The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote:That is your opinion. You assert it as if it is fact. When deniers claim there is a lack of grave space for over a million corpses at the camps, they make assumptions to minimise how many corpses could have fitted, ignoring decomposition and crushing under pressure, the lack of clothing, the smaller size of people and the lack of certainty over the actual sizes of the graves. Fact is, those camps have the largest mass grave areas of any mass graves, from any large scale deaths, throughout history. There is evidence from eyewitnesses and documents, to prove how many arrived and were killed at the camps. That what has been found by archaeologists is not as much as you think it should be, is not evidence to prove no mass graves.

Nessie, stop with the 'opinion' dodge. Excavations at AR camps and Chelmno—Sobibor (in the range of 15,000 - 45,000 crushed/compressed corpses' worth), Belzec (low tens of thousands at most), Treblinka (near nothing)—are quantified, not assumed. Even factoring significant decomposition or crushing, remains don’t scale anywhere close to hundreds of thousands or more. 'Largest mass graves in history' means zilch without matching your numbers. Eyewitnesses and docs show arrivals, not proven killings at scale. Archaeologists’ findings are drastically short—orders of magnitude off. Show the hard data for millions, not empty superlatives.

Nessie wrote:You think that [witness inconsistencies], but if you bothered to study witnesses and memory, you would see any inconsistencies are within what is to be expected and are explainable, such as hearsay compared to eyewitnesses. They are not inconsistent at all, when it comes to mass arrivals, killing inside chambers, mass graves and pyres. It is in the detail that they vary, such as what killed people inside the chambers and how big the graves were.

I don’t need a lecture on memory. Core contradictions—CO vs. Zyklon B, impossible timelines, absurd logistics—aren’t mere 'details.' Mass arrivals? Not disputed. Gassings and pyres? Unsubstantiated at scale, with testimonies overwhelmingly collapsing under scrutiny. Consistency on vague claims isn’t proof when specifics fail. Where’s the fuel or forensic backing for millions cremated? You’re sidestepping the massive gaps.

Nessie wrote:In your opinion. In my opinion, what archaeologists have found, is of a scale consistent with mass deaths. There is evidence of fuel. There is witness evidence to ordering and delivering of wood, the use of wood to start the pyres and the corpses being consumed by the fire, as seen by the pyre found at Ohrdruf. The archaeological and witness evidence is consistent with huge mass graves, larger than any others.

Opinion doesn’t conjure remains. Low tens of thousands isn’t 'mass deaths' of millions. The single witness claim of a small wood delivery which you spam repeatedly doesn't pertain to any claimed 'extermination' operations, and there's a total lack of documentary logistics—where’s evidence of the massive logging needed for AR pyres (since logging is explicitly claimed as the foremost source of fuel/wood)? Ohrdruf shows small-scale cremation, not millions. 'Huge mass graves' still don’t yield your quantities. Stop with subjective fluff; show quantified remains and fuel records for millions.

Nessie wrote:When you make your claims, the burden of proof is on you. When you claim no mass graves, it is not up to me to disprove you, it is up to you to evidence no mass graves. You do that with witness who said there were no mass graves, and site surveys that found undisturbed ground. You cannot do that, so you shift the burden of proof. I have provided concrete evidence to match the numbers, from Nazi documents recording how many went to the camps, to archaeological evidence of huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains.

You’re twisting it again. You claim millions killed—an extraordinary positive assertion. Burden’s on you to prove it with forensics, not on me to disprove a negative. I’m not saying 'no graves'; I’m saying remains don’t match your scale—tens of thousands, not millions. Nazi docs show arrivals, not killings. Your 'disturbed ground' falls short by a mile. Stop deflecting; produce remains or logistics for millions.

Nessie wrote:What else is there? Millions of Jews still in camps and ghettos in 1944, or being released, would leave a lot of evidence. Where is it? It is odd how so many records survive, recording arrests, transports to camps and ghettos, and the populations of those camps and ghettos, but zero records survive of mass releases!

What else? Untracked displacement, labor drafts, chaos-driven obscurity under Soviet control. Not every Jew needed to be 'in camps' or 'released en masse' to vanish from records. Surviving docs cover Nazi control, not chaotic endgame or Soviet suppression. Expecting neat 'release records' in a collapsing Reich is absurd. Burden isn’t my missing paper; it’s your missing proof of death at scale. Show it.

Nessie wrote:How could the Soviets suppress data of c34,000 Dutch Jews still alive in 1944, in camps, or being released, presumably to return to the Netherlands? Same with all the French, Italian, Greek, Belgian, Norwegian, German and Austrian Jews. When you claim no mass murders, the onus is on you to produce witnesses from the camps to say what did happen.

Soviets suppressed data on entire populations—Katyn, famines, gulags. Small groups like Dutch Jews could dissolve in displaced masses or be unrecorded under Soviet grip (and no one is claiming many of them could not have died from various causes during and after the war). I don’t claim 'no murders'; I challenge unproven genocide at your scale. I don’t need witnesses to disprove; you need forensics to prove. Stop dodging—where’s the physical proof for millions dead?

