There is plenty of physical evidence of the murders... Thousands of mass graves have been located and documented... If there's something that you disagree with, we can go through it point by point.
OK, but let's first boil the "thousands of mass graves" down to 100 to make things easier. And since this site:
has all the maps needed to go over the "located and documented" mass graves point by point, and it includes the work of Colls, who you are so fond of, we'll start there.
First question:
III - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The alleged “eyewitnesses” to the alleged Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II holocausts - allege that jews were murdered, buried, dug up, stacked in huge piles and burned like cordwood, and their remains were then reburied into the same “huge mass graves” and covered over with “a thick layer of sand” - ??
Last edited by Keen on Sun May 04, 2025 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is plenty of physical evidence of the murders... Thousands of mass graves have been located and documented... If there's something that you disagree with, we can go through it point by point.
OK, but let's first boil the "thousands of mass graves" down to 100 to make things easier. Since this site:
has all the maps needed to go over things point by point, and it includes the work of Colls, who you are so fond of.
First question:
III - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The alleged “eyewitnesses” to the alleged Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II holocausts - allege that jews were murdered, buried, dug up, stacked in huge piles and burned like cordwood, and their remains were then reburied into the same “huge mass graves” and covered over with “a thick layer of sand” - ??
Keen,
ConfusedJew is new, so let's not overwhelm him with demands. He(?) said he wants to focus on demographics for now.
There is plenty of physical evidence of the murders... Thousands of mass graves have been located and documented... If there's something that you disagree with, we can go through it point by point.
OK, but let's first boil the "thousands of mass graves" down to 100 to make things easier. Since this site:
has all the maps needed to go over things point by point, and it includes the work of Colls, who you are so fond of.
First question:
III - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; The alleged “eyewitnesses” to the alleged Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II holocausts - allege that jews were murdered, buried, dug up, stacked in huge piles and burned like cordwood, and their remains were then reburied into the same “huge mass graves” and covered over with “a thick layer of sand” - ??
Keen,
ConfusedJew is new, so let's not overwhelm him with demands. He(?) said he wants to focus on demographics for now.
Yeah, I understand. Being asked to answer one True or False question is so demanding that it could overwhelm a person.
Especially a person who tried to play the "rules" card from the get go.
"No Dodging" If you make a controversial claim without support, others have the right to request support.
CJ, would you like me to repost all of the questions that I have posed to you that you have dodged?
It's hard for me to keep track of all these arguments being thrown at me since I need to research them in real time. I'm not dodging anything but I'm prioritizing on one argument.
Don't accuse me of lying without very strong evidence, especially because you are wrong about that. One of you, maybe it wasn't you, rejected one of my arguments out of pocket without elaborating. You are bombarding me with incoherent posts.
Please focus on the demographic collapse and we will come back to these other issues later.
Thanks.
EDIT: For the record, I was responding the argument that the 6 million figure was not legitimate because it was already being used in the middle of the war. All the post-war "calculations" were anchored in a predetermined figure. In late 1942 you see Zionist groups saying things like "2M Jews have already been killed, we must save the remaining 4M!" And by 1944 you already see people saying 6M HAD died. There's no way that could have been determined that early.
There is no reason to believe that any of the casualty estimates were "anchored" in numbers that were used in the middle of the war. All of the estimates that I have seen, used different methodologies, had nothing to do with those random estimates. The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that there are substantive facts to support the claim that any of the estimate, let along all of them, were "anchored" on some other number.
Hilberg, the honorary 'Pope' of holocaust orthodoxy, claimed 5,100,000. Personally I think even this is an exaggeration, but, it is the Pope saying it, so, I'm not sure how the orthodoxy gets around that.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 1:35 am
[...]
EDIT: For the record, I was responding the argument that the 6 million figure was not legitimate because it was already being used in the middle of the war. All the post-war "calculations" were anchored in a predetermined figure. In late 1942 you see Zionist groups saying things like "2M Jews have already been killed, we must save the remaining 4M!" And by 1944 you already see people saying 6M HAD died. There's no way that could have been determined that early.
There is no reason to believe that any of the casualty estimates were "anchored" in numbers that were used in the middle of the war. All of the estimates that I have seen, used different methodologies, had nothing to do with those random estimates. The burden of proof is on the claimant to show that there are substantive facts to support the claim that any of the estimate, let along all of them, were "anchored" on some other number.
The six million figure was certainly in common use by 1945 and it has been the "standard" figure ever since. All of the "scholarly" estimates came after that number was already established. It's a simple matter of chronology. Are we in all seriousness supposed to entertain the idea that scholars made their estimates with no consideration at all for the number everyone was "expecting" them to come up with? Lucy Dawidowicz in her 1975 book settled on a total of 5,933,900. You think the six million figure had ZERO influence on this estimate? Really? I think that is remarkably naive and it defies common sense.
