Revisionism's [Limited?] Role in Modern Politics

[Nessie]

You claim to have an MA. It is curious that someone with an MA resorts to mere platitudes continually, then resorting to personal attacks like AirFixGeneral used to do. It is the evidence under discussion not the constant demand to produce evidence.

Historians evidence what happened, revisionists cannot.

Holocaust historians have swallowed (or willingly gone along with) Allied and Zionist war-time propaganda and have supported this with dubious sources.

Revisionists have the job of separating out fact from fiction, to the extent possible after so many decades of lies.

The majority of the evidence from eyewitnesses and the vast majority of the documentary, physical and circumstantial evidence comes from Nazi sources and is confirmed by them.

You dishonestly suggest the evidence is Allied and Zionist propaganda, to distract from revisionist inability to revise the history of the Holocaust, with contemporaneous evidence, producing a chronology of events around the arrest of millions of Jews and what subsequently happened to them. That is why Holocaust revision is badly named, as revisionists cannot revise the existing history. Some have tried, but their attempts are laughable and contradict each other.

As for revisionists separating fact from fiction, their inexperience with and disinterest in the norms of witness behaviour, memory and recall, and reliance on the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, means that they are unable to complete that task with any reliability. It does not even cross their minds that they have come up with the extraordinary result of 100% of witnesses who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema lied. Hundreds of witnesses, who, no matter their circumstances, told a pack of lies about gassing and never let slip what really took place. Then there are the millions of people who are proven to have been to those places, supposedly not killed, but they play dead, pretending to have been killed in the gas chambers and then, for an inexplicable reason revisionist cannot explain, were hidden by the Nazis till the end of the war.

[InuYasha]

I think that revisionism, although not a political phenomenon but only one of the historical concepts, would have a significant political impact on the world if it were recognized as a legitimate historical concept.

When I read Jurgen Graf's 1993 book "Der Holocaust-Schwindel" and his Russian-language "On the Eve of the World Catastrophe", I noticed that Graf expressed hope for the collapse of the "Great Lie" in the 90s, or perhaps the 00s, for example:

The Holocaust is a colossus, but a colossus with feet of clay, which will collapse, perhaps in this decade and certainly in the next

However, neither the Leuchter report nor the subsequent study of the gas chambers by Germar Rudolf led to a change in the accepted view. 32 years have passed since Graf's book was published, and nothing has changed - except for the exterminationists reducing the number of victims of Auschwitz from 4 to 1 million, and the rejection of the idea that the Germans made soap from people.

It is clear to me that there are a number of topics that are important to the establishment for the maintenance of the social system of the so-called developed countries. In our world, there are about 1% or 80 million people who have been unconditionally considered "monsters" and "degenerates" for the last half century (since about 1977), deprived of everything human, and this conviction, although clearly Nazi, has broad social support, especially in UK, US and Australia. In other words, as long as politicians benefit from lies, they will prevail, and only if the opposition manages to turn society to its side, the lies will collapse.

The Shoah is the same "forbidden topic", the collapse of which will lead to the deprivation of the basis for the humiliation of the German people, the defeat of the political rights of Germany as a country - and the basis for continuing reparations to Israel. It will also lead to a revision of views on the Second World War as a whole, and of course the loss of public trust in politicians. Now, when the world really is "On the Eve of a World Catastrophe", as in Graf's book, this can really become relevant again.

The Russian-Ukrainian war right now has a chance to develop into a Third World War in Europe, when it has become obvious that it is possible to wage a conventional war in the 21st century on the same scale as in the first half of the 20th, and this will not lead to political costs. Putin obviously does not need a world in which Russia does not exist as a kind of continental empire. The beginning of WWIII will give a new impetus to revisionism, both in relation to the Holocaust and, obviously, in relation to itself (i.e. WWIII revisionism).

