Where are the Goalposts?

[Callafangers]

1. very important
2. the credibility is compromised, particularly in the case of the USSR
3. the forensic

Fair.

What is your level of certainty about the following statement being false

more than 100,000 Jewish civilians were gassed to death

98% certainty. I'm not 100% certain we are not living in a simulation, so 98% for the 'Holocaust' (at small-scale of just 100,000; perhaps some rogue repurposing of a delousing van, etc.) seems about right.

[borjastick]

'The holocaust was the most documented event in history' That is an oft used claim by those wishing to insert their truth into your life. It is of course a load of sh-te. It is probably the most written about event in history but that doesn't equate to the word 'documented' which is used and re-used for effect and to make it sound more credible. Lots of books on a subject don't make it true.

The BBC used this concept when they coined the phrase about climate change 'the science is settled' It was clearly designed to further the position on man made climate change and the absolute chance of catastrophe if we don't stop driving cars etc. It was quickly adopted even though that phrase is total sh-te too.

The problem with Bombsaway and his bum chum Nessie is that they will not answer direct and awkward questions and accept one iota of truth from our side. Wriggle wriggle, turn and squiggle is their modus operandi. Mainly because once they let one chink of light into their argument it starts to fall. israel is under so much pressure right now (justifiably so) that imagine how the world would react if there was a general acceptance that most of their claimed holocaust was a lie.

I get the daily diatribe email from Quora and all they talk about is holocaust victims and holocaust guilt etc. Yawn inspiring and vomit inducing. Same goes for facebook. Everyday history lessons and 'we must never forget' yarns about person after person who 'perished' at Auschwitz yet no evidence or hard proof is ever provided.

I'm afraid Archie must get tough with these aforementioned shysters and clip their wings, severely. They are bad actors and I suggest that many of us here have had enough of their snake oil salemen tactics.

[Wetzelrad]

I give bombsaway credit for honesty on this. I think this forum's users are too harsh to him. His honesty is vastly preferable over the behavior of most narrative defenders, even if to me his logic is unsound.

However, Archie is obviously correct about the goalposts. The establishment has not surrendered an inch of this territory. Hilberg would not admit that the IMT was biased. Neither does Van Pelt. Neither does the latest Hollywood drama on this topic. To admit to significant bias in what is perhaps the central pillar of the story would seem to be dangerous.

[HansHill]

I give bombsaway credit for honesty on this. I think this forum's users are too harsh to him. His honesty is vastly preferable over the behavior of most narrative defenders, even if to me his logic is unsound.

However, Archie is obviously correct about the goalposts. The establishment has not surrendered an inch of this territory. Hilberg would not admit that the IMT was biased. Neither does Van Pelt. Neither does the latest Hollywood drama on this topic. To admit to significant bias in what is perhaps the central pillar of the story would seem to be dangerous.

I have said similar Wetzelrad. I framed it as "consistency" rather than honesty, see below. Reflecting back, its probably more accurate to call it a very localized consistency on one point, probably in an attempt to score the point. Hence I slightly disagree with calling him "honest". The reasons I would say this, is because I very much doubt he would have pursued the "Churchill as Genocidal Warlord" gambit out of the blue if discussing for example, the D-Day landings, and certainly if not ushered into it via the Himmler-quote-equivalence avenue.

Well Bombsaway, I will give you something - at least you are consistent!

Archie is right though, you have veered headlong into WW2 Revisionism that I would imagine many of your fellow travelers would be very uncomfortable to see. Actually I don't even have to imagine much, because already your buddie Nessie in the slop forum has just now defended "exterminate = destroy infrastructure".

Perhaps you guys should duke it out and ascertain exactly what "exterminating" means then come back to us.

[Trebb]

Which genocide would you say is better evidenced?

Dresden.

I think the case isn't so strong, because even posters here (who are definitely not anglophiles) were doubting, even after I showed evidence

All "posters here" can speak for themselves. This is my understanding.

The engineer of the Dresden+ attacks is on record with his aim to delete Germans to the next generation, so German factories could not be staffed 20 years hence. This is far in excess of the excuse given of bombing a historic settlement that was housing a lot of war wounded and many refugees in order to help that nice Mr Stalin on his mass rape and mass murder march westward. Plus we actually have mass graves, documentation, all the footage and photographs of the heaps of German dead in states dearly wished by this ghastly engineer. That is, actual dead bodies showing the various desired fates (melted in to the road, burnt, suffocated) of this evil engineer. An actual Holocaust, since we MUST have one.

