The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 12:28 pm So, is the evidence that during WWII, the Nazis rooted out and removed the Jews or did they destroyed them? The answer is both.

Wrong as always, genius. That's not evidence, that's what's claimed. What's often presented as "evidence" (because you don't have anything better), is this word. So it's utterly circular to state this word is evidence of the claim, because it's evidenced to have happened, when the evidence is this word.

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 1:02 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 12:28 pm So, is the evidence that during WWII, the Nazis rooted out and removed the Jews or did they destroyed them? The answer is both.

Wrong as always, genius. That's not evidence, that's what's claimed. What's often presented as "evidence" (because you don't have anything better), is this word. So it's utterly circular to state this word is evidence of the claim, because it's evidenced to have happened, when the evidence is this word.

What is presented as evidence as to what happened to the Jews during WWII, are eyewitnesses, documents, photos, film, circumstances etc. The same type of evidence that is used to evidence every historical event.

You have created a strawman version, as you cannot argue against my normal use of evidence. You accept eyewitnesses, documents etc, when it comes to Jews being rooted out of Denmark in 1943, as they fled to Sweden, when news of arrests came through. You accept the same for the Hungarian Jews, put into mass transports to Birkenau in 1944. You then deny and refuse to accept that type of evidence, when it comes to Jews being gassed. I consistently use evidence the same way, no matter the event. You do not.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 2:01 pm are eyewitnesses, documents, photos, film, circumstances etc.

You have created a strawman version

Reported.

I, unlike you, am discussing the topic at hand. To remind you:

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 6:34 pm This thread is about the Holocaust in the Generalplan Ost, and more specifically, references that could demonstrate the Nazis' desire to commit genocide.

This thread, is about the interpretation of words within speeches or otherwise used b the NSDAP, and them being presented as such, as evidence of genocide.

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 2:22 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 2:01 pm are eyewitnesses, documents, photos, film, circumstances etc.

You have created a strawman version

Reported.

I, unlike you, am discussing the topic at hand. To remind you:

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 6:34 pm This thread is about the Holocaust in the Generalplan Ost, and more specifically, references that could demonstrate the Nazis' desire to commit genocide.

This thread, is about the interpretation of words within speeches or otherwise used b the NSDAP, and them being presented as such, as evidence of genocide.

Use of the word ausrotten, that before WWII could refer to both;



...rooting out and exterminating, continued to refer to both, when used by the Nazis during the war. We know that because both are evidenced to have happened. Genocides involve the rooting out and exterminating of a people, because they are in a particular group. Generalplan Ost, was the plan to rid a large part of Eastern Europe of Jews, and others, and for land to be settled by Germans.

Nessie, the whole point here is whether such language can be cited as proof of mass executions or if other interpretations are possible. You made seven posts to this thread, all begging the question. This is the same crap you tried in the chemistry threads. Enough. You will be serving a stint with Keen in Quarantine.

I think Nessie has terribly underestimated (or is unaware of) just how often 'Holocaust historians' have cited/assumed "ausrotten" (and its various conjugations) to necessarily mean "extermination".

In other words, Nessie admits that Nazi speeches are not proof of genocide, and therefore Wikipedias and other classic "Holocaust evidence" answer entries should be modified to remove "Nazi speeches" as an argument.

"is to look at the evidence as to what happened next"

This is where you fail miserably: you don't provide the alleged amount of ashes from the number of bodies cremated, you don't state the origin of the fuel or agree on what type it was, you don't have photos of the cremations behind the Eastern Front, you don't have aerial photos of the extermination of Hungarian Jews, you cling to archaeological research without peer review, you extrapolate findings to fit what you want, etc.