The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 4:55 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 4:32 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 4:07 am

With Katyn, there's no question about the killings themselves. The dispute is/was solely over who did it. That's a separate issue. At Katyn, we have

1) A full excavation, with a precise body count. Many individual victims identified.
2) Dozens of photos indicating the exact cause of death (bullet to the back of the head)

There's nothing like this for Chelmno. The evidence for Katyn is vastly stronger.

Specifically, since we're assessing the USSR's ability to fabricate evidence, narrow this to just the witnesses and documents. If you don't want to that's fine, but it's what I meant. I was asking specifically about the case for Nazi culpability, not whether Poles were shot there or not.

Your stipulations are contrived, as usual.

And I already did post about false documents and testimonies at Katyn. You were going to explain to us how all of that happened innocently.

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 4:42 pm ...
So far as 'atrocity pulp' goes, there is lots of it.

....

Part of the problem here is the hindenburg fallacy.

We are talking about an event in history that stretches across a timeline and involved a significant portion of the globe. It consists of a series of events, some of which are fabricated, some are exaggerated and some are true.

You can't digest it as 'which person made it up'. It was a group effort, and without a doubt, just like any lie, there are grains of truth here or there.

It was a group effort by interested parties, not an effort by a single group or one person or anything.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 4:55 am ...

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 8:53 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 4:55 am ...

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

You only want to talk about the Soviets, because it is believable that, and they have a history, of faking history.

What about the Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, French, Italians, Czechoslovakians, the Balkan countries, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States? Why have they all, no matter what political party is in government, or type of government they have, admitted to their participation in the Holocaust? Why are they all faking their history?

Why do they all admit to failing to protect, or killing their own Jewish citizens, when Denmark and Finland get to say they did protect the vast majority of theirs? How do those two countries get to not fake having so many of their citizens killed?

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 3:18 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 8:53 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 4:55 am ...

The Soviets also lied about the forensics, claiming that the condition of the bodies indicated that they could not have died in the spring of 1940.

You only want to talk about the Soviets, because it is believable that, and they have a history, of faking history.

What about the Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, French, Italians, Czechoslovakians, the Balkan countries, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States? Why have they all, no matter what political party is in government, or type of government they have, admitted to their participation in the Holocaust? Why are they all faking their history?

Why do they all admit to failing to protect, or killing their own Jewish citizens, when Denmark and Finland get to say they did protect the vast majority of theirs? How do those two countries get to not fake having so many of their citizens killed?

BA brought up the Soviets and falsely insinuated that they did not forge documents or manufacture perjured testimony at Katyn.

"What about the Norwegians ...?"

Tell me you don't understand spheres of influence without telling me you don't understand spheres of influence.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 5:50 am Those false documents don't actually specify Soviet responsibility for the crime. We just get the sense that a shooting happened there during Nazi occupation. It's actually all circumstantial. There are a few easily forged letters and receipts and things. This is in contrast to Chelmno where high level German documents spell out the killing of at least 100,000 there and even the methods used. So too there are no eyewitnesses who can attest to the operation, zero German perpetrator testimony here. 1 German apparently confessed, and then recanted, a recantation rate of 100%, while in Soviet captivity no less. He wasn't brought to Nuremberg, in contrast with the many Germans that confessed to Holocaust related crimes. For Chelmno there are confessions from 26 members of the SS and police Sonderkommando [22]
12 members of other German police and paramilitary forces [23] and 5 German officials [24] according to HC blog.

Grok assesses evidence is 5x stronger for Chelmno https://x.com/i/grok/share/pMrTkfIxqGuLx4DEKmKBgzG7v

Given the Soviet evidence was later discredited and Chelmno's evidence is verified, it seems likely the Chelmno evidence is about 5 times stronger, reflecting its reliability and breadth.

