The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 2:07 am

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2024 11:25 pmDocuments from one provenance simply cannot be interpreted in isolation from other evidence, nor can one simply make shit up if the preferred provenance is not forthcoming. This is the persistent mistake that Mattogno and many other revisionists keep making.

To review any document in isolation once certain "other evidence" is shown to be false or invalid is not unreasonable. If you disagree that the "other evidence" is false or invalid, then that's a debate which must first be settled before you can argue one should consider any "convergences". Without this, your argument amounts to deflection, avoiding a relevant focus on any single document. Moreover, there are certain characteristics that should always be considered in isolation such as the reliability of the document (and its source), itself. This comes before questions of the actual contents and any implications.

The problem here is assuming you've shown falsity, since this just creates a self-justifying spiral of throwing out evidence to only mention what one prefers to highlight, rather than considering the totality of the evidence. A further problem is that thinking you've knocked down other sources doesn't then transform your evidence-free interpretation or assertion into fact.

There is ultimately no one way to tackle sources in a particular sequence.

History prefers contemporary sources but this means foregrounding them at the level of paragraphs and footnotes, while then bringing in later sources to fill in gaps and flesh out or corroborate the interpretation.

A 'hierarchy of evidence' appproach as asserted by Germar Rudolf a few times cannot in fact start with physical evidence, since nobody ever investigates a site or scene without someone saying 'come look'. But one could try to demonstrate how this might work, it is unlikely to ever stop with physical evidence, nor can one exclude all non-physical evidence, nor do revisionists in fact try to do this.

Then there is the order of discovery approach, which would start with the earliest public sources then proceed to post-liberation investigations in this case. But some like the Auschwitz investigation involved documents from the get-go. It is clear that on average, witnesses and site inspections came first, then documents were located in the surviving archives, sometimes years later. The order-of-discovery approach would be complicated by the east-west divide, and this would across all key camps and sites be quite problematic for revisionists, since they often forget about or don't know about sources which were recorded or discovered in the west vs ones in the east.

Isolating a document is also typically done from other documents, as with the circular firing squad of interpretations of the ZBL Auschwitz crematoria construction documents, with none of the explanations hitherto offered accounting smoothly for all the German documents, nor do any have a weight of corroboration from other sources (contemporary camp underground reports and postwar testimonies/investigations) to make them superior to the conventional explanation.

Separating out sources and making them bear the weight of explaining everything, or asserting an interpretation without supporting it and while ignoring the evidence to the contrary, is a very common tactic with revisionists in their write-ups, and is also mirrored by the focus on individual camps and killing sites in isolation from each other.

This swiftly breaks down with the documents as well as key witnesses, almost all German, but also key sets of underground reports, i.e. Polish, that do in fact discuss all of the camps together alongside discussing shooting actions, either explicitly or in clear relation to them.

Thus, the long and short Korherr reports cover up to the end of 1942 and the end of the first quarter of 1943 by geographic region and country. They only mention some KZs as concentration camps and not extermination sites, but do mention various ghettos and regions with ghettos in them. The report and statistics also include figures for the 'east' as well which are interpreted as referring to Einsatzgruppen bodycounts (but not other SS/Police unit reports which were evidently not transmitted to IV B 4 who provided Korherr with his sources).

The notorious editing of the report to excise all but one missed reference of Sonderbehandlung and replace it with 'transport to the Russian east' is hardly the only reason why everything in the report must be interpreted in the light of all evidence from all provenances that refers to events up to the end of 1942 and the first quarter of 1943. This is already hugely problematic if one focuses 'only' on German documents, even more so if one includes other contemporary sources, and one cannot actually exclude all postwar sources or later documents from consideration when interpreting the obviously censored or veiled remarks.

The choice here might appear binary - extermination or resettlement - but that in turn highlights the absolute lack of convincing sources for the latter, a problem that cannot be solved with the 'Dog Ate ALL My Homework' cope.

This example also hints at the problem with isolated reinterpretations of the meaning of words. The famous Goebbels diary entry of 27 March 1942 refers to liquidation of 60% of Jews in this phase of operations in Poland in the Lublin district, under Globocnik's supervision using methods he refuses to describe, which is certainly sinister. Some revisionists have tried defusing liquidation and argue that this meant dissolution or start with semantic-thesaurus babbling in an obvious attempt at deflection. But Goebbels elsewhere in 1941 and 1942 uses liquidation to refer to the mentally ill, i.e. T4, and in the same month as he notes Globocnik's liquidation he received one of the summary Einsatzgruppen reports and wrote about the liquidation of the Jews, evidently by shooting as reflected in the Einsatzgruppen reports.

