Correct and I would like to continue discussing that topic. My argument is that revisionists use incorrect, invalid, illogical, opinionated critiques. I can easily evidence examples of that.Source criticism is not only valid, but, is its own field.
It is notable that the revisionists never ask to be called historians. Even they know they are not that."History is the systematic study of the past, focusing primarily on the human past. As an academic discipline, it analyses and interprets evidence to construct narratives about what happened and explain why it happened."
Revisionists can't do this for Reinhardt resettlement or seemingly even for a microscopic detail like Blobel's flamethrower. Blobel's flamethrower clearly doesn't evidence the Holocaust in any substantial way. On the other hand this thread does evidence, through the posters' endless diversions and counter questions, their complete avoidance in engaging in the basic task of doing history. Being critical is fine, but being critical at the exclusion of the basic task of history means you shouldn't be taken seriously.
That does not mean they are lying about the existence of death camps with gas chambers. Casting aside 100% of the eyewitnesses who say they saw gas chambers as unreliable, leaves that Holocaust denier non-history bombsaway correctly identified as pointless and non-serious.Blobel and Hoess are obviously unreliable witnesses.
Holocaust denial is fake historical revision, as it fails at the primary task of history, which as bombsaway quoted above is "...to construct narratives about what happened...". The so-called revisionists here cannot produce chronologies for any of the AR camps, Chelmno, the A-B Kremas, or at places such as Bai Yar, Ponary or Rumbula, or what happened to the millions of Jews arrested by the Nazis 1939-45. Instead, they variously deny that gassings and mass shootings took place, acknowledging opinions vary as to what took place, as the so-called revisionists are not unified in their beliefs.HolyH believers won’t permit ANY ‘revision’ or even healthy skepticism of its core claims. Which proves their belief is NOT A GENUINE HISTORY.
viewtopic.php?p=24292#p24292Nessie wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 3:22 pm Stubble;
viewtopic.php?p=24308#p24308
Correct and I would like to continue discussing that topic. My argument is that revisionists use incorrect, invalid, illogical, opinionated critiques. I can easily evidence examples of that.Source criticism is not only valid, but, is its own field.
viewtopic.php?p=24292#p24292Nessie wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 10:57 am viewtopic.php?p=24335#p24335
Holocaust denial is fake historical revision, as it fails at the primary task of history, which as bombsaway quoted above is "...to construct narratives about what happened...". The so-called revisionists here cannot produce chronologies for any of the AR camps, Chelmno, the A-B Kremas, or at places such as Bai Yar, Ponary or Rumbula, or what happened to the millions of Jews arrested by the Nazis 1939-45. Instead, they variously deny that gassings and mass shootings took place, acknowledging opinions vary as to what took place, as the so-called revisionists are not unified in their beliefs.HolyH believers won’t permit ANY ‘revision’ or even healthy skepticism of its core claims. Which proves their belief is NOT A GENUINE HISTORY.
Genuine historical revision is not achieved by doubting the evidence for mass gassings and claiming therefore mass gassings cannot have happened. It is achieved by producing evidence of an alternative. For example, evidence from eyewitness who worked at the A-B Kremas, that they never had gas chambers and what the buildings were used for. Some have tried to produce evidenced revised histories, such as Mattogno, but he cannot even decide himself what took place inside the Leichenkellers, as he variously suggests they were prepared for showering or used as originally intended corpse stores.
Anyone who wants to revise history, has to gather evidence to prove a new chronology of events, or narrative. Historians will correct ridicule and ostracise those who fail in that task, as it is more than likely a fake conspiratorial pseudo-history. Genuine work cannot be undermined by fakery.
Why is Nesserto so afraid of debating forensic historian Greg Gerdes?
