Why Do you Guys Think the Holocaust is Fake?

[Eye of Zyclone]

I don't get it. How can you guys actually think this?

Just like biologists with bigfoots and the Loch Ness monster, we think the Holocaust is fake because the evidence (real, solid evidence) just isn't there. The orthodox/antirevisionist narrative was, and still is to a large extent, that the Nazis had concealed their alleged murderous activities behind genocidal code words and euphemisms, gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, eyewitnesses systematically executed, dynamited gas chambers and mobile obliteration units tasked with destroying any physical evidence afterwards. In other words, the admission that there exists no documentary & physical evidence for the Holocaust was part of the story made up by those who told it. That's why the orthodox/antirevisionist narrative was devised as a conspiracy theory with miscaptioned horrific photos of typhus victims supposed to prove the thing beyond reasonable doubt and providential witnesses supposed to fill the gaps.

[borjastick]

I don't get it. How can you guys actually think this?

Just like biologists with bigfoots and the Loch Ness monster, we think the Holocaust is fake because the evidence (real, solid evidence) just isn't there. The orthodox/antirevisionist narrative was, and still is to a large extent, that the Nazis had concealed their alleged murderous activities behind genocidal code words and euphemisms, gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, eyewitnesses systematically executed, dynamited gas chambers and mobile obliteration units tasked with destroying any physical evidence afterwards. In other words, the admission that there exists no documentary & physical evidence for the Holocaust was part of the story made up by those who told it. That's why the orthodox/antirevisionist narrative was devised as a conspiracy theory with miscaptioned horrific photos of typhus victims supposed to prove the thing beyond reasonable doubt and providential witnesses supposed to fill the gaps.

Well said Eye of Zyclone you nailed it perfectly. I would add to this that when these people won't accept the term 'Revisionist' but want us to be called 'Deniers' they do this deliberately. We do not deny a lot of what is claimed about jewish treatment 1933 onwards in Germany but as you say the hard irrefutable evidence for mass murder and corpse disposal etc is simply not there. If it were they wouldn't have to call us 'deniers' at all because there would be little to deny or question.

[ConfusedJew]

If you were here to "educate yourself", you would not immediately jump on ChatGPT in an effort to 'debunk' revisionist claims before you've even spent a week investigating it for yourself, and then claiming you have some wise mentor you are "recruiting help from" (clearly just ChatGPT). All of this is not typical behavior from someone who is just curious, just seeking an education, etc. It reeks of someone putting agenda-first.

I am using ChatGPT to gather the facts more quickly. I am consulting with somebody who is very familiar with this stuff. My side is on the side of truth and reason. My agenda is to figure out how you guys deny or minimize or cast doubt on the Holocaust and why you think that way or came across these beliefs. I'm also curious if there is some underlying anti-semitic or racist current here, and there definitely is some of that, if some of you simply believe this is true.

You clearly have a 'side'. Aside from you admittedly being a [confused] Jew, you're immediately firing back as though you have some foundation of knowledge which can seriously challenge revisionist arguments, despite you having just stumbled upon this topic this very week. Again, none of this is typical of someone genuinely perplexed and curious on a complex issue, just seeking to learn.

I don't take any of this personally, either. Your claim in this regard is suggestive of yet another subversive tactic, once again implying something other than a reasoned, measured approach to debate and discussion is taking place here. But your scheming is more or less transparent.

I'm not trying to challenge revisionist arguments. I'm looking for the commonly established facts and I'm trying to figure out how you react to them. Do all of you just believe the exact same things based on the same sources and arguments or do you guys actually think independently and form your own thoughts?

If you're truly seeking to narrow it down to just "demographic collapse", it might make sense to create a separate thread with that as the title. But you'll find this has already been discussed many times on the forum and elsewhere, so you might instead simply start with the 'search' function until you have a better understanding of the key points of contention and can meaningfully add to the discussion/debate.

I can make a new thread, this thread is getting very off track.

The use of 'demolishing' comes from experience over many years. I have remained open-minded but when I read or encounter some of the best scholars in the field of 'Holocaust history' and they circumvent principles of reason and logical inference repeatedly in an agenda-derived campaign of rumor-peddling and the like, it becomes natural to build some serious confidence over time that the emperor truly has no clothes and that this message needs to be shared as such. And once again, you making any judgement at all on this debate is quite absurd, given you still know virtually nothing about it. You walked into a room of relative experts within a given field and are so offended by your impression of the content being discussed that you immediately pretend to have some authority in dictating how that discussion should take place. It's bizarre and very arrogant.

