The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Lemmingwise]

Lemming wise and John Doe, what exactly has Chugger said that he hasn’t backed up or answered yet? This thread is hard to follow with people continuously jumping topics, Chugger likely didn’t see your posts or replies.

I've been going back and forth with chugger about 10 months now between a weekly and three times per week on average. I did not keep track of all the things where he didn't back up or answer something. I pointed them out about half the time. My experience is that he reads every post and that there are a lot of times where he pretends to answer a question but doesn't actually. And considering he's quite a perceptive fellow, I do not consider it an accident.

Recently what has gone unaddressed how the fuel/cremation capacity necessary is never genuinely addressed, because the documents and long "just so" stories posted do not address the straightforward physics questions posted. Personally I think "we don't know" is a better answer in some instances, because claiming to know and then not having anything close to a satisfactory answer, makes it seem like a specific story is being pushed come hell or high water. It often feels like dealing with a smart telemarketer with a call script. Very impersonal interaction. Or it feels like a really really dumb telemarketer in the case of @History Speaks

The reason I don't treat them very kindly is because the interactions I've had with them lead me to believe they are not engaging honestly. The fact that they only come to the kiwifarms just for this topic further reinforces that belief about them. And that they both want to start podcasts despite knowing that this is not in the kiwifarms best interest even further reinforces that belief. Though on the other hand history speaks is so completely bereft of charisma that he probably couldn't cause damage if he tried.

 

[Aves]

Some of my thoughts:

1. When they disperse, they would no longer be of that volume and thus less noticable. So there may well be evidence of smaller groups that is never noticed as remarkable.

People who disperse are very likely still going to stick together in large numbers. Of course it won’t be a massive group of 2 million, but you would have at least thousands of people, if not tens of thousands, who were just left somewhere, who would come together and at least try to settle in neighbor villages or on their own. You just don’t have mass numbers of these witnesses, both Jewish and in Eastern europe, mentioning that they were forced all the way East. Like, neighboring villages would 100% report that a bunch of people mysteriously came into their town.

Even if Jews covered their past up, you would need millions of people, who are pretty disconnected from one another, to all come in agreement to just cover up who they really are.

Chugger gave a good example of how a ghetto of 7000 Jews was reported to exist. If such a small number of Jews had evidence of existing, where are the others?

 

[Aves]

Yes there are pictures, but what are the pictures of? When you remove all the labeling and suggestion about what you are looking at, is it what you are told or is it what you see? Do those pictures suggest something else?

You can look at the air photos of Auschwitz and they've got big labels telling you what to think, but when you put it with the story it tells, it doesn't add up.

Why is the open pit fire that's supposedly a pyre for burning bodies on the other side of the camp where they said was an ash disposal site? Did they really want to cart tons of ash a significant distance away regularly? That suggests it's either not what they say or not something done regularly. Both point to the narrative being wrong.

Mr. Hyena asked for a picture, I’m just saying he can find them. Like, I looked it up and found a few with bones/ corpses in them. This doesn’t point to a murder, it could very well be burning already dead bodies. He just wanted a picture, he can get it himself

 

[Lemmingwise]

People who disperse are very likely still going to stick together in large numbers. Of course it won’t be a massive group of 2 million, but you would have at least thousands of people, who were just left somewhere, who would come together and at least try to settle in neighbor villages or on their own. You just don’t have mass numbers of these witnesses, both Jewish and in Eastern europe, mentioning that they were forced all the way East. Like, neighboring villages would 100% report that a bunch of people mysteriously came into their town.

Even if Jews covered their past up, you would need millions of people, who are pretty disconnected from one another, to all come in agreement to just cover up who they really are.

That could be the case, but if it was by mandate that it could not be mentioned or else you get a tenner and that was then erased from history... how would we know? Then it doesn't take individual cooperation between these people. I fundamentally don't think anything from ussr is very reliable historically speaking. They may well be killed by ussr instead. They may well be killed by the germans. Or perhaps some combination of the above. I don't know.

We barely know about "tenners" by the smallest slivers of evidence in itself. I regard it as likely, but I don't know about the truthfulness of the gulag archipelago either.

 

[Aves]

That could be the case, but if it was by mandate that it could not be mentioned or else you get a tenner and that was then erased from history... how would we know? Then it doesn't take individual cooperation between these people. I fundamentally don't think anything from ussr is very reliable historically speaking. They may well be killed by ussr instead. They may well be killed by the germans. Or perhaps some combination of the above. I don't know.

