Contemporaneous WW2 Intelligence and Diplomatic Reports

[Archie]

3rd May 1941;

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/in ... t-in-exile

"...the Polish government used a diplomatic note to inform Allied and neutral governments about arrests and mass executions in Poland, deportation to Auschwitz and other camps, and the conditions there. The note also discussed atrocities committed against Jews in the first 15 months of the occupation."

25th June 1942, Daily Telegraph article, based on Polish intelligence reports, writes;

https://www.theguardian.com/media/green ... unheralded

"Germans murder 700,000 Jews in Poland", "an average 1,000 Jews were gassed daily".

26th June 1942, BBC transmission on gassings, also taken from Polish sources;

https://www.jhi.pl/en/articles/june-26- ... -jews,5812

1) "Polish" and Jewish are not mutually exclusive.

2) You are factually incorrect about many of these sources being non-Jewish, including the one you reference above.

3) It doesn't matter if some of the sources are non-Jewish.

---

The source you refer to above is commonly referred to as the "Bund report." The Bund was a JEWISH socialist political party in Poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_J ... _in_Poland

In late 1941 and early 1942, Western diplomats and journalists received scattered information about Nazi massacres of many thousands of Jews in German-occupied Poland and Russia. But the news was difficult to confirm and sounded to many like the usual travails of war. The turning point came in late May 1942, when a courier from the Jewish Socialist Bund of Poland reached England with a shocking report. It began: “From the day the Russo-German war broke out, the Germans embarked on the physical extermination of the Jewish population on Polish soil.”

The Bund Report stressed that the killings were not isolated outbursts, but part of a systematic plan to “annihilate all the Jews in Europe,” town by town, country by country. The report described how in villages throughout Poland and Western Russia, German troops marched the Jewish residents to a nearby forest or ravine, and machine-gunned them into giant pits.

https://enc.wymaninstitute.org/?p=113

The Bund report was relayed to the two JEWISH members of the National Council of the government in-exile, Ignacy Schwarzbart and Samuel Zygelbaum. And it was promoted in the press by the Jewish MP Sydney Silverman. You are simply wrong in claiming this is a non-Jewish source.

It is true there were some Gentile sources of this sort "information" as well like Jan Karski, but so what? It's not like these are of any better quality. In one of the Delegatura reports, it mentions that Jews were offering people money for stories.

Jews arrived in Belzec [the township] looking for a witness who would testify that Jews are being killed there. They were ready to pay 120,000 zloty … They did not find a volunteer … It is unknown by which means the Jews are liquidated in the camp. There are three assumptions: 1) electricity; 2) gas; 3) by pumping out the air.
-Delegatura, April 1942 (Arad, pg 401)

That the Polish government in-exile sometimes went along with this stuff is neither surprising nor convincing. They were trying get British and American Jews on their side.

[The] Poles were more in need of influential friends than ever before. In view of their belief in the crucial role played by Jewish organizations in the formation of British and American opinion, they had to continue to try to win the Jews to their side, no matter how much effort would be required to do so, and almost at any cost. Hence the latter half of 1942 was a period of intensified Polish overtures to Western and Palestinian Jewry.
-David Engel, In the Shadow of Auschwitz, pg. 147

[Archie]

OK Vrba was not discredited. That website that you claim shows this is not a credible or balanced source.

You brought up Viktor Frankl who was not at all relevant to this discussion and completely ignored the other examples that I mentioned. I'm not going to take the bait and go down another irrelevant rabbit hole but I'm just saying that he did not provide an early contemporaneous report and his story does not refute any of them either.

Also, for whatever reason you deny being a HOLOCAUST DENIER but if you are trying to say that people who were sent to the showers during selections just received clean clothes, that very clearly makes you a HOLOCAUST DENIER. I'm not sure why you don't just own that.

Unresponsive. You cited Vrba as a source in the OP, yet we see you aren't prepared to defend him. You don't know your ass from your elbow.

Here is Vrba's sketch of the crematorium and "gas chamber." It's completely wrong.

