Is it possible for our minds to be changed?

[bombsaway]

The orthodox version is evidenced, in a thousand different ways. There's no evidence of even a single community of Jews being resettled and maintained in German occupied USSR.

The issue is that it is highly likely, the Jewish population numbers were highly inflated. You are talking about statistical Jews, not those who were born. You are well aware the Soviets committed huge atrocities on real jews, at Vinnitsia and elsewhere, murdered hundreds of thousands.

That was around 1920 I think *Shrug*, censuses were taken after that

[Nessie]

The only sensible reason why people should dispute the Holocaust narrative of c3 million Jews gassed, is if new, contemporaneous evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents or other source, appeared, that meant a new chronology could be developed. Primarily amongst the possible sources of evidence, would be evidence to prove that the AR camps had an alternative usage and that there were mass transports of people back out, or that there is evidence of millions of Jews, who had been arrested by the Nazis, still alive in 1944. That evidence would mean it would be sensible to doubt the mass gassing narrative.

Just so everyone understands the mental gymnastics on display here:

Gassings being demonstrably not possible in the manner described, is not enough for this person. He needs to be told for example, by a Jew who was standing there, that the room was full of corpses.

The same person will then gaslight you about credibility, and 9/11 planes and the earth being flat.

Think about this for a second. The reason we reject flat earth is because the various phenomenon that the sphere model predicts and models, renders the flat model impossible. Not because of an eyewitness. Just like Revisionists do with the Holocaust myth.

The mental gymnastics are by you, claiming that because you believe gassings were not possible in the manner described, therefore that proves no gassings.

Firstly, even if gassings have been described in a way that is not physically impossible, that does not mean they did not happen. It could be that the person recollecting how the gas chambers worked, is just not very good at remembering details, which is common place with witnesses.

Secondly, there are perfectly good descriptions of how the gas chambers worked, especially from the Topf & Sons engineers. Your incredulity about their descriptions is stretched to the limit and clearly based on your desire to disbelieve. Using a secure room, to introduce Zyklon B, and then ventilate it, would clearly work. The engineering for that, and the AR camp gas chambers, is pretty simple and well within German design and construction capabilities at that time.

Thirdly, witness descriptions are backed up by physical evidence, such as the find of a shower head and part of a gas mask in the ruins of Krema II and documentary evidence, such as recording the construction of gassing cellars/chambers inside the Kremas.

Your argument from incredulity, based on how witnesses remembered the workings of the gas chambers and the ruins the Nazis left, is clearly logically flawed, clear to everyone, except you.

[Nessie]

Social media is awash with people believing the most blatantly idiotic claims. It is frightening how easy it is, to get so many people to believe in obvious hoaxes. For example, X is full of people who genuinely believe that the Germans during WWII, were incapable of making a gas tight door, that used wood as part of its construction and how many have been fooled into thinking the wood and glass door that presently leads into where people can view the inside of Krema I, is the door that originally led into the gas chamber.

So you consider it "blatantly idiotic" for people to accept the Auschwitz Museum's presentation of a gas chamber? The museum is responsible for having a cheap wooden door in the room, not anyone else.

What the Museum failed to do, was make it clear that there was a wall, the outline of which is seen in the floor, between that door and the original gas chamber. That mistake was cleared up a long time ago.

Probably over 99% of visitors have no idea that this door belongs to a different room because the museum is too embarassed by this error to tell them so or to fix it. Robert Jan van Pelt, who is no friend to revisionists, has made stark admissions about the museum's lack of honesty on this.

People online, who do the most basic of research, including asking AI, such as Grok on X, will quickly find out about the missing wall.

People on X are also rightly concerned about why a room used for mass executions would be equipped with a door of wooden construction. They wonder, how are wooden planks going to hold back not only gas but hundreds to thousands of people? It's absurd on its face. The door could not remain airtight with a mass of people fighting for their lives to destroy it. Since a mass of humans can destroy concrete walls, they could definitely damage a wooden door. Skepticism in this area is well warranted.

You already know all this but want people to forego critical thinking.

They could do some research and find an eyewitness description;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"It was a wooden door, made of two layers of short pieces of wood arranged like parquet. Between these layers there was a single sheet of material sealing the edges of the door and the rabbets of the frame were also fitted with sealing strips of felt. At about head height for an average man this door had a round glass peephole. On the other side of the door, i.e. on the gas chamber side, this opening was protected by a hemispherical grid. This grid was fitted because the people in the gas chamber, feeling they were going to die, used to break the glass of the peep-hole. But the grid still did not provide sufficient protection and similar incidents recurred. The opening was blocked with a piece of metal or wood. The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber damaged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging the ventilation equipment. The door was closed hermetically from the corridor side by means of iron bars which were screwed tight."

