My presentation

[Gonzalo]

Well, I’m not going to say too much; I’ll just mention that for a while during my teenage years, I believed in “revisionism” and white nationalism until, through reason and objective facts, I realized that everything I believed was a lie—starting with “revisionism” and its chronic inability to explain “where did they go?” and extending all the way to my most politically radical beliefs. Today I think in a completely different way. However, I support the idea of debate, and I’m here to present my best arguments to the “revisionists.” The Holocaust isn’t my only interest; I’m also very interested in both world wars and current events.

Just out of curiosity, is it okay to talk about politics here?

[Archie]

I’m here to present my best arguments to the “revisionists.”

Ready when you are.

Just out of curiosity, is it okay to talk about politics here?

No. General political discussion is off-topic.

[Gonzalo]

Ready when you are.

It will be a pleasure

[weffdsv1231]

The burden of proof for the holocaust falls entirely on the accusers, not the revisionists. Its up to the accusers provide hard evidence of genocidal actions from the nazis (no one denies that suffering occured during ww2, revisionists deny that the suffering was intentionally inflicted as a genocide). Its up to the accusers to provide hard evidence of numbers, like the amount of jews that died, the jewish population before and after ww2 etc.

Holocaust accusers act like the burden of proof falls on revisionists to prove that it didn't happen.
Holocaust accusers like to show text from nazi speeches claiming "genocidal intentions" , but in reality the speech lines are taken out of context or misinterpreted, and cannot be considered hard evidence of genocide. All physical evidence shown by accusers (like the chambers allegedly used for lethal gassing), all have perfectly normal explanations. For example, the supposed "lethal gassing" chambers were actually used for delousing, zyklon b was a commonly used delousing agent during that time.

[Archie]

Ready when you are.

It will be a pleasure

If you are so inclined, we have an open invitation for essays.
viewtopic.php?t=686

[Gonzalo]

The burden of proof for the holocaust falls entirely on the accusers, not the revisionists. Its up to the accusers provide hard evidence of genocidal actions from the nazis (no one denies that suffering occured during ww2, revisionists deny that the suffering was intentionally inflicted as a genocide). Its up to the accusers to provide hard evidence of numbers, like the amount of jews that died, the jewish population before and after ww2 etc.

Holocaust accusers act like the burden of proof falls on revisionists to prove that it didn't happen.
Holocaust accusers like to show text from nazi speeches claiming "genocidal intentions" , but in reality the speech lines are taken out of context or misinterpreted, and cannot be considered hard evidence of genocide. All physical evidence shown by accusers (like the chambers allegedly used for lethal gassing), all have perfectly normal explanations. For example, the supposed "lethal gassing" chambers were actually used for delousing, zyklon b was a commonly used delousing agent during that time.

The problem is that the Holocaust is an event accepted by 99% of people, supported by evidence of all kinds (documentary, demographic, testimonial, etc.), and, furthermore, it has been researched (and continues to be researched) for more than 80 years by serious academic historians in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, and the Netherlands. All interpretations have been intensely debated; the debate between intentionalists and functionalists is proof of this. No genocide is better documented than the Holocaust. Therefore, asking for evidence that it did not happen and asking, “Where were the Jews deported to in the East?” is legitimate. The same would apply if someone denied the Ukrainian Holodomor; it would be legitimate to ask, “What happened to the millions of Ukrainians who died?”

But, in any case, I will strive to refute revisionist arguments and present evidence comprehensively.

[HansHill]

The problem is that the Holocaust is an event accepted by 99% of people

I'm sure this was an unintentional turn of phrase, but yes I agree

[Gonzalo]

I'm sure this was an unintentional turn of phrase, but yes I agree

Ah, you're so funny... To put it in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding, 99% of people know that the Holocaust is real; only revisionist charlatans deny it. Fanatical revisionists who idolize a leader who destroyed his own country and started a European war that killed more white people than the Black Death.

[TlsMS93]

The problem is that the Holocaust is an event accepted by 99% of people

I'm sure this was an unintentional turn of phrase, but yes I agree

Most people don't even know the fundamental aspects of the event, such as when it occurred, how many died, where it took place, and who was responsible. That's why Jewish organizations conduct opinion polls to target their audience.

