, exactly (Tom thinks Bob's wife is the one who started the lie). The consensus is that Bob and his wife are both liars.

Bob's claims - and yours (i.e. 'Holocaust') - are unsubstantiated. This is what revisionists have shown. To show 'what really happened' is a separate effort and in no way necessary to the core question of whether the evidence and interpretations of the 'Holocaust' are true and valid.

Bob is lying, Nessie. Rational, intelligent people do not believe Bob.

You are again trying to minimise the evidence for the Holocaust, whilst deflecting from revisionism's inability ot produce an evidenced history of what happened. You analogy with Bob is inaccurate, because there were excavations that found the remains of the effigy. Your analogy is ignoring evidence gathering that did happen and is designed to prop up your belief that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the mass killings.

Rational people want an evidenced history, which revsionists cannot provide. When they try, they come up with all sorts of competing, contradictory theories and not one single witness.

[Callafangers]

The lack of explictness, such as a document recording numbers gassed, is due to the cover up of the crime. There was a lot of explictness about destruction of Jews, using terms associated with death, rather than relocation.

You do not get much more explict than documents recording the construction of undressing rooms, gas chambers and fast acting, multiple corpse ovens inside the Kremas for a special action involving Jews.

You have no explicit evidence of any processes nor constructions about gassing any human beings and your claim about a "cover-up" being the reason you don't have evidence is, essentially, "my dog ate my homework."

Why? Poland had huge forests and sawmills to supply wood. [...]
I provided a quote from Erwin Lambert;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor."

If they can get suitable wood delivered for construction, they can get it delivered for pyres. They did not clear the woods near to the camps to construct them. You are acting as if wood was something not often found in Poland!

You can find evidence for a mere reconstruction effort which is miniscule by comparison to your allegations on cremation. You should have thousands of such instances of evidence of wood acquisiton for cremation, if it actually happened.

You are guestimating at best. Your calculations are intent on minimising the numbers. What you present is only convincing to you and those who also want to deny the killings. It has no academic authority. You are certainly not an expert witness.

Most definitely NOT guesstimating. I have accepted only the most reliable estimates, either directly from establishment sources or from generally accepted revisionist analyses which summarize establishment sources. No point in explaining further until I have the time to present the full analysis here (soon).

So why did you claim there are no traces [of cyanide]?

There are no incriminating traces of iron-cyanide (FeCN) which should necessarily be there, if your claims are accurate. It isn't, so they aren't.

Why is FeCN the only compound that matters? Traces of both FeCN and HCN would indicate the use of Zyklon B. Your views, and my views, do not matter. The evidence does.

Because it is the only one that is stable over time. It is the most reliable measure of how much cyanide the mortar was actually exposed to, better controlling for weathering and related variables. Measuring free-form cyanide yields amounts which are so low all-around (regardless of original exposure) as to be meaningless.

It is merely your opinion that the documents and statements are saturated with lies. Your stated aim is to dismiss the evidence that does not suit your beliefs, so of course you will believe it to be all lies.

The irony is that you are lying now. There are hundreds of lies which even you must admit are lies. Yet you cannot find even dozens of such obvious lies for any other historical events. The pattern is clear and its implications are significant.

Nazis destroying documents that would prove their innocence makes no sense. They knew they were being accused of mass murder, so why destroy evidence to prove the accusations were false?

The Germans did not see their Jewish policy as "innocent". Brutally uprooting, dispossessing, and cattle-carring away entire families was not "innocent" and could eventually be used by enemy propaganda. The reasons for destroying such information was obvious. Germany was not concerned at all with the invented 'mass extermination' claims which it believed too absurd to be worth addressing at all (Propaganda Minister Goebbels makes this much clear in his diary). Germany had no reason to bother with defending itself against such absurd claims which it would not fathom could be believed on a global scale.

Any examples [of air photos]?

No signs whatsoever of mass cremation at Babi Yar air photos, crematoria frequently not in operation at Birkenau, etc.

There are multiple Nazi documents recording mass arrivals at AR camps. That is inconvenient for you, so you minimise them.

We are talking "T-II" (that is a 'T' followed by a number '2' or 'II', Nessie), specifically.