We have no evidence of any gassed bodies in alleged death camps (gassing being the alleged weapon) and only Allied innuendo aimed at the documentation of the alleged German mass murderers. It does not convince me of a Holocaust, here.

Was the Versailles treaty (which pinned the blame for the war on Germany in a major way) unhypocritical and just?

Bit of a non-seqitur. No, it was neither. What's the point? That if Germany had won WWI (had been allowed to win) she would have hypocritically blamed the losers, using all manner of dishonesty, and then, thus, inflicted unjust and cruel terms on them? We'll never know. As it stands, you are just pointing out how miserable, mendacious and nasty the victors actually were, who used their false-righteousness to harshly punish Germany, eventually ganging up on Germany again, defeating them again and carrying on with their proven strategy of lying.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I give bombsaway credit for honesty on this.
I think this forum's users are too harsh to him. His honesty is vastly preferable over the behavior of most narrative defenders, even if to me his logic is unsound.

Wetzelrad again demonstrating the high-probability that he is a mole.

Bombsaway is — as Archie just pointed out — here to ‘blow smoke’.
He is DEFINITELY NOT an ‘honest’ debater, even if occasionally he makes ‘honest’ replies as a form of ‘damage control’.

Anyway… Talking of defining the ‘position’ of the ‘goalposts’.
Ask that shyster to define this ‘holocaust’ that he is dishonestly or stupidly suggesting ALL revisionists are denying “happened”.

E.g. if it is such a clear, unambiguous and universally recognised specific occurrence that definitely “happened”, when exactly did it “happen”?

SUMMARY:
1.) ‘the holocaust’ as a term encompasses a whole host of events and occurrences, most of which are accepted and are not being debated or contested. Deceitful arguments from promoters do not admit this fact as they want to portray critical investigators of its less credible and most promoted aspects, as irrational ‘deniers’ of ALL of it.
This is a DISHONEST tactic used by ALL the HolyH promoters.
2.) even the HolyH promoters couldn’t agree for decades when it was supposed to have begun. That is because there was no unanimous agreement of what exactly the term ‘the holocaust’ specifically referred to.

[bombsaway]

Wetzelrad again demonstrating the high-probability that he is a mole.

Bombsaway is — as Archie just pointed out — here to ‘blow smoke’.

You're talking about intentionality now, my internal motivations and thought process, and even extending my supposed duplicity to other revisionists?

Do you think I have serious doubts about the veracity of the orthodox narrative? If not, why I would I be here to blow smoke? It doesn't make sense. That revisionists so typically go down these holes just reinforces to me the extent to which conspiracy brain has taken over. Do you think I'm consciously lying about all of this?

[bombsaway]

Dresden.

I think the case isn't so strong, because even posters here (who are definitely not anglophiles) were doubting, even after I showed evidence

All "posters here" can speak for themselves. This is my understanding.

The engineer of the Dresden+ attacks is on record with his aim to delete Germans to the next generation, so German factories could not be staffed 20 years hence. This is far in excess of the excuse given of bombing a historic settlement that was housing a lot of war wounded and many refugees in order to help that nice Mr Stalin on his mass rape and mass murder march westward. Plus we actually have mass graves, documentation, all the footage and photographs of the heaps of German dead in states dearly wished by this ghastly engineer. That is, actual dead bodies showing the various desired fates (melted in to the road, burnt, suffocated) of this evil engineer. An actual Holocaust, since we MUST have one.

We have no evidence of any gassed bodies in alleged death camps (gassing being the alleged weapon) and only Allied innuendo aimed at the documentation of the alleged German mass murderers. It does not convince me of a Holocaust, here.

Was the Versailles treaty (which pinned the blame for the war on Germany in a major way) unhypocritical and just?

Bit of a non-seqitur. No, it was neither. What's the point? That if Germany had won WWI (had been allowed to win) she would have hypocritically blamed the losers, using all manner of dishonesty, and then, thus, inflicted unjust and cruel terms on them? We'll never know. As it stands, you are just pointing out how miserable, mendacious and nasty the victors actually were, who used their false-righteousness to harshly punish Germany, eventually ganging up on Germany again, defeating them again and carrying on with their proven strategy of lying.

To take a step back, the original question was about the historical establishment and their view of Holocaust as best evidenced genocide. I'm sure if they would viewed the bombings as genocide they would see they were more evidenced. If you're talking about Dresden in particular, there's probably not as much there in terms of quantity as the entire body of Holocaust evidence.

