Pilpul Activities on the CODOH Forum

[ConfusedJew]

It has often been remarked that Jews are like their own underground nation spread out among all the other nations. "International Jewry."

Am I part of International Jewry? I used to live in London for a bit but I moved back to the US.

Depends. How do you feel about gefilte fish?

Pretty gross.

[Nessie]

The historian and criminal investigators, along with the journalists at the BBC and the Guardian as per the snippets I showed you, did absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the Dachau gas chamber myth and in fact perpetuated it.

Does this confuse you?

No, 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?

"the second one makes it clear there were no gas chambers"

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?

I only had one question, which you dodged till now and then answered incorrectly.

[Nessie]

...

Pretty much all of the witnesses are from war-crimes trials administered by Germany's conquerors. You ignore that context.

That is not true, as you now go on to admit;

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.

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.

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.

Lol, West Germany was what got conquered. It was under the American thumb after the war.

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.

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.

[HansHill]

Wait hang on - that's odd.

Why would you trust an LLM over David Irving given you don't mistrust his credibility or integrity? The citation was right there for you as well, not as if it were obfuscated.

I 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.

The relevant affidavit is here:

https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/docum ... PS-2430%22

Click "convert to PDF". Page 10 is the relevant page attesting to "lethal gas chambers". I understand that this stuff can be extremely niche to find, and we can help assist with finding obscure documents, remember what has been said to you many times now - there are people here who are very familiar with this material and have been doing this for decades.

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.

[ConfusedJew]

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.

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]

I don't mean to be crass here, but you do believe things at face value - just not from Revisionists. You believe at face value in the systematic murder of people that you likely can't explain, via mechanisms that don't exist, and were disposed of in ways that can't be explained.

Again I don't mean to be rude but your belief in that, over mistrust in a David Irving citation, which leads directly to a publicly available affidavit is precisely why we are in this mess in the first place.

[Nessie]

I believe what is evidenced to have happened. I can explain the mechanism's of the Nazis constructing gas chambers, digging big pits, cremating on pyres and in multiple corpse cremation ovens. Those mechanisms are evidenced. Nothing is taken at face value.

[HansHill]

You've already told us you don't understand why there isn't any PB at the Kremas.

We call that "taking it at face value". Anyway, that was address to Confused Jew - he has mentioned the PB in passing so it's up to him to read the material and let us know if he understands it or not.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…that is also why I don't engage very much in Holocaust debate. The believers come back day after day citing something well tred like the Wannsee Conference, then when it's demonstrated how that actually vindicates revisionists they run to a different piece of evidence and never concede their original mistake. It wouldn't be worth my trouble to keep engaging if it were other than a mass delusion with the whole globe in its thrall.

Yes, it’s peculiar behaviour and ironically a form of ‘denial’. Which is ironic, as it shows that the actual ones who routinely ‘deny’ the credible evidence regarding the jewish experience in Europe during WW2 are the ‘holocaust believers’, not the people they insist on falsely calling ‘holocaust deniers’.

A good example of that which you referred to is this here:

The minutes from Wannsee, signed by Nazis, EXPLICITLY DISCUSS the planned extermination of Jews across Europe. It shows there was a centralized, coordinated plan for the mass murder of Jews, beyond just forced labor. The “Final Solution” was specifically about the systematic extermination of Jews.

Yet despite this statement demonstrating its author being exceptionally ignorant of the actual contents of the Wannsee Protocol, this person then followed that post with this arrogantly unselfaware and hypocritical one:

You just ignored or rejected logical arguments without addressing them or providing any rational response. If there's a fallacy, explain why something is a fallacy and correct the logic. If a fact or argument is weak, explain why the fact or argument is weak. Otherwise, this is no real debate. To have a serious debate requires intellectual honesty and a commitment to solid arguments and evidence.

Archie very politely corrected this demonstration of ignorance with the very mild refutation and friendly invitation to check

Have you read the Wannsee minutes? Or have you just heard that it says that? Can you quote the part where they explicitly discuss plans of "mass extermination"? Can you quote the part where you are seeing this intention "to kill millions of Jews"?
I have read the Wannsee minutes and I do not think it supports the Holocaust story at all. Quite the opposite.