Nessie wrote:You are dishonestly minimising the scale of evidence to prove mass killings, to deflect from your lack of evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944. Show me the bodies! Where is your evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944? If that had happened, there would be a huge number of Nazis whose job it would have been to organise and guard all of those people. Can you name the department and Nazi who was responsible for running all those camps and ghettos?

I’m not minimizing; I’m exposing reality—your 'evidence' (shaky witnesses, sparse remains) doesn’t scale to millions. I don’t need to prove millions alive; you need to prove millions dead. War chaos and Soviet control explain missing data better than unproven gassings. Nazi departments? Irrelevant until you show extermination. Keep flipping the burden; it’s still yours. Show the remains for millions.

Nessie wrote:Arrests were widespread and involved millions of Jews. What you call localised killings were widespread in Eastern Europe, in particular in the Baltic and Balkan countries and Romania, resulting in the deaths of c 2million Jews. It involved the entire of Nazi Europe, except Denmark and Finland. How did they get to be exempt? Only Denmark and Finland could evidence where their Jewish citizens were in 1944. Explain why that was.

Arrests, yes. Localized killings, yes. Two million? Where’s the forensic evidence? Widespread doesn’t mean industrial genocide via gas chambers. Denmark and Finland’s exemptions stem from local resistance and lesser Nazi focus—small populations, unique politics. Their records don’t prove your broader narrative; they’re outliers. Still no physical proof for millions dead. Show me the remains.

Nessie wrote:France was a victor, but they admit to their complicity and cooperation in the Holocaust. The Dutch have not re-written their history and they admit to having one of the highest death rates of their citizens, due to their high level of cooperation. The Latvians have had decades to re-write their history, since they gained their independence. But they still admit to joining with the Einsatzgruppen and shooting their Jewish citizens and that was not a Soviet hoax.

Admissions of complicity or local killings don’t prove millions gassed or shot en masse. Post-war politics shaped narratives—victor or not—for guilt, aid, or alignment. Dutch 'high death rates' lack forensics. Latvian admissions confirm local atrocities, not industrial extermination Ultima Thule-level certainty. You’re piling anecdotes, not evidence for your scale. Still no remains or ashes for millions.

Nessie wrote:Until you can evidence millions of Jews alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, or they had been released and were back in the general population, then the evidence produced to prove mass gassings, shootings, graves and cremations stands. That, in your opinion, the evidence produced is insufficient, is just hot air.

Your logic’s still backward. I don’t need to prove millions alive; you must prove millions dead. Your 'evidence'—inconsistent testimonies, minimal remains, no logistics for millions—doesn’t stand; it fails under scrutiny. It’s not just 'opinion'; it’s a factual deficit in physical proof. Call it hot air, but I’m waiting for remains or cremation capacity for millions. Until then, your story’s the empty breeze.

borjastick wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 11:19 am I have noticed in recent months that as the narcissistic and arrogant jewish holocaust promoters and believers become less certain of their position, because the sands around them are shifting, they first turned to this ridiculous argument that there are no records of mass deportations from the east of Poland into Russia into 'proof' of mass murder in places like Treblinka despite the physical evidence missing in action for 80 years. A leap of lunacy if ever I saw one only equalled by the WOKE, BLM, Trans Mafia nonsense in recent times.

The two proponents of stupidity and illogical rationale here need to grow a pair each and understand how the world worked and works. They have no case to claim millions of jews were deaded in the camps, none at all.

Is this language really necessary? It suggests to me that you don't actually have a response because I'm speaking with you civilly and rather than provide a logical counterargument, you lower yourself to insult me.

I'm here because I'm curious about your guys logic and facts. I don't really care to "win" an argument here. I'm just legitimately puzzled as to how people can believe what you do. No need to call me a narcissistic and arrogant Jew. It reflects poorly on you.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 12:33 am

borjastick wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 11:19 am I have noticed in recent months that as the narcissistic and arrogant jewish holocaust promoters and believers become less certain of their position, because the sands around them are shifting, they first turned to this ridiculous argument that there are no records of mass deportations from the east of Poland into Russia into 'proof' of mass murder in places like Treblinka despite the physical evidence missing in action for 80 years. A leap of lunacy if ever I saw one only equalled by the WOKE, BLM, Trans Mafia nonsense in recent times.

The two proponents of stupidity and illogical rationale here need to grow a pair each and understand how the world worked and works. They have no case to claim millions of jews were deaded in the camps, none at all.

Is this language really necessary? It suggests to me that you don't actually have a response because I'm speaking with you civilly and rather than provide a logical counterargument, you lower yourself to insult me.

I'm here because I'm curious about your guys logic and facts. I don't really care to "win" an argument here. I'm just legitimately puzzled as to how people can believe what you do. No need to call me a narcissistic and arrogant Jew. It reflects poorly on you.

CJ, it would only reflect poorly on borjastick if you were not a narcissistic and arrogant jew. Calling a spade a spade only reflects poorly on the spade. And I might add to that list that you are a liar as well. The reason being:

viewtopic.php?p=8319#p8319

Something tells me we can soon add coward to the list also.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 12:33 am

borjastick wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 11:19 am I have noticed in recent months that as the narcissistic and arrogant jewish holocaust promoters and believers become less certain of their position, because the sands around them are shifting, they first turned to this ridiculous argument that there are no records of mass deportations from the east of Poland into Russia into 'proof' of mass murder in places like Treblinka despite the physical evidence missing in action for 80 years. A leap of lunacy if ever I saw one only equalled by the WOKE, BLM, Trans Mafia nonsense in recent times.

