Comments on other threads.

[Stubble]

Your legal analogy is a fail, because it is the equivalent of asking a lawyer to lie in court, by defending a client they know to be guilty, as if they are innocent, which they are not supposed to do.

I've gotten guilty people acquitted for murder[...]

-Alan Morton Dershowitz

Seems the responsibility of a lawyer to defend their client, matter of fact, that seems to be the entire point. The legal system as it exists today, just as it was under Hammurabi, is about getting just as much justice as you can afford.

The idea that a lawyer isn't supposed to defend a guilty man is just so counter to our concept of law in general as to be an insult to the court.

Nessie, that is a very special strain of naivety you have there...

[Nessie]

Or,
- it cannot be done, for reasons I have been explaining to you for a long time now and you lack the intellectual ability to understand that, or you are too invested to be able to acknowledge the weaknesses.

If you are unable to steelman the position, that's perfectly acceptable. It looks extremely disingenuous on your part of course, because you are debating against a position you are admitting you don't understand, and refuse to offer the the principle of charitable interpretation. This in turn then makes you look like a bad faith actor.

I have been explaining, at length, why every single argument you use, is flawed, which is why I am now quarantined, so you can avoid my critiques.

I have not debated positions I admit to not understanding. I admit to not understanding the chemistry, but I do understand the argument that uses the results of chemical testing. I have started to steel man arguments here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=684

But it has been largely ignored. Why is that? You want me to act in good faith and be compliant to your instructions, and then when i am, I am ignored.

Your legal analogy is a fail, because it is the equivalent of asking a lawyer to lie in court, by defending a client they know to be guilty, as if they are innocent, which they are not supposed to do.

No it's not, you muppet. Your steelman is expected to be honest, and argued with integrity. If you're lying in your steelman, then you have already sabotaged it.

@Archie this has to be in the hall of fame. Unbelievable.

There is a difference between a desperate, or weak argument and one that is so obviously fatally flawed, that it is indefensible. So-called revisionist arguments fall into the latter category. I have been honest with you, you just do not like what I have to say.

[Nessie]

Your legal analogy is a fail, because it is the equivalent of asking a lawyer to lie in court, by defending a client they know to be guilty, as if they are innocent, which they are not supposed to do.

I've gotten guilty people acquitted for murder[...]

-Alan Morton Dershowitz

Seems the responsibility of a lawyer to defend their client, matter of fact, that seems to be the entire point. The legal system as it exists today, just as it was under Hammurabi, is about getting just as much justice as you can afford.

The idea that a lawyer isn't supposed to defend a guilty man is just so counter to our concept of law in general as to be an insult to the court.

Nessie, that is a very special strain of naivety you have there...

If a lawyer, who knows his client is guilty of murder, spots a fatal flaw in the investigation, he should bring that to the attention of the court. If that flaw is enough for the case to collapse, then he has got a guilty person acquitted. What the lawyer cannot (or at should not) do, is lie in court and pretend his client is innocent, when he knows he is guilty, with actions such as withholding evidence or concocting a false alibi.

A guilty man can be defended in court, as guilty. That is what happened to the SS death camp staff. They were defended at the Belzec trial, for having acted under duress. There is the famous defence of acting under orders. Mitigation refers to forms of defence, excusing someone of the crime they committed, often due to a diminished responsibility.

It appears you did not know any of that, when you criticised me.

[Keen]

Nessie, that is a very special strain of naivety you have there...

It's called mental illness.

[Keen]

There is a difference between a desperate, or weak argument and one that is so obviously fatally flawed, that it is indefensible.

Your argument for the "pure extermination centers" is both desperately weak and obviously fatally flawed.

It's funny how "desperately weak and obviously flawed" describes Roberto to a T as well.

[Nessie]

These are my own initial thoughts on Nessie's essay. As an interesting aside, I fed his essay through an LLM with the prompt to grade it as an end of term essay, in a cross-discipline (ie non-specialized) field, assuming a bachelors level of competence. The LLM graded it a C-

There was no way you would give any essay in anything but a negative review.

