A summary of the above. I argue that,
- history is evidenced, not argued.
- the existing evidence is the best case for the Holocaust, despite what so-called revisionists think.
- attempts to revise the existing history have been abject failures, which further strengthens the first argument.
- there is a lack of evidence of a conspiracy to hoax and provided examples of where a hoax is against national interests.
- I give examples of how the evidence is strong, circumstantially, from the eyewitnesses, in terms of motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime and give some specific examples of well evidenced events.
Best case for the Holocaust.
Re: Best case for the Holocaust.
These are my own initial thoughts on Nessie's essay. As an interesting aside, I fed his essay through an LLM with the prompt to grade it as an end of term essay, in a cross-discipline (ie non-specialized) field, assuming a bachelors level of competence. The LLM graded it a C-
1) Utter silence on viability of proposed murder weapon and process. With a word count over 4,000 not one of them is “Zyklon” or “cyanide” or “kula” or “column”. This is by far the user’s weakest angle to this paper, and it has been litigated in a multitude of places across this forum so I will not waste much space here, other than to say, the poster relies, to a critical level, on methods that are non-viable and utterly ignores the practical realities these problems introduce.
2) The Historiography Problem pt I - In multiple places, the user pushes the claim that Historians have succeeded in producing a verified chronology of events through careful evidencing (ie claims) and primary sources (ie other claims). He ignores however, where those very same Historians and related experts critically diverge from these claims, such as Van Pelt diverging from Kula’s description of the Kula columns, specifically because Kula’s claimed device cannot possibly work but Van Pelt’s can. Thus this evidence, like most other evidence trotted out, is manufactured to fit, rather than falling naturally into place.
3) Historiography Problem pt II – The user states that certain weak claims have been dropped as they were “poorly or not evidenced” and cites the Jewish Soap and Dachau Gas chamber. The problem here is that the Jewish soap was evidenced, literally by being produced and shown at Nuremberg, along with key and converging testimonies. Similarly for the Dachau gas chamber, as being evidenced via photographs, documents, and eyewitnesses. He only claims this is “weak” because it has been discarded by Orthodoxy due to being non-viable. The critical problem for the user here is that, were he to admit that this evidence simultaneously meets his criteria for merely existing, yet fails the revisionist smell-test for being dogsh*t, he’s in very big trouble.
4) The Historiography Problem pt III – He bizarrely suggests the Dresden bombing could be denied by testimonies and photographs alone. Yet above, testimonies and photographs were (correctly) not enough to carry the weight of his two examples (Dachau and Soap). Were a serious investigation to take place on the Dresden bombing, it is inane to suggest that eyewitness testimony would outweigh any sort of military analysis such as on the specific munitions, payload, aircraft range, fuel usage, impact sites etc, which is to say, the key insights here would be technical in nature, not based on eyewitnesses like our user suggests.
5) The Need For Conspiracy pt I - “Historians and revisionists have also failed to find evidence to prove the conspiracy that is needed to fake the Holocaust” – inane assertion that fails to hold true in other aspects of the Holocaust. I will limit myself to the user’s same two examples, and challenge him to address: Demonstrate what exactly was the conspiracy to fabricate a Dachau Gas Chamber and by who, and how was this conspiracy ultimately proved in end? And equally importantly, for the Jewish Soap, what exactly was the conspiracy here, how was it conspired and how was it ultimately proved? To quote the poster: “No whistleblower has come forward with, or leaked evidence of a hoax.” Why would this be necessary for Birkenau when it wasn’t required for Dachau? This is selective and biased application of reasoning.
6) The Need For Conspiracy pt II – The user suggests that this hoax conspiracy requires millions of people acting in unison to prolong the Holocaust hoax. No it doesn’t, and this is not how large scale conspiracies, such as WMDs were propagated. It simply requires millions of survivors to each consider themselves, and themselves alone, as surivors. Consider – X million Jews subsumed into the interior of the Soviet Union. Each Jew considers him/herself and their family as lucky survivors. No conspiracy needed at the million scale.
