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

[ConfusedJew]

The second point alone rules them out. It's treason, or betrayal. That's a disqualifier in any group dynamic.

Trying to exclude a group because you don't like their behavior doesn't change their racial or biological characteristics. And obviously that doesn't apply to the entire group, so how do you justify excluding an entire group of people when you don't like a small percentage of them?

[TlsMS93]

I want to see you prove that before 1942 a genocidal directive was in force. In fact, Hitler left a trail of several criminal orders such as the Order of the Commissars, the Order of the Commandos, the Euthanasia decree, the order to execute all the men in Stalingrad when they occupied it. What was his scruple about not having anything related to the Jews? He boasts that he punished the Jews for bringing about a world war against Germany but he left nothing in writing ordering the same?

No signed directive has been found from Hitler but that was not unusual for how he operated, especially on criminal matters. The euthanasia program (Aktion T4), which resulted in the murder of tens of thousands of disabled Germans, also lacked formal law or public directive—it was initiated with a private authorization typed on Hitler’s letterhead and even that was backdated. Hitler preferred to issue broad instructions verbally, especially when the actions were illegal, morally harmful, or internationally damaging. The Nazis knew exactly how incriminating their actions were. In Himmler's Posen speech he said, "this is a glorious page in our history, and one that has never been written and shall never be written."

Even though we haven't found a signed order from Hitler, his ideology, speeches, actions of his subordinates all demonstrate genocidal intent and coordination at the highest levels.

Do you know that the Germans are bureaucratic and will not do anything without a superior order that exempts them from responsibility?

Nazi Germany was bureaucratic — but it was a dictatorial, ideological bureaucracy, not a rule-bound one. The Nazi bureaucracy operated based on ideology, decentralized initiative, euphemistic orders, and a shared understanding of Hitler’s goals. Lack of a formal, written, top-down extermination order does not mean that no such policy existed — it means the policy was implemented in a way that matched the Nazi leadership style and aimed to shield the top from direct accountability. Many individuals in the bureaucracy took initiative, often eagerly, without waiting for direct orders. In many cases, soldiers and police could opt out of killing operations without facing serious consequences which shows that participation was often motivated by ideology, peer pressure, or careerism, not strict obedience to orders.

These reports of the Eisatzgruppen's actions are quite dubious and unreliable in their entirety, since they were found in the Soviet sphere of influence in Berlin, it is plausible that falsifications occurred and in certain reports regions said to be free of Jews were in fact not. By the way, I stated here that I do not think of a single country or region that was free of Jews during the war, not even in Berlin did they manage to get rid of them if you look closely.

The claim that Einsatzgruppen reports are unreliable because they were found in the Soviet zone is not supported by the evidence. It ignored the fact that there is extensive, corroborating evidence from non-Soviet sources, including intercepted communications, perpetrator testimonies, and documents captured by the Western Allies.

In Himmler's speech, aren't we told that the Nazis did not leave incriminating records? Why would Himmler leave something incriminating recorded on phonographs for posterity? Unless the content of the recording was not intended to clarify anything incriminating to SS officers. Himmler considers evacuation to be extermination, and in the German language of the time it carries that meaning, ethnic cleansing, just as they did with the Poles from the annexed Polish regions. And the NSDAP program never envisaged the extermination of Jews, but rather their deportation because they were no longer considered German citizens.

Himmler tried to avoid leaving a formal paper trail but the Posen speech wasn't meant for public or posterity. It was to justify genocide internally. "Evacuation" was often used as a euphemism, but in his speech, Himmler openly says extermination is what he means. It's true that the early Nazi program didn't call for murder, but by 1941–42, extermination was the goal, not just deportation.

As for Goebbels' diary entry, the 60% would be deported, which he considers to be in quite degrading circumstances, and the rest would be left to do forced labor in the Reich. In fact, Goebbels only turns his language to genocidal language towards the end of the war, because he held back beforehand, and why use it at the end of the war? Maybe because it was already too late to start the genocide?

Goebbels used genocidal language long before the end of the war, especially from early 1942 onward. His diary clearly reflects knowledge of and participation in the systematic extermination of Jews. Deportation, in the context of Nazi policy, was a euphemism for sending Jews to their deaths, not resettlement or containment. Forced labor was not a reprieve, but part of the exploitation-to-death model of Nazi policy.

So there was no need for these incriminating directives, why do they exist if the regime was ideologically politicized? You arbitrarily choose the argument that suits you, it's no wonder, religious people twist the Bible as they please for their own ends, Jews are no different

The British also had interceptions of Auschwitz but nothing is used in the context of the Holocaust, but in the East they did?

