What do we truly know, and what remains unanswered?

[Addic7ed]

Hello everyone,

I stumbled upon a WW2 revisionism probably a decade ago (I can`t recall the exact year). Even though the subject is fascinating, it was also very frustrating (because of all the discrepancies and "bad blood" between both camps).

Before I start, I want to mention that I am an apolitical person. I aim to have a coherent list of facts (with explain like I am five reasons + proof) that I or someone else can easily share with people. I've been called a nazi and other names just because I adore its "aesthetics" (clothes, symbolism, flags, etc.) or because I said that "XYZ was not possible to happen at all." But since I am tired of the plethora of debunking of debunking of debunking the deniers and vice versa - here's the idea.

This list is meant for both "believers" and "doubters." You can always state whether the fact supports the official version or the opposite + include proper proof.


1. Undeniable fact that is 100% proven to be true.
2. Most likely to be a fact.
3. Most likely to be fiction.
4. Undeniable fiction that is 100% debunked.
5. A thing that remains unanswered to this day.

I want to remind you that this is not a war against each other (Holocaustians x Deniers): no big infographics, no litany of text or books, etc.

If you are willing to participate, I`d be extremely grateful.

[Hektor]

That sounds like a serious approach to enquire the matter.

You need to ask yourself also by what 'way of knowing'. It is key that the epistemological question need to be answered beforehand.
Typically there are several ways of knowing.
1. There'd be revealed knowledge of axiomatic knowing. It is true, because it is true. But that isn't a way to establish a truth, it is true by definition. This is however slipping into debates, since a unproven hypothesis often gets assumed to be true, although that has never been proven.
2. Empirical Knowledge. This deals with the observable. And it has to be observable in the present. It however only tells you what exists in te present and is measurable. How this came into being is a totally different question.
3. Rational Knowledge. Based on deduction from something that is true. This is how mathematics works for example. The conclusions must be logically sound. The problems with historical knowledge it is of a 'softer nature' and also uses informal logic.

4. Knowledge by convention. This e.g. where there is convention for example about the meaning of words, grammar, etc. This is however also misused when 'expert knowledge is being invoked.

If we deal with an event in the past, a question would be on how thing would have to look like in the present. E.g. If you assume that a volcano erupted, there should be traces around that volcano from that eruption.

Transposing this to the Holocaust. If 6.000.000 Jews were gassed. Then there should have been real, functional gas chambers. That should also have left 6.000.000 corpses or remains thereof. Given the organized nature of the event... And it has to be organized to a high degree, there should also be a massive paper trail including orders to gas people, operator manuals on how to do a homicidal gassing, designs for the instruments of gassing, reports on progress of gassing. That is however not what is being shown as evidence. So that those in support of homicidal gassings have to use a rescue device:" The Nazis made the evidence vanish"... But why do you insist that "the Holocaust is the best documented genocide in human history"? They will cite deportation records, records relating the concentration camps etc. Assuming authenticity: it proves anything, just the proof for homicidal gassing is missing. But why would one leave some records of the supposed program an only destroy some of them. Especially if one would have to do a major search for 'traces' of 'the Holocaust' to begin with. Evidence destruction would only have made sense, if it would be blanket destruction... Meaning all the records were destroy completely. But they were not. Arolsen claims to have quite a gigantic archive of records. And I actually believe them on this.

Then there is the claim that 'witness testimony proves that the Nazis gassed Jews in Auschwitz'. There is people that claim to have observed 'homicidal gassings'. But they are a tiny minority of the huge amount of people that are claimed to be in Auschwitz at the time. Most folks didn't know about it till after the time period in question. Which means it was told to them. There were also rumors going around, which is a common thing in large detention facilities. As a matter of fact, spreading rumors would also be an efficient way of industrial sabotage in war time.

So to your list:
1. From an empirical point of view only a visible material fact like an artefact or natural object can be an undeniable fact. But there is a problem, what it actually means what it was is a totally different question that needs to be dealt with separately. E.g. The Krematoria Ruins are a 'material fact'. What is in dispute is the claim that the morgues were used for industrial style homicidal gassings. (Killing 100.000s of Jews and subsequently making any remains vanish through cremation).