[Archie]

When I read Jurgen Graf's 1993 book "Der Holocaust-Schwindel" and his Russian-language "On the Eve of the World Catastrophe", I noticed that Graf expressed hope for the collapse of the "Great Lie" in the 90s, or perhaps the 00s, for example:

David Irving made similar statements around that time. The late 80s to early 90s seems to have been a period of high optimism for revisionists. Those predictions didn't pan out. Jews did not concede the gas chambers and all the rest of it.
They doubled down. They just made revisionism illegal in much of Europe. And I hate to say it but that strategy worked pretty well. Or at least bought them some time.

Within a few years the mood had shifted. Here is Arthur Butz in 1999.

Unfortunately I no longer believe victory is assured. I ask myself: can these yarns really go on and on? I have to admit, yes. The endurance of religious myth provides ample precedent, and it is a commonplace that the Holocaust cult is really a religion.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... h-century/

[TlsMS93]

If we consider the Holocaust a belief system, where evidence is interpreted rather than investigated to further individual interests, then the Holocaust will undoubtedly continue. Many countries affected by Israel or confronting its actions will begin to reevaluate this system that drives Jewish actions in their lives.

So if the Holocaust is challenged, it will be less because of revisionist propaganda and more because of the need for survival. The State of Israel, Zionism, and the Jewish community itself have never been in such a dark moment in the eyes of public opinion. Crying about the Holocaust as a shield is not working as well as it used to and can be seen as something planned. Holocaust syndrome is winning over more and more people. No one can stand this being hammered into human consciousness every single day.

If they were sure that their narrative was solid, they would not conduct opinion polls in countries on the subject. In Italy, 15% are “deniers.” They have already managed to convince the Pope that anti-Judaism is anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is in the same vein. The latest measures taken by Trump and the US regarding loyalty to Israel and deporting those who speak out against Israel are in this direction. They are clearly on the defensive. In Germany itself, they want to be able to take away dual citizenship from those who argue that Israel has no right to exist.

[Nessie]

Revisionism is not revision. It is denial. S0-called revisionists produce a non-history of what did not happen and make unevidenced, contradictory allusions as to what did. It's role in modern politics is limited, because only some fall for its obvious flaws and fakery.

[InuYasha]

David Irving made similar statements around that time. The late 80s to early 90s seems to have been a period of high optimism for revisionists. Those predictions didn't pan out. Jews did not concede the gas chambers and all the rest of it.
They doubled down. They just made revisionism illegal in much of Europe. And I hate to say it but that strategy worked pretty well. Or at least bought them some time.

I think it's because the revisionists had scientific evidence to support their view for the first time - the Leuchter Report. It was this report that Graf cited as the beginning of the end for the Holocaust lobby.

Irving, who seemed to have renounced "denial", actually expressed optimism about a future victory in 1988.

Surprisingly, both revisionism and pro-contact activism received strong scientific evidence in their favor at almost the same time. In 1998, the famous Rind, Bauserman and Tromovich reports appeared, which fully met the scientific criteria, even from the point of view of critics. They ran into an inglorious vote in Congress, and the mass hysteria about the "predators" continued - after all, its collapse would mean a blow to Western society, bankruptcy of those who profit from it, and a loss of trust in politicians.

Within a few years the mood had shifted. Here is Arthur Butz in 1999.

Unfortunately I no longer believe victory is assured. I ask myself: can these yarns really go on and on? I have to admit, yes. The endurance of religious myth provides ample precedent, and it is a commonplace that the Holocaust cult is really a religion.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... h-century/

Arthur Butz has been questioning the Holocaust since the 1970s, and if I remember correctly, he believed that Israel's intervention in the Lebanese civil war could lead to the debunking of the Shoah story in 1982 - long before Leuchter's reports.

Graf, an optimist in the early 1990s, already saw the danger that exterminationist propaganda would intensify:

Now, after the examination of Leuchter and Rudolf, the Great Lie has been finally refuted and its strategists have to continually intensify the propaganda. In the coming years, the media will play the same record day after day: Holocaust, Auschwitz, gas chambers, six million; Holocaust, Auschwitz, gas chambers, six million, until everyone has internalized it as well as their birthday.