7) The missing Jews - “The circumstantial evidence of millions of missing Jews in 1945, was overwhelming and aligns with mass murder”
In 1945 the claim was that 4 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. The claim is now that ~1 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. Since the only way downward revisions can take place according to our user is to positively evidence an alternative History, ie to sho where they are now, he is now challenged to name and geolocate the 3 million previously-assumed-gassed-but-actually-not-gassed-Jews. Since this is the only way he claims history works, this should not be a problem for him, since he accepts this revision. Were he to fail in this regard, it would mean that 3 million Jews were firstly fabricated, only to be gassed, ungassed, and forgotten. This would be disastrous for him because we could simply increase ~3 million to ~4 million and Revisionism’s job is all but done.
8) The Problem of “Positive Revisionism” – the user’s post is littered with arguments that Holocaust claims cannot possibly be re-written without a positive counter-narrative as to what happened in it’s place. This is obviously nonsense, as it is sufficient for revisionism to show why something is non-viable. To demonstrate, I will yet again limit myself to the user’s own example, of a Holocaust claim that was revised. Jewish soap. To counter the Soviet claim that Jews were being turned into soap, it was never required to determine the names of each alleged soaped Jew, and to later find them alive and well in Tel Aviv or new York City. To demand this same princinple for Birkernau and AR claims is completely tone-deaf, and uneccessary, as the user’s own examples show.
9) The Convergence Problem - The user implies that all witnesses agree, however he ignores that the witness only appear to agree once all outliers and non-viable witnesses have been removed from scope. This is a logical fallacy known as survivorship bias.
Conclusion – the user is catastrophically ignorant of alleged processes and procedures, and proceeds straight to creating artificial requirements for the Holocaust to be revised, then himself blindly offers examples where this process has never been the case and the claims collapsed under their own non-viability.
**Edit**
I see the user has replied below. I want to respect Archie's vision for threads of this kind, so I will refrain from endlessly replying to ad hoc arguments. Suffice to say, the responses are unsatisfactory and the critiques stand. For the curious reader, I will isolate and repeat the main trust of my critiques in that Nessie has ignored the murder weapon, and point them to the arguments presented by Rudolf in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, section 5.4.1.2.9 as to why this is problematic, and more importantly for this essay, why Historians are compelled to deviate away from the eyewitnesses, to manufacture their own evidence, despite his bleating to the contrary.
See also discussion here:
viewtopic.php?t=163
viewtopic.php?p=16681
viewtopic.php?p=13113#p13113 (starting on page 10 of this thread)
1) Utter silence on viability of proposed murder weapon and process. With a word count over 4,000 not one of them is “Zyklon” or “cyanide” or “kula” or “column”. This is by far the user’s weakest angle to this paper, and it has been litigated in a multitude of places across this forum so I will not waste much space here, other than to say, the poster relies, to a critical level, on methods that are non-viable and utterly ignores the practical realities these problems introduce.
2) The Historiography Problem pt I - In multiple places, the user pushes the claim that Historians have succeeded in producing a verified chronology of events through careful evidencing (ie claims) and primary sources (ie other claims). He ignores however, where those very same Historians and related experts critically diverge from these claims, such as Van Pelt diverging from Kula’s description of the Kula columns, specifically because Kula’s claimed device cannot possibly work but Van Pelt’s can. Thus this evidence, like most other evidence trotted out, is manufactured to fit, rather than falling naturally into place.
3) Historiography Problem pt II – The user states that certain weak claims have been dropped as they were “poorly or not evidenced” and cites the Jewish Soap and Dachau Gas chamber. The problem here is that the Jewish soap was evidenced, literally by being produced and shown at Nuremberg, along with key and converging testimonies. Similarly for the Dachau gas chamber, as being evidenced via photographs, documents, and eyewitnesses. He only claims this is “weak” because it has been discarded by Orthodoxy due to being non-viable. The critical problem for the user here is that, were he to admit that this evidence simultaneously meets his criteria for merely existing, yet fails the revisionist smell-test for being dogsh*t, he’s in very big trouble.
4) The Historiography Problem pt III – He bizarrely suggests the Dresden bombing could be denied by testimonies and photographs alone. Yet above, testimonies and photographs were (correctly) not enough to carry the weight of his two examples (Dachau and Soap). Were a serious investigation to take place on the Dresden bombing, it is inane to suggest that eyewitness testimony would outweigh any sort of military analysis such as on the specific munitions, payload, aircraft range, fuel usage, impact sites etc, which is to say, the key insights here would be technical in nature, not based on eyewitnesses like our user suggests.
