The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 8:40 pm Spinning off my reply to the comment below since it's far afield of the original topic.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 4:55 am

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 3:32 am [...]
You replied but you did not meaningfully address it.

"When has the victorious side ever been prosecuted?" Uh, this is a problem revisionists have been pointing out for decades. That Nuremberg was victor's justice and was hypocritical and biased. This is Revisionism 101 stuff.

Are you new here?

So what if Nuremberg was hypocritical and biased? I'll admit this is indeed circumstantial evidence for the conspiracy you believe in, but it is exceedingly weak circumstantial evidence. To me it's like saying you should believe the Holocaust happened because the Nazis were anti semitic. Maybe that's enough for some people, but there are dumb revisionists too.

My gut reaction to this (and several of BA's comments prior to this) was one of amazement. It is odd to see a Holocaust promoter abandoning what has traditionally been vigorously defended territory and to suggest it is of no consequence.

I think the major source of disagreement here can be resolved by addressing a simple question: Where are the goalposts?

My position has always been that in terms of the Holocaust debate, the goalposts are exactly where the Holocaust mainstream has decided to place them. And the Holocaust mainstream has set a very demanding standard for themselves in suggesting that the Holocaust has been factually proven with 100% confidence. They say the proof is so overwhelming that no debate can ever be permitted over the inherent historicity of it. And no one is allowed to question their interpretation of the evidence or present counterevidence.

I am holding Holocaust promoters to this 100% certainty standard until Lipstadt and company concede otherwise.

Under the 100% certainty standard, if revisionists are able to create even a small chance of doubt, say 1%, this would be of some significance as it would open the door to further debate which they are unwilling to have.

Let's look at the classic revisionists points about Nuremberg in light of the 100% certainty standard.

-It is claimed that the Holocaust is proved with absolute, 100% certainty. This conclusion is said to be inerrant and infallible.
-Suppose we ask WHEN these facts were established with certainty. The traditional answer would have to be that it was at Nuremberg (and similar trials). This is where the precedent was established.
-If Nuremberg was one-sided and propagandistic and its conclusions are highly vulnerable to critique, this calls everything into question.

From the traditional point of view, the Nuremberg critique is a crucial point because it 1) establishes reasonable doubt about the precedent (which opens the door to further debate), 2) it materially erodes the original evidentiary basis for the Holocaust, 3) it even explains to an extent the question of how such a legend could have taken hold. Does it absolutely disprove the Holocaust by itself? No, because you would still need to evaluate the claims, some of which could in theory have some real basis even if the trials were a frame-up.

Back to bombsaway's argument. Because the "100% certainty" standard is completely impossible to defend intellectually, people like bombsaway don't even try. He knows he would be laughed out of the room if he did that around here. They know that if they want to engage with revisionists and have a chance of convincing anyone they will need to bring more than "just trust me." Notice however that what bombsaway attempts to do here is a near complete inversion of the mainstream's standard. Instead of him recognizing the onus of proving the Holocaust with 100% certainty, he demands 100% certainty of revisionists, and he dismisses any point that does not, in isolation, 100% disprove the Holocaust. Again, this is absurd given the position of Holocaust mainstream.

If revisionists are able to establish any material doubt, even something modest like 5%, this would imo demand a major public and academic controversy. Needless to say, I think revisionists have gone far, far beyond that, and it has only gone unacknowledged for political reasons.

Unfortunately, as has been explained to you several times before over the years, the goalposts in 2026 for 'proving' any historical event before 2026 have expanded to include all of the available evidence as of 2026.

The goalposts in the 1940s depended significantly on the vantage point - what was known and knowable in Poland was fundamentally different to what was known or knowable in the United States to those who could only read English.

What was known in general about WWII and the fate of the Jews also didn't consist solely of what was entered into evidence at the International Military Tribunal, the main Nuremberg trial. In turn, the IMT evidence didn't just concern what we now call the Holocaust.

This is all the more apparent in the 2020s since so much 1940s source material has been digitised, translated, worked through, allowing us to see what was known and what was publicised or transmitted in summary form back then, but also providing entirely independent sources such as diaries, letters and indeed further photographs.

