The Question of Conspiracy

[bombsaway]

With Katyn, there's no question about the killings themselves. The dispute is/was solely over who did it. That's a separate issue. At Katyn, we have

1) A full excavation, with a precise body count. Many individual victims identified.
2) Dozens of photos indicating the exact cause of death (bullet to the back of the head)

There's nothing like this for Chelmno. The evidence for Katyn is vastly stronger.

Specifically, since we're assessing the USSR's ability to fabricate evidence, narrow this to just the witnesses and documents. If you don't want to that's fine, but it's what I meant. I was asking specifically about the case for Nazi culpability, not whether Poles were shot there or not.

Your stipulations are contrived, as usual.

And I already did post about false documents and testimonies at Katyn. You were going to explain to us how all of that happened innocently.

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

Those false documents don't actually specify Soviet responsibility for the crime. We just get the sense that a shooting happened there during Nazi occupation. It's actually all circumstantial. There are a few easily forged letters and receipts and things. This is in contrast to Chelmno where high level German documents spell out the killing of at least 100,000 there and even the methods used. So too there are no eyewitnesses who can attest to the operation, zero German perpetrator testimony here. 1 German apparently confessed, and then recanted, a recantation rate of 100%, while in Soviet captivity no less. He wasn't brought to Nuremberg, in contrast with the many Germans that confessed to Holocaust related crimes. For Chelmno there are confessions from 26 members of the SS and police Sonderkommando [22]
12 members of other German police and paramilitary forces [23] and 5 German officials [24] according to HC blog.

Grok assesses evidence is 5x stronger for Chelmno https://x.com/i/grok/share/pMrTkfIxqGuLx4DEKmKBgzG7v

You'll gloss over all of this no doubt, but we're arguing over a conspiracy to fabricate false evidence for the Holocaust, essentially. You say it exists, I say it might exist, but is not properly evidenced. I am principally arguing that Katyn is what it would look like if the Soviets actually tried to fake the Holocaust. There would be no confessions or very few, there would have been no official documents (not to mention authenticated by the authors or recipients themselves). They wouldn't have been able to cover up their role in the conspiracy, internally. We have Soviet records of them doing Katyn. You ascribe to the Soviets near godlike power in terms of perpetuating a conspiracy, I argue for mostly buffoonery and presentation of evidence that wouldn't fool anyone. There is no reason to assume the Soviets have godlike power. There is reason to assume incompetence. You see that with Katyn and also things like their casualty justifications for these camps. Extrapolating death tolls based solely on cremation capacity is retarded, yet they make these arguments. From a rev perspective, maybe you could say they did these things on purpose, to make them seem incompetent when the truth was anything but.

[Nessie]

...
So far as 'atrocity pulp' goes, there is lots of it.

You think that, because it is all you concentrate on. You want to disbelieve, so you cherry-pick the atrocity stories and ignore the corroborated evidence, especially the matter of fact details provided by the Nazis.

....

Part of the problem here is the hindenburg fallacy.

We are talking about an event in history that stretches across a timeline and involved a significant portion of the globe. It consists of a series of events, some of which are fabricated, some are exaggerated and some are true.

You can't digest it as 'which person made it up'. It was a group effort, and without a doubt, just like any lie, there are grains of truth here or there.

It was a group effort by interested parties, not an effort by a single group or one person or anything.

Why would the Latvians, Lithuanians, Serbians and Romanians participate in a hoax, where they admit to joining with the Nazis by killing their own Jewish citizens? What is the benefit to the Dutch, to admit to providing such a high level of assistance to the Nazis, that they had one of the highest death rates for their Jewish citizens? What about the French and Hungarians, who traded some Jews to protect others? What is the benefit for those countries to participate in a hoax, where they are collaboraters with, or as bad as the Nazis? Their participation, or inaction, is a stain on their national histories.

Only Denmark and Finland actively and successfully protected the vast majority of their Jews. If it was all a hoax, would it not be better for the Latvians etc, to hoax they protected their Jews, rather than killed them?

It is hard to see who are the interested parties here. It is certainly not the majority of countries occupied by or aligned to the Nazis. How is it in their interest to have to admit to cooperating, at least in part, in the Holocaust? How did Denmark and Finland get a pass, so that only they can say they were not part of what happened? Where is the group in this supposed group effort?