Historians have not conceeded to PR! PR has a half baked theory that has an incomplete conclusion. He cannot account for the people once all of their property has been taken from them.

Limitations in the ability to track/trace people does not mean they were gassed and buried underground, especially when digging underground plainly shows they are not there.

T4 and AR are directly linked by the staff used. Both were actions to kill off people the Nazis considered to be unworthy.

Lol. The link is the coincidental timeline of T4 program closure and AR camp opening, and the need for qualified staff at the latter with experience in sensitive operations. T4 staff were not experienced in gassing Jews with a submarine engine. They possessed medical and administrative expertise.

Why destroy evidence that proves innocence? It is obvious why evidence to prove guilt is destroyed.

If you accuse me of raping chickens, I do not need to save up evidence to prove I didn't rape chickens. I call you an idiot and move on.

You are trying to play down your lack of any witness evidence. Just like the documents recording mass resettlement that would prove innocence, that you oddly claim would have been destroyed, you claim it is not odd that no Nazi witness came forward to give evidence for mass resettlement.

The documents "that would prove innocence", as you suggest, would not 'prove innocence' at all. It would prove the dispossession and brutal relocation of Jews which Germany wanted nothing to do with by war's end, and certainly didn't want the Allies knowing about. Moreover, the question of lack of documents does not fall exclusively upon Germany, in this case, since it is the Allies who won the war, gained possession of all documents, and then openly filtered which documents could and could not be presented/used as evidence, demonstrating some intent toward a restricted narrative.

You provide no psychological or other scientific evidence, to back up your claims that 100% of the witnesses to gassings lied. You merely assert it is the greatest lie in history and great claims need great evidencing.

Many told demonstrable lies. The frequency of lies combined with the absence of verifiable evidence together indicates the narrative cannot be trusted.

A large number of the witnesses, were German, who gave evidence in front of Germans in courts in Germany.

This was long after many precedents had been set and, still, where the only "safe" option was to acknowledge 'extermination' and deny involvement.

Name an accused Nazi on trial for gassings at any AR camp, Chelmno or A-B, who was staff at the camp, who denied that gassings took place.

The majority of those trials have taken place in West, East and unified Germany.

As you acknowledge, many of these trials took place later on. In earlier trials, there were many Nazis who denied 'gassings' and 'extermination' at various locations. They were usually hung or, in some cases, mysteriously 'suicided'.

You cannot get away from the bulk of the trials took place in West Germany in the 1960s, and it would have been in their and the western Allies interest to use those trials to expose a Soviet hoax.

Don't make me dig up my RODOH post on this again, Nessie. You do this thing where you keep restating already-debunked claims, etc., hoping your opponent won't have the energy to write the same rebuttal you're already aware of, over and over again.

Again, you cannot get away from the fact it would have been in the best interest of those newly independent, former Warsaw Pact countries, to expose a Soviet hoax and deny their involvement in the Holocaust.

Millions of Jews resettled in the Baltic region and Ukraine and living there in 1944 would have left a lot of evidence.

You assume these independent nations would be aware of a Soviet hoax, as if the Soviets would not have kept any such information effectively contained (which was the explicit goal of the Iron Curtain). Your assumptions carry no weight.

The Polish witnesses were a mix of Jewish and Christian. Not all Jews are Zionists and whilst many Polish Jews did emigrate during the 1930s, many more remained behind. For the reports of mass killing to be believed, they had to be evidenced. That evidence did not just come from the Polish authorities, who were for Jewish emigration to Palestine. That is where the significance of the Nazi corroboration comes in.

Poles in general were anti-German. Even if some Poles weren't, the ones who were are the ones most likely to testify (and lie) about Germany.

Revisionism is riven with anti-Semitism and relies on anti-Semitic tropes regarding unified collaboration, the power to influence all governments and greed. The scale of the hoax alleged is enormous, rivalling the claim the earth is flat.

Do people come into revisionism (and other knowledge about Jewish behaviors and history) because they hate Jews? Or does it sometimes turn out that people hate Jews after learning about Jewish behavior and history, including but certainly not limited to Jewish deceptions of the Holocaust?