It's certainly true that IMT provided considerable exposure or amplification for the charges that had been already circulating in wartime or which were publicised to varying degrees in 1945 before the start of Nuremberg. So no doubt one could find a day in late 1946 when IMT loomed especially large, but the evidence kept on expanding even in the 1940s, even from a western perspective, as seen in early histories of the Holocaust from Poliakov in 1951 onwards, which tend to cite from the NMT trials much more.

I don't know where anyone has said that the Holocaust is proven with absolute 100% certainty, is inerrant or infallible. It'd help your case if you assembled some quotes from Deborah Lipstadt and others saying anything like this. I am fairly sure you can find non-historians and those like Lipstadt who had not worked through the evidence in full saying similar things, but Lipstadt and other historians also often point to how elements can be revised, because they clearly have been, as is normal for big complex historical events, for mega-death tolls, and much else.

There are likely many who've said something to the effect of the Holocaust is proven "beyond all reasonable doubt". Firstly, the beyond all reasonable doubt standard in courts has been tested through opinion polls, surveys of jurors and in legal commentary to be less than 100% certainty. Standards of proof in US law have at least four defined levels:

Some Credible Evidence/Probable Cause (Lowest standard)
Preponderance of the Evidence (More likely than not, common in most civil cases) = 51%+
Clear and Convincing Evidence (Highly probable, used for significant issues) - generally held to be around 75%
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Highest standard, used in criminal cases) - 95-100%

This is copied from Google's AI, supplemented by the percentage. A study surveying 124 judges had slightly lower percentages:

The means, from lowest to highest are as follows: reasonable articulable suspicion (42.1 percent), probable cause (49.7 percent), preponderance of the evidence (54.4 percent), substantial probability (55.3 percent), clear and convincing evidence (73.4 percent), and beyond a reasonable doubt (90.1 percent).

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/le ... e-numbers/


How 'proven' something is in history will change over time as more evidence becomes available. But something could be successfully 'doubted' and challenged. This is where the subsequent 80 years come in from *both* perspectives.

Lipstadt wasn't actively talking about Holocaust denial until at earliest the 1980s. With hindsight, we can see that the early revisionist arguments and claims turned out to be largely hot air from the 1940s well into the 1980s, with 1980s (or post-1978) revisionism facing the issue that the evidence or access to the evidence clearly *had* expanded since IMT, otherwise none of them would have gone beyond the IMT evidence, which is clearly not true.

Very few specific 'revisionist' claims from the 1940s-early 1980s really survive, except for marking out a few things that must be forgeries, coerced statements, etc; how it is argued the sources are forgeries, coerced, invented has changed rather drastically in most cases, and many once popular attacks have really failed. There is very little in Rassinier, Butz and even early Faurisson that has survived. This is because the conclusion had been reached in advance, and then the writers went 'shopping for receipts', as someone put it recently about current partisan 'journalism'. Of course you can find receipts if you squint hard enough and lie shamelessly, but this doesn't tend to lead to lasting results. Again: which arguments in Rassinier are still worth considering? Even other revisionists criticised Butz for nearly all of his core claims about Auschwitz, then came up with 'better' arguments.

All 'revisionist' arguments about the documentation for Auschwitz before 1989-1993 with Pressac's two books turned out to be worthless. The goalposts moved. The sheer number of attempts after 1989 to challenge Pressac shows this.


By the 1980s, a thousand further trials of Nazi-era crimes had taken place in West Germany, not all directly related to the Holocaust, but some clearly were, like the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. The investigations and trials reexamined 1940s evidence, accessed a wider range of it (copies of materials from Poland etc) and expanded on it with their own interrogations and cross-examinations. While there were 'revisionist' attacks on some of these trials, most were overlooked, but also most were still inaccessible. The 'revisionists' couldn't talk about a trial they'd not seen, so they didn't. That remains the case today - no 'revisionist' has gone through the Dejaco-Ertl trial from 1972 in Vienna, so all they can acknowledge is the snippets which Pressac discussed.

From the 1940s to 1980s, and really beyond, there was also a general failure to identify counter-evidence that might have served to raise 'reasonable doubt'. Nazis on the run in Latin America did not come forward with counter-evidence, the former Nazis who had survived the 1940s in Germany and Austria also did not come up with much - the claims of Christophersen and Staeglich were about it, and not very credible from an objective perspective.