5) The Need For Conspiracy pt I - “Historians and revisionists have also failed to find evidence to prove the conspiracy that is needed to fake the Holocaust” – inane assertion that fails to hold true in other aspects of the Holocaust. I will limit myself to the user’s same two examples, and challenge him to address: Demonstrate what exactly was the conspiracy to fabricate a Dachau Gas Chamber and by who, and how was this conspiracy ultimately proved in end? And equally importantly, for the Jewish Soap, what exactly was the conspiracy here, how was it conspired and how was it ultimately proved? To quote the poster: “No whistleblower has come forward with, or leaked evidence of a hoax.” Why would this be necessary for Birkenau when it wasn’t required for Dachau? This is selective and biased application of reasoning.
6) The Need For Conspiracy pt II – The user suggests that this hoax conspiracy requires millions of people acting in unison to prolong the Holocaust hoax. No it doesn’t, and this is not how large scale conspiracies, such as WMDs were propagated. It simply requires millions of survivors to each consider themselves, and themselves alone, as surivors. Consider – X million Jews subsumed into the interior of the Soviet Union. Each Jew considers him/herself and their family as lucky survivors. No conspiracy needed at the million scale.
7) The missing Jews - “The circumstantial evidence of millions of missing Jews in 1945, was overwhelming and aligns with mass murder”
In 1945 the claim was that 4 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. The claim is now that ~1 million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz. Since the only way downward revisions can take place according to our user is to positively evidence an alternative History, ie to sho where they are now, he is now challenged to name and geolocate the 3 million previously-assumed-gassed-but-actually-not-gassed-Jews. Since this is the only way he claims history works, this should not be a problem for him, since he accepts this revision. Were he to fail in this regard, it would mean that 3 million Jews were firstly fabricated, only to be gassed, ungassed, and forgotten. This would be disastrous for him because we could simply increase ~3 million to ~4 million and Revisionism’s job is all but done.
8) The Problem of “Positive Revisionism” – the user’s post is littered with arguments that Holocaust claims cannot possibly be re-written without a positive counter-narrative as to what happened in it’s place. This is obviously nonsense, as it is sufficient for revisionism to show why something is non-viable. To demonstrate, I will yet again limit myself to the user’s own example, of a Holocaust claim that was revised. Jewish soap. To counter the Soviet claim that Jews were being turned into soap, it was never required to determine the names of each alleged soaped Jew, and to later find them alive and well in Tel Aviv or new York City. To demand this same princinple for Birkernau and AR claims is completely tone-deaf, and uneccessary, as the user’s own examples show.
9) The Convergence Problem - The user implies that all witnesses agree, however he ignores that the witness only appear to agree once all outliers and non-viable witnesses have been removed from scope. This is a logical fallacy known as survivorship bias.
Conclusion – the user is catastrophically ignorant of alleged processes and procedures, and proceeds straight to creating artificial requirements for the Holocaust to be revised, then himself blindly offers examples where this process has never been the case and the claims collapsed under their own non-viability.
**Edit**
I see the user has replied below. I want to respect Archie's vision for threads of this kind, so I will refrain from endlessly replying to ad hoc arguments. Suffice to say, the responses are unsatisfactory and the critiques stand. For the curious reader, I will isolate and repeat the main trust of my critiques in that Nessie has ignored the murder weapon, and point them to the arguments presented by Rudolf in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, section 5.4.1.2.9 as to why this is problematic, and more importantly for this essay, why Historians are compelled to deviate away from the eyewitnesses, to manufacture their own evidence, despite his bleating to the contrary.
See also discussion here:
viewtopic.php?t=163
viewtopic.php?p=16681
viewtopic.php?p=13113#p13113 (starting on page 10 of this thread)
Last edited by HansHill on Thu Jan 15, 2026 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Best case for the Holocaust.
Some belated guidelines: I was thinking about how we want to do this, and I think we want to focus, at least initially, on substantive reviews of the original essay. That is to say that we don't want this to devolve immediately into a general debate thread with no thematic focus.
