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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
wonder how the non-lying Jews in Holocaust would feel

You have the built in presumption that they aren't lying, or more charitably, aren't mistaken. Secondly, I don't care about how people feel, I care about the truth. I wish I could say the same about you.

Lmao k
This content may grind your gears
1660940268727.png
Wow are you so assmad that you put me on ignore? What a cuck! I guess you really are Mad, Stan.
 
And as a counterpoint, you believe everybody is lying and
I start from a position of neutrality and make no assumptions, as I am interested in truth. Stop fighting strawmen, it makes you look more ridiculous. I didn't even think that was possible.
 
described them as such--therefore they are all lying
They could could be misremembering, wars are rich fields of trauma that can make memory fickle, PTSD from fleeing warzones can exaggerate or distort recollection, and overexposure to media narratives can reshape internal narratives to fit what is presented. Or maybe some of them are lying for personal gain or other motive, hard to say. I couldn't begin to discern their motivations like a psychic. This is why I take a neutral approach and discount the majority of what is purported to be witness testimony regarding this matter.

Stop engaging in your tautological attempts to stack the legitimacy of your 'witnesses' on the narrative, which has its own legitimacy from the 'witness' accounts which you accept as true because they match the narrative, which relies on 'witnesses' for legitimacy, whom are believed because their stories match the narrative....and so on. I find it tiresome.
 
They could could be misremembering, wars are rich fields of trauma that can make memory fickle, PTSD from fleeing warzones can exaggerate or distort recollection, and overexposure to media narratives can reshape internal narratives to fit what is presented. Or maybe some of them are lying for personal gain or other motive, hard to say. I couldn't begin to discern their motivations like a psychic. This is why I take a neutral approach and discount the majority of what is purported to be witness testimony regarding this matter.
you make an astute observation which explains the discrepancies and questionable aspects found in some of the witness testimony (eg whether the gassings were done with diesel motor or gasoline, grave size, specific dates or incidents)

but the alleged extermination centers were tiny places where thousands of people were arriving on a daily basis to be killed. nobody who worked there is going to "misremember" something like this, unless they are insane

Stop engaging in your tautological attempts to stack the legitimacy of your 'witnesses' on the narrative, which has its own legitimacy from the 'witness' accounts which you accept as true because they match the narrative, which relies on 'witnesses' for legitimacy,
the narrative relied on witness and documentary evidence first (what else?), then after the sites became available after the fall of the iron curtain, archeological studies further confirmed the story, sometimes in exacting detail

actually all witness accounts "match the narrative" (excepting for minor discrepancies, noted above) so there's no need to be picky
 
you make an astute observation which explains the discrepancies and questionable aspects found in some of the witness testimony (eg whether the gassings were done with diesel motor or gasoline, grave size, specific dates or incidents)

but the alleged extermination centers were tiny places where thousands of people were arriving on a daily basis to be killed. nobody who worked there is going to "misremember" something like this, unless they are insane


the narrative relied on witness and documentary evidence first (what else?), then after the sites became available after the fall of the iron curtain, archeological studies further confirmed the story, sometimes in exacting detail

actually all witness accounts "match the narrative" (excepting for minor discrepancies, noted above) so there's no need to be picky
Again we have rules for dealing with mass graves that include full exhumation and photographic detailing along with further analysis. If you do not do this, its not a mass grave only a potential one. Considering the lack of will to actually do that at all, should be considered nothing since it would prove they are probably just more Soviet murders being blamed on the Germans.
 
Again we have rules for dealing with mass graves that include full exhumation and photographic detailing along with further analysis. If you do not do this, its not a mass grave only a potential one.
where are these rules lol? there are tons of mass graves that have never (unlike the holocaust ones) been excavated at all. eg here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butovo_firing_range

Considering the lack of will to actually do that at all, should be considered nothing since it would prove they are probably just more Soviet murders being blamed on the Germans.
So you think the findings by archeologists at the Reinhard camps and Chelmno (noted in my above post) relate to Soviet murders?
 
mrolonzo is going to squirm and execute every escape move he knows to get out of this question, but ultimately he won't be able to answer it

i think he can say the USSR could have destroyed all German documentary evidence of resettlement, which may have been millions of documents. they would have needed a veritable army of document destroyers to get every single one before they were discovered but I suppose it would be possible, if they were extremely lucky. but the thing about the silenced witnesses is unresolvable, or would require some form of technology yet unknown to man

Having thought about this thread it becomes more clear what's going on.

