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

[mrolonzo]

Holocaust deniers aren't revisionists because they refuse to engage with the evidence or indeed the historical method used by actual scholars for centuries. Case in point look at the guy here claiming eyewitness accounts don't count as evidence despite that concept being at the core of Western histories since Thucydides (and Chinese histories too). Or where they make up new "evidence" based in nonsense like that CODOH post using some Indian hippie's cremation device as a benchmark for mass cremation after battles.

Of course I don't agree with anyone going to jail for spreading kooky theories about the Holocaust. Just look at this thread, it keeps being brought up because throwing people who question the Holocaust in jail or fining them really is a great way to get people to question the Holocaust. I guarantee Holocaust denial would be nowhere near as popular if it were perfectly legal to question the narrative.

The hierarchy of evidence, basic outline, in order of most definitive first:

1. Laws of nature – If someone contradicts the laws of nature, it did not happen. For something to have happened, it must first be possible. Simple

2. Common sense - If something makes absolutely no sense, it probably did not happen. For example, someone claims they avoided the gas chamber many times by being the 201st person in line but it only fit 200. That's just silly

3. Physical/material evidence - If someone says "Below my feet is a mass grave of 10,000 people" and then we dig and find nothing, it is not true. Even if 10 people agree with him, it just is not there

4. Documents - documents are generally more reliable than testimony, but even documents can be faked/forged: something the Soviets were notorious for. So when looking at them we must keep this in mind. Also, documents can be destroyed (both incriminating and exonerating) so relying solely on documents is problematic, but they do in general have more weight than testimony.

5. Neutral testimony - testimony of someone who has no skin in the game. A person who can not benefit or lose out no matter what they say. These people can lie, but are less likely to

6. Party testimony - a victim, a perpetrator, a prisoner, a vengeful enemy. These sorts of testimonies are the weakest forms of evidence imaginable. A victim or enemy may lie just for revenge. A perpetrator may lie just to seem innocent, and that may be denial or a "Yes it happened but I couldn’t stop it!" confession (whether you consider that a "confession" is a matter of semantics). A prisoner’s testimony is also very weak because he may just be saying whatever he thinks will get him out of jail.

We should never assume a testimony is false just because of who says it, but we should be very skeptical about testimony and make an honest effort to combine it with something more genuine, ideally physical evidence but if that is not possible then we should preferentially use documents.



Taken from codoh poster Lamprecht here;

The case of Transnistria: resettlement and survival of Jews in Occupied USSR

The CODOH Revisionist Forum: Holocaust Revisionism and WWII Revisionism Discussion / the time for honesty has come.

forum.codoh.com

I don't think the witness/documentary evidence is nearly as strong for Bigfoot as for the mass killing of Soviet citizens at numerous sites including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butovo_firing_range . Re the 'retarded corner', it's you who are in one, due to your refusal to acknowledge that mass killings can occur without physical evidence being presented.

What do you mean "mass killings can occur without physical evidence being presented?"

Is that a scientific claim or one that just feels right to you Chugger?

Moreover, does your asserting this claim mean that anyone logically must believe this?



Lastly,

Dear Kiwifarms.net readers, you have seen here the exterminationist posters here constantly refer to a real "mountain" of evidence.

In any real mountain in the real world one could easily expect to find a pebble, a rock, a boulder of the hard stuff. Indeed, if you were walking on any real mountain and decided to punch the ground, you would end up with a sore fist because a real mountain is made up of the real hard stuff.

Yet no exterminationist poster has offered you anything real, anything hard, instead they refer to words and documents, yet never do they quote these testimonies of gassing or defend these documents as indisputably real and entirely devastating in implications. As soon as all this is rebutted they shrink back again and again. Our latest poster Loli's best effort amounts to telling us that he 'knows what a wildfire scar looks like' or 'if you suck out air while smashing open and dropping cans of zyklon b you can easily kill hundreds in minutes'. So much words, so much flim flam. Chugger isn't even defending the holocaust any more, he's just defending Soviets, which is fair enough in some regards but it speaks volumes about the debate.

Is this what you would expect from a group of people who claim to have a mountain of actual real evidence in their favour?

 

[Chugger]

@mrolonzo

What do you mean "mass killings can occur without physical evidence being presented?"

Is that a scientific claim or one that just feels right to you Chugger?

This claim is beyond scientific. By presented I mean "Shown".

So the killings at Katyn occurred in 1940, they were very real, but no physical evidence was presented until 1943.

Chugger isn't even defending the holocaust any more, he's just defending Soviets, which is fair enough in some regards but it speaks volumes about the debate.

