Junk Folder for Derails

[Nessie]

Back on topic, and away from attacks on a forum member, having been there too many times before, a question about evidence and implementation.

Can any so-called revisionist explain why, when they try to revise history, they come up with so many alternatives?

For me, the reason is because of their failure to evidence any revised alternative in a convincing way. They are all so unconvincing that none are able to appeal to a majority and for there to be a consensus.

[TlsMS93]

The Auschwitz museum website publishes photos with the name, date of birth, date of deportation and the supposed end of this individual, usually saying that after selection he was killed in a gas chamber. You offer nothing more, only your authority. But for the exterminationists it is up to us to prove that this did not happen.

[Nessie]

The Auschwitz museum website publishes photos with the name, date of birth, date of deportation and the supposed end of this individual, usually saying that after selection he was killed in a gas chamber. You offer nothing more, only your authority. But for the exterminationists it is up to us to prove that this did not happen.

The museum states that certain people from transports were killed, because;

1 - there is evidence to prove those not selected for work, were sent to the gas chambers and killed.
2 - there is evidence that person was not selected for work.
3 - there is no evidence of that person appearing on any transport or camp record, or being traced, after the date of the selection.

If revisionists really were revisionists, they would understand that it is their job to produce a revised history of what happened to people not selected for work. They would prove gassings did not happen, by proving what did happen. It is rather comical when some do try to revise the history, as they fail to produce any evidence to prove what really took place inside the Kremas and two farm house bunkers at Birkenau and they fall apart into contradictory disagreement. That is why, despite some objecting, so-called revisionists are really deniers, as all they do is deny that mass gassings took place killing nearly a million people.

[Archie]

We can all get off our high horses about how logical we think we are and how the other side is completely illogical. One of either the exterminationist or revisionist camp is completely incorrect about what happened as it relates to the Holocaust. This is binary, the Holocaust can't have happened a little bit. In that sense it is ironically just like Flat Earth. The earth can't be a little flat sometimes.

If the exterminationists are wrong, it is likely due to the intense propagandising and guiltfarming since the tail end of WW2 which has only increased in recent decades. A subset of these might be holding onto political or ethnic grudges, who knows. This category is completely different than the "normie" holocaust affirmer, who likely doesn't know much about it at all. Auschwitz, 6 million, gas from shower heads and so on. I remove them from any meaningful discussion because they are not relevant necessarily.

If revisionists are wrong, it is likely due to following a pipeline of incomplete data, arriving at conclusions without necessary due diligence, or a stubborn defiance against status quo & contrarianism. A subset of these may also be holding political or ethnic grudges, again who knows.

It's really not looking great for whichever camp is incorrect

The historians are correct, because they have by far the best evidenced history.

So-called revisionists are wrong, because their various suggested histories are so poorly evidenced, they cannot even agree amongst themselves what the history was, and they cannot produce an evidenced chronology of events, that concludes with millions of Jews still alive in 1945.

You say revisionists are inconsistent because we have some differing interpretations of 80 year old construction documents for which the necessary context has been lost.

Meanwhile your side cannot even agree on the most basic, major things like when Hitler ordered the Holocaust, and the story has evolved rather significantly over the years. Even now there are many inconsistencies in the literature.

I have pointed this out to you before and you just say that the disagreements on the orthodox side don't count as long as they "agree" in some vague sense. You are totally unprincipled in your arguments.

[Archie]

The Auschwitz museum website publishes photos with the name, date of birth, date of deportation and the supposed end of this individual, usually saying that after selection he was killed in a gas chamber. You offer nothing more, only your authority. But for the exterminationists it is up to us to prove that this did not happen.

The museum states that certain people from transports were killed, because;

1 - there is evidence to prove those not selected for work, were sent to the gas chambers and killed.
2 - there is evidence that person was not selected for work.
3 - there is no evidence of that person appearing on any transport or camp record, or being traced, after the date of the selection.

If revisionists really were revisionists, they would understand that it is their job to produce a revised history of what happened to people not selected for work. They would prove gassings did not happen, by proving what did happen. It is rather comical when some do try to revise the history, as they fail to produce any evidence to prove what really took place inside the Kremas and two farm house bunkers at Birkenau and they fall apart into contradictory disagreement. That is why, despite some objecting, so-called revisionists are really deniers, as all they do is deny that mass gassings took place killing nearly a million people.

