The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Fri Dec 12, 2025 8:09 pm I don't care about the opinion of Pierre Vidal Naquet, i'm talking about the opinion of Noam Chomsky and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Gabriel Cohn-Bendit have said in Liberation in his 1979 article "Question de Principe" i quote "Ce que je me refuse à faire, y compris aux néo-nazis, je ne suis pas prêt à accepter qu'on le fasse à des hommes comme Rassinier ou Faurisson dont je sais qu'ils n'ont rien à voir avec eux, et le procès intenté à ce dernier me rappelle plus l'Inquisition qu'une lutte contre le retour du pire". Antisemitism was clearly not the base of his opinion(and he was jew).This proves that one can be a revisionist without being anti-Semitic; the two things are not equivalent, but it must be understood that for people in France, Holocaust denial is motivated by hatred of Jews. It is not surprising that he(Vidal Naquet) interprets everything in this way. Abbé Pierre's closest friend was Garaudy. Abbé Pierre is now a controversial figure in France, particularly due to scandals that broke out a few years ago where he was accused of rape(true or not true i don't know). Some leftist were révisionnist but some were just motivated to protect free speech (libertarian)

Vidal-Naquet was not talking about antisemitism or free speech. He was talking about Holocaust revisionism. And I didn't say that Gabriel Cohn-Bendit was antisemitic. I was already aware that he was as Jewish as his famous pedo brother Dany The Red. Moreover I never bought the ridiculous lie that Holocaust revisionism is a disguised form of antisemitism. Too patently a fraud for me. Claming that Holocaust revisionism is antisemitism is of course just a Jewish trick devised to discreetly silence Holocaust revisionists and so protect a certain fragile historical lie that can't withstand close scrutiny and free debate. The democratic scam requires a veiled censorship when it wants to muzzle some dissenters because the whole thing rests on the illusion of free speech (only dictators censor their opponents, don't they?). That's why the Zionist lobby and its lackeys pretend to believe that Holocaust revisionism is antisemitism. They know it's not true, but they need to claim it is if they want to be able to silence Holocaust revisionists without looking too obviously like the censors they are. They used the same trick recently, when they needed to silence pro-Palestinian protesters. They pretended to believe that any support for the Palestinian people was a disguised call for the mass murder of Jews and the French Republic just silenced all those alleged antisemites accordingly, so leaving the bloodied hands of Netanyahu free to continue the massacre of Palestinians without any hindrance.

And the recent rape accusations against Abbé Pierre have no connection with Abbé Pierre's skepticism about the Holocaust. Just an off-topic diversion. Or perhaps those allegations were orchestrated by The-Lobby-That-Doesn't-Exist in order to achieve the character assassination of a too popular priest who had sinned by denying the Holy Hoax. Who knows?

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Dec 13, 2025 12:11 am

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Fri Dec 12, 2025 8:09 pm I don't care about the opinion of Pierre Vidal Naquet, i'm talking about the opinion of Noam Chomsky and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Gabriel Cohn-Bendit have said in Liberation in his 1979 article "Question de Principe" i quote "Ce que je me refuse à faire, y compris aux néo-nazis, je ne suis pas prêt à accepter qu'on le fasse à des hommes comme Rassinier ou Faurisson dont je sais qu'ils n'ont rien à voir avec eux, et le procès intenté à ce dernier me rappelle plus l'Inquisition qu'une lutte contre le retour du pire". Antisemitism was clearly not the base of his opinion(and he was jew).This proves that one can be a revisionist without being anti-Semitic; the two things are not equivalent, but it must be understood that for people in France, Holocaust denial is motivated by hatred of Jews. It is not surprising that he(Vidal Naquet) interprets everything in this way. Abbé Pierre's closest friend was Garaudy. Abbé Pierre is now a controversial figure in France, particularly due to scandals that broke out a few years ago where he was accused of rape(true or not true i don't know). Some leftist were révisionnist but some were just motivated to protect free speech (libertarian)

