How Can Such a Strong Consensus Be So Wrong for so Long?

[ConfusedJew]

Consensus is definitely not always right, especially when it's based on flawed assumptions, limited data, social pressure, or institutional inertia.

While consensus can be wrong, it is usually the best available guide when it reflects rigorous methodology, it’s grounded in independently verifiable data and it's open to revision and self-correction.

Rejecting consensus requires extraordinary evidence and a valid alternative framework, not just doubt.

A framework for evaluating whether consensus is reliable:

Is the evidence base diverse and replicable or is it narrow and hidden?
Is the peer review process transparent and open or is it gate kept and censored?
Is dissent allowed and engaged or is it suppressed and punished?
Is the institutional bias low or is it vulnerable to corruption from money and politics?
Is the consensus self correcting and open to change or is it dogmatic and rigid?

What do you guys think about the Holocaust consensus because it certainly is well established for a long period of time.

In general, rejecting consensus requires extraordinary evidence and a valid alternative framework, not just doubt.

[Callafangers]

In general, rejecting consensus requires extraordinary evidence and a valid alternative framework, not just doubt.

A few things:

• You're overstating the value of consensus in general. Every religion has a mass consensus, as do many cults. Many consumer product brands have the same.
• The key issue with consensus is its methodology or 'framework', as you acknowledge. But you're mistaken in suggesting one must necessarily provide an alternate framework just to show a given one as invalid.
• You're mistaken about the need for 'extraordinary evidence' in rejecting a given consensus (especially one with an invalid and manipulative framework). Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary evidence.

We eagerly await the extraordinary evidence for your claims. Meanwhile, we will continue to point out the major problems in your methodology/framework.

[ConfusedJew]

In general, rejecting consensus requires extraordinary evidence and a valid alternative framework, not just doubt.

A few things:

• You're overstating the value of consensus in general. Every religion has a mass consensus, as do many cults. Many consumer product brands have the same.
• The key issue with consensus is its methodology or 'framework', as you acknowledge. But you're mistaken in suggesting one must necessarily provide an alternate framework just to show a given one as invalid.
• You're mistaken about the need for 'extraordinary evidence' in rejecting a given consensus (especially one with an invalid and manipulative framework). Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary evidence.

We eagerly await the extraordinary evidence for your claims. Meanwhile, we will continue to point out the major problems in your methodology/framework.

For religion, there's a dogmatic approach to the truth and questioning often isn't acceptable.

I'm going by piece by piece. Both the survivor and perpetrator testimonies come from a truly extraordinary amount of people and all point to the same thing. Especially the Nazis who had no reason to tell the truth. Nobody has brought up that up yet.

I don't think the Holocaust is so extraordinary to be honest. But I do think it is pretty extraordinary to reject thousands and thousands of testimonies as false. What is extraordinary is subjective and I don't think ever before in history have thousands and thousands of people misremembered such a vivid and prolonged period of history like that. Sure some might get some details wrong and some might exaggerate or even have false memories due to trauma, but I don't think it's physically possible for that many people to be completely wrong or paid off or something like that.

How do you explain your belief that the massive amount of testimonies are wildly wrong, for the Nazis, Jews and other survivors?

It's also pretty extraordinary to claim that 6 million people just disappeared from the Earth and were lost forever and never reconnected with their families or anything. Especially in a time when the world was already quite globalized and pretty good at counting censuses.

[Callafangers]

Especially the Nazis who had no reason to tell the truth. Nobody has brought up that up yet.

It has definitely been brought up. I (and others) brought it up back in 2012-13 (as 'Callahan'):

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... 5&start=15

I don't think the Holocaust is so extraordinary to be honest. But I do think it is pretty extraordinary to reject thousands and thousands of testimonies as false.

Can you name any other major historical narrative with such extraordinary claims and so heavily reliant on testimony, or which has such a high quantity or proportion of evidently-false and absurd testimony?

What is extraordinary is subjective and I don't think ever before in history have thousands and thousands of people misremembered such a vivid and prolonged period of history like that. Sure some might get some details wrong and some might exaggerate or even have false memories due to trauma, but I don't think it's physically possible for that many people to be completely wrong or paid off or something like that.

See, it's words like 'misremembered' that show you are either extremely biased or here being deceptive.

What would it take for you admit at least some Jewish so-called 'survivors' are actually lying their asses off? And how many such liars or lies does it take before we can acknowledge there is a pattern?