You make generic statements from the little you have studied about it. You firmly believe in coded words even in personal diaries, hilarious. Would you like to be sentenced to death by prosecutors believing that in your diary or so-called public there was camouflaged language? Or does it only apply to your ideological enemies? I would prefer Roman law over customary law, wouldn't I?

My God, the speech was not for posterity, and why do we have it? Bizarre

[ConfusedJew]

So there was no need for these incriminating directives, why do they exist if the regime was ideologically politicized? You arbitrarily choose the argument that suits you, it's no wonder, religious people twist the Bible as they please for their own ends, Jews are no different

These kinds of comments are very unnecessary. I provided an argument I believed was true, it may seem arbitrary to you but it's based on the historical facts and primary evidence. Feel free to disagree but I think your logic is totally twisted and I'm not insulting you.

I'm not really sure that I understand your argument fully, the grammar is not fully clear, but having a very strong ideology doesn't mean that they would be fully transparent. Totalitarian regimes openly promote extreme ideologies and hide operational details in order to control perceptions, manage internal resistance, and keep up appearance on an international level. I think we can all agree that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian regime. The Nazis used euphemisms like "Final Solution" because they knew that openly promoting genocide would face extreme backlash internationally but also among many Germans.

The British also had interceptions of Auschwitz but nothing is used in the context of the Holocaust, but in the East they did?

This grammar is confusing as well. The Allied passive response to interceptions of Auschwitz is still a subject of debate. Some argue that anti-Semitism, war priorities, or disbelief led to inaction. However, there were Eastern European responses that tried to bring attention to the atrocities. The Western response was shamefully inadequate, but that doesn’t mean the events weren’t occurring or documented.

You make generic statements from the little you have studied about it. You firmly believe in coded words even in personal diaries, hilarious. Would you like to be sentenced to death by prosecutors believing that in your diary or so-called public there was camouflaged language? Or does it only apply to your ideological enemies? I would prefer Roman law over customary law, wouldn't I?

I'm doing research now. Mainstream historians aren't relying on isolated diary entries to prove something as grave as genocide. Diaries and speeches are just pieces of the puzzle, not the entire argument. When coded language is proposed, it’s often corroborated with many other sources. My example with the different Einsatzgruppen reports shows very clearly how euphemisms were used with some soldiers while others referred to the same event as explicit murder. Why don't you address that specific point instead of just trying to mock me. It seems like you just don't have a response.

My God, the speech was not for posterity, and why do we have it? Bizarre

The two Posen speeches were delivered to senior Nazi officials and provide some of the clearest surviving examples of Nazi leaders referring explicitly to the extermination of the Jews. Again, Himmler said, “I am referring to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people.”

Honestly I'm not sure how you can disregard that when it's clearly spelled out in his speech.

These were not intended for public broadcast or propaganda. They were speeches to Nazi insiders, many of whom were directly involved in the Holocaust or its administration. The idea was to reinforce ideological unity and justify the crimes already committed—not to preserve the speech for future generations.

After the war, Allied forces recovered many of these documents, including the Posen speech transcripts. They were introduced as evidence during the Nuremberg Trials and subsequent proceedings. So, the fact that we have it doesn’t mean it was made "for posterity"—it just means the regime documented itself more thoroughly than it realized would one day be used to prosecute its crimes.

Nazi Germany inherited a deeply bureaucratic tradition from the Prussian and Weimar systems. Germany had long been known for its efficient, rule-bound civil service, which didn’t simply vanish when Hitler took power. The Nazi regime layered its ideology onto this administrative machinery rather than replacing it.

[Callafangers]

Trying to exclude a group because you don't like their behavior doesn't change their racial or biological characteristics. And obviously that doesn't apply to the entire group, so how do you justify excluding an entire group of people when you don't like a small percentage of them?

Because race is not static. It is the story of collective blood from the past and into the future. Once a people recognizes there is an element within that is necessarily toxic and for which the only rational solution is expulsion/separation, that toxic element no longer has any role in the present or future of the race in question.

Additionally, Orthodox Jews are almost totally endogamous/inbred and have remained so for centuries, which functionally makes them something of a 'core' or 'hive' for Jews in general (e.g. for more 'universalist', secular or 'diaspora' Jews). Importantly, even these 'secular' Jews still exhibit an extraordinary degree of tribalism and loyalty toward Jews and Jewish interests -- tribalism which is at odds with the national interest of the host nations they occupy.