[Nessie]

...

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

You only want to talk about the Soviets, because it is believable that, and they have a history, of faking history.

What about the Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, French, Italians, Czechoslovakians, the Balkan countries, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States? Why have they all, no matter what political party is in government, or type of government they have, admitted to their participation in the Holocaust? Why are they all faking their history?

Why do they all admit to failing to protect, or killing their own Jewish citizens, when Denmark and Finland get to say they did protect the vast majority of theirs? How do those two countries get to not fake having so many of their citizens killed?

[Archie]

...

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

You only want to talk about the Soviets, because it is believable that, and they have a history, of faking history.

What about the Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, French, Italians, Czechoslovakians, the Balkan countries, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States? Why have they all, no matter what political party is in government, or type of government they have, admitted to their participation in the Holocaust? Why are they all faking their history?

Why do they all admit to failing to protect, or killing their own Jewish citizens, when Denmark and Finland get to say they did protect the vast majority of theirs? How do those two countries get to not fake having so many of their citizens killed?

BA brought up the Soviets and falsely insinuated that they did not forge documents or manufacture perjured testimony at Katyn.

"What about the Norwegians ...?"

Tell me you don't understand spheres of influence without telling me you don't understand spheres of influence.

[Nessie]

...

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

You only want to talk about the Soviets, because it is believable that, and they have a history, of faking history.

What about the Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, French, Italians, Czechoslovakians, the Balkan countries, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States? Why have they all, no matter what political party is in government, or type of government they have, admitted to their participation in the Holocaust? Why are they all faking their history?

Why do they all admit to failing to protect, or killing their own Jewish citizens, when Denmark and Finland get to say they did protect the vast majority of theirs? How do those two countries get to not fake having so many of their citizens killed?

BA brought up the Soviets and falsely insinuated that they did not forge documents or manufacture perjured testimony at Katyn.

"What about the Norwegians ...?"

Tell me you don't understand spheres of influence without telling me you don't understand spheres of influence.

Who has been able to influence every single government and university in Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia (and the Czech Republic and Slovakia), all the various Balkan countries (including when it was Yugoslavia), Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States, to lie that they were directly involved and variously responsible for the Holocaust?

But they were not able to get Denmark and Finland to agree to hoaxing, they also participated and they were able to claim hero status by saving and protecting their Jewish citizens?

[Stubble]

Freemasons.

[Archie]

Those false documents don't actually specify Soviet responsibility for the crime. We just get the sense that a shooting happened there during Nazi occupation. It's actually all circumstantial. There are a few easily forged letters and receipts and things. This is in contrast to Chelmno where high level German documents spell out the killing of at least 100,000 there and even the methods used. So too there are no eyewitnesses who can attest to the operation, zero German perpetrator testimony here. 1 German apparently confessed, and then recanted, a recantation rate of 100%, while in Soviet captivity no less. He wasn't brought to Nuremberg, in contrast with the many Germans that confessed to Holocaust related crimes. For Chelmno there are confessions from 26 members of the SS and police Sonderkommando [22]
12 members of other German police and paramilitary forces [23] and 5 German officials [24] according to HC blog.

So first you insinuated there was no forgery and now that this was disproved you say it doesn't count because it was "easy" forgery. This sort of thing is why you have the reputation for being "slippery." It's because you start a line of argument and then when it fails you refuse to abandon the argument but rather introduce new criteria or redefine your terms in a lame attempt to salvage it.

Grok assesses evidence is 5x stronger for Chelmno https://x.com/i/grok/share/pMrTkfIxqGuLx4DEKmKBgzG7v

That is very naive use of AI. Grok is just synthesizing pro-Holocaust secondary sources like Wikipedia, Holocaust Controversies, USHMM. It's not allowed to use revisionist sources. Of course it's going to say evidence for Chelmno is "strong."

Given the Soviet evidence was later discredited and Chelmno's evidence is verified, it seems likely the Chelmno evidence is about 5 times stronger, reflecting its reliability and breadth.

Yeah, this is meaningless. Grok is discounting the Soviet evidence because it was "later discredited." That defeats the whole point of the question. And, again, the question was a bad one to begin because the dispute with Katyn was entirely over the identity of the perpetrators. No one was claiming the Polish officers weren't really killed.