Nessie, you have way too many posts that don't this that don't contribute much, especially when you factor in the all the repetition.

Saying that you are right because such and such "is evidenced" is too generic. Beating people over the head with your opinions and conclusions and proclaiming that they are correct in nearly every post is obnoxious. Please stop doing that and please do a better job of presenting this "evidence" of yours.

You are also have way too many posts that are nothing more than generic attacks against revisionists. If you have a real argument and it contributes to the thread topic, that is of course fair game. But you cannot make the same generic attacks in every thread while avoiding specifics.

[Nessie]

.....

The historians are correct, because they have by far the best evidenced history.

So-called revisionists are wrong, because their various suggested histories are so poorly evidenced, they cannot even agree amongst themselves what the history was, and they cannot produce an evidenced chronology of events, that concludes with millions of Jews still alive in 1945.

You say revisionists are inconsistent because we have some differing interpretations of 80 year old construction documents for which the necessary context has been lost.

You ignore 100% of the eyewitness evidence, and a lot of the circumstantial evidence around the operation of the Kremas, and then come up with wildly different, unevidenced "interpretations". You fail at the basics of historical investigation. It should tell you something important, that so-called revisionists cannot even agree on the revision. It should tell you the evidence is just not there, to support any suggested revision.

Meanwhile your side cannot even agree on the most basic, major things like when Hitler ordered the Holocaust, and the story has evolved rather significantly over the years. Even now there are many inconsistencies in the literature.

I have pointed this out to you before and you just say that the disagreements on the orthodox side don't count as long as they "agree" in some vague sense. You are totally unprincipled in your arguments.

Not agreeing on a date, is very different from not agreeing on what the Kremas were used for, especially when that disagreement includes it was, and it cannot have been, used for delousing.

Historians agree, the mass killings happened with Hitler's approval and knowledge and A-B had its Kremas, two farm houses and a cellar room variously used as gas chambers. That is because the evidence is there, to prove gassings happened.

[Archie]

You ignore 100% of the eyewitness evidence, and a lot of the circumstantial evidence around the operation of the Kremas, and then come up with wildly different, unevidenced "interpretations".

Yawn. We now have multiple thread debunking your "100% of the eyewitnesses" nonsense. When you are challenged on the substance of these claims you face-plant every time. This why you prefer to simply repeat these mindless chants of yours "drive-by" style in every single thread.

[Nessie]

You ignore 100% of the eyewitness evidence, and a lot of the circumstantial evidence around the operation of the Kremas, and then come up with wildly different, unevidenced "interpretations".

Yawn. We now have multiple thread debunking your "100% of the eyewitnesses" nonsense. When you are challenged on the substance of these claims you face-plant every time. This why you prefer to simply repeat these mindless chants of yours "drive-by" style in every single thread.

Name an eyewitness, as in someone who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema and saw with their own eyes what took place, who you believe. You cannot. Therefore, my claim you dismiss 100% of eyewitnesses is correct.

[TlsMS93]

Funny, the Germans destroyed documents that do not fill the Holocaust gap, in an operation that is neither documented nor evidenced, but we can claim that documents that could inform the whereabouts of these deported individuals were destroyed or retained by the Allies, can we not? I repeat, the bulk of the Holocaust would have happened in the USSR and its puppet countries, so there lies the problem, it is an elephant in the room the size of the country.

[Nessie]

Funny, the Germans destroyed documents that do not fill the Holocaust gap, in an operation that is neither documented nor evidenced,

Mass killings are documented and evidenced.

... but we can claim that documents that could inform the whereabouts of these deported individuals were destroyed or retained by the Allies, can we not?

You can claim that, but you cannot evidence it.

I repeat, the bulk of the Holocaust would have happened in the USSR and its puppet countries, so there lies the problem, it is an elephant in the room the size of the country.

A large part of the Holocaust took place in Western Europe, including Germany and Austria and I would hardly call the Baltic States & Ukraine puppet countries, due to their animosity towards the Soviet regime and present day Russia. It would be very much in their interests to expose a Soviet hoax and exonerate themselves from their active participation in the mass killings.