How Can Such a Strong Consensus Be So Wrong for so Long?

[Archie]

Is there a better place on this forum to put the meta discussions?

For you? No.

We don't need new threads from you every day that all fail to get to the point (or to make any point at all).

Let us know when you are ready to get down to business.

[Callafangers]

I don't expect any of you to be my "choreboy" but I hear what you are saying. That is a fair ask I guess.

There are a million different "revisionist" arguments and perspectives. Should I assume that everybody here agrees with all of them or is there disagreement here within certain topics?

No, there aren't 'a million different' perspectives in Holocaust revisionism. There is a general consensus among revisionists in almost all areas.

Others here have already shared with you various introductory works. The Holocaust Encyclopedia is another:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/

Read through all of these or study a very specific topic within any of them, then come back and share your specific challenges.

But here's the thing, 'ConfusedJew': if you instead circle back in five hours or five days and pretend this concession of yours (toward attempting more focused, sincere posts) never happened, it will definitely be noted. I generally don't do much 'Moderator stuff' but you also know my thoughts and feelings on subversive activity. As a wise man once said, "our patience has its limits."

You're welcome to add thoughtful, original, and/or challenging (i.e. good quality) posts to the forum, along your journey.

[ConfusedJew]

Questions about a "nation" are complicated in the world of today as, once again, Jews have created 'nations' which are so chaotic to be almost completely incoherent as a 'nation'.

Your narratives about Trump (one of many Jewish plants in politics; this also includes Biden, Bush, Obama, etc.) are nothing I would ever take seriously. The bottom-line is that all of these clowns (and almost everyone in Congress) accept AIPAC money and ultimately serve Jewish interests over American interests.

Similar patterns exist across Europe and elsewhere.

Much of what AIPAC does to influence politics and policy is completely legal. I personally totally agree that we should get money out of politics and reform the system. But they are just one group of so many that does it. The National Association of Realtors, American Medical Association, AARP, NRA, and big pharma are more examples. I'm personally working to get big money out of politics.

I don't think it's fair to single out one group, especially when they don't represent even close to a majority of all Jews. Many Christian Zionists, of which there are far more than Jewish Zionists, are hugely influential in shaping American-Israeli political relations.

If you want to look at who to blame for opening the flood gates to big money, look at the Citizens United decision in 2010 which legalized Super PACs, you should be looking to Betsy DeVos, Mitch McConnell, the conservative members of the Supreme Court, and the Kochs for the most part. Our institutions are falling apart, it really has nothing to do with the Jews except that they are disproportionately represented at the highest ranks because they work hard and work smart due to our cultural values so we tend to rise.

White nationalists don't seem to value education as much so they are underrepresented in government although Trump is kind of a soft white nationalist in a way.

[Callafangers]

Questions about a "nation" are complicated in the world of today as, once again, Jews have created 'nations' which are so chaotic to be almost completely incoherent as a 'nation'.

Your narratives about Trump (one of many Jewish plants in politics; this also includes Biden, Bush, Obama, etc.) are nothing I would ever take seriously. The bottom-line is that all of these clowns (and almost everyone in Congress) accept AIPAC money and ultimately serve Jewish interests over American interests.

Similar patterns exist across Europe and elsewhere.

Much of what AIPAC does to influence politics and policy is completely legal. I personally totally agree that we should get money out of politics and reform the system. But they are just one group of so many that does it. The National Association of Realtors, American Medical Association, AARP, NRA, and big pharma are more examples. I'm personally working to get big money out of politics.

I don't think it's fair to single out one group, especially when they don't represent even close to a majority of all Jews. Many Christian Zionists, of which there are far more than Jewish Zionists, are hugely influential in shaping American-Israeli political relations.

If you want to look at who to blame for opening the flood gates to big money, look at the Citizens United decision in 2010 which legalized Super PACs, you should be looking to Betsy DeVos, Mitch McConnell, the conservative members of the Supreme Court, and the Kochs for the most part. Our institutions are falling apart, it really has nothing to do with the Jews except that they are disproportionately represented at the highest ranks because they work hard and work smart due to our cultural values so we tend to rise.

White nationalists don't seem to value education as much so they are underrepresented in government although Trump is kind of a soft white nationalist in a way.

Nope, I'm not going to 'bite'. There are so many incorrect statements here, many of which have been recently discussed at-length in recent threads.

You're attempting to take this forum back to the mainstream Jewish propaganda paradigm that most of us broke out of years ago or longer. It's not going to happen.