We barely know about "tenners" by the smallest slivers of evidence in itself. I regard it as likely, but I don't know about the truthfulness of the gulag archipelago either.

Once again, you are asking that two million Jews (I’m going by the low estimates here) were all either tennered, massacred by the ussr, or otherwise completely covered up, and there exists no evidence of them? Even if, say, 90% of Jews were tennered/ killed, you would have about 200k Jews who were resettled, all being completely quiet about their mass resettlement?

You have to include the many, many other Europeans who also would have seen or heard of the resettlement in some way, which raises the potential people who knew about this.

This is all assuming, by the way, that the Jews were actually all tennered, killed, or whatever. Is there any large amount of evidence indicating they were in the first place?

Also, how would a tenner work? Would millions of Jews be mandated by soldiers who just followed them around as they wandered? I’m confused on the mandate part.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Once again, you are asking that two million Jews (I’m going by the low estimates here) were all either tennered, massacred by the ussr, or otherwise completely covered up, and there exists no evidence of them? Even if, say, 90% of Jews were tennered/ killed, you would have about 200k Jews who were resettled, all being completely quiet about their mass resettlement?

Maybe 30 % was tennered and 70% was machinegunned by germans? I keep saying I don't know. Lack of evidence for any specific version of history is not evidence for a specific version of history.

If people want me to trust the official history, they have to rectify their credibility problem, make it legal to question in the relevant countries, work at removing the taboo in academia, fix the obvious lies in public educational tools in regarding things like lampshade skins, apologize for the persecution of people like irving and cole. Otherwise I'm only believing it because I'm scared of a couple of gangsters. And I'm not scared in the slightest.

 

[Chugger]

Also, the holocaust is pretty complicated, if you have read the works of any holocaust believers or deniers, their stuff is incredibly long and has like a million citations.

I doubt anyone can read more than 30 pages of Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book (freely available online) without a feeling at least a faint urge to stab themselves in the head.

In contrast, the HC blog response to Mattogno is a veritable page turner. That's because it's an actual history, slowly tracing the formulation and eventual deployment of the endlosung in Poland.

Revisionist texts don't do much more than nitpick around the details. That's why they are also termed 'negationist'-- they are basically the opposite of history, telling the story of what 'didn't happen' . this is especially why the 'scholarly' stuff, like Mattogno's work, is borderline unreadable

@Chugger, I’ve got 2 questions.

1) Is there any documentation showing that nazis transported fuel to camps in the first place? Like, would there be some document saying “150000 kilos of coal transported to auswitchz” or something?

as showed earlier in the thread there are incomplete records of coal being delivered to Auschwitz, but this doesn't tell us much. At the Reinhard camps logistic records were destroyed as related by Globocnik in a letter to Himmler, with the exception of 'excavators' (which explains the 20-30 foot deep mass graves found at these sites). At Chelmno, HC blog has records of the gas vans refueling and so forth

2) Does my above question actually matter? Like, if we were to hold revisionists to the same standards, we would need tons of documents showing how they built the train tracks and what not to transport them. Is there any documentation of this?

Yes and no. Holocaust would be massively evidenced without logistic records but of course every piece of evidence is important. You've hit the nail on the head here though with standards--if deniers applied 1% of the scrutiny they do to the holocaust narrative to their own, I don't know if they would be able to continue. Just because a narrative is vague as fuck (especially so actually) doesn't mean evidence ceases to be important.

No there's no transport records, fuel and food records, anything that can be used to evidence deported Jews were maintained there.

Recently what has gone unaddressed how the fuel/cremation capacity necessary is never genuinely addressed, because the documents and long "just so" stories posted do not address the straightforward physics questions posted. Personally I think "we don't know" is a better answer in some instances,

Lemming I have a response and proposal (!) coming to you but for now I can say -- I asked you guys specifically about the relevance of cremation capacity question to the Holocaust narrative and didn't get an answer, and then a few posts later I said this:

Yeah in my opinion. It's too hypothetical to be very useful to either side. The crema at Auschwitz were destroyed, so we have no way of determining their true capabilities. Even if we were able to reconstruct them to approx spec, we still couldn't be sure without testing them with actual fatty bodies, emaciated bodies, etc.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I asked you guys specifically about the relevance of cremation capacity question to the Holocaust narrative and didn't get an answer

See this is the kind of dishonest representation that you keep doing. Because supposedly it relates to this question.

