The CODOH Revisionist Forum

I just wanted to take a moment for anyone who is unclear, to highlight the fact that revisionism -- on a logical and intellectual basis, at least -- is "winning".

Don't let the pompous verbosity of Dr. Nick Terry (SanityCheck) fool you -- he will spam you with decades' worth of loosely-relevant and subtly-misrepresented (or sometimes downright-false) knowledge and documentation, but at the very core of proper investigation and reasoning, there is no doubt that revisionists have had the upper hand.

Why do I say this? Here are just a few reasons, see for yourself:

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

NO WOOD
- Anyone who does even a minimal investigation into the question of fuel and logging at AR camps and other claimed sites of mass cremation will quickly find that this is an area that went neglected in the deceptive narrative-formation of the "Holocaust". They simply forgot to factor in the fuel required for their outrageous claims. I will spare the in-depth emphasis on this (see the Holocaust Encyclopedia for comprehensive analyses) but let it suffice to say: the alleged cremations absolutely cannot have happened without the greatest manual logging operation in human history... yet, there are scant testimonies (and certainly no documentary nor physical evidence) that even mention such an operation taking place at all.
LITTLE REMAINS
- A small fraction of what corpse remains should be there is located at Sobibor, orders of magnitude less than expected at Belzec, and virtually nothing at all found at Treblinka (which should vastly overshadow all of the AR camps). With trains being unloaded for property confiscation and sorting, this was also a time to unload corpses (amid massive disease epidemic and wartime), etc., from the cleared ghettos. Corpse disposal at some capacity has nothing whatsoever to do with claimed extreme murder campaigns. The remains measured on-site at these locations thoroughly refute any claim of 'Holocausted' Jews.
NO INCRIMINATING IRON-CYANIDE
- Despite multiple attempts, scientists and researchers across-the-board have repeatedly failed to invalidate Rudolf's findings at Birkenau: that there are no incriminating traces of iron-cyanide in the brick/mortar in the alleged 'chambers'. This is strong evidence directly contradicting the claim of Zyklon-B used to kill many thousands, let alone millions, at Birkenau.
NO GAS VANS
- No 'gas van' nor any blueprints, drawings, etc. for such a vehicle has ever been found. All of our understanding in this regard comes from rumors, spurious documentation, and problematic post-war trials and interrogations. Additionally, claims of these vans are often inconsistent and riddled with absurdities and obvious embellishments.

PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

NO CLEARED FORESTS
- Air photos during the war show forests which remain lush and full (or only lightly cleared) surrounding various camps which allegedly had partaken in the largest manual logging operation in history. Exterminationists are forced to claim that massive shipments of fuel were transported in (by someone, someway, at some time), with zero documentary records supporting their beliefs.
NO CONSTANT CREMATIONS
- Air photos have also consistently shown a lack of massive cremation pyres (e.g. smoke, burnt ground, rutted or heavily disturbed earth/areas, or other cremation traces) where and when they were expected to be, based on witness testimony. At places like Babi Yar, Birkenau, and others, the traces simply are not there.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

NO SHUNTING
- PrudentRegret has pointed out (here: viewtopic.php?t=26&start=30) the glaring lack of any documentation whatsoever that some 800,000 Jews had ever actually arrived at T-II -- there are no records at all that Jews arrived anywhere other than Malkinia/Treblinka, but exterminationists suggest these trains did not actually arrive at Malkinia/Treblinka but, instead, at T-II, which is 1-3 km away. This massive shunting operation (i.e. a diversion of the entire train or part of it onto an entirely separate, smaller track) is claimed by only one problematic witness and is documented nowhere.
NO 'REINHARD'
- Also from PrudentRegret's great work over recent years (same thread above), we can confirm that 'Aktion Reinhardt' is indeed named after Fritz Reinhardt (and not Reinhard Heydrich), which makes clear its role as an economic operation (dispossession/reclamation of Jewish property), having nothing to do with 'extermination'.
NO EXPLICIT, CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS/ORDERS
- As is well-known, there has never been any 'extermination order' documented. The exterminationist view relies upon claims of 'code words', above all else.
NO EXPLICIT, CONTEMPORARY ADMISSIONS OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- All such claims and suggestions of contemporary wartime "admissions" about the 'Holocaust' have shown to be misrepresentations by historians and researchers peddling an anti-German narrative. Hitler's 'prophecy' being regularly framed as a reference to 'extermination' is a prime example of this, as this can be conclusively shown to have had nothing to do with genocide nor even mass killing of Jews.
NOT IN DIARIES
- Not even in the top Nazis' own diaries do we find a shred of evidence about 'Holocaust' killing. In fact, we find the opposite: explicit references to a policy of Jewish expulsion and literal evacuation. Yet even here, the mainstream claims these are "code words", and that these top Nazi officials have lied to themselves in their own private diaries.
NOT IN DECODES
- Even if one were to accept the ridiculous view that the top Nazis all lied to themselves in their diaries, we should at least expect that the decodes of the most top secret intercepted correspondence coming from major camps like Birkenau would include at least some mention of 'gassing' or other extermination operations. But alas, not a word.
LABOR CAMPS LATE IN WAR
- As shown elsewhere (at RODOH, CODOH 1.0), there is data with source documentation showing clearly that Jewish labor camps were open in the Eastern-occupied territories even very late into the war. While most would have been cleared to relocate Jews to more secure sites (records of which have not survived), the fact that many remained open even well-into 1944 and beyond highlights that no universal extermination policy had been implemented, even by this time.

WITNESS CREDIBILITY

FREQUENCY OF LIES, ESPECIALLY KEY WITNESSES
- In addition to memeable 'survivors' like Irene Zisblatt, Moshe Peer, and others, we find that many of the most important witnesses (i.e. those frequently cited by orthodox historians) for the most important 'Holocaust' sites have turned out to have remarkable patterns of obvious falsehoods and other major inconsistencies. For Treblinka, see here: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... linka/889/
NO IN-GROUP ACCOUNTABILITY
- What is just as shocking as seeing the lies like those mentioned above is the total lack of in-group accountability among Jews and 'survivors'. There is no record of any significant campaign or initiative, nor even a pattern, of Jewish survivors (or any Allied powers) working against these obvious lies being presented as truth. This suggests a common effort toward a narrative which permits (or encourages) these lies.
NO FORMAL ACCOUNTABILITY
- There have been no trials nor inquisitions of any kind against 'survivors' nor anyone else claiming even the most extreme and falsified Nazi 'atrocities'.

LYING POWERS

USA
- Beyond its more obvious defamation efforts against Germany in the postwar era (e.g. the Buchenwald exhibit), the USA (CIA) has clearly taken a part in fabricating anti-German lies in a more covert way, see here: https://odysee.com/@Denierbud:0/ciaduringworldwar2:1
UK
- Aside from Churchill's blatant and deceptive warmongering, it appears the British were perfectly open to falsification of the record against Germany as well, disseminating the fraudulent Sprenger letter and using it as evidence at Nuremberg.
SOVIET UNION
- Does anything need to be said, here? This is the world champion of show trials, having carried them out shamelessly before, during and after the war. 'Show trial' means straight-up fabricating evidence, officially-sanctioned lies, and everything in between.
POLISH
- "Raubsicherungspolitik", see here (Introduction video, ca. 16:30): https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/
NO CROSS-ACCOUNTABILITY
- No major instances of certain Allied powers formally distancing themselves or openly rejecting the lies of another, not even of the Soviet Union, when it came to the 'Holocaust' and treatment of Germans post-war.