So let's say that to participate in the discussion thread you must post a review of the original essay. It does not have to be super long and detailed or be a point-by-point rebuttal, but it should show evidence of having read and engaged with the essay.
For now let's stick to reviews only (like what Hans posted). Later we can open it up for less structured discussion. I just don't want the real reviews to get buried in chatter. Anti-revisionist posters are allowed (and encouraged) to post reviews.
So let's say that to participate in the discussion thread you must post a review of the original essay. It does not have to be super long and detailed or be a point-by-point rebuttal, but it should show evidence of having read and engaged with the essay.
For now let's stick to reviews only (like what Hans posted). Later we can open it up for less structured discussion. I just don't want the real reviews to get buried in chatter. Anti-revisionist posters are allowed (and encouraged) to post reviews.
Incredulity Enthusiast
- pilgrimofdark
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2025 7:46 pm
Re: Best case for the Holocaust.
This is a good, clear, concise summary of the historical posture of the Holocaust. I'm taking this as the main thesis of the case for the Holocaust in this essay:
The main weakness is a tendency to engage in negative criticism of revisionism rather than present a positive case for the Holocaust.
A significant part of the essay could be reduced to this:
Holocaust ≠ Revisionism
This gives it a tone in certain parts that is more reactive to revisionists than proactive.
For example, Section 2 is a long criticism of Butz (and others) that would be better reframed as a discussion of each individual aspect, possibly without reference to Butz at all or at least fewer references.
Statements like "The eyewitness evidence is, contrary to revisionist claims, strong" suggests a desire to get in front of obvious objections, but is unnecessary. The eyewitness evidence is strong is the positive case; there is not a good justification for preemptively raising the possibility of revisionist objections.
One other example: "The Holocaust is better evidenced than any denier or revisionist will ever admit." When making a positive case for the Holocaust, who cares what revisionists (or anyone) will "admit"? This is an anticipatory criticism rather than a positive statement: The Holocaust is evidenced to a high degree, taking into account the convergence of x, y, z.
If some of these sentences or sections were slightly edited to state the positive case instead of counter possible objections, the essay would benefit overall. Each section could build better on the previous ones.
Common revisionist objections could still be anticipated and addressed, but maybe without so many explicit references. The content of the essay wouldn't change a bit, but the presentation would be stronger of a "case for" rather than a "case against."
Conclusion
As is, Nessie's entry is a good summary of some of his positions and should serve as a jumping-off point for areas of further discussion. There are valuable aspects to it, especially when the essay simply makes the positive case, putting forth statements.
In his introduction/thesis, he constructed a clear and concise definition of the Holocaust that is more specific and useful than others published in some professional books or encyclopedias.
Its main weakness is a tendency to head the revisionists off at the pass or anticipate counter-arguments. Without commenting on the the content of those parts, they are unnecessary and would be better if reframed in a positive sense.
Finally, I appreciate Nessie putting in the work to construct this essay. Writing ~4,500 words in a structured manner takes time, organization, and thought. I won't give it a grade (I don't have any criteria for doing so), but I believe that the essay provides value for the readers.
Postscript
Thanks to HansHill for reviewing this first so I could read an example. I tried not to overlap with his approach.
I'm not sure how to approach reviewing these essays.
I'm guessing Nessie wrote his essay intending for people to read it and reflect, so I gave it that respect to read it a few times and provide some feedback.
Overall, the essay is best when it's making a positive case and mentioning evidence that supports the above statement. Discussions of other countries' policies on Jews and cooperation with Nazi deportation plans, etc. This helps support the main thesis of the essay.The Nazis identified, arrested and imprisoned Jews. Their property was confiscated and they were forced into camps and ghettos. Many were used as slave labourers and those not needed for work, or who regarded as partisans, were killed. The killings were by mass shootings and in certain camps, inside chambers. Mass transports cleared the ghettos to specific camps, where the same process of selection, undressing, deaths inside chambers made to look like showers, mass graves and cremations is described across all the camps.
The main weakness is a tendency to engage in negative criticism of revisionism rather than present a positive case for the Holocaust.