You'll gloss over all of this no doubt, but we're arguing over a conspiracy to fabricate false evidence for the Holocaust, essentially. You say it exists, I say it might exist, but is not properly evidenced. I am principally arguing that Katyn is what it would look like if the Soviets actually tried to fake the Holocaust. There would be no confessions or very few, there would have been no official documents (not to mention authenticated by the authors or recipients themselves). They wouldn't have been able to cover up their role in the conspiracy, internally. We have Soviet records of them doing Katyn. You ascribe to the Soviets near godlike power in terms of perpetuating a conspiracy, I argue for mostly buffoonery and presentation of evidence that wouldn't fool anyone. There is no reason to assume the Soviets have godlike power. There is reason to assume incompetence. You see that with Katyn and also things like their casualty justifications for these camps. Extrapolating death tolls based solely on cremation capacity is retarded, yet they make these arguments. From a rev perspective, maybe you could say they did these things on purpose, to make them seem incompetent when the truth was anything but.

I think your "evidence ratio" approach is fundamentally misguided.

As far as evidence for a hoax, the signs are all there if you will allow yourself to see it. But if you are just going to bend over backwards making excuses about how all these obvious lies were just honest mistakes, then, yeah, you won't see it.

Let me suggest an analogy. Suppose there's a man who suspects his woman is cheating. She's going out a lot without explanation. She's dressing sexier but not for him. When he asks her things she gets defensive and seems like she's hiding something. All circumstantial. Nothing conclusive. But if you pile up enough of these things then there is a point where it is a near certainty that she is cheating. In some cases, people are too blind to see the signs. (This is you with the Soviets at Majdanek, Auschwitz, and Katyn. You just keep making excuses and rationalizing). Taking things further, suppose one of the guy's friends says he saw her car parked at a motel. Still circumstantial but very damning (>99% at this point). Suppose he hires a private eye and the PI photographs her and another dude going into a motel room. At what point have you seen enough? Do you have to see the whole thing live streamed in 4K?

[bombsaway]

All of this is a diversion from my main point. I guess you're saying there's no material difference between a hoax effort that didn't successfully coerce any perpetrator or eyewitness testimony or fabricate official type documents, and one that produced these things in copious quantity. In terms of the cover up the Soviets also massively failed, not even destroying their own documentation for being responsible. I'm asking you to compare competency of the conspiracies you see at the root of both events. I guess you disagree with my assessment here of Soviet bufoonery and that they would be incapable of doing something like what you allege - most critically the coercing of 50 or 60 testimonies from perpetrators and Germans, in addition to other testimony that is lacking for German-done Katyn. And the cover up of course. This is mock-worthy.

More AI analysis, which I think is sound. You may not be understanding the thrust of my argument

Q: "evaluate the disagreement between Archie and BA

What are the main points both are trying to make, and evaluate the strength of each sides arguments"

Analysis of the Forum Discussion between Archie and bombsaway
This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

##Archie's Position:
Archie argues that Soviet evidence about Nazi concentration camps was deliberately fabricated, similar to their documented deception regarding the Katyn massacre. His key points include:

The Soviets created forged documents and coerced false testimonies about Katyn
Soviet death toll figures for camps like Majdanek and Auschwitz were "wildly inflated" for propaganda purposes
The pattern of Soviet misrepresentation across multiple camps suggests deliberate deception
Physical evidence at places like Majdanek is questionable (referring to "gas chambers" as "a complete joke")

##Bombsaway's Position:
Bombsaway (BA) argues that the Katyn case actually demonstrates Soviet incompetence at orchestrating large conspiracies. His main arguments include:

The Soviets' Katyn conspiracy was crude and unsuccessful:

They produced only circumstantial evidence for German guilt
They secured almost no perpetrator confessions (just one, who later recanted)
They failed to destroy their own incriminating records
Their forged evidence was easily debunked


By contrast, Holocaust evidence includes:

Numerous perpetrator confessions (26 SS members, 12 police officers, 5 officials for Chelmno alone)
German documentation detailing killings
Extensive eyewitness testimony


BA concludes: "Katyn is what it would look like if the Soviets actually tried to fake the Holocaust. There would be no confessions or very few, there would have been no official documents..."
BA characterizes Soviet attempts as "buffoonery and presentation of evidence that wouldn't fool anyone" rather than sophisticated conspiracy