COMPLICATING CIRCUMSTANCES

IRON CURTAIN
- There is no doubt that the "Iron Curtain" was intended to hide one or multiple secrets. This is significant, because deep behind the Iron Curtain is precisely where Jews were being evacuated to by Germany during the war.
ZIONISM
- Jews (and their power networks) openly sought to motivate all Jews to Israel/Palestine, and recognized narratives of persecution increased this motivation substantially. Patterns of false claims regarding missing, persecuted, or murdered Jews (published in Jewish media) make clear a Jewish intention to promote such a narrative, especially with use of the figure "6 million", even predating WW2.
SUPPRESSING DISSENT
- Those who criticize or challenge the Holocaust narrative are suppressed in doing so. One may argue this is to "protect the memory of victims" but this requires an assumption and it is just as valid to say the suppression is intended to maintain or protect a narrative which is false or invalid and, thus, especially vulnerable to informed criticism.
GERMANY WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE JEWS
- There is no question that Israel has been an atrocious, subversive, dishonest, and hostile element in Palestine (just ask Palestinians). Moreover, there is no question that Jewish power has been maintained (through media, finance, and other institutions they were once accused of subverting in Germany) as communist/leftist ideologies have increased within all Western nations, as their economies have frequently plummeted, with increased inflation (generally proportionate to the level of Jewish control there). Those informed on the matter have reasonably concluded Israel had a foremost role in the 9/11 attacks (control of all key positions in every major institution surrounding 9/11, from the Twin Towers themselves to media conglomerates, FBI's criminal division, airline security, etc.; along with massive geopolitical motives in the "War on Terror"), likely orchestrated the JFK assassination (JFK's intention was to require Israel to register as a foreign agent and to require inspection the Dimona nuclear facility, there is clear evidence of Jewish coordination of JFK's visit to Texas, Jack Ruby [killer of JFK's shooter] is actually Jack Rubenstein, a Jewish mobster), and other major events which have shifted global power in their favor. Israel has the most notorious record of false flags and early forms of terrorism, even by establishment history's open admission.

---

As mentioned earlier, this is a very incomplete summary of some of what I personally consider as powerful indications that the exterminationist side has been losing (and will continue to lose) the battle insofar as valid argumentation and sound reasoning on claims of the 'Holocaust'. Others no doubt have items they might like to add to this list (as do I) but I thought to share this here as a "launching pad" for any visitors who might be new to this topic, to start researching further.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 9:29 pm revisionism -- on a logical and intellectual basis, at least -- is "winning".

Unfortunately, the "logical and intellectual" aspects are often not the ones that rule the day.

Revisionists in the late 80s and early 90s seem to have honestly believed that the demise of the Holocaust was imminent. They thought the gas chambers of Auschwitz would go the way of the human soap factory. Obviously that did not happen. What happened was "Holocaust denial" got banned in most of Europe and is heavily censored and suppressed in the US.

Does the truth have to win out? Sadly, no. I think false history can persist indefinitely.

But I do think there is reason to be optimistic. False history can be maintained, but it is expensive and difficult to do so.
Think about all the resources that go into maintaining "the Holocaust." Millions of dollars in Hollywood productions. Money to the universities for endowed chairs and Holocaust studies programs. They have to monitor the internet to make sure nobody ever hears a revisionist argument. Because if it's out there and people hear it, they know that's the beginning of the end. It must frustrate them to no end to know that years of careful inculcation can be undone with a single Denier Bud video.

"The Holocaust" will last as long as the interests that maintain it have sufficient power and resources to do so. If that power slips, even a little, it's done.

I will add that right now is a time of growing skepticism about Israel and Zionism. I think this will eventually have spillover effects.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 3:59 pmUnfortunately, the "logical and intellectual" aspects are often not the ones that rule the day.

Revisionists in the late 80s and early 90s seem to have honestly believed that the demise of the Holocaust was imminent. They thought the gas chambers of Auschwitz would go the way of the human soap factory. Obviously that did not happen. What happened was "Holocaust denial" got banned in most of Europe and is heavily censored and suppressed in the US.

Does the truth have to win out? Sadly, no. I think false history can persist indefinitely.

100% agreed. I think we can keep making the case and showing it wins quality vs. quantity but being under the thumb of those controlling all the resources is obviously quite limiting. I do not see that changing in the immediate future but I am optimistic that enough momentum can overcome even these odds.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 3:59 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 9:29 pm revisionism -- on a logical and intellectual basis, at least -- is "winning".

Unfortunately, the "logical and intellectual" aspects are often not the ones that rule the day.

....

Normally, history is evidenced. When revisionism cannot agree on actual events at key locations, let alone evidence those events taking place, as a history, it has lost and will always continue to do so.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 10:28 am
Normally, history is evidenced. When revisionism cannot agree on actual events at key locations, let alone evidence those events taking place, as a history, it has lost and will always continue to do so.

Talk about the issues and not revisionism which is a term so vague as to have no meaning, let alone place labels on people.

Revisionist thought keeps permeating its way through the masses, little by little... Whether larger accounts like Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO, 5.9 million followers):

Henrik Yagoda should be more known than Adolf Hitler. When will Hollywood make films about the Bolsheviks? When will America establish days of remembrance for the Christians murdered in the gulag system?

Today we discuss the Christian Holocaust.

Or whether current podcaster and former MMA champion Jake Shields, who is this week hosting a debate with Germar Rudolf and an exterminationist historian (@jakeshieldsajj, ~788,000 followers):

I found a professional historian willing to come in and debate the holocaust denier/revisionist

Any last-minute questions for either guest
https://x.com/jakeshieldsajj

Or smaller accounts like Karen, Esq (@kanarymine2, ~1,200 followers):

You can’t understand Nazism without understanding Bolshevism before it.

You can’t understand Nazi Supremacy without understanding Talmudic Supremacy before it.

You can’t understand Nazi ethnic cleansing of disloyal Germans (while having over 150000+ Jews in their ranks, including as generals), without understanding Ashkenazi ethnic cleansing (loyal or disloyal) and genocides of Europeans and Asians (including E Germans) of 60M+ before it.

You can’t understand German expansion without understanding Talmudist invasion of Russia and Poland, and long desired invasion of Germany before Barbarossa, and violent regime change and control of nations through Communist International II-III;

You can’t understand German nationalism without understanding Talmudic nationless, borderless ambition of global domination of all nations before it.

You can’t understand German socialist four year plans and annexation of industries without understanding Talmudic punishing Versailles and market manipulation, calls for worldwide war and boycott on Germany that led to mass unemployment and starvation before it.

You can’t understand German highlighting German values without understanding Talmudic Weimar degeneracy conditions before it.

You can’t understand German internment camp without understanding

- Talmudist instigation of WWI, takeover of Bavaria, WWII,
- Talmudic genocide and gulags,
- Internment camps of Germans and Japanese …

I believe Nazi socialism would be a short term miracle and would fail in the long run;
I believe Nationalism is an effective tool, but unhealthy as objective and not means;
I believe Strongman can be effective in fighting invasion, but to fight poison with poison is never the answer.

I believe a strict adherence to Constitution liberalism lends one vulnerable to infiltration and attacks.
But it is the right path in the long run.

But, that aside, we should evaluate history in a fair and balanced manner,

and no longer attach automatic stigma to investigation of, or even agreeing with the German side to the extent reasonable.

https://x.com/kanarymine2

Chris Langan has a ~200 IQ (seriously, look him up). Here are his thoughts:
...there are now too many others sharing these views to even begin listing them all, here. There are officially tens of millions of Americans and similar proportions around the world who are either quite open to (or wholly embracing) revisionist thought.

Nick (SanityCheck), more than a decade ago, you told me that revisionism was on its way out, that it was dying and that only the handful of crazies on the 2012 CODOH forum would still be holding onto these ideas, in just a few short years.

Now that these numbers have instead done the extreme opposite; i.e. revisionist views spreading some 1,000-fold what they were a decade ago, what do you have to say? How do you explain this, if not that revisionist arguments are indeed compelling, even among highly-intelligent and honest people? Is it all just "hate"? Or, is intelligence exclusive to those who have spent years glued to Hollywood portrayals and echo-chamber-academia?

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 9:29 pm I just wanted to take a moment for anyone who is unclear, to highlight the fact that revisionism -- on a logical and intellectual basis, at least -- is "winning".

I see you miss out evidence. You are well and truly losing when it comes to evidence. Revisionsists cannot evidence, let alone agree on what really happened. That seriosuly undermines your claims about winning logically and intelectually.

Don't let the pompous verbosity of Dr. Nick Terry (SanityCheck) fool you -- he will spam you with decades' worth of loosely-relevant and subtly-misrepresented (or sometimes downright-false) knowledge and documentation, but at the very core of proper investigation and reasoning, there is no doubt that revisionists have had the upper hand.

Why do I say this? Here are just a few reasons, see for yourself:

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

NO WOOD
- Anyone who does even a minimal investigation into the question of fuel and logging at AR camps and other claimed sites of mass cremation will quickly find that this is an area that went neglected in the deceptive narrative-formation of the "Holocaust". They simply forgot to factor in the fuel required for their outrageous claims. I will spare the in-depth emphasis on this (see the Holocaust Encyclopedia for comprehensive analyses) but let it suffice to say: the alleged cremations absolutely cannot have happened without the greatest manual logging operation in human history... yet, there are scant testimonies (and certainly no documentary nor physical evidence) that even mention such an operation taking place at all.