If I point out how "miserable, mendacious and nasty" the victors were, in WW1, in WW2 etc this is a prerequisite for Hoax, not something that would necessitate a hoax or make it even vaguely likely if nothing had happened. You're talking about not only fabricating documents and witness testimonies, but mass coverup and destruction/suppression of resettlement, millions of people, countless administrative documents - silencing their own side even, that would have seen all these Jews being resettled. In addition to being "miserable, mendacious and nasty" the victors would have to have incredible competence in terms of deceit. This has been far from demonstrated, in fact the opposite has been demonstrated. My main point here would be that you can't draw much of a causal line here. The Holocaust could have happened and the allies still would have been "nasty" just like they were in WW1.

[Archie]

I think the "mandatory" belief you are talking about wouldn't be justified even if it was 100% certain. In principle it's wrong to force people to believe things (which btw Lipstadt doesn't think is correct - I disagree with her a lot, but she doesn't think you should be silenced, she just thinks that you're harmful and very bad at history) . I think yes, orthodoxy claims near certainty or virtual certainty. I myself have virtual certainty about it. That's different than absolute certainty though, which I don't even have about the existence of the universe. I think it's as established as core findings in science etc, that's just my opinion. So I guess the goal posts haven't moved.

The argument I was responding to re Nuremberg was the 'victor's justice' angle, that the Allies were biased and hypocritical. You think this is strong evidence for a conspiracy to fabricate testimonies, documents? Really? Powers being biased and hypocritical is a constant throughout history, only the naive would assume otherwise. Was the Versailles treaty (which pinned the blame for the war on Germany in a major way) unhypocritical and just? It's quite obvious that the Allies could have been biased and hypocritical and Nazi Germany still done the Holocaust, which is why I think this argument is pitifully weak. Of course you have a million other arguments about Nuremberg, but I wasn't responding to those.

Let's try a fill in the blank exercise, bombs.

Trials conducted by enemy powers in the hysteria of the immediate postwar are [ ]

A) especially reliable
B) typically unreliable
C) about as reliable as "normal" trials
D) of indeterminate reliability

They did not have Nuremberg-style trials after WWI. If they did, the stories about corpse factories and bayoneted babies would have been confirmed as "fact" and become part of history. Precisely because the victorious powers had not solemnly declared these things to be real at trial, they were free to discard those BS stories within a decade of the war ending. This corrective process was not possible after WWII as the Allies had already committed themselves too deeply to the myths (and, I might add, the Jews had used these myths as a pretext to found a Jewish state, a project that required displacing about 800,000 Arabs).

"Of course you have a million other arguments about Nuremberg, but I wasn't responding to those."

Right, there are many other attacks which undermine it even further. I do not see why you insist on considering victor's justice in isolation. I do not see why we would ignore everything else we know about deficiencies of Nuremberg.

[bombsaway]

Let's try a fill in the blank exercise, bombs.

Trials conducted by enemy powers in the hysteria of the immediate postwar are [ ]

A) especially reliable
B) typically unreliable
C) about as reliable as "normal" trials
D) of indeterminate reliability

I need a frame of reference so I would base this on other times "Trials conducted by enemy powers in the hysteria of the immediate postwar" have occurred.

In terms of general pronouncements by the trial or claims by the prosecution I would say B)

In terms of "direct evidence", eg perpetrator testimony and documents, I would say there's no precedent for what you allege so I would go for C.

I should also remind you that perpetrators faced "normal trials" in West Germany and the result was exactly the same, which strengthens this view.

They did not have Nuremberg-style trials after WWI. If they did, the stories about corpse factories and bayoneted babies would have been confirmed as "fact"

I think this is completely speculative, all the more so because governments formally did not endorse these stories during the war, unlike something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Dec ... ed_Nations. Another clear differentiation is the presence of actual intelligence reports. Apparently the corpse factory was in France, yet no contemporaneous reports emerged, unlike what you see for the Holocaust. Your comparison doesn't work.

[Archie]

I need a frame of reference so I would base this on other times "Trials conducted by enemy powers in the hysteria of the immediate postwar" have occurred.

In terms of general pronouncements by the trial or claims by the prosecution I would say B)

B is obviously the correct answer. And if you concede B, I think it is hard to then turn around and claim that we have 99.9999999% confidence in precedents set by admittedly biased and unreliable courts.

In terms of "direct evidence", eg perpetrator testimony and documents, I would say there's no precedent for what you allege so I would go for C.

I have already pointed out the problems with your idea that the "testimony and documents" are not influenced by the larger investigations.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=86

"Testimonies" - these will be influenced by interrogators and by prosecutors and by the selection of which witnesses get the spotlight. The Soviet Katyn report had "over 100 eyewitnesses." All worthless.