The two proponents of stupidity and illogical rationale here need to grow a pair each and understand how the world worked and works. They have no case to claim millions of jews were deaded in the camps, none at all.

Is this language really necessary? It suggests to me that you don't actually have a response because I'm speaking with you civilly and rather than provide a logical counterargument, you lower yourself to insult me.

I'm here because I'm curious about your guys logic and facts. I don't really care to "win" an argument here. I'm just legitimately puzzled as to how people can believe what you do. No need to call me a narcissistic and arrogant Jew. It reflects poorly on you.

I do not 100% believe you are actually 'puzzled' by it at all. I think you are perhaps being disingenuous, but that is just my opinion. I am not saying you don't potentially believe in the 'Holocaust', only that your entire demeanor and 'role-playing' here may be more about exhibiting incredulity as a method of convincing (or reinforcing) potential readers' beliefs that the 'Holocaust' is necessarily valid and any challenges are a mere spectacle or oddity.

Unfortunately for you, the facts align firmly in our favor.

You have been demolished on all of your points thus far, nothing you have provided comes close to challenging the revisionist position. And this is despite the fact that you went straight for what is acknowledged on both sides as the 'Achilles heel' of the narrative, whether exterminationist or revisionist. Both sides have had challenges explaining "where Jews went" per their own narrative (exterminationists cannot show the graves they claim, revisionists cannot identify exact outcomes of many Jews postwar). But the exterminationists are the ones claiming their position is conclusive, they are the ones whose evidence we should necessarily have available, and they are the ones stifling all attempts to confirm or invalidate what really happened.

With that core matter addressed, you will soon find that every other challenge to the revisionist position is equally or even less in your favor. Pick your favorite: 'gas chambers' at any given location, 'survivor testimony', postwar trials, 'confessions' -- we enjoy it all, here. Happy to help.

Keen wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 12:41 pm
CJ, it seems to me that you are asking how one might "account for 'missing' jews."

It appears to me that you believe that it is a well documented fact that a number of jews were sent to a place called Treblinka II and that they have already been "accounted" for.

Is my assumption correct?

Not exactly. My question is more general than that. Before the war, there were 9.5m Jews in Europe and the number fell to about 3.5m after the war. Did all of these 6 million people just naturally die in that time period?

Later we can get into the details of the train records to Treblinka II but at a high level, I'm trying to figure out how you just write off that 6m figure because that's a bit more than a rounding error.

Keen wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 12:51 am
CJ, it would only reflect poorly on borjastick if you were not a narcissistic and arrogant jew. Calling a spade a spade only reflects poorly on the spade. And I might add to that list that you are a liar as well. The reason being:

viewtopic.php?p=8319#p8319

Something tells me we can soon add coward to the list also.

I'm just letting you know that I will not be responding to you again.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:11 am
I do not 100% believe you are actually 'puzzled' by it at all. I think you are perhaps being disingenuous, but that is just my opinion. I am not saying you don't potentially, truly believe in the 'Holocaust', only that your entire demeanor and 'role-playing' here may be more about exhibiting incredulity as a method of convincing (or reinforcing) potential readers' beliefs that the 'Holocaust' is necessarily valid and any challenges are a mere spectacle or oddity.

Unfortunately for you, the facts align firmly in our favor.


With that core matter addressed, you will soon find that every other challenge to the revisionist position is equally or even less in your favor. Pick your favorite: 'gas chambers' at any given location, 'survivor testimony', postwar trials, 'confessions' -- we enjoy it all, here. Happy to help.

You are welcome to believe that, but for the sake of keeping things civil, I am letting you know that I am 100% puzzled by why you believe this stuff. I do believe in the Holocaust personally, but it of course depends on how you define that word, but I do expect there definitely could be some things that should be modified in the historical record. I'm open minded and will address your arguments at face value. I'm not interested in convincing you or winning a debate. I'm here to educate myself.

It is your opinion that the facts firmly align in your "favor". I don't have any side that I am on. I am open about believing in the Holocaust and I'm truly puzzled by your position. I'm here to educate myself so rather than trying to win some argument, which I'm not interested in doing, it would be more constructive and effective on your part to not take this so personally and just respond with logic and evidence.

I'm being bombarded with long random posts here and it's difficult to keep up admittedly so I've narrowed it to the one overarching subject of the demographic collapse.

There is no "demolishing" to be had. The use of that language suggests that you are completely attached to a belief and close minded. Your definition of success or failure should be focused on getting me to change my mind, not just thinking that you've destroyed my points (which you haven't).

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:31 am

Keen wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 12:51 am
CJ, it would only reflect poorly on borjastick if you were not a narcissistic and arrogant jew. Calling a spade a spade only reflects poorly on the spade. And I might add to that list that you are a liar as well. The reason being:

viewtopic.php?p=8319#p8319

Something tells me we can soon add coward to the list also.

I'm just letting you know that I will not be responding to you again.

