"BreakingDan" - anti-revisionist video

[Archie]

Hektor posted a video in another thread by someone named BreakingDan. The channel only has 8 subscribers and 3 videos. There's an abortion video and one on building muscle, both of which are two years old. And then he out of the blue he posts this hour and half long video defending the Holocaust (from Dec 2025).



Given that I've never heard of this guy, my expectations were extremely low. Most of these videos are not worthy of attention because the video presenter usually covers the topic very superficially, often reading over very dated talking points that they've cribbed from somewhere. Dan on the other hand seems way better informed than typical and he does not straw-man quite as aggressively as most of them do (HC is on the better informed side but their presentation of revisionism is outrageously slanted). So I would actually score this pretty high for anti-revisionist materials, for what that's worth (admittedly this is a bit like winning "tallest midget"). BreakingDan has studied some of Holocaust Handbooks series and he explains some of the revisionist arguments more or less accurately (which is quite rare--note that BA and Nessie are not able to do that). And he's looked at the actual books because an out-of-the-box AI I don't think would give you accurate summaries. I think he's probably dialing down the straw-manning for tactical reasons since the usual approach often backfires/comes off as dishonest.

Comments

-Re: the witnesses. He argues the usual thing about how errors and inconsistencies are normal. The problem here is that there has to be breaking point at which the accounts must be deemed insufficiently reliable to serve as the backbone evidence for something like the Holocaust. If you don't acknowledge a breaking point, then the testimonies become unfalsifiable. He cites Graf's book HH#36 (I give him some credit for citing real revisionist sources), and discusses the first two entries. He tries to defend Vrba-Wetzler but he basically says Graf is right about the errors but they don't matter. I think if he were to attempt to defend V-W at length I don't think that

-When he argues for his side, it's pretty gish-gallopy. I know it's a video, but still. He throws out a lot of stuff. Many of his rapid descriptions are slanted (and from my perspective misleading). For instance, he will refer to the Hoefle telegram and say this refers to X number of murdered Jews, but the document doesn't actually say that. That's an assumption on he's making.

-The four million plaque. I think he is missing the point here. Four million is a completely ridiculous number and he's not confronting the implications with respect to Soviet and Polish credibility.

-The six million, he repeats the HC argument that other numbers like 5, 4, 3 etc were just as common prewar. Even if that were true (I don't think that can be settled by raw search results since most are irrelevant/out of context) that doesn't address the references in 1942-1945, and it doesn't explain how the six million number took hold (which it undeniably did). The six million number has a demonstrably bogus origin. The only real defense I have seen is to say that the real number happened to align with Zionist "estimates."

-He goes into Leuchter and Rudolf etc. I will give him some bonus points here for not bringing up Rudolf's exercise outfit. We've discussed this a ton, so I won't repeat it all here.

-He goes into cremation capacity at Auschwitz. He discusses Mattogno. He tries to argue that they achieved crazy time and fuel savings because they had some special way of arranging the bodies just so and yada yada. But 3kg per body? Do these people seriously believe this?

-He talks about Pressac toward the end, but Pressac is very much a double-edged sword. The man was quite critical of the mainstream. He did not accept the mainstream figures (he never gave an overall death toll but implicitly he believed something under 4 million). Pressac opens the door to revisionism and undermines the mainstream's claims of infallibility.

I think the Lipstadt types would not like the approach taken in this video at all because it engages a little too seriously with revisionism and actually explains some revisionist arguments which is not what they want. Frankly, I would not be surprised if YT took this down at some point. I remember some of Cockerill's videos would get removed which I always found amusing.

If BreakingDan is serious, I hope he will drop by here and show us what he's got.

[Stubble]

He spends some time with the Polish Underground reports. I wonder if he would be kind enough to tell me what Bruno Baum thought about those...

https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/baum-bruno/224/

With regard to 'witnesses generally say the same thing', if they can't even recall if they;

1) sprayed water to neutralize the murder weapon because it was distributed evenly through the room.

2) didn't have to deal with the murder weapon because it was in a retractable receptacle.

That's not a slight error, that's absolutely damning.

It's like me telling you I worked with a piece of equipment for a year, but, not knowing how to start, stop or run that piece of equipment, and no one else that says they ran it being able to run it either, but, all of us disagreeing about the locations of the controls and their function.

I have to agree with Archie, this isn't the normal slop, but, it's still slop. Just like myles powers, he has that insufferable accent. Why is it always like this...

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
I looked at the comments.

BreakingDan’s replies to criticisms of the video’s content does not demonstrate a person with much intelligent understanding.

Plus, one month ago he, the creator of the video, wrote this there:

“I'm working on a website to refuke [sic] holocaust denial.
I'm working on this with Robert Jan van pelt of Waterloo university.”

The very fact he misrepresents historical ‘revision’ as ‘denial’ demonstrates he’s not approaching the subject impartially.

And the lack of intelligent, fair, well-informed replies by him suggests he’s just the video creator and van Pelt is the ‘brain’ behind it.

And remember van Pelt is extremely religious in his ‘true-believer’ attachment to the holyH mass-gassing mythology.
Pelt is the guy who reacted to the empirical evidence gathered by Leuchter with this loony-tunes outburst:

“Auschwitz is like the Holy of Holies. I prepared years to go there, and to have a fool come in — come in completely unprepared — it’s sacrilege. Somebody who walks into the Holy of Holies and doesn’t give a damn.”

[Hektor]

I found the above video searching for 'Germar Rudolf' on youtube. It's quite amazing that it ranked that high in the top 10, given this is a rather irrelevant account. But well, he presents a good overview on the pseudo-arguments one gets confronted with at times. And that can make it possibly useful. The author of the video probably thinks he's on the save side and hence feels brave enough to enter a struggle with 'deniers' there.