But since you refuse to take my word for it, Raul Hilberg is one of the few Holocaust historians who was not wedded to the six million figure. Here's what he said in 1990 (at a time when the figures for Auschwitz were being revised down). "There is a proclivity to insist that there were 6 million killed because that’s what was said in 1945. People don’t want to let go." (JTA, 6 Mar 1990) Hilberg himself favored a figure of 5.1M which is definitely on the lower end of "mainstream" estimates.
Another "outlier" was Gerald Reitlinger, author of one of the first comprehensive Holocaust histories in 1953.
Since the reading of the Nuremberg indictment in November, 1945, naming the figure of 5,700,000 Jewish victims of Germany, the round number of six millions has become a generally accepted assumption in most circles that are interested in the matter. But in the course of writing this book I have been forced to the conclusion that, while it cannot be determined even within a half-million of accuracy, the true figure may be considerably smaller. (Reitlinger, The Final Solution, Appendix I)
Reitlinger estimated 4.2-4.6M. The lower figures of Reitlinger and Hilberg never caught on and never displaced the six million number.
Leon Poliakov in 1956 replied to Reitlinger to defend the six million. But here was his opening paragraph.
Many publications dealing with the racial persecution during the last war have set the total number of Jews destroyed by the Nazis at six million. However, this figure, which has appeared in numerous publications in many lands, is generally quoted without documentary or statistical support. The question then is: where did the figure of six million originate, and how reliable is it?
He goes on to cite the Hoettl affidavit and a few others things. But the point is that as is clear from all three of the major early Holocaust historians, they all acknowledge that the six million was already the prevailing figure and there was not much basis for it. Two of them (Hilberg and Reitlinger) did not accept the six million, but on this point they had zero influence on the mainstream version which continued and has continued to cite six million.
Raul Hilberg estimated the number of Jewish victims of the holocaust in his seminal 1961 book The Destruction of the European Jews. His approach was quantitative, methodical, and conservative — he often used minimums where others used ranges.
He started with:
Prewar Jewish populations by country (~9.5 million in Europe)
Postwar Jewish population estimates, based on censuses, refugee records, and Jewish organizations (~3.5 million)
Adjustments for emigration, survivors, military deaths, etc.
This gave him a base figure of roughly 5.1–5.8 million Jews unaccounted for, which had to be explained by Nazi policy.
In terms of Nazi documentation and administrative records, he used:
SS and Reich Main Security Office documents
Transport records from the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways)
Deportation statistics compiled by German and Jewish sources
Camp arrival lists, particularly for Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other Operation Reinhard sites
He noted that transport and camp records matched the geographic disappearance of Jewish communities.
Hilberg did not use a single round number. Instead, he broke the Holocaust into distinct operations and phases:
Ghettos and forced labor ~800,000
Shooting operations (Einsatzgruppen) ~1,300,000
Killing centers (Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.) ~2,900,000
Other (deportations, starvation, disease) ~200,000
Hilberg intentionally erred on the side of caution and said, “I have tried to be careful, not to exaggerate. The truth is devastating enough.” He insisted that each numerical claim be supported by primary source evidence — such as deportation records, camp statistics, or demographic reports. Where the evidence was ambiguous or incomplete (e.g., some Eastern European killing sites), he chose minimum plausible figures, rather than extrapolating or estimating upward.
He did not assume all deportees died unless evidence was very strong. He excluded uncertain figures unless supported by multiple sources.
For example, he counted Auschwitz deaths at ~1 million, while later research (based on Soviet and post-Soviet data) raised that to 1.1–1.3 million.
In the 1950s–60s, when Hilberg was writing, Holocaust denial was already emerging, especially in Europe and North America.
He knew that if his work could be demonstrated to exaggerate or overreach, deniers would seize on it to discredit the entire field. By sticking to conservative estimates, he made his conclusions more defensible, especially in legal and public forums (e.g., war crimes trials, commissions).
He viewed his role not as a moralist or advocate, but as a historian documenting the administrative destruction of European Jews. His method focused on how the Nazi bureaucracy functioned, and that shaped his preference for data-driven conclusions, even if incomplete. His cautious approach helped establish Holocaust history as a rigorous academic field, rather than a matter of polemics or politics.
Within the 5.1m estimate, there were most certainly victims that were left out as he effectively rounded down. His method was not anchored to any war time estimate and he built his measurement from scratch while questioning every figure in his analysis.
Archie wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 2:58 am
The six million figure was certainly in common use by 1945 and it has been the "standard" figure ever since. All of the "scholarly" estimates came after that number was already established. It's a simple matter of chronology. Are we in all seriousness supposed to entertain the idea that scholars made their estimates with no consideration at all for the number everyone was "expecting" them to come up with? Lucy Dawidowicz in her 1975 book settled on a total of 5,933,900. You think the six million figure had ZERO influence on this estimate? Really? I think that is remarkably naive and it defies common sense.