2. That is a question of probability and plausibility. It must also be feasible and technically possible. Do Holocaust claims comply with it?

3. Any adventurous unfeasible or technically impossible claims are most likely to be fiction. Any claims that are to induce emotions of pity and outrage are likely to be fiction as well.

4. Non-existent camp. Dramatical figures. Use of nuclear weapons. A lot of this type has been filtered out early. They'd have made the whole narrative suspect anyway. Homicidal Gas Chambers survived, because they don't seem to be fake, because gas chamber executions were also used in the US penal system. There is however nothing fishy with the technology as well as methods in this. There is a series of problems with the homicidal gassing allegations made in testimony.

5. Depends on what one considers unanswered. "Where are the Jews, if they weren't gassed" is of course an unanswarable question. Especially when one uses inflated numbers for Jews supposedly being gassed. It's also a way of shifting the burden of proof on the 'doubters'. Something in line of: "If you can't give me the post 1945 addresses of six million Jews that lived in Axis/occupied territories before 1945, then you can't deny the Holocaust."


Approached rationally and honestly, the whole Holocaust Myth would crumble like any other insane story. But that is where the problem is. It isn't approached with reason or honesty. It is assumed to be true like some religious truth and from there any evidence or lack thereof is explained. Crematoria become homicidal gassing facilities, lack of documentary proof becomes proof that the Nazis destroyed all the evidence. It's kind of the "the dog ate my homework" excuse. And the waters are muddied via Holocaust movies, shockumentaries, media reports, 'survivor testimony' and of Holocaust Education in schools where academic dimwits that became teachers tell kids about 'the Holocaust'. It does however appear as if the 'gas chambers' did slowly vanish from the narrative. A newer approach is to claim "Holocaust by Bullets". A catholic priest, of all people, promotes that narrative. But even he struggles to show proper evidence. After all Paul Blobel and his team has made all the evidence vanish. If there'd be evidence for the claimed executions at Babi Yar, they'd be showing this. But they didn't. In fact it seems that the Soviets did use the ravine as a garbage dump. Seems they didn't exactly believe their own propaganda.

[Addic7ed]

"The dog ate my homework" made me laugh a lot, thank you

Thank you for your thorough point of view, and yeah, I agree it's "not that easy." I was thinking about something that is mentioned a LOT. A common misconception that is considered a vital part of the Holocaust, yet it's utter nonsense or is not accurate at all, like a brochure with the most important aspects and points.

[hermod]

One must first clear up the widespread misconception that the victors of WWII held a real fair trial in Nuremberg after the war because they felt a sincere concern for justice and truth. They only felt a deep concern for looking like the good guys of WWII and they knew that their efforts to make the other side look like the bad guys of WWII would quickly dissipate after their military victory if they failed to record, endorse and publicize their own narrative about the war with a big show trial. Their predecessors had experienced that very unpleasant thing (no firmly established moral high ground, no lasting basis for unfair diktats) during the interwar era, when the best Allied propaganda lies of WWI had been confessed by former insiders and debunked by revisionist historians because left without protection (no official sanction and bogus evidence). That's why the victors of WWII held some big Soviet-style show trials after WWII. In Nuremberg, the victors' narrative was arbitrarily labelled as "facts of common knowledge " and exempted from being proven (art. 19 and art. 21 of the London Charter, August 1945). The purpose of those show trials was not to prove that the victors' narrative was true (might is right; victors are always right). The purpose of those trials was to make sure that the victors' narrative was widely known and believed. That was just "a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations " against the Third Reich, aka "the last battle" of WWII (as British historian David Irving put it). The truth had no place in there. Why would politicians have cared about such a useless thing as the truth in the first place?