1. HS and Chugger generally wish to engage us as long as they think they can get a point or get one over on us rhetorically.

2. Stan simply wishes to abuse and manipulate us.

3. Aves tries the good cop routine, offering a friendly, understanding tone, then when satisfactory answers aren't provided goes "just tell us where they are!", refusing to undertake to understand the issue.

When they cannot get one over on us rhetorically, as often with me, they instead simply;

1. Stop actually quoting what I say and either address me on another point.

2. Refer to me in posts to each other when as usual slapping each other on the back for being so smart.

Again we see, the point here is dissemination of their propaganda. Not discussion.


Anyhoo…

1. Our peddlers, as said previously, have admitted they cannot defend their holocaust on the physics or the technical details.

2. They can however, offer carbon copies of documents that imply terrible deeds and simply repeat at us about the "mountains of evidence", tell us and each other that we are dumb etc.

3. And what they can also do, is ask questions about the demographic numbers.

They can tell us that "there must have been traces of these millions of Jews in the east!!"

'Why? Because I say so!'

'There would be easily enough Jewish people for a city!!
Where is this Jewlantis!! Here is a meme I created about Jewlantis! It's even got Mike Enoch and Matthew Heimbach on it! I don't know why! It just does!'


If there is no Jewlantis, then, they tell us, the Jewlanteans must instead of sinking under the sea were sunk under the earth. By the nazis.

However, just like Atlantis residents were never found under the sea, neither have the residents of Jewlantis been found under the earth.…

How do we know? Because whenever codoh asks our peddlers to outwit us all by providing such evidence they refuse to answer. Our Chugger here even going so far as to tell us that it doesn't matter that he for example cannot provide bodies from Belzec!





But nevertheless, where there are gaps, our peddlers can then tell us that these gaps are Jews currently buried in Auschwitz, the AR camps, Babi Yar and various unknown locations around eastern Europe where the four EG groups operated.

No need for actual hard evidence, bodies, credible mechanism etc.

........

However, Revisionists have actually not shied away from the numbers issue.

I myself, less than a mere novice having done limited reading written no essays and conducted no studies, tend to think very few relatively died.

However, that's just me, and my opinion, like our peddlers opinion, none of us being serious scholars of the subject, is worthless.

………..


So the first famous demographic contribution ( there are many other reports and studies as you might imagine but they are limited in scope as far as I know) was, as far as I can tell, was by political science Don Raul Hilberg in 1961. Despite the struggle to get published in the end it's a major success...



Later, Walter Sanning spoils the party and writes The dissolution of the European jewry 1983 originally then updated in 2015;

New Insights into the Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry
by Walter N. Sanning 2017


This study dramatically undermines any six million notion, bringing it down to several hundred thousand at most of Jews dead in ww2.

Obviously, holocaust peddlers were not happy, so this is published a few years later;

Wolfgang Benz editor/ contributor 1991 Dimension des Völkermords (The Dimension of
Genocide)
Institut für Zeitge-
schicht.


This is the general Orthodox or exterminationist study of the demographic statistics. Wolfgang Benz oversees a number of different authors taking each country in turn.


Then we have Germar Rudolf's comparative analysis of these two studies;

Holocaust Victims: A Statistical Analysis
W. Benz and W. N. Sanning – A Comparison
GERMAR RUDOLF



Which includes reference to a detailed analysis of The Koherr reports by Steven Challens who concludes that Koherr mis represents the amount evacuated east by about 1 million for the purpose of saving face for Himmler.

Richard Korherr and His Reports:
A Translation and Commentary
by Stephen Challen


Germar details the clear difference between these in approach.
You will not be surprised to see which is the better study.…


Obviously again, our peddlers are not happy.

But did any subsequent major work come out from exterminationist or peddler scholars to combat all this?

Not so far. But,


When recently, two months ago, analysis by Alt Hype, a young man who definitely understands statistics, in a video format mostly following Sannings work …


…..comes out with maps shown as attached and a relevant codoh thread;


our own HS, refusing to let this stand, says this;

"Also, it is interesting that Faulk/Alt Hyp ignores the Nazis own data on the number of Jews under their occupation, as reflected in the Wannsee protocols and the Korherr Report. The Nazi data was based on censuses (the Polish Jews, after being stuffed into ghettos, had to conduct regular censuses of their numbers, and these data informed the Kroherr Report and the Wannsee data.)"

