The Question of Conspiracy

[Stubble]

What is your criteria? Busting holes in roofs, claiming millions of deaths and hanging people apparently don't count. What do you want?

[bombsaway]

What is your criteria? Busting holes in roofs, claiming millions of deaths and hanging people apparently don't count. What do you want?

So are you saying busting holes in the roof is direct evidence of large scale hoax, mass fabrication of evidence?

[Stubble]

What is your criteria? Busting holes in roofs, claiming millions of deaths and hanging people apparently don't count. What do you want?

So are you saying busting holes in the roof is direct evidence of large scale hoax, mass fabrication of evidence?

This is a simplification.

I'm saying turning majdanek into a death camp where 2,000,000 people were murdered is evidence of an initial hoax, at majdanek.

Of course with other single issues there will be other strings fabrications.

That said, busting holes in the roof to say 7 rooms were gas chambers and claiming 2,000,000 dead was not a mistake or innocent act.

[bombsaway]

I'm saying turning majdanek into a death camp where 2,000,000 people were murdered is evidence of an initial hoax, at majdanek.

Ok, so let's focus on this. I don't see a 2,000,000 person claim, but I see a 1.5 million from this report

https://www.jewishgen.org/forgottencamp ... eport.html

Firstly, when you look at that figure 1.5 million (with Jews not being the exclusive victim group, "Soviet prisoners of war, prisoners of war of the former Polish army, and civilians of different nationalities, such as Poles, Frenchmen, Italians, Belgians, Netherlanders, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, Croatians" are also mentioned) do you see that as direct evidence of a wider Holocaust hoax, including mass fabrication of evidence, etc? It's pretty clearly not to me, but I want to know where you're at with this.

[Stubble]

I'm saying turning majdanek into a death camp where 2,000,000 people were murdered is evidence of an initial hoax, at majdanek.

Ok, so let's focus on this. I don't see a 2,000,000 person claim, but I see a 1.5 million from this report

https://www.jewishgen.org/forgottencamp ... eport.html

Firstly, when you look at that figure 1.5 million (with Jews not being the exclusive victim group, "Soviet prisoners of war, prisoners of war of the former Polish army, and civilians of different nationalities, such as Poles, Frenchmen, Italians, Belgians, Netherlanders, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, Croatians" are also mentioned) do you see that as direct evidence of a wider Holocaust hoax, including mass fabrication of evidence, etc? It's pretty clearly not to me, but I want to know where you're at with this.

Then you aren't looking at the original claim.

The original claim was 2,000,000.

[bombsaway]

I'm not sure how much material difference this makes, but why don't you show me the original claim. You're making this argument and the assertion, so it's not my job to build the case for you.

[Archie]

Don't get the relevance of the hindenburg fallacy:

"The "Hindenburg fallacy" refers to the misconception that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by a single, easily identifiable factor, like sabotage or a simple spark, when in reality, it was likely a complex issue of multiple contributing factors. "

If you have direct evidence of the Allies fabricating Holocaust evidence, show me.

What I can tell you is that historians require direct evidence for any claims, and you have two major claims, "systemic effort to fabricate evidence and witness testimony" + "large scale maintenance of non-employable Jews by the Nazis", and you have not provided this. It's a double fail. Historians don't assert minor events, much less mass events, without direct evidence.

Can you provide a reference of some sort for this rule yours that "historians require direct evidence for any claims"?

Something like this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

And can you define what "direct" evidence means in the way you are using it?

[bombsaway]

Don't get the relevance of the hindenburg fallacy:

"The "Hindenburg fallacy" refers to the misconception that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by a single, easily identifiable factor, like sabotage or a simple spark, when in reality, it was likely a complex issue of multiple contributing factors. "

If you have direct evidence of the Allies fabricating Holocaust evidence, show me.

What I can tell you is that historians require direct evidence for any claims, and you have two major claims, "systemic effort to fabricate evidence and witness testimony" + "large scale maintenance of non-employable Jews by the Nazis", and you have not provided this. It's a double fail. Historians don't assert minor events, much less mass events, without direct evidence.