Vidal-Naquet was not talking about antisemitism or free speech. He was talking about Holocaust revisionism. And I didn't say that Gabriel Cohn-Bendit was antisemitic. I was already aware that he was as Jewish as his famous pedo brother Dany The Red. Moreover I never bought the ridiculous lie that Holocaust revisionism is a disguised form of antisemitism. Too patently a fraud for me. Claming that Holocaust revisionism is antisemitism is of course just a Jewish trick devised to discreetly silence Holocaust revisionists and so protect a certain fragile historical lie that can't withstand close scrutiny and free debate. The democratic scam requires a veiled censorship when it wants to muzzle some dissenters because the whole thing rests on the illusion of free speech (only dictators censor their opponents, don't they?). That's why the Zionist lobby and its lackeys pretend to believe that Holocaust revisionism is antisemitism. They know it's not true, but they need to claim it is if they want to be able to silence Holocaust revisionists without looking too obviously like the censors they are. They used the same trick recently, when they needed to silence pro-Palestinian protesters. They pretended to believe that any support for the Palestinian people was a disguised call for the mass murder of Jews and the French Republic just silenced all those alleged antisemites accordingly, so leaving the bloodied hands of Netanyahu free to continue the massacre of Palestinians without any hindrance.

And the recent rape accusations against Abbé Pierre have no connection with Abbé Pierre's skepticism about the Holocaust. Just an off-topic diversion. Or perhaps those allegations were orchestrated by The-Lobby-That-Doesn't-Exist in order to achieve the character assassination of a too popular priest who had sinned by denying the Holy Hoax. Who knows?

I'm not saying Revisionnism = antisemitism, i'm saying the idea of Vidal Naquet of a leftist antisemitism is quite stupid and so the opinion of Vidal Naquet must be rejected. he say "avec Paul Rassinier (1906-1967), communiste puis socialiste, déporté à Buchenwald et à Dora, anticolonialiste de toujours, mais ami de Bardèche et collaborateur de Rivarol, il s'agit d'autre chose, d'une alliance entre une extrême-gauche pacifiste et libertaire et une extrême-droite très directement hitlérienne[73]. L'antisémitisme, ici encore très mêlé à l'antisionisme, fait la jonction entre les deux. Cette alliance allait être renouvelée, à la génération suivante, par la diffusion accordée aux thèses révisionnistes, et à celles de Faurisson en particulier, par le groupe marxiste de La Vieille Taupe et quelques groupes voisins (La Guerre sociale, La Jeune Taupe, etc.)" so he say revisionnism = antisemitism. and so for him, (GCB) is a leftist antisemite. i'm saying the left (mostly libertarian left) can defend the liberty of expression of revisionnism without be a activist for it and defend free speech is not antisemitism. Such statement from Vidal Naquet must be rejected as a nonsense. In reality, what I wanted to point out when talking about Abbé Pierre is that just because he was a great man of his time does not mean that his opinion is true or false. So I replied that if such an argument were used today, it would backfire on you because of these accusations.

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Sat Dec 13, 2025 10:59 am

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sat Dec 13, 2025 12:11 am

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Fri Dec 12, 2025 8:09 pm I don't care about the opinion of Pierre Vidal Naquet, i'm talking about the opinion of Noam Chomsky and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Gabriel Cohn-Bendit have said in Liberation in his 1979 article "Question de Principe" i quote "Ce que je me refuse à faire, y compris aux néo-nazis, je ne suis pas prêt à accepter qu'on le fasse à des hommes comme Rassinier ou Faurisson dont je sais qu'ils n'ont rien à voir avec eux, et le procès intenté à ce dernier me rappelle plus l'Inquisition qu'une lutte contre le retour du pire". Antisemitism was clearly not the base of his opinion(and he was jew).This proves that one can be a revisionist without being anti-Semitic; the two things are not equivalent, but it must be understood that for people in France, Holocaust denial is motivated by hatred of Jews. It is not surprising that he(Vidal Naquet) interprets everything in this way. Abbé Pierre's closest friend was Garaudy. Abbé Pierre is now a controversial figure in France, particularly due to scandals that broke out a few years ago where he was accused of rape(true or not true i don't know). Some leftist were révisionnist but some were just motivated to protect free speech (libertarian)

Vidal-Naquet was not talking about antisemitism or free speech. He was talking about Holocaust revisionism. And I didn't say that Gabriel Cohn-Bendit was antisemitic. I was already aware that he was as Jewish as his famous pedo brother Dany The Red. Moreover I never bought the ridiculous lie that Holocaust revisionism is a disguised form of antisemitism. Too patently a fraud for me. Claming that Holocaust revisionism is antisemitism is of course just a Jewish trick devised to discreetly silence Holocaust revisionists and so protect a certain fragile historical lie that can't withstand close scrutiny and free debate. The democratic scam requires a veiled censorship when it wants to muzzle some dissenters because the whole thing rests on the illusion of free speech (only dictators censor their opponents, don't they?). That's why the Zionist lobby and its lackeys pretend to believe that Holocaust revisionism is antisemitism. They know it's not true, but they need to claim it is if they want to be able to silence Holocaust revisionists without looking too obviously like the censors they are. They used the same trick recently, when they needed to silence pro-Palestinian protesters. They pretended to believe that any support for the Palestinian people was a disguised call for the mass murder of Jews and the French Republic just silenced all those alleged antisemites accordingly, so leaving the bloodied hands of Netanyahu free to continue the massacre of Palestinians without any hindrance.