The Holocaust really was a missing persons case as well as a murder case, and the missing Jews remained missing. That stayed true after the collapse of communism and remains true to the present day. This is likely why bombsaway assesses the chance of revisionism being true, or the Holocaust not having happened as generally portrayed from the 1940s to the present, at a very, very low level: "I would put the probability at something like 1 out of a million or a billion."

From circa 1988, 'revisionists' began to proffer arguments they felt were slamdunks, notably the Leuchter-Rudolf 'Prussian Blue' argument followed by claims about the impossibility of mass cremation on the scale claimed. But other technical arguments eventually evaporated - the diesel issue being one example - while there were good reasons to disregard the Prussian Blue claim as unconvincing. Leuchter's appearance at the second Zuendel trial was a debacle. The mass graves issue was then undermined by Richard Krege's overly confident claim that the ground at Treblinka was entirely undisturbed under ground-penetrating radar. It's difficult to convey how damaging this was to the credibility of the 'movement', especially when so much more evidence emerged in the 21st Century of the condition of these camp sites, from photographs that had not been widely known before, from documents about grave-robbing, and from archaeological work (with more ongoing to this day).

The 'beyond all reasonable doubt' line remains valid because:
1) there still isn't any convincing counter-evidence of survival
2) the volume of evidence in general continues to expand - i.e. become more accessible and more known, and this hasn't been dealt with systematically by the 'revisionists' of the past 30 years
3) the technical arguments are still unconvincing.

When Lipstadt was most active commenting on denial and around the time she published her book in 1993, 'revisionism' was certainly in a phase where it had a brief upsurge, exemplified by increased publicity in the US and elsewhere. In the US, Britain and after the quashing of Zuendel's conviction also Canada, there were certain moments when access to the necessary material was less easy, and 'revisionists' could give the impression of being on the march. But the evidence coming to light after the collapse of communism was changing things, which was really summed up in Irving vs Lipstadt in 2000, which was a debacle for 'revisionism'.

I think you could easily find over-confident claims in the 1980s and first part of the 1990s that the historicity of the Holocaust was beyond reasonable doubt, before many of the key pieces of evidence people would point to in the 21st Century became known.

In 2026, in the English-speaking world, you have a number of spaces including this forum where a 'revisionist' can try to articulate ideas worthy of a debate. The record of history can always be revised if new evidence comes to light, and one cannot rule out new evidence emerging, even if it seems exceedingly unlikely at this stage (1 in a million or billion chance, as bombsaway said).

The thing is, you're not exactly winning the internal debate on your 'side', or potentially sympathetic circles, as exemplified by yet another article in The Occidental Observer declaring traditional 'revisionism' to be esoteric and pointless.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... holocaust/

The same can be said for many other previously sympathetic influencers - yes, Nick Fuentes has denied the Holocaust in the past, and no doubt will throw out a few scraps in that direction, but his focus is elsewhere, just as it is for Richard Spencer. When the two of them sat down for their annual catch-up at the end of 2025, they eventually got to antisemitism and Israel vis-a-vis the GOP after Trump, but the Holocaust didn't come up once.

Just a reminder that in 2026, yes, that's right, 2026, there is still no concise tally of the missing. We have no idea who is missing, and simply use nebulous cohorts from famously unreliable census data (had to be revised upward for prewar figures and downward for post war figures post war, for, reasons I guess).

Just a reminder that in 2026, yes, 2026, there is still next to no residue from hydrogen cyanide gas in the alleged 'homicidal gas chambers', except for, of course, the one at majdanek, which, ironically, is said to have used carbon monoxide from cylinders as the murder instrument.

Just a reminder that in 2026, yes, 2026, the grave space at the alleged 'extermination centers' along the Bug River are now, as they have been, woefully inadequate for the claim. If I may quote the 13 apostles of Treblinka upon the conclusion of their solemn visit to the site 'no mass graves are to be found'.

Just a reminder, in 2026, yes, 2026, the evidence for the Sobibor 'extermination center' is still basically spun by the judge after he basically threw out the eyewitness testimony.

