The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Averse? No. Busy.

The subject of the trials (various) has been breached in many revisionist works. There is no specific work related to this exact trial that you point at.

Much in the same way you always do, you select a niche detail and say 'see, this is unaddressed! Revisionists are so scared of this tiny hyperspecific thing'. All this while you ignore the vastness of the existing corpus.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that specific passage you cited addressed previously in one of the Holocaust Handbooks.

There is no defense for the fact that the defense was denied a defense at Nuremberg. If they were indeed granted a defense at this 1975 Majdanek trial you are now choosing to drone on about, I'd be absolutely shocked.

Two points:

1) This thread title is clearly about the evasion of physical evidence. Invoking the Majdanek Trial of 1975 is another step-on-rake moment for Bombsaway. This trial (all 6 years of it) focused almost entirely on witness testimony, and never was it considered to investigate the alleged murder weapon or the processes, nor were any of the documents from the Majdanek museum entered into evidence to substantiate the alleged death tolls (200,000!!), or investigation of the alleged mass graves or cremation capacity / throughput.

2) The Majdanek Trial verdict is in clear contradiction of this verdict from 1950 in Berlin:

“Transport from Maidanek [sic]. For the purpose of being gassed, a transport
of Jewish inmates of about 15,000 men arrived at one time from the Maidanek
camp, which did not posses gassing facilities. Because the gassing facility in the
Sobibor camp was out of order at that time.

District Court Berlin, Verdict of May 8, 1950, Via Mattogno HH Vol 5

Try to avoid the rakes next time BA!

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2026 7:26 pm Averse? No. Busy.

The subject of the trials (various) has been breached in many revisionist works. There is no specific work related to this exact trial that you point at.

Much in the same way you always do, you select a niche detail and say 'see, this is unaddressed! Revisionists are so scared of this tiny hyperspecific thing'. All this while you ignore the vastness of the existing corpus.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that specific passage you cited addressed previously in one of the Holocaust Handbooks.

There is no defense for the fact that the defense was denied a defense at Nuremberg. If they were indeed granted a defense at this 1975 Majdanek trial you are now choosing to drone on about, I'd be absolutely shocked.

I brought up the Majdanek trial merely to refute the notion defense couldn't contest "established" facts. They did repeatedly, apparently without consequence, because the legal strategy was in many ways successful.

I make a point about those West German trials that is very broad, we have hundreds of testimonies of people who self implicated. There's a question of 'why?' that I think you're skirting over, wrongly, because it does matter. Now I get the sense you're trying to tell me this question is not important. Look away, nothing to see here. It's uninteresting and self evident.

OK I can see this thread has gone off topic, maybe the mod can do a fork.