The Incoherence of Semi-Revisionism

[fireofice]

Semi-revisionism is the position of taking the revisionist position on Auschwitz, but accepting the Reinhardt camps and Einsatzgruppen killings on a large magnitude. The main people who hold such a position today are Mark Weber, David Irving, and David Cole. You can read about that here:

https://codoh.com/library/document/semi ... m-is-dead/

Although they seem to want to say that they are not "semi" at all but are perfectly in line with orthodoxy. David Cole for example says:

And lest you think my estimate of 3.5-3.6 million is a crime of denial, I’ll point out that Gerald Reitlinger, in his 1953 masterwork The Final Solution (still considered the gold standard in the field), gave, for the final death count, a range of 4.1 to 4.5 million. There’s not much space between my 3.6 and Reitlinger’s 4.1, and I’m always open to anyone who can defend Reitlinger’s number, or even Hilberg’s 5.1 mil.

https://bestservedcole.substack.com/p/t ... chronology

David Irving has also said that the 6 million number is probably "the right order of magnitude" and "in the right ballpark".



So they clearly think of themselves as being more closely aligned with the orthodoxy than people like us.

That said, we know these people have attacked the Auschwitz story to one degree or another. But why would the Reinhardt story be valid but not Auschwitz? The main argument they seem to have for the Reinhardt camps is the "where did they go" line that is usually brought up. But that applies just as much to Auschwitz as the Reinhardt camps. There is German documentation of people deported to Auschwitz that are claimed to have been gassed (which is not in the German documentation). Why does this reasoning not apply to Auschwitz but is all of a sudden a great argument for the Reinhardt camps? This is a huge inconsistency in their position.

Perhaps they want to say that the physical evidence (cremation ovens, Prussian blue, ground water problems, air photos, ect.) disproves Auschwitz but not the other camps. That can be disputed, but lets go with that. Well you've just admitted that the "where did they go" argument is no longer valid anyway, so that's a completely irrelevant disraction.

It seems to me that it only makes sense to go all the way or stick with full orthodoxy. Either make the evidence at Auschwitz work, or abandon the whole thing. Anything else in between is simply incoherent.

[TlsMS93]

For me, it is more absurd to believe in Reinhardt than in Auschwitz. The absurdities of the narrative are fantastic, dozens of people per m2, the structure of these camps, the claimed number of gassings, the bizarre way of first burying the bodies and then digging them up and burning them on open-air pyres, without enough wood or any record of where they got it and how an alcoholic destroyed everything.

The orthodoxy is funny, they want us to explain where they went, we are the ones who should demand from them where the wood came from in the first place? It is not we who are demanding anything, but them.

[Archie]

Halfway positions are rare among informed commentators.

Why Halfway Positions Don't Really Make Sense

1) The Final Solution/Extermination Program
The German government either ordered the extermination of all the Jews or they didn't. It's a yes or a no question.

2) Similar/Interdependent Evidence
Much of the evidence is very similar. If start doubting any of it, it will spread to everything else. It's like dominoes. If Auschwitz is a hoax, think about what that means for a moment. It would mean a HUGE number of fraudulent testimonies and confessions. It would mean the Krema I gas chamber is a hoax. In light of that, who would take the sparser testimonies for the other camps seriously?

Explaining the Exceptions

The obvious problem with Irving, Weber, and Cole is that we can't really tell if this is a sincere vs a tactical position. If you go back to the late 80s and early 90s, it is apparent that these three did not believe in the Holocaust at all. Watch David Irving's old talks from that period. He was a non-believer. The newer position smacks of tactical considerations for a few reasons: 1) they adopted the position after persecution got more intense, 2) they've never really defended their conversion properly (especially Weber), 3) it conveniently allows them to maintain some of their revisionist cred while also claiming they believe in a version of the Holocaust/are not "deniers."

Pressac is another in-between guy, but his position was totally different from the no-Auschwitz version of Irving/Weber/Cole. Pressac never gave an overall total, as a far as a I know, but it likely would have been under 4M. His numbers for Auschwitz were a tad low compared to the mainstream, but he revised down the other camps even more. Thus Pressac's position grants Auschwitz relatively more importance, completely contradicting Irving et al.

[HansHill]

Agreed, the halfway Holocaust is a baffling position to hold.

The earth is kinda flat!

What would actually by far make the most sense for these halfway merchants, would be to pivot entirely to an Einzatsgruppen-led holocaust by bullets, or some combination of Bullets / Suffocation in the chambers. The suffocation narrative could go something like:

"they intended to use Zyklon pellets but for obvious reasons this was not feasible so they just suffocated entire rooms at a time, which was slower but could be controlled easier with less evidence left behind".

This would also be completely ridiculous don't get me wrong, and would be a huge concession to the gas chamber story for Joe Public, but it would at least be internally consistent!

[Stubble]

Agreed, the halfway Holocaust is a baffling position to hold.

The earth is kinda flat!

What would actually by far make the most sense for these halfway merchants, would be to pivot entirely to an Einzatsgruppen-led holocaust by bullets, or some combination of Bullets / Suffocation in the chambers. The suffocation narrative could go something like:

"they intended to use Zyklon pellets but for obvious reasons this was not feasible so they just suffocated entire rooms at a time, which was slower but could be controlled easier with less evidence left behind".