How do you explain your belief that the massive amount of testimonies are wildly wrong, for the Nazis, Jews and other survivors?

Incentives matter. Most 'survivors' don't mention wild claims like 'gassing', and those that do are caught lying often. There is also the issue of which organizations have been mining the testimony.

Victor's justice and judicial historiography are also important elements.

The 'Nazis' were heavily coerced postwar (utterly indisputable).

This really isn't so complicated.

It's also pretty extraordinary to claim that 6 million people just disappeared from the Earth and were lost forever and never reconnected with their families or anything. Especially in a time when the world was already quite globalized and pretty good at counting censuses.

Your assumption is false: you have no evidence -- none -- that "6 million people just disappeared from the Earth". Utter laughable nonsense.

The world was not "quite globalized and pretty good at counting censuses" in the 1940s. The challenges of locating anyone at all in that period on a global scale are well-documented. Yet another whopper from you.

[ConfusedJew]

See, it's words like 'misremembered' that show you are either extremely biased or here being deceptive.

What would it take for you admit at least some Jewish so-called 'survivors' are actually lying their asses off? And how many such liars or lies does it take before we can acknowledge there is a pattern?

Even if a tiny amount of them are lying, and I don't know why they would even lie, there's virtually zero chance in my opinion that hundreds of thousands could all independently come up with the same "lie".

Take the Holocaust out of this. Can you think of another period in history where that kind of thing happened at that scale? I certainly can't think of anything close.

How do you explain your belief that the massive amount of testimonies are wildly wrong, for the Nazis, Jews and other survivors?

Incentives matter. Most 'survivors' don't mention wild claims like 'gassing', and those that do are caught lying often. There is also the issue of which organizations have been mining the testimony.

Victor's justice and judicial historiography are also important elements.

The 'Nazis' were heavily coerced postwar (utterly indisputable).

This really isn't so complicated.

It's also pretty extraordinary to claim that 6 million people just disappeared from the Earth and were lost forever and never reconnected with their families or anything. Especially in a time when the world was already quite globalized and pretty good at counting censuses.

Your assumption is false: you have no evidence -- none -- that "6 million people just disappeared from the Earth". Utter laughable nonsense.

The world was not "quite globalized and pretty good at counting censuses" in the 1940s. The challenges of locating anyone at all in that period on a global scale are well-documented. Yet another whopper from you.

My assumption isn't false. There were 9.5m European Jews before WW2 and 3.5m after. Did the census methodology just completely change over night? If you believe that, how do you explain how that could have happened and why? That's an extraordinary claim. It's better if you don't try to declare victory because the best judge of whether or not you are right is whether you convince me. I'm here listening to your arguments and evidence. If your arguments and evidence are very strong, eventually I will agree with you.

My great grandmother picked up her cousin who survived the Holocaust. They were able to coordinate an arrival and pickup from upstate NY for a relative who took a boat from Germany to NY harbor. It wasn't very hard to coordinate at that time. There were Jewish agencies looking to relocate survivors. In the case of my relative, it was HIA that helped the coordination. It just took longer and wasn't instantaneous like it is today.

[Stubble]

So many derailments to choose from, which track should I take?

Look, the 'holocaust' tm is a lot of dogma and there is an orthodoxy around it.

I am unironically called a holocaust 'denier' when I question any part of it.

It is all, or nothing apparently. There is no middle ground. Either I take my brain out and set it on the shelf and assume 30 guys got 7,000-30,000 people to lay face down in quicklime, head to toe, one on top of the other, and patiently wait to be shot in the back of the head, or I'm a holocaust denier, because, 'there is consensus'.

You may be selling it, but, I ain't buying it.

There was another guy that told me a few months back 'if this was any other group of people'...

If this was any other group of people, I wouldn't be the only one asking to see any evidence of a blood fountain and lakes and rivers of fire.

The holocaust as sold is built on fan fic and it is absolutely mind numbingly unbelievable. I don't know what to tell you.





Since you don't read, maybe you will listen. You don't even have to watch, use a browser like brave and just let it play in the background while you brew some coffee in the morning or something.

That second one is going to take a while to get through, if you maintain your own property, some weekend while you are doing the chores you can just let it run.

[Callafangers]

Even if a tiny amount of them are lying, and I don't know why they would even lie, there's virtually zero chance in my opinion that hundreds of thousands could all independently come up with the same "lie".