Who says that I am offended? I'm here asking questions and presenting arguments. I want to get to the crux of the matter as quickly as possible because I don't have the time to spend month studying this debate as I can just speak to people who are knowledgeable about this here and save a ton of time.

[Keen]

For you to say that at TII, near nothing has been found, when an area that was 2 hectares, up to 7m deep was found to contain cremated human remains, is a clear lie. That is 140,000m3, or the equivalent of 56 Olympic sized swimming pools. That is easily enough space for there to be mass graves at the site. When a geophysical survey finds multiple large pits in the area of the camp where multiple eyewitnesses state mass graves were located, that is corroborating evidence to prove mass graves.

Nessie, it is a fact that the the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method has proven that the alleged "huge mass graves" of T II do not exist.

If you really do believe your own lies about the "huge mass graves" that you allege exist at T II:

A - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 15 alleged graves / cremation pits at Treblinka II that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain, or to have been collected from, the remains of - at least 2 people.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

Maps showing the location of the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" can be seen here:

https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=229 ... count=2843

What are you waiting for Nessie?

What are you so afraid of?

Nessie, since you not only allege that "huge mass graves" containing human remains exist at T II (FYI - it is alleged that 925,000 jews were murdered at TII), you alleged that they have been "scientifically" proven to exist:

VI - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Blacks Law Dictionary defines - Burden of Proof - as: “The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.” - ??

VII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The maxims of law found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary include: “The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him.” - and - “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.” - ??

XIII - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The following: “That which does not appear to exist is to be regarded as if it did not exist.” - is a legally recognized maxim of law in the U.S. - ??

[Keen]

I can make a new thread

Please do CJ. I can't wait to see you get crushed.

[Nessie]

Just like biologists with bigfoots and the Loch Ness monster, we think the Holocaust is fake because the evidence (real, solid evidence) just isn't there. The orthodox/antirevisionist narrative was, and still is to a large extent, that the Nazis had concealed their alleged murderous activities behind genocidal code words and euphemisms, gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, eyewitnesses systematically executed, dynamited gas chambers and mobile obliteration units tasked with destroying any physical evidence afterwards.

Correct, so when you then claim...

In other words, the admission that there exists no documentary & physical evidence for the Holocaust...

That is a misrepresentation. The documentary evidence is often couched using euphemisms. But then there are documents that record the execution or shooting of thousands of Jews and the construction of gas chambers inside the Birkenau Kremas, which are clearly not using any coded, carefully worded language.

The dynamited and demolished gas chambers are still part of the physical evidence. When the Nazis left Birkenau, 6 buildings had been demolished or blown up, everything else was left intact. Those 6 buildings were the 4 Kremas and 2 bunker/farm houses, where the gas chambers were located. That is evidence of the cover-up of a criminal act. Forensic testing has found traces to prove Zyklon B was used in those places. A shower head and part of a gas mask were recovered from the ruins of Krema II. Only three camps were razed to the ground, planted over and left guarded. They were Sobibor, Belzec and TII. That is no coincidence, like the gas chambers in Birkenau.

That graves sites were exhumed and the corpses cremated, is unique to the Nazis. No other mass deaths have had their mass graves treated like that. Clearly, the aim was to prevent body counts, identification and the establishing of the cause of death. It is reasonable to infer criminal activity, when there is a cover-up and destruction of evidence.

Yes, eyewitnesses were executed, but enough escaped, that they could then corroborate the admissions by the Nazi camp staff. Indeed, the majority of eyewitnesses are German and Ukrainian camp staff.

No documents survive from the AR camps, but documents recording transports to those camps do. The Auschwitz construction office and Topf & Sons records survived. Documents also record the mass shootings in the east and the motives driving the Nazi hatred of Jews, and desire to be rid of them by various means.

It is a commonly held Holocaust revisionist lie that little to no evidence survives. It is a lie used to distract from the total lack of evidence that millions of arrested Jews were not killed and lived till liberation in 1945.

... was part of the story made up by those who told it.