[Archie]

You have taken what is clearly hearsay, second hand reports, rumours and poured scorn on them, scorn that you then use to justify your belief it is all lies. Then, you fail to take into account that it is well known, and understood, that hearsay is rarely accurate. By its very nature, of the passing of information from one person to another, based on rumours, incomplete information and suspicions, it is not going to be accurate. It would be more suspect for those earliest reports, to be accurate and agree on the details.

I quoted most of the reports cited in chapter 44 of Arad. Do you think Arad just picked the bad ones? He didn't. They're all like that. Feel free to go ahead and post the accurate war-time reports.

CJ cited these specific reports (Armia Krajowa) as proof of the Holocaust in the OP. I pointed out that these reports are rubbish. You seem to be agree since you admit these are "clearly hearsay, second hand reports, rumours." I agree but would add "atrocity propaganda" and "deliberate BS" as well.

Then, you ignore that there is 100% agreement about the main event, that the Nazis are mass murdering Jews inside certain camps inside chambers, and then burying them. It is the detail of how they die in the chambers that there is variation.

There is not "100% agreement" in the war-time reports regarding which camps were extermination camps. There are false positives and false negatives.

There is also not universal agreement about the bodies being buried. I recall at least one long "eyewitness" report (the person was supposedly there in Sep 1942) that says the bodies at Treblinka were burned in huge pits immediately after gassing.

As long as the reports agree that Jews were killed that's good enough for you? Lol, that is so vague. (Btw, even on this you are wrong about "100% agreement." Counterexample off the top of my head: Karski said in his book that the Jews were sent OUT of Belzec to be killed elsewhere).

The 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas had hundreds of witnesses. It generated a lot of news. From the start, there was 100% agreement about the main event, there had been a mass shooting. Initially, the detail was vague and we now know, at times, wrong. People were reporting what they had heard, rumours spread, there was uncertainty. That is just for one incident. Scale that up to multiple incidents, over a period of time, at different locations and of course the earliest information is not going to all be accurate. It would be impossible for it to be so.

Early reports have inaccuracies because there hasn't been enough time to confirm things. Something speculative will be reported as fact. Some reports may be confused. Some things get garbled. But if the events in question are real events that really occurred, there should be some consistent, detectable signal that will emerge. The statements will start to cohere credibly. This is not the case with Holocaust testimonies unless you are judge them by outrageously lenient standards and over look enormous blunders and majorly discrediting details.

[Wetzelrad]

As long as the reports agree that Jews were killed that's good enough for you? Lol, that is so vague.

If someone said Jews were gassed in an inflatable bouncy castle, Nessie would have to admit it meets his criteria for evidence of extermination, the same as he does for electric floors and steam chambers.

[Nessie]

3rd May 1941;

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/in ... t-in-exile

"...the Polish government used a diplomatic note to inform Allied and neutral governments about arrests and mass executions in Poland, deportation to Auschwitz and other camps, and the conditions there. The note also discussed atrocities committed against Jews in the first 15 months of the occupation."

25th June 1942, Daily Telegraph article, based on Polish intelligence reports, writes;

https://www.theguardian.com/media/green ... unheralded

"Germans murder 700,000 Jews in Poland", "an average 1,000 Jews were gassed daily".

26th June 1942, BBC transmission on gassings, also taken from Polish sources;

https://www.jhi.pl/en/articles/june-26- ... -jews,5812

1) "Polish" and Jewish are not mutually exclusive.

2) You are factually incorrect about many of these sources being non-Jewish, including the one you reference above.

3) It doesn't matter if some of the sources are non-Jewish.

---

So, I am factually correct, some of the sources are not Jewish. The Polish Government in Exile, that ran much of the intelligence gathering, was not Jewish.

The source you refer to above is commonly referred to as the "Bund report." The Bund was a JEWISH socialist political party in Poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_J ... _in_Poland

In late 1941 and early 1942, Western diplomats and journalists received scattered information about Nazi massacres of many thousands of Jews in German-occupied Poland and Russia. But the news was difficult to confirm and sounded to many like the usual travails of war. The turning point came in late May 1942, when a courier from the Jewish Socialist Bund of Poland reached England with a shocking report. It began: “From the day the Russo-German war broke out, the Germans embarked on the physical extermination of the Jewish population on Polish soil.”