You're simply deceptive. It is absolutely "the Jews". Nothing further to say for now, you're just here adding noise.

[ConfusedJew]

Nope, I'm not going to 'bite'. There are so many incorrect statements here, many of which have been recently discussed at-length in recent threads.

You're attempting to take this forum back to the mainstream Jewish propaganda paradigm that most of us broke out of years ago or longer. It's not going to happen.

You're simply deceptive. It is absolutely "the Jews". Nothing further to say for now, you're just here adding noise.

I'm not trying to get you to "bite". I am simply presenting the facts as I see it and I have done a lot of research on this. Feel free to show me the thread on here that references this debate and I can take a look at that and see where I think it is correct or incorrect.

I'm personally not looking to take us back to any old paradigm. That's not even possible. That is Trump's mentality. I'm looking to fix the system that is rapidly breaking down. One of the biggest issues there is finding a way to get money out of politics which may require a constitutional amendment.

[Callafangers]

I'm not trying to get you to "bite". I am simply presenting the facts as I see it and I have done a lot of research on this. Feel free to show me the thread on here that references this debate and I can take a look at that and see where I think it is correct or incorrect.

I'm personally not looking to take us back to any old paradigm. That's not even possible. That is Trump's mentality. I'm looking to fix the system that is rapidly breaking down. One of the biggest issues there is finding a way to get money out of politics which may require a constitutional amendment.

Yeah, no. Let's focus back on the Holocaust specifically, mmkay? I will not be discussing 21st century Jewish pawns (politicians) with you today.

How 'bout them mass graves? Gas chambers? How many 'gassings' did your grandma survive? Seven, or just five?

[Nessie]

False premise. There isn't a consensus on "the Holocaust" and there never has been...

There is no disagreement between historians about T4, 13f14, AR, Chelmno, the Einsatzgruppen and A-B, which cover the vast majority of murdering by the Nazis.

There is no consensus between so-called revisionists about those operations and places. Indeed, it is comical as to how split revisionism is, from whether the EG were responsible for mass shootings, to how connected T4 and AR were, to what happened inside Krema II at Birkenau.

That failure by revisionism is because so few revisionists know or understand the basics of historical, or criminal investigations. The inexperienced and untrained are far more likely to make mistakes.

All these sweeping absolute claims of yours that you can't back up.

People like David Hoggan and Harry Elmer Barnes were historians by any definition. David Irving was a historian, just not an academic one. Many others like Joel Hayward, Mark Weber, and Samuel Crowell had academic training in history. Hayward's thesis which endorsed revisionism was deemed by the faculty at his university to be of excellent quality.

Hellmut Diwald was a highly credentialed German historian. It seems he did not believe in "the consensus" on the "Holocaust," but when he hinted at this in print we see precisely the mechanisms by which this grand fraud is enforced.

Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. None of the people you have listed and completed that basic task of any historian, and produced an evidenced history of what happened to the Jews arrested by the Nazis during WWII. IIRC, only Crowell came up with a theory as to what took place, and that was only for the Kremas, which he believed were where transports went to shower.

Late 1978 brought a significant escalation of the controversy in all senses. In October 1978, the German publisher Propyläen issued Prof. Hellmut Diwald’s massive Geschichte der Deutschen (History of the Germans). Propyläen is an old firm, now owned by Axel Springer, which specializes in publishing books written by scholars but for an intelligent lay readership. On two pages, Diwald said some things very much in harmony with things revisionists of the “Final Solution” have said, and of course the clamor of the Establishment’s spokesmen was deafening. Golo Mann wrote that “these two pages […] are the most monstrous that I have had to read in a German book since 1945,”[15] and the publisher responded to the clamor by stopping the sale of the first edition and substituting a new edition with the two offending pages hastily rewritten – in a style I am assured is not Diwald’s – in order to conform to the usual line. Axel Springer further promised publicly, in words I cannot imagine coming from a U.S. publisher under any circumstances, that this was only the beginning of the rewriting of the book and that by fall 1979 the book would be “not recognizable.”[16]

The original two pages that Diwald had published were not particularly significant in themselves; relatively little was said. There are, however, two points of major significance to note. First, Diwald does not lack credentials as an historian. He is a history professor at the Friedrich-Alexander University in Erlangen and has been well known in the historical profession since taking his doctorate under the German-Jewish historian Hans-Joachim Schoeps more than two decades ago. Second, the fact of the panic rewriting of the two pages, as a result of public pressure, definitively established points that should be made when people ask such questions as “why do even the Germans concede the reality of the six million murders?” or “why do the historians concede them?” The market in ideas in this area is not a free one. Throughout the world, there are at least informal and unofficial barriers to free expression and discussion. (Butz, Hoax, Supplement 1)

And amazingly enough it seems the "informal and unofficial barriers to free expression" in that era were insufficient to maintain the lies and so Holocaust promoters have had to resort to increasingly heavy-handed censorship. And potential academics are screened ever more aggressively for ideological criteria.

