Holocaust Revisionism vs. Flat-Earth Theory

[Nessie]

...

BOTTOM LINE:
Holocaust orthodoxy IS comparable to flat-earth orthodoxy at the time of Copernicus and Galileo. It is similar in that it maintains belief amongst the ignorant masses by persecution, censorship and quasi-religious, pseudo-historical tyranny.

...

"Holocaust orthodoxy" has been reached by historians, because of the evidence. It is that evidence that maintains the belief of the historians, rather than any "persecution" etc. If a historian diverts from what is evidenced, and they cannot revise the history with evidence, then they can find themselves ostracised. That is not because of "persecution" etc, it is because they have made unevidenced claims.

So-called revisionism, is variously driven by anti-Semitism, conspiracy and hate. It is not evidence based, proven by the fact that so-called revisionists cannot even agree on a revision, evidencing what really happened. That is why it has been made illegal in some countries. Fake news and conspiracies have become a major problem, causing people to be driven by what they want to believe, and to ignore normal standards of evidencing.

[Keen]

the issue with revisionism is not that you haven't proven "resettlement" comprehensively or in its entirety, it's that you haven't evidenced a single aspect of it . For instance, if you could point to records of food/fuel/supplies being delivered en masse to settlement zones (as exists for ghettos) this would be an aspect of it. But there's zip. There aren't even any rumors or second hand information. There's no transport records or witness testimonies that evidence the transport, again like there is to the Reinhardt camps/Chelmno/Auschwitz. Zeros across the board.

...

It's why I think you guys are pathological. You're not properly grappling with the enormous flaws in your belief system, which is a sign of derangement of some kind. By grappling, I mean writing about it, formalizing research and arguments.

I've set up a separate thread for the two of us to debate this issue.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14575#p14575

I hope you don't chicken out and run away like Nessie and Confused jew have done.

This is a datebate forum after all.

[ConfusedJew]

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

Imo, the former should be quite easy while the latter is extremely difficult. So it is strange to attempt to prove the former by way of an argument from ignorance regarding the latter point (along the lines of "you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them.")

The overwhelming majority of people who look at the available evidence have determined that there is overwhelming evidence that millions of Jews were murdered in concentration camps.

If they had been imprisoned in gulags, there most definitely would be a lot of evidence showing that, but there isn't.

Here is where your logic starts imploding.

[Callafangers]

If they had been imprisoned in gulags, there most definitely would be a lot of evidence showing that, but there isn't.

Here is where your logic starts imploding.

Where are the Jews buried, ConfusedJew?

Which fuel (wood) was used to cremate them, and where are any records reflecting it?

Did the victorious powers have the motive, means, and opportunity to fabricate a narrative in the postwar world? Yes or no?

This is where your logic has never gotten off the ground, and why it necessitates monolithic Hollywood, indoctrination, and news media to sustain it.

[ConfusedJew]

These are also tiny gaps in the historical record and I probably could fill them in substantively if I looked. A lot of the ashes were scattered in the forest.

But there is zero evidence that a single Jew was relocated from the concentration camps, into the Soviet Union, and killed in the gulags let alone 6 million.

Not a single survivor testimony. Did these people decide to cover up atrocities for the Soviet Union and blame it all on the Nazis? Doesn't make an ounce of sense guys.

[Callafangers]

These are also tiny gaps in the historical record and I probably could fill them in substantively if I looked. A lot of the ashes were scattered in the forest.

How much is "a lot"? Because this is not typically what witnesses have described. Calling gaping voids "tiny gaps" is transparent BS. The millions of corpses' worth of material simply isn't there.

As for wood/fuel, you will find nothing. Much better researchers than you (and actual historians) have tried, and utterly failed.

I note also that you avoided answering my simply yes/no question. We know why.

But there is zero evidence that a single Jew was relocated from the concentration camps, into the Soviet Union, and killed in the gulags let alone 6 million.

Not a single survivor testimony. Did these people decide to cover up atrocities for the Soviet Union and blame it all on the Nazis? Doesn't make an ounce of sense guys.