The Bund Report stressed that the killings were not isolated outbursts, but part of a systematic plan to “annihilate all the Jews in Europe,” town by town, country by country. The report described how in villages throughout Poland and Western Russia, German troops marched the Jewish residents to a nearby forest or ravine, and machine-gunned them into giant pits.

https://enc.wymaninstitute.org/?p=113

Many of the Western diplomats and journalists were not Jewish. Much of the information coming from Jewish claims, had to pass through and satisfy, non-Jewish people.

The Bund report was relayed to the two JEWISH members of the National Council of the government in-exile, Ignacy Schwarzbart and Samuel Zygelbaum. And it was promoted in the press by the Jewish MP Sydney Silverman. You are simply wrong in claiming this is a non-Jewish source.

I have never claimed that the Bund is a non-Jewish source.

It is true there were some Gentile sources of this sort "information" as well like Jan Karski, but so what?

It means that non-Jews were checking to see if Jewish claims could be verified.

It's not like these are of any better quality.

In other words, when non-Jews checked, they found the claims to be correct. Something all the so-called revisionists here ignore, is that by 1945, V C-B now believed the mass murder and gassing claims. It clearly annoys you that there are people who will be initially sceptical, but are open-minded such that once evidenced, they will believe a claim being made. You operate differently.

In one of the Delegatura reports, it mentions that Jews were offering people money for stories.

Jews arrived in Belzec [the township] looking for a witness who would testify that Jews are being killed there. They were ready to pay 120,000 zloty … They did not find a volunteer … It is unknown by which means the Jews are liquidated in the camp. There are three assumptions: 1) electricity; 2) gas; 3) by pumping out the air.
-Delegatura, April 1942 (Arad, pg 401)

Belzec had the lowest number of inmate survivors, so no wonder they could not find anyone to pay money to. That lack of information, is why there was uncertainty about how Jews died, but the report was correct that they were being killed inside a chamber. You ignore that.

That the Polish government in-exile sometimes went along with this stuff is neither surprising nor convincing. They were trying get British and American Jews on their side.

It's called evidence. You do not get swayed by evidence, the majority of people do.

[The] Poles were more in need of influential friends than ever before. In view of their belief in the crucial role played by Jewish organizations in the formation of British and American opinion, they had to continue to try to win the Jews to their side, no matter how much effort would be required to do so, and almost at any cost. Hence the latter half of 1942 was a period of intensified Polish overtures to Western and Palestinian Jewry.
-David Engel, In the Shadow of Auschwitz, pg. 147

To do that, they needed evidence, which would then be checked by the British and Americans. That is an evidencing process you do not believe in.

[Nessie]

You have taken what is clearly hearsay, second hand reports, rumours and poured scorn on them, scorn that you then use to justify your belief it is all lies. Then, you fail to take into account that it is well known, and understood, that hearsay is rarely accurate. By its very nature, of the passing of information from one person to another, based on rumours, incomplete information and suspicions, it is not going to be accurate. It would be more suspect for those earliest reports, to be accurate and agree on the details.

I quoted most of the reports cited in chapter 44 of Arad. Do you think Arad just picked the bad ones? He didn't. They're all like that. Feel free to go ahead and post the accurate war-time reports.

All of the reports, because of their use of hearsay, contained inaccuracies, which is to be expected. For example, you dismiss the various reported methods of killing inside the camps, whilst ignoring that they are all deaths using chambers. The details then varied on how people died inside the chambers. You are wrong to dismiss the claims in their entirety, just because of some inaccuracies over details.

CJ cited these specific reports (Armia Krajowa) as proof of the Holocaust in the OP. I pointed out that these reports are rubbish. You seem to be agree since you admit these are "clearly hearsay, second hand reports, rumours." I agree but would add "atrocity propaganda" and "deliberate BS" as well.