Can you provide a reference of some sort for this rule yours that "historians require direct evidence for any claims"?

Something like this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

And can you define what "direct" evidence means in the way you are using it?

"a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference. "

I don't think it's an utter absolute. Like Jesus is asserted as being a real person despite little to direct evidence of that. But within the last 500 years, in areas of the world where records are kept, yeah this is pretty much a baseline requirement. I looked into this exhaustively. The only incidences where direct evidence isn't there for mass events are "extinction events", eg

The extinction of the Beothuk people of Newfoundland in the early 19th century occurred without direct documentation of their final decline. We have:

No eyewitness accounts of their final years as a community
No written records from the Beothuk themselves
No documented observations of their last settlements or final deaths
No census data or death records for most individuals

Yet historians can assert with high confidence that this extinction occurred based entirely on circumstantial evidence:

Archaeological remains showing their previous presence
European colonial records mentioning their existence earlier
Linguistic samples collected previously
The complete absence of Beothuk individuals or communities in later records
Physical evidence of abandoned settlements
Collected artifacts showing their distinct material culture
Indirect mentions in colonial correspondence about "disappearing natives"

It's interesting to note that this could be used to "prove" the Holocaust.

The other thing about the circumstantial evidence you offer, is that it is pretty weak. There are no real alternatives to certain facts about Beothuk extinction, eg "The complete absence of Beothuk individuals or communities in later records"). There are alternative explanations to the hoax evidence you see, other than large scale fabrication of historical event, as I will point out to Stubble when he comes back with something I can look at.

[Stubble]

I'm not sure how much material difference this makes, but why don't you show me the original claim. You're making this argument and the assertion, so it's not my job to build the case for you.

For the record, I thought this was 'Common Knowledge'.

This is the first plaque from the camp. Note, 2,000,000.

[bombsaway]

I'm not sure how much material difference this makes, but why don't you show me the original claim. You're making this argument and the assertion, so it's not my job to build the case for you.

For the record, I thought this was 'Common Knowledge'.

This is the first plaque from the camp. Note, 2,000,000.

Ok I was hoping for additional justification or more info but I'll go with that

do you see this as direct evidence of a wider Holocaust hoax, including mass fabrication of evidence, etc?

[Stubble]

You don't see a literal hoax, complete with fake gas chambers, as evidence of a hoax?

I'm glad a literal picture of the first plaque is sufficient for you, I'm not sure what else you could ask for.

[bombsaway]

You don't see a literal hoax, complete with fake gas chambers, as evidence of a hoax?

I'm glad a literal picture of the first plaque is sufficient for you, I'm not sure what else you could ask for.

A hoax is a purposeful deception. I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that the Soviets knew the 2 million number wasn't accurate. But you go beyond this, saying that it is evidence of a broader effort to manufacture a completely false historical event, the mass slaughter of Jews across Europe, directed by the Nazi government, including mass gassings.

I'll give you an analogy here. A mass shooting of 500 Jews, doesn't directly evidence a qualitatively different claim, that hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed at different sites. That shooting would be circumstantial, but not direct evidence.

I am saying that Soviets falsely asserting 2 million dead, with no supporting evidence to speak of, is different than mass manufacturing documents and coercing witnesses at a completely different location.