[Nessie]

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.

You are an imbecile. And that is not an ad hominem fallacy. Just an observation.

I did not say "These people say X, so X has to be true." My point is rather that CJ's premise, that there is universal agreement on this topic, is obviously not true.

There is universal agreement about the death camps and Nazi murder amongst historians. There is a huge range of disagreement amongst revisionists.

[borjastick]

Once again we allow ourselves to be played with, to be the amusement of a tangled web of minutiae and to tilt at rainbows and windmills. CJ is just mucking around, forever creating cul de sacs for his own pleasure and yet we respond and pretend he is curious and genuine, naive even.

He's wasting our precious time and energy which we give willingly and for free while he is smirking and engaged in deceit and play acting. Leave him to his own devices. The questions and points we raise that he cannot answer and knows to be true he either disrupts or ignores.

Avoid people like this because we are better.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

[HansHill]

Borjastick is right. Confused jew has now evaporated whatever goodwill he was dangling onto, and as such I will respond to his B*llsh*t in kind.

Social Construct: Its none of your concern, jew, what White people socially construct for ourselves, we can socially construct whatever we want to your exclusion, be that a State or a group identity.

Biology: The above is redundant anyway, as Callafangers explained to you.

Pilpul: You as a jew, are a distinct category from us, and to whine otherwise is a categorical error. To mock you is "antisemitism". To mock me, is not. "b-b-but muh social construct" - "semite" used to be a grouping of semitic people which would have nominally included Palestinians and other levantine / ME peoples - yet your co-ethnics "socially constructed" their own identity for themselves. Which you have used, and benefit from.

Pilpul part 2: Alot if not all of us, landed at Codoh having been exposed to the writings of people like Dr Kevin MacDonald, Dr Andrew Joyce and indeed Adolf Hitler. We are very familiar with this territory. You will not out-pilpul us, and this has not been working for you, and it will continue to fail. You and your pilpul are completely checkmated at every turn here, fortunately.

[Nessie]

The Nazis, tried by West German courts in the 1960s, often stated that they had been treated badly when they had been arrested by Allied soldiers. That is not an excuse for you to ditch their entire testimony, as you constantly seek to do.

There are two problems that you have. Firstly, even if testimony is obtained under torture, if it is corroborated, as Hoess was, then that evidence is proven. It may be inadmissible in a court, or not best practice to rely on it, but if it is corroborated, it is proven. Secondly, no matter what court Nazis appeared at, from Ukrainians in US extradition tribunals, to Germans on trial in West Germany, East Germany, unified Germany, Poland or Israel, through the decades, mostly with no evidence of coercion, from Fedorenko to Groening, they all admit mass murders took place. Every single person who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admits they had gas chambers.

I hope you can see that your methodology of finding excuses to ditch 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked in those places, leaves you with 0% eyewitness evidence, which greatly weakens your claim something else happened took place.

I don't reject Hoess as a witness because he was tortured by Jews for three days. I reject it because his story is false and fails corroboration. It is internally self-contradictory in a way that is not reconcilable.

He does not fail corroboration. His evidence is that the Kremas had gas chambers that were used to kill people, Jews and other camp prisoners. On that macro level, he is corroborated, by all the other SS staff, Topf & Sons engineers and all the Sonderkommandos who worked at the Kremas. Add the documentation about the redesign and use of the Kremas and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, selections and disappearance of those sent to the Kremas and only, in the world of denial, is that not corroboration. You ignore that and cherry-pick micro level details to pick out inconsistencies and contradictions.

You cannot prove, with evidence, that his story is false. To do that, you need evidence, such as eyewitnesses, in particular the other SS staff, who would know him best, and for them to describe a process for prisoners at the camp that does not involve gassings. You cannot do that, so you resort to trying to argue he lied, which is not how lies are proven.

[ConfusedJew]

Once again we allow ourselves to be played with, to be the amusement of a tangled web of minutiae and to tilt at rainbows and windmills. CJ is just mucking around, forever creating cul de sacs for his own pleasure and yet we respond and pretend he is curious and genuine, naive even.

He's wasting our precious time and energy which we give willingly and for free while he is smirking and engaged in deceit and play acting. Leave him to his own devices. The questions and points we raise that he cannot answer and knows to be true he either disrupts or ignores.

I'm not really sure what to say to this. You're making all kinds of false assumptions about me simply because I'm disagreeing with you.