My god. Quote where I defended the Soviets.

 

[mrolonzo]

@mrolonzo

This claim is beyond scientific. By presented I mean "Shown".

So the killings at Katyn occurred in 1940, they were very real, but no physical evidence was presented until 1943.


My god. Quote where I defended the Soviets.

Right. So between the years 40 to 43, before they were dug up one could not reasonably say "the are possibly dead in the ground". Instead, because some people were saying that it happened, upon hearing this one had to conclude that it definitely had occurred?


Ok, so you do not defend the Soviets.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Anything is possible yes, but I think it's unlikely. I've never encountered a single Holocaust 'promoter' who advocated for these laws and most openly voice opposition to them, even though they are the status quo in many parts of the world. My personal feeling is that people who push these laws aren't really familiar with the history, so aren't aware of how strongly the orthodox claims are evidenced compared to revisionist claims. If they did, they would see that reasoned debate is the best way to counter revisionism, and jailing people creates martyrs and justifies some of the paranoia revisionists feel

I think it's like the average muslim situation in regards to Sharia and persecution of non muslims. Only 5% may engage in the persecution, but the other muslims more likely protect the 5% than condemn them for their actions, or more importantly, take action to stop them.

If there were a genuine protest about making holocaust historic work legal, I don't expect to see you or our loli enjoyer among the crowd.

And obviously these laws have some support somewhere or they wouldn't exist in multiple countries.

 

[Chugger]

Right. So between the years 40 to 43, before they were dug up one could not reasonably say "the are possibly dead in the ground". Instead, because some people were saying that it happened, upon hearing this one had to conclude that it definitely had occurred?

Well Polish witnesses and Soviet documents paint a clear picture of what happened, so based on solely on these, I think it would have been a very reasonable conclusion, just as it is reasonable to think that ~20,000 were killed and buried here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butovo_firing_range (where no physical investigations of any sort seem to have been conducted)

Ok, so you do not defend the Soviets.

Nope

If there were a genuine protest about the holocaust, I don't expect to see you or our loli enjoyer among the crowd.

I think I wouldn't protest because for me there's much more important things to protest against. The plight of revisionists is very sad, but there's not too many of them, and only a handful have received jail time.

However if i was a public figure of semi renown I would try to use my influence to change the laws. Roberto Muehlenkamp from HC blog (the main contributor on the only active site that addresses revisionist arguments) drafted a petition to the legislator of the German Federal Republic http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/02/

 

[mrolonzo]

I think it's like the average muslim situation in regards to Sharia and persecution of non muslims. Only 5% may engage in the persecution, but the other muslims more likely protect the 5% than condemn them for their actions, or more importantly, take action to stop them.

If there were a genuine protest about making holocaust historic work legal, I don't expect to see you or our loli enjoyer among the crowd.

And obviously these laws have some support somewhere or they wouldn't exist in multiple countries.

Chuggers view here is ahistorical nonsense. The legislation was enacted because Jewish groups had long refused to even acknowledge the existence of counter argument, to engage with revisionist text or debate or discuss the matter in public, yet despite this revisionist material was powerful enough to achieve effective wins.

In the Zundel trial it was shown that Zundel was not a malicious communicator so far as his views were correct, which they were shown to be. And Irving, while losing his charge of libelous slander (because he indirectly denied the holocaust in his work) still showed the holocaust as a subject up for debate.

As the woke agenda of minority rights began to be pushed in the late 80s / early 90s the jews wanted to extend this concept to also denying the holocaust is a harm to Jewish people as much as incitement to violence against minorities is.

Well Polish witnesses and Soviet documents paint a clear picture of what happened, so based on solely on these, I think it would have been a very reasonable conclusion, just as it is reasonable to think that ~20,000 were killed and buried here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butovo_firing_range (where no physical investigations of any sort seem to have been conducted)

1/Yes but you're not being accurate about yourself. You're not here just because you have what you think is just a reasonable conclusion about certain events. You don't like nazis, or revisionists and you want to take pleasure in seeing our arguments defeated and us to be shown in discussion as ignorant fools.

2/ If someone during that period, objected to these witness claims as self contradictory, ridiculous and partial and stated why the documents were silly and stupid and even asked for definitive evidence of such a mass murder - you would consider that person worthy of derision?

3/ If someone objects to these firing range events as being real and writes book upon book about the evidence surrounding these events. Would you agree that such objections are worthy of investigation?

I think I wouldn't protest because for me there's much more important things to protest against. The plight of revisionists is very sad, but there's not too many of them, and only a handful have received jail time.

