Where Myths Meet Their Demise
https://www.codohforum.com/
It is very, very weird that you (or anyone) can have so much certainty in a narrative when you know virtually nothing about the context and history it entails. Most members here have spent years (or even decades) very much engaged in this topic, whether through reading and "noticing" alone, or through participation in discussions like what you see here. Your incredulity (if sincere) is understandable; it is an almost-emotional reaction, total disbelief that such views could exist because all the information you have learned in school, media, and word-of-mouth has told you that believing "the Holocaust didn't happen" is the most cruel and ignorant thing anyone could suggest or believe. But alas, what you will find here is, truly and quite convincingly, that the 'Holohoax Emperor' has no clothes.ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 1:02 am I don't get it. How can you guys actually think this? Are you just trolling or are you serious? Are you playing word games about what the Holocaust means? How many Jewish people do you guys know? Have you had a bad experience with a Jewish person in real life or something? What's going on guys?
is hilarious. It seems you are quite troubled that people are sometimes critical toward Jews... and surely, the people who are critical are the problem and never the people whose behavior they are criticizing.ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 1:53 am You say you're committed to truth, not ideology — and I can respect that. But how is it possible that basically every serious historian across countries and political lines converge on the same conclusion about the Holocaust?
I understand distrusting institutions or questioning narratives. That's fair and necessary. But truth seeking involves checking whether we're mistaking skepticism for insight.
If this is just about the Holocaust, and not anti Jewish in general, why are there so many other non-holocaust related criticisms of Jews and Israel on here?
It's possible in the same way religious leaders often converge upon key principles of their common religion. What you are doing is pointing out a common thread in a belief system, rather than taking a critical look at the methodology which leads to those beliefs. You've actually joined this discussion at a perfect time, one in which one of the world's premier anti-revisionist Holocaust historians, Dr. Nick Terry (SanityCheck), has demonstrated in remarkable fashion the orthodox Holocaust narrative's need to do away with fundamental critical thinking principles, in order to be accepted at all. I recommend this exchange to anyone (starts here, then read the back-and-forth that follows):But how is it possible that basically every serious historian across countries and political lines converge on the same conclusion about the Holocaust?
It's great that you say questioning narratives like the Holocaust is "fair and necessary". Whether or not I believe you're sincere in saying this, I should point out that many Jews would certainly not say that, and they might even promote or tolerate that 'deniers' be put into prisons or at least be robbed of all financial opportunities and social standing.I understand distrusting institutions or questioning narratives. That's fair and necessary. But truth seeking involves checking whether we're mistaking skepticism for insight.
Are Jewish matters not more relevant to a forum debating the Holocaust than to forums or other discussion venues in general? There are many Jewish individuals and networks involved in questions surrounding the development and proliferation of the 'Holocaust' narrative, and the fact that acceptance of this problematic narrative extends into present-day is an indication that concern and criticism about these networks still remains relevant. This naturally leads to other questions like, "well, what else might we be missing?".If this is just about the Holocaust, and not anti Jewish in general, why are there so many other non-holocaust related criticisms of Jews and Israel on here?
It is possible in the same way that basically every serious politician is staunchly pro-Israel, and every serious person avoids speaking honestly about the Black crime rate or the immorality of trans children (if I may be so political). These are utterly taboo topics. They may even get you fired, and in fact when it comes to the Holocaust there are a considerable number of professionals whose careers suffered for violating the taboo.ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 1:53 am But how is it possible that basically every serious historian across countries and political lines converge on the same conclusion about the Holocaust?
Obviously a group which feels comfortable speaking freely about the Holocaust might also feel comfortable (at least some of them) discussing related issues, and it can't be denied that these issues are related. As Norman Finkelstein once put it:ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 1:53 am If this is just about the Holocaust, and not anti Jewish in general, why are there so many other non-holocaust related criticisms of Jews and Israel on here?
This holds true today, as nearly all advocates for Israel casually invoke the Holocaust as justification for bombing the Gaza Strip. Even the Prime Minister says "never again is now" as a way of building support for the violence. So your question works at least equally well in reverse: If remembering the Holocaust is just about truth or commemorating the dead, why do those who so often bring it up do so to justify killing and other political measures?The Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel.
I always appreciated Hannover's cut-through-the-nonsense approach to the topic, keeping the burden of proof where it belonged. Has anyone heard from him in recent years? I recall reading he left for some personal matters maybe 4-5 years ago but I have not heard anything since.borjastick wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 7:05 am A few random points and thoughts on this topic-
As Hanover used to say 'if the holocaust didn't happen as claimed, it didn't happen'.
Do we hate all jews and use them as a convenient and enjoyable whipping post? Probably but they do make this very easy.
That is a very succinct way to put it... I've only recently (last few years) begun to seriously ponder the amounts of ash we are talking about, especially at locations where 'incomplete' burns (outdoor cremations) are alleged to have occurred. The quantities are incredible (even moreso for the wood). Lumber and lumber-ash logistics are another huge coffin-nail for the hoax.For me the holocaust is so obviously a fake story that they have shot themselves in the foot by sticking to it. If you cannot show the mass graves, method of killing, methods of ash disposal of such a huge scale and hate everyone who questions it all then it is very clear it did not happen.
