What would you rank the top 3 or 5 most difficult documentary evidences for Revisionists to deal with?

[Waldgänger]

A young friend of mine who is very skeptical about the Holocaust narrative just told me that he came out of a history class in university where the professor said:

"Unfortunately for Holocaust Deniers, the Nazis were very good record keepers".

A pithy line. No doubt the professor, if pressed, could offer no specific records, only the usual line about a convergence of evidence, before wiping the sweat off his brow and continuing with the seminar.

I've been reading revisionist material on and off for three years now. Apart from the Höfle Telegram, I can't recall any documents that cause misfortune for 'deniers'. However, I am not a memory-oriented person, in that I forget that this or that document exists, so I wonder if anyone can help me by naming their top 3 or 5 documentary evidences which gave them the most trouble trying to explain from a non-exterminationist viewpoint (and how you solved the difficulty, if you have done).

[Some Dude]

1) Vergasungskeller document from Auschwitz archives
2) Himmler speeches at Posen
3) Letter from Willy Just to Walter Rauff describing gassing at Chelmno
4) Verdict in the case of Max Taeubner
5) Goebbels diary entry, March 20, 1942

[Butterfangers]

Apart from the Höfle Telegram, I can't recall any documents that cause misfortune for 'deniers'.

Weird that you just slipped that one in there as if it's an accepted premise.

I took my first-ever "whack" at the Hoefle telegram a few days ago (here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14859&p=107865#p107865, also see the links therein) and can say now with certainty there is zero evidence of 'extermination' anywhere in it.

Nowhere does it say "B", "S", "T", "L" even necessarily refer to camps, let alone that Jews 'disappeared' or were killed in these locations. It's a completely vague message, one that wasn't significant even at the time it was decoded.

Combining this document with the Korherr report eviscerates its alleged 'extermination' implications even further, for reasons also explained in the link above.

I'd say, overall, the documents which Revisionists have trouble with are less in quantity and extent [of trouble] compared to that had for Believers, who have lowered themselves so far as to hang their hat almost entirely on "mUh CoDe WoRdS". Revisionists might have to scratch their heads once in awhile when a new document is brought to light that might compel us to change our understanding in some way. But the need to "change our understanding in some way" does not mean that "the right understanding is closer to the Holohoaxers' narrative".

The Hoefle telegram is a good example. It does show a certain 1.2 million or so Jews were sent through the GG (when held with the Korherr report). We used to think this document said "to" the camps in the GG. And we couldn't think of what other "camps" this might indicate, other than AR camps. Then (recently) we learned more about the very extensive network of previously-uncharted camps all throughout the GG. With this, it became obvious that the Hoefle telegram only refers to Jews being sent through this network. In the GG, this network travels three paths, each leading to one of the AR camps (B, S, T) as a "gateway" further east (or to "L" for "Lublin", either as another route east or indicating the relatively fewer Jews who were to remain in the Lublin area for a longer period).

Jews along these routes were already destined and already en route toward the Russian East. Designations of "B", "S", "T", and "L" were route designations. Consider that, officially, areas which had Jews already imprisoned in camps, etc. were considered "Judenfrei", even with the Jews in labor camps nearby. All of the Jews in the Korherr/Hoefle reports were committed to the Russian East and would be transited there gradually per labor/transit demands and arrangements. This is what these reports indicate. This is all they indicate.

[Waldgänger]

Weird that you just slipped that one in there as if it's an accepted premise.

Thank you for your response Butterfangers. I enjoy your threads.

Apologies, I didn't word that very well. I meant it as an example of a named document/record in general, not of authentic proof of biological extermination. It is a good example, however, of a 'record of extermination' that initially causes people to pause, but upon reading threads like yours, works out to being inadmissible evidence for the charge alleged.

[DissentingOpinions]

Höfle Telegram has zero credibility as a document proving the Holocaust without Korherr, which is already questionable in nature.

[Turpitz]

Apart from the Höfle Telegram

Yes, a real amateur you are. A projectionist on the prod, smell them a mile off!

Stick to 'real' evidence. If you think eleven million were murdered in "factories of death" you need to do better than a dubious telegram. no-one can, in a manner not akin to Laurel & Hardy's methods, even explain how it was carried out, let alone produce the slightest aftermath.

[EtienneSC]

I wonder if anyone can help me by naming their top 3 or 5 documentary evidences which gave them the most trouble trying to explain from a non-exterminationist viewpoint (and how you solved the difficulty, if you have done).

There are Pressac's "39 criminal traces" from the Auschwitz records, which are addressed in books by Faurisson and Mattogno. There are the Einzatzgruppen Ereignismeldungen (event reports), which can be doubted, though some try to explain them by a reprisal policy. And there are Himmler's Posen and Sondhoven speeches, which don't read well. There are threads on them here.

[Hektor]

I wonder if anyone can help me by naming their top 3 or 5 documentary evidences which gave them the most trouble trying to explain from a non-exterminationist viewpoint (and how you solved the difficulty, if you have done).