https://postimg.cc/sQZLdkcF

https://postimg.cc/H83YC1SW

https://postimg.cc/cK9LktR0

https://postimg.cc/p9DTbcrM

And one must also realize and keep in mind that all the charges against the defeated Third Reich (including the Holocaust) were supposed to rest on the alleged existence of a conspiracy to commit crimes (count one of the indictment) and that conspiracies of course rarely (if ever) leave clear evidence behind. That conspiratorial narrative implied that the alleged Nazi crimes were postulated before the victors' show trials had even begun. During the first days of the 1st Nuremberg show trial, the U.S. chief prosecutor Robert Jackson had to explain: "It is impossible, trying a conspiracy case, to keep from mentioning the fact that the act, which was the object of the conspiracy, was performed. In fact, that is a part of the evidence of the conspiracy."

https://postimg.cc/hJnr6r7D

https://postimg.cc/nXx9V3KN

[Hektor]

One must first clear up the widespread misconception that the victors of WWII held a real fair trial in Nuremberg after the war because they felt a sincere concern for justice and truth. They only felt a deep concern for looking like the good guys of WWII and they knew that their efforts to make the other side look like the bad guys of WWII would quickly dissipate after their military victory if they failed to record, endorse and publicize their own narrative about the war with a big show trial.....

I doubt many educated did seriously believe this at the time. They probably recalled WW1 atrocity propaganda and if they were savvy on the military developments at the time, they would realize 'dead people all around' was the expected outcome of Allied Warfare against Germany. So the only really astonishing thing would be if 'everybody was in a mint condition in the concentration camps. That means that psychological warfare were guaranteed to find 'facts' they could use in footage to make atrocity propaganda.

In April 1945 there were probably 100.000s of dead people distributed over the whole of Germany. So even if those were 5 star prisons, they still could collect corpses elsewhere putting them on trailers and truck them to the camps, if needed.

Except the intelligent, educates, sober-minded folks, there is of course a mass of stupid, foolish, naive and simply unexperienced people, which will believe what they read in Newspapers, see in movies, hear on the radio and last, but not least hear their friends and acquaintances talk about. And that's why the majority of people believes the Myth about the Nuremberg trials decades later.

Key tenet of the Myth is that the Allies gave the evil Nazis a fair trial and they did prove their case thoroughly and beyond reasonable doubt.

That story flies, because the vast majority of people never read any of the IMT documents let alone the 40 volume of transcripts, never looked at the documents or listened to the audio recordings of the trial (which give you access to more information than the writtentext alone).

And since they didn't do that... It's easy to simply believe what your are told.
Most people won't read more than a A4 page or listen to something longer than 10 minutes anyway. So to convince them that this isn't what it is made to appear. One needs to offer information that complies with this requirement.

[hermod]

One must first clear up the widespread misconception that the victors of WWII held a real fair trial in Nuremberg after the war because they felt a sincere concern for justice and truth. They only felt a deep concern for looking like the good guys of WWII and they knew that their efforts to make the other side look like the bad guys of WWII would quickly dissipate after their military victory if they failed to record, endorse and publicize their own narrative about the war with a big show trial.....

I doubt many educated did seriously believe this at the time. They probably recalled WW1 atrocity propaganda and if they were savvy on the military developments at the time, they would realize 'dead people all around' was the expected outcome of Allied Warfare against Germany. So the only really astonishing thing would be if 'everybody was in a mint condition in the concentration camps. That means that psychological warfare were guaranteed to find 'facts' they could use in footage to make atrocity propaganda.

In April 1945 there were probably 100.000s of dead people distributed over the whole of Germany. So even if those were 5 star prisons, they still could collect corpses elsewhere putting them on trailers and truck them to the camps, if needed.

Except the intelligent, educates, sober-minded folks, there is of course a mass of stupid, foolish, naive and simply unexperienced people, which will believe what they read in Newspapers, see in movies, hear on the radio and last, but not least hear their friends and acquaintances talk about. And that's why the majority of people believes the Myth about the Nuremberg trials decades later.

Key tenet of the Myth is that the Allies gave the evil Nazis a fair trial and they did prove their case thoroughly and beyond reasonable doubt.

