The CODOH Revisionist Forum

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:11 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 12:26 am
The hypothesis is not that 100% of the time they used the term "special treatment" it meant killing. The hypothesis is that sometimes it did. Is your assertion that the Holocaust is not possible for this reason? That the Nazis necessarily would have consistently used coded language, or never used it, otherwise the event couldn't have occurred? This is absurdity, utter absurdity my friend

No, what is not sustainable is the use of coded language in one context and another context that is just as brutal as not having such language, as in the action report that Himmler sent to Hitler mentioning more than 300,000 executed Jews. The same occurs with Goebbels' diaries, a private diary, where coded language would not be applicable, but he uses the expression "kill" referring to the Jews only in the last days of the war. In this case of Goebbels, we can see him appealing for harsh measures during the war, but he reaches the peak of wanting no one to live when, in his view, the Jews asked the Germans for zero clemency.

I am not saying that the Nazis never used coded language for fear of having broken their Enigma code, but there is no pattern within the same context, and the exterminationists know this but ignore the problem or do not even accept it as one.

Imagine a world where the Holocaust happened and Nazis used coded language sometimes, but not all the time, when talking about Jews being killed. The evidence shows this lack of a pattern. How should proper historians respond?

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:18 am

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:11 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 12:26 am
The hypothesis is not that 100% of the time they used the term "special treatment" it meant killing. The hypothesis is that sometimes it did. Is your assertion that the Holocaust is not possible for this reason? That the Nazis necessarily would have consistently used coded language, or never used it, otherwise the event couldn't have occurred? This is absurdity, utter absurdity my friend

No, what is not sustainable is the use of coded language in one context and another context that is just as brutal as not having such language, as in the action report that Himmler sent to Hitler mentioning more than 300,000 executed Jews. The same occurs with Goebbels' diaries, a private diary, where coded language would not be applicable, but he uses the expression "kill" referring to the Jews only in the last days of the war. In this case of Goebbels, we can see him appealing for harsh measures during the war, but he reaches the peak of wanting no one to live when, in his view, the Jews asked the Germans for zero clemency.

I am not saying that the Nazis never used coded language for fear of having broken their Enigma code, but there is no pattern within the same context, and the exterminationists know this but ignore the problem or do not even accept it as one.

Imagine a world where the Holocaust happened and Nazis used coded language sometimes, but not all the time, when talking about Jews being killed. The evidence shows this lack of a pattern. How should proper historians respond?

If the story is that they use code language "sometimes" and not consistently then the theory veers toward unfalsifiability.

"Final Solution" was supposedly the phrase the Nazis used to refer to the last stage in their plan. Death of the Jews was the final, permanent solution to the Jewish question. Except if you look at examples of this phrase is German documents it is quite obvious that this interpretation is wrong. So then we are given a story that, well, okay, it didn't mean killing originally but it gradually came to mean killing at some point. Similarly, the improvised gas chambers are another trend toward unfalsifiability. This kind of stuff is a hint that we are dealing with a story that just isn't working.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:09 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:18 am

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:11 am

No, what is not sustainable is the use of coded language in one context and another context that is just as brutal as not having such language, as in the action report that Himmler sent to Hitler mentioning more than 300,000 executed Jews. The same occurs with Goebbels' diaries, a private diary, where coded language would not be applicable, but he uses the expression "kill" referring to the Jews only in the last days of the war. In this case of Goebbels, we can see him appealing for harsh measures during the war, but he reaches the peak of wanting no one to live when, in his view, the Jews asked the Germans for zero clemency.

I am not saying that the Nazis never used coded language for fear of having broken their Enigma code, but there is no pattern within the same context, and the exterminationists know this but ignore the problem or do not even accept it as one.

Imagine a world where the Holocaust happened and Nazis used coded language sometimes, but not all the time, when talking about Jews being killed. The evidence shows this lack of a pattern. How should proper historians respond?

If the story is that they use code language "sometimes" and not consistently then the theory veers toward unfalsifiability.

"Final Solution" was supposedly the phrase the Nazis used to refer to the last stage in their plan. Death of the Jews was the final, permanent solution to the Jewish question. Except if you look at examples of this phrase is German documents it is quite obvious that this interpretation is wrong. So then we are given a story that, well, okay, it didn't mean killing originally but it gradually came to mean killing at some point. Similarly, the improvised gas chambers are another trend toward unfalsifiability. This kind of stuff is a hint that we are dealing with a story that just isn't working.