You'll gloss over all of this no doubt, but we're arguing over a conspiracy to fabricate false evidence for the Holocaust, essentially. You say it exists, I say it might exist, but is not properly evidenced. I am principally arguing that Katyn is what it would look like if the Soviets actually tried to fake the Holocaust. There would be no confessions or very few, there would have been no official documents (not to mention authenticated by the authors or recipients themselves). They wouldn't have been able to cover up their role in the conspiracy, internally. We have Soviet records of them doing Katyn. You ascribe to the Soviets near godlike power in terms of perpetuating a conspiracy, I argue for mostly buffoonery and presentation of evidence that wouldn't fool anyone. There is no reason to assume the Soviets have godlike power. There is reason to assume incompetence. You see that with Katyn and also things like their casualty justifications for these camps. Extrapolating death tolls based solely on cremation capacity is retarded, yet they make these arguments. From a rev perspective, maybe you could say they did these things on purpose, to make them seem incompetent when the truth was anything but.

Q: "evaluate the disagreement between Archie and BA

What are the main points both are trying to make, and evaluate the strength of each sides arguments"

Analysis of the Forum Discussion between Archie and bombsaway
This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

##Archie's Position:
Archie argues that Soviet evidence about Nazi concentration camps was deliberately fabricated, similar to their documented deception regarding the Katyn massacre. His key points include:

The Soviets created forged documents and coerced false testimonies about Katyn
Soviet death toll figures for camps like Majdanek and Auschwitz were "wildly inflated" for propaganda purposes
The pattern of Soviet misrepresentation across multiple camps suggests deliberate deception
Physical evidence at places like Majdanek is questionable (referring to "gas chambers" as "a complete joke")

##Bombsaway's Position:
Bombsaway (BA) argues that the Katyn case actually demonstrates Soviet incompetence at orchestrating large conspiracies. His main arguments include:

The Soviets' Katyn conspiracy was crude and unsuccessful:

They produced only circumstantial evidence for German guilt
They secured almost no perpetrator confessions (just one, who later recanted)
They failed to destroy their own incriminating records
Their forged evidence was easily debunked


By contrast, Holocaust evidence includes:

Numerous perpetrator confessions (26 SS members, 12 police officers, 5 officials for Chelmno alone)
German documentation detailing killings
Extensive eyewitness testimony


BA concludes: "Katyn is what it would look like if the Soviets actually tried to fake the Holocaust. There would be no confessions or very few, there would have been no official documents..."
BA characterizes Soviet attempts as "buffoonery and presentation of evidence that wouldn't fool anyone" rather than sophisticated conspiracy

Evaluation:
Archie's argument relies on established Soviet dishonesty about Katyn as a template for questioning all Soviet evidence. However, this approach has significant weaknesses:

It doesn't address the crucial qualitative difference BA identifies between the Katyn deception and Holocaust evidence
It ignores the vastly larger scale of documentation and testimony supporting Holocaust accounts
It fails to explain why extensive non-Soviet evidence exists, including German documentation
It doesn't account for the multi-national nature of Holocaust evidence

Bombsaway's argument is more compelling because it:

Uses the Soviets' own demonstrated failures at Katyn to question their ability to orchestrate a vastly more complex deception
Provides specific metrics (number of testimonies, types of evidence) that differ dramatically between the two cases
Acknowledges Soviet dishonesty while showing why the Holocaust evidence pattern differs significantly
Offers a logical test: if the Soviets fabricated the Holocaust, why does its evidence signature differ so dramatically from their known fabrication at Katyn?# Analysis of the Forum Discussion between Archie and bombsaway

This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

## Archie's Position:
Archie argues that Soviet evidence about Nazi concentration camps was deliberately fabricated, similar to their documented deception regarding the Katyn massacre. His key points include:

1. The Soviets created forged documents and coerced false testimonies about Katyn
2. Soviet death toll figures for camps like Majdanek and Auschwitz were "wildly inflated" for propaganda purposes
3. The pattern of Soviet misrepresentation across multiple camps suggests deliberate deception
4. Physical evidence at places like Majdanek is questionable (referring to "gas chambers" as "a complete joke")

## Bombsaway's Position:
Bombsaway (BA) argues that the Katyn case actually demonstrates Soviet incompetence at orchestrating large conspiracies. His main arguments include:

