First debate as a novice

[hermod]

Your old friend doesn't know anything about the Holocaust. He only attributes malevolent motives and aims to Holocaust revisionists (who he probably calls "deniers" in order to exempt himself from discussing their arguments). But someone's [real or imaginary] motives and aims don't matter in such a debate. Galileo Galilei's motives and aims for contradicting the geocentric model never made the sun revolve around the earth.

Moreover, one can easily see that the main motives and aims of most orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist historians are closely related to the expropriation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist clique and to the expropriation of the White peoples by the Globalist clique (in fact, 2 parts of the same Judeo-Masonic eschatological agenda). In my book, those are super-malevolent motives and aims.

Which is your book?

A book in which Gentile nations are real and Jewish chosenness is not...

[hermod]

He wants me to give 5 basic arguments why it could not have happend. I chose first of all his main points, and rhen I just chose. So the debate is on at a later date and he will start taking it more seriously and accepts.. Well... Imperically. So that's good.

Many things could have happened, but didn't.
The main revisionist point is not that the Holocaust could not have happened.
The main revisionist point is that the evidence allegedly proving it happened can't stand up to scrutiny.

Your friend is using a reverse burden of proof.
Holocaust revisionists don't need to prove the Holocaust didn't happen.
Holocaust exterminationists need to prove the Holocaust happened, as in any criminal case.

[Hektor]

He wants me to give 5 basic arguments why it could not have happend. I chose first of all his main points, and rhen I just chose. So the debate is on at a later date and he will start taking it more seriously and accepts.. Well... Imperically. So that's good.

Many things could have happened, but didn't.
The main revisionist point is not that the Holocaust could not have happened.
The main revisionist point is that the evidence allegedly proving it happened can't stand up to scrutiny.

Your friend is using a reverse burden of proof.
Holocaust revisionists don't need to prove the Holocaust didn't happen.
Holocaust exterminationists need to prove the Holocaust happened, as in any criminal case.

Sums up how they work there. Exterminationists can't live up to the burden of proof that it is on them... So they reverse it and shift it on Revisionists. If you can't get the CVs and whereabouts of any Jew they think lived during WW2 in areas under Axis control, they assume that this somehow proves that they 'have been gassed' or 'exterminated'. This is how ridiculous and insane this debate actually is. Proof positive for their assertion? Expect them to dodge and evade the issue in some way.

[Rockartisten]

He wants me to give 5 basic arguments why it could not have happend. I chose first of all his main points, and rhen I just chose. So the debate is on at a later date and he will start taking it more seriously and accepts.. Well... Imperically. So that's good.

Many things could have happened, but didn't.
The main revisionist point is not that the Holocaust could not have happened.
The main revisionist point is that the evidence allegedly proving it happened can't stand up to scrutiny.

Your friend is using a reverse burden of proof.
Holocaust revisionists don't need to prove the Holocaust didn't happen.
Holocaust exterminationists need to prove the Holocaust happened, as in any criminal case.

I have already established that. And I will update this thread with translations later. The reason I moved on was that he changed his mind and was willing to play ball. I'm being leniant because I understand he understood he was ober his head. But he reacted well. The discussion is on. I won the debate. He is interested now.

[Rockartisten]

Your old friend doesn't know anything about the Holocaust. He only attributes malevolent motives and aims to Holocaust revisionists (who he probably calls "deniers" in order to exempt himself from discussing their arguments). But someone's [real or imaginary] motives and aims don't matter in such a debate. Galileo Galilei's motives and aims for contradicting the geocentric model never made the sun revolve around the earth.

Moreover, one can easily see that the main motives and aims of most orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist historians are closely related to the expropriation of the Palestinian people by the Zionist clique and to the expropriation of the White peoples by the Globalist clique (in fact, 2 parts of the same Judeo-Masonic eschatological agenda). In my book, those are super-malevolent motives and aims.

Which is your book?

A book in which Gentile nations are real and Jewish chosenness is not...

Frase... Silly me. I read that like a retard

"In my book" hahahha... I am laughing at myself. Don't fucking judge me, I was distracted. Hahaha

[Rockartisten]

This is what I need help with...

I will start with testimonies during the week, and I would like some help. Orthodox sources with revisionist context. What more did these witnesses that are so reliable say. I am scattered and I can't put that together. It doesn't help to show a bunch of idiots anymore. I have to show that the orthodox side stand on the idiots.

[Butterfangers]

This is what I need help with...

I will start with testimonies during the week, and I would like some help. Orthodox sources with revisionist context. What more did these witnesses that are so reliable say. I am scattered and I can't put that together. It doesn't help to show a bunch of idiots anymore. I have to show that the orthodox side stand on the idiots.