The made up stories are the so-called revisionist stories that the AR camps were hygiene stations, transit camps, customs stops and property sorting centres, or that the Kremas were delousing chambers, showers, corpse stores or bomb shelters and that millions of Jews were resettled in the east, 1939-44.

That's why the orthodox/antirevisionist narrative was devised as a conspiracy theory with miscaptioned horrific photos of typhus victims supposed to prove the thing beyond reasonable doubt and providential witnesses supposed to fill the gaps.

The dead, found by the liberating Allies, were primarily the few hundred thousand Jews left in Nazi custody. POWs and other prisoners fared far better. The treatment of the Jewish prisoners, was evidence of motive and opportunity. To the Nazis, they were the lowest of the low, undeserving of life, the first to die.

It is so-called revisionists, who comically fail at their attempts to revise history, who resort to conspiracy theories that there were no gas chambers, mass graves and cremations, as they lie about and misrepresent the evidence.

[Nessie]

...
Well said Eye of Zyclone you nailed it perfectly. I would add to this that when these people won't accept the term 'Revisionist' but want us to be called 'Deniers' they do this deliberately. We do not deny a lot of what is claimed about jewish treatment 1933 onwards in Germany but as you say the hard irrefutable evidence for mass murder and corpse disposal etc is simply not there. If it were they wouldn't have to call us 'deniers' at all because there would be little to deny or question.

Holocaust deniers are called that, because they deny major parts of the history of the Jews arrested by the Nazis during WWII, the gassings, mass graves and cremations. Holocaust revisionists are not really revisionists, since they cannot agree on, let alone produce a revised history chronologically charting what happened to the arrested Jews, during WWII.

[Keen]

It is so-called revisionists... who resort to conspiracy theories that there were no... mass graves and cremations, as they lie about and misrepresent the evidence.

Stop lying Nessie.

You know for a fact that the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method has proven that the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II do not exist.

That is why you are so afraid of this:

A - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain, or to have been collected from, the remains of - at least 2 people.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Keen]

Holocaust deniers... deny major parts of the history of the Jews... the gassings, mass graves and cremations.

Stop lying Nessie.

One cannot deny that which has been proven to not exist.

You know for a fact that the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method has proven that the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II do not exist.

And everyone knows, including you, that:

No mass graves = no mass murder = no mass gassings / shootings.

[borjastick]

...
Well said Eye of Zyclone you nailed it perfectly. I would add to this that when these people won't accept the term 'Revisionist' but want us to be called 'Deniers' they do this deliberately. We do not deny a lot of what is claimed about jewish treatment 1933 onwards in Germany but as you say the hard irrefutable evidence for mass murder and corpse disposal etc is simply not there. If it were they wouldn't have to call us 'deniers' at all because there would be little to deny or question.

Holocaust deniers are called that, because they deny major parts of the history of the Jews arrested by the Nazis during WWII, the gassings, mass graves and cremations. Holocaust revisionists are not really revisionists, since they cannot agree on, let alone produce a revised history chronologically charting what happened to the arrested Jews, during WWII.

We are not an organised group, we are individuals capable of individual thinking and conclusions whereas you and the islamics of this world are hidebound by the conventions and controls of your religions. Free thought and interpretation are banned in your world.

We don't believe the claims of gassings, mass graves and cremations because they didn't happen mate. If you are too dense to use what brain cells you are in possession of that's your problem and not ours.

[Archie]

I do not 100% believe you are actually 'puzzled' by it at all. I think you are perhaps being disingenuous, but that is just my opinion. I am not saying you don't potentially, truly believe in the 'Holocaust', only that your entire demeanor and 'role-playing' here may be more about exhibiting incredulity as a method of convincing (or reinforcing) potential readers' beliefs that the 'Holocaust' is necessarily valid and any challenges are a mere spectacle or oddity.

Unfortunately for you, the facts align firmly in our favor.


With that core matter addressed, you will soon find that every other challenge to the revisionist position is equally or even less in your favor. Pick your favorite: 'gas chambers' at any given location, 'survivor testimony', postwar trials, 'confessions' -- we enjoy it all, here. Happy to help.