There is evidence of wood being delivered for camp construction from Polish sawmills, so it would not be hard to get suitable wood delivered for pyres. That there is little surviving evidence just means there is little evidence, it is does not therefore mean no wood got delivered.

LITTLE REMAINS
- A small fraction of what corpse remains should be there is located at Sobibor, orders of magnitude less than expected at Belzec, and virtually nothing at all found at Treblinka (which should vastly overshadow all of the AR camps). With trains being unloaded for property confiscation and sorting, this was also a time to unload corpses (amid massive disease epidemic and wartime), etc., from the cleared ghettos. Corpse disposal at some capacity has nothing whatsoever to do with claimed extreme murder campaigns. The remains measured on-site at these locations thoroughly refute any claim of 'Holocausted' Jews.

You provide no details, just assertions, as to expected and found quantities of remains. It is a denier tactic, to minimise the physical evidence found at the camps.

NO INCRIMINATING IRON-CYANIDE
- Despite multiple attempts, scientists and researchers across-the-board have repeatedly failed to invalidate Rudolf's findings at Birkenau: that there are no incriminating traces of iron-cyanide in the brick/mortar in the alleged 'chambers'. This is strong evidence directly contradicting the claim of Zyklon-B used to kill many thousands, let alone millions, at Birkenau.

There is evidence the inside of the Kremas were exposed to HCN.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"- Forensic report by Jan Robel (Cracow Forensic Institute) of 25 December 1945 on qualitative determination of cyanide on sheet zinc ventilation grills assigned to the crematoria 2 or 3 by Polish investigating judge Jan Sehn
- Chemical investigation of the gas chamber's ruins by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala and Jerzy Labedz (Cracow Forensic Institute) and their quantitative determination of (non-Prussian Blue) cyanide residues in the gas chamber's walls [Markiewicz et al., A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps] (related Revisionist arguments are discussed by chemist Richard Green here)

NO GAS VANS
- No 'gas van' nor any blueprints, drawings, etc. for such a vehicle has ever been found. All of our understanding in this regard comes from rumors, spurious documentation, and problematic post-war trials and interrogations. Additionally, claims of these vans are often inconsistent and riddled with absurdities and obvious embellishments.

It is merely your biased opinion that asserts the evidence for gas vans is spurious and should all be dismissed.

PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

NO CLEARED FORESTS
- Air photos during the war show forests which remain lush and full (or only lightly cleared) surrounding various camps which allegedly had partaken in the largest manual logging operation in history. Exterminationists are forced to claim that massive shipments of fuel were transported in (by someone, someway, at some time), with zero documentary records supporting their beliefs.

There are no surviving documents from the AR camps themselves. That means there is an explanation as to why there is documentation relating to wood deliveries. Getting wood delivered, when trains ran into the camps, would not have been as difficult as you suggest.

NO CONSTANT CREMATIONS
- Air photos have also consistently shown a lack of massive cremation pyres (e.g. smoke, burnt ground, rutted or heavily disturbed earth/areas, or other cremation traces) where and when they were expected to be, based on witness testimony. At places like Babi Yar, Birkenau, and others, the traces simply are not there.

Aerial photos are just a tiny snapshot and for most of the time, the camps were out of range during their operations. Photos at A-B show smoke where witnesses describe outdoor pyres and the AR camps are shown to have been razed to the ground and containing large areas of disturbed ground that had been planted over, consistent with the cover up.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

NO SHUNTING
- PrudentRegret has pointed out (here: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26&start=30) the glaring lack of any documentation whatsoever that some 800,000 Jews had ever actually arrived at T-II -- there are no records at all that Jews arrived anywhere other than Malkinia/Treblinka, but exterminationists suggest these trains did not actually arrive at Malkinia/Treblinka but, instead, at T-II, which is 1-3 km away. This massive shunting operation (i.e. a diversion of the entire train or part of it onto an entirely separate, smaller track) is claimed by only one problematic witness and is documented nowhere.

The splitting and shunting of trains into camps such as TII is described by Polish railworkers and witnesses who were on the trains.

The Hofle Telegram records over 700,000 arriving at TII by the end of 1942 and the mass transports to the camp are supported by ghetto transport records, the Ganzenmueller Letter and Stroop Report.

You are again making false claims to minimise the actual volume of evidence. You do that to deflect from the revisionist lack of evidence and to support your desired belief.

NO 'REINHARD'
- Also from PrudentRegret's great work over recent years (same thread above), we can confirm that 'Aktion Reinhardt' is indeed named after Fritz Reinhardt (and not Reinhard Heydrich), which makes clear its role as an economic operation (dispossession/reclamation of Jewish property), having nothing to do with 'extermination'.

Whoever the operation was named after, the evidence is that it was the operation to clear ghettos and kill the remaining Jews, whilst stealing the last of their possessions. PRs theory fails to evidence what happened to the Jews once they had left the ghetto and had all their property stolen from them, so it is incomplete.

NO EXPLICIT, CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS/ORDERS
- As is well-known, there has never been any 'extermination order' documented. The exterminationist view relies upon claims of 'code words', above all else.

There is a Hitler Order for T4, proving that he approved of the killing of people who did not fit the Nazi Aryan ideal. That virtually all of the AR staff came from T4, proves a direct connection between the operations. That codes words were used for killing makes sense. The revisionist claim that those code words actually refer to resettlement, makes no sense.

NO EXPLICIT, CONTEMPORARY ADMISSIONS OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- All such claims and suggestions of contemporary wartime "admissions" about the 'Holocaust' have shown to be misrepresentations by historians and researchers peddling an anti-German narrative. Hitler's 'prophecy' being regularly framed as a reference to 'extermination' is a prime example of this, as this can be conclusively shown to have had nothing to do with genocide nor even mass killing of Jews.
NOT IN DIARIES
- Not even in the top Nazis' own diaries do we find a shred of evidence about 'Holocaust' killing. In fact, we find the opposite: explicit references to a policy of Jewish expulsion and literal evacuation. Yet even here, the mainstream claims these are "code words", and that these top Nazi officials have lied to themselves in their own private diaries.
NOT IN DECODES
- Even if one were to accept the ridiculous view that the top Nazis all lied to themselves in their diaries, we should at least expect that the decodes of the most top secret intercepted correspondence coming from major camps like Birkenau would include at least some mention of 'gassing' or other extermination operations. But alas, not a word.
LABOR CAMPS LATE IN WAR
- As shown elsewhere (at RODOH, CODOH 1.0), there is data with source documentation showing clearly that Jewish labor camps were open in the Eastern-occupied territories even very late into the war. While most would have been cleared to relocate Jews to more secure sites (records of which have not survived), the fact that many remained open even well-into 1944 and beyond highlights that no universal extermination policy had been implemented, even by this time.

Everyone involved in AR was required to sign a document regarding the secrecy of the operation. The Nazis were hardly going to publicise their work during the war, especially after they knew they would likely lose it. Then, secrecy switched to cover up.

The AR camps primarily operated 1941-3, when the British were not yet decoding a lot of enigma transmissions. The significance of those camps was not understood at that time. In 1944, the priority was the Normany invasion, not a camp in Poland, so as messages were being decoded and were established to be irrelevant to planned operations, they were dumped.

After the war, every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admitted to their use for mass gassings. Not one broke ranks or accidentally blew the supposed hoax. The Nazis safe in South America kept quiet, when they could have defended their collegues on trial in Europe or Israel.

There is no evidence from any source, of millions of Jews in Nazi camps in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

WITNESS CREDIBILITY

FREQUENCY OF LIES, ESPECIALLY KEY WITNESSES
- In addition to memeable 'survivors' like Irene Zisblatt, Moshe Peer, and others, we find that many of the most important witnesses (i.e. those frequently cited by orthodox historians) for the most important 'Holocaust' sites have turned out to have remarkable patterns of obvious falsehoods and other major inconsistencies. For Treblinka, see here: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... linka/889/

Revisionist assessment of the witness evidence is based on zero experience of gathering witness testimony, interviews and the numerous studies into witness behaviour, memory and recollection. It is just biased opinion that wants to disblieve, resulting in the extraordinary conclusion that 100% of the witnesses, Jewish and Nazi, all lied and despite millions of people having been inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, not one person can be traced, who speaks to a function other than gassings.