Are you debating whether they used coded language to describe killing Jews? It's quite obvious unless you're going to call documents forgeries. Mattogno admits it. The argument is about how much, whether some "resettlements" were actually resettlements and so forth.

Imagine a world where the Holocaust happened and Nazis used coded language sometimes, but not all the time, when talking about Jews being killed. The evidence shows this lack of a pattern. How should proper historians respond?

Imagine, if you will, a world, where the people who feebly tell me 'sometimes they used code words, and this code word, that means deprivation of civil liberties, due process and property actually means murdered with poison gas' while also telling me 'Aktion Reinhard' was named after Reinhard Heydrich because it was a program to murder all the jews'.

Imagine these same people told my dad people were killed in dachau in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, and told me jews were killed at majdanek in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.

Imagine actually looking at what passes for evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and realizing there is no physical evidence and no contemporary documentary evidence for 'the most throughly documented genocide in human history'. That the entirety of the evidence is questionable 'eyewitness' accounts and forced confessions.

Imagine the people telling me 'they used code words sometimes' also telling me 'why would there be perpetrator confessions' like I don't know the way you get false confessions to convict a group (if you are a crooked cop) is to crack one through torture then turn the rest against each other when they confess.

Imagine if you will a world where the census of the jewish population is super sensitive and needed to be revised upward before 1945, needed to be revised downward after 1945, but, where the 1945 census is golden.

Just imagine that world bombs.

Then, imagine a world where when I talk about 'common knowledge' and what should be 'established fact' I get accused of lying and misframing things and so have to spend hours looking around for jews talking about jew soap, or about steam chambers of death being in the record at Nuremberg (yes, I was actually told I was wrong and to go through the IMT and cite it and post it, then, since I provided a quite, a page number and a link to the volume, I was told it was insufficient).

Now, imagine a world where a guy who never mentioned gas chambers in his memoir, but talked about jewish babies thrown by the truckload into rivers of fire, gets a Nobel Prize. Now, imagine finding out that it is claimed by a holocaust survivor that he is an impostor. Then imagine finding out how little evidence there is that he is who he claims to be. He is the wrong age, his family makeup in his memoir is wrong, his 'buddy' didn't know him.

Who is Elie Wiesel? Who is he? Is he a plant? He looks like a plant...

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:00 am Just imagine that world bombs.

Re code words, it's not debatable I don't think. There's direct evidence of them doing it. There's documents where they list 20,000 resettled from a place and later muck up and say 20,000 killed in the same document. There's documents where executed is crossed out and replaced with resettled. Special treatment is self evidently coded language. Mattogno admits they did it.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:03 am

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:00 am Just imagine that world bombs.

Re code words, it's not debatable I don't think. There's direct evidence of them doing it. There's documents where they list 20,000 resettled from a place and later muck up and say 20,000 killed in the same document. There's documents where executed is crossed out and replaced with resettled. Special treatment is self evidently coded language.

Forgive me if I hesitate to consider the Germans retarded.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:05 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:03 am

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:00 am Just imagine that world bombs.

Re code words, it's not debatable I don't think. There's direct evidence of them doing it. There's documents where they list 20,000 resettled from a place and later muck up and say 20,000 killed in the same document. There's documents where executed is crossed out and replaced with resettled. Special treatment is self evidently coded language.

Forgive me if I hesitate to consider the Germans retarded.

There are probably hundreds of documents where coded language is used so you would expect some muck ups. No conspiracy is perfect. I think its unadvisable for you to auto eliminate evidence based on such criteria, you're departing from sound history here, but that's your prerogative. It's a position I can't respect though.

Here's Mattogno on coded language. Sorry guys, get your team in order at least.

You think I'm on a team? I'm a dude spelunking in a 1,000 foot hole at midnight on a moonless night with a flashlight.

If there are literally hundreds of documents that got presented as evidence with rubber stamps on them, that's fine.

I'm not going to take someone that calls it 'Aktion Reinhard' 's word for it. I'm going to look at all of it under a scanning electron microscope.

I don't trust your side any further than I could throw krema II.

I respect Mattogno though, a lot. So, I could be mistaken. I'm still going to look at them, no offense Carlo

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:17 am You think I'm on a team? I'm a dude spelunking in a 1,000 foot hole at midnight on a moonless night with a flashlight.

If there are literally hundreds of documents that got presented as evidence with rubber stamps on them, that's fine.

I'm not going to take someone that calls it 'Aktion Reinhard' 's word for it. I'm going to look at all of it under a scanning electron microscope.

I don't trust your side any further than I could throw krema II.