You are welcome to believe that, but for the sake of keeping things civil, I am letting you know that I am 100% puzzled by why you believe this stuff. I do believe in the Holocaust personally, but it of course depends on how you define that word, but I do expect there definitely could be some things that should be modified in the historical record. I'm open minded and will address your arguments at face value. I'm not interested in convincing you or winning a debate. I'm here to educate myself.

It is your opinion that the facts firmly align in your "favor". I don't have any side that I am on. I am open about believing in the Holocaust and I'm truly puzzled by your position. I'm here to educate myself so rather than trying to win some argument, which I'm not interested in doing, it would be more constructive and effective on your part to not take this so personally and just respond with logic and evidence.

I'm being bombarded with long random posts here and it's difficult to keep up admittedly so I've narrowed it to the one overarching subject of the demographic collapse.

There is no "demolishing" to be had. The use of that language suggests that you are completely attached to a belief and close minded. Your definition of success or failure should be focused on getting me to change my mind, not just thinking that you've destroyed my points (which you haven't).

There is generally a pretty strong "debate culture" I guess you could call it in the online revisionist/anti-revisionist space, with a lot of individual variation for each poster. In the past, when I have argued with aggressive Holocaust apologists where I am way outnumbered I would get more abuse that what you are getting here. We try to hold the temperature down a bit, but it's an emotional topic for people. It is what it is.

I have no idea how sincere you are and I don't really care in the sense that as long as some reasonable person might ask a particular question, then I don't mind replying. I would only object if I felt like the questions were themselves disingenuous in some way. Please understand though that most of the time when people take the "I'm just curious" or "I'm just asking questions" posture, it usually is insincere. That's why often people will skip ahead and just assume you are looking to tangle. We get people who pretend to be revisionists but "oh there's just this one little thing that's bothering me."

Anyway, you have received a good number of substantive replies to your questions, including links for you to read up on a lot of these topics.

[ConfusedJew]

There is generally a pretty strong "debate culture" I guess you could call it in the online revisionist/anti-revisionist space, with a lot of individual variation for each poster. In the past, when I have argued with aggressive Holocaust apologists where I am way outnumbered I would get more abuse that what you are getting here. We try to hold the temperature down a bit, but it's an emotional topic for people. It is what it is.

I have no problem with debate at all and invite it. What I do have a problem with is ascribing intentions to me that I don't have, calling me a liar, and insulting me personally.

I do literally have many family members who have died in the Holocaust so I would expect that people here are able to remain less emotional than me. If people are not speaking to me in a respectable way, I guess I can just give them a single clear warning, and if they violate that again (like Keen), I'll inform them that they have lost their privilege to expect a response from me.

I have no idea how sincere you are and I don't really care in the sense that as long as some reasonable person might ask a particular question, then I don't mind replying. I would only object if I felt like the questions were themselves disingenuous in some way. Please understand though that most of the time when people take the "I'm just curious" or "I'm just asking questions" posture, it usually is insincere. That's why often people will skip ahead and just assume you are looking to tangle. We get people who pretend to be revisionists but "oh there's just this one little thing that's bothering me."

Anyway, you have received a good number of substantive replies to your questions, including links for you to read up on a lot of these topics.

I'm mostly kidding about the "I'm just asking questions" because a lot of anti-semites and racists will do that in bad faith to demoralize and spread misinformation. I am legitimately curious how you justify and rationalize your beliefs. No need to take my word for it, you'll see that in my responses and behavior here.

I do suspect a lot of people here are just racists who don't actually believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, but time will tell.

Thank you for your replies, I will do some more research on my own now and come back in a new thread to discuss the demographic collapse question.

[Callafangers]

I am using ChatGPT to gather the facts more quickly. I am consulting with somebody who is very familiar with this stuff. My side is on the side of truth and reason. My agenda is to figure out how you guys deny or minimize or cast doubt on the Holocaust and why you think that way or came across these beliefs. I'm also curious if there is some underlying anti-semitic or racist current here, and there definitely is some of that, if some of you simply believe this is true.

See, it is strange that you have claimed earlier that revisionists are the ones who have come to some 'predetermined conclusion', yet you here admit (despite being brand-spanking-new to this topic) that you have already decided you are "on the side of truth and reason". How on Earth could you know that, having done no research on this deeply-complex topic until yesterday?