I have also read the Wannsee protocol, including studying the most often quoted parts in the original German. I also waded my way through the transcripts of Eichmann’s televised Tel Aviv show-trial. The ONLY part of the protocol which is claimed to refer to killing anyone at all has to rely on a deliberately misleading translation of the German words ‘bei lassung’. I.e. the holocaust narrative relies upon a calculated deception and distortion. A translation that has ‘if released’ instead of the actual “when released”.

Anyway, I couldn’t see where Confused Jew accepted correction of their false understanding. Did I miss it?
If not, this example amply demonstrates the point you made:
“…The believers come back day after day citing something well tred like the Wannsee Conference, then when it's demonstrated how that actually vindicates revisionists they run to a different piece of evidence and never concede their original mistake.”

[ConfusedJew]

I have read the Wannsee minutes and I do not think it supports the Holocaust story at all. Quite the opposite.

I have also read the Wannsee protocol, including studying the most often quoted parts in the original German. I also waded my way through the transcripts of Eichmann’s televised Tel Aviv show-trial. The ONLY part of the protocol which is claimed to refer to killing anyone at all has to rely on a deliberately misleading translation of the German words ‘bei lassung’. I.e. the holocaust narrative relies upon a calculated deception and distortion. A translation that has ‘if released’ instead of the actual “when released”.

Anyway, I couldn’t see where Confused Jew accepted correction of their false understanding. Did I miss it?
If not, this example amply demonstrates the point you made:
“…The believers come back day after day citing something well tred like the Wannsee Conference, then when it's demonstrated how that actually vindicates revisionists they run to a different piece of evidence and never concede their original mistake.”

This was when I first joined the forum and I had done some preliminary research. I was pretty shocked to find that you guys don't acknowledge that the Nazis used euphemisms to refer to killing. While to the vast majority of other people, they see it as black and white proof that the Nazis committed the Final Solution of genociding the Jews.

I've since started to understand more deeply how you think and argue so I'm going into more depth.

The Wannsee Minutes use bureaucratic, coded language, making interpretation necessary rather than explicit. The Protocol outlines coordination and intentions but does not specify how the Jews will be killed, where, or when. It lacks direct reference to extermination camps (e.g., Auschwitz, Treblinka) or specific methods (e.g., gas chambers), even though some were already operating. The document is not a law, order, or operational plan—it's a summary of a meeting, compiled after the fact by Adolf Eichmann. As such, it is more evidence of planning and coordination, not execution.

Eichmann later admitted (in postwar interrogation) that more explicit language about killing was spoken at the meeting but not recorded in the protocol, possibly to sanitize the record. That limits its use as a full, stand-alone proof without relying on external corroborating evidence.

If I am going to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, it is amazing to me that you can look at a document that seems so obviously confirmatory to me and then try to write it off using what I see are creative explanations.

How do you explain away the Eichmann testimony where he actively admitted to the murders and use of euphemisms in those minutes? Maybe that's worth opening a separate thread.

[Stubble]

Again with 'it was word jenga' and 'mr geysers of blood himself said so'...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, the pilpul here is you are trying to imply that you didn't say that the minutes 'explicitly called for the extermination of jews'.

Unless I'm mistaken, what you are currently doing, is explicitly pilpul.

For posterity;

The minutes from Wannsee, signed by Nazis, explicitly discuss the planned extermination of Jews across Europe. It shows there was a centralized, coordinated plan for the mass murder of Jews, beyond just forced labor. The “Final Solution” was specifically about the systematic extermination of Jews.

Note: for the record, explicit, by definition, excludes euphemism, explicitly.

[Callafangers]

This was when I first joined the forum and I had done some preliminary research. I was pretty shocked to find that you guys don't acknowledge that the Nazis used euphemisms to refer to killing. While to the vast majority of other people, they see it as black and white proof that the Nazis committed the Final Solution of genociding the Jews.

Claims of 'euphemisms' are almost the total opposite of 'black and white proof'. You're claiming (or implying) an inversion of truth, here.

Your suggestion that certain words or phrases are 'euphemisms' is motivated precisely by your total lack of proof.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I have read the Wannsee minutes and I do not think it supports the Holocaust story at all. Quite the opposite.