"Documents" - even aside from the possibility of falsification (which an occupying power would have means, motive, and opportunity to do) we have the undeniable problem of selection bias. The prosecution cherry-picks only those documents that they find useful while inconvenient documents never see the light of day. This problem has been acknowledged by many mainstream historians like A. J. P. Taylor.

Additionally we have the question of the quality of these "testimonies and documents." If you actually read through these materials, the stories immediately begin to fall apart.

I should also remind you that perpetrators faced "normal trials" in West Germany and the result was exactly the same, which strengthens this view.

Those trials were hardly "normal." The West German trials were not held until the 1960s by which point the six million and the gas chambers and so forth had already long been established as "fact," notably at Nuremberg. The issue of precedent is why Nuremberg is so important.

The mastermind behind the West German trials was a Jewish prosecutor named Fritz Bauer who was also key in the Eichmann trial.
viewtopic.php?t=278

How did so many Germans become contrite about the Nazi past? In his gripping and well-researched biography, “The Prosecutor,” Jack Fairweather argues that the answer lies in part in the work of an irascible, honorable German Jewish lawyer named Fritz Bauer, who pressed the people of his country “to face their complicity in the industrialized mass murder of Europe’s Jews."

And we see similar motivations on display in the trial proceedings. Prosecutor Henry Ormond at Frankfurt:

If the survivors of the hell of Auschwitz could no longer bear witness – and certain circles are waiting for just that – then Auschwitz would become nothing more than a legend in a short time. Were it not for this trial, in which the truth was heard out of the mouths of the survivors, those who refuse to learn would have continued their attempts to minimize. That this is no longer possible is, next to the punishment of the guilty, the lasting achievement of this exemplary trial. (quoted in Naumann)

These trials were
-highly political
-did not treat "the Holocaust" as an open question (precedent)
-had the express intention of guilt-tripping the German public

I think this is completely speculative, all the more so because governments formally did not endorse these stories during the war, unlike something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Dec ... ed_Nations. Another clear differentiation is the presence of actual intelligence reports. Apparently the corpse factory was in France, yet no contemporaneous reports emerged, unlike what you see for the Holocaust. Your comparison doesn't work.

The part in bold is untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee ... n_Outrages

And there were actual "corpse factories," but they processed animal corpses. A lot of atrocity propaganda is of that form. It takes something real and mispresents it in some sinister way. All you would need to do to "prove" the human corpses were processed would be to produce some "eyewitnesses" claiming to have seen this at these animal corpse processing facilities.

Regarding the Dec 1942 declaration, I will refer you to a prior comment of mine.

-The statement did not endorse the two million figure that was being pushed by the WJC at that time.
-The statement did not endorse any of the more fanciful killing methods such as gas chambers and electric floors, nor the human soap factories and other stories Rabbi Wise was spouting.
-In a joint statement on atrocities the next year, a reference to gas chambers was expressly removed from a draft at the request of the British who felt the claim was not well supported.
-The Dec 1942 statement refers to "Hitler's oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe" but this claim that the extermination program was public conflicts with the simultaneous claim of tremendous secrecy.
-Behind the scenes, there was considerable skepticism about about these claims and the statement was made only in response to pressure by the WJC in Britain and in the USA. There were private objections to the statement. For instance, R.B. Reams of the State Department remarked: "I have grave doubts in regard to the desirability or advisability of issuing a statement of this nature. In the first place, these reports are unconfirmed and emanate to a great extent from the Riegner letter to Rabbi Wise."
-The State Department stopped forwarding correspondence from the WJC in Switzerland to NY and the State Department's unwillingness to indulge the Zionists sufficiently is what led to the conflict between State and Morgenthau's Treasury. This would eventually lead to the creation of the War Refugee Board.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13512&#p13512

[bombsaway]

It says the Jewish people are being exterminated in Europe, with Poland being described as a slaughterhouse where a few highly skilled workers are kept alive w plans to be gradually worked to death.

It is a formal endorsement of the Holocaust story in it's most basic form. Systematic murder of European Jewry. That you don't seems to get the significance of this is a sure sign of your delusions and why I'm not inclined to take you guys seriously when you talk about the science, which I'm less equipped to assess to due to my lack of domain knowledge.

There's no mention of corpse factories in the WW1 report, just killing of civilians, which indeed is thought to have occurred, though I haven't read about it.