Evaluation:
Archie's argument relies on established Soviet dishonesty about Katyn as a template for questioning all Soviet evidence. However, this approach has significant weaknesses:

It doesn't address the crucial qualitative difference BA identifies between the Katyn deception and Holocaust evidence
It ignores the vastly larger scale of documentation and testimony supporting Holocaust accounts
It fails to explain why extensive non-Soviet evidence exists, including German documentation
It doesn't account for the multi-national nature of Holocaust evidence

Bombsaway's argument is more compelling because it:

Uses the Soviets' own demonstrated failures at Katyn to question their ability to orchestrate a vastly more complex deception
Provides specific metrics (number of testimonies, types of evidence) that differ dramatically between the two cases
Acknowledges Soviet dishonesty while showing why the Holocaust evidence pattern differs significantly
Offers a logical test: if the Soviets fabricated the Holocaust, why does its evidence signature differ so dramatically from their known fabrication at Katyn?# Analysis of the Forum Discussion between Archie and bombsaway

This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

## Archie's Position:
Archie argues that Soviet evidence about Nazi concentration camps was deliberately fabricated, similar to their documented deception regarding the Katyn massacre. His key points include:

1. The Soviets created forged documents and coerced false testimonies about Katyn
2. Soviet death toll figures for camps like Majdanek and Auschwitz were "wildly inflated" for propaganda purposes
3. The pattern of Soviet misrepresentation across multiple camps suggests deliberate deception
4. Physical evidence at places like Majdanek is questionable (referring to "gas chambers" as "a complete joke")

## Bombsaway's Position:
Bombsaway (BA) argues that the Katyn case actually demonstrates Soviet incompetence at orchestrating large conspiracies. His main arguments include:

1. The Soviets' Katyn conspiracy was crude and unsuccessful:
- They produced only circumstantial evidence for German guilt
- They secured almost no perpetrator confessions (just one, who later recanted)
- They failed to destroy their own incriminating records
- Their forged evidence was easily debunked

2. By contrast, Holocaust evidence includes:
- Numerous perpetrator confessions (26 SS members, 12 police officers, 5 officials for Chelmno alone)
- German documentation detailing killings
- Extensive eyewitness testimony

3. BA concludes: "Katyn is what it would look like if the Soviets actually tried to fake the Holocaust. There would be no confessions or very few, there would have been no official documents..."

4. BA characterizes Soviet attempts as "buffoonery and presentation of evidence that wouldn't fool anyone" rather than sophisticated conspiracy

## Evaluation:

Archie's argument relies on established Soviet dishonesty about Katyn as a template for questioning all Soviet evidence. However, this approach has significant weaknesses:

1. It doesn't address the crucial qualitative difference BA identifies between the Katyn deception and Holocaust evidence
2. It ignores the vastly larger scale of documentation and testimony supporting Holocaust accounts
3. It fails to explain why extensive non-Soviet evidence exists, including German documentation
4. It doesn't account for the multi-national nature of Holocaust evidence

Bombsaway's argument is more compelling because it:

1. Uses the Soviets' own demonstrated failures at Katyn to question their ability to orchestrate a vastly more complex deception
2. Provides specific metrics (number of testimonies, types of evidence) that differ dramatically between the two cases
3. Acknowledges Soviet dishonesty while showing why the Holocaust evidence pattern differs significantly
4. Offers a logical test: if the Soviets fabricated the Holocaust, why does its evidence signature differ so dramatically from their known fabrication at Katyn?

[TlsMS93]

Why would defendants confess to crimes? Because it has been demonstrated that a crime was committed and they were part of it? Did they confess before or after this demonstration?

In an exceptional court, where the death penalty is easily applied, a defendant's confession may be motivated by several factors, even if it is not rational or fair. Among the possible reasons:

Coercion or torture: In contexts of war or authoritarian regimes, extreme methods may be used to force confessions, regardless of their veracity.

Hope for clemency: The defendant may believe that confessing will result in a lighter sentence or some kind of agreement.

Despair or resignation: Faced with a system that seems inevitably against him, the defendant may confess because he feels there is no other way out.

Protection of third parties: In some cases, the defendant may confess to protect family or friends from reprisals.