This list could continue ad infinitum, but, that wouldn't move the needle for one committed to the orthodox narrative.

I wait patiently to be informed by the other side of the coin, where the murdered, self immollating evaporating jews went.

How about it boss, where'd they go?

SanityCheck wrote:The 'beyond all reasonable doubt' line remains valid because:
1) there still isn't any convincing counter-evidence of survival
2) the volume of evidence in general continues to expand - i.e. become more accessible and more known, and this hasn't been dealt with systematically by the 'revisionists' of the past 30 years
3) the technical arguments are still unconvincing.

'Proving survival' is not the goalpost for revisionists; simply invalidating 'proof of gassing' or 'proof of millions buried at X locations' is sufficient. You engage in the practice of filling historical gaps with claims and assumptions rather than reason and inference. You take a selective approach to weighting evidence overall, while revisionists look at the matter holistically. You presume victorious powers were generally honest in their approach and that 'witnesses' were motivated more by truthfulness than otherwise. It's not convincing.

The "volume of evidence" will of course expand as the embarrassing pattern of motivated deceptions (published with opposition suppressed) continues unabated in mega institutions and academia, with its self-congratulatory and well-funded echo chamber, indefinitely. Gen Z doesn't seem impressed. Nor does your own camp, apparently, still being afraid to sanction open debate on the 'Holocaust' despite CODOH activism for the same three decades you've alluded to.

Snap back to reality: all of your 'death camps' feature embarrassing liars as star witnesses. All of your burial sites conclusively do not contain the corpse materials you need there to be (and it's not even remotely close -- this cannot be emphasized enough). The amount of fuels required and actually available are, for you, a total fantasy, completely unevidenced. Certainly, your "volume of evidence" has only deflated on all of these matters. You won't argue against this. You evade the science at every turn, but you forget that with Muehlenkamp fully-retired, the torch is passed to you to deal with these scientific/technical arguments. But you don't (because you can't).

Really, though -- did exterminationists forget how to do math? Was there ever a viable exterminationist response to Mattogno's 'The Operation Reinhard Camps' book, or his recent article outlining numerous "incontrovertible facts"?:

https://codoh.com/library/document/inco ... ion-camps/

Which HC Blog article deals with these? Establishment literature certainly does not.

The truth is, your position does not hold on technical grounds, so you merely insist it holds on historiographical grounds -- "look how big the document pile is!". Yes, Nick, we see the pile. Unfortunately, people are increasingly asking, "I wonder what is ACTUALLY in this pile," and all of us on this forum know what they will find.

They find contradictions, motivated liars, impossible technical claims, absurdities, and and a self-referential echo chamber. Look closer, and they find a 'Holocaust' establishment paying academics and a wide range of media influencers to promote the sanctity of '6 million' while stifling criticism and open discussion and all its flavors.

You have been swearing that revisionism is out the door for more than a decade now, and it has only grown. People believe in the 'Holocaust' less than ever before.

SanityCheck wrote:The thing is, you're not exactly winning the internal debate on your 'side', or potentially sympathetic circles, as exemplified by yet another article in The Occidental Observer declaring traditional 'revisionism' to be esoteric and pointless.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... holocaust/

Who is this person? Richard Parker? The Occidental Observer? None of this is on the 'side' of revisionism. The article addresses the political utility of revisionism rather than challenging any of its arguments. Many of us here have already acknowledged this same line of reasoning as it was relayed by Nick Fuentes recently -- indeed, if the goal is to challenge Jewish power structures, it arguably makes much less sense to fight their narrative rather than acknowledging its irrelevance to modern matters and discourse. This doesn't help your position at all.

SanityCheck wrote:...just as it is for Richard Spencer...

You and bombsaway are the only people in this forum who have ever mentioned Richard Spencer. Spencer is the most insincere person I have ever seen elevated into national media/discourse. The entire 'alt-right' movement presented itself as a psy-op meant to inflame leftists enough to manifest the 2020 communist anarchy that launched following the fentanyl overdose of a black man who used a fake $20 bill at a liquor store (George Floyd was his name, I think). As I recall, Spencer has close ties to the Bush family and other elite networks, and ties back to earlier pseudo right-wing movements with Marxist origins.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 5:02 am Trebb, I think you have nailed a part of the animating factor with regard to the suffering of jews in the eye of the zionists.