You dismiss them, because you flat out do not want to believe them. You do not use a recognised way of checking and verifying.

Then, you ignore that there is 100% agreement about the main event, that the Nazis are mass murdering Jews inside certain camps inside chambers, and then burying them. It is the detail of how they die in the chambers that there is variation.

There is not "100% agreement" in the war-time reports regarding which camps were extermination camps. There are false positives and false negatives.

There is 100% universal agreement that certain camps were used as death camps. There was disagreement over exactly which camps they were.

There is also not universal agreement about the bodies being buried. I recall at least one long "eyewitness" report (the person was supposedly there in Sep 1942) that says the bodies at Treblinka were burned in huge pits immediately after gassing.

Burning a corpse in a pit and then burying it, is still burying it. There is 100% agreement that there were mass burial pits at TII. You are just looking for and the exaggerating inconsistencies, as if that is proof it is all a lie.

As long as the reports agree that Jews were killed that's good enough for you? Lol, that is so vague.

As long as there is universal agreement on the main events, that is good enough, full stop. Variations in detail are to be excepted. That is what happens with multiple witnesses describing a large event, every time. If we all switch to your method, we would conclude nothing ever happened and all witnesses lie, because of the variations in claims made.

(Btw, even on this you are wrong about "100% agreement." Counterexample off the top of my head: Karski said in his book that the Jews were sent OUT of Belzec to be killed elsewhere).

There is evidence some Jews did get transported back out of the AR camps, in occasional worked selections.

The 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas had hundreds of witnesses. It generated a lot of news. From the start, there was 100% agreement about the main event, there had been a mass shooting. Initially, the detail was vague and we now know, at times, wrong. People were reporting what they had heard, rumours spread, there was uncertainty. That is just for one incident. Scale that up to multiple incidents, over a period of time, at different locations and of course the earliest information is not going to all be accurate. It would be impossible for it to be so.

Early reports have inaccuracies because there hasn't been enough time to confirm things.

When it comes to the death camps, you claim that means the reports should be dismissed. Why do you switch to waiting for verification in this instance?

Something speculative will be reported as fact. Some reports may be confused. Some things get garbled.

Which is what happened with the death camp reports.

But if the events in question are real events that really occurred, there should be some consistent, detectable signal that will emerge. The statements will start to cohere credibly. This is not the case with Holocaust testimonies unless you are judge them by outrageously lenient standards and over look enormous blunders and majorly discrediting details.

The death camp reports did cohere as statements appeared. Once eyewitness evidence was added, an entirely consistent narrative was evidenced and corroborated by other sources, such as documents. Remember, 100% of the actual eye witnesses, those who saw the gassings, agreed they were from engine exhaust into a chamber at the AR camps, and Zyklon B at A-B. People who were not actual eye witnesses, and did not see the gassing process, were the ones who thought other methods were used to kill inside the chambers. You mix and match both forms of testimony, to make it appear there was more inconsistency than in reality.

If you read the witnesses to the LA shooting, you will find huge variations in claims about how long it lasted, how many were shot, how many times the shooter fired, how large the crowd was etc etc. According to you, that means all the witnesses lied and there was no shooting. The way you deal with witness evidence, is unlike how historians, journalists, lawyers and the police do. They all understand that witness inaccuracy and inconsistency is not evidence of lying.

The 100% consistent main event, at the death camps, as described variously by all of the witnesses (taking into account not all saw the entire process) was, mass transport arrives, sometimes there are worked selections, people not needed for work are told they are to be showered. They undress, get hair cuts, have their property taken from them, which is then sorted and sold. They are then taken into the so called showers where they are killed, the eyewitnesses to that part all stating the same method, depending on the camp. The corpses are removed, teeth checked for any gold and the corpse was cremated at A-B, or buried and then cremated at the AR camps and Chelmno.

There is NO variation from that main narrative. You CANNOT find a single witness, who worked inside those places, who describes ANYTHING significantly different. All you can find are, TO BE expected variations in details since not all people see the same event in the same way and recollect it similarly. You have a unique to Holocaust so-called revisionism, method of analysing witnesses, designed to ensure you can dismiss 100% of eyewitnesses as liars.