So you call dodging "responding"?

You cravenly refused to answer any questions, so it wont matter a lick.

So yes, we can add coward to the list of your attributes.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:37 am There is no "demolishing" to be had. The use of that language suggests that you are completely attached to a belief and close minded. Your definition of success or failure should be focused on getting me to change my mind, not just thinking that you've destroyed my points (which you haven't).

You are being destroyed CJ, and your dodging only makes that fact more obvious. It is so fun to watch you squirm and run away from debate - just like your mentor Nessie does. You've shown yourself to be an utter failure and I hope you stick around to demonstrate that your version of the true believer clown show is the best that your side has to offer. You and Nessie are the dumb and dumber of the exterminationist crowd. Please keep it up because I have already pointed out to numerous people how vacuous and transparent your shtick is - and they can see it as plain as day. It's been a pleasure making you look foolish, and just because you say you are going to ignore me doesn't mean I will stop doing so.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:37 am You are welcome to believe that, but for the sake of keeping things civil, I am letting you know that I am 100% puzzled by why you believe this stuff. I do believe in the Holocaust personally, but it of course depends on how you define that word, but I do expect there definitely could be some things that should be modified in the historical record. I'm open minded and will address your arguments at face value. I'm not interested in convincing you or winning a debate. I'm here to educate myself.

If you were here to "educate yourself", you would not immediately jump on ChatGPT in an effort to 'debunk' revisionist claims before you've even spent a week investigating it for yourself, and then claiming you have some wise mentor you are "recruiting help from" (clearly just ChatGPT). All of this is not typical behavior from someone who is just curious, just seeking an education, etc. It reeks of someone putting agenda-first.

It is your opinion that the facts firmly align in your "favor". I don't have any side that I am on. I am open about believing in the Holocaust and I'm truly puzzled by your position. I'm here to educate myself so rather than trying to win some argument, which I'm not interested in doing, it would be more constructive and effective on your part to not take this so personally and just respond with logic and evidence.

You clearly have a 'side'. Aside from you admittedly being a [confused] Jew, you're immediately firing back as though you have some foundation of knowledge which can seriously challenge revisionist arguments, despite you having just stumbled upon this topic this very week. Again, none of this is typical of someone genuinely perplexed and curious on a complex issue, just seeking to learn.

I don't take any of this personally, either. Your claim in this regard is suggestive of yet another subversive tactic, once again implying something other than a reasoned, measured approach to debate and discussion is taking place here. But your scheming is more or less transparent.

I'm being bombarded with long random posts here and it's difficult to keep up admittedly so I've narrowed it to the one overarching subject of the demographic collapse.

If you're truly seeking to narrow it down to just "demographic collapse", it might make sense to create a separate thread with that as the title. But you'll find this has already been discussed many times on the forum and elsewhere, so you might instead simply start with the 'search' function until you have a better understanding of the key points of contention and can meaningfully add to the discussion/debate.

There is no "demolishing" to be had. The use of that language suggests that you are completely attached to a belief and close minded. Your definition of success or failure should be focused on getting me to change my mind, not just thinking that you've destroyed my points (which you haven't).

The use of 'demolishing' comes from experience over many years. I have remained open-minded but when I read or encounter some of the best scholars in the field of 'Holocaust history' and they circumvent principles of reason and logical inference repeatedly in an agenda-derived campaign of rumor-peddling and the like, it becomes natural to build some serious confidence over time that the emperor truly has no clothes and that this message needs to be shared as such. And once again, you making any judgement at all on this debate is quite absurd, given you still know virtually nothing about it. You walked into a room of relative experts within a given field and are so offended by your impression of the content being discussed that you immediately pretend to have some authority in dictating how that discussion should take place. It's bizarre and very arrogant.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:37 am You are welcome to believe that, but for the sake of keeping things civil, I am letting you know that I am 100% puzzled by why you believe this stuff.

The energy you’re bringing to this thread isn’t puzzlement or curiosity—it’s something else entirely. I recognize it because I embodied the same energy in the late ’90s, before my Mormon mission, when I dove into AOL chatrooms to debate Mormonism with its critics. My goal at the time was to steel myself against challenges I’d face evangelizing abroad.

I got in over my head, facing a flood of ideas and critiques I hadn’t anticipated. Oddly enough, one subject that hit hard was the claim that Mormons performed “baptisms for the dead” in their temples for Holocaust victims and even figures like Adolf Hitler—a practice I hadn’t deeply questioned. I struggled to counter a flurry of critiques with the “approved” talking points I’d been given, and it left me reeling. I went on a Mormon mission, but I left the church after returning back to America.

My point? You’ve arrived to this forum with confidence, but the foundations of the mainstream Holocaust narrative you’re defending aren’t as solid as you think. Maybe not today, but soon, you’ll face moments of disillusionment that’ll shake you. It’s coming faster than you expect.

The United States is a bloated and overextended military empire. We have bases all over the world and bomb various countries daily. We're also a vassal state of Israel. The predominant Holocaust narrative, in particular the mainstream narrative peddled by academia and media, has formed the basis of our modern national mythos and served as one of the main justifications for the USA to do whatever it pleases on the global stage.