You are again trying to minimise the evidence for the Holocaust, whilst deflecting from revisionism's inability ot produce an evidenced history of what happened. You analogy with Bob is inaccurate, because there were excavations that found the remains of the effigy. Your analogy is ignoring evidence gathering that did happen and is designed to prop up your belief that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the mass killings.

Rational people want an evidenced history, which revsionists cannot provide. When they try, they come up with all sorts of competing, contradictory theories and not one single witness.

You contradict yourself: "Rational people want an evidenced history...", yet, 'we can simply assume there were undocumented wood deliveries of outrageous and infathomable scale'.

You might suggest that if the Nazis had won the war, Jews (and others) would have some more difficulty (if not impossibility) "producing an evidenced history of what happened" regarding the 'Holocaust'. You would agree with this because the Nazis, in your view, would likely cover-up as much as they can about it, destroying documents, perhaps coercing testimonies in their favor, etc. Yet you cannot seem to fathom the same types of behavior being committed by the Allies (and their Jews).

I find that hilarious.

[fireofice]

You might suggest that if the Nazis had won the war, Jews (and others) would have some more difficulty (if not impossibility) "producing an evidenced history of what happened" regarding the 'Holocaust'. You would agree with this because the Nazis, in your view, would likely cover-up as much as they can about it, destroying documents, perhaps coercing testimonies in their favor, etc. Yet you cannot seem to fathom the same types of behavior being committed by the Allies (and their Jews).

I find that hilarious.

This reminds me of a 1994 film called Fatherland where the Nazis won and they covered up the holocaust but a ragtag group of rebels try to expose it. Very amusing premise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(1994_film)

[Nessie]

The lack of explictness, such as a document recording numbers gassed, is due to the cover up of the crime. There was a lot of explictness about destruction of Jews, using terms associated with death, rather than relocation.

You do not get much more explict than documents recording the construction of undressing rooms, gas chambers and fast acting, multiple corpse ovens inside the Kremas for a special action involving Jews.

You have no explicit evidence of any processes nor constructions about gassing any human beings and your claim about a "cover-up" being the reason you don't have evidence is, essentially, "my dog ate my homework."

There is the Topf & Sons and A-B Construction Office documentation that records the modification of the Kremas to contain heated undressing rooms, ventilated gas chambers and multiple corpse cremation ovens. It does not get more specific than that.

Why? Poland had huge forests and sawmills to supply wood. [...]
I provided a quote from Erwin Lambert;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor."

If they can get suitable wood delivered for construction, they can get it delivered for pyres. They did not clear the woods near to the camps to construct them. You are acting as if wood was something not often found in Poland!

You can find evidence for a mere reconstruction effort which is miniscule by comparison to your allegations on cremation. You should have thousands of such instances of evidence of wood acquisiton for cremation, if it actually happened.

You are guestimating at best. Your calculations are intent on minimising the numbers. What you present is only convincing to you and those who also want to deny the killings. It has no academic authority. You are certainly not an expert witness.

Most definitely NOT guesstimating. I have accepted only the most reliable estimates, either directly from establishment sources or from generally accepted revisionist analyses which summarize establishment sources. No point in explaining further until I have the time to present the full analysis here (soon).

You have declared yourself an authority on pyres. You are in fact just estimating and guessing.

So why did you claim there are no traces [of cyanide]?

There are no incriminating traces of iron-cyanide (FeCN) which should necessarily be there, if your claims are accurate. It isn't, so they aren't.

What is an incriminating trace of FeCH and how has that been extablished?

Why is FeCN the only compound that matters? Traces of both FeCN and HCN would indicate the use of Zyklon B. Your views, and my views, do not matter. The evidence does.

Because it is the only one that is stable over time. It is the most reliable measure of how much cyanide the mortar was actually exposed to, better controlling for weathering and related variables. Measuring free-form cyanide yields amounts which are so low all-around (regardless of original exposure) as to be meaningless.

That is the theory, where is the experimental evidence? You have not done enough work yet, to prove your theory.

It is merely your opinion that the documents and statements are saturated with lies. Your stated aim is to dismiss the evidence that does not suit your beliefs, so of course you will believe it to be all lies.

The irony is that you are lying now. There are hundreds of lies which even you must admit are lies. Yet you cannot find even dozens of such obvious lies for any other historical events. The pattern is clear and its implications are significant.

