Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 4:13 pm
The Ai is just pulling lots of old arguments from random websites and CJ is copy-pasting it all without knowing any of the context. That's why his arguments are confused and contradictory. This is what happens when you have a guy that hadn't heard of any of this until ten minutes before he started posting about it and who thinks Ai can make up for his complete ignorance.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 6:13 am
I've done the research with ChatGPT and then I edit and modify it to make it easier to read to match your level of reading comprehension.
What kind of condescending, childish shit is this?
Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 24, 2025 4:51 pm
Here is Hilberg, 1961 edition, page 570.
The amounts [of Zyklon] were not large, but they were noticeable. Almost the whole of the Auschwitz supply was needed for the gassing of people; very little was used for fumigation.
Then in 1989, Pressac, sensing the problem with this narrative post-Leuchter, says the complete opposite, that something like 95% of the Zyklon was for ordinary, hygienic purposes.
Checking now, that passage from Hilberg remained unchanged in the 1985 edition. By 2003 it had changed, p.955:
The amounts required by Auschwitz were not large, but they were noticeable. At various times sizable portions of these deliveries were used for gassing people.
The rest of the paragraph was left unchanged. Amusingly, the citation was also left unchanged except that the 2003 edition adds Hoess as a source. Are we supposed to believe that Hilberg's understanding of Zyklon usage changed without any new supporting evidence? No, he obviously revised his statement in reaction to either the Zundel trials or Pressac's book. Add this to the list of wins for revisionism.
Yes, that explains it.