1) Utter silence on viability of proposed murder weapon and process. With a word count over 4,000 not one of them is “Zyklon” or “cyanide” or “kula” or “column”. This is by far the user’s weakest angle to this paper, and it has been litigated in a multitude of places across this forum so I will not waste much space here, other than to say, the poster relies, to a critical level, on methods that are non-viable and utterly ignores the practical realities these problems introduce.

From Part 5;

"That is how all history is normally investigated and established. Revisionists cannot do that. They try to argue that the gassings were not technically possible, even though modifying a room to use as a gas chamber, was well within the capabilities of German design and engineering in the 1940s. The historians have the corroborated admissions of the engineers responsible. Revisionists have no eyewitnesses and resort to unique to themselves interpretations and arguments about ventilation capacities and how much coke would be needed. As if not knowing exactly how something worked, is evidence it cannot have happened."

Germans making holes through concrete, fitting wire mesh columns and ventilating a space, is not non-viable and is practical. You are so wedded to your argument from incredulity, that despite its clear logical flaw, you keep on using it. Just because you don't believe Kula columns would work as described, does not mean therefore they did not exist and there were no gassings.

2) The Historiography Problem pt I - In multiple places, the user pushes the claim that Historians have succeeded in producing a verified chronology of events through careful evidencing (ie claims) and primary sources (ie other claims). He ignores however, where those very same Historians and related experts critically diverge from these claims, such as Van Pelt diverging from Kula’s description of the Kula columns, specifically because Kula’s claimed device cannot possibly work but Van Pelt’s can. Thus this evidence, like most other evidence trotted out, is manufactured to fit, rather than falling naturally into place.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is corroborating evidence for the use of the Kremas as gas chambers and that historians can produce a chronological history of what happened to the Jews in Europe during WWII. It is merely an opinion based on a lack of evidence, i.e, the columns no longer exist and much is not known about the gassing process, due to destruction of evidence by the Nazis (see Part 6), that Kula's device could not work, as it is evidenced to have worked. Evidence beats argument, especially when that argument is based on a logical fallacy.

3) Historiography Problem pt II – The user states that certain weak claims have been dropped as they were “poorly or not evidenced” and cites the Jewish Soap and Dachau Gas chamber. The problem here is that the Jewish soap was evidenced, literally by being produced and shown at Nuremberg, along with key and converging testimonies. Similarly for the Dachau gas chamber, as being evidenced via photographs, documents, and eyewitnesses. He only claims this is “weak” because it has been discarded by Orthodoxy due to being non-viable. The critical problem for the user here is that, were he to admit that this evidence simultaneously meets his criteria for merely existing, yet fails the revisionist smell-test for being dogsh*t, he’s in very big trouble.

The revisionist "smell-test" is dogsh*t. It is based on biased opinion, with a desired outcome, and a logically flawed argument, rather than on an understanding of evidencing. The evidence for Jewish soap and the use of gas chambers at Dachau, failed the testing process commonly used by historians and lawyers, which gas chambers at Auschwitz passed. There was insufficient corroborating evidence to prove the former and sufficient to prove the latter.

4) The Historiography Problem pt III – He bizarrely suggests the Dresden bombing could be denied by testimonies and photographs alone. Yet above, testimonies and photographs were (correctly) not enough to carry the weight of his two examples (Dachau and Soap). Were a serious investigation to take place on the Dresden bombing, it is inane to suggest that eyewitness testimony would outweigh any sort of military analysis such as on the specific munitions, payload, aircraft range, fuel usage, impact sites etc, which is to say, the key insights here would be technical in nature, not based on eyewitnesses like our user suggests.

From the Conclusion;

"The bombing of Dresden is not disproved, by arguing it was not physically possible for the British to do so much damage, therefore it did not happen. To disprove it would need evidence, such as eyewitness who state there were no raids and photographs of an intact city centre."

A serious investigation into Dresden, would not be to argue it was not possible and ignore the evidence it happened. That non-serious, obviously flawed form of investigation, is used by so-called revisionists, to claim the mass gassings did not happen. A serious investigation would be to gather evidence to determine is a claimed event happened or not. If Dresden was found to be intact, with witnesses reporting no bombing took place, the evidence has proved no bombing. If Dresden is found to be destroyed with witnesses describing many bombers flying over head, bombing has been proved.