NO IN-GROUP ACCOUNTABILITY
- What is just as shocking as seeing the lies like those mentioned above is the total lack of in-group accountability among Jews and 'survivors'. There is no record of any significant campaign or initiative, nor even a pattern, of Jewish survivors (or any Allied powers) working against these obvious lies being presented as truth. This suggests a common effort toward a narrative which permits (or encourages) these lies.

The "in-group" is extraordinarily disparate, with German and Ukrainian SS, German civilians, Polish civilains and Jewish prisoners from multiple countries. They spoke different languages, most never met and they had very different agendas. Yet, they all agree, gassings took place.

NO FORMAL ACCOUNTABILITY
- There have been no trials nor inquisitions of any kind against 'survivors' nor anyone else claiming even the most extreme and falsified Nazi 'atrocities'.

The Nazis on trial all admitted to their crimes. That is why no survivor witness was subject to cross examination to dispute their testimony as lying. That witnesses made exaggerated, hyperbolic and mistaken claims during trials, is normal for witnesses and it does not prove lying.

LYING POWERS

USA
- Beyond its more obvious defamation efforts against Germany in the postwar era (e.g. the Buchenwald exhibit), the USA (CIA) has clearly taken a part in fabricating anti-German lies in a more covert way, see here: https://odysee.com/@Denierbud:0/ciaduringworldwar2:1
UK
- Aside from Churchill's blatant and deceptive warmongering, it appears the British were perfectly open to falsification of the record against Germany as well, disseminating the fraudulent Sprenger letter and using it as evidence at Nuremberg.
SOVIET UNION
- Does anything need to be said, here? This is the world champion of show trials, having carried them out shamelessly before, during and after the war. 'Show trial' means straight-up fabricating evidence, officially-sanctioned lies, and everything in between.
POLISH
- "Raubsicherungspolitik", see here (Introduction video, ca. 16:30): https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/
NO CROSS-ACCOUNTABILITY
- No major instances of certain Allied powers formally distancing themselves or openly rejecting the lies of another, not even of the Soviet Union, when it came to the 'Holocaust' and treatment of Germans post-war.

The majority of AR camp and various A-B camp trials took place in West and unified Germany, run by Germans, under German law.

Revisionists like to suggest the Holocaust was a Soviet hoax. It was in the wests interest to expose that as a hoax and have West Germany and the Germans in general exhonerated from such a false accusation.

COMPLICATING CIRCUMSTANCES

IRON CURTAIN
- There is no doubt that the "Iron Curtain" was intended to hide one or multiple secrets. This is significant, because deep behind the Iron Curtain is precisely where Jews were being evacuated to by Germany during the war.

If it was a Soviet hoax, it was very much in the interests of the governments of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine to expose that hoax in the 19990s, when they gain their independence. Instead, they all continue to admit to their roles in assisting the Nazis with the killings.

ZIONISM
- Jews (and their power networks) openly sought to motivate all Jews to Israel/Palestine, and recognized narratives of persecution increased this motivation substantially. Patterns of false claims regarding missing, persecuted, or murdered Jews (published in Jewish media) make clear a Jewish intention to promote such a narrative, especially with use of the figure "6 million", even predating WW2.

It was the Polish who originated and drove the early narrative of camps for mass killings and who went on to conduct numerous camp trials and to memorialise and publicise what happened. It does not work, even for the strongest conspiratorial mind, to believe that the Poles can fool the world, but they can believe the Jews have such power.

SUPPRESSING DISSENT
- Those who criticize or challenge the Holocaust narrative are suppressed in doing so. One may argue this is to "protect the memory of victims" but this requires an assumption and it is just as valid to say the suppression is intended to maintain or protect a narrative which is false or invalid and, thus, especially vulnerable to informed criticism.

People who spread an unevidenced, false narrative, based on anti-Semitic tropes, designed to create hate for Jews, do get suppressed. They have fallen for a bizarre hoax that is on the same level as the earth is flat, so of course they will be cricised and any academic who falls for it, ostracised.

GERMANY WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE JEWS
- There is no question that Israel has been an atrocious, subversive, dishonest, and hostile element in Palestine (just ask Palestinians). Moreover, there is no question that Jewish power has been maintained (through media, finance, and other institutions they were once accused of subverting in Germany) as communist/leftist ideologies have increased within all Western nations, as their economies have frequently plummeted, with increased inflation (generally proportionate to the level of Jewish control there). Those informed on the matter have reasonably concluded Israel had a foremost role in the 9/11 attacks (control of all key positions in every major institution surrounding 9/11, from the Twin Towers themselves to media conglomerates, FBI's criminal division, airline security, etc.; along with massive geopolitical motives in the "War on Terror"), likely orchestrated the JFK assassination (JFK's intention was to require Israel to register as a foreign agent and to require inspection the Dimona nuclear facility, there is clear evidence of Jewish coordination of JFK's visit to Texas, Jack Ruby [killer of JFK's shooter] is actually Jack Rubenstein, a Jewish mobster), and other major events which have shifted global power in their favor. Israel has the most notorious record of false flags and early forms of terrorism, even by establishment history's open admission.

That is evidence to prove Holocaust denial appeals to anti-Semitic conspiracists.

As mentioned earlier, this is a very incomplete summary of some of what I personally consider as powerful indications that the exterminationist side has been losing (and will continue to lose) the battle insofar as valid argumentation and sound reasoning on claims of the 'Holocaust'. Others no doubt have items they might like to add to this list (as do I) but I thought to share this here as a "launching pad" for any visitors who might be new to this topic, to start researching further.

Revisionism is doomed to always lose, as it cannot produce a contemporaneous, chronologically evidenced history of what happened and it relies on logically flawed arguments and lies about the evidence.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 8:06 pm Nick (SanityCheck), more than a decade ago, you told me that revisionism was on its way out, that it was dying and that only the handful of crazies on the 2012 CODOH forum would still be holding onto these ideas, in just a few short years.

Now that these numbers have instead done the extreme opposite; i.e. revisionist views spreading some 1,000-fold what they were a decade ago, what do you have to say? How do you explain this, if not that revisionist arguments are indeed compelling, even among highly-intelligent and honest people? Is it all just "hate"? Or, is intelligence exclusive to those who have spent years glued to Hollywood portrayals and echo-chamber-academia?

1. No, I've consistently said since circa 2010 that 'revisonism' in the classic form has been in decline, in terms of the numbers of active revisionists who produce books and articles and of their core supporters. I.e. the IHR-CODOH form of 'revisionism', which has demonstrably shrunk. Many of the earlier big names passed away, others retired, a few declared apostasy, there have not been too many stepping up to replace Faurisson, Smith, Berg, Kues, Crowell, Weber and others. The active core is now down to Germar Rudolf, Thomas Dalton, Carlo Mattogno and John Wear with a few others contributing on CODOH website (Hadding Scott is a further name).

I don't see this claim is in reasonable dispute. It is not however the same as saying Holocaust denial 'is on its way out'. The only way to refute my longstanding claim would be if there were new authors contributing to the Holocaust Handbooks series in such a way as to take over from Mattogno when he eventually becomes too old or passes away, and the way such authors would develop is by writing articles first. The recent story with the Holocaust Encyclopedia which was 95%+ written by a single author confirms the shrinking of this level of the 'scene'.

That can change - but it would reverse a trend visible for almost 15 years.



2. 'Revisionism' could sustain a journal from 1978 onwards, first the Journal for Historical Review until 2002, then overlapping with this, the Smith Report, The Revisionist and Germar Rudolf's journal VffG (until 2006). From the late 2000s there has been Inconvenient History, but few of the contributors active in the late 2000s/early 2010s are still around, and the main contributor is now John Wear.

There are relatively few other platforms that host parallel content, mainly Unz.com and a few blogs like holocaustclaims.com. But there were similar platforms a decade ago, and most of the parallel activity has declined. Some because of deaths (Friedrich Paul Berg), some because of retirements (Carolyn Yeager). Then as now, various websites and platforms which ought to be more sympathetic have not often featured 'revisionist' content. I'm thinking in particuar of Occidental Dissent/Observer and Counter Currents. This is why Unz.com has become the main magnet for a wider 'promotion' or summary of 'revisionism' in written form, but Unz.com doesn't feature the kinds of nominal research pieces that the JHR and CODOH have.