Here's an AI summation, in case I'm not. being clear

BA's overall argument appears to be:

1. There's a fundamental difference between asserting false death counts (like the Majdanek plaque showing 2 million) versus evidence for a systematic, multi-national conspiracy to fabricate an entire historical event

2. BA is arguing that historical claims require direct evidence - meaning facts that directly support an assertion without requiring inference steps

3. Assuming the Soviets knowingly used false numbers at Majdanek, this doesn't constitute direct evidence of a broader conspiracy involving multiple Allied powers to fabricate the Holocaust

4. BA is challenging Stubble to provide direct evidence of government-directed fabrication of Holocaust evidence (documents, testimonies, physical evidence) rather than circumstantial evidence like false death toll numbers

5. BA distinguishes between isolated examples of coercion or misrepresentation versus the kind of systematic, coordinated conspiracy across multiple countries that would be required if the Holocaust were fabricated

BA is essentially applying a historical methodology standard, arguing that extraordinary claims (like a massive multi-national conspiracy) require direct, not circumstantial evidence. Stubble sees the Majdanek plaque as direct evidence of fabrication, while BA sees it as, at most, evidence of false assertion about death tolls that doesn't directly demonstrate a broader conspiracy to invent the Holocaust.

It should be said that as the AI points out that yes, extraordinary claims like a massive multi-national conspiracy, require a high standard of evidence. The Majdanek death number doesn't even include Jews, which is what the Holocaust was about, the singling out of this particular group. The Majdanek plaque is just evidence of Soviet unscrupulousness, which yeah we knew about, with eg Katyn. It was important for them to frame the Nazis as doing horrible things for propaganda purposes. But saying they did these things is different, than mass fabrication of evidence, which you see for all the other places. Hopefully this makes sense.

[Stubble]

You neglect the fake 'homicidal gas chambers'. You neglect the Soviets creating the holes for these 'homicidal gas chambers'. You neglect the same thing occurring at Auschwitz regarding 1) the death toll 2) the holes in crematoria 1.

Now, at the majdanek trial, the soviets showed their ass. You think they would let that happen again? Also consider the amount of time they had to generate 'evidence' (ie fabricate) and to use it to 'extract' confessions.

Now, look at the 'perpetrator confessions'. You have people either given a very light sentence, or hung. You have people threatened with the annihilation of their family tree. People beaten. People systematically abused.

This is all just 'happenstance' though, eh?

Then you have the western allies with fake gas chambers.

You have memoranda inside the oss and inside the British intelligence apparatus. I'm sure there is Soviet documentation as well. I haven't invested so much time in to studying Soviet internal documentation. First off, I can't read source. Second, my access is scant.

There is also the media apparatus propagating the 'narrative'.

You have the atrocity propaganda coming out of the polish government in exile and out of the international jewish community.

This is a complex and nuanced topic and it is also multifaceted. It isn't some easy and simple thing where there are specific people that sat in a room and created what we call the holocaust.

There are events that were fabricated, that were exaggerated and that actually happened. Parsing the truth from the lie is a problem standing here 80 years after the fact. This would have been easier to look at in 1945.

[bombsaway]

I added to my post above, but from your response I gather that you have conceded that the Majdanek plaque is not direct evidence of a larger campaign to fabricate a systematic operation to mass kill European Jews. I am saying you need this evidence, as a baseline, or you need very strong circumstantial evidence.

I would say read what I added to my above post and then get back to me with your strongest circumstantial evidence. This will allow us to gauge the strength of your case.

I don't think a lot of circumstantial evidence proves it. I could point to a hundred different shootings of Jews in the East and it wouldn't prove that they were mass gassed. If you don't have direct evidence, you should at least provide strong circumstantial evidence that is qualitatively appropriate.

[Nessie]

You neglect the fake 'homicidal gas chambers'. You neglect the Soviets creating the holes for these 'homicidal gas chambers'. You neglect the same thing occurring at Auschwitz regarding 1) the death toll 2) the holes in crematoria 1.

You neglect that you have;

1 - very limited evidence of deception and that those deceptions failed, from the mass production of Jewish soap, to Katyn.
2 - described attempts to reconstruct gas chambers as deceptions, when it is known they are reconstructions.
3 - yet to explain why countries, from France to Greece, would cooperate with the Soviets and admit to crimes they did not commit, as they had cooperated with the Nazis.
4 - failed to show how the hoax could survive the fall of the SU.
5 - not explained why the Soviets wrote no histories of, or memorialised the Holocaust and left control of that narrative to other countries.