The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Examples of revisionist arguments.

Yankel Wiernik in his book, a Year in Treblinka makes claims that mean his credibility is shot, and he must be considered too unreliable a witness, for his evidence to be accepted as testimony;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

"There was no longer any beauty or ugliness, for they all were yellow from the gas"

People who die from CO poisoning, do not turn yellow.

"Believe it or not, the bullet had not really hurt me. It had gone through all of my clothing and stopped at my shoulder, leaving a mark."

Bullets are not stopped by clothing.

He was, also a rabid communist and a purveyor of communist literature. A 'pamphleteer'. A 'propagandist'. You appear to have missed that point.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 4:20 pm He was, also a rabid communist and a purveyor of communist literature. A 'pamphleteer'. A 'propagandist'. You appear to have missed that point.

I chose to highlight some of the reasons why so-called revisionists regard Wiernik as too unreliable, to consider him as a truthful witness. So-called revisionists have a huge list of reasons that they use to dismiss the evidence of all of the SS and Jews who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas.

Primary amongst those excuses, is that what the witness describes is physically impossible in reality. For example, when Wiernik describes the gas chambers, he makes no mention of how any change of pressure, caused by pumping exhaust fumes in, would have on the engine, causing it to stall. Such issues mean that he is describing something that cannot have worked, therefore it did not happen. Just like a claim about a boy cycling to the moon. That is physically impossible, so it cannot have happened.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20852#p20852

Nessie, you have no right to demand revisionists steelman the Holocaust when you refused to do the same thing with revisioinsm. Don't be a hypocrite.

I have, see above and my comments about Wiernik's lack of credibility. Funny how that has been ignored. Are you all not convinced it is a strong argument?

My initial approach to the steelman question, was to look at it from my point of view. Here I look at from so-called revisionist point of view, based on comments made by them about why they find Holocaust denial/revisionism so convincing.

Here is another argument you find convincing, The Topf & Sons engineer Karl Schultze reports that he designed a ventilation system that had a 10 time air change per hour, which would not be enough to safely clear the gas chambers of gas. Therefore gassings, as described by witnesses, would not be possible, therefore there were no gassings.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 4:34 pm I chose to highlight some of the reasons why so-called revisionists regard Wiernik as too unreliable, to consider him as a truthful witness.

Your failed to mention the fact, that can be proven to be true in a U.S. court, that not one of the "huge mass graves" alleged by Wiernik have ever been proven to exist.

Not one.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 7:34 am Bla bla bla... Funny how that has been ignored.

What's even funnier Roberto, is how you are ignoring this:

Jankiel Wiernik testifies in the Eichmann trial in 1961 in Jerusalem.

This must be one of Wiernik's six "huge mass graves" huh Roberto?



Roberto, of the 925,000 jews alleged to be buried in Wiernik's six "huge mass graves," how many have been proven to exist in this one?

This and my other "steel men" are barely that, as the flaws are obvious, but anyway. Because the residues found in Krema I and the part of Krema II that can be accessed test very low for HCN, compared to delousing chambers, nd are closer to what is found for fumigation elsewhere in the camp, that proves the Kremas were never used for gassings.