'Revisionism' was once very comparable with other movements of enthusiasts who aspired to promote a set of ideas in classic forms. Examples would be JFK assassination research, UFOlogy, and 9/11 Truth in its first years. All could organise conferences, had books to read and in the 2000s/2010s videos to watch, and commanded the support of minorities of academics. 'Revisionism' still does if we remember that Butz is still alive (and still tenured), and if we accept Dalton's claim to be, or have been, a professor of humanities. These movements were all rejected one way or another by the mainstream, but some were more acceptable than others, UFOlogy in particular.



3. Big tech moved to clamp down on Holocaust denial in the late 2010s, restricting videos from YouTube, books from Amazon, posts from Twitter. Some of this migrated elsewhere and 'Holocaust denial' never went away. There are videos on Bitchute, Odyssee and interviews with, well, basically now just Germar Rudolf as the sole public face of 'revisionism'.

Some of the restrictions have eased after Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into X. That is a relatively recent trend, and this has meant increased discussion of various ideas and claims which might have been censored on Twitter at the turn of the 2010s/2020s. 'Redpilling' did not stop just because various podcasters were banned from YouTube in 2019-2020.

This includes a lot more discussion of Bolshevism including of Jewish Bolshevism, and WWII revisionism regarding origins, responsibility, blame. That was the point with Daryl Cooper's interview with Tucker Carlson, which attracted a lot of ire from the centre-right/classic conservatives and saw a lot of people call Cooper or Carlson a 'Holocaust denier'. Cooper did not in fact 'deny' the Holocaust in the classic sense.

The examples you reposted generally fit into this vein, not the style of classic IHR-CODOH 'revisionism'. But this is all happening at the same time as X has enabled a great deal of classic antisemitism as much as newer-style anti-Zionism, among other views. Classic Holocaust 'revisionism' has to compete for attention with these stances, just as it was and is competing with other conspiracy theories in the 2000s and 2010s, including the flat-earth revival mid decade. There are some painful overlaps which make a lot of this look pretty toxic to the mainstream.



4. My point regarding noting the decline of classic 'revisionism' was about the difficulty of replacing the older generation of 'revisionists' who once drove things forward. This never precluded a new generation emerging semi-independently or adopting other media and platforms.

But so far the new aficionados have not written anything substantive. In the current media ecospheres, one would expect more Substacks, blogs etc, and indeed books. Maybe Amazon's continued ban has restricted some opportunities here, but if so then there'd be more article-length work on different platforms.

The pattern with every big claim is that these exist, there are advocates who also have substantial X followings and profiles. Daryl Cooper/Martyr Made has a Substack and podcast and was on the interview circuit; this is the kind of profile I'm talking about. He wrote articles for his Substack after the Carlson interview and can sustain thinking past a few hundred words of an X post.

The current situation thus looks like a lot of followers but few leaders. The followers will either move on, remain stale in their fixed views or develop into leaders and the next generation.

5. Germar Rudolf recently held a space on X which had getting towards 150,000 checking in. That was when I last saw it; if it's still on X it could attract a few more over time. It was over 110-130,000 shortly after the original broadcast. This actually fits with what I have assumed the wider audience for 'revisionism' to be, based on web traffic statistics and estimates in the 2010s. One cannot know how many logged in and out and inadvertently boosted the headline count, or started listening and gave up, or were unconvinced, or were already long-standing fans of Rudolf and bought Lectures on the Holocaust in its 2nd or 3rd edition a decade ago.

Germar Rudolf has been very active in promoting classic 'revisionism' wherever and whenever he can. He was being interviewed on Red Ice Radio and other podcasts/platforms aeons ago, some of which were booted off YouTube and some continued elsewhere. He is also very candid about the challenges classic 'revisionism - his business - faces, and would also not be shy of promoting successes or noting increased sales in due course.

I'm sure we'll see more 'events' and metrics which look encouraging, but what are they going to translate to? Book sales for Rudolf? Inspiring new revisionists to research? Take the spiel on tour to ever bigger podcasts and eventually land on Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan? Any of that could happen. I'm waiting to see if any of it does.

6. Your OP highlighted various assertions, claims and arguments which you say mean you're 'winning'. Actually they are all pretty esoteric points requiring knowledge of the topic and which might not make for the best introductory hooks. The apparent growth of support for Holocaust denial might well simply be down to groypers buying Nick Fuentes' simplistic arguments about six million cookies. If you're content with an idiocracy then that's not a problem, but in the idiocracy none of your OP's assertions or claims are needed.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 6:54 pmNo, I've consistently said since circa 2010 that 'revisonism' in the classic form has been in decline, in terms of the numbers of active revisionists who produce books and articles and of their core supporters.

It's a little bit ridiculous to claim that this would have been the case "since circa 2010", given the vast amounts of quality primary research published by revisionists between 2010 and 2024.

By a similar token, the orthodox view of the Holocaust is in decline, because the number of books and articles dealing with actual Holocaust historiography has been shrinking for decades and has virtually disappeared in the last 10-15 years. There used to be a semblence of quasi-academic exchanges between scholarly Holocaust revisionists and some orthodox Holocaust researchers. But in 2024, the field of 'Holocaust research' consists, for the most part, of lachrymose moralism, sociological and psychological analyses of European antisemitism, and so on. Very little deals with the evidentiary basis for the Holocaust, because it's been largely debunked, and engaging with revisionist arguments is deemed counter productive. You could filter out Mattogno's bibliography alone to lay waste to 99% of 'serious' Holocaust research. What remains of real Holocaust historiography is mostly confined to online bloggers or mentally ill anti-revisionists who've made it their life's purpose to attempt to prove the Holocaust in fruitless online discussions or blog posts.

I would say most of what really has to be said about the Holocaust from a revisionist perspective has been said. Primary documents are being gatekept in obscure archives and by laws preventing revisionists from accessing important materials. Although Mattogno has historically had insiders in the Auschwitz Museum, there are still vast amounts of documents that simply will never be made public, let alone made accessible to revisionist researchers — once again highlighting the exceedingly immature and anti-scientific nature of Holocaust academia as a whole.

Ignoring revisionism as a research subject for a moment, there's simply the fact that 'the Holocaust' as a historical matter in the minds of most people is in rapid decline. Most people simply do not care about what supposedly happened to the Jews during WWII. 50 years from now, the Holocaust as a research field will be mostly gone, perhaps with a few Jewish holdout academics still keeping the field alive. Meanwhile, even fewer people around the world will give a crap, now that most 'survivors' are no longer around.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 2:42 am I would say most of what really has to be said about the Holocaust from a revisionist perspective has been said. Primary documents are being gatekept in obscure archives and by laws preventing revisionists from accessing important materials. Although Mattogno has historically had insiders in the Auschwitz Museum, there are still vast amounts of documents that simply will never be made public, let alone made accessible to revisionist researchers — once again highlighting the exceedingly immature and anti-scientific nature of Holocaust academia as a whole.

What is important to add to the above is what I find to be somewhat of an "elephant in the room" among revisionists, in particular: the fact that given a century under the jurisdiction and immediate control of deceptive powers, it is likely that any of the most exonerating documentation favoring a revisionist perspective has already been removed or otherwise tampered with. The more time passes, this increasingly becomes the case. Nobody has implemented hyper-surveillance against Jewish historians (or archive staff/management) as they pull/examine records at Bad Arolsen or anywhere else, whereas you can be damned sure this is how revisionists (and certainly "Nazis") are treated, if they are allowed in at all (they aren't). Altogether, given the pattern of everything from false flags and illegal arrests to downright terrorism (especially from the Zionist camp), not to mention other state interests (e.g. CIA), there is little doubt that the same types of deception/manipulation we've seen from the Holocaust narrative overall would not exempt the archival records themselves. Quite the contrary, I think these records would be among the first order of importance to mitigate 'dangerous views' from finding evidentiary support in the postwar era.

It's a complex situation which extends beyond the realm of the normal circumstances in historiography. Global powers and subversive campaigns in a period where propaganda/narrative reigns supreme -- these are not (and perhaps cannot be) adequately accounted for in the historian's treatment of archival records on the 'Holocaust'.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 3:12 am

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 2:42 am I would say most of what really has to be said about the Holocaust from a revisionist perspective has been said. Primary documents are being gatekept in obscure archives and by laws preventing revisionists from accessing important materials. Although Mattogno has historically had insiders in the Auschwitz Museum, there are still vast amounts of documents that simply will never be made public, let alone made accessible to revisionist researchers — once again highlighting the exceedingly immature and anti-scientific nature of Holocaust academia as a whole.