But all else being resolved, you would indeed find yourself quite easily at a pro revisionist protest?

 

[Chugger]

Chuggers view here is ahistorical nonsense.

What view exactly? I said that Jewish groups displayed vindictiveness in attacking revisionists and setting up these laws, but 'promoters' involved in the debate are against them. Historians who've studied the subject also seem to be mostly against the laws, Jewish or not. What do you think Raul Hilberg and Deborah Lipstadt's positions are re jail time?

2/ If someone during that period, objected to these witness claims as self contradictory, ridiculous and partial and stated why the documents were silly and stupid and even asked for definitive evidence of such a mass murder - you would consider that person worthy of derision?

not derision because I don't think mockery is productive or fair, but certainly they could be called wrongheaded. These people do exist btw, they do exactly what you say, and they're called Katyn deniers. Sergei from HC blog has a separate site devoted to Katyn deniers and the issue has also been treated on HC blog

3/ If someone objects to these firing range events as being real and writes book upon book about the evidence surrounding these events. Would you agree that such objections are worthy of investigation?

Sure depending on the strength of their arguments. I don't think they would be strong, just like the Katyn deniers' arguments aren't, but I haven't heard anything yet.

But all else being resolved, you would indeed find yourself quite easily at a pro revisionist protest?

I'd feel just as home as I would in a pro-Katyn Denial protest

 

[mrolonzo]

What view exactly? I said that Jewish groups displayed vindictiveness in attacking revisionists and setting up these laws, but 'promoters' involved in the debate are against them. Historians who've studied the subject also seem to be mostly against the laws, Jewish or not. What do you think Raul Hilberg and Deborah Lipstadt's positions are re jail time?


not derision because I don't think mockery is productive or fair, but certainly they could be called wrongheaded. These people do exist btw, they do exactly what you say, and they're called Katyn deniers. Sergei from HC blog has a separate site devoted to Katyn deniers and the issue has also been treated on HC blog


Sure depending on the strength of their arguments. I don't think they would be strong, just like the Katyn deniers' arguments aren't, but I haven't heard anything yet.


I'd feel just as home as I would in a pro-Katyn Denial protest

Im aware that lipstadt et al have written that they prefer to expose lies to the sunlight of truth instead. Obviously lying but there we are.

There indeed are people who deny all kinds of events. Which makes the objection to revisionists all the more illegitimate.

If however, kattn deniers take you to primary sources and show that there is no unimpeachable record of the nazi digging up each and every victim and identifying that man, that the witness claims are indeed unreliable, that the execution methods have neither precedent or technical backing would you be willing to consider their arguments strengthened?

Would you be normally comfortable at a revisionist protest to end persecution as you would at a protest against climate change or some other issue you find important?


Do you equate Katyn denial with holocaust denial?

 

[Chugger]

Im aware that lipstadt et al have written that they prefer to expose lies to the sunlight of truth instead. Obviously lying but there we are.

How do you know they're lying and prefer jailing people over debate? (if that's what you're implying)

If however, kattn deniers take you to primary sources and show that there is no unimpeachable record of the nazi digging up each and every victim and identifying that man, that the witness claims are indeed unreliable, that the execution methods have neither precedent or technical backing would you be willing to consider their arguments strengthened?

Anyone can criticize primary sources but it's another to offer a compelling alternative hypothesis. The Soviet story was that the 20,000 Polish officers were transported into the depths of the USSR. If evidence emerged corroborating this, I would reconsider and stack it up against the evidence for their killing, but there's nothing.

Do you equate Katyn denial with holocaust denial?

Yes, you can see it most acutely in revisionists' inability to evidence mass resettlement in USSR, the alternative hypothesis they believe in

 

[mrolonzo]

How do you know they're lying and prefer jailing people over debate? (if that's what you're implying)


Anyone can criticize primary sources but it's another to offer a compelling alternative hypothesis. The Soviet story was that the 20,000 Polish officers were transported into the depths of the USSR. If evidence emerged corroborating this, I would reconsider and stack it up against the evidence for their killing, but there's nothing.


Yes, you can see it most acutely in revisionists' inability to evidence mass resettlement in USSR, the alternative hypothesis they believe in

1/
Because they haven't engaged in debate with revisionism in 70 years.

2/ The transport of these 20k east is indeed a compelling narrative so that's a silly argument. It happens to be untrue because the bodies were found in the most exact fashion.

3/
You can see an equality between Katyn denial and holocaust denial because revisionists "cannot evidence the thing I want evidenced " ?

Yet you already admit you haven't really checked out Katyn denial and obviously you're not particularly well versed in revisionism.

