Is it possible for our minds to be changed?

[Nessie]

I do not believe that finding a Kula column, or what was clearly a part of a Kula column, would change your mind, since something Kula described, the vent grill, being found, is not enough for you to change your mind.

Finding a Kula Column would be infinitely more persuasive than not finding one.

Kola described gas masks, vent grills and showers, but when those items are found in Krema II, you do not find that persuasive. Why are you being so selective?

[Nessie]

An event that spans years and a continent, cannot be proved with one piece of evidence. You are being unrealistic. Even if a document ordering the mass gassing of Jews, signed by A Hitler, was found, it would be dismissed as fake.

Why do you always write ridiculous things like this? Yes, my very point was that it cannot be proved with one piece of evidence.

You suggest that it could, ""Many years ago I could have had my newfound skepticism for the Holocaust destroyed with one "single piece of blockbusting evidence". Nothing like that was ever presented to me". The best example of that single piece of evidence would be a Hitler Order for extermination by gassings and shootings.

There is very little contemporaneous evidence to support revisionism. There are no eyewitnesses at all.

You are totally unserious. Nearly all revisionist material is contemporaneous.

Rubbish. Revisionists produce no eyewitnesses (I will come to your witness list) who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas. They have no documents to support the suggested mass resettlement, or transports back out of the camps. They argue documents about constructing gas chambers inside the Kremas are for delousing, and then argue delousing cannot have taken place due to the lack of HCN residue. They have no archaeological evidence to prove large areas of undisturbed ground where witnesses located the mass graves.

It is the exterminationists who rely heavily on increasingly late post-war materials as their proof.

Again, rubbish. By 1945, with escaped prisoners, Nazi admissions, camp site examinations finding huge areas of buried cremated remains and millions of missing Jews, there was evidence to prove the Holocaust.

Among the eyewitnesses that outright denied the Holocaust, there is Heinrich Himmler, Richard Baer, Josef Kramer, Joseph Mengele, Thies Christophersen, Paul Rassinier, Maria Van Herwaarden, Walter Schreiber, Marian Olszuk. There were so many deniers in 1946 that at the IMT prosecutor Fyfe declared outright that all of the defense's 102 witnesses and 312,022 affiants were "untrue". This is putting aside the many witnesses who pled ignorance to the Holocaust, many of whom could not actually have been ignorant of those events if they happened because of their own supposed role in them, and also the accusatory witnesses who have been caught in so many factual inaccuracies, contradictions, and lies that they demonstrate an unmistakable effort to fabricate. All of this comports very well with revisionism but not with exterminationism.

To say that "there are no eyewitnesses at all" is such a gross distortion that it could only be done in bad faith. I won't waste any more time speaking to you on this.

None of those named people worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema. A few were nearby, but that does not make them an eyewitness to events inside. Himmler, Mengele and other senior Nazis did not deny mass gassings. You have misunderstood what an eyewitness is, despite the obvious clue in the word. Pleading ignorance is not denying it happened.
Revisionist claims about the actual eyewitnesses are exaggerated, distorted and they have not proved lying. They ignore all the scientific studies about witnesses, memory and recall.

[Nessie]

.... But when I heard revisionists themselves explain their points, I was surprised at how reasonable they seemed. And more importantly to the extent I could check what they said, it seemed their facts were essentially correct. For instance, it's true that all the "death camps" were in Soviet territory.

That revisionist claim is an example of how easily some people will think that a link is significant and must be causal, without looking further into the veracity of the claim being made.

It appeals to the notion that the Holocaust is a Soviet conspiracy, despite all the evidence the Soviets had little to do with reporting or investigating the murder of Jews. The death camps were in fact in Polish territory. It was the Poles who first reported mass killings. The reason why the main, best known death camps were in Poland, was because it had over 3 million Jews, the largest of any Nazi occupied country. That it was then liberated by the Soviets, is purely down to geography. The Poles ran the first Holocaust specific trial and did most of the investigations. Poland regained its independence after the war. It was aligned to the SU, but it was not Soviet territory. Revisionists ignore that, because even they know the idea of the Holocaust being a hoax perpetrated by Poland, is ridiculous.

Then there is Semlin, or Sajmiste, was in Serbia and operated like Chelmno, using gas vans. Whilst not death camps, there were gas chambers in Germany and Austria, in camps and hospitals, used for Actions T4 and 14f13. That is also ignored by revisionists, and people who trust revisionist claims too easily, without checking to see how accurate they are.

If revisionists were more sceptical about revisionism, they would be more inclined to change their minds.