Psychological manipulation: Interrogation techniques may lead the defendant to believe that confessing is his only option.

Plea bargain: The defendant can confess to crimes to implicate third parties

The question is, why did they confess? Because they were real people? Would they do this without the context of a trial? They still say that the people who operated these camps were officers who kept absolute silence and were ideological people.

[bombsaway]

I think the point is if it was so easy to coerce false confessions or the Soviets were so good at doing it, why couldn't they successfully get a single confession like this for German-caused Katyn?

Hundreds for the Holocaust (mass gassings), none for Katyn.

[TlsMS93]

There are plenty of false witnesses in this world or witnesses who claim absurd things that, together, serve to produce a larger narrative. This is how religions arise, not because a deity appeared to a community. People tend to believe in people's good faith. What we have most of are people making money by claiming anything. Here in Brazil, people retire for working in rural areas based on people's testimonies, or landowners give a lease document to a person who has never worked on a farm, just to help them retire early.

In any case, what witnesses can validate a crime as vast as genocide? They can only support what they saw with their own eyes. They were not in the entire chain of command, and even their eyes can only claim one thing that is not what is alleged, for example, cremations of people who were already dead upon arrival or who died for some non-homicidal reason, claiming that they died because they wanted to kill them, or that the cremation served to hide the evidence and not for health reasons, and so on.

And let's face it, the Poles were conditioned to believe anything about the Germans, since the Germans produced reports about Polish atrocities against the German minority before the war. In a war, there are offensives and counteroffensives, both in the military and propaganda fields. So producing atrocity narratives can serve many purposes, such as eliminating the enemy's reason for attacking them or justifying their own crimes, after all, the Germans "deserved it."

[Archie]

All of this is a diversion from my main point. I guess you're saying there's no material difference between a hoax effort that didn't successfully coerce any perpetrator or eyewitness testimony or fabricate official type documents, and one that produced these things in copious quantity. In terms of the cover up the Soviets also massively failed, not even destroying their own documentation for being responsible. I'm asking you to compare competency of the conspiracies you see at the root of both events. I guess you disagree with my assessment here of Soviet bufoonery and that they would be incapable of doing something like what you allege - most critically the coercing of 50 or 60 testimonies from perpetrators and Germans, in addition to other testimony that is lacking for German-done Katyn. And the cover up of course. This is mock-worthy.

I don't care if the level "hoax effort" might be different. Why such a convoluted argument? I base my conclusions on the strength of the evidence and arguments. At Chelmno, I do not think the evidence is commensurate with the conclusion that 150K were executed there. I do not base this conclusion primarily on analogies with Katyn. I was merely correcting your elementary factual errors. Yet you still persist in saying a lot of nonsense.

-I showed you evidence that they manufactured a huge amount of false testimonies for Katyn yet you continue to say this didn't happen.
-You do your usual "it doesn't count" nonsense and have attempted to draw a distinction where it has to be false confessions and only confessions. Why? What is your explanation for the 100+ false Katyn witnesses, including ones who invented elaborate false stories? Whether there are Germans available to confess will depend on circumstances. At the Krasnodar trial in 1943, there were no German confessions for the simple reason that they didn't have any Germans on hand. At the Kharkov trial at the end of 1943 they had a few and sure enough they got confessions. At Madjanek in 1944, they had Germans so there were confessions.
-The Soviet cover-up of Katyn did not fail. In Eastern Europe they maintained the lie for over 40 years and it collapsed because the Soviet regime collapsed. They did not release this documentation you speak of until 1989. If it were 1988, you'd be saying the Germans did Katyn.

More AI analysis, which I think is sound. You may not be understanding the thrust of my argument

Good grief. Are you going to post AI slop every time you do poorly in a thread? AI is not a satisfactory arbiter on this topic in particular because 1) the points we discuss are too arcane and specific, and 2) because it is programmed not to deny the Holocaust. You would need a jailbroken AI and you would need to feed it lots of very specific data to get anything useful out of it on these questions. The out-of-the-box AI is mostly just synthesizing online secondary sources (with revisionist sources deliberately excluded).

This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

Not really. For me, it was primarily a factual dispute over your assertion that the Soviets did not manufacture false testimony or forge documents at Katyn.