That story flies, because the vast majority of people never read any of the IMT documents let alone the 40 volume of transcripts, never looked at the documents or listened to the audio recordings of the trial (which give you access to more information than the writtentext alone).

And since they didn't do that... It's easy to simply believe what your are told.
Most people won't read more than a A4 page or listen to something longer than 10 minutes anyway. So to convince them that this isn't what it is made to appear. One needs to offer information that complies with this requirement.

The Nationalist Socialist leaders sued at the 1st Nuremberg show trial, except for Streicher and Kaltenbrunner (if memory serves me right), were educated men with IQs above the average German IQ and they nevertheless fell for the Holohoax atrocity propaganda.

How could the peoples in Allied countries imagine the epidemic devastation in German concentration camps? Their own cities had been left nearly (UK) of totally (USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) untouched by the war. No surprise the deceptive false captioning of shocking typhus & famine pics taken in German concentration camps finally crushed their skepticism. And the memories of WWI atrocity propaganda stories were of little help because pictorial atrocity propaganda had been almost banned during the previous world war.

https://postimg.cc/PCPxSBBy

https://postimg.cc/9z2r29SW

https://postimg.cc/4KhGTgBb

[Merlin300]

That sounds like a serious approach to enquire the matter.
.

And a very good answer to a serious question. Bravo

Most evidence in support of the Holocaust Extermination claims are "eye witnessing and confessions" similar to those supporting large animals
swimming in Scottish lakes.

When occasional physical evidence is produced it fizzles like Caroline Sturdy Colls' much ballyhooed discovery of a Star of David at Treblinka II; actually the trademark of the manufacturer of tiles.

hermod touched on an important factor of Holocaust evidence, the massive propaganda efforts during the War and post-War period reaching a
crescendo at the International Military Tribunal. Of course, there were numerous other trials. (for example the Soviets convicted and
executed Germans for the Katyn murders). In fact, the propaganda show trials continue today. The June 2022 conviction of Josef Schuetz for
“complicity in war crimes” is an example.

The reason for these trials is clear-
“I’m happy that he got the maximum sentence…” crowed Wiesenthal Center’s Efraim Zuroff on leaving the courthouse; adding “These trials help fight Holocaust denial and distortion.”
Jerusalem Post https://www.jpost.com/international/article-710609
Guillaume Mouralis, a research professor at the Center Marc Bloch declared such trials send an important signal. 'It is a question of reaffirming the political and moral responsibility of individuals in an authoritarian context (and in a criminal regime) at a time when the neo-fascist far right is strengthening everywhere in Europe'
Karen Pollock CBE, the Chief Executive of the British charity Holocaust Educational Trust: 'The passage of time is no barrier to justice when it comes to the heinous crimes of the Nazis and their collaborators. Every time someone is found guilty of these crimes, regardless of their age, the truth of the Holocaust is reaffirmed for all to see.’

My point is that huge amounts of money are spent creating and promoting fake or exaggerated tales. There are not enough Revisionists
to deal with the all the incorrect information.

[Hektor]

The reason for these trials is clear- “I’m happy that he got the maximum sentence…” crowed Wiesenthal Center’s Efraim Zuroff on leaving the courthouse; adding “These trials help fight Holocaust denial and distortion.”

That's of course a perverse logic operating here. The reason for the continued (and actually unlawful) persecution of 'war criminals' and 'Nazis' doesn't have to do with 'fact finding for historiography'. The trials assume 'the Holocaust' and then get the person accused convicted because he or she were part of some military, police or administrative unit during world war two. That is the 'proof of their guilt'.

In other words accusation becomes proof, and requiring proof is 'denial', 'insulting the victims' etc.

To the gullible crowd those trials are just another trigger to 'remind' them of the Holocaust. The term *remind *is of course misleading in the sense that you can't be reminded of something you didn't experience yourself. It's something you were told in the past or persuaded of by other techniques. And of course hearing on the news that there is another trial against a 'Nazi'. at a camp 'where Jews were gassed' is enough to affirm that deeply held 'belief'.