There are Pressac's "39 criminal traces" from the Auschwitz records, which are addressed in books by Faurisson and Mattogno. There are the Einzatzgruppen Ereignismeldungen (event reports), which can be doubted, though some try to explain them by a reprisal policy. And there are Himmler's Posen and Sondhoven speeches, which don't read well. There are threads on them here.

A 'difficult document' would be one that has complete authentication in other words not just a typewritten paper with some scribbling on it.
Also, there must be a history for the document. Just appearing out of nowhere, they are rather dubious.

There can of course be documents that say things that aren't nice at all. That does however not prove an 'extermination policy'. As with the reprisals, there were other reasons for this than an 'extermination' policy. There were also NSDAP leaders that wanted to go further against the Jews than was the actual consensus and hence feasible to perform. The Anti-Jewish sentiment in some was not representative for all. Most NSDAP people, if at all, just wanted to remove Jews from Germany.

When earlier on the use of 'code words" was suggested:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... Reitlinger

Obviously the documents they got hold of were rather meager in terms of an 'extermination policy'... That needs explaining, so 'code words', 'secrecy', etc. are assumed. The other tactic is to add circumstantial evidences that are not demonstrating 'extermination', but can somehow be fitted into the plot. E.g. measures regarding Jews, deportations, internment, etc. This is however presented in a way that 'extermination' is always suggested. As a subtext, if you want.

[Waldgänger]

There are Pressac's "39 criminal traces" from the Auschwitz records, which are addressed in books by Faurisson and Mattogno.

Thank you Etienne, I was not aware of this. Exactly the sort of thing I like to learn about.

[Waldgänger]

A 'difficult document' would be one that has complete authentication in other words not just a typewritten paper with some scribbling on it. Also, there must be a history for the document. Just appearing out of nowhere, they are rather dubious.

Thank you for your reply Hektor. As someone with experience in the art world, the establishment of provenance of any work, be it art or evidence, has been drilled into me as an essential. When asking whether a picture is really by Richard Dadd or an Old Master, or a forger or just a misidentification, one must be very rigorous in studying not only style and brushwork, but the paper trail: auctions, house sales, commissions. Something the academic world knows very well, yet does not apply to documents pertaining to 1940s Germany & Poland.

[curioussoul]

My top 3 would probably be:

1) The Posen speeches. While Irving has pretty much confirmed that Himmler's original speeches have been edited to re-write the portions about Jewish resettlement, some people still use them as a smoking gun to prove the Holocaust. Certain things surrounding the Posen speeches such as some persons seemingly referring back to the speeches as being notorious, is pretty problematic.

2) The Jager report.

3) The presence of T-4 euthanasia staff in some of the Reinhardt camps operated by Globocnik and certain references to Jews slated for execution being sent to Belzec. While revisionists maintain that Jews who were sick/too weak to carry on the journey to the East were probably "mercy killed" in the Reinhardt camps, it's still problematic that some of these staff obviously had a role there. In my opinion it only proves the revisionist thesis but antirevisionists will abuse this fact to their advantage.

[Lamprecht]

It really does not matter, actually. It's "whatever someone will accept"
I even recently had to deal with an individual that insisted that Hitler's pre-war Reichstag statements proved the "Holocaust"
not even most exterminationists now will make such an argument. At the Irving trial, they outright said he wasn't speaking in genocidal terms.
Too many people are convinced that it's a form of evil to question the "Holocaust" -- that doing so is tantamount to shoving more Jews into the gas chamber. That's obviously insane though, one could easily argue that pushing the "Holocaust" story itself is more anti-Semitic.

[curioussoul]

Also, let me add as a 4th point:

4) The handover protocol for Crematoria III in Birkenau which talks about 4700 cremations/day in total. I think revisionists have already responded to this document quite well, but when it comes to the purported cremation capacity in Auschwitz, antirevisionists keep returning to this document. If I remember correctly even the Lipstadt judge admitted it was most likely fraudulent or at any rate not reliable. But the fact that it somehow exists is weird. And even weirder is the fact that the numbers mathematically relate back to an October 1941 report by Kurt Prufer.

[hermod]

A young friend of mine who is very skeptical about the Holocaust narrative just told me that he came out of a history class in university where the professor said:

"Unfortunately for Holocaust Deniers, the Nazis were very good record keepers".

According to the spokeswoman of the huge so-called "German Holocaust archive in Bad Arolsen," "the Nazis' meticulous record-keeping stopped only when Jews and other victims were herded into gas chambers" (Mmmm, how convenient!) and "there's no mention of [homicidal] gassing [in the 30 million documents of the Bad Arolsen archive]."

https://postimg.cc/HrhcGsbD

https://postimg.cc/vcjNSGYM

[hermod]

Apart from the Höfle Telegram, I can't recall any documents that cause misfortune for 'deniers'.

The Höfle Telegram says nothing murderous to anyone reading it without the Holohoaxers' sinister decoding glasses...

https://postimg.cc/HJcvyWJ3