##Archie's Position:
Archie argues that Soviet evidence about Nazi concentration camps was deliberately fabricated, similar to their documented deception regarding the Katyn massacre. His key points include:
The Soviets created forged documents and coerced false testimonies about Katyn
Soviet death toll figures for camps like Majdanek and Auschwitz were "wildly inflated" for propaganda purposes
The pattern of Soviet misrepresentation across multiple camps suggests deliberate deception
Physical evidence at places like Majdanek is questionable (referring to "gas chambers" as "a complete joke")

I do think most of this, but my reasons for not believing the Holocaust go way beyond this. I'm not going to give a full exposition of my views in every single conversation. This context is known to most of those who participate and/or read this forum, so it is not necessary to do this. The AI however does not have this context.

The revisionist arguments about Majdanek are very strong. I merely referred to this briefly without elaboration. If the AI is going only on my comments in this thread, obviously that will not sound like a very thorough argument (it wasn't intended to be). Again, on the forum we have the context. The AI does not have the context.

Lastly, I do NOT argue that Katyn is fake, therefore the Holocaust is fake. The point I make is that much of the evidence for the Holocaust is from ex parte sources that are known to be unreliable. And even this I do not claim to be a conclusive argument by itself.

##Bombsaway's Position:
Bombsaway (BA) argues that the Katyn case actually demonstrates Soviet incompetence at orchestrating large conspiracies. His main arguments include:

The Soviets' Katyn conspiracy was crude and unsuccessful:

They produced only circumstantial evidence for German guilt
They secured almost no perpetrator confessions (just one, who later recanted)
They failed to destroy their own incriminating records
Their forged evidence was easily debunked

These are all terrible points. I did not specifically rebut all of them because I felt they were too weak to bother with. Grok does not know enough specifics to know that you are talking through your hat and so it is assuming these are strong counterpoints.

Even if the above points weren't wrong, it would still be in service of a terrible argument, "evidence ratio," "hoax effort," etc.

Evaluation:
Archie's argument relies on established Soviet dishonesty about Katyn as a template for questioning all Soviet evidence.

No, I don't. I have very specific reasons for rejecting the stories for Majdanek, Auschwitz, etc. I just didn't go into it for the millionth time in this thread. This is the problem with feeding an AI only a small snippet of what is a much larger debate.

[Stubble]

Katyn and Majdanek are examples of Soviet atrocity hoaxes and their fabricated evidence should be patent.

They aren't they only examples, just really good ones that shouldn't be arguable.

The Soviets lied. A lot.

[bombsaway]

This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

Not really. For me, it was primarily a factual dispute over your assertion that the Soviets did not manufacture false testimony or forge documents at Katyn.

I'm not interested in scoring minor victories. I think we've been through Katyn before so you know that I'm aware there are indirect testimonies. The forged documents aren't German, which is what I asked for previously and didn't receive from revisionists.

What brought me back to this thread is my basic argumentation about how revisionists are unjustified in asserting a mass events like large scale Jewish survival in certain areas and conspiracy/conspiracies to fabricate false events. The Soviets fabricating Katyn doesn't mean they would do it for the Holocaust. Assuming they did knowingly promulgate falsehoods about death tolls (this is possible) it also doesn't mean they would fabricate Holocaust evidence like documents and coerce witnesses. The larger point here with Katyn is not only are revisionists unjustified in asserting conspiracy based on lack of evidence for it, the idea of such a conspiracy even being possible to pull off is counter indicated. Is my assessment of Soviet buffoonery and lack of competence correct?

Again the score is

At Nuremberg, no charges brought against any defendants, no documents formally presented or added to evidence. No direct evidence of Soviet complicity for the crime. Inability to keep their sole confessor from recanting (while in Soviet jail where coercive pressures would be maximum). Failure to cover up their own involvement in terms of documentary record.

[bombsaway]

Katyn and Majdanek are examples of Soviet atrocity hoaxes and their fabricated evidence should be patent.

They aren't they only examples, just really good ones that shouldn't be arguable.

The Soviets lied. A lot.

They fabricated evidence for Katyn that is unlike evidence treated as definitive for Holocaust events

There's no evidence they fabricated for Majdanek, just made unfounded assertions about what went on there. Ditto Auschwitz w the 4 million dead.

So even in terms of circumstantial evidence for Holocaust hoax, the case is weak I would say.