Wikipedia:

German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs ("free shooters"), burned homes and murdered civilians throughout eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 murdered), Andenne (211 murdered), Seilles, Tamines (383 murdered), and Dinant (674 murdered).[9] German soldiers murdered Belgian civilians indiscriminately and with impunity, with victims including men, women, and children.[10] In the Province of Brabant, nuns were forcibly stripped naked under the pretext that they were spies or men in disguise.[11] In and around Aarschot, between 19 August and the recapture of the town by 9 September, German soldiers repeatedly raped Belgian women. Rape was nearly as ubiquitous as murder, arson and looting, if never as visible.[12]

[Wahrheitssucher]

Bombsaway is — as Archie just pointed out — here to ‘blow smoke’.

You're talking about intentionality now…

No I’m not. I’m talking about what I perceive as YOUR dishonest tactics and giving just ONE example to show that, viz. timeline.
This exposes what I see as your psychologically/intellectually dishonest “HolyH happened” tactic. Which I have repeatedly explained is a strawman, false dichotomy, yet is one which you continue to argue.
Introducing intentionality is also an example of dishonestly or miscomprehendingly attempting to ‘move the goalposts’.

(You're talking about) my internal motivations and thought process…

Yes, BECAUSE you repeatedly demonstrate that you aren’t arguing intelligently OR in good faith. As you just demonstrated by introducing irrelevant “intentionality”.

(You're even talking about) extending my supposed duplicity to other revisionists?

Yes, because of all the many HolyH debaters I have come across over more than a decade, only two online defenders of the history appeared to me to be arguing intelligently and in good faith.
E.g. You just i.) avoided my question about timeline AND ii.) misrepresented it as intentionality. That I see as a dishonest tactic. It has to be either that or miscomprehension.

Do you think I have serious doubts about the veracity of the orthodox narrative?

Yes, I do, but I think they are subliminal to a degree and so are denied by you. I.e. you can’t admit them to yourself. Which I am interpreting as psychological dishonesty.

If not, why I would I be here to blow smoke? It doesn't make sense.

Do you really want to understand what I am referring to?
Ok. I’ll assume that your question is genuine and explain.
Over a great many years I have discussed the flaws of numerous religions with their adherents.
In every case but one (Father Abelo, a Catholic priest) they have ALL gone into dishonest damage control when confronted in any undeniable way with the obvious fundamental flaws in their cherished belief-system.
That is because very few people can continue to discuss in an honest and reasonable way when their fundamental belief-systems are exposed to devastating critical analysis. It is a common flaw of human nature. There is even a term for the emotional and intellectual turbulence that causes this: it is called ‘cognitive dissonance’.
That you are unaware of this and instead argue that pointing to your own example of it “doesn’t make sense” I suggest proves you are arguing from your own diminished ability to discuss honestly and intelligently.
QED.

[HansHill]

You're talking about intentionality now, my internal motivations and thought process, and even extending my supposed duplicity to other revisionists?

Do you think I have serious doubts about the veracity of the orthodox narrative? If not, why I would I be here to blow smoke? It doesn't make sense. That revisionists so typically go down these holes just reinforces to me the extent to which conspiracy brain has taken over. Do you think I'm consciously lying about all of this?

To be fair Bombsaway, you have broken from mainstream Orthodoxy on this point (probably many other points too if I were to retrace our exchanges). I also remember you coining novel solutions to Orthodox problems like whitewash covered with sealant as the preventative factor for PB formation. I don't want to re-litigate that here, except to say that you are very much a "choose-your-own-Holocaust" kinda guy. This matches perfectly with what I said earlier about "localized consistency" and makes it very difficult to ascertain exactly what your "doubts about the veracity of the narrative" actually are, or even if you genuinely hold them.

WS calls this "blowing smoke" but I don't quite agree, i think its closer to performative point-scoring.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…why I would I be here to blow smoke? It doesn't make sense. …Do you think I'm consciously lying about all of this?

…you are very much a "choose-your-own-Holocaust" kinda guy. This matches perfectly with what I said earlier about "localized consistency" and makes it very difficult to ascertain exactly what your "doubts about the veracity of the narrative" actually are, or even if you genuinely hold them.

WS calls this "blowing smoke" but I don't quite agree, i think its closer to performative point-scoring.

T’was not I, but Archie.
Here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20546#p20546

… I would definitely like to recruit some better talent on the anti-revisionist side, but the "high-end" Holocaust defenders do not seem eager to test the waters here even though nothing is stopping them and they've been complaining for years about "censorship" on CODOH.
…They also might have some concern about giving CODOH a lot of traffic and activity as that would ultimately help us...
Perhaps the logic is that having bombsaway blow some smoke is thought to be sufficient.