What research have you done into what amount/quantity of them may be lying? How many 'survivor' testimonies have you carefully scrutinized in this way? If zero or near-zero, then why on Earth are you only supposing a "tiny amount" of them could be lying?

If you "don't know why they would even lie", why are you not researching these potential motives before posting about it?

And who ever said anything about them "all independently" coming up with similar lies? Are Jews (and others who opposed Germany) always necessarily independent of one another?

Take the Holocaust out of this. Can you think of another period in history where that kind of thing happened at that scale? I certainly can't think of anything close.

Fallacy, not worth mentioning further. The Soviet Union never happened "at that scale". China never happened "at that scale". Space travel never happened "at that scale". You're not even making an argument, here.

Your assumption is false: you have no evidence -- none -- that "6 million people just disappeared from the Earth". Utter laughable nonsense.

The world was not "quite globalized and pretty good at counting censuses" in the 1940s. The challenges of locating anyone at all in that period on a global scale are well-documented. Yet another whopper from you.

My assumption isn't false. There were 9.5m European Jews before WW2 and 3.5m after. Did the census methodology just completely change over night? If you believe that, how do you explain how that could have happened and why? That's an extraordinary claim. It's better if you don't try to declare victory because the best judge of whether or not you are right is whether you convince me. I'm here listening to your arguments and evidence. If your arguments and evidence are very strong, eventually I will agree with you.

There are entire books written on this topic which you have not read. Do not pretend you can present some evidentiary basis for any figures you would be here to claim. It's obnoxious, transparent, and will get you nowhere.

See here: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... ewish/489/

My great grandmother picked up her cousin who survived the Holocaust. They were able to coordinate an arrival and pickup from upstate NY for a relative who took a boat from Germany to NY harbor. It wasn't very hard to coordinate at that time. There were Jewish agencies looking to relocate survivors. In the case of my relative, it was HIA that helped the coordination. It just took longer and wasn't instantaneous like it is today.

You're clearly here driven by an agenda so none of your personal anecdotes are going to be taken too seriously. What you've done is present a personal story which you are attempting to generalize globally. That's absurd, it isn't a valid argument, and it earns you no points.

[ConfusedJew]

So many derailments to choose from, which track should I take?

Look, the 'holocaust' tm is a lot of dogma and there is an orthodoxy around it.

I am unironically called a holocaust 'denier' when I question any part of it.

It is all, or nothing apparently. There is no middle ground. Either I take my brain out and set it on the shelf and assume 30 guys got 7,000-30,000 people to lay face down in quicklime, head to toe, one on top of the other, and patiently wait to be shot in the back of the head, or I'm a holocaust denier, because, 'there is consensus'.

Legitimate historical revisionism is a necessary part of historical scholarship. As new evidence, methodologies and frameworks of understanding emerge, it is important to reinterpret past events. When new archives are opened, it is important to update our historical understanding of issues. Revisionists in this category often challenge older narratives by presenting new documents, archaeological finds, or fresh interpretations. Constructive revisionism seeks a deeper understanding of history and adds nuance or corrects mistakes in our understanding.

Bad historical revisionism can be politically or socially motivated to deny, distort, or minimize the established facts of historical subjects. It might selectively use or misrepresent evidence, ignores overwhelming documentation, and often relies on conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. It might completely reject primary sources, first hand testimony or forensic findings without explaining why it is wrong or even acknowledging that it might offer some truth.

These are general descriptions that apply to the study of history but they apply to debates on the Holocaust. It is certainly not an all or nothing issue. Questioning is not a problem if your questions are sincere and you are willing to acknowledge and address the answers that you get. But it ceases to become real historical inquiry if you go out of your way to find evidence that reinforces your pre-existing beliefs instead of challenging them as I am doing here.

[ConfusedJew]

What research have you done into what amount/quantity of them may be lying? How many 'survivor' testimonies have you carefully scrutinized in this way? If zero or near-zero, then why on Earth are you only supposing a "tiny amount" of them could be lying?

If you "don't know why they would even lie", why are you not researching these potential motives before posting about it?

And who ever said anything about them "all independently" coming up with similar lies? Are Jews (and others who opposed Germany) always necessarily independent of one another?

You are welcome to present me with a specific example of an alleged Holocaust survivor that allegedly lied. But when you make such strong claims without evidence, it isn't credible. I'm going out of my way to surface any evidence that I may not know about.

