Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 4:39 am
Many years ago I could have had my newfound skepticism for the Holocaust destroyed with one "single piece of blockbusting evidence". Nothing like that was ever presented to me.
An event that spans years and a continent, cannot be proved with one piece of evidence. You are being unrealistic. Even if a document ordering the mass gassing of Jews, signed by A Hitler, was found, it would be dismissed as fake.
Now I am familiar with hundreds of pieces of evidence that support revisionism. Changing my mind would require something very substantial indeed.
There is very little contemporaneous evidence to support revisionism. There are no eyewitnesses at all. Other supposed evidence, such as documents recording coke deliveries to A-B, is not as damning as revisionists like to think.
Let's say hypothetically that one of the recent attempts to find graves in the Reinhard Camps actually turned up a real, massive grave with bodies or their cremains to the count of hundreds of thousands, or some number approaching the death toll claimed for that camp. Let's go even further and imagine that some new forensic work proved these masses of people were victims of cyanide or monoxide poisoning. (It goes without saying that this could never happen because the biggest graves and purported grave locations have already been located and offer far less than this.)
You have decided that the huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, that have been identified at the AR camps and Chelmno are not enough. That is a choice, rather than evidenced decision by you.
If the evidence was that strong, then everyone would have to admit that there really was a mass gassing operation at one of these camps. What would be the fallout of that?
Denial would come to an end.
Well, it wouldn't change the fact that many Holocaust authorities have been caught misrepresenting the facts, whether by mistranslation, misinterpretation, invented data, impossible stories, etc. It wouldn't change the fact that all three of those Reinhard camps had their death totals exaggerated by 4x or more, as it is now admitted. It wouldn't change the fact that Treblinka was said to be gassing people months before the first transport arrived. It wouldn't change the abysmal lack of evidence for other claimed atrocities like Babi Yar. It wouldn't establish 6 million. The list goes on.
Revisionists home in on the errors, that have been identified and ignore the more reliable evidence. They then make numerous errors themselves, failing to recognise few, if any revisionists, have any relevant training. For example, some historians made a mistake about the use of diesel engines, thinking that was what was used. Revisionists then also made a mistake about the use of diesel engines, not noticing the actual eyewitnesses to the engines said they were petrol, or they did not say what fuel was used.
So while this hypothetical smoking gun would be an obvious and massive narrative win for the proponents of the Holocaust, it could not dispel all the other uncovered lies and difficulties. My basic understanding of the Holocaust - as a piece of atrocity propaganda with some basis in truth but wildly exaggerated - would remain. (My deeper understanding would be shaken but not totally upended. Some form of
Semi-Revisionism would have to take the place of what exists now, but there would be inherent contradictions in so doing.)
If the goal was to make me fully believe in the Holocaust and everything it entails, something practically unimaginable would be required. Among the list of requirements: similar smoking gun evidence would have to be found for other camps and supposed extermination sites, many revisionist arguments would have to be shown to be wrong e.g. about the technical aspects of cyanide and monoxide gassings, the key witnesses would have to be defended in a convincing way e.g. why Gerstein described a diesel engine and 25 million victims. These things have not been done despite many serious attempts.
Therefore, in the sense that you ask the question, no, it is not possible. Even so, I remain very open to having my mind changed about smaller scale events.
Maybe it would help if you understood more about the mistakes so-called revisionists make. Think about their competing, contradicting theories about TII was used for. Why can they not reach an agreement and what does that say about their methodology?