[Nessie]

As long as the reports agree that Jews were killed that's good enough for you? Lol, that is so vague.

If someone said Jews were gassed in an inflatable bouncy castle, Nessie would have to admit it meets his criteria for evidence of extermination, the same as he does for electric floors and steam chambers.

The chronology of how people reportedly died inside the camps was;

1 - earliest reports, 1941-1944, based on rumours and hearsay, people were being gassed, electrocuted or steamed. What you all ignore is that those methods of killing all took place inside an enclosed space, a room or chamber. That was inside the back of a van, with the earliest reports in 1941-2, and then inside purpose built camps in 1942-3 and then inside modified buildings at A-B. That makes the reports more consistent that you want to acknowledge. Instead, you concentrate on the most divergent of details.

2 - by 1945, and continuous confirmed to the present day, as more witnesses have been traced or come forward, the actual method of killing has been established as engine exhaust at Chelmno in the gas vans, again at the AR camps in chambers and with Zyklon B at A-B.

3 - as enquiries continue after 1945, the witness claims are then corroborated by documents, such as the descriptions of the gas vans, operations at the AR camps and construction of gas chambers inside the A-B Kremas. There is also circumstantial evidence from the mass transports, theft of personal possessions and disappearance from Nazi records of the majority of people sent to those places.

That is how it has been established what was, and was not, correct in the initial reports. It is called checking and verifying, something that if social media is anything to go by, many people just do not understand or even want to do.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I've skimmed through this and I recognize that you guys have 200 pages of content to counter the exact pieces of evidence which I find very compelling. I can't keep up with that, at least not right now.

I don't understand why you guys have been willing to put so much time and energy into a pursuit that doesn't affect you personally.

This is one of the most reasonable things I have seen you posting, and I appreciate you acknowledging it. I also appreciate not everybody has time to read, digest and learn this.

I'll take back calling you a moron, for your most recent post alone

No, no. Don’t do that.
Don’t retract it.

This dishonest dimwit has been ‘yanking our chain’ for three months!
C’mon.

Cj says “I can't keep up with [the information provided] right now.”
Right now!!!
And you believe that?

CJ just inadvertently admitted that CJ has been “willing” to put “so much time and energy” into this “pursuit” of pouring scorn on genuine historical analysis while IGNORING the actual evidence BECAUSE maintaining the narrative “affects [CJ] personally”.

The leopard can not change its spots.
Aesop’s fable of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind.
CJ is messing with us.
Plus CJ has an evil motivation as demonstrated by its recent denial of the definitions of the words ‘war’ and of ‘genocide’ to defend the increasing zionist wickedness in occupied Palestine.

SUMMARY:
How many sips of sea water do you need to take to understand the entire ocean is salty?

[Wahrheitssucher]

As long as the reports agree that Jews were killed that's good enough for you?
Lol, that is so vague.

If someone said Jews were gassed in an inflatable bouncy castle, Nessie would have to admit it meets his criteria for evidence of extermination, the same as he does for electric floors and steam chambers.

Ha ha!
Yes! Exactly.

[Nessie]

As long as the reports agree that Jews were killed that's good enough for you?
Lol, that is so vague.

If someone said Jews were gassed in an inflatable bouncy castle, Nessie would have to admit it meets his criteria for evidence of extermination, the same as he does for electric floors and steam chambers.

Ha ha!
Yes! Exactly.

Typical closed-minded agreement. You failed to fact-check.

1 - it is not my criteria, it is the criteria taught to the police, journalists and at university, of gathering and assessing evidence, to determine a chronology of corroborated events. That is where so-called revisionism differs the most, from other forms of investigation, as it cannot complete that most basic of tasks and instead, many argue it is not their job!