I know that, without even bothering to read his works, Diwald will not have produced any evidence to prove that instead of mass gassings, TII was used for another purpose. Therefore, he fails at history.

[Nessie]

It is up to you to prove what coercion did take place and if any happened at the end of the war, how that influenced trials in Germany, run by Germans, in the 1960s, with no evidence of coercion and no chance of a trip to Siberia.

I bet you provide zero evidence, but you continue to assert widespread coercion, without evidence, since you largely operate, without evidence.

Just to get on the same page, here, Nessie: are you saying the Germans who were under arrest post-war had no reason to fear their families were in danger?

Please explain your rationale, if so.

Those arrested immediately after the war, by angry Allied and Soviet soldiers, had reason. By the 1960s, and arrests and re-arrests by the West German police, that reason was not there. There was no history of attacks by Germans on ex-Nazis or their families. By the time Oskar Groening was arrested by the German police, there was a long history of no danger to the families of ex-Nazis.

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof, because you cannot find any evidence of Germans put on trial in Germany being the subject of coercion, and they all admitted to gassings.

That is because of the evidence for mass murders and the lack of evidence of other functions taking place inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas. Imagine if the staff at TII had variously come up with it was a hygiene station, property sorting centre, customs post and transit camp, as so-called revisionists do. They would have been held in contempt of court for lying.

Unfortunately for you, everything including the 'Aktion Reinhard' name, surviving documentation and economics point solely to its purpose for property confiscation (any previous doubt of this has been expertly stripped away by PrudentRegret in recent threads). It is you relying on bogus, manipulated statements, so you attempt to project this condition onto revisionists.

Unfortunately for you, PR fails to produce a chronology that comes to a logical conclusion. He follows the property to its final destination, but not the people that property had been stolen from. He falls apart when asked when the thefts took place, suggesting that it happened elsewhere and only the property was shipped to the camps. You also need to explain why he is correct and all the other revisionists are wrong, with their claims about transit or customs camps, stops to change train gauge or to mass shower.

You lot are all over the place, in a spectacular failure to do the basics, and produce an evidenced, chronological history leading to a logical conclusion.

[ConfusedJew]

Yeah, no. Let's focus back on the Holocaust specifically, mmkay? I will not be discussing 21st century Jewish pawns (politicians) with you today.

How 'bout them mass graves? Gas chambers? How many 'gassings' did your grandma survive? Seven, or just five?

This was wildly uncalled for. I'm on a Holocaust denial forum so I know what I'm getting into but the vast majority of humans would be disgusted by that behavior FYI and would come after you with pitchforks.

You don't seem to have the slightest clue how politics actually works but I'm not here to talk politics, I'm just explaining to you what you are missing.

You seem unable to explain to me the mainstream Holocaust denial arguments which is fine, I can spend a week doing research and catch up to it.

[Callafangers]

It is up to you to prove what coercion did take place and if any happened at the end of the war, how that influenced trials in Germany, run by Germans, in the 1960s, with no evidence of coercion and no chance of a trip to Siberia.

I bet you provide zero evidence, but you continue to assert widespread coercion, without evidence, since you largely operate, without evidence.

Just to get on the same page, here, Nessie: are you saying the Germans who were under arrest post-war had no reason to fear their families were in danger?

Please explain your rationale, if so.

Those arrested immediately after the war, by angry Allied and Soviet soldiers, had reason. By the 1960s, and arrests and re-arrests by the West German police, that reason was not there.

I'll have to get to the rest of your response later but I just had to stop for a moment to respond to the above... are you here conceding that all of the 'Nazi' testimony circa the Nuremberg trials and all other immediate postwar trials may be suspect?

Because if so, that is a whole lot of 'ammunition' which could help solidify the false narrative at war's end... undoubtedly, this would have a reverberative effect on other statements, trials, and testimony which followed.