No person, with no tools, can force open a door like that.

It is certainly true that the world is full of people vulnerable to belief in hoaxes. The average person does not investigate things but merely adopts whatever they are told, even when the evidence is false or scanty. That is exactly how the Holocaust Narrative took power, with its human soap, its electrocution chambers, its 20 million deaths, and other such nonsense. If people can be convinced of things like that, things which we could describe as "the most blatantly idiotic claims", it is relatively easy to convince them of gas chambers.

The average person, who unquestioningly believes Holocaust denier/revisionist tropes, online, without checking them, is being a fool. It is so-called revisionists who obsess about the obvious atrocity stories and exaggerated death tolls. Historians and credible sources ditched them decades ago, recognising that they were false. You are assuming that there was widespread belief in those tails. People who presently believe in the wooden door claim, are the type of people who, back in 1945, were falling for the atrocity stories.

[Wetzelrad]

What the Museum failed to do, was make it clear that there was a wall, the outline of which is seen in the floor, between that door and the original gas chamber. That mistake was cleared up a long time ago.

No, it wasn't cleared up. The problem still exists today. Visitors today do not know they are looking at a Frankenstein building, and they definitely don't know the museum knocked down the wall of the morgue to include a neighboring room.

Yes, there is now a sign somewhere on the grounds depicting some of the building's modifications, but it's far from clear about what they are, what they mean, or who made them. Again, probably less than 1% of visitors understand that the authorities destroyed the gas chamber wall after the war.

People online, who do the most basic of research, including asking AI, such as Grok on X, will quickly find out about the missing wall.

Absolutely not true. I just checked. You can even add the words "missing wall" (which the visitor would not be aware of) to a websearch and still get no results about it. AI gives a variety of different answers for why the wooden door does not matter, and the removed wall is not one of them.

Not that what you say makes sense anyway. Why would visitors go to a museum to be lied to, then have to go talk to an AI to get the truth?

They could do some research and find an eyewitness description;

It's not incumbent on anyone to seek out corroborating information for a story that is absurd on its face, but if they did come across the words of Tauber, they could easily find that he was a false witness.
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... enryk/876/

But assume they didn't do that, but instead they took Tauber at his word. They would still recognize that a wooden door is not likely to hold back "4,000" people who are fighting for their lives. Especially so if it was repeated for ~100 cycles. Much less likely would it remain airtight.

The average person, who unquestioningly believes Holocaust denier/revisionist tropes, online, without checking them, is being a fool. It is so-called revisionists who obsess about the obvious atrocity stories and exaggerated death tolls. Historians and credible sources ditched them decades ago, recognising that they were false. You are assuming that there was widespread belief in those tails. People who presently believe in the wooden door claim, are the type of people who, back in 1945, were falling for the atrocity stories.

It's good that you admit there are "obvious atrocity stories and exaggerated death tolls". Most Holo historians do not do that. In fact they castigate the Americans and British for not believing them from the beginning. Still today anyone who raises these topics is smeared as one of the greatest evils that a person can be.

Returning to the original point that was made:

Q. Is it possible for people to “change their minds” and concede openly and publically that the holyH narrative of approx 4 million jews murdered in gas chambers in places designed and built as ‘extermination camps’ is no longer credible to them?

A. yes.
It is happening in increasing numbers right now. As anyone who has access to social media plaforms such as tiktok, bitchute, instagram etc., can attest.

They may be a bit ‘wooly’ and imprecise in their understanding of the detail refuting the brainwashing we have all undergone for decades, but they are definitely ‘changing their minds’ about the reliability of the enforced, compulsory narrative.

Their skepticism is entirely warranted. Nessie would like for "the average person" to devote their lives to further investigation, but over the course of their lives they have already wasted far too much of their valuable time on the Holocaust. Once they have seen that the supposed gas chambers actually are ill-suited to the purpose and have totally mundane explanations -- they are morgues -- they should not have to do more. The most appropriate thing "the average person" can do is see the tales for what they are and stop listening.

[Nessie]

What the Museum failed to do, was make it clear that there was a wall, the outline of which is seen in the floor, between that door and the original gas chamber. That mistake was cleared up a long time ago.

No, it wasn't cleared up. The problem still exists today. Visitors today do not know they are looking at a Frankenstein building, and they definitely don't know the museum knocked down the wall of the morgue to include a neighboring room.

Yes, there is now a sign somewhere on the grounds depicting some of the building's modifications, but it's far from clear about what they are, what they mean, or who made them. Again, probably less than 1% of visitors understand that the authorities destroyed the gas chamber wall after the war.

Evidence those claims please. It is a simple search to find out about the modifications. Yet so many fail to do it.

People online, who do the most basic of research, including asking AI, such as Grok on X, will quickly find out about the missing wall.