And the recent rape accusations against Abbé Pierre have no connection with Abbé Pierre's skepticism about the Holocaust. Just an off-topic diversion. Or perhaps those allegations were orchestrated by The-Lobby-That-Doesn't-Exist in order to achieve the character assassination of a too popular priest who had sinned by denying the Holy Hoax. Who knows?

I'm not saying Revisionnism = antisemitism, i'm saying the idea of Vidal Naquet of a leftist antisemitism is quite stupid and so the opinion of Vidal Naquet must be rejected. he say "avec Paul Rassinier (1906-1967), communiste puis socialiste, déporté à Buchenwald et à Dora, anticolonialiste de toujours, mais ami de Bardèche et collaborateur de Rivarol, il s'agit d'autre chose, d'une alliance entre une extrême-gauche pacifiste et libertaire et une extrême-droite très directement hitlérienne[73]. L'antisémitisme, ici encore très mêlé à l'antisionisme, fait la jonction entre les deux. Cette alliance allait être renouvelée, à la génération suivante, par la diffusion accordée aux thèses révisionnistes, et à celles de Faurisson en particulier, par le groupe marxiste de La Vieille Taupe et quelques groupes voisins (La Guerre sociale, La Jeune Taupe, etc.)" so he say revisionnism = antisemitism. and so for him, (GCB) is a leftist antisemite. i'm saying the left (mostly libertarian left) can defend the liberty of expression of revisionnism without be a activist for it and defend free speech is not antisemitism. Such statement from Vidal Naquet must be rejected as a nonsense. In reality, what I wanted to point out when talking about Abbé Pierre is that just because he was a great man of his time does not mean that his opinion is true or false. So I replied that if such an argument were used today, it would backfire on you because of these accusations.

Vidal-Naquet and other Holohoaxers postulate that Holocaust revisionism necessarily stems from malicious motives (and antizionism is evil in their mindset) because they need to portray Holocaust revisionists as wicked individuals ("antisemites" in their worldview). A "public relations" deception on their part. And they also fail to realize that Holocaust revisionism usually comes from the mere lack of solid evidence for the Holocaust, that is, from purely rational and non-political arguments. In fact, their stand reveals their own political biases. In other words, they advocate and disseminate a historical lie because that lie is crucially needed to justify the anachronistic colonial monstrosity called Israel. In short, Holocaust revisionists don't need political motives to disbelieve the Holocaust, but Holocaust propagandists always have had an axe to grind on this topic, which is the justification of land grabbing and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Calling Holocaust revisionism antisemitism and ascribing various antizionist and antisemitic political motives to it just show the psychological projection of those who use that trick, that is, their own pro-Zionist feelings.

I didn't claim that Abbé Pierre's former popularity meant that he was right about the Holocaust. I just named him as a notorious example of a Leftist Holocaust disbeliever. And his disbelief didn't come from his friendship with Maurice Bardèche or some alleged antisemitic or antizionist feelings. His Holocaust disbelief came from the 1990 admission that Soviet propagandists had easily created 2.5 million nonexistent dead out of thin air in 1945 (when the Auschwitz death toll was officially revised from 4 million to 1.5 million). Asking how many millions of nonexistent dead Jews the Zionists and the Anglo-American Allies also created out of thin air for political purposes was (and still is) just a matter of basic logic. Disliking the Jews and/or the state of Israel is not needed to ask that question. A functioning brain is enough for that...

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Fri Dec 12, 2025 8:20 pm Thank's for the answer, i agree with you.I have not found a convincing answer from PHDN regarding Prussian blue; the idea of rinsing is impossible, and the idea of low penetration has been answered by Germar Rudolf. You quickly understand that I am caught between two stools and that I am searching for the truth. I think that more experimentation could provide factual answers, but unfortunately people need to be willing to debate freely without judging each other's positions.