Hi Rockartisten,

I'll be brief here but I think in general it is important to keep in mind that the focus of Holocaust debate is best kept to the main areas of alleged 'extermination'.

Auschwitz (and Auschwitz-Birkenau, in particular) is in many ways the centerpiece of the Holocaust narrative as this is perhaps the largest single crime scene (or close-proximity collection thereof, with multiple 'gas chambers' within close distance and millions of alleged deaths). It is also the place for which the movies and propaganda are most prominent. There are numerous movies which feature Auschwitz specifically and many other passing references or short scenes of it. E.g.:



Jürgen Graf sought to do a study several years ago into witness testimony of extermination camps and chose to focus on Auschwitz specifically, for the following reasons:

– In the scholarly historiography of the Holocaust as well as in media
propaganda, Auschwitz at that time played a dominant role.2 In the pub-
lic awareness it consequently had become the ultimate symbol of the
“industrial extermination of the Jews by the NS regime.”
– There are far more perpetrator confessions and witness testimonies
about Auschwitz than there are about all five of the other “extermina-
tion camps” combined.
– For Auschwitz, an exceptionally large number of documents by the SS
camp administration still exists, enabling the historian to compare the
claims of the witnesses to the documented facts of the conditions in the
camp. Among the existing material is also a multitude of documents
(building plans included) about the crematories in which homicidal gas
chambers using the pesticide Zyklon B are said to have been installed
and in which the corpses of the murdered people would have been in-
cinerated subsequently. This gives the researcher the opportunity to ver-
ify whether the claimed mass gassings and mass incinerations were
technically possible at all. Besides that, the crematories still exist, at
least in a state of ruin, which also strongly simplifies the researcher’s
task. About the “extermination camps” Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and
Treblinka hardly any contemporary documents exist, and the camps
themselves were torn down before the retreat of the Germans.

Graf's book could be of use to you if it is Auschwitz witnesses being discussed: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/36-aerapcoth.pdf

Also keep in mind that testimony needs to align with physical evidence. As for physical evidence at Auschwitz, there is no better work than Rudolf's, "The Chemistry of Auschwitz": https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

If the topic goes into the "Aktion Reinhard" camps (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka) which are together another major area of the "Holocaust", Mattogno's latest work provides a summary of the history of these camps and some "important" testimony which has been used to bolster the narrative in the past, here: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-torc.pdf

[Rockartisten]

@Butterfangers

Ok, thanks! I think maybe that is a good idea. We are not really in debate anymore I think, since he has conceded that I have a lot more knowledge than he does. I'm actually going suggest that he reads those books too. I have read large sections of Germars tcoa, but not cover to cover. So then we can have a discussion about the books. If he studies it himself there is a far better chance he will see the holocaust in a different light.

I have mainly focused on the broader knowledge of revisionism and I think it's time dig in more, more in depth on specifics. It would be nice to just sit down and read too. More relaxing. All this digging and searching and the damn comouter screen and phone screen is fatigueing my brain.

But yes. That is good advise because we are really not debating anymore. And I have to say, I am impressed he got this far. So he is not as unreasonable as some of his arguments might suggest. I mean, he used the best he had to win a debate. Can't blame a man for trying.

Let the Holohoax Book Club commence

[curioussoul]

@Butterfangers

Ok, thanks! I think maybe that is a good idea. We are not really in debate anymore I think, since he has conceded that I have a lot more knowledge than he does. I'm actually going suggest that he reads those books too. I have read large sections of Germars tcoa, but not cover to cover. So then we can have a discussion about the books. If he studies it himself there is a far better chance he will see the holocaust in a different light.

I have mainly focused on the broader knowledge of revisionism and I think it's time dig in more, more in depth on specifics. It would be nice to just sit down and read too. More relaxing. All this digging and searching and the damn comouter screen and phone screen is fatigueing my brain.

But yes. That is good advise because we are really not debating anymore. And I have to say, I am impressed he got this far. So he is not as unreasonable as some of his arguments might suggest. I mean, he used the best he had to win a debate. Can't blame a man for trying.

Let the Holohoax Book Club commence

People who claim to know a lot about WWII and the Holocaust often turn out to know almost nothing at all, particularly people who insist on the veracity of the Holocaust story.

If you want to really get a good sense of all the arguments that have ever been presented in regards to Auschwitz by "serious scholars", read Mattogno's book The Real Case for Auschwitz. This is his best book in my opinion. From there, read his other book Bungled: The Destruction of the European Jews where he deconstructs Hilberg's pseudohistorical tome on the Holocaust. The reason I like this book even for beginners is that he outlines many of the broader themes on the Holocaust while demonstrating thoroughly why Hilberg's research is not very scientific.