[HansHill]

I do not believe that finding a Kula column, or what was clearly a part of a Kula column, would change your mind, since something Kula described, the vent grill, being found, is not enough for you to change your mind.

Finding a Kula Column would be infinitely more persuasive than not finding one.

Kola described gas masks, vent grills and showers, but when those items are found in Krema II, you do not find that persuasive. Why are you being so selective?

Hans Hill: It would be really persuasive and it would move the needle a lot if they found their murder weapon

Nessie: [visible confusion]

The absolute state of anti-revisionists.

[Nessie]

Finding a Kula Column would be infinitely more persuasive than not finding one.

Kola described gas masks, vent grills and showers, but when those items are found in Krema II, you do not find that persuasive. Why are you being so selective?

Hans Hill: It would be really persuasive and it would move the needle a lot if they found their murder weapon

Nessie: [visible confusion]

The absolute state of anti-revisionists.

Krema II is one of the murder weapons. It got destroyed. But, in the ruins, a vent, shower head and part of a gas mask was found. Kula described them in the gas chambers. Why is that not corroboration?

[Nazgul]

But, in the ruins, a vent, shower head and part of a gas mask was found. Kula described them in the gas chambers. Why is that not corroboration?

What good is a gas mask for cyanide; it is also toxic to touch, the vapors are toxic. Bodies decomposing also give of lethal gases hence the gas mask.

[Shane St John]

I don't think my mind could be changed at this point. I consider the holocaust to be the entire collection of stories in it's entirety all adding up to the death of 6 million to over 20 million jews (depending on who you ask). Even some major discovery that proved the existence of a gas chamber at Auschwitz wouldn't do it for me as it wouldn't discount all the other crazy stories that have been told over the years.
That was a major contributing factor for me not believing the holocaust anymore, there seems to be this "gaps argument" that gets used by people who believe. Wherever there is a lack of evidence, THAT is the proof of the holocaust. It felt like there was a lot of cherry picking when it came to saying what the holocaust was and wasn't.

[ConfusedJew]

Its quite difficult to narrow it down to just one thing, as everything is so inextricably linked. I would have been tempted to say "a comprehensive explanation as to why Prussian Blue failed to form in Krema II, however depending on the specifics of that answer that would just beg further questions such as "how exactly was 300ppm achieved and maintained using such an imprecise delivery mechanism"

But that answer isn't very satisfying, so to answer this question within the spirit which it is asked:

The Kula Columns

If there were to be an original Kula column discovered somewhere (where doesn't matter, lets say amongst the rubble or in an old outhouse - which i'm ignoring for the purposes of this answer) and if it matched Kula's description within reason, and it very definitely showed a delivery mechanism of insertion and removal of the pellets, along with an installation mechanism that corresponds to the physical condition of the holes and its surroundings - then i feel that would be the singular most important and weighty discovery that Orthodoxy could make.

I don't know about the Kula columns but I am eager to go through the apparent Prussian Blue paradox in an intellectually honest way.

As for me, in order to accept that the "Holocaust" did not exist, I would need a good explanation as to how thousands of witnesses could have been wrong about something so powerful and so vivid as the Holocaust. I would also need an explanation of where the millions of missing Jews went and why so few were found after WW2. I would also want to know why there were so many remains of bodies in the camps, even if they didn't find hundreds of thousands or millions if they didn't look.

Those are the main things for me that make it almost impossible to believe that the Holocaust didn't actually happen. I'm sure there are others that may come up, but without explaining how so many witnesses could get something so wrong, either intentionally or by accident, I can't possibly believe that it was a hoax.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Its quite difficult to narrow it down to just one thing, as everything is so inextricably linked. I would have been tempted to say "a comprehensive explanation as to why Prussian Blue failed to form in Krema II, however depending on the specifics of that answer that would just beg further questions such as "how exactly was 300ppm achieved and maintained using such an imprecise delivery mechanism"

But that answer isn't very satisfying, so to answer this question within the spirit which it is asked:

The Kula Columns

If there were to be an original Kula column discovered somewhere (where doesn't matter, lets say amongst the rubble or in an old outhouse - which i'm ignoring for the purposes of this answer) and if it matched Kula's description within reason, and it very definitely showed a delivery mechanism of insertion and removal of the pellets, along with an installation mechanism that corresponds to the physical condition of the holes and its surroundings - then i feel that would be the singular most important and weighty discovery that Orthodoxy could make.

I don't know about the Kula columns…

As for me, in order to accept that the "Holocaust" did not exist, I would need a …

Those are the main things for me that make it almost impossible to believe that the Holocaust didn't actually happen.

I will flag up every time this obstinate, unreasonable person uses this ignorant ‘strawman argument’, that revisionists are ‘denying the holocaust happened’.