You're welcome, and yes I understand your position.

I agree that there is not a convincing set of arguments or responses from PHDN on this issue. In my opinion, the strongest arguments against Rudolf from the Orthodox side are:

1) pH of the masonry
2) Exposure time
3) Concentration of the Zyklon used

In that order. Concentration basically is already conceded by Orthodoxy at this point, I refer to Richard Green who wrote:

The assumption that much less Zyklon B was used in the gas chambers than the delousing
chambers is most likely erroneous

- Chemistry is not the science

Hobbyist Holocaust enjoyers who frequent this forum, don't seem to have got the memo, however, and seem to keep regurgitating this point, which is very annoying.

Number 2 above is slightly stronger, and is held by Dr Green. However as you rightly note, this is a matter of penetration, and the kinetics of which are addressed satisfactorily by Rudolf. Arguably the strongest point is number 1) pH, in that there was some factor which caused the pH to be inhospitable to the formation of Prussian Blue. However, Orthodoxy (by way of Richard Green) blows it, by relying on the pH as measured by Markiewicz some 40 years after the time. This is wholly unsatisfactory and shows this line of argumentation as being deeply confirmation biased.

The reason why i put pH at number 1 is because it may be possible for this to be the limiting factor, but they would need to give us some explanation as to what exactly occurred, how, why, and when it occurred, and give us some process or model as an explanation.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 2:36 pm

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Fri Dec 12, 2025 8:20 pm Thank's for the answer, i agree with you.I have not found a convincing answer from PHDN regarding Prussian blue; the idea of rinsing is impossible, and the idea of low penetration has been answered by Germar Rudolf. You quickly understand that I am caught between two stools and that I am searching for the truth. I think that more experimentation could provide factual answers, but unfortunately people need to be willing to debate freely without judging each other's positions.

You're welcome, and yes I understand your position.

I agree that there is not a convincing set of arguments or responses from PHDN on this issue. In my opinion, the strongest arguments against Rudolf from the Orthodox side are:

1) pH of the masonry
2) Exposure time
3) Concentration of the Zyklon used

In that order. Concentration basically is already conceded by Orthodoxy at this point, I refer to Richard Green who wrote:

The assumption that much less Zyklon B was used in the gas chambers than the delousing
chambers is most likely erroneous

- Chemistry is not the science

Hobbyist Holocaust enjoyers who frequent this forum, don't seem to have got the memo, however, and seem to keep regurgitating this point, which is very annoying.

Number 2 above is slightly stronger, and is held by Dr Green. However as you rightly note, this is a matter of penetration, and the kinetics of which are addressed satisfactorily by Rudolf. Arguably the strongest point is number 1) pH, in that there was some factor which caused the pH to be inhospitable to the formation of Prussian Blue. However, Orthodoxy (by way of Richard Green) blows it, by relying on the pH as measured by Markiewicz some 40 years after the time. This is wholly unsatisfactory and shows this line of argumentation as being deeply confirmation biased.

The reason why i put pH at number 1 is because it may be possible for this to be the limiting factor, but they would need to give us some explanation as to what exactly occurred, how, why, and when it occurred, and give us some process or model as an explanation.

On the idea that chemically it's not possible, why not? I'm open to this genre. I think that today, the discipline of history is on the verge of undergoing a major change in the way it is practised. We can see that history (especially contemporary history) is ceasing to be a soft science and is merging with hard science, as we increasingly need to adopt an interdisciplinary approach and combine different working methods. My specific concern is that I read documents in German, among other languages, and sometimes the use of certain terms cannot be ambiguous. Let me give you an example. I studied the Generalplan Ost, and in the documents I found, I came across this passage Concerning the treatment of Polish people

Das würde an sich bedeuten, daß etwa 100 bis 120 Eisenbahnzüge
nur für die Polentransport e jährlich zur Verfügung stehen müßten . Technisch dürft e
dies in einigermaßen ruhige n Zeiten aber durchführbar sein.
Daß man die Polenfrage nicht in dem Sinne lösen kann , daß man die Polen, wie die Juden, liquidiert, dürfte auf der Handliegen. Eine derartige Lösung der
Polenfrage würd e das deutsche Volk bis in die ferne Zukunft belasten und uns überall
die Sympathien nehmen , zumal auch die anderen Nachbarvölker damit rechn n müßten , bei gegebener Zeit ähnlich behandelt zu werden. Es muß meine s Erachtens eine Lösung der Polenfrage in dem Sinne gefunden werden , daß die oben angedeuteten politischen Gefahren auf das geringmöglichste Ma ß zurückgeführt werden .

