The CODOH Revisionist Forum

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:02 am Nessie please, you aren't helping. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:16 am ...

If the absolute annihilation of European jewry had been the goal, then European jewry would have been annihilated.

...

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:48 am The Jewish soap myth was supported by all the Allies. They didn't bother to check the reliability of these accounts.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:06 am

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 5:53 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:11 am Don't get the relevance of the hindenburg fallacy:

"The "Hindenburg fallacy" refers to the misconception that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by a single, easily identifiable factor, like sabotage or a simple spark, when in reality, it was likely a complex issue of multiple contributing factors. "

If you have direct evidence of the Allies fabricating Holocaust evidence, show me.

What I can tell you is that historians require direct evidence for any claims, and you have two major claims, "systemic effort to fabricate evidence and witness testimony" + "large scale maintenance of non-employable Jews by the Nazis", and you have not provided this. It's a double fail. Historians don't assert minor events, much less mass events, without direct evidence.

Can you provide a reference of some sort for this rule yours that "historians require direct evidence for any claims"?

Something like this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

And can you define what "direct" evidence means in the way you are using it?

"a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference. "

I don't think it's an utter absolute. Like Jesus is asserted as being a real person despite little to direct evidence of that. But within the last 500 years, in areas of the world where records are kept, yeah this is pretty much a baseline requirement. I looked into this exhaustively. The only incidences where direct evidence isn't there for mass events are "extinction events", eg

The extinction of the Beothuk people of Newfoundland in the early 19th century occurred without direct documentation of their final decline. We have:

No eyewitness accounts of their final years as a community
No written records from the Beothuk themselves
No documented observations of their last settlements or final deaths
No census data or death records for most individuals

Yet historians can assert with high confidence that this extinction occurred based entirely on circumstantial evidence:

Archaeological remains showing their previous presence
European colonial records mentioning their existence earlier
Linguistic samples collected previously
The complete absence of Beothuk individuals or communities in later records
Physical evidence of abandoned settlements
Collected artifacts showing their distinct material culture
Indirect mentions in colonial correspondence about "disappearing natives"

It's interesting to note that this could be used to "prove" the Holocaust.

The other thing about the circumstantial evidence you offer, is that it is pretty weak. There are no real alternatives to certain facts about Beothuk extinction, eg "The complete absence of Beothuk individuals or communities in later records"). There are alternative explanations to the hoax evidence you see, other than large scale fabrication of historical event, as I will point out to Stubble when he comes back with something I can look at.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:11 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:02 am Nessie please, you aren't helping. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

How is pointing out the scale of the hoax being alleged, not helping? Why would France support a Soviet hoax, which makes out France to have behaved terribly towards its Jewish citizens by supporting the Nazis?

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:15 pm
Yet, we know it is a myth, so that is another WWII myth which failed. Giving examples of hoaxes that failed, is not very good evidence that a hoax was successful.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:23 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:11 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 8:02 am Nessie please, you aren't helping. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

How is pointing out the scale of the hoax being alleged, not helping? Why would France support a Soviet hoax, which makes out France to have behaved terribly towards its Jewish citizens by supporting the Nazis?

Presumably he thinks you're a bit thick. I will say in your defense though that your arguments, while simplistic, are more straightforward and coherent than those of bombs. Arguing with bombs is like trying to wrestle jelly.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:24 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:15 pm
Yet, we know it is a myth, so that is another WWII myth which failed. Giving examples of hoaxes that failed, is not very good evidence that a hoax was successful.

Who says a conspiracy has to prevail to be classified as one?

Hitler's pre-war speech was forged, saying he was afraid some son of a bitch would come up with a last-minute peace proposal. Wasn't that a conspiracy to implicate the defendants? What was the need for that?

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:36 pm
When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:36 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:24 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:15 pm
Yet, we know it is a myth, so that is another WWII myth which failed. Giving examples of hoaxes that failed, is not very good evidence that a hoax was successful.

Who says a conspiracy has to prevail to be classified as one?

Hitler's pre-war speech was forged, saying he was afraid some son of a bitch would come up with a last-minute peace proposal. Wasn't that a conspiracy to implicate the defendants? What was the need for that?

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:56 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:36 pm ...

When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

When the only demonstrable proof you will accept is to look at some of the failures, you whittle yourself a bit of a nest, don't you.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:55 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:36 pm
When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

It is really difficult to convince believers that their faith was nothing more than a political construction.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:12 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:55 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 1:36 pm
When all you have are examples of failed hoaxes, that were on a tiny scale compared to the Holocaust, you will struggle to be convincing that something as large as the Holocaust, could be hoaxed.

It is really difficult to convince believers that their faith was nothing more than a political construction.

I don't have a faith, I have evidence.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:36 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:12 pm ...

I don't have a faith, I have evidence.

No religion is completely free of something tangible for its faith. Whether they are consistent with their history is irrelevant to the believers. Moses wrote the Torah, the ruins of Jericho were because of Joshua's trumpet, and so on.

When we are born immersed in a religion, it is much more difficult to use reason to evaluate it than those from outside who did not grow up immersed in that culture. With the Holocaust it is the same thing, a lot of emotion, anything that is presented is quickly interpreted to arrive at what was passed on.