Sure that will also intimidate those that doubt the narrative to pursuit on their quests for historical truth. And here Wiesenthal turns things on its head. People that want to rectify a false narrative are now 'distorting' it. And that way of arguing wasn't only practiced by Wiesenthal. virtually all in the Holocaust industry as well as the academics they have influence have done so.

[Addic7ed]

See, that's what saddens me the most. You can find 23-year-old comments from HolocaustControversies bashing CODOH and its moderators for censorship, doxxing [revisionists] and whatnot/websites dedicated to Mr. Romanov, Mr. Muehlenkamp claiming they are the bad ones. And I believe that to this day, nothing has changed and ever will.

It seems like a cyber battlefield, like another war that never ends. Instead of thoroughly going through a specific topic (I dunno, via Zoom call or, most preferably, IRL) and breaking it into pieces, it's more like throwing nades at each other. "Oh, dumb wannabe scholars and experts!" - "Oh, dumb believers knowing nothing but propaganda!"

https://imgur.com/a/725A7 - this website is an excellent example. An extremely long list of debunking the "deniers." I don't know whether any of you have read it, but the author "SirAaronRichards" IMHO, made sure that he addressed many things that are being discussed today.

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/Bij14gFgqGEy/ - This should be his channel.

Everyone posts their "agenda" for their people, making fun of each other. But instead of finding common ground it is more like "Yeah, they were right on this one... maybe".

[Hektor]

See, that's what saddens me the most. You can find 23-year-old comments from HolocaustControversies bashing CODOH and its moderators for censorship, doxxing [revisionists] and whatnot/websites dedicated to Mr. Romanov, Mr. Muehlenkamp claiming they are the bad ones. And I believe that to this day, nothing has changed and ever will.
....

I noticed that long ago. Holocaust Apologetics doesn't exactly attract the 'nicest people' in the world. I still recall the Nizkoreans, when they pushed their stuff on the usenet. Those were generally big mouth Canadians and Americans that thought they were defending the poor Jews against vile Neonazis (How extremely brave of them). But they quickly turned to threats and name-calling. Now this serves the purpose of deterring ordinary folks from debating or questioning the Holocaust. On the other hand, your more bright folks would also notice that there is something seriously wrong with ardent Holocaust Believers as well. It was simply too far out of line to be considered psychologically normal. A malicious attitude and aggressive behaviour within the limits of what people would be consider psychopathological did also show more than often with the Nizkor crowd. I think they also had quite some strive internally and I recall there being a split between Nizkor and "The Holocaust History Project". Talking about doxxing, there was a German group engaging in this as well. IDGR - Informationsdienst Gegen Rechtsextremismus. There recipe was simple. Gather an 'intelligence file' on a non-conformist. Then do some description of that person using demeaning and/or derogatory adjectives in a denigrating way, and voila you got your article on that person.

Those were of course attempts to intimidate and humiliate dissidents. But it is also pathological in many ways, how such 'web sites' and 'projects' could grow and get 'public appraisal'.

From a Normie perspective this must have been puzzling. On the hand this looked rather ridiculous. On the other hand those not too thick-skinned got the message: "Stay away, stay far away".

As a matter of interest: It seems that those projects did employ unemployed academics. Folks with 50 semesters of study, but not necessarily a degree or academic full-time position. One historian once told me that those folks are the little St Georges that have found their dragon to fight (the Revisionists).


As for Agendas, I'd guess it will be a mixture.

On the one hand, you got old school leftists and some woke folks there as well. They had of course a political motive against "Neonazis".... Afraid they'd have to work for a living?

But then they knew. The Holocaust lobby is powerful and 'can help with finances'. While the Revisionists are marginalized, middle class and not really capable to counter malicious reporting and insults against them. In a liberal democracy, you still need to have money to 'make your rights count', plain and simple.

So of course, you gonna find people that are perhaps not very able, but still very willing to do some 'whiteknighting' for you.

The one big thing one never got to see, was some thorough forensic reports that would actually prove the core claims of the Holocaust.


That Holodocs dude tries some low-hanging fruit, but also steps in one really bad propaganda hoax after the other.