I hope you can see that.

[Callafangers]

Yeah, no. Let's focus back on the Holocaust specifically, mmkay? I will not be discussing 21st century Jewish pawns (politicians) with you today.

How 'bout them mass graves? Gas chambers? How many 'gassings' did your grandma survive? Seven, or just five?

This was wildly uncalled for. I'm on a Holocaust denial forum so I know what I'm getting into but the vast majority of humans would be disgusted by that behavior FYI and would come after you with pitchforks.

You don't seem to have the slightest clue how politics actually works but I'm not here to talk politics, I'm just explaining to you what you are missing.

You seem unable to explain to me the mainstream Holocaust denial arguments which is fine, I can spend a week doing research and catch up to it.

Boo-hoo, cry about it.

You're here giving a remarkable exhibition of slimy debate tactics which very much resemble the same 'pilpul' and other deceptive nonsense we've seen time and time again. For you to pretend you have any moral or intellectual high-ground is hilarious.

If you behave like a joke, you will be treated like one. Enjoy.

[ConfusedJew]

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof, because you cannot find any evidence of Germans put on trial in Germany being the subject of coercion, and they all admitted to gassings.

Yes, this is true. There is technically no formal burden of proof outside of a court case. The consensus is wildly in favor of the gas chambers having existed. If they want to prove it to themselves, they can use whatever low threshold they possibly want. But if they want to convince people in the real world, and I'm not sure that they actually do, the burden is proof depends on what other people will believe.

[ConfusedJew]

Boo-hoo, cry about it.

You're here giving a remarkable exhibition of slimy debate tactics which very much resemble the same 'pilpul' and other deceptive nonsense we've seen time and time again. For you to pretend you have any moral or intellectual high-ground is hilarious.

If you behave like a joke, you will be treated like one. Enjoy.

I'm not pretending anything. You can take a million random people who have no viewpoint on this subject and they can determine who has the intellectual and moral high ground here. I'm pretty confident they wouldn't decide it was you.

I'm not using any slimy debate tactics, but from here on out, you have behaved in such a deplorable way that I will only engage you to you simply with logic and facts. Otherwise I have no interest in discussing anything else with somebody as miserable as you. I truly feel sad for you but you don't have the right to try and spread your misery to other people who have done nothing to personally harm you.

For the record, it didn't hurt me personally, all four of my grandparents were born in the US and obviously all eight of my grandparents lived in the US too but to even say something like that to another person is beyond my understanding and you must be in a lot of pain.

[Callafangers]

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof, because you cannot find any evidence of Germans put on trial in Germany being the subject of coercion, and they all admitted to gassings.

Yes, this is true. There is technically no formal burden of proof outside of a court case. The consensus is wildly in favor of the gas chambers having existed. If they want to prove it to themselves, they can use whatever low threshold they possibly want. But if they want to convince people in the real world, and I'm not sure that they actually do, the burden is proof depends on what other people will believe.

Burden of proof is a concept in logic, first and foremost, which is why it is also used in law.

Germans were necessarily subjected to (or at least, extremely vulnerable to) coercion, even if we consider nothing beyond the mere circumstances of the postwar dynamic.

Your enemies who just killed all your friends now have your family captive. Are you not going to do what they ask?

It's not complicated.

[ConfusedJew]

Burden of proof is a concept in logic, first and foremost, which is why it is also used in law.

Germans were necessarily subjected to (or at least, extremely vulnerable to) coercion, even if we consider nothing beyond the mere circumstances of the postwar dynamic.

Your enemies who just killed all your friends now have your family captive. Are you not going to do what they ask?

It's not complicated.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

This can go either way. You are challenging the status quo so the burden of proof is on you, practically speaking. You keep trying to flip it back on us. I am totally fine with that because I am trying to prove you wrong, but so far there are very few Holocaust deniers out there who have a following so I'm just here out of morbid curiosity mostly and to practice debate skills.

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.

I'm in your community now so I will abide by your standards, but your community is minuscule compared to the number of actual holocaust scholars, even revisionsts. By some standards, Hilberg could have been considered a revisionist in his day until his scholarship was shown to be so rigorous and credible that it became the new standard. He achieved that status by actually being extremely methodical and conservative in his estimates. After new evidence was released, the estimates were again revised upwards. I will do research on his methodology to defend it. If you can clearly argue against his method, then we will continue from there dialectically, otherwise I will just assume you get a de facto L.