2 - I have never claimed electric floors and steam chambers are anything other than inaccurate rumours and hearsay. I have to constantly remind so-called revisionists, that they should only use those witnesses who saw the gas chambers in operation, preferably from the inside. The claims about electricity and steam, were not made by eyewitnesses. Wetzelrad is yet another who does not understand the basic difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and how to assess which is which. Wetzelrad also fails to notice, like all so-called revisonists, that all the deaths, whether believed to be by electricity, steam or gas, took place inside an enclosed space, within the camp. That part of the evidence is consistent. So-called revisionists only look for the differences, not the evidence in its entirety, so their supposed analysis is incomplete.

The early intelligence reports are, by their very nature, going to be the most inaccurate, because they mostly rely on rumour and hearsay. As the war progressed, and more evidence was gathered, in particular from escaped prisoners, most, but not all of whom, were eyewitnesses, the accuracy of the reports improved. At the end of the war, as documents were recovered and the death camp sites could be examined, reports became even more accurate.

There is a caveat to that accuracy, the Soviets. They did not have the same standards as the West. However, much of the evidence gathering that so-called revisionists claim was by the Soviets, was in fact by the Poles, who operated closer to Western standards of evidencing. For example, as soon as the SU collapsed, the Poles revised the A-B death toll. They also allowed West German prosecutors access to visit the death camps, to prepare for the trials they conducted in the 1960s.

[HansHill]

This is one of the most reasonable things I have seen you posting, and I appreciate you acknowledging it. I also appreciate not everybody has time to read, digest and learn this.

In return please also acknowledge for example when Archie said on page 1 of this thread that you are simply recycling old talking points without actually knowing them, and to alot of us this is stale, especially when it rings hollow. I'm a relatively junior member here, and others have been involved in this for 10x the time that I have, and more. If it's annoying for me, it must be hell for them.

We are at an impasse on this front but as I have said before, I am curious to see where and how we disagree exactly.

Like I said, i get that people have busy lives and this kinda thing doesn't seem to be for you. Its cool, I get it, the material is dry, the books are dense, and the details are complex, but then rather than being at "an impasse" it's just that you aren't willing to put the required time in to meet the barrier to entry. That's not an "impasse", it's one interlocutor shrugging it off.

Consider: You said you worked on Wall Street or something to that effect. Kid comes up to you and says he wants to be a trader or hedge fund manager but doesn't want to study or read anything. What will you tell him?

Kind of like how a Flat Earther might have written many textbooks on why the Earth is flat. I might want to talk to these people to see how and why they think the way that they do, but I don't want to read through their textbooks....

...I just see this as similar to a Flat Earth message board but one specifically that denies the horrible treatment of my relatives.

I don't get this analogy. Firstly, neither you or anybody here is interested in flat earth so this analogy aside from being unflattering is irrelevant. And secondly, by your own standards you claim to have a familial connection to the Holocaust which i doubt you have to flat earth. If you're truly as curious about the Holocaust as you say you are, then this breaks down when compared with flat earth. Obviously you're not motivated to discuss flat earth material? And obviously you are motivated to discuss the Holocaust?

[Wahrheitssucher]

…I am really surprised at how much work you've put into all of this.

TRANSLATION: “I had no idea there were credible, reasonable, factual, detailed arguments based on chemistry, science and basic common sense which convincingly refute the core aspects of my people’s bogus belief-system that I have been indoctrinated into”.

That was unexpected to me.

TRANSLATION: “I expected revisionist arguments to be crazy and I have been emotionally disturbed by the coherence and volume of credible arguments, but I am having difficulty admitting that to myself”.

I don't really agree with any of the conclusions, but it's still interesting.

TRANSLATION: I don’t dare go into the detailed reasons you have for reaching these conclusions as I might become a skeptic. I have to live with my jewish family and friends. It would be like a jehovah’s witness deciding they don’t ‘believe’ anymore: I would be rejected, ostracised, hated. I dare not go down that road. So I say “I have no time right now”, in order to avoid becoming better informed. As if I DID read all that I secretly think I would ‘disbelieve’.