Blah blah, yes, we hear you -- up goes an Iron Curtain and then let's all pretend we are shocked there is a lack of information from therein. How convenient.

You keep pretending you're here just expressing a balanced, impartial opinion but we also know why you do that (here: viewtopic.php?t=339). No one who has been lurking around here more than a week considers you as anything but an agent of Jewish tribal interests, LARPing as some 'concerned citizen'.

[ConfusedJew]

The victorious powers did not have much of a motive and definitely not the means to create tens of thousands of falsified testimonies.

I don't know what fuel they used, it wouldn't be that hard to do something like that.

What is much harder is finding any evidence that millions of Jews were sent from concentration camps to the USSR and were killed in Soviet camps. Or even that they just relocated there.

Try to find evidence for a million, just one million of the six.

You are trying to argue that being behind the Iron Curtain is a black hole where no information could get out yet don't acknowledge the the Nazis proactively destroyed massive amounts of evidence?

Seems logical.

[TlsMS93]

But isn't this the best-documented genocide in history? How could the Nazis destroy evidence? What evidence is there of this event? Where did it occur, and who was responsible? Everything I can think of about Aktion 1005 is Blobel's, nothing more, like Alfred Naujocks's Gleiwitz.

[Callafangers]

The victorious powers did not have much of a motive and definitely not the means to create tens of thousands of falsified testimonies.

The people who hated Germans -- both as individuals and as groups -- had overwhelming motive to fabricate testimonies. Moreover, the characteristic pattern of 'Holocaust' testimony is one marked by an excess of falsehoods, exaggerations and embellishment.

I don't know what fuel they used, it wouldn't be that hard to do something like that.

This is an asinine comment, once again reflecting your personal/ideological motives in being here, showing no interest in actually understanding the material before you try to defend your narrative. The fuel used would amount to some 20-50x (as I recall) the volume and mass of the people it was claimed to have cremated. This necessitates records of fuel deliveries, inescapably. You're much better off pretending to ignore this particular point but, if you continue to challenge it, I wish you the best of luck.

What is much harder is finding any evidence that millions of Jews were sent from concentration camps to the USSR and were killed in Soviet camps. Or even that they just relocated there.

Try to find evidence for a million, just one million of the six.

There is no government as notorious in history for controlling (or even 'disappearing') its populations and facilitating secrecy as the Soviet Union. For a motive as high as engineering the world and its political structures post-war (right-up Stalin's alley), smooth facilitation of the movement and dispersion of Jewish populations is not beyond probability -- let alone possibility. Vast records of official German policy, private diaries (e.g. Goebbels), and explicit language across thousands of documents ("evacuation", "resettlement", etc.) consistently reflect an ongoing effort to further separate from Jewish populations. Security-driven, limited executions based on partisan danger get conflated with unevidenced claims of 'gassing' and racial 'extermination' across Europe. But the latter remain derived from black propaganda falsehoods (later rumor) and entirely void of credible documents, contemporary admissions, or physical/forensic evidence.

You are trying to argue that being behind the Iron Curtain is a black hole where no information could get out yet don't acknowledge the the Nazis proactively destroyed massive amounts of evidence?

Seems logical.

You're attempting to highlight a contradiction or hypocrisy where there is none, based on your own ignorance and misunderstanding. The 'Nazis' would have to destroy millions of corpses and somehow omit a cohesive reconstruction of events from their millions of surviving records. This is despite the 'Final Solution' being the foremost initiative other than the war itself, managed over the course of several years amid destruction, chaos, and defeat. The Soviets, on the other hand, simply had to facilitate mass transfers, mass executions, or mass assimilation amid postwar demographic chaos, surrounded by other scheming powers whose foremost initiatives centered around 'denazification'. The question of "motive, means, and opportunity", therefore, is no question at all. All of it was abundant, or made as such.

• "How convenient" the 'Iron Curtain' ends up exactly where and when it was needed.
• "How convenient" the 'state of Israel' (correction: squatters in Palestine) appears to self-report its own population statistics as Jews flow in.