What so-called revisionists do, is try to argue gassings were not possible and then argue therefore they did not happen. That is the equivalent of trying to argue Dresden was not bombed, because it was not possible for the British to do so. In both cases, the argument is wrong, because Germans were easily capable of the design and construction work to build a gas chamber and the British could easily build bombers capable of a raid over Dresden.

Whether it is Dresden or Auschwitz, the history of what did, or did not happen in those places, is proved by eyewitnesses, documents, physcial and other forms of evidence. So-called revisionists cannot do that, when it comes to what happened at Auschwitz. So, they resort to arguing why they think what happened there cannot have happened. That is not how history is normally determined.

Historians and lawyers did not argue that the manufacturing of Jewish soap and the Dachau gas chambers were technically impossible, therefore that did not happen. They searched for evidence and established it did not happen, due to a lack of verifiable, corroborating evidence. Instead, a bar of soap that used some fat derived from humans was used as evidence. There was no way to determine if that fat came from Jews and there was no evidence of it being manufactured in any quantity. Instead, it was a gross experiment run in a laboratory in Danzig. Enquiries established the evidence of what actually happened there. No eyewitnesses, documents or other evidence was traced, to prove that the Dachau gas chambers were used for mass gassings.

[Nessie]

...

5) The Need For Conspiracy pt I - “Historians and revisionists have also failed to find evidence to prove the conspiracy that is needed to fake the Holocaust” – inane assertion that fails to hold true in other aspects of the Holocaust. I will limit myself to the user’s same two examples, and challenge him to address: Demonstrate what exactly was the conspiracy to fabricate a Dachau Gas Chamber and by who, and how was this conspiracy ultimately proved in end? And equally importantly, for the Jewish Soap, what exactly was the conspiracy here, how was it conspired and how was it ultimately proved? To quote the poster: “No whistleblower has come forward with, or leaked evidence of a hoax.” Why would this be necessary for Birkenau when it wasn’t required for Dachau? This is selective and biased application of reasoning.

You have not understood my argument. So-called revisionists, mostly, suggest that all the homicidal gas chambers were hoaxed. Some accept limited examples of gassing, as part of the euthanasia project. Deniers deny the existence of all gas chambers. They use Dachau as an example of where the hoax fell apart and historians had to admit it was not used for mass, or indeed any gassings. Historians have, by use of evidence, established claims about mass gassing at Dachau are false. Call that a hoax if you want. The hoax claim is also applied to Birkenau, but historians have found corroborating evidence to prove the Kremas did have homicidal gas chambers.

Historians use evidence to establish what did or did not happen. So-called revisionists cannot do that. They just claim it pretty much all a hoax, without providing any evidence. Jewish soap is an example of a claim, that there was mass production of soap from Jewish corpses that was investigated. After gathering the evidence, finding eyewitnesses and a locus, it was established there was very limited soap making, in one place, that involved an ingredient obtained from corpses from prisoners from a camp and patients from a hospital. Whether they were Jewish is not known. The evidence proves the claim about mass manufacturing of Jewish soap, is false.

If, for example, an investigation was conducted into claims about the Kremas at Birkenau, being used for the mass gassing of Jews. Eyewitnesses who worked there are interviewed. Documents pertaining to its construction and use are examined. Circumstantial evidence about the camp and the Kremas is gathered. Once that is done, if it was found that there is only evidence a gas chamber was built inside Krema V and it was used to delouse clothing and mattresses, as a temporary measure, then the evidence has proved the claims about killings are false. So-called revisionists cannot do that, so they resort to claiming a hoax. They expect us to believe that without any evidence, such as one of the eyewitnesses whistle blowing, or document that recorded how many mattresses were deloused in Krema V, or evidence people not selected to work, left the camp.

6) The Need For Conspiracy pt II – The user suggests that this hoax conspiracy requires millions of people acting in unison to prolong the Holocaust hoax. No it doesn’t, and this is not how large scale conspiracies, such as WMDs were propagated. It simply requires millions of survivors to each consider themselves, and themselves alone, as surivors. Consider – X million Jews subsumed into the interior of the Soviet Union. Each Jew considers him/herself and their family as lucky survivors. No conspiracy needed at the million scale.