We were "the good guys" back in the 40s! Remember, everyone?

Questioning or revising the Holocaust is impossible for the Military Industrial Complex and the supposed "elites" of our society (financial elites, media elites, political elites). Holocaust fetishization fuels the war machine and absolves America of its bloody sins.

How can we grapple with the notion that gas chambers didn't exist?? Well, doesn't matter. Truth emerges, regardless of its palatability.

Consider why there has been such an investment in Holocaust education in America, even though it didn't occur on American soil. Consider why there's a slew of written works about this historical subject that all reference each other in a circular fashion and never have anything new or noteworthy to discuss. Consider why Hollywood made an inordinate amount of Holocaust-related films compared to other grand human dramas involving genocides, atrocities, or ethnic cleansings--besides the fact that Hollywood and the exploitative framework of the entertainment industry was originally a creation of Jewish organized crime (check out "One Nation Under Blackmail" by Whitney Webb).

A good amount of what we understand about the Holocaust was Soviet-engineered atrocity propaganda meant to cast the Allies in the most positive light and portray the Axis powers in the most demonic and cartoonishly evil way possible. Truth is, most everyone involved in World War II acted shitty. A lot of the gruesome images we see at the Holocaust Museum were actually Allied atrocities repackaged as Nazi atrocities. Post-war photos of emaciated bodies being scooped up into mass graves at the Bergen-Belsen were due to Allied bombings, not to cartoonishly cruel Nazi sadism.

Similar to my past disillusionment with Mormonism, you'll also need to grapple with the fact that the Holocaust mythos has allowed significant irrigation of wealth, influence, and power to certain people who profess membership in your specific ancient sect. This realization will help explain to you why there's such attention and energy to ensuring the Holocaust narrative remains intact.

America helps with reparations payments for Holocaust survivors and descendants, which I find atrocious considering that reparations for descendants of slaves were promised but never paid to American Black people.

I notice you're ignoring audiobook and article recommendations by incredible researchers in this thread. Nevertheless, at the very least I recommend that you read "The Holocaust Industry" by Norm Finkelstein.

AreYouSirius wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 5:38 amAmerica helps with reparations payments for Holocaust survivors and descendants, which I find atrocious considering that reparations for descendants of slaves were promised but never paid to American Black people.

We might agree that some forms of reparations are valid. For example, I would say that Germany would have been correct in claiming some reparations from its Jewish elites, pre-WW2. This is especially the case because the exact perpetrators and beneficiaries who had committed the violations against the victim group were the present generation at that time. Fingers could be pointed at the exact individuals who were [most] responsible for the criminal practices and abuses of power.

As generations go by, however, things become much more complex. Is the great-great-great-great-great grandson of John Smith (a hypothetical transatlantic slave-owner) responsible for footing the bill to the great-great-great-great-great grandson of Smith's slave, Joe Wilson? Of course, this great descendant of Smith did nothing wrong, neither to Wilson's descendant nor to any other slave descendant. Yet, it is implied that he still owes Wilson's descendant.

The argument for this has been that the debt is 'systemic' in nature. By 'systemic', people typically mean relating to government or the economy. The suggestion is that "the system" owes Wilson's descendant, even though the system is not occupied by -- nor does it represent -- the same people as it did in Wilson and Smith's time. So, this leans our interpretation further into what it's more often seen as being truly about: race.

It is often suggested that white people have disproportionately benefited from the 'system' since the time of the slave trade. They have had a greater amount of access to the resources and privileges that come from a government (and economy) which was assisted significantly in its earlier growth and development by the labor of African slaves. All of this is certainly true (white people have been the majority, and the majority in any nation typically has the same essential privileges). But what does this mean for present-day? Do white people (as taxpayers of the USA) still owe money to the descendants of African slaves?

There are a lot of questions that come into play, here, such as:

• Had 'John Smith' ever violated any agreement to which such a debt should or could be imposed upon him (that is, his far-away descendants owing money on his behalf)? Or, was Smith acting in accordance with the norms and laws of the time?
• Were white Americans ever under any obligation (other than their own Western moral standards which eventually led to abolitionist movements, globally) to pay for African slave labor? Or, were African slaves sold by various African leaders in exchange for goods, at a time where the entire planet (and especially the continent of Africa, whose entire economy was slavery-based) still practiced and fully condoned slavery?
• Has 'Wilson' truly never been rightly repaid (in part or in full) for the labor he had contributed? What is the value on being granted freedom (and extraordinary opportunity, not remotely available anywhere else) by a nation that purchased you from slave dealers on your own homeland with no such obligations attached?
• What does the accounting for 'reparations' actually look like? As in, does it attempt to calculate the value which the presumed victim group has contributed, which went without compensation? If I build a machine which can turn grass into gold, and hire slave labor to operate my machine, do my descendants now owe my slave's descendants the full value of the gold produced? Or is my machine (my 'system') that which from the vast majority of the value is derived?

These are all very important questions. Moreover, the literal multiple-trillions of dollars in foreign aid, infrastructure investments, and donations from Western nations into Africa must be accounted for, if we are thinking on racial terms. As do the safety (i.e. crime rates), productivity, etc. concerns which are affected by demographic composition in any given area as well.

