The CODOH Revisionist Forum

So as not to have Nessie derail yet another thread with low-effort, low-IQ and high-volume posts, I'll make a thread specifically for this topic.

Revisionists will frequently point out that Holocaust witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and that finding even two witnesses that agree with eachother on the details of the extermination/gassing procedure at Auschwitz is difficult. Awkwardly, the most unreliable testimonies originate from immediately after the war, in 1945 and 1946, and most of the key witnesses from the Sonderkommando, upon which the historical reconstruction of gassings at Auschwitz is largely based, told countless verifiable lies that seriously undermine their credibility and damage their value as sources of historical truth. One of the key arguments employed by antirevisionists in defense of the Holocaust's unique reliance upon witnesses is that the eyewitness testimonies are allegedly "corroborated" by other witness testimonies on key points. When pressed on the issue, we're told that the witnesses agree on the following broad facts:

• Selections took place [disregarding the fact that not even revisionists deny that selections happened]
• Gassings took place
• The gassings happened in 'gas chambers' inside the Crematoria

Scrubbed of any sort of detail, what we see is that the only thing these witnesses 'agreed' on was common propaganda tropes that were prevelant in basically every German concentration camp during the war. Let me repeat that: basically every German camp, including non-death camps such as Buchenwald and Dachau, saw rumours of 'extermination' and 'gassings' proliferate among the inmates, particularly among Jewish inmates, where 'extermination' and 'incineration' ('Holocaust' literally meaning a "burnt offering") was a major theme of camp culture. These rumours were developed and spread by the underground resistance movement in Auschwitz and by the Polish underground resistance more generally, which disseminated countless absurd 'reports' the the Polish government-in-exile in London as early as 1942.

From the point of view of historiography, it is a major deficiency for the Holocaust to be so reliant upon witnesses that simply retold common propaganda stories that any inmate in any camp would have known about after the war. The job of the historian, therefore, is to determine which witnesses to rely upon and what details can be corroborated so as to determine the historicity of the alleged events. That's where we run into major problems, because, as noted earlier, Holocaust witnesses can't agree on details and frequently make major mistakes in relation to the gassing procedure that render them utterly incompatible with eachother. What historians have been essentially forced to do is to cherry-pick details from numerous testimonies and weave them together, no matter how incompatible they happen to be with one another - with the end result being a Holocaust story that no single witness ever told but with details incorporated from countless witness statements, reports, hearsay rumours and Soviet propaganda.

What we know about the major Sonderkommando witnesses is that some of them doubtlessly worked inside the Crematoria as stokers, because they were able to recount details of how a normal cremation procedure worked and the equipment used, whereas many other witnesses clearly had never seen the inside of the buildings they supposedly lived and worked in for months and years, but orthodox Holocaust historians will not discount a witness for virtually any reason. And here's where historians are faced with even more issues, because some of the key Sonderkommando witnesses were clearly coached by the Soviets and shown the 'crime scenes' they were later supposed to describe in their interrogations, violating basic rules of investigatory work and seriously undermining the reliability of these witness statements, in addition to retelling obviously absurd Soviet atrocity propaganda. Therefore, even the 'best' Sonderkommando testimonies, such as those of Henryk Tauber, suffer from serious historiographic deficiencies that mainstream historians simply refuse to be confronted with.

As for the propaganda emanating from German camps and occupied territories, historian Pierre-Vidal Naquet wrote that "In the flow of information coming from the occupied territories were to be found the true, the less-true, and the false" (HH#41, p 105). Historian Richard Breitman stated that the Polish underground reports "contained hearsay as well as eyewitness testimony" (ibid), but since the reports about mass-extermination at Auschwitz originated literally at the site of the crimescene, it is difficult to understand why the reports contained obvious atrocity propaganda completely disconnected from any actual events taking place in the camp. The supposed "eyewitness testimony" would have come from the members of the Sonderkommando, but no identifiable source is ever mentioned in any of the reports published up until the date that the Soviets overran the camp. Because of the fact that the various inmate resistance movements had agents in literally every single office and department of the entire camp, from the very outset, and were able to smuggle out such sensitive information as the plans for the crematoria in Birkenau, it is difficult to understand why the reports being sent from Auschwitz systematically disseminated ridiculous myths and fantasies about the goings on in the camp, rather than actual, factual and verifiable information, which could have been easily obtained through a dense network of agents and helpers in every single part of the camp, where thousands of civilian employees also moved about throughout the camp's history.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:01 pm ...
Revisionists will frequently point out that Holocaust witnesses are notoriously unreliable...

That is biased opinion, with no basis on any study of witness behaviour, memory or recall.

.. and that finding even two witnesses that agree with eachother on the details of the extermination/gassing procedure at Auschwitz is difficult.

Those who worked at the Kremas all agree that mass transports arrived at the camp, there was a selection process & those not needed for work were sent to the Kremas. They were told to undress as they were going for showers, and then gassed. The chambers were vented and corpses were removed and cremated, putting multiple corpses into the ovens at a time. The stolen property was sent for sorting.