I request some moderation to prevent this classic misrepresentation from an ignoramus on the subject matter.

First, we all ought to stop pretending to know what ex­actly the Holocaust is (or rather, was). No one knows for sure. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a fool or an impostor.
~ Germar Rudolf, (Introduction to his encyclopedia on ‘the holocaust’)
[size=50]https://holocaustencyclopedia ... on/[/size]

[Callafangers]

I request some moderation to prevent this classic misrepresentation from an ignoramus on the subject matter.

First, we all ought to stop pretending to know what ex­actly the Holocaust is (or rather, was). No one knows for sure. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a fool or an impostor.
~ Germar Rudolf, (Introduction to his encyclopedia on ‘the holocaust’)
[size=50]https://holocaustencyclopedia ... on/[/size]

I hear ya'. I don't do much moderation myself, unless Archie requests some assistance. I think we generally tolerate a whole lot here, given that letting exterminationists showcase their tactics seems to be good for revisionism in the long-run.

You (and Germar) make an excellent point on this, in any case. The statement that "the Holocaust happened" is a reflection of the nature of the narrative, meant as a quasi-religious, packaged icon (for emotive and psychological manipulation) rather than any critical study of alleged events.

[ConfusedJew]

I hear ya'. I don't do much moderation myself, unless Archie requests some assistance. I think we generally tolerate a whole lot here, given that letting exterminationists showcase their tactics seems to be good for revisionism in the long-run.

You (and Germar) make an excellent point on this, in any case. The statement that "the Holocaust happened" is a reflection of the nature of the narrative, meant as a quasi-religious, packaged icon (for emotive and psychological manipulation) rather than any critical study of alleged events.

The word holocaust is ancient, coming from Greek holokauston (holo- “whole” + kaustos “burnt”), referring originally to a completely burnt sacrificial offering in religious rituals. For centuries in English, “holocaust” meant any large destruction by fire or slaughter.

Before WWII, it was used more generically — for example, some writers referred to WWI or other massacres as “a holocaust.”

During WWII and immediately after, the more common terms were Final Solution, extermination, or genocide (the latter coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, English-language writers occasionally used “holocaust” to describe the Nazi mass murders, but not yet as a unique proper noun.

The word “Holocaust” (capitalized) gained traction through historical scholarship and popular writing in the 1960s.
It became firmly established after the 1978 American TV miniseries Holocaust, which popularized the term for the general public. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, “the Holocaust” was the standard term in English for the systematic Nazi genocide of about six million Jews.

The Holocaust is just a word that our culture has applied to a specific historical atrocity and its meaning and usage have evolved over time like any meme. What is not as subjective, is that the Nazi regime systematically persecuted and killed millions of Jews.

Couple basic questions:

1. Do you disagree that the Nazis did that?

2. How many Jews do you think the Nazis killed?

3. What does the word systematic mean to you? It is possible that the Holocaust was less systematic than most people think but I'm not really sure.

[Callafangers]

The Holocaust is just a word that our culture has applied to a specific historical atrocity and its meaning and usage have evolved over time like any meme. What is not as subjective, is that the Nazi regime systematically persecuted and killed millions of Jews.

Couple basic questions:

1. Do you disagree that the Nazis did that?

2. How many Jews do you think the Nazis killed?

3. What does the word systematic mean to you? It is possible that the Holocaust was less systematic than most people think but I'm not really sure.

Are these serious questions? Have you been paying attention at all, ConfusedJew?

1. Yes, I disagree. The "Nazis" indeed persecuted (not killed) millions of Jews but I hesitate to even use the word 'persecute' because this implies Jews (rather than the German people) were essentially the victims in this situation. Germans (and many other non-Jewish Europeans) had suffered terribly for decades under initiatives and policies, both within Germany and from outside, which Jews were responsible for and which cost many German lives and captured a great deal of wealth from hard-working German citizens. Hitler and Germany were more than benevolent in allowing Jews to leave peacefully in the 1930s prior to any concentration camps ever arising. Once the war approached, however, the need to further segregate Jews as well as to seek recompensation for the trillions' of Reichsmarks' worth of materials Jews had thus far acquired and hoarded through primarily subversive and dishonest means (given no one claims Jews' own manual labor built any significant portion of German infrastructure and industry -- starkly disproportionate to their wealth there -- and the facts of Jews overwhelmingly at the center of the most corrupt institutions and movements in Germany by that time, from the dishonest newspapers, to the banking schemes, Weimar-degenerate theater and art, subversive cultural schemes, Marxism, and much more). "Persecution" was simply a necessary national security measure and rebalancing of the nation's wealth made especially necessary by the war (which Jews abroad were also at the center of). Some may argue the dispossession effort (Aktion Reinhardt, which extended even to non-German Jews) went too far but even this has to be understood in the context of war, as Germany had not undertaken such an effort prior to this time.