A significant part of the essay could be reduced to this:
Holocaust ≠ Revisionism
This gives it a tone in certain parts that is more reactive to revisionists than proactive.
For example, Section 2 is a long criticism of Butz (and others) that would be better reframed as a discussion of each individual aspect, possibly without reference to Butz at all or at least fewer references.
Statements like "The eyewitness evidence is, contrary to revisionist claims, strong" suggests a desire to get in front of obvious objections, but is unnecessary. The eyewitness evidence is strong is the positive case; there is not a good justification for preemptively raising the possibility of revisionist objections.
One other example: "The Holocaust is better evidenced than any denier or revisionist will ever admit." When making a positive case for the Holocaust, who cares what revisionists (or anyone) will "admit"? This is an anticipatory criticism rather than a positive statement: The Holocaust is evidenced to a high degree, taking into account the convergence of x, y, z.
If some of these sentences or sections were slightly edited to state the positive case instead of counter possible objections, the essay would benefit overall. Each section could build better on the previous ones.
Common revisionist objections could still be anticipated and addressed, but maybe without so many explicit references. The content of the essay wouldn't change a bit, but the presentation would be stronger of a "case for" rather than a "case against."
Conclusion
As is, Nessie's entry is a good summary of some of his positions and should serve as a jumping-off point for areas of further discussion. There are valuable aspects to it, especially when the essay simply makes the positive case, putting forth statements.
In his introduction/thesis, he constructed a clear and concise definition of the Holocaust that is more specific and useful than others published in some professional books or encyclopedias.
Its main weakness is a tendency to head the revisionists off at the pass or anticipate counter-arguments. Without commenting on the the content of those parts, they are unnecessary and would be better if reframed in a positive sense.
Finally, I appreciate Nessie putting in the work to construct this essay. Writing ~4,500 words in a structured manner takes time, organization, and thought. I won't give it a grade (I don't have any criteria for doing so), but I believe that the essay provides value for the readers.
Postscript
Thanks to HansHill for reviewing this first so I could read an example. I tried not to overlap with his approach.
I'm not sure how to approach reviewing these essays.
I'm guessing Nessie wrote his essay intending for people to read it and reflect, so I gave it that respect to read it a few times and provide some feedback.
Re: Best case for the Holocaust.
I was expecting to see more of an attempt to develop the positive evidence for the Holocaust. Instead of that, we see here a lot of Nessie's signature "proof by assertion" and question-begging.
For all of the effusive praise heaped upon "the historians" in this essay, the author seems to have little familiarity with the mainstream secondary literature as none of it is really discussed or referenced. The sources cited are drawn mostly from online tertiary sources (Google search?). These are little more than compilations of the conventional narrative, presented under the assumption that the reader is already convinced.
In terms of the presentation, critiques of revisionism are given too much emphasis (starting with this I think was an especially odd choice) and the chosen targets are surprising and/or not well represented. It is puzzling why the author has decided to dedicate so much space to discussing the 50 year old Butz book. Or why he felt the need to rebut a random meme from Twitter, as if this were a good representation of informed revisionist thought.
Overall, the author appears to have a limited grasp of the literature on both sides of the debate.
The structure of the case is more or less as follows:
1) The mainstream history is well-established and based on strong evidence
2) To overturn this history, revisionists would have to supply evidence that "proves that something different took place."
2a) The author implicitly assumes that "prove something different took place" means prove that the Jews survived/were resettled
3) Revisionist have failed to do this
Therefore the mainstream history is true
I would not object to framing the issue rhetorically in terms of the need for a constructive history of events, but the author pushes way too far with this in an attempt to side-step huge swathes of relevant evidence. Below would be my primary objections.
Thin on Positive Evidence
The biggest problem here by far is that the author largely skips over point 1 in the argument (which should have been the focus) and jumps straight into a critique of revisionists. In an essay of limited length, it is also wise to point readers to additional resources, where the arguments introduced in the essay are addressed more thoroughly. This is generally not done here. Only the demographic argument was given much attention.
It is claimed that we should have expected to find 5-6 million Jews in camps and ghettos at the end of the war. That is a wildly high figure. Germany almost certainly never had that many Jews under their control. The author further assumes all the Jews would have stayed put and ignores the difficulties of determining the number of Jews behind the Iron Curtain.