Some Jews, not all but I am included in this category, like to challenge my beliefs and opinions so why not come to a place like this to see if I can learn anything.

I have much better things to do than troll strangers on the internet, even if they are anti-semitic. The way that you are responding reveals to me that you are really averse to challenging your beliefs which is required to really deeply understand any subject.

From what I've gathered so far, I see that you do not believe in the credibility of forensic evidence physically found on the sites, the record, written comments and speeches from top Nazi officials, demographic measurements, or testimonies and confessions from thousands of Holocaust survivors and perpetrators.

I'm starting to look at the evidence now more closely and I'm inquiring what you think is wrong about the records, written comments and speeches from people like Himmler, Goebbels, and the Einsatzgruppen but I'm not getting many substantive responses. Occasionally there is a rebuttal that has substance but when I follow up on that, I get mocked.

How do you call this place a debate forum if you are so reluctant to challenge your beliefs or respond to critiques from people who disagree with you? This is a serious question. I'm doing research into the common criticisms from Holocaust deniers and preemptively responding to those, but even I'm not getting responses.

[Archie]

Once again we allow ourselves to be played with, to be the amusement of a tangled web of minutiae and to tilt at rainbows and windmills. CJ is just mucking around, forever creating cul de sacs for his own pleasure and yet we respond and pretend he is curious and genuine, naive even.

He's wasting our precious time and energy which we give willingly and for free while he is smirking and engaged in deceit and play acting. Leave him to his own devices. The questions and points we raise that he cannot answer and knows to be true he either disrupts or ignores.

I'm not really sure what to say to this. You're making all kinds of false assumptions about me simply because I'm disagreeing with you.

Some Jews, not all but I am included in this category, like to challenge my beliefs and opinions so why not come to a place like this to see if I can learn anything.

I have much better things to do than troll strangers on the internet, even if they are anti-semitic. The way that you are responding reveals to me that you are really averse to challenging your beliefs which is required to really deeply understand any subject.

From what I've gathered so far, I see that you do not believe in the credibility of forensic evidence physically found on the sites, the record, written comments and speeches from top Nazi officials, demographic measurements, or testimonies and confessions from thousands of Holocaust survivors and perpetrators.

I'm starting to look at the evidence now more closely and I'm inquiring what you think is wrong about the records, written comments and speeches from people like Himmler, Goebbels, and the Einsatzgruppen but I'm not getting many substantive responses. Occasionally there is a rebuttal that has substance but when I follow up on that, I get mocked.

How do you call this place a debate forum if you are so reluctant to challenge your beliefs or respond to critiques from people who disagree with you? This is a serious question. I'm doing research into the common criticisms from Holocaust deniers and preemptively responding to those, but even I'm not getting responses.

Did you post something actually substantive somewhere? All I was seeing from you was garrulous whining, so I tuned out a while ago. You really should learn to get to the point. If you have some actual arguments, by all means, let's see them.

[ConfusedJew]

Borjastick is right. Confused jew has now evaporated whatever goodwill he was dangling onto, and as such I will respond to his B*llsh*t in kind.

Social Construct: Its none of your concern, jew, what White people socially construct for ourselves, we can socially construct whatever we want to your exclusion, be that a State or a group identity.

Pilpul part 2: Alot if not all of us, landed at Codoh having been exposed to the writings of people like Dr Kevin MacDonald, Dr Andrew Joyce and indeed Adolf Hitler. We are very familiar with this territory. You will not out-pilpul us, and this has not been working for you, and it will continue to fail. You and your pilpul are completely checkmated at every turn here, fortunately.

If you respond to me in kind with arguments and evidence, that would be great honestly.

You can socially construct whatever you want for yourselves but you should ideally be able to describe it in a way that makes sense to other people. If your white identity is people with white skin of European descent except for people from Jewish ancestry, that seems to be a superficial identity to me and I wonder why you feel that identity benefits you in any way.

I'm not trying to "out pilpul" you. You guys are making extreme arguments and I am trying to see how you arrived at those conclusions and how you throw out mainstream evidence and conclusions with ease. If that requires a close examination of evidence and arguments then that's what I will do. I'm personally very thorough and rigorous in examining and challenging my own beliefs.

[ConfusedJew]

Did you post something actually substantive somewhere? All I was seeing from you was garrulous whining, so I tuned out a while ago. You really should learn to get to the point. If you have some actual arguments, by all means, let's see them.

Check out yesterday's posts at 7:30pm, 10:05pm, and 11:10pm. I present specific evidence and have started a back and forth on the quality and interpretation of evidence. I was then accused of trolling for some reason.