The Goebbels diary from 27 March 1942 relates to Belzec pretty obviously, so one then needs to consider all of the other ways in which Belzec and the Reinhardt camps and Jewish policy in the Government-General were referred to and discussed in other German and non-German sources. That includes
- the Korherr report edit of Sonderbehandlung
- the Hoefle telegram noting the 'arrival' (Zugang) at B under the auspices of Einsatz Reinhardt, breaking down the same figure as appears in Korherr's report
- a Foreign Office document referring to an intention to subject unfit Romanian Jews to Sonderbehandlung, once transported to the Lublin district, together with a transport planning conference indicating Belzec was intended for these deportees
- Hans Frank referring to the annihilation or destruction (Vernichtung) of Jews in the GG being ordered from higher authority (i.e. Hitler) in December 1942
- a member of the German resistance leaking information that Jews were being gassed, and through referencing the Lublin ghetto action connecting this with Belzec, in 1942
- the Polish underground observing trains being unloaded at Belzec and not leaving with people, in April 1942, noting the speculation about either gas or electricity being used

to name but a few sources, which are all contemporary to before the Korherr report, and not the only contemporary ones, with more to be added for Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, Chelmno, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the ghettos and labour/concentration camps also discussed in Korherr, and the mass shootings, also discussed in Korherr.

Of course, by the time Korherr's report was discovered, there had been postwar investigations of Belzec et al, and various other witness statements in 1945-47, including Gerstein's famous reports, plus more documents on the other camps and also proving the T4-AR connection in documents as well as witness statements, and Globocnik's final reports on AR. One could leave out the sources noted above that came to light after Korherr, but this still includes Hans Frank referring to the annihilation of the Jews, Victor Brack writing to Himmler about providing Globocnik with more men, the Belzec etc investigations, Gerstein, and so on. The interpretation reached by the 1940s that all of this meant mass murder was only confirmed by the later-discovered sources.


Ultimately it doesn't matter much which way around one proceeds, the key thing is consilience, and not boring the reader shitless as revisionists so often do with their wild swinging away at piecemeal evidence, rather than saving space and discussing sources together. Because you guys can't demonstrate that your long-winded 'methods' work when adopted and applied to other topics, and cannot stop others from addressing things more concisely and readably by combining different types of evidence and discussing different camps in tandem with shootings.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 12:40 pm
Ultimately it doesn't matter much which way around one proceeds, the key thing is consilience, and not boring the reader shitless as revisionists so often do with their wild swinging away at piecemeal evidence, rather than saving space and discussing sources together.

I agree, but there are serious issues that need investigation, which also needs discussion. Are you up to the task Dr.
For instance at Belzec, saponified remains were found, assumed to be from gassed victims. Could these not have been from the dead found on trains Nessie (flipper) mentioned elsewhere.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 1:14 pm

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 12:40 pm
Ultimately it doesn't matter much which way around one proceeds, the key thing is consilience, and not boring the reader shitless as revisionists so often do with their wild swinging away at piecemeal evidence, rather than saving space and discussing sources together.

I agree, but there are serious issues that need investigation, which also needs discussion. Are you up to the task Dr.
For instance at Belzec, saponified remains were found, assumed to be from gassed victims. Could these not have been from the dead found on trains Nessie (flipper) mentioned elsewhere.

We would have no way of knowing cause of death of the humans leaving saponified remains found with bore samples before 2000, so one can speculate all one likes, it would still be speculation. A full exhumation might potentially have uncovered saponified/mummified corpses or skeletons with bullets inside them, but after many decades telling the difference between someone who died of heatstroke, thirst, suffocation, a heart attack on the transport and someone who had been killed through CO poisoning would be impossible. Nor is that a realistic or fair 'test' when the site was found with copious signs of mass cremation.

The size of the mapped mass graves at Belzec reached too large a capacity to be 'only' of victims of harsh transport conditions, and yes, this is also where the total absence of evidence for onwards transport to the east (from the Krakow and Lublin districts) or to the west (from the Galicia district) comes into play.

