Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 16, 2026 6:14 pm
Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Fri Jan 16, 2026 4:54 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 16, 2026 1:39 pm
Rubbish. For a start, so-called revisionists are trying to evidence there were no mass killings in gas chambers. Then it is possible to prove a negative,
You have patently never read a single Holocaust revisionist book. Holocaust revisionists expose the technical impossibilities of the orthodox narrative, point out that there exists no such a thing as solid tangible evidence for the Holocaust, and demonstrate that the alleged "criminal traces" of the Holocaust are not what they're claimed to be. That's not what's called proving a negative. That's showing the emptiness and fragility of the Holocaust case.
No, it is proving a negative, meaning you are proving something did not happen, exist, or it is false. You have just described the ways so-called revisionists try to do that. If something is technically impossible, then that is evidence to prove it did not happen.
No, it's not. Demonstrating that something couldn't possibly happen for technical reasons doesn't amount to proving that it didn't happen. The latter is a logical consequence of the former, but both approaches are different things.
Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 16, 2026 1:39 pm
for example, mass gassings at Dachau. There is no evidence mass gassings took place, which proves there were no such gassings.
Holohoaxers didn't drop the Dachau gas chamber story because it turned out that there was no evidence mass gassings took place in Dachau. They dropped it because it was becoming increasingly embarrassing
(or "a cesspool of controversy" as they poetically put it back then) and so dangerous for the whole gas chamber myth. When they did that, they believed that the Iron Curtain would last for centuries and the bogus gas chambers of the Holocaust would be safe from scrutiny and exposure for a very long time behind it.
But you can still find a whole load of information about the Dachau gas chambers, so how is it dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole? The answer is that it is not. It shows that some investigations were flawed and that not all camps alleged to be death camps, with mass gassings, were such.
Feel free to show the papers in which orthodox/antirevisionist historians
demonstrated that the gas chamber(s) of Dachau was (were) just a propaganda lie devoid of any solid evidence. You can't do that because there exist no such papers. Orthodox/antirevisionist historians just stopped claiming that anyone was gassed to death in Dachau.
how is it dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole?
It is dangerous to the gassing claims as a whole because it shows that some victors with an agenda can easily & dishonestly prove the existence of nonexistence things with bogus evidence when they need it. Nobody still believes today that the Soviets who 'documented' the gas chambers of Auschwitz & Treblinka were more honest & reliable than the Anglo-American Allies who 'documented' the gas chambers of Dachau & Buchenwald.
Only a die hard conspiracists thinks it is possible to pull off such a hoax and maintain it. It would be impossible to not notice there is a complete lack of people who had their hands cut off, when there should be six million.
Having people state that they had talked to someone who saw it with their own eyes was more than enough to keep the hoax alive as long as necessary. And the endorsement of the hoax by authority figures like Lord Bryce easily turned that belief into a strong faith. Never underestimate the gullibility of average people.
You are dodging my point that a hoax about 6 million children having their hands cut off, would never survive as an accepted history, without evidence of that happening. All of those news stories and the hoax about children having the hands cut off never survived, proves my point.
Nope, the story about children having their hands cut off didn't survive because the victors stopped telling it after WW1 and didn't hold postwar Soviet-style show trials to produce and record bogus evidence (like false testimonies and false confessions) for it.
You have dodged my point that all of those countries admit to assisting the Nazis, when it is against their national interests to do that.
What does that have to do with what happened and didn't happen to Jews in the camps where they were deported to ???
And you dodged my point that the very numerous Jews who were in Western countries without having citizenship had no good reason(s) to return to countries that disliked them enough to assist the Nazis and help the latter to kick them out during WW2.
They had reason to return to their original country and reclaim their homes etc.
Would you return to a country that handed you over to the Nazis for deportation when given the opportunity to resettle in Israel or America? Total nonsense!
Historians have been able to trace all the displaced people from WWII and there is evidence of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA, which leaves one huge 6 million hole that no one, let along so-called revisionists can account for. You demand evidence they were killed, but are quite happy to believe they lived, with no evidence.
That's a lie. No historian could of course trace the over 40 million people displaced by war in Europe alone from 1939 to 1945. That's a grotesque bluff.
Too bad the "evidence" of how many Jews moved to Palestine or the USA was provided by the ardent Zionists who headed "Israel" and the United States back then. They of course had very good reasons to lie and downplay those numbers. If some pro-Hamas officials claimed tomorrow that 1.1 million Palestinians vanished in Gaza since October 2023, would you regard it as a hard fact proven by an impartial source?
The problem for you is that the Nazis kept records of the Jews they identified, registered and arrested and the documentary trails for millions of them stops in certain specific camps. That is unlike many displaced people. They disappeared after they had been arrested and taken into custody.
It's not a problem, especially when Holohoaxers conceded that there exists no paper trail for the execution of those people in gas chambers. Too bad for you sinister conjectures are not evidence.
There is no evidence in what you linked to. I would not prosecute based only on a confession.
Who's the denier now?
You are. It clearly confuses you that I would not accept confessions alone as evidence.
The Jewish encyclopedia reproduced in the pic above clearly states that the Jewish ritual murders were proved by more than confessions alone. It's unambiguously stated that those prosecutors and officials "made the decision to conduct formal criminal investigations" and that "their cases also relied to a large extent on the opinions of a variety of expert witnesses --- physicians, forensic scientists, criminologists, theologians, and academic scholars of Judaism" and were "articulated through the idioms of scientific discourse and rationality."
But still good to see you finally concede that confessions and testimonies have no intrinsic probative value!!! Better late than never!
According to you, Nazis falsely confessed, whether they were given death, heavy or light sentences. You just come with ad hoc excuses to dismiss all the evidence you do not want to believe. You are just making things up!
No accused can possibly know what sentence he'll get at the end of his trial. He can only TRY to secure a sentence as light as possible for himself through a defense strategy or another. Your 'argument' is an anachronistic nonsense because indictment always precedes verdict. Too bad your brain is too small to understand that simple truth. Really pathetic.
Nazis on trial in Germany and Austria, knew they did not face the death sentence and they were likely to get light sentences. Yet they still did not deny the killings.
They were likely to get light sentences only if they did not deny the killings ad even more if they falsely confessed those nonexistent killings. Perjury (or at least silence) for immunity (or a minute prison sentence). Basic defense strategy.