Your noticing of "some underlying anti-semitic or racist current here" may be partly valid for some members but it necessarily begs the question, "which came first: the chicken -- or the egg?". You must acknowledge that if someone came to believe (rationally or otherwise) that there is indeed a massive "Jewish problem" which is largely in part responsible for the scale and scope of the 'Holocaust' and its lies, that this person could potentially start to have some reasoned objection to Jewish behavior (especially if noticing other problematic Jewish behaviors came to follow this initial wave of noticing). But you instead imply the same-old bogus suggestion that 'antisemitism' (or 'racism') has been the core motivator for people who question the Holocaust, with the facts and logic playing an insignificant or inconsequential role.

The truth is, most of us (myself very much included) were very 'pro-semitic' for all our lives before recognizing historical facts that were in direct conflict with our prior worldview. I had no reason to 'hate Jews'. The people who claim that challenges to Jewish narratives are typically derived from 'hate' rather than reason are executing ad hominem fallacy in an effort to circumvent a debate they cannot possibly win on a level playing field.

[Callafangers]

I have no idea how sincere you are and I don't really care in the sense that as long as some reasonable person might ask a particular question, then I don't mind replying. I would only object if I felt like the questions were themselves disingenuous in some way. Please understand though that most of the time when people take the "I'm just curious" or "I'm just asking questions" posture, it usually is insincere. That's why often people will skip ahead and just assume you are looking to tangle. We get people who pretend to be revisionists but "oh there's just this one little thing that's bothering me."

This is a fair response, I probably should have clarified this context a bit more before coming out 'guns blazing'. But indeed, we've seen it too many times.

A certain 'bombsaway' comes to mind... (where is that lil' fella, by the way?)

[ConfusedJew]

See, it is strange that you have claimed earlier that revisionists are the ones who have come to some 'predetermined conclusion', yet you here admit (despite being brand-spanking-new to this topic) that you have already decided you are "on the side of truth and reason". How on Earth could you know that, having done no research on this deeply-complex topic until yesterday?

This is very simple to me. I lost many family members in the Holocaust. I have talked to Holocaust survivors myself. I have physically visited some of the camps. To say that I have not done research is not even close to realistic. What I have not done is any research on Holocaust denial so that is where you can educate me.

Your noticing of "some underlying anti-semitic or racist current here" may be partly valid for some members but it necessarily begs the question, "which came first: the chicken -- or the egg?". You must acknowledge that if someone came to believe (rationally or otherwise) that there is indeed a massive "Jewish problem" which is largely in part responsible for the scale and scope of the 'Holocaust' and its lies, that this person could potentially start to have some reasoned objection to Jewish behavior (especially if noticing other Jewish behaviors came to follow this initial wave of noticing). But you instead imply the same-old bogus suggestion that 'antisemitism' (or 'racism') has been the core motivator for people who question the Holocaust, with the facts and logic playing entirely insignificant or inconsequential role.

As long as people remain committed to truth and reason and objectivity, it doesn't matter what their pre-existing beliefs and biases are. Where I draw the line is on personal insults and clearly racist comments like maligning all Jews for doing things.

It is possible that people first come to disbelieve in the Holocaust and then become anti-semitic although that is still unacceptable in my opinion. I'm not sure why people here think the Holocaust was a "hoax" or who perpetuated it or why, but certainly not every single Jew so it's not fair to despise all Jews for the alleged actions of a few.

I'm not assuming everybody here is an anti-semite or even is just trolling. That's what I'm here to figure out. I'll give people the benefit of a doubt, and a warning, but if they prove themselves to be acting in bad faith after the warning, I'll cut them off.

The truth is, most of us (myself very much included) were very much 'pro-semitic' for all our lives before recognizing historical facts that were in direct conflict with our prior worldview. I had no reason to 'hate Jews'. The people who claim that challenges to Jewish narratives are typically derived from 'hate' rather than reason are executing ad hominem fallacy in an effort to circumvent a debate they cannot possibly win on a level playing field.

I'm not sure what you mean by pro-semitic, but even as somebody who is a Jew, being too pro semitic can be problematic. Jews are people with a shared history, a distinct culture, religion, and traditions. Maybe there are some things about our culture that are admirable or not, but it's really not a big deal either way.

I take fair criticisms at face value initially, and if after responding fairly it is obvious that they are not good faith criticisms, then I just accept that they are broken people or mentally ill and I feel sad for them but just move on.