Hoaxing WMDs in Iraq, merely requires some intelligence reports being backed by senior politicians. Hoaxing the Holocaust requires millions of Jews to cooperate and play dead, abandoning their property and hiding somewhere after the war. It needs the Nazis to cooperate and refuse to show where they were keeping millions of Jews they had arrested 1939-44, still alive. It needs all the countries that assisted the Nazis, to keep admitting to that lie, with no one acting in the national interest and blow the hoax. It needs historians, archivists, government officials and journalists to cooperate and not blow the hoax, deliberately or accidentally. It needed the West and the East to cooperate during the Cold War, when it would have been a major coup for one to blow the hoax and blame the other.

7) The missing Jews - “The circumstantial evidence of millions of missing Jews in 1945, was overwhelming and aligns with mass murder”

In 1945 the claim was that 4 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. The claim is now that ~1 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. Since the only way downward revisions can take place according to our user is to positively evidence an alternative History, ie to sho where they are now, he is now challenged to name and geolocate the 3 million previously-assumed-gassed-but-actually-not-gassed-Jews. Since this is the only way he claims history works, this should not be a problem for him, since he accepts this revision. Were he to fail in this regard, it would mean that 3 million Jews were firstly fabricated, only to be gassed, ungassed, and forgotten. This would be disastrous for him because we could simply increase ~3 million to ~4 million and Revisionism’s job is all but done.

In 1945, the Soviets claimed 4 million died at Auschwitz, but that was not used by Western historians to evidence the 6 million. They gathered evidence that established the Soviet claim was an exaggeration, primarily using Nazi documents. The extra 3 million never existed, there is no evidence to prove that number were at, let alone died in Auschwitz.

The millions of missing Jews, are Jews for whom there is evidence of their existence, from Nazi and national records, details about arrests, camp populations, transport records and then liberations and records of displaced persons. That is how the decline in the population of Jews arrested by the Nazis has been evidenced and proven, with most of the documents coming from the Nazis.

8) The Problem of “Positive Revisionism” – the user’s post is littered with arguments that Holocaust claims cannot possibly be re-written without a positive counter-narrative as to what happened in it’s place. This is obviously nonsense, as it is sufficient for revisionism to show why something is non-viable. To demonstrate, I will yet again limit myself to the user’s own example, of a Holocaust claim that was revised. Jewish soap. To counter the Soviet claim that Jews were being turned into soap, it was never required to determine the names of each alleged soaped Jew, and to later find them alive and well in Tel Aviv or new York City. To demand this same princinple for Birkernau and AR claims is completely tone-deaf, and uneccessary, as the user’s own examples show.

There was positive revisionism of the Jewish soap claims. Evidence was gathered to establish the claim about mass manufacturing was false. There was no evidence to prove a factory or factories were using Jewish corpses to make soap and instead, one place was found to have used some corpses, not necessarily Jewish, for limited soap making.

9) The Convergence Problem - The user implies that all witnesses agree, however he ignores that the witness only appear to agree once all outliers and non-viable witnesses have been removed from scope. This is a logical fallacy known as survivorship bias.

Have you any examples of that? All of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas agree they were used for gassings. Those who worked at Birkenau,or one of the other Auschwitz camps, but were never inside a Krema, are not eyewitnesses.

Conclusion – the user is catastrophically ignorant of alleged processes and procedures, and proceeds straight to creating artificial requirements for the Holocaust to be revised, then himself blindly offers examples where this process has never been the case and the claims collapsed under their own non-viability.

**Edit**

I see the user has replied below. I want to respect Archie's vision for threads of this kind, so I will refrain from endlessly replying to ad hoc arguments. Suffice to say, the responses are unsatisfactory and the critiques stand. For the curious reader, I will isolate and repeat the main trust of my critiques in that Nessie has ignored the murder weapon, and point them to the arguments presented by Rudolf in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, section 5.4.1.2.9 as to why this is problematic, and more importantly for this essay, why Historians are compelled to deviate away from the eyewitnesses, to manufacture their own evidence, despite his bleating to the contrary.

See also discussion here:

viewtopic.php?t=163
viewtopic.php?p=16681
viewtopic.php?p=13113#p13113 (starting on page 10 of this thread)

It is you who is catastrophically ignorance of investigation and evidencing. You rely on obviously flawed arguments. Just because Rudolf cannot work out how gassings were possible, does not mean he has proved no gassings took place.