What is important to add to the above is what I find to be somewhat of an "elephant in the room" among revisionists, in particular: the fact that given a century under the jurisdiction and immediate control of deceptive powers, it is likely that any of the most exonerating documentation favoring a revisionist perspective has already been removed or otherwise tampered with. The more time passes, this increasingly becomes the case. Nobody has implemented hyper-surveillance against Jewish historians (or archive staff/management) as they pull/examine records at Bad Arolsen or anywhere else, whereas you can be damned sure this is how revisionists (and certainly "Nazis") are treated, if they are allowed in at all (they aren't). Altogether, given the pattern of everything from false flags and illegal arrests to downright terrorism (especially from the Zionist camp), not to mention other state interests (e.g. CIA), there is little doubt that the same types of deception/manipulation we've seen from the Holocaust narrative overall would not exempt the archival records themselves. Quite the contrary, I think these records would be among the first order of importance to mitigate 'dangerous views' from finding evidentiary support in the postwar era.

It's a complex situation which extends beyond the realm of the normal circumstances in historiography. Global powers and subversive campaigns in a period where propaganda/narrative reigns supreme -- these are not (and perhaps cannot be) adequately accounted for in the historian's treatment of archival records on the 'Holocaust'.

It's beyond question that in the immediate post-war period, vast amounts of exonerating records were destroyed. Only what was deemed useful for the proseuction and accusers was kept. As for the contents of these archives in 2024, I'm not so sure there's been any recent weeding of "problematic" documents, because much of what would be considered exonerating today is probably considered obscure junk to most researchers and archivists. I'm talking 'mundane' train records, banal information on camps, details on train arrivals and departures, and so on. Archives in countries like Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, etc., have probably not been investigated for decades.

As for researchers deliberately tampering with the historical record, one example that comes to mind is probably Gerald Fleming's visit to the Moscow archives in the 90's. He was the first to discover the important Topf interrogations, but instead of copying them he falsified the archival references to make it impossible for revisionists to find them. Only by a stroke of luck did Graf and Mattogno re-discover them a few years later. Fleming also changed the year for one of the Topf engineer's answer to a question, from 1942 to 1943, to account for an obvious anachronism.

From what I understand, the Auschwitz Museum in Poland still holds a gigantic archive, much of which is basically unknown. Sometimes a researcher at the archive will drop a few new documents (such as with Kubica's study on Mengele), documents that would be considered groundbreaking from a revisionist perspective but which had been previously completely unknown to the outside world. In Kubica's study on Mengele, she basically unwittingly exonerated Mengele from the accusations of unscientific and sadistic experiments. So who knows what else is out there.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 3:32 am ....

It's beyond question that in the immediate post-war period, vast amounts of exonerating records were destroyed. Only what was deemed useful for the proseuction and accusers was kept...

That is just an assertion. You have no evidence.

As for researchers deliberately tampering with the historical record, one example that comes to mind is probably Gerald Fleming's visit to the Moscow archives in the 90's. He was the first to discover the important Topf interrogations, but instead of copying them he falsified the archival references to make it impossible for revisionists to find them. Only by a stroke of luck did Graf and Mattogno re-discover them a few years later. Fleming also changed the year for one of the Topf engineer's answer to a question, from 1942 to 1943, to account for an obvious anachronism.

You have contradicted yourself, the Topf documents were not made impossible to find, as they were found. If a year was changed, that is likely a mistake, either by the engineer, or the historian and it is unlikely to be significant.

From what I understand, the Auschwitz Museum in Poland still holds a gigantic archive, much of which is basically unknown. Sometimes a researcher at the archive will drop a few new documents (such as with Kubica's study on Mengele), documents that would be considered groundbreaking from a revisionist perspective but which had been previously completely unknown to the outside world. In Kubica's study on Mengele, she basically unwittingly exonerated Mengele from the accusations of unscientific and sadistic experiments. So who knows what else is out there.

You are just revealing your bias, where you will always interpret evidence to exonerate the Nazis.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 2:42 am

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 6:54 pmNo, I've consistently said since circa 2010 that 'revisonism' in the classic form has been in decline, in terms of the numbers of active revisionists who produce books and articles and of their core supporters.

It's a little bit ridiculous to claim that this would have been the case "since circa 2010", given the vast amounts of quality primary research published by revisionists between 2010 and 2024.

Almost all by one writer, Carlo Mattogno. Revisionism used to be a research community of sorts, and could stage conferences, but there have been none since the 2000s (the Teheran conference was about the last such event, and was a bit B-list). Once upon a time revisionism could publish an edited collection, Dissecting the Holocaust, in 2023 Germar Rudolf had to write a large encyclopedia almost single handedly.

It's not healthy if all the eggs are placed into just a couple of baskets, what happens when Mattogno grows too old?

In 2010, things were somewhat healthier because Mattogno was co-writing with Graf and Kues, but Kues vanished in 2013 and Graf returned to Switzerland and retired from active revisionism (although he has put out some recaps in German under a pseudonym), and is now apparently battling illness.

By a similar token, the orthodox view of the Holocaust is in decline, because the number of books and articles dealing with actual Holocaust historiography has been shrinking for decades and has virtually disappeared in the last 10-15 years.

This is so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin.

There used to be a semblence of quasi-academic exchanges between scholarly Holocaust revisionists and some orthodox Holocaust researchers.

Most of that ended almost a quarter of a century ago with the Irving vs Lipstadt trial; Michael Shermer's book dates originally back to 2000.

But in 2024, the field of 'Holocaust research' consists, for the most part, of lachrymose moralism, sociological and psychological analyses of European antisemitism, and so on. Very little deals with the evidentiary basis for the Holocaust, because it's been largely debunked, and engaging with revisionist arguments is deemed counter productive. You could filter out Mattogno's bibliography alone to lay waste to 99% of 'serious' Holocaust research. What remains of real Holocaust historiography is mostly confined to online bloggers or mentally ill anti-revisionists who've made it their life's purpose to attempt to prove the Holocaust in fruitless online discussions or blog posts.

Again, this is completely wide of the mark. One finds far more articles and books about the key extermination camps in recent decades; there hardly were any in standalone form for quite a long time. Once there was Arad 1987 and now there is a shelf full of dedicated studies of the individual Reinhard camps along with articles and chapters examining aspects. There was barely any archaeological literature 25 years ago but this has grown substantially, especially in Poland. The same with regional studies where killings were taking place on the spot or alongside deportations.

The evidence has grown in this time, especially with contemporary non-German or unofficial German sources (diaries, letters, fugitive accounts, contemporay manuscripts). It's also become more accessible via document editions (the Persecution and Murder of the European Jews series, originally in German published in 16 volumes over circa 2007-2020; the 36 volume Ringelblum Archive complete edition which is steadily being translated to English as well), digitisation and discussion in syntheses and overviews.

There's also simply more on the postwar investigations, trials, aftermath, historiography and memory themes, which adds up to a clearer picture of how interest evolved in the post-1945 era, and often casts light on 'the core' - if someone researches the origins of the Auschwitz or Majdanek museums or looks into 1940s grave-robbing in Poland, this often provides further evidence for the key sites as well.

I would say most of what really has to be said about the Holocaust from a revisionist perspective has been said. Primary documents are being gatekept in obscure archives and by laws preventing revisionists from accessing important materials. Although Mattogno has historically had insiders in the Auschwitz Museum, there are still vast amounts of documents that simply will never be made public, let alone made accessible to revisionist researchers — once again highlighting the exceedingly immature and anti-scientific nature of Holocaust academia as a whole.

While you can bemoan that this or that archive hasn't yet put all its files online, digitisation especially in the past 5 years but going back really almost 15 years has transformed things. So primary sources, contemporary documents and indeed many postwar investigations and trials are infinitely more accessible, going well beyond having the Nuremberg trial records/volumes online.

An incomplete list of online open access resources is maintained here - there are some big new additions not yet integrated into the list, but it is quite a lot to be getting on with.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... s-and.html

The Nazi, Holocaust and WWII era has benefited more than other eras from digitisation; most national archives are at about 2% of holdings scanned, so one cannot whine that something hasn't been put online yet when this is true for countless other runs of important papers. What is now online for the Holocaust and the context of the 1930s-1940s is decidedly above average.