Also "very convenient" that Jews ran much of the newspaper/newsreel media (and Hollywood) by this time, and that Allied governments (e.g. OSS) controlled the rest of what made it into the various channels.

[Archie]

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

Imo, the former should be quite easy while the latter is extremely difficult. So it is strange to attempt to prove the former by way of an argument from ignorance regarding the latter point (along the lines of "you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them.")

This is wild Archie, the issue with revisionism is not that you haven't proven "resettlement" comprehensively or in its entirety, it's that you haven't evidenced a single aspect of it . For instance, if you could point to records of food/fuel/supplies being delivered en masse to settlement zones (as exists for ghettos) this would be an aspect of it. But there's zip. There aren't even any rumors or second hand information. There's no transport records or witness testimonies that evidence the transport, again like there is to the Reinhardt camps/Chelmno/Auschwitz. Zeros across the board.

"you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them."

This is ridiculous since I've explicitly said otherwise in this thread: "This is not an argument why orthodoxy is correct. If you're going abscond responsibility from doing proper history, it's an argument about why your thought leaders are fools." It's why I think you guys are pathological. You're not properly grappling with the enormous flaws in your belief system, which is a sign of derangement of some kind. By grappling, I mean writing about it, formalizing research and arguments. How much has Mattogno written about the issue? Maybe a few dozen pages, compared to the many thousands that make up his oeuvre.

You replied, but you dodged my very simple questions.

1) Proving resettlement is not strictly necessary.

2) You absolutely do use this as an argument for orthodoxy. It is in fact your favorite argument. I don't understand why you are backtracking.

3) I would take your argument more seriously if you made some attempt to develop it in detail and with specificity rather than simply chanting "zero evidence" over and over with no elaboration. If you were serious, you would be attempting to prove the negative and demonstrate that they definitely could not have survived.

4) As an aside, you rely on phony confidence and head games way too much, imo. Sometimes less is more! You're always telling us we're "pathological" and similar insults, but do you think we are eager for your approval? Most of us think you come off like a shill, so your opinions about us don't carry much weight. The sort of manipulation you are attempting only works if you first establish some level of trust and respect.

[ConfusedJew]

Proving resettlement is pretty necessary for most people.

The census reports clearly show a decline of 6 million Jews before and after the war. There is a lot of different types of evidence showing that they were murdered in the war.

There is no evidence that they were resettled anywhere else.

This is where the flat earth analogy is really strongest. It's a very basic but critical aspect to the revisionist narrative that has no strong explanation or even any evidence.

Where did they go?

[Archie]

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

Imo, the former should be quite easy while the latter is extremely difficult. So it is strange to attempt to prove the former by way of an argument from ignorance regarding the latter point (along the lines of "you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them.")

The overwhelming majority of people who look at the available evidence have determined that there is overwhelming evidence that millions of Jews were murdered in concentration camps.

If they had been imprisoned in gulags, there most definitely would be a lot of evidence showing that, but there isn't.

Here is where your logic starts imploding.

Are you including yourself in the class of people who have "looked at the available evidence"? Because I have seen nothing to suggest that. Judging by your posts here, you have approached this topic very superficially, using tertiary sources to spam material that confirms your biases without checking or understanding it.

The overwhelming majority of Holocaust "believers" know basically nothing about the topic.

Of those who do encounter revisionist arguments, it seems our conversion rate is not bad at all, which is why they censor us so aggressively. Not everyone is willing to see it through and do hours of research, but even after a few hours many come away thinking we could be right.

On the other side, in my experience, it is extremely hard to find people who are well-read on the topic and who are willing to defend the traditional story.

[Callafangers]

The census reports clearly show a decline of 6 million Jews before and after the war. There is a lot of different types of evidence showing that they were murdered in the war.

Again, you write out of ignorance and motivation, not knowledge nor curiosity. That you mention the 'census reports showing a decline of 6 million' is good enough for me to step away from the conversation at this point, as anyone with the most cursory investigation will come across the irreconcilable problems with this data.