You produced a quote, I shall produce another, and it covers the expropriation aspect rather than the supposed physical extermination of the jew.

It is essential that the sufferings of jews became worse. This will assist in the realization of our plans. I have an excellent idea. I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate jewish wealth. The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends

—Theodor Herzl

Thanks for the quote, Stubble, it piqued my interest. And thanks for the many posts of yours I have read and enjoyed here.

I tried to track the date of the quote down, to learn its proximity to the World War Era. I am not sure I can find the exact quote. What I have found is this,

It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited
anti-Semites as liquidators of property.
To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not
wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that
we leave.
At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise
we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as
"stooges of the Jews."
Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have
only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated.
The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends,
the anti-Semitic countries our allies.
We want to emigrate as respected people."

Theodor Herzl’s diary, entry for 12th June 1895, as published in The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (1960) Vol. 1, edited by Raphael Patai and translated by Harry Zohn pp 83–84.

I found it at this link. It is at PDF pages 92 & 93.

[The last line in the entry above it is a doozy.]

I am not sure if it is the same quote as yours, though, but it is the closest I could find.

Trebb wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 4:18 am

It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited
anti-Semites as liquidators of property.
To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not
wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that
we leave.
At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise
we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as
"stooges of the Jews."
Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have
only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated.
The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends,
the anti-Semitic countries our allies.
We want to emigrate as respected people."

Theodor Herzl’s diary, entry for 12th June 1895, as published in The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (1960) Vol. 1, edited by Raphael Patai and translated by Harry Zohn pp 83–84.

I don't know what else to do but laugh while reading this. Jews paying 'anti-semites' to stop being abused by Jews? No wonder Hitler considered some alignment with the Zionists, however briefly. This is a very compelling proposal!

That's the full quote, I may have gotten it from a corrupted source. Seems like the first time I ran across it was on storm front. This time the source I clipped it from was a website 'debunking' 'antisemitic' claims. It did say it was from his diary however, and I should have mentioned that.

It still did not have the 'full quote'.

I believe the docked quote is also presented in 'Europa: The Last Battle' and also may appear in 'In The Name Of Zion'.

Also, thank you for the praise Sir. Your posts are excellent as well.

For the record, I've never actually looked at the source. The corrupted quote is arguably less unflattering than the direct quote.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 5:42 pm

Trebb wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 3:38 pm What experiences of millions of people do I have blasé acceptance of going completely unrepresented?

The resettled Jews.

Trebb wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 3:38 pm Other than that we were addressing your general query of how would it be possible for false narratives/ myths to be sustained without conspiracy. You seem to believe that this is impossible in principle; I think I and others have shown you that it clearly is possible.

I seem to believe it is impossible? I said no sane person would dispute this, but that the situation with the 'no evidence' surfacing for resettlement is a fundamentally different critique.

Again, I referred to Auschwitz. Please show me my blasé acceptance of millions of people's experiences going completely unrepresented.

It is like you do not want to talk about Auschwitz and the Allied aerial photography evidence that show no massive burning pyre pits during the period witnesses state there would have been. I linked you to that evidence and you're still ignoring it. I even acknowledged that it was fair enough that you did not want to talk about the cyanide residue evidence, so it is odd that you ignore the evidence that most people can understand.

YES, the resettled Jews! I get it. There are various conceivable claims of where they went.

• 1.1 million of the 2.3+ million resettled Jews were murdered in Auschwitz.

• Some number went alive to the Stalinist Soviet Union (you state this is a Revisionist claim).

• Some number survived and emigrated to other countries.

• Some number were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen.

• Some number fought alongside partisans.

• Some number were murdered in, e.g., Romania, or by, e.g., the USSR.

• Some number were murdered in other camps, e.g.,Treblinka, Sobibor.

• Some number were killed by Soviets or other Allies, e.g., in bombardments and other actions toward the intense end of the war.

• Something else.