But since you refuse to take my word for it, Raul Hilberg is one of the few Holocaust historians who was not wedded to the six million figure. Here's what he said in 1990 (at a time when the figures for Auschwitz were being revised down). "There is a proclivity to insist that there were 6 million killed because that’s what was said in 1945. People don’t want to let go." (JTA, 6 Mar 1990) Hilberg himself favored a figure of 5.1M which is definitely on the lower end of "mainstream" estimates.
I didn't calculate the estimates myself and I don't really see how it matters whether it was 4 million or 6 million. Raul Hillberg was extremely methodical and conservative in his estimate of 5.1 million so I'm inclined to believe that he was reasonably close.
Do you have any issues with the way that he calculated the casualties of war?
Another "outlier" was Gerald Reitlinger, author of one of the first comprehensive Holocaust histories in 1953.
Since the reading of the Nuremberg indictment in November, 1945, naming the figure of 5,700,000 Jewish victims of Germany, the round number of six millions has become a generally accepted assumption in most circles that are interested in the matter. But in the course of writing this book I have been forced to the conclusion that, while it cannot be determined even within a half-million of accuracy, the true figure may be considerably smaller. (Reitlinger, The Final Solution, Appendix I)
Reitlinger estimated 4.2-4.6M. The lower figures of Reitlinger and Hilberg never caught on and never displaced the six million number.
War casualties tend to be overestimated during and shortly after wars. I wouldn't be surprised if the 6 million figure was higher than the actual casualty, especially since records were not digital or as reliable back then, but at that level it feels like people are arguing to just to harm Jews rather than to make a sincere historical claim. What I don't understand is how people sincerely don't believe that there was an intentional effort to eradicate all of European Jewry, especially when Hitler threatened to do it in public speeches before the war.
Leon Poliakov in 1956 replied to Reitlinger to defend the six million. But here was his opening paragraph.
Many publications dealing with the racial persecution during the last war have set the total number of Jews destroyed by the Nazis at six million. However, this figure, which has appeared in numerous publications in many lands, is generally quoted without documentary or statistical support. The question then is: where did the figure of six million originate, and how reliable is it?
He goes on to cite the Hoettl affidavit and a few others things. But the point is that as is clear from all three of the major early Holocaust historians, they all acknowledge that the six million was already the prevailing figure and there was not much basis for it. Two of them (Hilberg and Reitlinger) did not accept the six million, but on this point they had zero influence on the mainstream version which continued and has continued to cite six million.
So let's say we forget about the 6 million figure. I don't know the exact number, and while every human casualty is tragic, at 4 or 6 million, it really doesn't matter.
Hillberg seems to have been very careful with his estimate and intentionally rounded down when there was ambiguity. Do you have any specific issues with his approach?
Last edited by ConfusedJew on Sun May 04, 2025 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 3:07 am
If I wanted to talk to an ai model, I'd go to one, I don't need to hear its words coming from your mouth.
Are you incapable of thinking independently?
Read some of the material, just some, from this site, from the linked threads from Archie, something.
Don't just grab ai and let it do both the thinking and talking. Furthermore, what's the rebut?
Oh, that the Pope is wrong, so, remember the 6,000,000.
The data is the data. AI just helps you retrieve information a million times more quickly. I don't see any reason to do things inefficiently. AI can be slightly inaccurate occasionally, but it gets the vast majority of things correctly, especially when it is summarizing the key points of other people's work.
A lot of people respond negatively to AI because it is threatening to their professions or beliefs. I find this to be especially true for doctors and lawyers. As for history, it's absolutely remarkable in my opinion.
What do you think is wrong or inaccurate with Raul Hilberg's approach? He very carefully listed out his step-by-step method that was not anchored to anybody else's method.
After new archival data was opened up to the public from the Soviets, later historians were able to refine estimations and the new count based on his original methodology, rose to 5.7 to 6.3m.
2) assuming missing means gassed in a homicidal gas chamber by evil nazi barbarians.
Now, if there actually demonstrably were homicidal gas chambers, or homicidal gas vans, or mass graves packed to the brim with the dead, I wouldn't be here. Instead, there are no kula columns, the testimonies are wild or contradictory, and the whole thing doesn't add up.
Earlier you said carbon monoxide causes blue corpses, this is wrong, both CO and hydrogen cyanide gas cause the corpse to become bright cherry red. This has to do with the action of both toxins.
You didn't even know this, and you used the turned blue testimony as support when it is actually the opposite.
Your use of AI for this is to your detriment as you are standing on its shoulders and assuming it is correct.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 3:23 am
There are some leaps in logic.
1) relying on faulty primary Soviet census.
2) assuming missing means gassed in a homicidal gas chamber by evil nazi barbarians.