So what are you guys saying here--that a little more fuel would have been necessary because fat people don't burn better?

and following from this, the Nazis would have been even less incentivized to destroy the bodies of the millions of people killed in death camps (because it would cost 20% more or whatever figure)

And this in the midst of continual obvious attempts at sliding the topic as well as giving conflicting answers. And willing to take dishonest shots discrediting people, but closing ranks with someone who is on your side but is saying stupid stuff. It's very transparent.

 

[JohnDoe]

So you're saying no documents, witness testimony, or forensic reports can be used--only photos of the mass killing technology are acceptable. What if the Germans banned photography here?
we have documents to this effect lol , and I wouldn't expect them to do it anyway

Yet you posted pictures purported to be of open burn pits in use, and a photo of a purported female prisoner being allegedly taken to an alleged gas chamber. So were those fakes? Is it possible that despite a rule against photos being taken photos were, in fact taken? In that case why is it that in one post you will present photos as supposed proof of one thing, but when asked for photos of another thing you claim it is impossible because photos are banned? You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

When a simple question takes a week of dodging, insults, and multiple contradictory statements before ending in a screenshot of an Microsoft Word document purporting to be a translation of another document which only opens up further questions as to the validity of your prior assertions, it doesn't really make it seem like you're arguing in good faith or with good evidence. As I said before, discussions of this topic should not be novel and according to you the evidence is overwhelming, so why do you seem so ill-equipped to respond in a measured and clear fashion? One might think that the information and demonstrable proof would be at your fingertips, so why has it taken you so long to respond in even this unsatisfactory fashion?

Or as Lemmingwise said:

My experience is that [Chugger] reads every post and that there are a lot of times where he pretends to answer a question but doesn't actually. And considering he's quite a perceptive fellow, I do not consider it an accident.

The reason I don't treat them very kindly is because the interactions I've had with them lead me to believe they are not engaging honestly.

Its a constant cycle of deflect, disengage, redirect, promise to deliver evidence, attempt to reverse the burden, insult, copy-paste narration, and dismiss. It really does feel like a dialog tree.

Mr. Hyena asked for a picture, I’m just saying he can find them. Like, I looked it up and found a few with bones/ corpses in them. This doesn’t point to a murder, it could very well be burning already dead bodies. He just wanted a picture, he can get it himself

I'd love to see the pictures of these hyper-efficient Jew-fat fueled multi-stage physics-defying crematoriums, please post them so we can see.

 

[Chugger]

See this is the kind of dishonest representation that you keep doing. Because supposedly it relates to this question.


And this in the midst of continual obvious attempts at sliding the topic as well as giving conflicting answers. And willing to take dishonest shots discrediting people, but closing ranks with someone who is on your side but is saying stupid stuff. It's very transparent.

See that question mark from the quote, it means I'm speculating and am not sure. You should take a page out of your own playbook in matters of looking into my mind--'you don't know'

Is it possible that despite a rule against photos being taken photos were, in fact taken?

Sure. But it was risky, and the more blatantly you exposed what was going on the greater the risk. See here note showing a woman telephone operator being sentenced to death for revealing 'state secrets' at Auschwitz.

The photos taken of the pits are believed to be by a sonderkommando using a smuggled camera

screenshot of an Microsoft Word document purporting to be a translation of another document

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. But if you have a document in mind that you want to go over thoroughly I can do that with you.

 

[JohnDoe]

Sure. But it was risky, and the more blatantly you exposed what was going on the greater the risk.
The photos taken of the pits are believed to be by a sonderkommando using a smuggled camera

So why were you pretending that my requests for photographs are prima facie unreasonable because taking photographs was purportedly banned? This kind of bad faith shit is part of why the evidentiary demands are so high - not only are your claims extraordinary in and of themselves, but your continually evasive and dishonest behavior indicates that everything you (eventually, reluctantly) present will be either faithless, fraudulent, or at the least presented in a deceptive fashion.

 

[Chugger]

So why were you pretending that my requests for photographs are prima facie unreasonable because taking photographs was purportedly banned?

Ok let's go through this. Witness and paper evidence, including forensic reports, is no good for you. Photographs on the other hand good. What else?

 

[Aves]

Maybe 30 % was tennered and 70% was machinegunned by germans? I keep saying I don't know. Lack of evidence for any specific version of history is not evidence for a specific version of history.

If people want me to trust the official history, they have to rectify their credibility problem, make it legal to question in the relevant countries, work at removing the taboo in academia, fix the obvious lies in public educational tools in regarding things like lampshade skins, apologize for the persecution of people like irving and cole. Otherwise I'm only believing it because I'm scared of a couple of gangsters.