I spend much of my time explaining why the witness is not necessarily lying and linking to studies that explain witness behaviour and the failings of memory.

Nazis destroying documents that would prove their innocence makes no sense. They knew they were being accused of mass murder, so why destroy evidence to prove the accusations were false?

The Germans did not see their Jewish policy as "innocent". Brutally uprooting, dispossessing, and cattle-carring away entire families was not "innocent" and could eventually be used by enemy propaganda. The reasons for destroying such information was obvious. Germany was not concerned at all with the invented 'mass extermination' claims which it believed too absurd to be worth addressing at all (Propaganda Minister Goebbels makes this much clear in his diary). Germany had no reason to bother with defending itself against such absurd claims which it would not fathom could be believed on a global scale.

The accusation against the Nazis was the most serious crime, murder. Mass resettlement is not mass murder. It makes no sense to hide evidence that proves they did not commit the more serious crime.

Any examples [of air photos]?

No signs whatsoever of mass cremation at Babi Yar air photos, crematoria frequently not in operation at Birkenau, etc.

Did planes fly over Babi Yar when the cremations were reported to have taken place?
How can an aerial photo show a crematorium is not operating?

There are multiple Nazi documents recording mass arrivals at AR camps. That is inconvenient for you, so you minimise them.

We are talking "T-II" (that is a 'T' followed by a number '2' or 'II', Nessie), specifically.

The T in the Hofle Telegram is referring to the AR camp at T, which is TII. Stroop refers to TII. Ganzenmueller refers to all the AR camps. The train records record those camps as the final distination.

Historians have not conceeded to PR! PR has a half baked theory that has an incomplete conclusion. He cannot account for the people once all of their property has been taken from them.

Limitations in the ability to track/trace people does not mean they were gassed and buried underground, especially when digging underground plainly shows they are not there.

Digging has proved huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. There is no evidence at all, from any source, of mass transports of hundreds of thousands back out of the camps, an action which would result in a lot of evidence.

T4 and AR are directly linked by the staff used. Both were actions to kill off people the Nazis considered to be unworthy.

Lol. The link is the coincidental timeline of T4 program closure and AR camp opening, and the need for qualified staff at the latter with experience in sensitive operations. T4 staff were not experienced in gassing Jews with a submarine engine. They possessed medical and administrative expertise.

It is not coincidental to move staff from one eithanasia operation, to another. They brought prior skills, such as being a former mechanic, that assisted with the new opeartion.

Why destroy evidence that proves innocence? It is obvious why evidence to prove guilt is destroyed.

If you accuse me of raping chickens, I do not need to save up evidence to prove I didn't rape chickens. I call you an idiot and move on.

A senisble person, knowing they are being accused of a crime, preserves evidence, they do not destroy it.

You are trying to play down your lack of any witness evidence. Just like the documents recording mass resettlement that would prove innocence, that you oddly claim would have been destroyed, you claim it is not odd that no Nazi witness came forward to give evidence for mass resettlement.

The documents "that would prove innocence", as you suggest, would not 'prove innocence' at all. It would prove the dispossession and brutal relocation of Jews which Germany wanted nothing to do with by war's end, and certainly didn't want the Allies knowing about. Moreover, the question of lack of documents does not fall exclusively upon Germany, in this case, since it is the Allies who won the war, gained possession of all documents, and then openly filtered which documents could and could not be presented/used as evidence, demonstrating some intent toward a restricted narrative.

Evidence of mass resettlement would mean no Nazi gets accused of mass murder, the more serious crime.

You provide no psychological or other scientific evidence, to back up your claims that 100% of the witnesses to gassings lied. You merely assert it is the greatest lie in history and great claims need great evidencing.

Many told demonstrable lies. The frequency of lies combined with the absence of verifiable evidence together indicates the narrative cannot be trusted.

You provide no evidence to prove mass lying. You claim exaggerations, mistakes, hyperbole, figures of speech etc are proof of lying, when studies prove they are just normal witness failings.

A large number of the witnesses, were German, who gave evidence in front of Germans in courts in Germany.

This was long after many precedents had been set and, still, where the only "safe" option was to acknowledge 'extermination' and deny involvement.

