The CODOH Revisionist Forum

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 10:53 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 3:26 amThe question 'steelman revisionism' is difficult because there are obviously different kinds of revisionism. So pardon me if I tried to define the one I thought was the strongest - no gas chambers / mass killing in the east, probably genocidal / conspiracy to get the world to believe in the false history.

If you give me a specific argument, I can steel man it no problem. Your stuff with "Far less" is pure pilpul. My steel man was good. Traces of HCN were found in the gas chambers, at FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR lower levels than expected, is that better?

The challenge was to steelman whichever revisionist argument that, in your opinion, is the strongest/most compelling. You don't need to steelman all of revisionism. Surely, you've encountered at least one argument that you had to carefully investigate and think about in order to formulate a response to? Let's be real, most subjects are broad and complex, so steelmanning an entire subject matter is going to be difficult. I just want you to select whichever revisionist argument you believe to be the strongest and most compelling, and then steelman it. We understand there are thousands of arguments of differing quality, just go with the strongest one.

I agree with HansHill and Archie. What we've seen so far are basically just half-hearted attempts at describing a revisionist argument but poisoning it in the cradle. If you believe the chemical arguments are the strongest, then go for it.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 11:00 pm Nessie, either attempt a straightforward steelman of the strongest revisionist argument, or leave the thread. Even if you think all revisionist arguments are bad, they can still be graded on a scale from 'most bad' to 'least bad'. Select the 'least bad' option and steelman it in an honest and straightforward way.

Or leave the thread. It's very simple.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 6:56 am Are you guys saying this steelman isn't good? Should I say the lack of staining on the walls makes it impossible that gassings were carried out? This is a bad argument IMO, because it is stupid.

I made a good steel man and it is crazy to deny this.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 2:14 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 6:56 am Are you guys saying this steelman isn't good? Should I say the lack of staining on the walls makes it impossible that gassings were carried out? This is a bad argument IMO, because it is stupid.

I made a good steel man and it is crazy to deny this.

Its fine for what it is. The benchmark I apply is "if a person from my own personal life said this to me without context in a coffee shop, would I find it as a fair statement" and the answer here is yes. Its not perfect (far from it) because it's still sabotaged by things like "HCN was detected" which is misleading, but i can also see how that's quibbling over minutae.

A better question would be, how would you rate yours VS mine where i responded to Nessie's challenge BA? I think it's clear mine is far far far stronger, but I'd be interested in your thoughts, specifically if you agree, and if so what's stopping you from writing a stronger one?

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 6:11 pm My objection to "HCN was detected in the gas chamber walls ..." is 1) it leads with a (misleading) concession, 2) many of the readings were actually zero or below detection limits, 3) the way the argument is phrased hides the fact that the results are categorically different between the two types of chambers, i.e., it's makes it sound like the gas chambers do have cyanide and we are merely quibbling about the exact amount.



https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=463

A real revisionist would start talking about the vast blue staining in the fumigation chambers. That should be the anchor point. From there you explain that that the "gas chambers" have zero/near zero/trace amounts only.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 7:14 pm I did not lay out the argument extensively, sure. But I think in two sentences I don't think you can do a better a job than I did.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 7:14 pm So it would be wrong to say no cyanide detected there either, looking at the cremas as a whole.

I did not lay out the argument extensively, sure. But I think in two sentences I don't think you can do a better a job than I did.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 8:36 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 7:14 pm So it would be wrong to say no cyanide detected there either, looking at the cremas as a whole.

I did not lay out the argument extensively, sure. But I think in two sentences I don't think you can do a better a job than I did.

There was no word count limit. You could have made that a little longer. You didn't because you were only including it so you could pat yourself on the back for finally including a brief mention of an actual revisionist argument in your second attempt.

Here would be my two sentence version:

Zyklon B chambers in the concentration camps commonly exhibit telltale permanent blue staining ("Prussian blue") on the walls because of how Zyklon B reacts with iron. Thus it was a tremendous embarrassment to the Holocaust establishment when it was pointed out that the expected blue stains are nowhere to be found in the famous "gas chambers" of Auschwitz, despite the conditions in these rooms being ideal for this blue staining to form.

[And if you will allow me a third sentence I would add...] Chemically tested samples from the walls have found zero or very trace cyanide compounds in the alleged "gas chambers," similar to control samples from ordinary rooms, strongly suggesting that Jews were not regularly being gassed by the thousand with Zyklon B in these rooms.