Translation

This would mean that around 100 to 120 railway trains
would have to be available each year solely for the transport of Poles. Technically,
this should be feasible in relatively peaceful times.
It should be obvious that the Polish question cannot be resolved by liquidating the Poles, as was done with the Jews. Such a solution to thePolish question would burden the German people far into the future and cost us sympathy everywhere, especially since the other neighbouring peoples would have to expect to be treated similarly in due course. In my opinion, a solution to the Polish question must be found in such a way that the political dangers indicated above are reduced to the minimum possible.

You can find the source at the page 93 of the PDF (or 308 of the book)

https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3.pdf

So you see the problem; the wording makes it clear. You might say that this does not prove genocide by gas chamber, which I concede. But perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. I have said several times that I would like to be able to recreate the cremation methods and test whether it is scientifically possible, as this would allow us to know whether or not the documents on the possibility of gas chambers and industrial murder are accurate (you will say that no one would agree to this, and I agree). But perhaps if the gas chambers did not exist, that would not necessarily invalidate the existence of genocide. Regarding Mr Green's quote, he seems to forget that if analysis of the murder weapon shows that it could not have worked, then the method must be rejected.

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 3:44 pm
On the idea that chemically it's not possible, why not?

I think you have misunderstood - that part you have highlighted in red, is the title of the Green article. The quote is intended to reference a Rudolf quote, where he wrote:

Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any
allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«. We have several circumstantial evidences which,
especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the
homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the
chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built.

This is to say, and similar to my earlier post, Rudolf leaves his thesis in a falsifiable state - in that he would welcome any newly forthcoming chemical argument which explains or accounts for the absence of PB. Falsifiable theories are far more robust and trustworthy than unfalsifiable ones, as I'm sure you and most other people here understand and appreciate. I gave one potential avenue whereby this may be achieved, in that forthcoming evidence or modelling of the pH being inhospitable to PB formation in some way, by some as-yet unknown chemical process. It is possible, but would require discovery first!

This quote, as utilized by Green, is an attempt to make Rudolf's work seem "inexact" or "inconclusive", and this is not the spirit within which he meant it.

I studied the Generalplan Ost,

Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, you should start a new thread and more senior posters here will hopefully discuss it at length with you.

Regarding Mr Green's quote, he seems to forget that if analysis of the murder weapon shows that it could not have worked, then the method must be rejected.

Absolutely - Rudolf's (and to a lesser extent, Leuchter's) work have exposed the orthodox narrative in a significant, robust and transparent way, that must be addressed by orthodoxy - this has not been the case, and the longer it lingers, the worse it becomes for them.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 4:11 pm

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Sun Dec 14, 2025 3:44 pm
On the idea that chemically it's not possible, why not?

I think you have misunderstood - that part you have highlighted in red, is the title of the Green article. The quote is intended to reference a Rudolf quote, where he wrote:

Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any
allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«. We have several circumstantial evidences which,
especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the
homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the
chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built.

This is to say, and similar to my earlier post, Rudolf leaves his thesis in a falsifiable state - in that he would welcome any newly forthcoming chemical argument which explains or accounts for the absence of PB. Falsifiable theories are far more robust and trustworthy than unfalsifiable ones, as I'm sure you and most other people here understand and appreciate. I gave one potential avenue whereby this may be achieved, in that forthcoming evidence or modelling of the pH being inhospitable to PB formation in some way, by some as-yet unknown chemical process. It is possible, but would require discovery first!

This quote, as utilized by Green, is an attempt to make Rudolf's work seem "inexact" or "inconclusive", and this is not the spirit within which he meant it.

I studied the Generalplan Ost,

Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, you should start a new thread and more senior posters here will hopefully discuss it at length with you.

Regarding Mr Green's quote, he seems to forget that if analysis of the murder weapon shows that it could not have worked, then the method must be rejected.

Absolutely - Rudolf's (and to a lesser extent, Leuchter's) work have exposed the orthodox narrative in a significant, robust and transparent way, that must be addressed by orthodoxy - this has not been the case, and the longer it lingers, the worse it becomes for them.

I'm not talking about the generalplan ost himself but the quoted part who seem to support genocide attempt