The safe option was to expose a Soviet hoax. Why did they not do that? It would have been a huge coup for the West.

Name an accused Nazi on trial for gassings at any AR camp, Chelmno or A-B, who was staff at the camp, who denied that gassings took place.

The majority of those trials have taken place in West, East and unified Germany.

As you acknowledge, many of these trials took place later on. In earlier trials, there were many Nazis who denied 'gassings' and 'extermination' at various locations. They were usually hung or, in some cases, mysteriously 'suicided'.

You cannot name such a Nazi. No one denied gassings.

You cannot get away from the bulk of the trials took place in West Germany in the 1960s, and it would have been in their and the western Allies interest to use those trials to expose a Soviet hoax.

Don't make me dig up my RODOH post on this again, Nessie. You do this thing where you keep restating already-debunked claims, etc., hoping your opponent won't have the energy to write the same rebuttal you're already aware of, over and over again.

What rebuttal? You have not countered that it would have been in the West's interests to expose a Soviet hoax. It was in the West's interest to expose the Katyn hoax and they succeeded.

Again, you cannot get away from the fact it would have been in the best interest of those newly independent, former Warsaw Pact countries, to expose a Soviet hoax and deny their involvement in the Holocaust.

Millions of Jews resettled in the Baltic region and Ukraine and living there in 1944 would have left a lot of evidence.

You assume these independent nations would be aware of a Soviet hoax, as if the Soviets would not have kept any such information effectively contained (which was the explicit goal of the Iron Curtain). Your assumptions carry no weight.

The Latvians etc knew that they were accused of assisting the Nazis with mass shootings. If that was a hoax, it was very much in their interests to expose the hoax, or at least deny their involvement after they gained independence. Instead they accept their role in the Holocaust.

The Polish witnesses were a mix of Jewish and Christian. Not all Jews are Zionists and whilst many Polish Jews did emigrate during the 1930s, many more remained behind. For the reports of mass killing to be believed, they had to be evidenced. That evidence did not just come from the Polish authorities, who were for Jewish emigration to Palestine. That is where the significance of the Nazi corroboration comes in.

Poles in general were anti-German. Even if some Poles weren't, the ones who were are the ones most likely to testify (and lie) about Germany.

They were many anti-Soviet Poles, who would revel in exposing a Soviet hoax, which happened regarding Katyn.

Revisionism is riven with anti-Semitism and relies on anti-Semitic tropes regarding unified collaboration, the power to influence all governments and greed. The scale of the hoax alleged is enormous, rivalling the claim the earth is flat.

Do people come into revisionism (and other knowledge about Jewish behaviors and history) because they hate Jews? Or does it sometimes turn out that people hate Jews after learning about Jewish behavior and history, including but certainly not limited to Jewish deceptions of the Holocaust?

There need to be a predisposition to beloie obvious revisionist nonsense claims and tropes.

You are again trying to minimise the evidence for the Holocaust, whilst deflecting from revisionism's inability ot produce an evidenced history of what happened. You analogy with Bob is inaccurate, because there were excavations that found the remains of the effigy. Your analogy is ignoring evidence gathering that did happen and is designed to prop up your belief that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the mass killings.

Rational people want an evidenced history, which revsionists cannot provide. When they try, they come up with all sorts of competing, contradictory theories and not one single witness.

You contradict yourself: "Rational people want an evidenced history...", yet, 'we can simply assume there were undocumented wood deliveries of outrageous and infathomable scale'.

You might suggest that if the Nazis had won the war, Jews (and others) would have some more difficulty (if not impossibility) "producing an evidenced history of what happened" regarding the 'Holocaust'. You would agree with this because the Nazis, in your view, would likely cover-up as much as they can about it, destroying documents, perhaps coercing testimonies in their favor, etc. Yet you cannot seem to fathom the same types of behavior being committed by the Allies (and their Jews).

I find that hilarious.

There is evidence of wood deliveries. There is far more evidence than you are prepared to acknowledge.

[Nazgul]

The T in the Hofle Telegram is referring to the AR camp at T, which is TII.

Pure speculation.

There is evidence of wood deliveries.

Don't talk show us the evidence.