I explained why I am skeptical of the first entry on that list, i.e., mass gassings needing mass cremations and open/pit pyres at Auschwitz. I am perfectly willing to be shown why my skepticism is misplaced on this. If it turns out it is reasonable to dismiss mass murder at Auschwitz, then the fates of the 2.3+ million resettled Jews have to fall only to the other entries on that list. I would like to know the truth. And I don't ultimately care if it can be thought of as Revisionist or Orthodox.

As I am open on this, I am, therefore, open to the other explanations listed being part of the story as well, especially so as I have not yet examined most of them very much. And I don't ultimately care if they can be thought of as Revisionist or Orthodox.

Now either address the matter at hand or state that you can't be bothered, just stop rehearsing the same misplaced lines with me.

My point with all this is that you guys can't have it both ways. If your side has set a very high bar for itself (it has), then you should be held to that. You can't claim infallibility in the political realm and then when discussing it here pretend like it's the polar opposite. Bombsaway for example dismisses all sorts of points out of hand (as "circumstantial" for example) even when they create substantial reasonable doubt (especially in combination with other points).

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 1:02 am I don't know where anyone has said that the Holocaust is proven with absolute 100% certainty, is inerrant or infallible. It'd help your case if you assembled some quotes from Deborah Lipstadt and others saying anything like this. I am fairly sure you can find non-historians and those like Lipstadt who had not worked through the evidence in full saying similar things, but Lipstadt and other historians also often point to how elements can be revised, because they clearly have been, as is normal for big complex historical events, for mega-death tolls, and much else.

Bombsaway (bizarrely) made this same objection, even as he himself claimed 99.9999-99.9999999% certainty. Addressed here: https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20544#p20544

Comparing Holocaust revisionists to flat earthers, throwing them in prison, censoring them, allowing "no debate," all these things presuppose an extremely high level of certainty. Or, to be more precise, these things would only be potentially justifiable given an extremely high level of certainty. (Practically speaking of course such intellectual tyranny is generally not needed for things that are truly certain; such heavy-handedness is needed precisely because of the fragility of the position).

Very few specific 'revisionist' claims from the 1940s-early 1980s really survive, except for marking out a few things that must be forgeries, coerced statements, etc; how it is argued the sources are forgeries, coerced, invented has changed rather drastically in most cases, and many once popular attacks have really failed. There is very little in Rassinier, Butz and even early Faurisson that has survived. This is because the conclusion had been reached in advance, and then the writers went 'shopping for receipts', as someone put it recently about current partisan 'journalism'. Of course you can find receipts if you squint hard enough and lie shamelessly, but this doesn't tend to lead to lasting results. Again: which arguments in Rassinier are still worth considering? Even other revisionists criticised Butz for nearly all of his core claims about Auschwitz, then came up with 'better' arguments.

I would strongly disagree with this. Butz does whiff on some things, but many of his key points hold up very well. A lot of basic points about the misleading concentration camp propaganda reels, the typhus, the dual interpretation. All this holds up. Many of the points he makes can be made much more forcefully with currently available information. If the book were rewritten today, we could for example include the more recent Majdanek material which would fit well with the rest of the book. I have seen people quibbling with his discussion of the WRB report but he was right to realize its importance and the critique has overall aged well given, for example, Vrba's disastrous testimony at the Zundel trial. Even Rassinier makes very good points despite having quite limited access to sources. He identified and effectively critiqued core witnesses such as Hoess, Gerstein, and Nyiszli. He makes the cremation capacity argument. His critiques have been improved/superseded of course but his instincts were spot on and was on the right track. That Lipstadt devoted a chapter to Rassinier and responded to him only extremely selectively I thought was pathetic.

The vintage Holocaust literature has in contrast aged extremely poorly. Perhaps this is why you and others used to discourage me from reading it.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 2:59 am

SanityCheck wrote:The 'beyond all reasonable doubt' line remains valid because:
1) there still isn't any convincing counter-evidence of survival
2) the volume of evidence in general continues to expand - i.e. become more accessible and more known, and this hasn't been dealt with systematically by the 'revisionists' of the past 30 years
3) the technical arguments are still unconvincing.

'Proving survival' is not the goalpost for revisionists; simply invalidating 'proof of gassing' or 'proof of millions buried at X locations' is sufficient. You engage in the practice of filling historical gaps with claims and assumptions rather than reason and inference. You take a selective approach to weighting evidence overall, while revisionists look at the matter holistically. You presume the victorious [Allied] powers were generally honest in their approach and that 'witnesses' were motivated more by truthfulness than otherwise. It's not convincing.