To tie things back somewhat, I will point out that the discussions of 'reparations for slavery' today are largely derived from Marxist narratives which are, of course, most often led by the same "usual suspects" most of us have learned to be heavily involved in the fabrication of literature and 'testimony' of the Holocaust. One who is aware of the falsehoods the Holocaust entails should also be willing to heavily-scrutinize other historical narratives and framing which is derived from many of the same sources/networks.

That's about as far as I will go into this topic ('reparations') within a Holocaust-focused forum. I do think there is room for discussion of reparations, perhaps on a separate thread here, but it would need to be more focused on the context of the Holocaust (e.g. confiscation of Jewish property as reparations to Germany, postwar reparations to Jews, etc.).

That's about as far as I will go into this topic ('reparations') within a Holocaust-focused forum. I do think there is room for discussion of reparations, perhaps on a separate thread here, but it would need to be more focused on the context of the Holocaust (e.g. confiscation of Jewish property as reparations to Germany, postwar reparations to Jews, etc.).

Callafangers

We both know that the jews have had plenty of reparations and benefits as a result of their holocaust and where has that led us to? In my view it has emboldened them to a dangerous place. They have far too much influence in the US, far too much control and power in and around israel, they weaponise the holocaust at every opportunity to facilitate allowances in the way they crush Palestine and its people, and they have an arrogant expectation from almost everyone in the west of 'poor jews, they suffered so much' to give them leeway on a number of matters. Oh and their massive compo since the war, which is in my view disproportionate by a country mile led to the BLM position that blacks deserve free money simply because of a little bit of slavery (bad as that was) two hundred years back.

borjastick wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 7:51 am We both know that the jews have had plenty of reparations and benefits as a result of their holocaust and where has that led us to? In my view it has emboldened them to a dangerous place. They have far too much influence in the US, far too much control and power in and around israel, they weaponise the holocaust at every opportunity to facilitate allowances in the way they crush Palestine and its people, and they have an arrogant expectation from almost everyone in the west of 'poor jews, they suffered so much' to give them leeway on a number of matters. Oh and their massive compo since the war, which is in my view disproportionate by a country mile led to the BLM position that blacks deserve free money simply because of a little bit of slavery (bad as that was) two hundred years back.

You remind me that I should acknowledge something which more or less goes without saying (since it's been said about as often as it has for the 'Holocaust'): slavery was bad. Black people shouldn't be forced into slavery. But this is one of those things which I don't think needs repeating further -- my generation had the notion of "slavery = bad" drilled into our brains about as much as we did "antisemitism = bad". There's a degree to which the 'badness' of slavery has to be acknowledged but there's also a point in which focusing on this element is used as a weapon to manipulate a population into accepting abuse (in the form of policy changes, 'reparations', etc.). We're long-past that point.

And yes, I see questions of Jewish 'reparations' as somewhat of a different category, given the uniqueness and historical patterns in Jewish behavior.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 8:39 pm

Nessie wrote:That is your opinion. You assert it as if it is fact. When deniers claim there is a lack of grave space for over a million corpses at the camps, they make assumptions to minimise how many corpses could have fitted, ignoring decomposition and crushing under pressure, the lack of clothing, the smaller size of people and the lack of certainty over the actual sizes of the graves. Fact is, those camps have the largest mass grave areas of any mass graves, from any large scale deaths, throughout history. There is evidence from eyewitnesses and documents, to prove how many arrived and were killed at the camps. That what has been found by archaeologists is not as much as you think it should be, is not evidence to prove no mass graves.

Nessie, stop with the 'opinion' dodge. Excavations at AR camps and Chelmno—Sobibor (in the range of 15,000 - 45,000 crushed/compressed corpses' worth), Belzec (low tens of thousands at most), Treblinka (near nothing)—are quantified, not assumed. Even factoring significant decomposition or crushing, remains don’t scale anywhere close to hundreds of thousands or more. 'Largest mass graves in history' means zilch without matching your numbers. Eyewitnesses and docs show arrivals, not proven killings at scale. Archaeologists’ findings are drastically short—orders of magnitude off. Show the hard data for millions, not empty superlatives.

For you to say that at TII, near nothing has been found, when an area that was 2 hectares, up to 7m deep was found to contain cremated human remains, is a clear lie. That is 140,000m3, or the equivalent of 56 Olympic sized swimming pools. That is easily enough space for there to be mass graves at the site. When a geophysical survey finds multiple large pits in the area of the camp where multiple eyewitnesses state mass graves were located, that is corroborating evidence to prove mass graves.

Your motive is to disbelieve, so you play with estimations, to minimise how many people could have been buried at the sites. You do not provide any actual evidence, such as an eyewitness, document, or archaeological survey to back up your lack of grave space claims. Instead, you rely on argument and a logically flawed argument to boot.

Nessie wrote:You think that [witness inconsistencies], but if you bothered to study witnesses and memory, you would see any inconsistencies are within what is to be expected and are explainable, such as hearsay compared to eyewitnesses. They are not inconsistent at all, when it comes to mass arrivals, killing inside chambers, mass graves and pyres. It is in the detail that they vary, such as what killed people inside the chambers and how big the graves were.