15% of Italians don't believe in the Holocaust. So, what is the basis for claiming 99%? Even the geometric shape of the Earth isn't universally agreed upon, and it can be repeatedly tested, let alone a vague event from the past.

[Gonzalo]

Most people don't even know the fundamental aspects of the event, such as when it occurred, how many died, where it took place, and who was responsible. That's why Jewish organizations conduct opinion polls to target their audience.

Because most people are neither historians nor experts on the Holocaust, although that does not mean there isn't a general understanding of the atrocities committed by the Nazis

15% of Italians don't believe in the Holocaust. So, what is the basis for claiming 99%?

15% of Italians amounts to 9,000,000 million people. It is impossible for revisionism to have that level of support. Furthermore, a “I don’t think they killed that many Jews” from a typical skeptical 60-year-old Italian is not the same as a “There were no gas chambers, and Treblinka, Bełżec, and Sobibór were resettlement camps. The Nazis didn’t kill anyone, and Jewish deaths were entirely due to typhus and starvation.” There is a huge difference between casual skepticism and denial. Denial is marginal and was thoroughly discredited after the Irving-Lipstadt case.

Even the geometric shape of the Earth isn't universally agreed upon, and it can be repeatedly tested, let alone a vague event from the past.

There have always been idiots

[Archie]

There have always been idiots

Gonzalo, you are off to a very bad start. Please read the forum rules.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5

Shape up if you want to participate here.

[Gonzalo]

Gonzalo, you are off to a very bad start. Please read the forum rules.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5

Shape up if you want to participate here.

I'm sorry. I was referring strictly to flat-earthers.

[Archie]

Gonzalo, you are off to a very bad start. Please read the forum rules.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5

Shape up if you want to participate here.

I'm sorry. I was referring strictly to flat-earthers.

You also called revisionists "charlatans." But insults are not even the main problem. The bigger issue is the "signal to noise ratio" and the way you are posting to numerous topics in parallel. In this thread you've made multiple posts and have said nothing. And at the same time you're posting to multiple topics in parallel in the other sections. Please slow down. Post things that are actually worth reading. Don't flood the board with your own unsupported opinions.

[borjastick]

The problem is that the Holocaust is an event accepted by 99% of people, supported by evidence of all kinds (documentary, demographic, testimonial, etc.), and, furthermore, it has been researched (and continues to be researched) for more than 80 years by serious academic historians in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, and the Netherlands.

That's a tad strong there old boy. If you took a poll in the streets of say London, Nottingham and Manchester and asked people of a certain age, maybe 50+, I would agree most would say it happened but they wouldn't know why they say it and what made them believe in it many years back. Many people think the jews have had a rough time of it over the centuries and we should just believe it all and say 'God bless Israel'. Most average people who are aware of the holocaust claims know slightly less than naff all detail and if asked to state a couple of basics about it would almost certainly spurt out 'gas chambers and tattoos'. People are conditioned to think Hitler was bad man and everything he did and is claimed about him is unquestionably true. They don't think, they do not learn and they don't question things. Life gets in the way.

Oh and your claim that the holocaust is the most documented event in history is pure schoolboy shite.

[TlsMS93]

“It's impossible that revisionism has that level of support.”

Again, on what basis does he say that?

“Furthermore, the statement of a typical skeptical 60-year-old Italian, "I don't think they killed that many Jews," is not the same as saying: "There were no gas chambers, and Treblinka, Bełżec, and Sobibor were resettlement camps. The Nazis didn't kill anyone, and the Jewish deaths were entirely caused by typhus and starvation." There is a huge difference between moderate skepticism and denial.”

No, the research that concluded that 15% of Italians don't believe in the Holocaust is that they say it didn't exist, not that it happened differently than we were told. It's pure skepticism.

“Denial is marginal and was completely discredited after the Irving-Lipstadt case.”

I don't know what you're talking about; the court only decided that Lipstadt would not be punished for calling Irving a denier. It wasn't considered defamation, a matter of freedom of speech, nothing more. It's not the courts that define what is true or not; if that were the case, there would be no such thing as freedom of speech.

It really started off very badly; it's not offering anything relevant to your issue, just making the whole thing subjective. I'm sorry, but I'll stop here.