Actually, they can save some time by just visiting here:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... ewish/489/

[bombsaway]

Is it easier to prove that millions of Jews were executed at a small number of precisely known locations?

Or is it easier to prove whether they survived?

Imo, the former should be quite easy while the latter is extremely difficult. So it is strange to attempt to prove the former by way of an argument from ignorance regarding the latter point (along the lines of "you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them.")

This is wild Archie, the issue with revisionism is not that you haven't proven "resettlement" comprehensively or in its entirety, it's that you haven't evidenced a single aspect of it . For instance, if you could point to records of food/fuel/supplies being delivered en masse to settlement zones (as exists for ghettos) this would be an aspect of it. But there's zip. There aren't even any rumors or second hand information. There's no transport records or witness testimonies that evidence the transport, again like there is to the Reinhardt camps/Chelmno/Auschwitz. Zeros across the board.

"you have to prove to me that they survived, and if you do not do this to my satisfaction then we have to assume Hitler gassed them."

This is ridiculous since I've explicitly said otherwise in this thread: "This is not an argument why orthodoxy is correct. If you're going abscond responsibility from doing proper history, it's an argument about why your thought leaders are fools." It's why I think you guys are pathological. You're not properly grappling with the enormous flaws in your belief system, which is a sign of derangement of some kind. By grappling, I mean writing about it, formalizing research and arguments. How much has Mattogno written about the issue? Maybe a few dozen pages, compared to the many thousands that make up his oeuvre.

You replied, but you dodged my very simple questions.

1) Proving resettlement is not strictly necessary.

2) You absolutely do use this as an argument for orthodoxy. It is in fact your favorite argument. I don't understand why you are backtracking.

3) I would take your argument more seriously if you made some attempt to develop it in detail and with specificity rather than simply chanting "zero evidence" over and over with no elaboration. If you were serious, you would be attempting to prove the negative and demonstrate that they definitely could not have survived.

4) As an aside, you rely on phony confidence and head games way too much, imo. Sometimes less is more! You're always telling us we're "pathological" and similar insults, but do you think we are eager for your approval? Most of us think you come off like a shill, so your opinions about us don't carry much weight. The sort of manipulation you are attempting only works if you first establish some level of trust and respect.

I'll make a separate thread for this, but in regards to #4, my psychology and motives and those of anti revisionists are constantly referenced, so I feel like it's fair game for me to throw it back at you. I'll act as your guys 'brutally honest therapist'. As I've said before my interest in this subject is psychological, both the actual ww2 perpetrators and yourselves.

[ConfusedJew]

The overwhelming majority of Holocaust "believers" know basically nothing about the topic.

https://nassimtaleb.org/2012/08/nassim- ... r-problem/

Some people may "know" a lot about a subject but it's not relevant or useful. In this case, I don't think any of you have really gotten much out of your study of WW2 and the Holocaust but I find it fascinating the lengths that you have gone to study this subject and how much you care.

Flat Earthers will know a ton of stuff about a subject. I won't be able to effectively beat them in a debate because I don't know about the curvature of the earth and they'll have so many objections that I've never heard of and are ridiculous, but that doesn't mean they are knowledgeable about the right things or even right overall.

Of those who do encounter revisionist arguments, it seems our conversion rate is not bad at all, which is why they censor us so aggressively. Not everyone is willing to see it through and do hours of research, but even after a few hours many come away thinking we could be right.

I imagine that this kind of thinking will most virulently spread among men who are disgruntled and already have embodied some kind of anti-semitic sentiments to some degree. The ratio of men to women in this world is probably extremely high and I'm sure the percent that is already anti semitic is also extremely high.

On the other side, in my experience, it is extremely hard to find people who are well-read on the topic and who are willing to defend the traditional story.

I'm indirectly learning a lot about the Holocaust and WW2 by talking with you guys. I don't have very strong answers to all of your arguments and questions but I also don't think the vast majority of them matter when compared to the rest of the body of evidence.