He is then asked by codoh if he has these censuses.

He declined to respond. This was two months ago.

But this critique of his was actually already tried ten years before by Jonathan Harrison on the HC blog, who HS and Chugger regularly go to while criticising everyone else when we post revisionists authors. Thereby just wasting everyone's time instead of sticking to the points.

Criticism of Walter Sanning from Jonathan Harrison of the holocaust controversies blog;

This critique of Sanning is then reviewed by codoh. Jonathan Harrison wants to defend himself on the thread of course. It doesn't go well. He complains that the nazis conducted censuses just like HS years later. He is asked to produce these. The thread ends there.

Analysis by the codoh forum of the said review by Jonathan Harrison with also contribution in the thread by Jonathan Harrison;

........

And finally, why do peddlers focus on resettlement?

Why , indeed, because if they could show us a holocaust they wouldn't need to focus on resettlement!

Additional;

On the problem with the question,
Well, where are they then? - Wilfried Heink

"In reality, the question is a declaration of bankruptcy, because by asking it is admitted that no solid case for mass murder can be made, for if it were, there would exist no need to ask the question."

J. Graf and the illogical canard: 'Where did Jews go then?' / & more
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220819-140620_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20220819-140620_Samsung Internet.jpg
    548.6 KB · Views: 31
  • 20220819_140656.jpg
    20220819_140656.jpg
    471.1 KB · Views: 32
  • 20220819_140736.jpg
    20220819_140736.jpg
    201.8 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
you make an astute observation which explains the discrepancies and questionable aspects found in some of the witness testimony (eg whether the gassings were done with diesel motor or gasoline, grave size, specific dates or incidents)

but the alleged extermination centers were tiny places where thousands of people were arriving on a daily basis to be killed. nobody who worked there is going to "misremember" something like this, unless they are insane


the narrative relied on witness and documentary evidence first (what else?), then after the sites became available after the fall of the iron curtain, archeological studies further confirmed the story, sometimes in exacting detail

actually all witness accounts "match the narrative" (excepting for minor discrepancies, noted above) so there's no need to be picky


The evidence for Chelmno is probably the worst of all.




where are these rules lol? there are tons of mass graves that have never (unlike the holocaust ones) been excavated at all. eg here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butovo_firing_range


So you think the findings by archeologists at the Reinhard camps and Chelmno (noted in my above post) relate to Soviet murders?

The AR camps were delousing and taxation centres. Thus the name Rheinhardt. Thus the proximity to rail gauge changes. Thus the documents and the archaeological studies that confirmed they were not extermination camps for example the Kola Study on Belzec that found numerous graves not made by the nazis and earthen remains that confirmed the more benign nature of the camp.
 
Again we have rules for dealing with mass graves that include full exhumation and photographic detailing along with further analysis. If you do not do this, its not a mass grave only a potential one. Considering the lack of will to actually do that at all, should be considered nothing since it would prove they are probably just more Soviet murders being blamed on the Germans.
There’s no “rule” requiring archeologists to pull out every shard of bone from a mass grave and keep it in a box somewhere like the 9/11 memorial. In fact there are *noninvasive* methods by which archaeologists can look for mass graves while retaining some respect for the remains within.

 
There’s no “rule” requiring archeologists to pull out every shard of bone from a mass grave and keep it in a box somewhere like the 9/11 memorial. In fact there are *noninvasive* methods by which archaeologists can look for mass graves while retaining some respect for the remains within.


Yes but the probative value is extremely limited. You refer to caroline sturdy colls who embarrassed herself with this work and 'promised' to give us the full picture nine years ago but has since went quiet about it.

And you posted an article that showed the stones the museum placed on the site that specifically prevents anyone ever doing ground penetration radar, a lidar or a dig into these graves.

These detect the presence of disturbed earth or how much vegetation, what type and where exactly it has grown. That's about it.

Actual fully loaded archeology does not rely on this as you well know. Today's British archeologists still dig into the earth and carefully brush away the soil to expose ancient graves, tools, weapons, jewellery. There is no excuse for doing less than this while still claiming to have conducted a full study of the area.
 
Last edited:
There’s no “rule” requiring archeologists to pull out every shard of bone from a mass grave and keep it in a box somewhere like the 9/11 memorial. In fact there are *noninvasive* methods by which archaeologists can look for mass graves while retaining some respect for the remains within.