Revisionism doesn't contend that there are 5 million hitherto gassed or shot Jews in the east. It simply contends that they are not buried at the camps. Re settlement remains a possibility for some, for others the rest of the world is also possible. But of course ive been over this with you, but you've forgotten all about it.

4/
Moreover, your argument seems to be an implicit acceptance of revisionist writing.

E.g. Your argument is not " Nope you're wrong, the Jews were indeed gassed at Auschwitz the gassing was possible because x and y, this is shown in document z"..

Instead, your argument is this "..........ok fair enough......... in that case where are they then? Surely if you cannot find a sufficient trace of these people then all your arguments about Auschwitz are for nought even though ive just indicated that I accept these arguments against their execution by gas at Auschwitz."

 

[Chugger]

Because they haven't engaged in debate with revisionism in 70 years.

I disagree. I think they don't engage because there's little political or financial incentive too.

2/ The transport of these 20k east is indeed a compelling narrative so that's a silly argument.

I take an evidence based approach so it's not compelling because there is no evidence it happened, they were interned there, repatriated, etc

Instead, your argument is this "..........ok fair enough......... in that case where are they then? Surely if you cannot find a sufficient trace of these people then all your arguments about Auschwitz are for nought even though ive just indicated that I accept these arguments against their execution by gas at Auschwitz."

Nope, as per usual, you're misstating my argument. I've brought it up more than enough in this thread, and explicitly, so I won't do so now, but feel free to to try again. Maybe through this process of trying to understand you will embark on some journey of self discovery

 

[Lemmingwiser]

You don't like nazis, or revisionists and you want to take pleasure in seeing our arguments defeated and us to be shown in discussion as ignorant fools.

How broad is that "our" to you? Would you call yourself a nazi?

 

[mrolonzo]

I disagree. I think they don't engage because there's little political or financial incentive too.


I take an evidence based approach so it's not compelling because there is no evidence it happened, they were interned there, repatriated, etc


Nope you're misstating my argument. I've brought it up more than enough in this thread, and explicitly, so I won't do so now, but feel free to to try again. Maybe through this process of trying to understand you will embark on some journey of self discovery

1/ Engagement is literally free.

2/ The Russians had the means and motive to do so despite a lack of evidence it remains a compelling narrative.

3/ Not interested. State it or dont. As it remains no one here gets your point. Which is probably for the best.

4/ Indeed think about it. The jews, the commies whoever had numerous options upon hearing objections. They could indeed have simply said thank you now let us together search for a more cogent explanation of the exact fate of all these jews. But no. Terrorism, crime, persecution and wilful ignorance was the response.

How broad is that "our" to you? Would you call yourself a nazi?

I would for myself. But in this debate I mean simply those on our side.

 

[Chugger]

They could indeed have simply said thank you now let us together search for a more cogent explanation of the exact fate of all these jews.

Reams of witness and documentary evidence was found for the 100k or so Jews interned in Romanian occupied USSR. Absolutely nothing for the 1.5 million Reinhard deportees apparently held in German occupied USSR.

 

[mrolonzo]

Reams of witness and documentary evidence was found for the 100k or so Jews interned in Romanian occupied USSR. Absolutely nothing for the 1.5 million Reinhard deportees apparently held in German occupied USSR.

Ok, and? What are you implying?

 

[Chugger]

Ok, and? What are you implying?

I was making a correction to your statement that they weren't looking into the fate of deported Jews, and instead jailing revisionists. A lot has been written about what happened to the deported Jews in Romanian held USSR territory.

 

[Bonesjones]

Reams of witness and documentary evidence was found for the 100k or so Jews interned in Romanian occupied USSR. Absolutely nothing for the 1.5 million Reinhard deportees apparently held in German occupied USSR.

We have video footage, plaster castings of his feet. BIGFOOT IS REAL! You have to believe in Bigfoot by your own evidentiary standards. You do believe in Bigfoot, don't you?

 

[Chugger]

We have video footage, plaster castings of his feet. BIGFOOT IS REAL! You have to believe in Bigfoot by your own evidentiary standards. You do believe in Bigfoot, don't you?

What's the best video footage?

 

[Bonesjones]

What's the best video footage?

It was a yes or no question, do you believe in Bigfoot?

 

[Lemmingwiser]

We have video footage, plaster castings of his feet. BIGFOOT IS REAL! You have to believe in Bigfoot by your own evidentiary standards. You do believe in Bigfoot, don't you?

Look if you don't have evidence of bigfoot resettlement, the only possibility is that millions of them got gassed by the europeans as they colonized the americas.