Pretty gross.Archie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:49 amDepends. How do you feel about gefilte fish?ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:29 amAm I part of International Jewry? I used to live in London for a bit but I moved back to the US.
Pretty gross.Archie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:49 amDepends. How do you feel about gefilte fish?ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:29 amAm I part of International Jewry? I used to live in London for a bit but I moved back to the US.
I only had one question, which you dodged till now and then answered incorrectly.HansHill wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 2:12 pm"the second one makes it clear there were no gas chambers"Nessie wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 2:03 pmNo, there are lazy investigators who will repeat myths. However, the articles you showed, the second one makes it clear there were no gas chambers and the first is not specific about gas chambers.
Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?
That's David Irving - David Irving clarified the lies and myths perpetuated at Nuremberg. He's exposing the sloppiness and the atrocity propaganda common in the Holocaust.
"first is not specific about gas chambers"
What is there to be specific about? There were no gas chambers at Dachau - nobody was gassed there. "The Dachau gas chambers are a myth" is all that needs to be said, anything else is perpetuating the myth.
"Do you know what historians, journalists and criminal investigators do, to determine eyewitness truthfulness and accuracy?"
Yes - for example at Dachau what the did was ignore all common sense and perpetuated a completely unrealistic set of atrocity propaganda claims as initiated by the eyewitnesses.
Do you have any more questions?
You are wrong about who administered the majority of war crimes trials. You have ignored that the SS camp staff did not challenge the gassing claims, due to the evidence of gassings. By doing that, you have created a false base on which you prop your erroneous beliefs.Archie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 1:10 amLol, West Germany was what got conquered. It was under the American thumb after the war.Nessie wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 7:58 amThat is not true, as you now go on to admit;
Not just Belzec, but Chelmno, Sobibor, TII, Majdanek and A-B. The majority of the camp staff were tried in West, East and since unified Germany. Next, were the trials in Poland and Israel, who cannot be considered to be amongst Germany's conquers.You pretend these testimonies just fell out of the sky. You say they made these confessions against their self-interest but that is far from obvious. Speer went along with the extermination story and he got a relatively lighter sentence. At the Belzec trial, all of the defendants went along with the Holocaust story and they all had their charges dropped except for one guy who got 4 years. Your spin on that will be that it proves that the German government was still pro-Nazi or whatever but the other way to read it is that they were had incentivize to be cooperative.
As for being incentivised to cooperate, you have no evidence of that. You ignore that the mass murders were evidenced, which explains why no defendant denied them.
You have created a false context to support your false beliefs.
Postwar Poland was Communist and was under the Soviet sphere.
Israel as a state did not exist during the war, but International Jewry most definitely was among Germany's conquerors.
You don't understand geopolitics.
The relevant affidavit is here:ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 4:46 pmI looked up his book and found the citation but when I googled it, nothing came up.
I trust an LLM because I can easily fact check it myself. If something is wrong, I can figure it out in short order. With somebody like David Irving, who was found guilty of Holocaust denial by a court process, I have to audit everything he says in much more granular detail.
Being convicted by a court itself is not enough because I have to audit the details and judgment of that court case. It is much faster to do that with LLMs.
I don't trust anybody at face value but I will look at the sources to independently verify if he is saying is true and how relevant it is. I will be at a conference for the next few days and will have to come back to some of these items later but I have written down what I need to respond to.HansHill wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 10:31 am
Re Irving: I think your mistrust of Irving isn't necessarily because of his Holocaust denial charge, but rather his Holocaust denial full stop. For example, one of the names that gets discussed here alot is Germar Rudolf, and he has a similarly chequered past with Holocaust Denial laws, as that is a crime in his native Germany. I assume you also would mistrust him. However an arguably evenmore prevalent Holocaust revisionist is Carlo Mattogno who has a completely clean slate legally speaking, so would you be mistrustful of him?
If the answer is yes, then your mistrust of Irving has nothing to do with the guilty verdict, and everything to do with his position.