Absolutely not true. I just checked. You can even add the words "missing wall" (which the visitor would not be aware of) to a websearch and still get no results about it. AI gives a variety of different answers for why the wooden door does not matter, and the removed wall is not one of them.

Not that what you say makes sense anyway. Why would visitors go to a museum to be lied to, then have to go talk to an AI to get the truth?

You could not find this on the camp museum site?

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/visiting/p ... -chamber-i

"The furnaces and chimney were dismantled, and the holes in the roof used for introducing Zyklon B were closed. Two of the three furnaces and the chimney were reconstructed (from the original parts), and several of the holes in the roof of the gas chamber were reopened."

Or this, from the tour site?

https://www.theauschwitz-tours.com/gas-chambers

"Krema 1 was the first gas chamber to be built at Auschwitz in 1940. Initially, it was used to kill Soviet prisoners of war, but later it was converted into an air raid shelter."

Or this specifically about the reconstruction of the chimney;

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/stop-denia ... m-chimney/

Prove visitors are being lied to.

They could do some research and find an eyewitness description;

It's not incumbent on anyone to seek out corroborating information for a story that is absurd on its face,

Rubbish. The more absurd a claim, the more thoroughly it should be checked.

... but if they did come across the words of Tauber, they could easily find that he was a false witness.
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... enryk/876/

But assume they didn't do that, but instead they took Tauber at his word. They would still recognize that a wooden door is not likely to hold back "4,000" people who are fighting for their lives. Especially so if it was repeated for ~100 cycles. Much less likely would it remain airtight.

As if everyone inside the chambers could push against the door.

Tauber is corroborated, which establishes his truthfulness.

The average person, who unquestioningly believes Holocaust denier/revisionist tropes, online, without checking them, is being a fool. It is so-called revisionists who obsess about the obvious atrocity stories and exaggerated death tolls. Historians and credible sources ditched them decades ago, recognising that they were false. You are assuming that there was widespread belief in those tails. People who presently believe in the wooden door claim, are the type of people who, back in 1945, were falling for the atrocity stories.

It's good that you admit there are "obvious atrocity stories and exaggerated death tolls". Most Holo historians do not do that. In fact they castigate the Americans and British for not believing them from the beginning. Still today anyone who raises these topics is smeared as one of the greatest evils that a person can be.

Again, that is rubbish. A search about the atrocity claims will make it clear that is what they were. Quote a historian castigating anyone for not believing one of the atrocity stories.

Returning to the original point that was made:

Q. Is it possible for people to “change their minds” and concede openly and publically that the holyH narrative of approx 4 million jews murdered in gas chambers in places designed and built as ‘extermination camps’ is no longer credible to them?

A. yes.
It is happening in increasing numbers right now. As anyone who has access to social media plaforms such as tiktok, bitchute, instagram etc., can attest.

They may be a bit ‘wooly’ and imprecise in their understanding of the detail refuting the brainwashing we have all undergone for decades, but they are definitely ‘changing their minds’ about the reliability of the enforced, compulsory narrative.

Their skepticism is entirely warranted. Nessie would like for "the average person" to devote their lives to further investigation, but over the course of their lives they have already wasted far too much of their valuable time on the Holocaust. Once they have seen that the supposed gas chambers actually are ill-suited to the purpose and have totally mundane explanations -- they are morgues -- they should not have to do more. The most appropriate thing "the average person" can do is see the tales for what they are and stop listening.

Even the most basic search, using common sources such as Wikipedia, will produce a lot of evidence to prove the Holocaust and about the flaws in Holocaust denial/revisionism. Type Holocaust into Wikipedia and the second result is about denial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

People should be better at identifying conspiracies, but all the information they need is out there.

[Wetzelrad]

It is a simple search to find out about the modifications. Yet so many fail to do it.

Normal people would never agree that it is incumbent upon them to search for a corrective to the information that the museum gave them.

You could not find this [...] Or this [...] Or this [...]

Lmao, those examples prove my point. The person you are imagining doing all these websearches to learn the truth will have to come here, to a forum post by you or I, to learn anything about the wall and the wooden door.

A search about the atrocity claims will make it clear that is what they were.

Oh really? Here is a generic search for the claim of electrocution chambers. Not one of the top twenty results includes an admission that it was atrocity propaganda. In fact only one of the results even mentions the topic, and that is because it is a contemporary report from the WJC with no acknowledgement that its claims were false.
https://www.google.com/search?q=holocau ... on+chamber

Quote a historian castigating anyone for not believing one of the atrocity stories.

As you're well aware, it's a common thread across Holocaust literature that America and Britain were bad for not trusting the contemporary propaganda. This is what Deborah Lipstadt's work was all about. She complains that "Americans refused to believe", as she did five decades after the war, that 4 million died at Auschwitz and 1.7 million died at Majdanek.