But I am optimistic. In the 90s, the Internet was not as widely available as in the 20s. More and more people are asking questions, and even Irving noted that a significant portion of those who write to him are teenagers who learned about the events of the war and the "Holohoax" and want to know another opinion.

“I’m getting messages from 14, 15 and 16-year-olds in America. They find me on YouTube. There are 220 of my lectures on YouTube, I believe, and these young people tell me how they’ve stayed up all night watching them.

“They get in touch because they want to find out the truth about Hitler and the Second World War. They ask all sorts of questions. I’m getting up to 300 to 400 emails a day. And I answer them all. I build a relationship with them.”

In the case of the idea mentioned, I think that indeed, social and demographic changes will lead to a change in public consciousness, perhaps in the 30s, and almost certainly in the middle of the 21st century. Probably this will lead to the recognition of HD as a historical study, and not anti-Semitic propaganda, but the narrative about gas chambers can survive, like all of world religions survived until present day.

I myself did not question the Holocaust from the moment I first heard about it in school until the moment when I got my hands on the book "Der Holocaust-Schwindel", and then "Political truth or historical truth? The case of Robert Faurisson. The controversy over the gas chambers" by Serge Thion (https://litvek.com/book-read/173471-kni ... tat-online).

[Callafangers]

Revisionism is not revision. It is denial. S0-called revisionists produce a non-history of what did not happen and make unevidenced, contradictory allusions as to what did. It's role in modern politics is limited, because only some fall for its obvious flaws and fakery.

Nessie, tell us again your history of fuel/wood acquisition at Treblinka, Sobibor, and/or Belzec.

[Nessie]

Revisionism is not revision. It is denial. S0-called revisionists produce a non-history of what did not happen and make unevidenced, contradictory allusions as to what did. It's role in modern politics is limited, because only some fall for its obvious flaws and fakery.

Nessie, tell us again your history of fuel/wood acquisition at Treblinka, Sobibor, and/or Belzec.

SS officer Erwin Lambert, on getting deliveries of wood to Sobibor.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"As I mentioned at the beginning, I was in the extermination camp of Jews for about two to three weeks. It was sometime in autumn 1942, but I don’t remember exactly when. At that time I was assigned by Wirth to enlarge the gassing structure according to the model of Treblinka.
I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor.
Finally, both of us went to Sobibor. We reported there to the camp commander, Reichleitner. He gave us the exact directives for the construction of the gassing installation. Probably the old installation was not big enough, and reconstruction was necessary."

Wood was bought from Polish sawmills and delivered to the camps, which would be a simple process, as the camps could take train loads.

Now, tell me again your history of fuel/wood acquisition for the AR camps, quoting witnesses, or referring to documents. Oh, of course, you cannot produce any evidence. Instead, you speculate and argue a non-history where Germans are incapable of buying, or otherwise sourcing wood to be delivered.

[InuYasha]

Revisionism is not revision. It is denial. S0-called revisionists produce a non-history of what did not happen and make unevidenced, contradictory allusions as to what did. It's role in modern politics is limited, because only some fall for its obvious flaws and fakery.

Are you sure revisionism is not history? I think it is. It is the study of historical facts and an attempt to revise the previously accepted picture of events. Revisionism existed long before 1939 and the supposed mass extermination of Jews, Slavs and Gypsies, revisionists were in WWI, the Civil War and so on. Denial would be a statement like "there were no concentration camps", "there was no WWII", "Hitler did not oppress Jews". Attributing the change in the demographic situation in post-war Europe to the deportation of Jews and their post-war emigration (to America, to Israel) is not denial. Revisionism = history.

I am not a supporter of right-wing views personally, but I can see the validity of some (revisionist) assumptions. It is unfair to dismiss HR as "anti-Semitic denial of facts" because you disagree with the position of its supporters.