Other mass graves and unburied victims were repeatedly reported by Soviet investigations to show signs of CO poisoning, which might stretch the limits of what could be determined a year after death, or x months, but at least with the reports of such corpses found at Majdanek and identified as killed in gas vans operating in the Lublin district, there is a realistic time-frame. One can accept or reject this evidence but it is about the only kind that could realistically provide physical/forensic evidence for gassing, as opposed to mass death followed by mass cremation.

Thus, the size of the mass graves at Belzec become more significant, and even when downplayed by Mattogno still could have theoretically left six figures of victims, which is really NOT compatible with a humane, peaceful, inocuous Judenpolitik. The modelling of such figures is not fully historical, as it relies on assumptions, rather than direct sources. The only historical way to attack the documentary evidence for numbers deported to Belzec is to show the deportees turned up somewhere else, before arrival or after arrival, whether by escaping the trains (which is documented, leaving corpses some distance away from the camp as well as eyewitness reports from survivors) or being taken elsewhere for labour or parking in a reservation or ghetto or whatever.

But none of the latter hypothetical alternatives have any evidence to support them for Belzec, and they need to account for the east-west movements from Galicia, whether to somewhere in the central GG or in a boomerang/slingshot back to the east, the latter being wholly improbable. Surely much easier to erect another transit camp in Galicia, or use Janowska in Lviv for this purpose, and do what SSPF Galizien did anyway with the property and valuables seized in provincial and metropolitan deportation actions, channel the especial valuables back to Lublin. Plus one has then to explain the extensive mass shootings in Galicia in the first half of 1943, which left numerous intact mass graves.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 5:14 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 5:06 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:45 am

I edited my above post to better reflect your argument. You fail to make a distinction between fabricating evidence (document or witnesses) and interpretation. Fabricating evidence is different, because if the "fabricators" believed the Holocaust was real, they wouldn't feel the need to do it. The central allegation is that they were consciously trying to push a fake story. This is what is entirely speculative on your part, and why a serious history can't be written.

Why do you think "interpretation" doesn't count? You can deceive people just as easily with interpretation. Take a photo of shower room and call it a gas chamber. That's taking something real and giving a false interpretation. Show people a real can of Zyklon. Tell them it's for gassing Jews instead of lice. That's interpretational. Take a document about delousing chambers and say it's about homicidal gas chambers (like the one I posted). Interpretational. Most of the Holocaust distortions are interpretational. So what?

Because, if you're doing history properly, the basis of mass events is going to be direct evidence, not the interpretations of various parties.

I guess your argument is that false interpretation is strong circumstantial evidence of a larger scale Holocaust fabrication effort of direct evidence like witness testimonies, documents, and forensic reports? (therefore all this evidence should automatically be called into question)

Again, I think "interpretation" goes with the "direct evidence." When documents are selected and presented there is always some interpretation being attached to them.

But, yes, I do think the biases that would lead investigators to misrepresent a benign document as homicidal would also influence the collection of testimonies. And in the same direction.

Here's another example.

Dachau Photo


Reverse


The Americans have misrepresented a fumigation chamber as a homicidal gas chamber.

Did they need to "fabricate" anything? No. Just take a picture of something real and give it a false interpretation.

Did there need to be an elaborate conspiracy to get the US Army to do this? Probably not. "Sidney Blau" (the photographer) probably knew exactly what to do. Hell, maybe he even believed it, for all I know.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 3:20 pm
Again, I think "interpretation" goes with the "direct evidence." When documents are selected and presented there is always some interpretation being attached to them.

This is true for revisionism as well and any history for that matter.

What I'm specifically having trouble with understanding is why you believe

that documents were suppressed or destroyed
documents were fabricated (Eg Just Memo, Fg report)
forensic investigators lied
"perpetrators" were coerced into implicating themselves and their country in completely fake war crimes

I'd say it has nothing to with any direct evidence of these things being attempted, but rather circumstantial evidence suggesting the story can't be true (such as the wood deliveries thing). If the story can't be true, then the above must have happened.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 3:32 pm
Did there need to be an elaborate conspiracy to get the US Army to do this? Probably not. "Sidney Blau" (the photographer) probably knew exactly what to do. Hell, maybe he even believed it, for all I know.