I'm not whining? I've been scoping out the landscape of the disagreements. My only complaint is that people are not answering my legitimate questions or providing constructive feedback.

[HansHill]

If you respond to me in kind with arguments and evidence, that would be great honestly.

Page 7, post 10

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=324&start=90

[Archie]

Check out yesterday's posts at 7:30pm, 10:05pm, and 11:10pm. I present specific evidence and have started a back and forth on the quality and interpretation of evidence. I was then accused of trolling for some reason.

I'm not whining? I've been scoping out the landscape of the disagreements. My only complaint is that people are not answering my legitimate questions or providing constructive feedback.

Ok, let's look at the post.

I'm not sure how you can say that when there's so much concrete evidence suggesting that is incorrect. Maybe you can explain to me the following excerpts which are very clear to me.

From the Wannsee Protocol (January 20, 1942), which was a secret document recording the meeting of senior Nazi officials where they coordinated the implementation of the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question.

Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution. In large (labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction. The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part, it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germ-cell of a new Jewish revival.

Even though the Wannsee Protocol doesn't use the word 'gas chamber,' it was not a kill order. It was a coordination meeting among bureaucrats already carrying out a genocidal operation. Based on hundreds of internal documents, orders, and testimonies, it's clear that the Nazis used euphemisms to disguise mass murder in bureaucratic language. This has been cross-referenced across thousands of documents and testimonies. Rudolf Höss, Adolf Eichmann, and others explained what the terms meant in practice.

For example, the Einsatzgruppen were required to send official reportsto Berlin about their updates. Some reports said 2,300 Jews subjected to "special treatment" while others, submitted shortly after, explicitly said 2,300 Jews shot. This shows they were reported on the same incident and special treatment was used interchangeably with being shot.

Heinrich Himmler's Posen Speech (October 4, 1943)
In a speech to SS officers, Himmler explicitly refers to the extermination of the Jewish people.

I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of the things that is easily said: "The Jewish people are going to be exterminated," that's what every Party member says, "sure, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination - it'll be done." And then they all come along, the 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his one decent Jew. Of course, the others are swine, but this one, he is a first- rate Jew. Of all those who talk like that, not one has seen it happen, not one has had to go through with it. Most of you men know what it is like to see 100 corpses side by side, or 500 or 1,000. To have stood fast through this - and except for cases of human weakness - to have stayed decent, that has made us hard.

Many Holocaust deniers, claim that his speech is vague and doesn't actually mean extermination, but Himmler clearly distinguishes between talking about extermination and actually carrying it out. This is not vague bureaucratic language—it’s a boast to senior SS officers.

Some argue that it's a fabrication, but it would be impossible to it would be virtually impossible to forge Himmler's voice, SS distribution formats, and detailed historical references. Multiple independent historians and institutions have all authenticated the speech.

Goebbels' Diary (March 27, 1942)

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60% of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40% can be used for forced labor.

Many Holocaust deniers also say that the diaries were forged or inauthentic but they were handwritten and professionals have authenticated the entries through handwriting analysis, paper type, ink aging etc.

Others say he was just speculating about what was going to happen but at this time, Jews were already being sent to extermination camps by early 1942.

Other's say that the diary is taken out of context, but if anything, he shows no confusion or moral uncertainty—only cold approval. His language is consistent with Nazi euphemism, but even he breaks through it at times like when he used verbiage like “liquidated” or “not much remains”.

Some say it was propaganda or an exaggeration but it was written for himself, not for propagandistic purposes, and much of what he is saying lines up with deportation schedules, death camp operations, and other Nazi documents.

Himmler and Goebbels were both top Nazi insiders who couldn't have carried out such an operation without Hitler's knowledge and approval.

So you have over 180 posts, mostly off topic rambling, and you are just now finally getting around to trotting out the most commonly cited documents? And you obviously didn't read any of the links we provided you with or read any revisionist material? Pathetic.

[Archie]

No signed directive has been found from Hitler but that was not unusual for how he operated, especially on criminal matters. The euthanasia program (Aktion T4), which resulted in the murder of tens of thousands of disabled Germans, also lacked formal law or public directive—it was initiated with a private authorization typed on Hitler’s letterhead and even that was backdated.

Lol at you trying to spin the euthanasia order. The existence of the euthanasia order is a big problem for you because you have to come up with excuses why the much larger extermination of the Jews lacks such documentation even though it would have required a far larger operation.