The Question of Conspiracy

[TlsMS93]

The Jewish soap myth was supported by all the Allies. They didn't bother to check the reliability of these accounts.

Anything that served the purpose of demonizing the Germans they would jump at the chance. If the soap myth was not studied in depth by them or if they knew about its weaknesses but still maintained it in court it created a conspiracy, who can guarantee that they were accurate in their allegations of gassing in makeshift rooms?

But were there already historians rejecting these stories at the time, without examining the product or anything? Okay, they knew more than the governments themselves? Wow, that just reinforces the conspiracy.

"But by some miracle, I don't know how or what, then water came down instead of gas."

But that's not enough for you.

[Nessie]

Nessie please, you aren't helping. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

How is pointing out the scale of the hoax being alleged, not helping? Why would France support a Soviet hoax, which makes out France to have behaved terribly towards its Jewish citizens by supporting the Nazis?

[Nessie]

...

If the absolute annihilation of European jewry had been the goal, then European jewry would have been annihilated.

...

That is contrary to the normal revisionist claim of how impossible it would have been to murder so many Jews so quickly, therefore they were not all murdered.

[Nessie]

The Jewish soap myth was supported by all the Allies. They didn't bother to check the reliability of these accounts.

Yet, we know it is a myth, so that is another WWII myth which failed. Giving examples of hoaxes that failed, is not very good evidence that a hoax was successful.

[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?

"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.

Where's the reference? Do you have a link or citation? I'll wait until you provide a proper source before commenting further, but ...

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

Are you claiming that historians don't make "intervening inferences"?

[Archie]

Nessie please, you aren't helping. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

How is pointing out the scale of the hoax being alleged, not helping? Why would France support a Soviet hoax, which makes out France to have behaved terribly towards its Jewish citizens by supporting the Nazis?

Presumably he thinks you're a bit thick. I will say in your defense though that your arguments, while simplistic, are more straightforward and coherent than those of bombs. Arguing with bombs is like trying to wrestle jelly.

[TlsMS93]

Yet, we know it is a myth, so that is another WWII myth which failed. Giving examples of hoaxes that failed, is not very good evidence that a hoax was successful.

Who says a conspiracy has to prevail to be classified as one?

Hitler's pre-war speech was forged, saying he was afraid some son of a bitch would come up with a last-minute peace proposal. Wasn't that a conspiracy to implicate the defendants? What was the need for that?

[Nessie]

Nessie please, you aren't helping. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

How is pointing out the scale of the hoax being alleged, not helping? Why would France support a Soviet hoax, which makes out France to have behaved terribly towards its Jewish citizens by supporting the Nazis?

Presumably he thinks you're a bit thick. I will say in your defense though that your arguments, while simplistic, are more straightforward and coherent than those of bombs. Arguing with bombs is like trying to wrestle jelly.

Can you explain why France would support a Soviet Holocaust hoax that involves the French being complicit in the murder of over 73,000 of its citizens, when those people were still alive?

[Nessie]

Yet, we know it is a myth, so that is another WWII myth which failed. Giving examples of hoaxes that failed, is not very good evidence that a hoax was successful.

Who says a conspiracy has to prevail to be classified as one?

Hitler's pre-war speech was forged, saying he was afraid some son of a bitch would come up with a last-minute peace proposal. Wasn't that a conspiracy to implicate the defendants? What was the need for that?

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

[TlsMS93]

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

It is really difficult to convince believers that their faith was nothing more than a political construction.

[Stubble]

Yet, we know it is a myth, so that is another WWII myth which failed. Giving examples of hoaxes that failed, is not very good evidence that a hoax was successful.

Who says a conspiracy has to prevail to be classified as one?

Hitler's pre-war speech was forged, saying he was afraid some son of a bitch would come up with a last-minute peace proposal. Wasn't that a conspiracy to implicate the defendants? What was the need for that?

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

When the only demonstrable proof you will accept is to look at some of the failures, you whittle yourself a bit of a nest, don't you.

[Nessie]

...

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

When the only demonstrable proof you will accept is to look at some of the failures, you whittle yourself a bit of a nest, don't you.

Evidence to prove a hoax -

- whistleblowers, who were involved in organising the hoax.
- evidence as to what really happened and millions of Jews still alive in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

You have nothing.

[Nessie]

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

It is really difficult to convince believers that their faith was nothing more than a political construction.

I don't have a faith, I have evidence.

[TlsMS93]

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

It is really difficult to convince believers that their faith was nothing more than a political construction.

I don't have a faith, I have evidence.

No religion is completely free of something tangible for its faith. Whether they are consistent with their history is irrelevant to the believers. Moses wrote the Torah, the ruins of Jericho were because of Joshua's trumpet, and so on.

When we are born immersed in a religion, it is much more difficult to use reason to evaluate it than those from outside who did not grow up immersed in that culture. With the Holocaust it is the same thing, a lot of emotion, anything that is presented is quickly interpreted to arrive at what was passed on.

[Nessie]

...

I don't have a faith, I have evidence.

No religion is completely free of something tangible for its faith. Whether they are consistent with their history is irrelevant to the believers. Moses wrote the Torah, the ruins of Jericho were because of Joshua's trumpet, and so on.

When we are born immersed in a religion, it is much more difficult to use reason to evaluate it than those from outside who did not grow up immersed in that culture. With the Holocaust it is the same thing, a lot of emotion, anything that is presented is quickly interpreted to arrive at what was passed on.

Revisionism really should just be called denial. You are not revising history, as you cannot evidence what the history is being revised to. You deny what is evidenced to have happened and believe in what is not evidenced to have happened. That makes denial/revision more like a religious belief.