I don’t need a lecture on memory. Core contradictions—CO vs. Zyklon B, impossible timelines, absurd logistics—aren’t mere 'details.' Mass arrivals? Not disputed. Gassings and pyres? Unsubstantiated at scale, with testimonies overwhelmingly collapsing under scrutiny. Consistency on vague claims isn’t proof when specifics fail. Where’s the fuel or forensic backing for millions cremated? You’re sidestepping the massive gaps.

You do need to know far more than you do about memory and recall. No witness contradicts any other about CO vs Zyklon B, you just made that up. Every single witness at A-B states Zyklon B was used. No worker at an AR camp or Chelmno states Zyklon B was used. The timelines are within what is to be expected, when we are all poor at estimating time and how long events lasted. Your idea of absurd logistics and your arguments from incredulity. Mass arrivals, gas chambers and mass cremations are all corroborated by evidence variosuly from documents, physical remains and circumstances. The gaps are explained by the Nazis destruction of evidence, which in itself is evidence of criminality.

Nessie wrote:In your opinion. In my opinion, what archaeologists have found, is of a scale consistent with mass deaths. There is evidence of fuel. There is witness evidence to ordering and delivering of wood, the use of wood to start the pyres and the corpses being consumed by the fire, as seen by the pyre found at Ohrdruf. The archaeological and witness evidence is consistent with huge mass graves, larger than any others.

Opinion doesn’t conjure remains. Low tens of thousands isn’t 'mass deaths' of millions. The single witness claim of a small wood delivery which you spam repeatedly doesn't pertain to any claimed 'extermination' operations, and there's a total lack of documentary logistics—where’s evidence of the massive logging needed for AR pyres (since logging is explicitly claimed as the foremost source of fuel/wood)? Ohrdruf shows small-scale cremation, not millions. 'Huge mass graves' still don’t yield your quantities. Stop with subjective fluff; show quantified remains and fuel records for millions.

The Nazis left behind as little evidence as possible. You then illogically argue that because you cannot work out how the Nazis got wood to the AR camps and had enough for mass pyres, those pyres never happened.

Nessie wrote:When you make your claims, the burden of proof is on you. When you claim no mass graves, it is not up to me to disprove you, it is up to you to evidence no mass graves. You do that with witness who said there were no mass graves, and site surveys that found undisturbed ground. You cannot do that, so you shift the burden of proof. I have provided concrete evidence to match the numbers, from Nazi documents recording how many went to the camps, to archaeological evidence of huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains.

You’re twisting it again. You claim millions killed—an extraordinary positive assertion. Burden’s on you to prove it with forensics, not on me to disprove a negative. I’m not saying 'no graves'; I’m saying remains don’t match your scale—tens of thousands, not millions. Nazi docs show arrivals, not killings. Your 'disturbed ground' falls short by a mile. Stop deflecting; produce remains or logistics for millions.

You are deflecting, prove, with evidence, not arguement, what really happened inside the AR camps and over a million people being transported back out of those places. A historian or criminal investigator, someone who knows what they are doing, would know how to evidence and prove a claim about mass murder did not happen.

A claim is made that the British gassed German and Italian internees at the camp they were imprisoned in, on the Isle of Man, in 1941-2. How would go about disproving that claim?

Would you argue that the British were not capable of building gas chambers, or that the witnesses description of gassings was too unbelievable to accept? Or, would you gather evidence from witnesses and documents, and conduct a site examination?

Nessie wrote:What else is there? Millions of Jews still in camps and ghettos in 1944, or being released, would leave a lot of evidence. Where is it? It is odd how so many records survive, recording arrests, transports to camps and ghettos, and the populations of those camps and ghettos, but zero records survive of mass releases!

What else? Untracked displacement, labor drafts, chaos-driven obscurity under Soviet control. Not every Jew needed to be 'in camps' or 'released en masse' to vanish from records. Surviving docs cover Nazi control, not chaotic endgame or Soviet suppression. Expecting neat 'release records' in a collapsing Reich is absurd. Burden isn’t my missing paper; it’s your missing proof of death at scale. Show it.

You keep going on about Soviet control, as you ignore 1944. Millions of Jews in camps and ghettos in 1944, would have left a lot of evidence at that time. Holocaust deniers wonder why so little was intercepted at Bletchley about the Holocaust, but why was so little intercepted about the massive drain on resouces guarding and accommodating millions of Jews would cause? Concentrate on the guards, where would they all come from? Where is the evidence of SS staffing levels in 1944, with so many camps and ghettos to guard?

Nessie wrote:How could the Soviets suppress data of c34,000 Dutch Jews still alive in 1944, in camps, or being released, presumably to return to the Netherlands? Same with all the French, Italian, Greek, Belgian, Norwegian, German and Austrian Jews. When you claim no mass murders, the onus is on you to produce witnesses from the camps to say what did happen.

Soviets suppressed data on entire populations—Katyn, famines, gulags. Small groups like Dutch Jews could dissolve in displaced masses or be unrecorded under Soviet grip (and no one is claiming many of them could not have died from various causes during and after the war). I don’t claim 'no murders'; I challenge unproven genocide at your scale. I don’t need witnesses to disprove; you need forensics to prove. Stop dodging—where’s the physical proof for millions dead?