Awkwardly, the most unreliable testimonies originate from immediately after the war, in 1945 and 1946, and most of the key witnesses from the Sonderkommando, upon which the historical reconstruction of gassings at Auschwitz is largely based, told countless verifiable lies that seriously undermine their credibility and damage their value as sources of historical truth. One of the key arguments employed by antirevisionists in defense of the Holocaust's unique reliance upon witnesses is that the eyewitness testimonies are allegedly "corroborated" by other witness testimonies on key points.

The Sonderkommandos are corroborated by SS staff, camp documents, photographs and the circumstantial evidence of camp operations.

When pressed on the issue, we're told that the witnesses agree on the following broad facts:

• Selections took place [disregarding the fact that not even revisionists deny that selections happened]
• Gassings took place
• The gassings happened in 'gas chambers' inside the Crematoria

Scrubbed of any sort of detail, what we see is that the only thing these witnesses 'agreed' on was common propaganda tropes that were prevelant in basically every German concentration camp during the war. Let me repeat that: basically every German camp, including non-death camps such as Buchenwald and Dachau, saw rumours of 'extermination' and 'gassings' proliferate among the inmates, particularly among Jewish inmates, where 'extermination' and 'incineration' ('Holocaust' literally meaning a "burnt offering") was a major theme of camp culture. These rumours were developed and spread by the underground resistance movement in Auschwitz and by the Polish underground resistance more generally, which disseminated countless absurd 'reports' the the Polish government-in-exile in London as early as 1942.

That is a misrepresentation of the witness evidence and the extent to which they corroborate on the details.

From the point of view of historiography, it is a major deficiency for the Holocaust to be so reliant upon witnesses that simply retold common propaganda stories that any inmate in any camp would have known about after the war.

The history of events at A-B is not as reliant on witnesses as made out. There is a lot of evidence from other sources.

The job of the historian, therefore, is to determine which witnesses to rely upon and what details can be corroborated so as to determine the historicity of the alleged events.

That is the task of identifying hearsay and eyewitness evidence and what is corroborated. Revisionists are unable to complete that basic investigatory task.

That's where we run into major problems, because, as noted earlier, Holocaust witnesses can't agree on details and frequently make major mistakes in relation to the gassing procedure that render them utterly incompatible with eachother.

Another misrepresentation, designed to dismiss 100% of the eyewitness evidence, leaving zero witnesses. To have no witnesses who supposedly can be trusted, to events witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, is not a credible claim.

What historians have been essentially forced to do is to cherry-pick details from numerous testimonies and weave them together, no matter how incompatible they happen to be with one another - with the end result being a Holocaust story that no single witness ever told but with details incorporated from countless witness statements, reports, hearsay rumours and Soviet propaganda.

It is not cherry-picking to identify what is hearsay, rumour, propaganda and not corroborated.

What we know about the major Sonderkommando witnesses is that some of them doubtlessly worked inside the Crematoria as stokers, because they were able to recount details of how a normal cremation procedure worked and the equipment used, whereas many other witnesses clearly had never seen the inside of the buildings they supposedly lived and worked in for months and years, but orthodox Holocaust historians will not discount a witness for virtually any reason. And here's where historians are faced with even more issues, because some of the key Sonderkommando witnesses were clearly coached by the Soviets and shown the 'crime scenes' they were later supposed to describe in their interrogations, violating basic rules of investigatory work and seriously undermining the reliability of these witness statements, in addition to retelling obviously absurd Soviet atrocity propaganda. Therefore, even the 'best' Sonderkommando testimonies, such as those of Henryk Tauber, suffer from serious historiographic deficiencies that mainstream historians simply refuse to be confronted with.

Tauber was interviewed by the Polish war crimes commission. Even Holocaust deniers cannot persuade themselves to believe that the Poles could be responsible for a Holocaust hoax, so they prefer to suggest the Soviets ran it, even though they left much of the work to the Polish. Handing over control of a major hoax to another country, is a very un-Soviet thing to do, especially when the Soviets were managing a hoax involving Poles, as they had blamed Katyn on the Nazis.

It was good practice to take witnesses back to the camps, to check if their descriptions matched what was found. West German prosecutors would also be enabled to conduct site visits in the 1960s, for the camp staff trials they ran.

As for the propaganda emanating from German camps and occupied territories, historian Pierre-Vidal Naquet wrote that "In the flow of information coming from the occupied territories were to be found the true, the less-true, and the false" (HH#41, p 105). Historian Richard Breitman stated that the Polish underground reports "contained hearsay as well as eyewitness testimony" (ibid), but since the reports about mass-extermination at Auschwitz originated literally at the site of the crimescene, it is difficult to understand why the reports contained obvious atrocity propaganda completely disconnected from any actual events taking place in the camp. The supposed "eyewitness testimony" would have come from the members of the Sonderkommando, but no identifiable source is ever mentioned in any of the reports published up until the date that the Soviets overran the camp. Because of the fact that the various inmate resistance movements had agents in literally every single office and department of the entire camp, from the very outset, and were able to smuggle out such sensitive information as the plans for the crematoria in Birkenau, it is difficult to understand why the reports being sent from Auschwitz systematically disseminated ridiculous myths and fantasies about the goings on in the camp, rather than actual, factual and verifiable information, which could have been easily obtained through a dense network of agents and helpers in every single part of the camp, where thousands of civilian employees also moved about throughout the camp's history.