Also take a look at The Making of the Auschwitz Myth, and if you want to get a good understanding of the eyewitnesses for the Holocaust (who, contrary to popular belief, do not number that many) read Juergen Graf's book previously linked by Butterfangers. Also take a look at Mattogno's three books on the Sonderkommando witnesses: Auschwitz Sonderkommando I, II and III.

Even read Thomas Dalton's Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides. It's not as scientific as Mattogno, but he still goes through all of the back-and-forth between antirevisionists and revisionists and evaluates their arguments.

[Mortimer]

This is what I need help with...

I will start with testimonies during the week, and I would like some help. Orthodox sources with revisionist context. What more did these witnesses that are so reliable say. I am scattered and I can't put that together. It doesn't help to show a bunch of idiots anymore. I have to show that the orthodox side stand on the idiots.

I haven't heard any criticism of Elie Wiesel from the holocaust lobby even though his stories are full of holes.
https://codoh.com/library/document/a-pr ... wiesel/en/

[hermod]

This is what I need help with...

I will start with testimonies during the week, and I would like some help. Orthodox sources with revisionist context. What more did these witnesses that are so reliable say. I am scattered and I can't put that together. It doesn't help to show a bunch of idiots anymore. I have to show that the orthodox side stand on the idiots.

This might help...

Witnesses to the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz
by Robert Faurisson
https://codoh.com/library/document/witn ... chwitz/en/

https://postimg.cc/fV14zLgH

In Nuremberg, the Soviets brought with them 100 (!!) testimonies by locals about the "fact" that the Katyn Massacre had been perpetrated by the Germans.

Frase... Silly me. I read that like a retard

"In my book" hahahha... I am laughing at myself. Don't fucking judge me, I was distracted. Hahaha

Not judging you, especially if you're not a native English-speaker (I'm not either).

[hermod]

I haven't heard any criticism of Elie Wiesel from the holocaust lobby even though his stories are full of holes.
https://codoh.com/library/document/a-pr ... wiesel/en/

https://postimg.cc/MXqhw1DY

https://postimg.cc/p98ShDP8

https://postimg.cc/WdQZ6SNP

https://postimg.cc/TLQv1rc0

[Hektor]

This is what I need help with...

I will start with testimonies during the week, and I would like some help. Orthodox sources with revisionist context. What more did these witnesses that are so reliable say. I am scattered and I can't put that together. It doesn't help to show a bunch of idiots anymore. I have to show that the orthodox side stand on the idiots.

I haven't heard any criticism of Elie Wiesel from the holocaust lobby even though his stories are full of holes.
https://codoh.com/library/document/a-pr ... wiesel/en/

I doubt they will do something like this, unless they really think they have to... And that's when the credibility of their con-scam is in danger. They rather shut up about any of the problems with their 'star witnesses'. They'd rebuke on minor things, but never would consider there something to be wrong with their paradigm.

[Slobomoto]

What are your motives?
What are the political views of revisionists?
Where did they go?
Why don't you believe the witnesses?
How would it be possible to create such a conspiracy, someone would know? (sigh)

If someone does this, then point it out. Call them having no say on the topic. "Me or my motives doesnt make the holocaust any more real." If he keeps pushing then interupting is fine. Repeat the statement "my motive is not the debate". And if he insist on smearing you by questioning your motive then you can be rude about it.

[Hektor]

What are your motives?
What are the political views of revisionists?
Where did they go?
Why don't you believe the witnesses?
How would it be possible to create such a conspiracy, someone would know? (sigh)

If someone does this, then point it out. Call them having no say on the topic. "Me or my motives doesn't make the holocaust any more real." If he keeps pushing then interrupting is fine. Repeat the statement "my motive is not the debate". And if he insist on smearing you by questioning your motive then you can be rude about it.

* Motive? Find out what really happens. Conclude wherever the 'full' evidence leads.
* Political views? A system and climate where honest pursuit is possible and were view points can be expressed.
* Well isn't what happened to people part of the pursuit? The standard holocaust narrative can't answer that question. The pull out the cop-out that nobody really knows they survived, so they must have been exterminated. In terms of logic that is a fallacy.
* Why should one believe witnesses? And exactly what witnesses should one believe? The ones that have a detailed, but suspect stories how everything worked with regards to homicidal gassings (indicating coaching)? Or those that say that they didn't see it and didn't know there was an extermination program?
* Now what do they think how political campaigns do run? How industries introduces new products etc. With the Holocaust, there is no 'conspiracy'. The actors are known, also their influence, interests are known.

But you are right: The argument veiled in questions is basically: Your motive is to white was Hitler, because you are a Fascist, you want to make Jews and all good and innocent people look bad. You don't know where they are, how can you claim they weren't exterminated. You don't believe the witnesses, because you are mean, it is impossible they are all lying... etc.

It's an infantile line of argument they are using.