No you obviously don't need a conspiracy for someone to mistake a non-homicial gas chamber for a homicidal one

The question I posed in this thread was for the other stuff,

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:02 pm that documents were suppressed or destroyed
documents were fabricated (Eg Just Memo, Fg report)
forensic investigators lied
"perpetrators" were coerced into implicating themselves and their country in completely fake war crimes

I should add to this the continued silence of hundreds of thousands or millions of witnesses

do you need a conspiracy in order for this happen, likely occurring in both Communist and Western nations? If one side didn't do these things the gig would likely be up

I think you need a conspiracy (or conspiracies), and of massive size

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:46 pm I think you need a conspiracy (or conspiracies), and of massive size

Nah with time, rumour turns into myth and then truth. Those in modern times use those truths to advance their own interests, often political. The real truth is often clouded in the mists of time.
While some promulgate those alleged truths, the reality is left to those who like digging into the dirt; occasionally truths like the labour camp reality come to being. Still murky but not opaque, misty perhaps, sometimes muddy and murky, but clearing.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 2:11 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 4:46 pm I think you need a conspiracy (or conspiracies), and of massive size

Nah with time, rumour turns into myth and then truth. Those in modern times use those truths to advance their own interests, often political. The real truth is often clouded in the mists of time.
While some promulgate those alleged truths, the reality is left to those who like digging into the dirt; occasionally truths like the labour camp reality come to being. Still murky but not opaque, misty perhaps, sometimes muddy and murky, but clearing.

The supposition here is that all of these things happened as a result of individual agents acting with no coordination

documents suppressed or destroyed
documents fabricated (Eg Just Memo, Fg report)
forensic investigators lying
"perpetrators" were coerced into implicating themselves and their country in completely fake war crimes
hundreds of thousands or millions of witnesses keep quiet, even outside the USSR, even after the USSR is dissolved

I asked AI "How likely is it, that the Holocaust could be faked?"

The answer....

Understanding the Holocaust: Evidence and Historical Consensus

The question of whether the Holocaust could be faked is fundamentally rooted in the overwhelming body of evidence that supports its occurrence. The Holocaust, which resulted in the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazi regime during World War II, is one of the most well-documented events in history. To assess the likelihood of it being faked, we must consider several key factors:

Extensive Documentation: The Holocaust is supported by a vast array of documents, including orders, memos, photographs, testimonies from survivors, and confessions from perpetrators. These documents were presented during the Nuremberg Trials and have been analyzed by historians for decades. The existence of these records provides a solid foundation for understanding the scale and nature of the atrocities committed.

Eyewitness Testimonies: Thousands of survivors have provided firsthand accounts of their experiences during the Holocaust. These testimonies have been collected through various means, including interviews conducted by historians and organizations dedicated to preserving Holocaust memory. The consistency and detail found in these accounts lend significant credibility to the historical narrative.

Physical Evidence: Numerous sites associated with the Holocaust, such as concentration camps (e.g., Auschwitz), still exist today as memorials and museums. Archaeological studies at these sites have uncovered mass graves, gas chambers, and other physical evidence that corroborate historical accounts.

Historical Consensus: The consensus among historians is clear: the Holocaust occurred as a result of Nazi policies aimed at exterminating Jews and other groups deemed undesirable. This consensus is based on rigorous research conducted over many years by scholars across various disciplines.

Debunking Denial Claims: Holocaust deniers often attempt to undermine this evidence by claiming that documents are forged or misinterpreted or that eyewitnesses are unreliable due to trauma or ulterior motives. However, these claims have been thoroughly debunked through critical analysis and cross-examination of sources.

Motivations Behind Denial: Understanding why some individuals propagate denial can provide insight into their motivations—often rooted in antisemitism or ideological beliefs rather than factual inaccuracies about historical events.

Legal Frameworks Against Denial: In many countries, particularly in Europe, laws exist that criminalize Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech. This legal framework underscores societal recognition of the importance of acknowledging historical truths.

Given this comprehensive examination of evidence from multiple angles—documentary proof, eyewitness accounts, physical remnants, scholarly consensus—the assertion that the Holocaust could be faked lacks any credible basis.

In conclusion, based on all available evidence and scholarly research:

The likelihood that the Holocaust could be faked is virtually nonexistent; it is an established historical fact supported by extensive documentation and testimony.