Martin Gilbert's Auschwitz and the Allies is similarly about how "Allied skepticism and disbelief" inhibited action on behalf of the "minimum of two million Jews" and another "two million Soviet prisoners-of-war" that he was sure were killed at Auschwitz.

This article points out how Robert Jan van Pelt similarly decries the common attitude of disbelief toward atrocity reports even as he excludes mention of their obvious falsities like "chlorine pipes".
https://codoh.com/library/document/worl ... holocau-1/

All of that disbelief took place in the wartime media environment of countless false atrocity reports. Now, possibly (because I haven't checked) the historians do not reference, for example, the above WJC report on electrocuted Jews, but if that's the case it only tells us that the historians are embarassed about it. This doesn't stop the historians from castigating all those who correctly disbelieved the reports.

Can you quote any historian who admits some of the reports were false propaganda intended to deceive people? It's something I never see outside the revisionist sphere. Even Franciszek Piper defended the Soviet figure of 4 million as a rational estimate rather than as propagandistic.

[Nessie]

It is a simple search to find out about the modifications. Yet so many fail to do it.

Normal people would never agree that it is incumbent upon them to search for a corrective to the information that the museum gave them.

People need to get better at checking information from any source, since so many sources online are inaccurate. For example, much of the Holocaust denier claims pushed on X, about Krema I.

You could not find this [...] Or this [...] Or this [...]

Lmao, those examples prove my point. The person you are imagining doing all these websearches to learn the truth will have to come here, to a forum post by you or I, to learn anything about the wall and the wooden door.

No, they should see that a denier on X is claiming that a wooden door with a window is the original door into the gas chamber, which seems highly unlikely, so they do some simple searches online and find the denier is hilariously wrong. This so-called revisionist site agrees;

https://www.holocaust.claims/general/ra ... art-three/

"WOODEN DOORS

It’s time to address the wooden door in the room. I’ve actually already done that here and here. But I’m just a little fish in the ocean, and I’ve got to contend with 200k+ follower Twitter (X) accounts spreading misinformation..."

A search about the atrocity claims will make it clear that is what they were.

Oh really? Here is a generic search for the claim of electrocution chambers. Not one of the top twenty results includes an admission that it was atrocity propaganda. In fact only one of the results even mentions the topic, and that is because it is a contemporary report from the WJC with no acknowledgement that its claims were false.
https://www.google.com/search?q=holocau ... on+chamber

That search, which finds nothing, indicates there were no electrocution chambers and that any claim about such as clearly nonsense.

Quote a historian castigating anyone for not believing one of the atrocity stories.

As you're well aware, it's a common thread across Holocaust literature that America and Britain were bad for not trusting the contemporary propaganda. This is what Deborah Lipstadt's work was all about. She complains that "Americans refused to believe", as she did five decades after the war, that 4 million died at Auschwitz and 1.7 million died at Majdanek.

Martin Gilbert's Auschwitz and the Allies is similarly about how "Allied skepticism and disbelief" inhibited action on behalf of the "minimum of two million Jews" and another "two million Soviet prisoners-of-war" that he was sure were killed at Auschwitz.

This article points out how Robert Jan van Pelt similarly decries the common attitude of disbelief toward atrocity reports even as he excludes mention of their obvious falsities like "chlorine pipes".
https://codoh.com/library/document/worl ... holocau-1/

All of that disbelief took place in the wartime media environment of countless false atrocity reports. Now, possibly (because I haven't checked) the historians do not reference, for example, the above WJC report on electrocuted Jews, but if that's the case it only tells us that the historians are embarassed about it. This doesn't stop the historians from castigating all those who correctly disbelieved the reports.

Can you quote any historian who admits some of the reports were false propaganda intended to deceive people? It's something I never see outside the revisionist sphere. Even Franciszek Piper defended the Soviet figure of 4 million as a rational estimate rather than as propagandistic.

The reality is that 1941-5, as more and more reports about death camps and massacres were made, some in government and the public believed them, and some did not. Some will have believed some of the reports, but not all. The Allies can be criticised for a lack of action, but what could they do about death camps, out of range, that they barely knew about, in 1941-3?

You have not quoted any historians castigating anyone who correctly disbelieved reports, such as the use of electrocution in the chambers. No historian will castigate what has subsequently been evidenced to have happened, which is the use of gas in the chambers.

There is plenty online about what is atrocity and what is real;

"AI Overview
Stories of Holocaust-era lampshades made from human skin are generally considered fake news, or propaganda intended to highlight Nazi cruelty. While the concept was a persistent rumor, often linked to Buchenwald, modern DNA testing on an actual lampshade has disproven this claim, showing the material was likely cowhide."