[Archie]

...

Nessie, I said I wanted to keep that thread clean for now. Reviews only to start. We can do a rebuttal round later. If absolutely can't wait, post your replies here.

[Nessie]

This is a good, clear, concise summary of the historical posture of the Holocaust. I'm taking this as the main thesis of the case for the Holocaust in this essay:

The Nazis identified, arrested and imprisoned Jews. Their property was confiscated and they were forced into camps and ghettos. Many were used as slave labourers and those not needed for work, or who regarded as partisans, were killed. The killings were by mass shootings and in certain camps, inside chambers. Mass transports cleared the ghettos to specific camps, where the same process of selection, undressing, deaths inside chambers made to look like showers, mass graves and cremations is described across all the camps.

Overall, the essay is best when it's making a positive case and mentioning evidence that supports the above statement. Discussions of other countries' policies on Jews and cooperation with Nazi deportation plans, etc. This helps support the main thesis of the essay.

The main weakness is a tendency to engage in negative criticism of revisionism rather than present a positive case for the Holocaust.

...

My point was to explain that evidence, not argument, determines how a historical event is proved. The positive case for the Holocaust is that it is evidenced to have taken place, as per the summary you quoted and there is no evidence from which a revised version, which did not have mass killings, can be proved. Both the evidence for gas chambers at the AR camps, and no evidence of a different process, are positive cases. That is why I also spent time explaining how the lack of evidence for a revised history is important.

To test the strength of a history, play devil's advocate and try to revise it. ABC, accept nothing, believe no one, check everything. I used the Dachau gas chamber and Jewish soap as examples of that. They were claims to which ABC was applied and after evidence was gathered, they were found to be false. In 1945 the Polish War Crimes Commission did the same, when they physically took people who had claimed to have been imprisoned in and escaped from TII, to the camp site, to see if the physical evidence matched what the witnesses said. It did and they found evidence to corroborate those witnesses. That did not happen, when witnesses were interviewed about claims of gassings at Dachau, that none of them had seen take place.

Another example of the testing of claims, is the 1943 quote from Cavendish-Bentinck, a head of British Intelligence "We have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting out...". At that time, he was sceptical of the gas chamber story. By 1945, because of the evidence that now proved gas chambers had been used, he had changed his mind and became the UK's ambassador to Poland.

When so-called revisionists test claims, they do not use evidence, as historians and other investigators do. Instead, they rely on arguments, such as gas chambers were not physically possible inside the Kremas. That is not how to investigate history.

[Nessie]

...

Nessie, I said I wanted to keep that thread clean for now. Reviews only to start. We can do a rebuttal round later. If absolutely can't wait, post your replies here.

I did not see that. Please move my reply to pilgrimofdark here.

[Nessie]

I was expecting to see more of an attempt to develop the positive evidence for the Holocaust. Instead of that, we see here a lot of Nessie's signature "proof by assertion" and question-begging.

What you in fact see, is my argument that the Holocaust is far better evidenced that you will ever admit. I used how well the witnesses actually corroborate and how both accused and victim agree on the crime committed, as an example of that.

Gathering evidence to determine what is sufficiently corroborated and what is not, is how history is normally investigated. That is not proof by assertion or question begging. It is so-called revisionists who step away from the normal standard of historical evidence gathering, to produce a chronology of events with a conclusion. They try to argue the events did not happen and then fail to provide an evidenced proven conclusion.

For all of the effusive praise heaped upon "the historians" in this essay, the author seems to have little familiarity with the mainstream secondary literature as none of it is really discussed or referenced. The sources cited are drawn mostly from online tertiary sources (Google search?). These are little more than compilations of the conventional narrative, presented under the assumption that the reader is already convinced.

The best case for the Holocaust, is the evidence it happened.

In terms of the presentation, critiques of revisionism are given too much emphasis (starting with this I think was an especially odd choice) and the chosen targets are surprising and/or not well represented. It is puzzling why the author has decided to dedicate so much space to discussing the 50 year old Butz book. Or why he felt the need to rebut a random meme from Twitter, as if this were a good representation of informed revisionist thought.