The defense of the testimonial evidence is very brief and inadequate given the importance of that topic.
"There are bound to be inconsistencies in the details, such as how many were gassed and how long cremations took, as people are proven to poor at many estimations and memory fades."
That just doesn't cut it. The discussion of physical evidence is also very brief and undeveloped (mostly proof by assertion).
Demand for a Full Alternative History
It is simply not true that documentation regarding Jewish migration during and after the war (i.e, proof of survival) must be provided in order to overturn the mainstream history. This is a textbook argument from ignorance, and it inappropriately precludes the possibility that something may be indeterminate due to inadequate documentation.
If revisionist critiques of the homicidal gas chambers are correct, this in fact would show that "something else" occurred for the simple reason that it would establish that the mainstream story did not occur (or is extremely unlikely to have occurred).
Critique of Revisionism
The author evaluates revisionism almost solely by the standard of proving Jewish survival. This is simply a way of dodging numerous relevant points that deserve to be addressed.
Much else could be said, but I see no need to repeat familiar points (witness studies, Poles vs Soviets, 100% of the witnesses, etc).
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=382
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=443
For all of the effusive praise heaped upon "the historians" in this essay, the author seems to have little familiarity with the mainstream secondary literature as none of it is really discussed or referenced. The sources cited are drawn mostly from online tertiary sources (Google search?). These are little more than compilations of the conventional narrative, presented under the assumption that the reader is already convinced.
In terms of the presentation, critiques of revisionism are given too much emphasis (starting with this I think was an especially odd choice) and the chosen targets are surprising and/or not well represented. It is puzzling why the author has decided to dedicate so much space to discussing the 50 year old Butz book. Or why he felt the need to rebut a random meme from Twitter, as if this were a good representation of informed revisionist thought.
Overall, the author appears to have a limited grasp of the literature on both sides of the debate.
The structure of the case is more or less as follows:
1) The mainstream history is well-established and based on strong evidence
2) To overturn this history, revisionists would have to supply evidence that "proves that something different took place."
2a) The author implicitly assumes that "prove something different took place" means prove that the Jews survived/were resettled
3) Revisionist have failed to do this
Therefore the mainstream history is true
I would not object to framing the issue rhetorically in terms of the need for a constructive history of events, but the author pushes way too far with this in an attempt to side-step huge swathes of relevant evidence. Below would be my primary objections.
Thin on Positive Evidence
The biggest problem here by far is that the author largely skips over point 1 in the argument (which should have been the focus) and jumps straight into a critique of revisionists. In an essay of limited length, it is also wise to point readers to additional resources, where the arguments introduced in the essay are addressed more thoroughly. This is generally not done here. Only the demographic argument was given much attention.
It is claimed that we should have expected to find 5-6 million Jews in camps and ghettos at the end of the war. That is a wildly high figure. Germany almost certainly never had that many Jews under their control. The author further assumes all the Jews would have stayed put and ignores the difficulties of determining the number of Jews behind the Iron Curtain.
The defense of the testimonial evidence is very brief and inadequate given the importance of that topic.
"There are bound to be inconsistencies in the details, such as how many were gassed and how long cremations took, as people are proven to poor at many estimations and memory fades."
That just doesn't cut it. The discussion of physical evidence is also very brief and undeveloped (mostly proof by assertion).
Demand for a Full Alternative History
It is simply not true that documentation regarding Jewish migration during and after the war (i.e, proof of survival) must be provided in order to overturn the mainstream history. This is a textbook argument from ignorance, and it inappropriately precludes the possibility that something may be indeterminate due to inadequate documentation.
If revisionist critiques of the homicidal gas chambers are correct, this in fact would show that "something else" occurred for the simple reason that it would establish that the mainstream story did not occur (or is extremely unlikely to have occurred).
Critique of Revisionism
The author evaluates revisionism almost solely by the standard of proving Jewish survival. This is simply a way of dodging numerous relevant points that deserve to be addressed.
Much else could be said, but I see no need to repeat familiar points (witness studies, Poles vs Soviets, 100% of the witnesses, etc).
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=382
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=443
Incredulity Enthusiast