There you go again, ignoring that the Nazis had a huge say in events. The majority of Nazis made sure they were caught by the Western Allies, not the Soviets. The Western Allies were not supporters of the Soviets, so Nazis reporting that they were being lied about by the Soviets, for a mass murder that did not happen, would get a good reception in the West.

Dutch Jews would stand out in the camps, as would all the other nations. You are assuming there were millions of Jews left by the Nazis, to be found by the Soviets, when the opposite is evidenced.

It is a good admisson by you, that you do not claim no murders and instead, you dispute the evidence and demand to be shown it, when you have been repeatedly shown it. That leaves you in a no mans land, proving you are incapable of the basic task of any real investigator.

Stop dodging, where is the physical proof of millions still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, and liberated in 1945?

Nessie wrote:You are dishonestly minimising the scale of evidence to prove mass killings, to deflect from your lack of evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944. Show me the bodies! Where is your evidence of millions of Jews still alive in 1944? If that had happened, there would be a huge number of Nazis whose job it would have been to organise and guard all of those people. Can you name the department and Nazi who was responsible for running all those camps and ghettos?

I’m not minimizing; I’m exposing reality—your 'evidence' (shaky witnesses, sparse remains) doesn’t scale to millions. I don’t need to prove millions alive; you need to prove millions dead. War chaos and Soviet control explain missing data better than unproven gassings. Nazi departments? Irrelevant until you show extermination. Keep flipping the burden; it’s still yours. Show the remains for millions.

Show me the evidence of what happened to the millions of Jews the Nazis arrested, 1939-44. If they were not mass murdered, where were they in 1944?

You cannot show me any evidence. You cannot even name the department or people responsible for keeping them alive. I can name the SS, AR staff, the Einsatzgruppen, the Romanian and Latvian units and individuals, Globocnik, Fuchs, Gerstein and Hofle who were responsible for the killings. I can produce a chronological history of events, you cannot. You have nothing, and you defelct from that by lying I have nothing.

Nessie wrote:Arrests were widespread and involved millions of Jews. What you call localised killings were widespread in Eastern Europe, in particular in the Baltic and Balkan countries and Romania, resulting in the deaths of c 2million Jews. It involved the entire of Nazi Europe, except Denmark and Finland. How did they get to be exempt? Only Denmark and Finland could evidence where their Jewish citizens were in 1944. Explain why that was.

Arrests, yes. Localized killings, yes. Two million? Where’s the forensic evidence? Widespread doesn’t mean industrial genocide via gas chambers. Denmark and Finland’s exemptions stem from local resistance and lesser Nazi focus—small populations, unique politics. Their records don’t prove your broader narrative; they’re outliers. Still no physical proof for millions dead. Show me the remains.

You cannot accurately describe killings that took place across a large part of Europe, from Estonia to Romania to Serbia, as localised. Add to that, the Western and Mediterainian Jews who were transported to that part of Europe and who were killed there.

Denmark and Finland prove that Jews still alive in 1944, leave evidence they were still alive. Why would Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Luxemberg, Italy, and Greece, who were not part of the Axis, agree to be part of a Holocaust hoax, knowing that Denmark and Finland could get a pass? How did they get their pass and not have to be part of the hoax?

Still no physical remains of millions of Jews in camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

Nessie wrote:France was a victor, but they admit to their complicity and cooperation in the Holocaust. The Dutch have not re-written their history and they admit to having one of the highest death rates of their citizens, due to their high level of cooperation. The Latvians have had decades to re-write their history, since they gained their independence. But they still admit to joining with the Einsatzgruppen and shooting their Jewish citizens and that was not a Soviet hoax.

Admissions of complicity or local killings don’t prove millions gassed or shot en masse. Post-war politics shaped narratives—victor or not—for guilt, aid, or alignment. Dutch 'high death rates' lack forensics. Latvian admissions confirm local atrocities, not industrial extermination Ultima Thule-level certainty. You’re piling anecdotes, not evidence for your scale. Still no remains or ashes for millions.

All of those countries admitting to their role in the Holcoaust, is indicative of the sheer scale of evidence the Holocaust took place. Meanwhile, you lie repeatedly that there is a lack of evidence for mass grave sites, as a deflection from the genuine lack of evidence of Jews alive in 1944, unless they were Danes or Fins. Then we know where they were. The Jews who were in Nazi custody are the ones who went missing, with the Nazis unable to offer up evidence of them still alive.

Nessie wrote:Until you can evidence millions of Jews alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, or they had been released and were back in the general population, then the evidence produced to prove mass gassings, shootings, graves and cremations stands. That, in your opinion, the evidence produced is insufficient, is just hot air.

Your logic’s still backward. I don’t need to prove millions alive; you must prove millions dead. Your 'evidence'—inconsistent testimonies, minimal remains, no logistics for millions—doesn’t stand; it fails under scrutiny. It’s not just 'opinion'; it’s a factual deficit in physical proof. Call it hot air, but I’m waiting for remains or cremation capacity for millions. Until then, your story’s the empty breeze.

When you claim millions were still alive, it is up to you to evidence that. Since you cannot, you claim they were not killed and demand I prove you wrong.