If you spent any time on X, you would know that the documents and claim 271k died, is widely promoted and shared, as supposed evidence the Holocaust did not happen. I used Butz, because he has a concise chapter on "what happened to them?". They both represent so-called revisionists frankly pathetic attempts to revise the history of the Holocaust, with evidence.

Overall, the author appears to have a limited grasp of the literature on both sides of the debate.

I can provide many more examples of where historians can evidence what happened and so-called revisionists cannot.

The structure of the case is more or less as follows:

1) The mainstream history is well-established and based on strong evidence
2) To overturn this history, revisionists would have to supply evidence that "proves that something different took place."
2a) The author implicitly assumes that "prove something different took place" means prove that the Jews survived/were resettled
3) Revisionist have failed to do this
Therefore the mainstream history is true

You got it.

I would not object to framing the issue rhetorically in terms of the need for a constructive history of events, but the author pushes way too far with this in an attempt to side-step huge swathes of relevant evidence. Below would be my primary objections.

Thin on Positive Evidence
The biggest problem here by far is that the author largely skips over point 1 in the argument (which should have been the focus) and jumps straight into a critique of revisionists. In an essay of limited length, it is also wise to point readers to additional resources, where the arguments introduced in the essay are addressed more thoroughly. This is generally not done here. Only the demographic argument was given much attention.

Point 1, in the introduction, was to explain how the main events of the Holocaust are evidenced and proven and to reinforce that point, I provide two examples where evidence gathering failed to prove claims being made.

Part 2 compares a so-called revisionist investigation, with one made by historians, whereby Butz suggests, and fails to evidence population movements and the historians go into great detail and evidence and prove population movements.

Parts 3 to 7 all explain how well evidenced the Holocaust is, with examples.

It is claimed that we should have expected to find 5-6 million Jews in camps and ghettos at the end of the war. That is a wildly high figure. Germany almost certainly never had that many Jews under their control. The author further assumes all the Jews would have stayed put and ignores the difficulties of determining the number of Jews behind the Iron Curtain.

Nazi reports such as Wannsee and Korherr, along with ghetto and camp population records and records from the occupied and aligned nations, prove that the Nazis and Allies, such as the Romanians and Serbians, did arrest at least 6 million Jews. Millions more bought their way out, or fled, either into the Soviet Union, or to countries such as the UK or outwith of Europe.
It stands to reason that of the millions of Jews who were sent to the ghettos and camps, some will have died, but by 1944, millions should have still been alive, if the Nazis were not mass murdering them.

The defense of the testimonial evidence is very brief and inadequate given the importance of that topic.

"There are bound to be inconsistencies in the details, such as how many were gassed and how long cremations took, as people are proven to poor at many estimations and memory fades."

That just doesn't cut it. The discussion of physical evidence is also very brief and undeveloped (mostly proof by assertion).

Scientific testing of people's memory and ability to estimate, is how we know that witnesses will not accurately recall the details of events, such as how long something took to do and how many people it involved. If I had linked to the physical evidence, you would have accused me of a document dump.

Demand for a Full Alternative History
It is simply not true that documentation regarding Jewish migration during and after the war (i.e, proof of survival) must be provided in order to overturn the mainstream history. This is a textbook argument from ignorance, and it inappropriately precludes the possibility that something may be indeterminate due to inadequate documentation.

Unless you can revise the history, with evidence, you have failed to revise that history. When you cannot evidence hundreds of thousands of Jews, who are proven to have arrived at TII, leaving that camp, you are failing to revise its history.

If revisionist critiques of the homicidal gas chambers are correct, this in fact would show that "something else" occurred for the simple reason that it would establish that the mainstream story did not occur (or is extremely unlikely to have occurred).

That is history with no conclusion. You are suggesting a non-history is acceptable. Unless you can prove that "something else occurred" then you have failed and your conclusion an event did not happen is incorrect.

Critique of Revisionism
The author evaluates revisionism almost solely by the standard of proving Jewish survival. This is simply a way of dodging numerous relevant points that deserve to be addressed.