…The truth is, your position does not hold on technical grounds, so you merely insist it holds on historiographical grounds — "look how big the document pile is!" Yes, Nick, we see the pile. Unfortunately, people are increasingly asking, "I wonder what is ACTUALLY in this pile," and all of us on this forum know what they will find.

They find contradictions, motivated liars, impossible technical claims, absurdities, and and a self-referential echo chamber. Look closer, and they find a 'Holocaust' establishment paying academics and a wide range of media influencers to promote the sanctity of '6 million' while stifling criticism and open discussion and all its flavors.

Excellent response and rebuttal. A pleasure to read!

Trebb wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 5:17 am

As I am open on this, I am, therefore, open to the other explanations listed being part of the story as well, especially so as I have not yet examined most of them very much. And I don't ultimately care if they can be thought of as Revisionist or Orthodox.

Now either address the matter at hand or state that you can't be bothered, just stop rehearsing the same misplaced lines with me.

Allied planes did photograph a large plume of smoke coming out of the crematorium section https://blog.historicenvironment.scot/2 ... dence-air/

You can see the burning pits too. Revisionists have claimed this was garbage being burned or maybe a small amount of corpses. Whatever.

The larger point I would make to you is that even if there wasn't a photo showing the burning it wouldn't disprove or cast serious doubt about orthodoxy's claims. The precise burning schedule isn't known actually, we know burning wasn't 24/7 all the time, so it simply might not have been happening when the photos were taken. It would be possible for the photos to have been time stamped incorrectly, or the schedule to have been wrong etc.

You may think this reasoning is flawed and funny, but revisionists use the same reasoning with resettlement. You seem to not be so familiar with the history, so I'll give you the brief rundwon. Korherr, a Nazi statistician, determined 1.4 million Polish Jews being 'given special treatment' and counted as 'no longer in Poland'. Later Himmler, assessing the report as "great camouflage" recommended that 'given special treatment' be replaced with "transported to the Russian East". The number of Jews being sent out later corresponding perfectly with the Hoefle telegram, a radio intercept discovered in the 2000s. The Hoefle telegram reports arrivals to camps B S T as part of Operation Reinhart - which was the deportation of the Polish Jews.

The simple fact is, that these people disappeared. The ghettos were emptied of non-working Jews, children, elderly, the infirm, which was the majority of Polish Jews. The population drop Korherr noted is reflected in numerous other censuses taken after that date. So we have a clear conundrum here, almost a binary. They were either killed or made it out of the country.

But there's a problem. The Korherr report is actually the only evidence of that (them being moved out). There's no transport documentation, there's no reports of them making it anywhere, no witness testimonies or documentation of any sort that would lead you to believe these Jews actually made it into the USSR. You can ask revisionists here for the evidence of that, but it simply doesn't exist, or it's circumstantial. Like they'll point to Jews being killed maybe in Russia (at this time documents show 300k being killed in the USSR) but it's entirely speculative.

I'll get to the point now. I would have some excuses for why there was no aerial photography of outside burning assuming there was none. Similarly revisionists have excuses for why there is no evidence of the Reinhardt Jews being transported to or maintained in the "Russian East". The failure here is to view one set of excuses as damning or extremely problematic while not bothering to interrogate the other.

One final thought, do you understand when I say no evidence of 'transport or maintenance' of Jews, I mean categorically no, and why this is different from saying a certain kind of evidence doesn't exist? Historical evidence is generated in many many domains or ways. Outside burning is evidenced in ground photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkom ... hotographs and extensively in witness testimony. There are also documents that strongly suggest it was happening like worker logs at the crematoria showing thousands of people working there every day https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ts-as.html

When you say there's no aerial photography of the events, and there should be, you're looking at one domain of evidence at one specific site and that's setting off alarm bells for you, whereas resettlement of the Reinhardt Jews would have generated evidence in a thousand different domains, across hundreds of different sites. And yet there's nothing. I say there is a significant difference here, one that is deeply unfavorable to the revisionist side.