Well, if you don’t know, why do you then believe millions of Jews were resettled when there is a huge lack of evidence for it (at least, I think you do believe it)? Like, there would be a number of witnesses, both first and second hand, who would speak up. Keep in mind, much of the “resettlement” happened from 42-44. Did the Soviet’s immediately shut down these Jews?

It just seems that resettlement has very little basis to it. There exists such little evidence from witnesses or officials of any kind that it’s hard to take it very seriously. Are there any papers by the nazis themselves indicating the many Jewish villages or anything along those lines? Once again, a ghetto that had only 7000 resettled Jews had a bunch of information on it, I would assume there would exist bigger ghettos with lots of info too.

Also, if 70% were machinegunned by Germans, that would still “fit” the holocaust narrative. The holocaust, ultimately, is the killing of millions of Jews through intentional manners. Killing 70% of a million to two million Jews would still be a terrible massacre and still in line with what believers think happened in the holocaust (the intentional murder of millions.)

If you have other evidence, I’d love to talk about it.

 

[Chugger]

Are there any papers by the nazis themselves indicating the many Jewish villages or anything along those lines?

the documentary evidence that exists shows that the Jewish population of these territories had been markedly decreased from pre-war levels

 

[Aves]

So why were you pretending that my requests for photographs are prima facie unreasonable because taking photographs was purportedly banned? This kind of bad faith shit is part of why the evidentiary demands are so high - not only are your claims extraordinary in and of themselves, but your continually evasive and dishonest behavior indicates that everything you (eventually, reluctantly) present will be either faithless, fraudulent, or at the least presented in a deceptive fashion.

Well, I don’t think it’s fair to throw out all the other potential pieces of evidence. There can be a lack of pics but a lot of letters and written details.

And I don’t think the crazy Jew machine actually was made, but the regular crematories were the ones used, and there are pictures of them.

 

[Aves]

the documentary evidence that exists shows that the Jewish population of these territories had been markedly decreased from pre-war levels

View attachment 3502135

Huh, that’s even more evidence against resettlement. I’d like to think that if there was a resettlement, the nazis would go to great lengths to show the millions of Jews living on the east.

 

[Lemmingwise]

See that question mark from the quote, it means I'm speculating and am not sure. You should take a page out of your own playbook in matters of looking into my mind--'you don't know'

But it's nowhere near the question you just claimed that it was. And you know that. So this is another redirect again. Another example of intentional misrepresentation.

Well, if you don’t know, why do you then believe millions of Jews were resettled when there is a huge lack of evidence for it

I keep saying I don't know. I'm offering up a variety of possibilities. See this is chugger's game; he wants to shift burden of proof. I don't subscribe to mattogno or whatever his name is. I had never heard of him before this chugger kept bringing him up.

I do think it is possible they may be resettled. I think it is possible they may be dead of disease. I think they may be intentionally killed by one regime or another.

I don't know if the millions number is accurate to begin with, so to me it's begging the question from the get go. How can I trust history when historians are only allowed to defend one viewpoint? Yes this means in order to get closer to the truth you have to go through some kooky stuff by kooky people, because only the truly brave, the truly insane and the truly zealotry people would risk every livelyhood going against a sitting power. And it's hard to discover which is which, because all the debates between this side and the official side takes place in hostile instead of mutually respectful territory. It is not easy to find out which are the brave, which are the insane and which are the zealots.

But if you have sufficient doubt about the official story, as I do, as everyone who truly contends with this topic with an open mind should, then you know the official story is certainly not by the truthful, for reasons I stated in my previous post. They do not spend time correcting their own mistakes and leave them up publically, again like the lampshade skins.

Also, if 70% were machinegunned by Germans, that would still “fit” the holocaust narrative

Personally I subscribe a definition of the word holocaust close to the one @Stan gave 10 pages back or so when I asked to define it, where deaths are primarily by gassing.

That's the way I was taught it in school and how media too trained me to think about it before I started researching it.

I generally do not allow people to redefine words for their own purposes. Originally the 6 million too was part of the definition, but that invented number could not be sustained. You'll still see it everywhere, just not in places where shills push the official version where people might be openminded, because they know it's indefensible and they've had to cede some ground. But generally only do so where they encounter more knowledgeable people. They'll still stand by silently when it is printed in educational textbooks or put up on public resources.