[Nessie]

Revisionism is not revision. It is denial. S0-called revisionists produce a non-history of what did not happen and make unevidenced, contradictory allusions as to what did. It's role in modern politics is limited, because only some fall for its obvious flaws and fakery.

Are you sure revisionism is not history? I think it is. It is the study of historical facts and an attempt to revise the previously accepted picture of events. Revisionism existed long before 1939 and the supposed mass extermination of Jews, Slavs and Gypsies, revisionists were in WWI, the Civil War and so on. Denial would be a statement like "there were no concentration camps", "there was no WWII", "Hitler did not oppress Jews". Attributing the change in the demographic situation in post-war Europe to the deportation of Jews and their post-war emigration (to America, to Israel) is not denial. Revisionism = history.

I am not a supporter of right-wing views personally, but I can see the validity of some (revisionist) assumptions. It is unfair to dismiss HR as "anti-Semitic denial of facts" because you disagree with the position of its supporters.

Revision is when evidence is gathered to prove a different series of events took place. It is not the inconclusive, an event did not happen, as presented by so-called Holocaust revisionists. Some have tried to revise the history of the death camps, variously claiming TII was a transit camp, a hygiene stop, a customs camp, where transports stopped to change to the wider Soviet gauge railways and as a property sorting centre. The A-B Krema Leichenkellers have variously claimed to be corpse stores, showers, air raid shelters and delousing chambers.

Notably, despite the hundreds of thousands who variously worked or were otherwise inside those places, revisionists cannot produce a single witness who speaks to the process they are claiming. Instead, revisionists have to rely on cherry-picking and cobbling together evidence from documents and circumstances, that do not really fit, and leave huge gaps, to back up their competing, contradicting theories.

As historical and criminal investigators, revisionists fail. That is why they are better described as deniers, but they often get upset at that term, so I just stick with revisionist. Their denial are the statements such as "there were no gas chambers at TII", or "there was no mass shooting at Babi Yar", or "there was no planning for mass murders at A-B".

[Callafangers]

SS officer Erwin Lambert, on getting deliveries of wood to Sobibor.

You often bring up this single reference of wood for construction (and nothing about cremation) for Sobibor (and nothing for Belzec, Treblinka, despite these both having much larger alleged cremation operations). Is one loosely-related reference at a single camp sufficient to tell the true history of an alleged policy or practice (e.g. fuel acquisition for all of Aktion Reinhard)?

[Nessie]

SS officer Erwin Lambert, on getting deliveries of wood to Sobibor.

You often bring up this single reference of wood for construction (and nothing about cremation) for Sobibor (and nothing for Belzec, Treblinka, despite these both having much larger alleged cremation operations). Is one loosely-related reference at a single camp sufficient to tell the true history of an alleged policy or practice (e.g. fuel acquisition for all of Aktion Reinhard)?

How many references to wood ordering and delivery do you need, to prove wood could be ordered and delivered? Weirnik said about his work at TII;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

"The next job for my colleague and myself was to cut and process lumber."
"I happened to be working in the woods in between the two camps, dressing lumber."
"I brought in some of the new lumber from the woods myself."

The answer is that wood was ordered and delivered, or collected locally. The AR camps, as seen in the Sobibor photos, were primarily constructed from wood. Wood was a major source of fuel and building materials in Poland, which had huge forests. Revisionist incredulity about the Nazis not being able to source enough wood for the camp, is frankly weird and indicative of how desperate they are to find reasons to disbelieve.

[Callafangers]

How many references to wood ordering and delivery do you need, to prove wood could be ordered and delivered? Weirnik said about his work at TII;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

"The next job for my colleague and myself was to cut and process lumber."
"I happened to be working in the woods in between the two camps, dressing lumber."
"I brought in some of the new lumber from the woods myself."

The amount of wood we are talking about would require a manual logging operation orders of magnitude higher than anything which has ever taken place, anywhere. It's not possible. So you need to demonstrate deliveries of extraordinary scale, specifically or at least potentially destined for cremation at AR camps.

You don't have this, do you? If not, why not?