The UN has specific rules for investigating mass graves so that there can be no bias by victim or perpetrator. The fact you won't hold these supposed mass graves to this standard means you are hiding something. We see the same thing with the Nazis having independent third parties investigate Katyn.
 
The UN has specific rules for investigating mass graves so that there can be no bias by victim or perpetrator. The fact you won't hold these supposed mass graves to this standard means you are hiding something. We see the same thing with the Nazis having independent third parties investigate Katyn.

Also, the Nazis signed up to the Geneva convention. Guess who didn't....
 
Also, the Nazis signed up to the Geneva convention. Guess who didn't....
The Nazis deliberately killed millions of Soviet POWs, so their (genocidal) record of POW treatment is hardly something to trumpet.

It is true that, on the Western front, the Nazis and the Allies were mostly serious about abiding the Geneva Conventions when it came to treatment of enemy POWs. But the fact that they would treat French and Anglo-American POWs reasonably while committing genocide against Russian POWs accords with their racial doctrine of the Slavic subhuman.

And finally, why do peddlers focus on resettlement?

We focus on resettlement (among many other issues we discuss) because it is the only counter-explanation that has been offered to the basic question of how did millions of Jews disappear from the camp system.

For "revisionism" to be a rational alternative theory, you need an explanation for where the Jews went that has about as much or more evidence than exterminations. The exterminations, to remind you, are supported by overwhelming documentary evidence, numerous post-war perpetrator confessions given under completely non-coercive circumstances (like Eichmann writing in his diary in Argentina, pre-capture), archaeological investigations (such as the identification of holes in the roof in crema 2), and the like.

Saying "I don't know" in response to the question of how did the millions of Jews disappear in the camps does not cut it, as people do not simply disappear. As Eric Hunt said in his essay abandoning denial, this is the kind of answer that would get one "laughed out of an auditorium." Saying they were resettled results in the Jewlantis problem - i.e. it is a complete absurdity on its face, since if a country of millions existed in 1940s Europe, there would be some residue of eyewitness testimony, infrastructure, economic activity, communications, etc attesting to its existence. But we have literally nothing.

Consider how trivially easy it would be to find a bit of evidencefor "resettlement." You just need one—one!—eyewitness, or letter home to mom from a resettled Jew, or German train record from the camps to the resettlement, or records of imports to the Jewish atlantis, or physical evidence of buildings, etc.

That you and your seer Mattogno cannot clear this incredibly low bar, yet continue to propound "resettlement," makes a total mockery of your alleged concern about "physical evidence."

I mean archaeologists have discovered physical remains of ancient pre-literate villages, and you want us to believe that a country existed in 1940s Europe for which there is no trace. This is why denial is L. Ron Hubbard and flat-earth-tier.
 
Last edited:
@mrolonzo: "HS and Chugger generally wish to engage us as long as they think they can get a point or get one over on us rhetorically."

What's the biggest issue or question we have avoided?

You didn't answer my question about the witnesses to the millions of Jews Mattogno et al believe were resettled by the Germans--the Jews themselves, Soviet witnesses, Axis aligned witnesses (~15 million military and civilian were stationed in Russia)

by what power or method were they silenced?

mrolonzo is going to squirm and execute every escape move he knows to get out of this question, but ultimately he won't be able to answer it

i think he can say the USSR could have destroyed all German documentary evidence of resettlement, which may have been millions of documents. they would have needed a veritable army of document destroyers to get every single one before they were discovered but I suppose it would be possible, if they were extremely lucky. but the thing about the silenced witnesses is unresolvable, or would require some form of technology yet unknown to man
 
Last edited:
Question for Zo on Treblinka -

Attached is a document (this one via Holocaust controversies) that Himmler sent to Himmler listing a number of Jews who had been executed within a certain time frame and certain territories.

Why does Himmler list the Bialystok Jews (many of whom were sent to Treblinka) as having been executed? I thought Treblinka was a transit camp?

Why would Himmler (who was not at Treblinka in the relevant period) assume the (Bialystok) Jews sent there were killed, if Treblinka was merely a "transit camp"?

Also odd how the Stroop Report says the same thing - Jews sent to Treblinka are executed.
 

Attachments

  • Jews Executed.jpeg (Via Holocaustcontroversies (1).jpeg
    Jews Executed.jpeg (Via Holocaustcontroversies (1).jpeg
    446.7 KB · Views: 26
Back
Top Bottom