[ConfusedJew]

CJ cited these specific reports (Armia Krajowa) as proof of the Holocaust in the OP. I pointed out that these reports are rubbish. You seem to be agree since you admit these are "clearly hearsay, second hand reports, rumours." I agree but would add "atrocity propaganda" and "deliberate BS" as well.

I've said this before, you can't really "prove" anything except for math and logic proofs really.

I think those reports, in conjunction with the other early reports, are extremely strong evidence. They are not hearsay or second hand, but they have personal experience that they reported on and also reported on some things that they heard from others.

Then, you ignore that there is 100% agreement about the main event, that the Nazis are mass murdering Jews inside certain camps inside chambers, and then burying them. It is the detail of how they die in the chambers that there is variation.

Do most of you reject that the Nazis killed innocent Jews? I've heard some people believe that the Einsatzgruppen randomly shot Jews in Eastern Europe but don't believe that the Nazis used gas chambers to industrialize the killing process.

There is not "100% agreement" in the war-time reports regarding which camps were extermination camps. There are false positives and false negatives.

I haven't looked closely into this but I wouldn't expect war time reports to be 100% accurate. You would want to cross reference with other independent reports to discern what is accurate and what is not. That is how intelligence analysis works. They don't treat any single source as completely credible.

Early reports have inaccuracies because there hasn't been enough time to confirm things. Something speculative will be reported as fact. Some reports may be confused. Some things get garbled. But if the events in question are real events that really occurred, there should be some consistent, detectable signal that will emerge. The statements will start to cohere credibly. This is not the case with Holocaust testimonies unless you are judge them by outrageously lenient standards and over look enormous blunders and majorly discrediting details.

I think it's important to have a meta discussion about how to interpret evidence and reports at a high level. It is too difficult to debate the details directly and it's easier to discuss why exhibit A is believable in some ways but not others. One huge meta disagreement that I have here is that all of the witness testimonies are completely thrown out based on irrelevant or small inconsistencies or inaccuracies.

[ConfusedJew]

I don't get this analogy. Firstly, neither you or anybody here is interested in flat earth so this analogy aside from being unflattering is irrelevant. And secondly, by your own standards you claim to have a familial connection to the Holocaust which i doubt you have to flat earth. If you're truly as curious about the Holocaust as you say you are, then this breaks down when compared with flat earth. Obviously you're not motivated to discuss flat earth material? And obviously you are motivated to discuss the Holocaust?

This is a fair point. I do have a personal connection to the Holocaust and its denial continues to harm me and other Jewish people around the world.

I am also interested in Flat Earthers. I watched a documentary on it and I would debate a Flat Earther in person but I have less of a personal interest in it.

I guess that would make me more biased on here than I would have if I were to debate a Flat Earther. But do you think that you have no bias at all yourself?

I would be lying if I told you that I were completely objective here but if I did find very compelling evidence, I would likely change my mind.

Are there any Jewish Holocaust deniers? I would be very interested to learn more about them. I imagine they are extremely rare but one could say that there are more Jewish opinions than there are Jews.

[Archie]

Like I said, i get that people have busy lives and this kinda thing doesn't seem to be for you. Its cool, I get it, the material is dry, the books are dense, and the details are complex, but then rather than being at "an impasse" it's just that you aren't willing to put the required time in to meet the barrier to entry. That's not an "impasse", it's one interlocutor shrugging it off.

And it's not that we don't like interacting with people who are new to the topic. New people, especially highly intelligent people, despite their lack of specific knowledge, can be some of the most interesting people to talk to because you get a glimpse of how people process the information and arguments for the first time. The more seasoned you are in the topic, the harder it is to understand the perspective of someone new. A new person might even offer some fresh perspectives on certain things (especially if their background leads itself to particular insights). But it is only interesting if the person is legitimately curious about the topic and is doing real research and is beginning to form an authentic opinion about all of it. What is definitely not interesting is listening to someone lazily pass off secondhand opinions which is all we have ever gotten out of CJ. More and more, it seems clear CJ is merely defending his tribe and is not interested in digesting any of the material. You see this in the way he throws out a high volume of secondhand arguments while generally ignoring counterpoints.