The conventional history is that there were about 250,000 to 300,000 survivors and there were maybe 50,000 to 80,000 who came forward and shared their personal stories to be record as oral history.

Some people who were not survivors could easily hijack the tragedy for some perverse personal gain. But if there are even 300 people who made up complete lies, that's only about 0.1% of total number of survivors.

[Stubble]

So many derailments to choose from, which track should I take?

Look, the 'holocaust' tm is a lot of dogma and there is an orthodoxy around it.

I am unironically called a holocaust 'denier' when I question any part of it.

It is all, or nothing apparently. There is no middle ground. Either I take my brain out and set it on the shelf and assume 30 guys got 7,000-30,000 people to lay face down in quicklime, head to toe, one on top of the other, and patiently wait to be shot in the back of the head, or I'm a holocaust denier, because, 'there is consensus'.

Legitimate historical revisionism is a necessary part of historical scholarship. As new evidence, methodologies and frameworks of understanding emerge, it is important to reinterpret past events. When new archives are opened, it is important to update our historical understanding of issues. Revisionists in this category often challenge older narratives by presenting new documents, archaeological finds, or fresh interpretations. Constructive revisionism seeks a deeper understanding of history and adds nuance or corrects mistakes in our understanding.

Bad historical revisionism can be politically or socially motivated to deny, distort, or minimize the established facts of historical subjects. It might selectively use or misrepresent evidence, ignores overwhelming documentation, and often relies on conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. It might completely reject primary sources, first hand testimony or forensic findings without explaining why it is wrong or even acknowledging that it might offer some truth.

These are general descriptions that apply to the study of history but they apply to debates on the Holocaust. It is certainly not an all or nothing issue. Questioning is not a problem if your questions are sincere and you are willing to acknowledge and address the answers that you get. But it ceases to become real historical inquiry if you go out of your way to find evidence that reinforces your pre-existing beliefs instead of challenging them as I am doing here.

Color me surprised when I learned that there were Hungarian jews unfit for work housed at Auschwitz and later sent to recovery camps or other camps. Color me surprised when I learned that 1,600 Hungarian jews were released from Bergen Belsen and sent to Mandate Palestine. Color me surprised when I learned that Dr. Wirths went out of his way to combat epidemics in the Auschwitz Complexes going so far as to introduce novel delousing technology in the form of microwave (short wave) delousing equipment. Color me surprised when I found out many other things that I don't have time to share.

Color me surprised about Majdanek.

This list can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

[ConfusedJew]

Color me surprised when I learned that there were Hungarian jews unfit for work housed at Auschwitz and later sent to recovery camps or other camps. Color me surprised when I learned that 1,600 Hungarian jews were released from Bergen Belsen and sent to Mandate Palestine. Color me surprised when I learned that Dr. Wirths went out of his way to combat epidemics in the Auschwitz Complexes going so far as to introduce novel delousing technology in the form of microwave (short wave) delousing equipment. Color me surprised when I found out many other things that I don't have time to share.

Color me surprised about Majdanek.

This list can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

If you are going to make an argument, at least provide the evidence so that I can take a look.

A brief search suggests that the Nazis did have recovery camps, not for humanitarian reasons, but to heal temporarily sick or injured prisoners so that they could return to doing slave labor.

Some received treatment, but others were neglected and left to die, while some were used for medical experiments.

Dr. Wirths, the chief medical officer at Auschwitz, did make some efforts to control disease outbreaks but his efforts were not done for humanitarian reasons, the Nazis wanted to keep their slaves alive and prevent disease from spreading to them.

You are right that some Jews were sent to Palestine but they were not "released" from Bergen Belsen. It was only a few hundred Jews, who cut a corrupt deal with Eichmann. They were temporarily held in Bergen Belsen but they were not brought in as prisoners.

This is an example of cherry picking a tiny sub-plot of history, getting some of the important facts wrong, and misrepresenting the bigger picture. Even if your example was completely accurate, a tiny exception doesn't accurately describe the whole situation. This seems to be a very common flaw in the narratives presented by Holocaust deniers.

I'm still waiting for a few examples of survivors who allegedly lied. At least one would be good.

[Stubble]

Color me surprised when I learned that there were Hungarian jews unfit for work housed at Auschwitz and later sent to recovery camps or other camps. Color me surprised when I learned that 1,600 Hungarian jews were released from Bergen Belsen and sent to Mandate Palestine. Color me surprised when I learned that Dr. Wirths went out of his way to combat epidemics in the Auschwitz Complexes going so far as to introduce novel delousing technology in the form of microwave (short wave) delousing equipment. Color me surprised when I found out many other things that I don't have time to share.

