The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Transport records indicate that trains frequently stopped at intermediate Jewish labour camps and junctions before reaching Treblinka, which itself consisted of three separate subcamps. These operational pauses mean that population flows were not continuous, adding uncertainty to any estimate of daily arrivals or total throughput.

Observations from locals, including Marion Olszuk who walked past Treblinka daily and could see into the camp, provide additional constraints on possible activity and volumes. Taken together, the logistical and observational evidence demonstrates that precise numerical claims—such as 700,000 deaths—are not substantiated by independent evidence.

This is not a statement that deaths did not occur, but a recognition that the available data leave a substantial margin of uncertainty, making high-precision totals methodologically unsupportable.

The argument that train stops at Jewish labour camps imply that no one disembarked is not supported by historical evidence. For example, at Skaz Kammiena, a recorded muster of 8,000 Jews arrived entirely by train, demonstrating that trains stopping en route routinely delivered people to camps.

Transport pauses alone cannot be used to infer that passengers remained on board or that deaths at downstream sites did not occur. Logistical and eyewitness evidence indicates that disembarkation at labour or processing points was standard, making claims to the contrary methodologically unsound.

Hektor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 12, 2026 6:27 am The go to response would be that Belsen had no sufficient cremation facilities. Well, neither had Auschwitz, Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka.

The point is that, due to the collapse of the Reich, concerns about non-extermination camps located within the Reich were irrelevant to the Nazis, while it is assumed that as long as the war had not reached horrific proportions, they still had the resources and time to conceal millions of mass murders.

In other words, it is a question that only serves the exterminationists and not a contradiction of orthodoxy.

No, TisMS93, that is not the point at all.

The argument of NS-leaders using harsh words like Ausrottung should be addressed. Exterminationists love to use them, being void of any hard evidence. Here is a text attributed to Rosenberg:



Terms like "biologische Ausmerzung" are used and they are indeed sounding harsh enough to mean physical killing on face value. But the text rather unequivocally states that this means moving Jews out of Germany or Europe... "over the Ural" or otherwise.

Now we just need to formulate a fact in this regard. Proposal:

1X. Harsh terms like Ausmerzung in documents on scrutiny, turn out to mean physical removal from territory.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 8:53 pm The photo on the top is a published photo of Anne Frank, the bottom photo is clipped from a screenshot from Memory of The Camps, you can see on PBS Frontline. I asked Grok to compare the two pics, and you can see the response.

Could AI even possibly fail at facial recognition?

Hektor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 13, 2026 9:32 am The argument of NS-leaders using harsh words like Ausrottung should be addressed. Exterminationists love to use them, being void of any hard evidence.

Not only NS-leaders did that. Has anyone else noticed what happened when Brother Nathanael Kapner (a Jew by birth who converted to Orthodox Christianity) angrily said "I live to see the Jews destroyed" during the 2026 ARMREG Holocaust Academy Summit? Germar Rudolf immediately interrupted him and said: "I may intervene here. We don't want to destroy anyone. We don't do any physical threats to anyone." And Brother Nathanael replied that he was only talking about eliminating the power of the Jews. A very Ausrottung/Vernichtung moment (without the usual mistranslation thing).

Misunderstanding angry talks is very easy. Even truer when politically-motivated deliberate distortions are involved, as they often are in Holohoax atrocity propaganda.

Hektor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 13, 2026 9:32 am

Terms like "biologische Ausmerzung" are used and they are indeed sounding harsh enough to mean physical killing on face value. But the text rather unequivocally states that this means moving Jews out of Germany or Europe... "over the Ural" or otherwise.

Now we just need to formulate a fact in this regard. Proposal:

1X. Harsh terms like Ausmerzung in documents on scrutiny, turn out to mean physical removal from territory.

Doesn't the Israeli "biologischen Ausmerzung" of Palestinians over the past 8 decades demonstrate that?
No one accuses the Israelis of wanting to kill all Palestinians, but fewer and fewer people are unable to see that the Israelis have been biologically eradicating Palestinians (by unceremoniously and even brutally kicking them out of their homeland) from the area they always wanted to seize for themselves. The most outspoken Zionists are more about justifying it nowadays.

As you correctly said, killing all the members of a people is not the only way to completely eradicate that people from a given area. A general forced removal leads to the same result.

The goal of the Israeli state seems indeed to be expelling Palestinians and have them go preferable to Europe.