So when you go about it technically and use the original definition, I am a holocaust denier. Though typically people think of the holocaust as "that time germans killed jews" which I agree with, or "that time germans gassed jews" which I disagree with.

 

[JohnDoe]

Ok let's go through this. Witness and paper evidence, including forensic reports, is no good for you. Photographs on the other hand good. What else?

You don't even recognize your own duplicitous behavior, just glossing over it to move on to the next technique for deflecting or minimizing. Are you even aware enough to be surprised when people don't want to engage with you, or are you just sociopathic enough to discount their reactions entirely? I'm with @Lemmingwise in regards to his opinion of you, I don't feel as though you act in good faith and never will.

There can be a lack of pics but a lot of letters and written details.

Which mean what, exactly? Letters or memos that, even if are actually written by the purported authors are usually second or third hand accounts of circumstance evidence, discovered or written long after the events or in support of and full knowledge of the existing narrative. The whole issue with reliance on written 'codewords' and 'allusions' and third party 'agreement' is that is exactly backwards in regards to the investigative process where your conclusion should flow from the evidence. In this case the conclusion is the starting point (a Holocaust of gassing and incineration) and every scrap of evidence or logical question is forced to bend and twist back to that; a memo about some Hauptmann's boot polish purchases is held up as proof there was Jew-ash everywhere, a photo of two men holding a woman is a 'prisoner being thrown into a crematorium' despite there being nothing else but trees and a fence in the photo, a note from 1985 based on sketched copies of a purported patent which concludes 'there is no way to know if this was ever built or worked' is touted as proof positive that magic super crematoriums existed - all of this is twisted around because the people presenting it as such do not want to go where the evidence leads, only adapt or twist everything to fit their already decided conclusion.

Just take a look at this whole cremation debacle. A simple question about 'where did they get the fuel needed to cremate the millions of corpses?' turned into a three ring circus where the cadavers were emaciated and starved - except for the fat ones the Nazis rendered down to use as fuel, which were all then incinerated in their super-crematoriums that ran on jew fat - except for the ones burned in the open pits shown in their photos, and you won't ever see a picture of the super crematorium because photos were banned - but also we have all these pictures of everything but the crematoriums, with continual bad faith and constant attempts to flip the burden of proof and demanding other people defend positions they never claimed. The basic neutral position where full faith and credit is given cannot be sustained in the face of such duplicity, and the only ones to blame are the people that refuse to engage in even a modicum of good faith.

 

[Chugger]

But it's nowhere near the question you just claimed that it was.

so you're saying I knew exactly why you guys were doing corpse math but was pretending I didn't?

you don't think it's possible I was just trying to ground and focus a conversation I judged to be all over the place?

See this is chugger's game; he wants to shift burden of proof.

Wrong. I'm saying both sides should have burden of proof, and I don't see why it should be any other way.

If you accept that in the USSR Jews weren't deported when the ghettos there were liquidated but instead immediately shot, there's still the question of what happened to the 3 million believed to have been sent to death camps in Poland. If you're saying their fate is undeterminable, how can you be so certain gassing (far and away the best evidenced hypothesis) didn't happen? No strong evidence exists to contradict it, unlike w resettlement

Letters or memos that, even if are actually written by the purported authors are usually second or third hand accounts of circumstance evidence, discovered or written long after the events or in support of and full knowledge of the existing narrative.

if you don't want to engage w me that's fine, but I'll keep shit talking your posts if they're silly enough. eg it is noteworthy you never use any examples to back your arguments . i've posted lots of documents in this thread. you should be able to find one that fits the bill.

the nazis would go to great lengths to show the millions of Jews living on the east.

this is actually one of the first things I looked into when I became interested in the subject. Goebbels was propaganda minister and his diary is available. I checked to see if he had written anything in late 1942 in response to the widespread reports of hundreds of thousands being gassed at Belzec Sobibor and Treblinka

revisionist thomas dalton provides translations for all relevant entries

 

[Stan]

I keep saying I don't know. I'm offering up a variety of possibilities. See this is chugger's game; he wants to shift burden of proof. I don't subscribe to mattogno or whatever his name is. I had never heard of him before this chugger kept bringing him up.

I do think it is possible they may be resettled. I think it is possible they may be dead of disease. I think they may be intentionally killed by one regime or another.