2. Perhaps a couple hundred thousand given the scale of partisan warfare but its difficult to say with any precision due to the many sources deliberately falsifying information.

3. There you go calling it 'the Holocaust' as we have yet to even define it. That makes no sense. As for "systematic", I think for a government it implies or necessitates some actual policy or directive, for which there is zero evidence regarding 'Jewish extermination' and WW2 Germany. Your opinion on what is "possible" is hardly relevant since you don't know much of anything at all.

[TlsMS93]

1. Yes, I disagree. The "Nazis" indeed persecuted (not killed) millions of Jews but I hesitate to even use the word 'persecute' because this implies Jews (rather than the German people) were essentially the victims in this situation. Germans (and many other non-Jewish Europeans) had suffered terribly for decades under initiatives and policies, both within Germany and from outside, which Jews were responsible for and which cost many German lives and captured a great deal of wealth from hard-working German citizens. Hitler and Germany were more than benevolent in allowing Jews to leave peacefully in the 1930s prior to any concentration camps ever arising. Once the war approached, however, the need to further segregate Jews as well as to seek recompensation for the trillions' of Reichsmarks' worth of materials Jews had thus far acquired and hoarded through primarily subversive and dishonest means (given no one claims Jews' own manual labor built any significant portion of German infrastructure and industry -- starkly disproportionate to their wealth there -- and the facts of Jews overwhelmingly at the center of the most corrupt institutions and movements in Germany by that time, from the dishonest newspapers, to the banking schemes, Weimar-degenerate theater and art, subversive cultural schemes, Marxism, and much more). "Persecution" was simply a necessary national security measure and rebalancing of the nation's wealth made especially necessary by the war (which Jews abroad were also at the center of). Some may argue the dispossession effort (Aktion Reinhardt, which extended even to non-German Jews) went too far but even this has to be understood in the context of war, as Germany had not undertaken such an effort prior to this time.

Jews are smart, they launder money by not buying identifiable assets like farms and real estate, no, they invest in gold, diamonds, which are less detectable. 727 million euros at 2021 value was classified as belonging to Jews in Operation Reinhardt, this is because they are said to be the poorest part among them.

[ConfusedJew]

Are these serious questions? Have you been paying attention at all, ConfusedJew?

These questions are serious.

Not everybody on this forum would have the same answer to these questions and nobody has yet defined the Holocaust although somebody recently told me that they don't deny the Holocaust, they just deny what the Holocaust was factually.

Since you don't think the Nazis conducted what is commonly understood to be the Holocaust, that would make you a Holocaust denier. That's fine with me but we should be clear what we are talking about.

Other people deny being a Holocaust denier which makes them Holocaust denial deniers.

Important to get the language down correctly so that we can make sure that we are disagreeing about the same things.

[Callafangers]

These questions are serious.

Not everybody on this forum would have the same answer to these questions and nobody has yet defined the Holocaust although somebody recently told me that they don't deny the Holocaust, they just deny what the Holocaust was factually.

Since you don't think the Nazis conducted what is commonly understood to be the Holocaust, that would make you a Holocaust denier. That's fine with me but we should be clear what we are talking about.

Other people deny being a Holocaust denier which makes them Holocaust denial deniers.

Important to get the language down correctly so that we can make sure that we are disagreeing about the same things.

This is such cringe-worthy Jewish behavior that I hardly know how to respond.

"Are you a denier, goy? Do you deny? Let's just be clear whether you're a denier. "

Who is or isn't a "Holocaust denier" is not a question that matters. We are here to get to the bottom of your stupid claims that 50 gazillion Jews were packed like sardines in a brick building and gassed with delousing pellets or a submarine engine. You need to substantiate this, and you have not. Discussing whether anyone is a "Holocaust denier" is as ridiculous as discussing who is a "unicorn denier", a "Bigfoot denier", etc.

The term "Holocaust" is a propaganda tool, it is about marketing an idea and brand recognition. It's like "McDonald's" or "Kleenex". When it comes to the question of Jewish treatment by Germany during WW2, it is meaningless.

Your Jewish behavior has been very eye-opening, ConfusedJew. We aim for intelligent, informed debate on the 'Holocaust' at this forum but every now and then, I do think it's good to allow a Jewish member to showcase Jewish tactics for our visitors to observe. Thank you for your service.