One other benefit of digitisation is expanding what one can search and consider afresh. The Swiss Federal Archive is a good example; the key files were gone over in the past especially in the 1990s, but they've been assiduous in digitising their records with the goal of complete digitisation ahead of most other countries, and this has included the WWII-era diplomatic and military intelligence files. Those were 'known' already and some key examples included in the diplomatic documents published series (which was online many years ago), but now one can read the files in raw form, including for example interrogations of German deserters who witnessed or knew about mass killings. Contemporary sources, in a neutral archive. These were known about from at the latest 1997.

These sources can be compared with two other collections/categories which historians have worked with extensively in recent decades. The British and Americans bugged rooms in POW camps to record conversations between German POWs, and did this in the US, UK and on continental Europe, to gather intelligence - they rejected using them for war crimes cases so as not to expose the method/source. The files were declassified a while back, one of the first to highlight the so-called CSDIC conversations was in fact David Irving. But other historians located further examples in the US archives and they've been written up in the 2000s and 2010s, with an eye for broader themes as well. They also however discuss mass killings and reactions to such killings (i.e. what soldiers thought about Nazi Jewish policy and how many regarded this as extermination).

Field post letters were already a key source for the Wehrmacht from the 1980s at the latest, due to a collection in Stuttgart. Today however there are several more museums of communication and other archives which have collected further examples. As great-grandparents and grandparents pass away, a lot has come tumbling out of attics, including more diaries but also letters. So some of these collections are now online, thus one can check them, and not just rely on the historians who researched in them just before they were digitised.

So these examples - Swiss interrogations, CSDIC bugged conversations, field post letters, alongside diaries and memoirs which have been published in larger numbers - give us significantly more source material on the experiences of German soldiers in WWII, a worthy research topic in its own right, but also one that does overlap with the Holocaust and other German war crimes. The mix of direct witness material and hearsay is crucial to show how knowledge did and did not spread among German soldiers, and what was more known about than not. It thickens up the sources for specific countries, regions and towns.

As an example, Irving made a big deal out of the bugged conversation where Generalmajor Walter Bruns recounted his knowledge of the Rumbula massacre from when he was in Riga on the day and went to investigate. This is now so well known it's included in a selective exhibition of German history in documents and images put online many years ago by the German Historical Institute in Washington, DC: https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cf ... nt_id=1531
Hardly the only source on the Rumbula massacre, but a striking one (and a good one to discuss critically with students).

I recently came across another CSDIC conversation about another killing site in Latvia, the coastal town of Liepaja, again dating from before the end of the war, and appropriately involving German sailors, since Liepaja became a naval base. Liepaja is extremely well documented in SS/Police reports, but also Jewish diaries, and also features one of the few known home movie camera film sequences of an execution (in the summer of 1941) and is known for a sequence of photographs of executions in late 1941. There are now TWO whole books on the late 1941 photos, both published within the past 10 years, as well as articles on the film footage. The new 'find' is not adding a huge amount or changing anything, or a 'smoking gun' compared to the film and photos or the SS reports. But the conversation is independent evidence and thickens things up.

Ignoring revisionism as a research subject for a moment, there's simply the fact that 'the Holocaust' as a historical matter in the minds of most people is in rapid decline. Most people simply do not care about what supposedly happened to the Jews during WWII. 50 years from now, the Holocaust as a research field will be mostly gone, perhaps with a few Jewish holdout academics still keeping the field alive. Meanwhile, even fewer people around the world will give a crap, now that most 'survivors' are no longer around.

It seems doubtful that the Holocaust is in 'rapid decline' when novels about Auschwitz have been multi-million worldwide bestsellers in recent years. But these just highlight how the topic is consumed and is just part of a wider consumer culture for aspects of the past, which has never and will never dominate in the ways that revisionists have often alleged. The Nazis and Holocaust are undoubtedly the most popular 'world history' topic in the English-speaking world, still, which causes resentments at those who wish to remind everyone of Stalin or whatever, but they fall behind American history or British history in those countries, and always have.

Also worth noting that all metrics - newspaper archive keyword searches, books published, feature films made - show a consistent 3-4 times more attention to WWII or Hitler/Nazi themes than the Holocaust. This is certainly true for the US (going by the NYT archive) and also the UK, it will be even more prominent in various European countries. Russia has been in thrall to a cult of the Great Patriotic War for several decades, and this downplays the Holocaust. The Holocaust is mostly invoked comparatively in China, as a way of making Japanese war crimes look bad.

Global migration, demographic change and cultural change are all going to make the 1930s-1940s in the umbrella sense of Hitler/Nazis/WWII/Holocaust seem less significant in the next few generations. The war generation has basically died off, but their children and grandchildren turned out to be surprisingly interested in the big event that loomed large in cultural life in the post-1945 world of the 20th Century.

The decline in interest began twenty plus years ago, going by NYT keyword results. Holocaust - 1970s: 2,061, 1980s: 5,155, 1990s: 7,647, 2000s: 5,994, 2010s: 4,510. But Hitler or Nazi NOT Holocaust was running at even higher levels. 1970s: 11,221, 1980s: 13,510, 1990s: 14,257, 2000s: 10,314; 2010s: 10.162.

A better way to look at it might be that there were real peaks of interest in the 1980s and 1990s, due to various pieces of apparently unfinished business from the war, especially after the end of the Cold War, with surges in comparisons because of Bosnia and Rwanda, while the survivor/war generation was on its way out, so one finds a high proportion of hits in recent decades are obituaries. The really big personalities who were most associated with the Holocaust and could be considered 'promoters' are now long dead - Wiesenthal in 2006 and Wiesel in 2016. Wiesel never got as much reporting in the British press as he did in the US press.

Another consideration: terms like Napoleonic were running higher than Holocaust until the 1980s, while medieval was only outpaced in the 1990s, and remains significantly more stable and robust, with 3977 hits in the 2010s - not to be sniffed at. Both running at 3000+ hits/decade with medieval surging to over 7000 hits in the 1980s-1990s, while Napoleonic mysteriously collapsed to 'only' 1574 hits in the 2010s. The US never had a proper medieval period so the uses of this term are either comparative/analogous (as in the Pulp Fiction line) or referring to medieval Europe/Islam.

So going by these examples, it seems unlikely that there will be a total collapse of interest, even if it subsides and is supplanted by interest in other eras.

The Hitler/Nazi hit rate is still extremely high, and these remain favoured reference points among less well informed people. Thus the comedy gold of Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'gazpacho police', and the wave of Nazi analogies with the anti-vaxxers in the pandemic, and the Nazi comparisons to Israel over Gaza. Then there's the late flurry of accusations that Trump is a fascist, which prompted yet more Hitler-talk. It seems everyone is still somewhat in thrall to the Third Reich, without any one particular perspective or stance always being enforced.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 3:12 am What is important to add to the above is what I find to be somewhat of an "elephant in the room" among revisionists, in particular: the fact that given a century under the jurisdiction and immediate control of deceptive powers, it is likely that any of the most exonerating documentation favoring a revisionist perspective has already been removed or otherwise tampered with. The more time passes, this increasingly becomes the case. Nobody has implemented hyper-surveillance against Jewish historians (or archive staff/management) as they pull/examine records at Bad Arolsen or anywhere else, whereas you can be damned sure this is how revisionists (and certainly "Nazis") are treated, if they are allowed in at all (they aren't). Altogether, given the pattern of everything from false flags and illegal arrests to downright terrorism (especially from the Zionist camp), not to mention other state interests (e.g. CIA), there is little doubt that the same types of deception/manipulation we've seen from the Holocaust narrative overall would not exempt the archival records themselves. Quite the contrary, I think these records would be among the first order of importance to mitigate 'dangerous views' from finding evidentiary support in the postwar era.

It's a complex situation which extends beyond the realm of the normal circumstances in historiography. Global powers and subversive campaigns in a period where propaganda/narrative reigns supreme -- these are not (and perhaps cannot be) adequately accounted for in the historian's treatment of archival records on the 'Holocaust'.

The null hypothesis for the absence of any particular set of records is that the Germans destroyed them before the end of the war, or they went up in smoke in an air raid. The gaps and missing records are too widespread. There are also documents indicating files had been destroyed, especially Globocnik's final report on Aktion Reinhardt noting the basic records were destroyed, and in other cases convincing testimonies or sources about whodunnit - Hitler's situation conference transcripts were destroyed by Scherff, the head of the OKW military history branch.