There is no better example of this exact phenomenon than when Jake Shields was scrambling for an interlocutor for Mr Rudolf due to a string of pull-outs. Eventually Jake Shields was able to find Dr Vann, a PhD in History and Genocide Studies, who sat across the desk from Germar Rudolf and plead ignorance on most (if not all) of the talking points.borjastick wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 7:05 am
The historians who agree with the holocaust story are fewer in number than you might think and have probably never really investigated it with a clear and open mind.
My attorney has advised me to distance myself from this accusation
Do we hate all jews and use them as a convenient and enjoyable whipping post? Probably...
It's an artificial consensus. This post reminds me that I have a draft an an FAQ I was going to add to the beginner's guide. Here is one relevant bit (I should try to get the whole thing posted one of these days).ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 1:53 am You say you're committed to truth, not ideology — and I can respect that. But how is it possible that basically every serious historian across countries and political lines converge on the same conclusion about the Holocaust?
I understand distrusting institutions or questioning narratives. That's fair and necessary. But truth seeking involves checking whether we're mistaking skepticism for insight.
See also this thread from the old forumBut don't professional historians and other experts accept the Holocaust?
In most of Europe, it is now illegal to do research on the Holocaust unless you go along with the predetermined conclusions. In the United States, free thought on the Holocaust is still allowed to a degree because of the First Amendment tradition, but Holocaust revisionism is still suppressed via corporate censorship and other forms of harassment and economic threats. Because the Holocaust is sacralized history, to challenge it is treated not just as an intellectual folly but a moral outrage. Thus it carries with it an especially strong opprobrium that is not present in ordinary intellectual debates. This moral dimension makes "Holocaust denial" akin to heresy in a religious context and this explains why the Holocaust is especially hard to challenge.
Unthinking deference to expert opinion is an unreliable heuristic on third rail topics like "the Holocaust" where people cannot share their true views without suffering retaliation. If institutional powers decree that "Holocaust denial" is inherently not respectable, then by definition no one "respectable" can support Holocaust denial. Such circularities mean little.
An additional, less appreciated point is that Holocaust revisionism actually fares much better from a credentialist perspective than one might assume. And this is especially true when we consider the first few decades after the war, before "The Holocaust" became socially and politically dominant. Many early Holocaust skeptics in America were surprisingly well-credentialed. Harry Elmer Barnes, had a PhD in history from Columbia and published prolifically for decades and was a long-time editor at Foreign Affairs. Another early revisionist, David Hoggan, had a PhD in history from Harvard. Amazingly enough, they were in fact better credentialed than many of the early Holocaust historians who by and large were not professional historians at elite universities. The two authors of the most notable early comprehensive histories on the Holocaust, Gerald Reitlinger and Raul Hilberg, did not have PhDs in history (Hilberg's field was political science) and neither of their books were published by prestigious academic presses. It was not until the late 1970s that "the Holocaust" began acquiring the academic prestige it now enjoys.
Despite all the pressures to the contrary, we do see some hints of revisionism even within mainstream academics. In the early 1990s, Joel Hayward, a grad student in history at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, submitted a master's thesis on Holocaust revisionism in which he largely endorsed the revisionist position. Not only was the thesis accepted, it was deemed the best thesis that year and Hayward was awarded special recognition for his efforts. The controversial thesis was submitted in 1993 but not made public until 1999, at which point Jewish activists predictably tried to get the degree revoked, prompting Hayward to begin the customary groveling. Such are the dynamics at play and such explains the artificial consensus on the Holocaust issue. Similarly, in France in 1985, Henri Roques submitted a doctoral dissertation which presented detailed and scholarly textual criticism of the statements of Kurt Gerstein, one of the most crucial and widely cited gas chamber witnesses. Roques's doctoral degree was cancelled in 1986 after intervention from a French government official.
Many major revisionists like Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson have had PhDs in a variety of fields, and many such as Germar Rudolf and Fritz Berg have had technical backgrounds. What we find with revisionists is an eclectic group of individuals from a variety of nationalities, professional backgrounds, and political sensibilities who have all concluded, often at great personal cost and little personal benefit, that the Holocaust is not true.
There remain an unknown number of "closet" revisionists within academia and other fields. These are those who agree with us but who keep their heads down for professional and personal reasons. In recent decades, many revisionists have had to write under pseudonyms such as the late "Samuel Crowell" who had a master's degree in Eastern European history from Columbia and "Thomas Dalton" who has a PhD and "taught humanities at a prominent American university for several years." Carlo Mattogno, the most prolific revisionist researcher, has received anonymous assistance from sympathetic archival specialists in Europe.
Most of the threads and post volume are on the Holocaust, but we do allow people to discuss other historical topics like WWII, the Third Reich, and Jewish history, as all of these are related to and intersect with the Holocaust, and there is a similar suppression of open discussion on all of these topics. We grant individual posters a good deal of latitude but we generally try to stay focused on factual historical questions and avoid gratuitous attacks on Jews. I would say we are critical but fair.If this is just about the Holocaust, and not anti Jewish in general, why are there so many other non-holocaust related criticisms of Jews and Israel on here?