I have also read the Wannsee protocol, including studying the most often quoted parts in the original German. I also waded my way through the transcripts of Eichmann’s televised Tel Aviv show-trial. The ONLY part of the protocol which is claimed to refer to killing anyone at all has to rely on a deliberately misleading translation of the German words ‘bei lassung’. I.e. the holocaust narrative relies upon a calculated deception and distortion. A translation that has ‘if released’ instead of the actual “when released”.

Anyway, I couldn’t see where Confused Jew accepted correction of their false understanding. Did I miss it?
If not, this example amply demonstrates the point you made:
“…The believers come back day after day citing something well tred like the Wannsee Conference, then when it's demonstrated how that actually vindicates revisionists they run to a different piece of evidence and never concede their original mistake.”

This was when I first joined the forum and I had done some preliminary research. I was pretty shocked to find that you guys don't acknowledge that the Nazis used euphemisms to refer to killing. While to the vast majority of other people, they see it as black and white proof that the Nazis committed the Final Solution of genociding the Jews.

I've since started to understand more deeply how you think and argue so I'm going into more depth.

The Wannsee Minutes use bureaucratic, coded language, making interpretation necessary rather than explicit. The Protocol outlines coordination and intentions but does not specify how the Jews will be killed, where, or when. It lacks direct reference to extermination camps (e.g., Auschwitz, Treblinka) or specific methods (e.g., gas chambers), even though some were already operating. The document is not a law, order, or operational plan—it's a summary of a meeting, compiled after the fact by Adolf Eichmann. As such, it is more evidence of planning and coordination, not execution.

Eichmann later admitted (in postwar interrogation) that more explicit language about killing was spoken at the meeting but not recorded in the protocol, possibly to sanitize the record. That limits its use as a full, stand-alone proof without relying on external corroborating evidence.

If I am going to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, it is amazing to me that you can look at a document that seems so obviously confirmatory to me and then try to write it off using what I see are creative explanations.

How do you explain away the Eichmann testimony where he actively admitted to the murders and use of euphemisms in those minutes? Maybe that's worth opening a separate thread.

The problem here is that your replies repeatedly show you are shockingly ignorant of the primary source material and the ACTUAL evidence. You bizarrely admit that ignorance but simultaneously think you know better than us — people who’ve studied it in detail for decades - what it actually means / how it should be correctly interpreted. That is both delusional and arrogant behaviour.

You haven’t read the whole protocol have you? Certainly not in the vernacular.
You even dodged my example of a particular, deliberate deception in translating it.
You know nothing of the statements by survivors of the war who were attendees at the conference, do you?

SUMMARY: You are CONSTANTLY arguing from a position of ignorance.

Your reply shows you obviously haven’t read fairly or in any detail what Eichmann actually said at his show-trial. You’ve just believed a cherry-picked misrepresentation of his testimony selected by the deceitful holocaust industry.
This is pathetic of you CJ and demonstrates you aren’t engaging either honestly or intelligently.

[Wahrheitssucher]

This was when I first joined the forum and I had done some preliminary research. I was pretty shocked to find that you guys don't acknowledge that the Nazis used euphemisms to refer to killing. While to the vast majority of other people, they see it as black and white proof that the Nazis committed the Final Solution of genociding the Jews.

Claims of 'euphemisms' are almost the total opposite of 'black and white proof'. You're claiming (or implying) an inversion of truth, here.

Precisely.
It’s evidence of a quite shocking level of arrogant self-delusion and denial. I have never yet come across an online holocaust believer who can discuss the topic rationally, intelligently and unemotionally. They can’t even concede simple word definitions if it refutes their quasi-religious belief system.

[ConfusedJew]

Claims of 'euphemisms' are almost the total opposite of 'black and white proof'. You're claiming (or implying) an inversion of truth, here.

Your suggestion that certain words or phrases are 'euphemisms' is motivated precisely by your total lack of proof.

It seems very straightforward to me what they meant. It also is very compelling to me that Eichmann explained what they meant during his post war trial. That I would consider to be smoking gun proof but you don't for whatever reason. Why do you think the Eichmann testimony was false? He participated in these events and had no motive to lie as it was strongly against his interests. He also was not tortured or anything like that.