[TlsMS93]

The amount of wood we are talking about would require a manual logging operation orders of magnitude higher than anything which has ever taken place, anywhere. It's not possible. So you need to demonstrate deliveries of extraordinary scale, specifically or at least potentially destined for cremation at AR camps.

You don't have this, do you? If not, why not?

The Germans destroyed the timber delivery documents but did not destroy the unfortunate documentation of the Deutsche Reichsbahn on the deportation of Jews.

Action 1005 only explains what they cannot explain, the rest has sufficient documentation, the largest in history.

[InuYasha]

Revisionism is not revision. It is denial. S0-called revisionists produce a non-history of what did not happen and make unevidenced, contradictory allusions as to what did. It's role in modern politics is limited, because only some fall for its obvious flaws and fakery.

Are you sure revisionism is not history? I think it is. It is the study of historical facts and an attempt to revise the previously accepted picture of events. Revisionism existed long before 1939 and the supposed mass extermination of Jews, Slavs and Gypsies, revisionists were in WWI, the Civil War and so on. Denial would be a statement like "there were no concentration camps", "there was no WWII", "Hitler did not oppress Jews". Attributing the change in the demographic situation in post-war Europe to the deportation of Jews and their post-war emigration (to America, to Israel) is not denial. Revisionism = history.

I am not a supporter of right-wing views personally, but I can see the validity of some (revisionist) assumptions. It is unfair to dismiss HR as "anti-Semitic denial of facts" because you disagree with the position of its supporters.

Revision is when evidence is gathered to prove a different series of events took place. It is not the inconclusive, an event did not happen, as presented by so-called Holocaust revisionists. Some have tried to revise the history of the death camps, variously claiming TII was a transit camp, a hygiene stop, a customs camp, where transports stopped to change to the wider Soviet gauge railways and as a property sorting centre. The A-B Krema Leichenkellers have variously claimed to be corpse stores, showers, air raid shelters and delousing chambers.

Notably, despite the hundreds of thousands who variously worked or were otherwise inside those places, revisionists cannot produce a single witness who speaks to the process they are claiming. Instead, revisionists have to rely on cherry-picking and cobbling together evidence from documents and circumstances, that do not really fit, and leave huge gaps, to back up their competing, contradicting theories.

As historical and criminal investigators, revisionists fail. That is why they are better described as deniers, but they often get upset at that term, so I just stick with revisionist. Their denial are the statements such as "there were no gas chambers at TII", or "there was no mass shooting at Babi Yar", or "there was no planning for mass murders at A-B".

Jurgen Graf mentioned in his book, that french communist newspaper in April of 1944 reported about liberation of French Jews in Ukraine by Red Army. How it can be happened, if there's no evacuations of European Jewry?

You talking about criminal investigation. But if the Shoah can be proved, like any criminal case at the court, (that means - beyond reasonable doubts), why then the Nuremberg trials throw out two principles of justice: the presumption of innocence and the evidentiary basis?

For example, let's imagine that i have a conflict with my neighbour, and someday i kidnapped him, lock in the basement, and when police arrested me, he disappeared without a trace. So i would be convicted with aggravated kidnapping and murder.

If the court is fair, since there is no evidence of murder other than the disappearance, I will only be found guilty of kidnapping, at least in the jurisdiction where I live.

But now transfer this to a Holocaust-like situation: I was beaten and tortured to confess to "murder", and the court rejected other evidence. Yet I personally know that I did not kill him, but simply let him go before he went to an unknown destination. This is considered "beyond reasonable doubt".

Obviously, in your eyes I am a murderer. But not in reality. And even after leaving prison after 20 years, I will still be afraid to admit the same thing. This is what could have happened to the Germans, apparently. My lawyers would have had to take a plea bargain so that I would not receive the death penalty. The SS pleaded guilty to get a lenient sentence and stop the torture. While in 1960s they wasn't beaten or tortured, the fear of more harsh penalty will make them confess in the same thing.