I respect Mattogno though, a lot. So, I could be mistaken. I'm still going to look at them, no offense Carlo

I call it Reinhard? I don't think so. If you're arguing with me I would appreciate it if you criticized me for what I actually assert. I think all I pointed out was that sometimes it was called Reinhard in documents by the Germans themselves. And I showed you one. The Reinhard / Reinhardt thing is just another example of you hunting conspiracies. You're saying the historians that don't use 'dt' are in on the conspiracy, consciously lying about it?

viewtopic.php?t=249

For the record, you level group accusations and group criticism yourself, so, kindly we both refrain? Eh?

Also, apologies for the veer in topic.

I'm going to go close my eyes while time passes.

One slight distinction before I pass out, looking at a conspiracy and looking for a conspiracy are different things. It is not my fault this deliberate misframing exists from the orthodoxy.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:28 am viewtopic.php?t=249

For the record, you level group accusations and group criticism yourself, so, kindly we both refrain? Eh?

I'll refrain if someone points it out like I just did. It's also obvious that I use the dt

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 7:04 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 6:13 pm
Their analysis is faulty, as it ignores a lot of evidence of mass murder and they cannot evidence millions of Jews in camps and ghettos in the east, with populations that kept on growing and growing.

The problem is that you think the Soviets were meticulous about transparency or that this population of Jews in the occupied USSR would have come west in the chaos of war. There is no way to know for sure how many Jews there were in the post-war USSR. So stop asking where the Jews are in ghettos and camps because most of them were deported to the USSR ...

That just reveals your chronological ignorance. The "where are they?" question applied to Jews whom the Nazis had arrested 1939-44, in 1944. They have nothing to do with the Soviets and Jews who ended up fleeing the Nazis 1939-41 into the SU, or retreated with the Soviets 1941-4, or whom the Soviets liberated 1944-5.

Not only is there no evidence of millions of arrested Jews still in Nazi camps and ghettos in 1944, there is no evidence the millions the Nazis arrested were being allowed to join the Soviet side, which would provide much needed human resources for the Soviets.

...because after all I am still waiting for the 2,400 tons of ash to be found in Treblinka II that corresponds to the alleged 800,000 bodies.

You are just in denial of the archaeological surveys that have proven huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains. A ton of flyash takes up just 1.52m3, so 2400 tons is 3,648m3. There is are area of ground 2 hectares, up to 7m deep that contains a mix of earth cremains,so that is 140,000m3, which would easily fit 3,648m3.

Stubble wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:05 am ....
Forgive me if I hesitate to consider the Germans retarded.

But revisionists think them incapable of building gas chambers, modifying existing buildings for gas chambers, and incapable of telling the truth when they were accused of running gas chambers to kill millions.

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 7:30 am You are just in denial of the archaeological surveys that have proven huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains. A ton of flyash takes up just 1.52m3, so 2400 tons is 3,648m3. There is are area of ground 2 hectares, up to 7m deep that contains a mix of earth cremains,so that is 140,000m3, which would easily fit 3,648m3.

Bomb and artillary range. This was from the link below which no longer works.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/AmicusCuriaeDemjanjuk.html

The Central Jewish Historical Commission in Poland, compiled in late 1945, [which] stated that the terrain of the Treblinka II camp had been pulverized with aerial bombs and unexploded artillery duds a few months after its liberation by an engineers unit of the 65th Red Army. This obliteration of traces of the Treblinka II camp by the Soviets took place because the Soviet propaganda machine tried to attach a 3,500,000 victim-count to this small, 12-hectare transit camp. Apparently, the Soviets were afraid that the Allies might request an international commission of investigation of the camp, as demanded by the November 15th, 1942 report of the underground government of the Warsaw ghetto. The report of the Central Jewish Historical Commission in Poland was explicit in putting the blame for this obliteration of the camp where it belonged, on the Red Army, for the: "premeditated destruction of evidence of German crimes and atrocities as well as profanation of partially cremated human remains and ashes."

The revisionist position is that the Nazis sometimes used coded language!

They then make up reasons as to what those words mean, that do not fit in with the evidence of what happened. What is missing from documents, is the word resettlement. Indeed, if resettlement was the policy, there is a massive lack of any evidence of the bureaucracy that would take to run. Revisionists cannot say which senior Nazi was responsible, which department it fell under, its code name or names, regional responsibility, anything. The entirety of what would have been one of the largest logistical actions of WWII is missing.

That is why revisionists have a chronological blind spot of 1944, which should have been the point when the Nazis were guarding c5 million Jews in camps and ghettos.