Much else could be said, but I see no need to repeat familiar points (witness studies, Poles vs Soviets, 100% of the witnesses, etc).
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=382
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=443

I revise so-called revisionism by its failure to provide a chronological, evidenced narrative. For example, if you suggest nowhere near 5-6 million Jews were arrested. OK, so start with a country and evidence its Jews were not arrested. If you do that, you have revised the history of their arrests. Denmark and Finland would not be good examples, as the majority of their Jews are evidenced to have not been arrested. But they are examples of how to evidence Jews not being arrested.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Interestingly, Alan Dershowitz also conceded that the Zündel trial of 1985 was a total victory for Holocaust revisionists.

[Nessie]

Interestingly, Alan Dershowitz also conceded that the Zündel trial of 1985 was a total victory for Holocaust revisionists.

...

Again, history is not revised by argument. Zundel and his lawyer, had some successes with the arguments they put forward during the trial, but at no point did they produce any evidence to revise the history and prove a new narrative. The same happened with the Irving trial, for example, Vrba's concession he had mixed hearsay with what he saw. Despite all of Irving's years of study and research, he could not produce an eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas, who stated they had a purpose other than gassings. That would have been a genuine revision.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Again, history is not revised by argument. Zundel and his lawyer, had some successes with the arguments they put forward during the trial, but at no point did they produce any evidence to revise the history and prove a new narrative.

Fortunately, propaganda stories are not regarded as true unless replaced with an alternative narrative. Propaganda stories are regarded as demonizing lies unless proven true by solid tangible evidence, and the Holocaust was admittedly never proven true by solid tangible evidence (hence the whole "top secrecy and post facto destruction of evidence" narrative concoted and repeated ad nauseam by Holohoax conspiracy theorists). For instance, today's historians regard as untrue the atrocity story of Belgian kids whose hands had been cut off by German soldiers during WW1 because the Allies failed to find a single Belgian kid with missing hands after WW1. No alternative narrative needed. Just a big propaganda lie made up to demonize the enemy and fuel the Allied war effort.

The same happened with the Irving trial, for example, Vrba's concession he had mixed hearsay with what he saw. Despite all of Irving's years of study and research, he could not produce an eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas, who stated they had a purpose other than gassings. That would have been a genuine revision.

No, that would have proved nothing. Testimonies are just series of words devoid of any intrinsic probative value.

Moreover all the workers who operated the KL crematories were camp inmates, most of them Jewish, that is, super biased Germanophobes who hated the Nazis beyond anything. Of course the most unreliable source of information (and the most prolific source of disinformation) in the world.

[Nessie]

Again, history is not revised by argument. Zundel and his lawyer, had some successes with the arguments they put forward during the trial, but at no point did they produce any evidence to revise the history and prove a new narrative.

Fortunately, propaganda stories are not regarded as true unless replaced with an alternative narrative. Propaganda stories are regarded as demonizing lies unless proven true by solid tangible evidence, and the Holocaust was admittedly never proven true by solid tangible evidence (hence the whole "top secrecy and post facto destruction of evidence" narrative concoted and repeated ad nauseam by Holohoax conspiracy theorists). For instance, today's historians regard as untrue the atrocity story of Belgian kids whose hands had been cut off by German soldiers during WW1 because the Allies failed to find a single Belgian kid with missing hands after WW1. No alternative narrative needed. Just a big propaganda lie made up to demonize the enemy and fuel the Allied war effort.

The Holocaust has been proven by solid tangible evidence. It would be easy to fake a story about children having their hands cut off, and easy to evidence it did not happen, by not finding any with missing hands. It is impossible to fake something the size of the Holocaust and not find evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

The same happened with the Irving trial, for example, Vrba's concession he had mixed hearsay with what he saw. Despite all of Irving's years of study and research, he could not produce an eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas, who stated they had a purpose other than gassings. That would have been a genuine revision.

No, that would have proved nothing. Testimonies are just series of words devoid of any intrinsic probative value.

Would say that, if a witness who worked inside an AR camp, said it was a transit camp and it never had a gas chamber?

Moreover all the workers who operated the KL crematories were camp inmates, most of them Jewish, that is, super biased Germanophobes who hated the Nazis beyond anything. Of course the most unreliable source of information (and the most prolific source of disinformation) in the world.

The majority of the eyewitnesses to the gassings, were German and Ukrainian SS. The majority of the corroborating evidence is from Nazi sources.