Now, if there actually demonstrably were homicidal gas chambers, or homicidal gas vans, or mass graves packed to the brim with the dead, I wouldn't be here. Instead, there are no kula columns, the testimonies are wild or contradictory, and the whole thing doesn't add up.
Earlier you said carbon monoxide causes blue corpses, this is wrong, both CO and hydrogen cyanide gas cause the corpse to become bright cherry red. This has to do with the action of both toxins.
You didn't even know this, and you used the turned blue testimony as support when it is actually the opposite.
Your use of AI for this is to your detriment as you are standing on its shoulders and assuming it is correct.
Hilberg did not rely exclusively — or even primarily — on Soviet census data to calculate Holocaust death tolls. They do not depend on the trustworthiness of any single Soviet source. They are corroborated across Western, Nazi, Jewish, and Allied sources.
We can talk about the exact method of death later, for now I want to stick to the demographic collapse. It doesn't matter to me whether these people were electrocuted, shot, gassed, starved to death whatever. I want to figure out why they disappeared and how you might try to account for them.
The diffusion and dispersion theory doesn't hold up because there are clear records of Jewish migration before the war which don't even come close to the collapse in the demographic numbers.
I'm not assuming that AI is correct, but I do assume that most of it is correct. If something is wrong, please feel free to point that out and I will gladly concede and update my belief system as would any intellectually honest person.
ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 3:13 am
I didn't calculate the estimates myself and I don't really see how it matters whether it was 4 million or 6 million. Raul Hillberg was extremely methodical and conservative in his estimate of 5.1 million so I'm inclined to believe that he was reasonably close.
Do you have any issues with the way that he calculated the casualties of war?
War casualties tend to be overestimated during and shortly after wars. I wouldn't be surprised if the 6 million figure was higher than the actual casualty, especially since records were not digital or as reliable back then, but at that level it feels like people are arguing to just to harm Jews rather than to make a sincere historical claim. What I don't understand is how people sincerely don't believe that there was an intentional effort to eradicate all of European Jewry, especially when Hitler threatened to do it in public speeches before the war.
So let's say we forget about the 6 million figure. I don't know the exact number, and while every human casualty is tragic, at 4 or 6 million, it really doesn't matter.
Hillberg seems to have been very careful with his estimate and intentionally rounded down when there was ambiguity. Do you have any specific issues with his approach?
Of course I don't accept Hilberg's numbers. My main issue with his work is that he fails to produce adequate proof for either the final solution or the gas chambers. If that part of the story doesn't hold up, then I am not going to be persuaded by a circumstantial "missing Jews" argument based on population statistics (often provided by Jews themselves). It is possible for people to disappear statistically for a wide variety of reasons.
I am a numbers guy and when I first got into this I spent a fair bit of time crunching numbers and I quickly determined that it was at best an inconclusive exercise.
Stubble wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 3:07 am
If I wanted to talk to an ai model, I'd go to one, I don't need to hear its words coming from your mouth.
Are you incapable of thinking independently?
Read some of the material, just some, from this site, from the linked threads from Archie, something.
Don't just grab ai and let it do both the thinking and talking. Furthermore, what's the rebut?
Oh, that the Pope is wrong, so, remember the 6,000,000.
Lol, CJ resorting to blatant AI. It's so obvious especially given his earlier posts where it's clear he does not have encyclopedic knowledge of Hilberg.
Archie wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 3:38 am
Of course I don't accept Hilberg's numbers. My main issue with his work is that he fails to produce adequate proof for either the final solution or the gas chambers. If that part of the story doesn't hold up, then I am not going to be persuaded by a circumstantial "missing Jews" argument based on population statistics (often provided by Jews themselves). It is possible for people to disappear statistically for a wide variety of reasons.
I am a numbers guy and when I first got into this I spent a fair bit of time crunching numbers and I quickly determined that it was at best an inconclusive exercise.
I don't like numbers that much tbh but I am good with them when I need to be.
Let's forget about the proof for final solution or gas chambers for now, we can come back to that. What do you mean by the Final Solution anyway?
If you are a numbers guy, let's dive into where and why you think the numbers are wrong. Estimates always involve uncertainty but he was extremely careful to err on the side of caution for practical purposes.
I am many things, but one of things is that I'm a financier so I am quite good with forecasts, estimates, statistics etc. So here are my two main questions.
1. If the number of missing Jews was less than 5.1m, why do you think that?
2. How do you account for the number of missing Jews after the war since the possibility of emigration doesn't seem to come remotely close?
I do admit it is still theoretically possible, but I personally estimate that chance to be practically negligible and I am a former betting professional.
I don't claim to have encyclopedic knowledge of the Holocaust but I do have access to people and machines with it so I'm relying on them for assistance. Some may think that's cheating, but in the pursuit of truth, nothing matters except the truth.
Good one!