Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 07, 2026 2:43 am
Nessie wrote:It may be because no expert thinks it is worth their time.
bombsaway wrote:"It does not mean that we regard deniers as equal debating partners on an intellectual or ethical level; instead, we proceed in the knowledge that deniers operate in ignorance and bad faith."
This is the explanation for the lack of serious attention from the mainstream + the argument of not wanting to give people they believe are racists a platform.
Both of these are the same cop-out, and this is precisely why revisionism has been gaining ground. It assumes that neutral, curious audiences are stupid and/or will not ever come across revisionist arguments on physical evidence which are clearly compelling and remain unchallenged.
If this is the 'hill exterminationists wish to die on', I'm all for it.
If you spent time on X, you would understand better why academics would not bother debating a denier/revisionist. The arguments they put forward, that are easily debunked, are very ignorant, or used in bad faith. I am thinking of the likes of Uncommonsense, who repeatedly tweets the same drivel about Auschwitz having a swimming pool, a death toll of 274k and the wooden door visitors to Krema I walk through to see the gas chamber. Your standard of argument is not much higher and your arguments about the physical evidence are obviously evidentially and logically flawed.
Someone who understands even the basics about evidencing and logic, will easily see through you. That there is evidence denial/revisionism is on the rise, speaks to how many people, even some who are bright, lack sufficient understanding of evidence of logic. The arguments on the physical evidence that you rely on, are compelling only to those whose understanding is lacking, or bad actors. I suspect Uncommonsense is a bad actor, who knows the arguments he tweets are nonsense, but he gets lots of clicks and that is his aim. He wants to spread hate about Jews. The internet has made spreading hate much easier to make money from. If Uncommonsense was limited to publishing books, none of us would know about him.
Historians will not die on the hill of producing a chronological, evidenced history of what happened in places such as the AR camps. They will not die on the hill of not being able to convince some people how the gas chambers, cremation ovens and pyres worked, when there is evidence they did indeed work. You have chosen to deny or interpret evidence in a way that defies the evidenced chronological history of usage of places such as the Kremas. Your inconclusive non-history, is of little to no interest to a genuine historian, as they want to know what happened, not what did not happen and leave it at that.
I challenge the revisionist physical evidence arguments on the following points.
1 - building functional gas chambers, mass corpse cremation ovens, outdoor mass pyres and digging mass graves, were all well within German design and engineering capabilities in the 1940s. Just look at what else they engineered during WWII. They fired rockets at London, built the best armoury and constructed huge fortifications. For revisionists to suggest, somehow, they could not work out how to convert a corpse cellar inside a crematorium into a gas chamber, or how to set a mass pyre, is ridiculous. If anyone was going to technologically advance how cremation ovens could function, it was them. This point is connected to point 4.
2 - there is far more evidence that revisionists will ever accept, that gas chambers, multiple corpse cremation ovens, pyres and mass graves existed. If they existed, they were obviously made to work and revisionists cannot revise the history, to prove something else happened. For example, revisionists cannot prove TII was a transit camp, not a death camp. If the millions of Jews, arrested by the Nazis and their allies, 1939-44 and sent to ghettos and camps, were not mass murdered, it stands to reason that by 1944, those camps and ghettos would be packed, creating a logistical nightmare for the Nazis. That would have left a lot of evidence, and instead, there is none. All across Europe, what happened to the Jews who avoided being arrested, can be tracked and they can be traced. That changes when Jews are arrested. The vast majority of them disappear, often in specific places, such as TII. Much of the revisionist argument is designed to distract from its inability to revise the history of the Jews in Europe during WWII.
3 - the Nazis conducted a wholesale cover-up, destroying as much evidence of their criminal activity, as possible. That leaves large evidential gaps, which makes discovering the details on how they built the gas chambers etc, difficult. For example, they made physical body counts at the AR camps impossible, by cremating the corpses and spreading and burying the cremains in a way that makes quantifying the amounts nigh on impossible. Revisionist arguments are reliant on those gaps. They exploit them, claiming that it was not possible for piles of rubble to have ever functioned as gas chambers. If the Nazis had left Krema II in tact, as it was in 1943-4, or they had left the graves at TII like the graves at Katyn, revisionists would have no physical evidence argument. Historians accept that there are gaps and that those gaps will leave unanswerable questions. Revisionism makes a lot of assumptions, where there are gaps in the evidence, all of which are designed to suit them.
4 - the arguments that revisionists use, about the physical evidence, are logically and evidentially flawed. That they cannot work out, to their satisfaction, how gas chambers were vented, the ovens coped with so many corpses, the pyres were set and so many corpses fitted into what can be found of the mass graves, is not evidence to prove there were no gassings, cremations and burials. As shown in point 1, historians are not claiming the Nazis did anything that they were not physically capable of doing, so the argument they could not have, fails.
5 - The revisionist treatment of the witness evidence, is particularly badly flawed, as it fails to take into account all the scientific knowledge and understanding of witness behaviour, hearsay, memory, recall and estimations. Their obvious aim is to find excuses to dismiss the eyewitness evidence, which leaves them with no eyewitnesses at all, who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or the A-B Kremas. They confuse credibility with truthfulness and then exploit the often poor descriptions of how the pyres were set and burned, or how the gas chambers were ventilated, to create a mistaken belief that the witnesses are lying. When a witness describes something in a way that cannot have physically worked, that is not evidence they lied and what they described did not happen. A witness who is not credible, is not necessarily lying. Revisionists ignore the corroboration test, or mistakenly claim it is failed.