I don't know if the millions number is accurate to begin with, so to me it's begging the question from the get go. How can I trust history when historians are only allowed to defend one viewpoint? Yes this means in order to get closer to the truth you have to go through some kooky stuff by kooky people, because only the truly brave, the truly insane and the truly zealotry people would risk every livelyhood going against a sitting power. And it's hard to discover which is which, because all the debates between this side and the official side takes place in hostile instead of mutually respectful territory. It is not easy to find out which are the brave, which are the insane and which are the zealots.

But if you have sufficient doubt about the official story, as I do, as everyone who truly contends with this topic with an open mind should, then you know the official story is certainly not by the truthful, for reasons I stated in my previous post. They do not spend time correcting their own mistakes and leave them up publically, again like the lampshade skins.


Personally I subscribe a definition of the word holocaust close to the one @Stan gave 10 pages back or so when I asked to define it, where deaths are primarily by gassing.

That's the way I was taught it in school and how media too trained me to think about it before I started researching it.

I generally do not allow people to redefine words for their own purposes. Originally the 6 million too was part of the definition, but that invented number could not be sustained. You'll still see it everywhere, just not in places where shills push the official version where people might be openminded, because they know it's indefensible and they've had to cede some ground. But generally only do so where they encounter more knowledgeable people. They'll still stand by silently when it is printed in educational textbooks or put up on public resources.

So when you go about it technically and use the original definition, I am a holocaust denier. Though typically people think of the holocaust as "that time germans killed jews" which I agree with, or "that time germans gassed jews" which I disagree with.

Thanks for plugging my definition... but, I still have a problem with your reasoning; you're holding a fairly unreasonable doubt that the Holocaust occurred as the weight of evidence proves it has, time and time again.

Historians aren't being "forced" to conform to the Holocaust narrative; the burden of evidence that we have is just so convincing that any other interpretation amounts to wishful thinking. Holocaust deniers seem to believe that it's possible that America and the USSR were willing to collaborate and fabricate evidence of the Holocaust when these two nation-states were already in competition with one another in the waning days of the war. Holocaust deniers think it is possible that thousands and thousands of pages of Nazi records were forged by the Allies in 1945, even when some of these records (like Goebbel's diary) were discovered pretty much by chance years later. Holocaust deniers seem to believe that eyewitness accounts of the Jews who survived the camps are fake; as if every camp survivor was taken to one side and told what to say after the war. Holocaust deniers like @JohnDoe even suggest that Holocaust deniers are malingering for some nebulous benefit to the Jewish people, which imo is cruel to survivors. When survivor narratives match up with other evidence, like the aerial photography I showed earlier, the best Holocaust deniers can do is pretend all of these independent sources are forged so that they just happen to corroborate each other. No reasonable person can believe that; it's like saying you need to rule out the possibility unicorns committed the holocaust instead of the Nazis.

Have you ever heard the saying; "Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead?" The more people involved in a conspiracy, the more prone it will be to discovery. It would take just one or two people in this group of thousands to refuse to play ball for a conspiracy of this scale to go down in flames. And yet, per Holocaust revisionists/denialists, the conspiracy of the Holocaust has been going on for 60 years strong, required the collusion of USA and USSR, as well as the co-operation every Jew in the camps and every Nazi officer; for an uncertain end. (Usually, something to do with the legitimacy of Israel, or as a way of discrediting Jews who remember the Holocaust today, or things like this.)

From a big-picture perspective, hundreds of eyewitness narratives that essentially agree with one another supports the Holocaust rather than discredits it. I feel the 6 million figure is more or less accurate, mostly because it included millions of Jews who lived outside the Altreich, who were deported to extermination camps during the Final Solution, and who disappear after that.

Holocaust deniers cannot handle a big picture perspective because that would require them to consider the totality of the evidence, so we have these little nitpick debates about crematory efficiency or how many people can fit in a gas chamber. That's literally the best they can do; but I think anyone who really wants to prove the Holocaust never happened should be able to bring MORE evidence to bear than the Holocaust affirmers can to their cause; it's not enough to pick out minor inconsistencies as if that disproves the reality of the holocaust.

Lemmingwise, you keep talking about Holocaust denial as if it's "open mindedness", but I think it's actually quite close-minded to have such a large, convincing, and historically archived body of evidence at one's disposal and still harbor doubts the Holocaust may not have happened. It's as if you're in a jury box for a murder and the prosecution gave you the means, motive, opportunity, murder weapon, CCTV footage, 8 eyewitness accounts, and a character witness; and the defense can only sputter “hey my boss told me to do it” and you are still thinking "yea... but what if a dragon swooped down and did it??"