This would also be completely ridiculous don't get me wrong, and would be a huge concession to the gas chamber story for Joe Public, but it would at least be internally consistent!

Na, it's gotta be steam. Remember, it has to be 'evidenced'. Steam chambers is 'evidenced'.

I was told nobody was hung for it, but, I seem to remember lots of people went to the gallows at nuremburg...

The vacuum chambers were never read in at trial, judges rejected that bit outright before deciding to go with engine exhaust at the other trials. Polish I think.

Has to be steam chambers and Finnish made 'tommy guns'. Just ask David Irving or David Cole, they'll tell you.

[borjastick]

Semi-revisionism is a bit of an oxymoron. It doesn't really hold much water. The people mentioned above who are 'semi-revisionists' in other words David Cole and David Irving were both compromised and legally and physically beaten into a compromise situation whereby they had to amend their original positions which were full-on denial. That's just my opinion but I think if Cole hadn't been outed by an ex girlfriend and Irving had had the trial and then the German prison term etc they would have stuck to their guns.

Which sort of begs the question about people like Eric Hunt who were full-on deniers then they turn to the dark side. What do we call them New Believers, Turncoat Revisionists?

[DavidM]

The Nuremberg Show Trials presented an Intentionalist position wherein the "Holocaust" was primarily determined by the decisions of Adolf Hitler, who ‘intended' to realize the goals of an ideologically derived program to which he had clung with
fanatical consistency since the 1920s.
The idea of a half-way Holocaust makes no sense against such a background.

However, Intentionalism has been totally abandoned by the Believers and largely replaced by the revised story of
Functionalism. Functionalism dealt better with known historical facts than the clearly erroneous Intentionalist story

Under a Functionalistic approach...that is, an ad hoc approach to dealing with ethnic and other problems, shooting
of partisans and Jewish populations in the Soviet Union was not part of Hitler's "Master Plan."


Functionalism was a response to the first Revisionist works on the 1970's and 80's
Arno Mayer's book, "Why did the Heavans not Darken" is an example
Was the extermination of the Jews part of the Nazi plan from the very start? Arno Mayer offers astartling and compelling answer to this question, which is much debated among historians today.In doing so, he provides one of the most thorough and convincing explanations of how the genocidecame about in Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, which provoked widespread interest and controversywhen first published. Mayer demonstrates that, while the Nazis’ anti-Semitism was always virulent, it did not becomegenocidal until well into the Second World War, when the failure of their massive, all-or-nothingcampaign against Russia triggered the Final Solution. He details the steps leading up to this enormity, showing how the institutional and ideological frameworks that made it possible evolved, and how both related to the debacle in the Eastern theater.

For more information on the collapse of Intentionalism see. https://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/uplo ... ocaust.pdf

[HansHill]

However, Intentionalism has been totally abandoned by the Believers and largely replaced by the revised story of
Functionalism. Functionalism dealt better with known historical facts than the clearly erroneous Intentionalist story

Under a Functionalistic approach...that is, an ad hoc approach to dealing with ethnic and other problems, shooting
of partisans and Jewish populations in the Soviet Union was not part of Hitler's "Master Plan."

This is a fascinating paper, thank you for sharing. I had never heard of the Intentionalism V Functionalism analysis before. It makes quite a bit of sense, except for one aspect.

Under Intentionalism, they can claim to draw a straight line from Mein Kampf to the Holocaust. This sort of thinking always struck me as an uninformed opinion, rather than that of an informed profssional historian / political analyst. Given what we know about the contents of Mein Kampf, and given it was quite literally a best seller, and freely available for anybody to read for 14 years prior to the outbreak of the war, it sounds like a hard sell to convince me there are secret genocidal plans in there.

Perhaps one of our Exterminationist friends will pop up to explain everything to us.

[Archie]

However, Intentionalism has been totally abandoned by the Believers and largely replaced by the revised story of
Functionalism. Functionalism dealt better with known historical facts than the clearly erroneous Intentionalist story

Under a Functionalistic approach...that is, an ad hoc approach to dealing with ethnic and other problems, shooting
of partisans and Jewish populations in the Soviet Union was not part of Hitler's "Master Plan."

This is a fascinating paper, thank you for sharing. I had never heard of the Intentionalism V Functionalism analysis before. It makes quite a bit of sense, except for one aspect.

Under Intentionalism, they can claim to draw a straight line from Mein Kampf to the Holocaust. This sort of thinking always struck me as an uninformed opinion, rather than that of an informed profssional historian / political analyst. Given what we know about the contents of Mein Kampf, and given it was quite literally a best seller, and freely available for anybody to read for 14 years prior to the outbreak of the war, it sounds like a hard sell to convince me there are secret genocidal plans in there.

Perhaps one of our Exterminationist friends will pop up to explain everything to us.

The "intentionalist" view is what the regular population believes in. That was the story at Nuremberg and for a couple decades after the war. And it does have the benefit of simplicity and of having a clear, explicable motive. The problem with it is that there are certain things like the Madagascar plan that were too well-documented to cover up and which clash with the traditional story. So in the 1970s some historians began to come up with a different version where the extermination program emerged gradually. Of course that new story merely creates a different set of contradictions.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=38