Appealing to missing records or insinuating that the Allies or Soviets destroyed them after the war is however Dog Ate My Homework territory. In the absence of particular sets of records, all investigators turn to other sources to fill in blanks. They would use foreign records, 'enemy' records, look for unofficial sources like diaries and letters not in the control of a state, and gather testimonies and eyewitness accounts.

This is what West Germany did when 'documenting' the Heimatvertreibungen: they solicited 30,000 accounts from expellees and refugees, knowing full well that they would not have access to official East Bloc archives. So they 'documented' using primarily eyewitness testimonies.

The Allies certainly made sure to interrogate a wide range of German officials and military personnel in 1945-46. They did this before the captured document mountains were fully surveyed. They knew some gaps might exist so it made sense to ask the Germans about their war. Operation Paperclip, the US Foreign Military Studies program, interviewing Speer and others for the US Strategic Bombing Survey, and other projects meant a lot of senior officials and officers were sat down and given free rein to give the view from 'the other side of the hill'. Many of the spins evolved in 1945 took generations to be exposed as self-serving claims, Speer and his team's influence on views of the German war economy was especially profound until the 1980s-1990s. The memoirs of German generals and marshals were enormously influential during the Cold War and remain so for views of Hitler as supreme commander.

The interrogations also included reconstructing the structure and organisation of the Third Reich, and all the key agencies. It was evidently very easy for captured Germans to explain departments, desks and staff divisions in central and regional offices, and name names. Many certainly used this as a way of deflecting from their involvement in war crimes, or soft-pedalled what they were actually doing in Poland, the Soviet Union or other occupied territories. That saved some but others were revealed as dissemblers through comparison with other people's claims.

One feature of the interrogations that is quite striking is how often there would be a discussion of the serial reports and other key sources, or of the key meetings/conferences that would soon enough become famous through the discovery of documents or checking of appointments calendars. The Wannsee conference was known about well before the surviving protocol was discovered. Hoettl described how Eichmann informed him of what is very clearly the Korherr report, but either Eichmann or Hoettl spun it or conflated it with a bigger estimate, and Hoettl wasn't clear on the dates. That doesn't change the fact that Hoettl knew about the circumstances of Himmler ordering the Korherr report, when nobody had as yet discovered the document.

There are certainly examples where now-destroyed documents were discussed, obviously including Hitler's situation conference transcripts. Wisliceny described being shown by Eichmann a Himmler directive for the extermination of unfit Jews in spring 1942, which is now lost, but it fits with other surviving documents that cascaded further down (Gestapo Mueller writing essentially the same thing to Einsatzkommando 3 in May 1942).

So to rise above Dog Ate My Homework, one needs to have a clear idea from other sources, most certainly including interrogations, memoirs, later accounts, written down in postwar Germany or in exile in Latin America or the Middle East, what documentation might "exonerate" the Nazis regarding the Final Solution and whether such records realistically would have survived to be captured.

Then there's the question of whether the overworked archivists would even know what they would be looking for that would be oh-so-explosive and warrant destruction and cover-up. I've yet to hear a clear hypothesis about what such missing sources might even be, much less whether they aren't going to be contradicted by documents that *did* survive.

One cannot write history without some form of direct sources; these do not have to be the official records especially if as is so obviously the case here, so many of them were burned by the Germans before the end of the war, and when huge swathes of records are missing (many Luftwaffe and Army files, especially from the latter stages of the war, and lower level regimental/battalion records which survive in only fragmentary form), without this absence being especially 'sinister'.

But if one doesn't have either official records or a critical mass of other sources pointing to a particular conclusion, then accusing or insinuating that the Allies, Soviets and others deliberately destroyed records - why exactly, again? - is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. It's no better than UFOlogists ignoring the pattern of declassified documents from the US government and insisting that there was an inner circle who were 'really' in on the truth of Roswell or whatever.

Saying as some might that 'it stands to reason' or some other argument by analogy won't solve the problem: point to sources indicating what you think was in the missing records, e.g. testimonies, and be prepared to have them scrutinised to the same general standard that you'd apply to other such sources, with the same Mandy Rice-Davies test ('he would say that, wouldn't he?') and other common sense criticisms.

The assumption that the Allies and Soviets were engaged in deceit is already contradicted by embarrassing revelations in the documents that did survive, and the problem of achieving agreement across the growing Cold War divide. Neither the western powers nor the Soviets could know for sure what the other side had or hadn't captured. Even when one side had captured extensive relevant records, for example the Soviets captured hundreds of files of Army Group Centre's records while the Americans captured hundreds of other files from the same command, then they might not help prove a hobby horse, such as the Soviet spin on Katyn. The Soviets did not capture many German Foreign Office records so were helpless when the Nazi-Soviet Pact and secret protocol was exposed.

Occasionally some revisionists have fantasised about what might be in still-closed Kremlin archives, and wondered if Putin might blow the lid off some day. This is already improbable given what was declassified after 1991, but also how there were earlier opportunities for Soviet leaders to expose things. Khrushchev exposed all manner of horrors and deceits in his 1956 secret speech, and could easily have blamed Stalin for ordering the 'hoax'. By then, the Soviets had soured on Israel. But nothing happened, and the release of Gulag inmates did not reveal any long lost tribe of Jews who had been hidden away in Siberia to contribute to the Heath Robinson cover-up scheme.

One further problem is that the big states could not know what had been left behind in countries across Europe or what might be found in the archives of members of the former Axis. Auschwitz concerned a dozen countries after the war. They were all in on a conspiracy? Really? To what end?

What difference would it really have made if deported Jews had been parked somewhere to be decimated by overwork, hunger and disease rather than gassed? It's already unconvincing to say that the Polish and Jewish undergrounds decided on a whim to deviate from 'reality' in early 1942 (with Chelmno and Belzec) and claim no onwards transports, when this ran the risk of wartime refutation by the Germans revealing a happy resettlement camp further east, and when neither the Polish nor Jewish underground had a clear motive to escalate atrocity claims to that level. This wasn't in Zionist interests, either, since the extent of killing deprived the Zionist movement of potential future settlers and manpower.

What difference would it have made if after 1947-1953 and the first immediate and indirect consequences of Nazi Judenpolitik had unfolded, i.e. the partition plan for Palestine/recognition of Israel, and compensation negotiated with Adenauer, documents were found that lowered the death toll to Reitlinger's floor of 4.2 million, perhaps showing that some deportees had in fact been 'transited'? None whatsoever, since neither the UN debates on Palestine nor compensation were premised on a specific death toll, or even on the notion that dead victims earned anything - compensation was paid to survivors, and to those who'd been expropriated by 'Aryanisation'. Would divided Germany in the 1950s or 1960s have been in any better position? No, it would not.

By all means, outline a robust hypothesis for the as yet unobserved and unsourced 'reality' you think happened, but at least try to make it more convincing than a Dan Brown novel.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 5:43 pm

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 2:42 am

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 6:54 pmNo, I've consistently said since circa 2010 that 'revisonism' in the classic form has been in decline, in terms of the numbers of active revisionists who produce books and articles and of their core supporters.

It's a little bit ridiculous to claim that this would have been the case "since circa 2010", given the vast amounts of quality primary research published by revisionists between 2010 and 2024.

Almost all by one writer, Carlo Mattogno. Revisionism used to be a research community of sorts, and could stage conferences, but there have been none since the 2000s (the Teheran conference was about the last such event, and was a bit B-list). Once upon a time revisionism could publish an edited collection, Dissecting the Holocaust, in 2023 Germar Rudolf had to write a large encyclopedia almost single handedly.

It's not healthy if all the eggs are placed into just a couple of baskets, what happens when Mattogno grows too old?

In 2010, things were somewhat healthier because Mattogno was co-writing with Graf and Kues, but Kues vanished in 2013 and Graf returned to Switzerland and retired from active revisionism (although he has put out some recaps in German under a pseudonym), and is now apparently battling illness.

This is the usual gaslighting.

Revisionist research has not stalled out but even if there were no new research at all, we already have enough ammo to win, whenever circumstances become propitious. After a certain point, the research becomes too arcane to matter as far as the public debate is concerned. Sometime the future, I think people will look back at all of this and see it as absurd overkill.