1. The Soviets' Katyn conspiracy was crude and unsuccessful:
- They produced only circumstantial evidence for German guilt
- They secured almost no perpetrator confessions (just one, who later recanted)
- They failed to destroy their own incriminating records
- Their forged evidence was easily debunked

2. By contrast, Holocaust evidence includes:
- Numerous perpetrator confessions (26 SS members, 12 police officers, 5 officials for Chelmno alone)
- German documentation detailing killings
- Extensive eyewitness testimony

3. BA concludes: "Katyn is what it would look like if the Soviets actually tried to fake the Holocaust. There would be no confessions or very few, there would have been no official documents..."

4. BA characterizes Soviet attempts as "buffoonery and presentation of evidence that wouldn't fool anyone" rather than sophisticated conspiracy

## Evaluation:

Archie's argument relies on established Soviet dishonesty about Katyn as a template for questioning all Soviet evidence. However, this approach has significant weaknesses:

1. It doesn't address the crucial qualitative difference BA identifies between the Katyn deception and Holocaust evidence
2. It ignores the vastly larger scale of documentation and testimony supporting Holocaust accounts
3. It fails to explain why extensive non-Soviet evidence exists, including German documentation
4. It doesn't account for the multi-national nature of Holocaust evidence

Bombsaway's argument is more compelling because it:

1. Uses the Soviets' own demonstrated failures at Katyn to question their ability to orchestrate a vastly more complex deception
2. Provides specific metrics (number of testimonies, types of evidence) that differ dramatically between the two cases
3. Acknowledges Soviet dishonesty while showing why the Holocaust evidence pattern differs significantly
4. Offers a logical test: if the Soviets fabricated the Holocaust, why does its evidence signature differ so dramatically from their known fabrication at Katyn?

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 6:20 pm All of this is a diversion from my main point. I guess you're saying there's no material difference between a hoax effort that didn't successfully coerce any perpetrator or eyewitness testimony or fabricate official type documents, and one that produced these things in copious quantity. In terms of the cover up the Soviets also massively failed, not even destroying their own documentation for being responsible. I'm asking you to compare competency of the conspiracies you see at the root of both events. I guess you disagree with my assessment here of Soviet bufoonery and that they would be incapable of doing something like what you allege - most critically the coercing of 50 or 60 testimonies from perpetrators and Germans, in addition to other testimony that is lacking for German-done Katyn. And the cover up of course. This is mock-worthy.

More AI analysis, which I think is sound. You may not be understanding the thrust of my argument

This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

##Archie's Position:
Archie argues that Soviet evidence about Nazi concentration camps was deliberately fabricated, similar to their documented deception regarding the Katyn massacre. His key points include:
The Soviets created forged documents and coerced false testimonies about Katyn
Soviet death toll figures for camps like Majdanek and Auschwitz were "wildly inflated" for propaganda purposes
The pattern of Soviet misrepresentation across multiple camps suggests deliberate deception
Physical evidence at places like Majdanek is questionable (referring to "gas chambers" as "a complete joke")

##Bombsaway's Position:
Bombsaway (BA) argues that the Katyn case actually demonstrates Soviet incompetence at orchestrating large conspiracies. His main arguments include:

The Soviets' Katyn conspiracy was crude and unsuccessful:

They produced only circumstantial evidence for German guilt
They secured almost no perpetrator confessions (just one, who later recanted)
They failed to destroy their own incriminating records
Their forged evidence was easily debunked

Evaluation:
Archie's argument relies on established Soviet dishonesty about Katyn as a template for questioning all Soviet evidence.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 7:58 pm

This forum discussion centers on a disagreement about Soviet capability to fabricate Holocaust evidence, with the Katyn massacre serving as a key comparison point.

Not really. For me, it was primarily a factual dispute over your assertion that the Soviets did not manufacture false testimony or forge documents at Katyn.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 8:28 pm Katyn and Majdanek are examples of Soviet atrocity hoaxes and their fabricated evidence should be patent.

They aren't they only examples, just really good ones that shouldn't be arguable.

The Soviets lied. A lot.