Color me surprised about Majdanek.

This list can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

If you are going to make an argument, at least provide the evidence so that I can take a look.

A brief search suggests that the Nazis did have recovery camps, not for humanitarian reasons, but to heal temporarily sick or injured prisoners so that they could return to doing slave labor.

Some received treatment, but others were neglected and left to die, while some were used for medical experiments.

You are right that some Jews were sent to Palestine but they were not "released" from Bergen Belsen. It was only a few hundred Jews, who cut a corrupt deal with Eichmann. They were temporarily held in Bergen Belsen but they were not brought in as prisoners.

This is an example of cherry picking a tiny sub-plot of history, getting some of the important facts wrong, and misrepresenting the bigger picture. Even if your example was completely accurate, a tiny exception doesn't accurately describe the whole situation. This seems to be a very common flaw in the narratives presented by Holocaust deniers.

I still go through these when I find time. Archie shared this in the research subforum.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=260

I'm talking about the 1,600 Hungarian jews that were released from Bergen Belsen and then given 50,000 in aid in transit and a further 200,000 plus in aid to charter a ship to get to Palestine. Not the transport agreement.

Now, there are also the jews in Shanghai, the Polish jews in Mexico, the flood of jews in Vienna. Jews were scattering man.

Personally, I think the jews went where jews are and apparently I have to get a head count in and a head count out to satisfy the other side. This is a sisyphean effort however when I can't even get basic information like names or fucking birthdays.

If you could refrain from implying I'm being deceptive or that I'm lying or whatever, I'd appreciate it. I'm bringing you the facts such as they are. Each part of my post however either already has a thread or merits one. I'm done with this thread for the day.

Anyhow, good luck with things. I hope you find your missing relatives. Maybe one day I will take a trip to go kneel at the graves of my family that died in Europe in ww2. Maybe they are marked...

[ConfusedJew]

That sub-plot isn't what you think it was.

The Kastner train was a rescue operation orchestrated by Rezső (Rudolf) Kasztner, a Hungarian-Jewish lawyer and journalist. In 1944, Kasztner negotiated with Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS officer, to allow this group to escape in exchange for a substantial ransom comprising money, gold, and jewels .

The train departed Budapest in June 1944, but instead of heading directly to Switzerland as promised, it was diverted to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, where the passengers were held in a special section known as the "Hungarian camp" (Ungarnlager). Conditions there were harsh, though somewhat better than in other parts of the camp.

The group was released in two phases:

August 1944: A first group of 318 passengers was allowed to enter Switzerland.
December 1944: The remaining 1,368 passengers were released and also reached Switzerland.

Eichmann allowed the 1,684 Hungarian Jews aboard the Kastner train to escape as part of a calculated Nazi strategy, not out of mercy, but as part of a larger scheme to exploit Jewish lives for political, economic, and propaganda value. Eichmann was involved in a Nazi plan called “Blut gegen Waren” (Blood for Goods): the idea was to trade Jewish lives for money, trucks, and supplies. The Kastner deal was a pilot or “test” case to show the Nazis were willing to deal—and to see how the Allies might respond.

Kastner offered a large bribe: money, gold, and goods, with further promises of international Zionist support. Eichmann and Himmler, were experimenting with alternative “solutions” late in the war—when Germany was losing and its extermination programs were becoming a liability. Himmler wanted to use Jews as hostages to bargain with the Allies to save himself or to split the Allied powers. From a Nazi standpoint, releasing 1,600 Jews was a small concession. At this point in 1944, Hungarian Jews were being deported en masse to Auschwitz, and over 400,000 were murdered within a few months.

[Stubble]

That's a whole 'nother 1,600 Hungarian jews I didn't even know about, these were secured by Mayer.

So, over 3,200 out of Belsen.

Learn something new every day.

[Callafangers]

I found myself thinking once again, "gee, it sure is ridiculous that 'ConfusedJew' isn't spending the time to first read and learn independently before expecting revisionists here to hand-deliver answers to all of his questions".

My thoughts continued: "it would be much more productive if he were to first spend the time doing his own independent research and then come to challenge us."

But that is when it hit me: "...perhaps 'ConfusedJew' doesn't really want us to be productive."