It is to be expected that rumour, hearsay and eyewitness evidence all came out of Poland, 1941-5. It was then the job of criminal investigators and historians to sift that evidence to determine what was the eyewitness and corroborated narrative. That is a task so-called revisionists are unable to do. They fail.

It really is about time (well past time actually) that the Right Honourable Mrs Fish Fryer otherwise known as Nessie is banned from these waters.

He/she adds nothing causes great upset and distress to normal human beings and furthers the arguments not one jot. It is classic jew behaviour to deny the truth and attempt to derail things, while at the same time bringing a level of arrogance unseen in the normal world.

In fact he/she is a waste of space and I formally move to remove idiots like him from this space.

borjastick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 7:06 am It really is about time (well past time actually) that the Right Honourable Mrs Fish Fryer otherwise known as Nessie is banned from these waters.

He/she adds nothing causes great upset and distress to normal human beings and furthers the arguments no one jot. It is classic jew behaviour to deny the truth and attempt to derail things, while at the same time bringing a level of arrogance unseen in the normal world.

In fact he/she is a waste of space and I formally move to remove idiots like him from this space.

I hear you, it's definitely circular and doesn't add a ton. That said, I do think strong criticism is important to keep all of us on our toes, and Nessie has in many ways been a valued contributor in that regard. Nonetheless, some 'throttling' might be in order, to allow others on the forum to have a chance to develop and debate their own ideas and topics, without everyone getting stuck in the same merry-go-round with Nessie's "bullflop bingo", over and over again.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 6:50 am
It is to be expected that rumour, hearsay and eyewitness evidence all came out of Poland, 1941-5. It was then the job of criminal investigators and historians to sift that evidence to determine what was the eyewitness and corroborated narrative. That is a task so-called revisionists are unable to do. They fail.

The "Investigators" were not impartial; they were in fact Russian, The Extraordinary State Commission for the Establishment and Investigation of the Atrocities of the German Fascist Invaders and Their Accomplices and the Damage They Caused to Citizens, Collective Farms, Public Organizations, State Enterprises and Institutions of the USSR (ChGK). The commission was formed by the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on November 2, 1942. The decree stipulated that the task of the ChGK was to "take full account of the villainous crimes of the Nazis and the damage they caused to Soviet citizens and the socialist state, to establish the identity of the German fascist criminals with the aim of bringing them to trial and severe punishment.

The Chief Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation had a similar function, Poland being a vassal of Moscow. This was created in 1945. Together both organisations had a combined staff of over 11 million.

Determination of guilt was decided long before any investigation.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 8:27 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 6:50 am
It is to be expected that rumour, hearsay and eyewitness evidence all came out of Poland, 1941-5. It was then the job of criminal investigators and historians to sift that evidence to determine what was the eyewitness and corroborated narrative. That is a task so-called revisionists are unable to do. They fail.

The "Investigators" were not impartial; they were in fact Russian, The Extraordinary State Commission for the Establishment and Investigation of the Atrocities of the German Fascist Invaders and Their Accomplices and the Damage They Caused to Citizens, Collective Farms, Public Organizations, State Enterprises and Institutions of the USSR (ChGK). The commission was formed by the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on November 2, 1942. The decree stipulated that the task of the ChGK was to "take full account of the villainous crimes of the Nazis and the damage they caused to Soviet citizens and the socialist state, to establish the identity of the German fascist criminals with the aim of bringing them to trial and severe punishment.

The Chief Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation had a similar function, Poland being a vassal of Moscow. This was created in 1945. Together both organisations had a combined staff of over 11 million.

Determination of guilt was decided long before any investigation.

The initial investigations were by Polish intelligence reporting to the Government in Exile in London. Whether it was them, or communist Poles, or the Soviets, or the Western Allies, to whom many of the Nazis surrendered or were captured, all came to the same conclusion. West German investigators and prosecutors, who ran the death camp staff trials, also came to the same conclusion. Historians and journalists, from all over the world, have also gathered and assessed the evidence, and they also come to the same conclusion.

Only Holocaust deniers have come to a different conclusion, of, there were no gas chambers. They then fail to revise history and agree what really happened. As outliers, Holocaust so-called revisionists need to be able to explain, logically and evidentially, why they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

This thread, where the OP constantly misrepresents the evidencing and investigations already carried out, explains why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:09 am The initial investigations were by Polish intelligence reporting to the Government in Exile in London.

Spies infiltrating, hearing rumours, sending back disinformation.

West German investigators and prosecutors, who ran the death camp staff trials, also came to the same conclusion. Historians and journalists, from all over the world, have also gathered and assessed the evidence, and they also come to the same conclusion.

These trials were based on the Nurenberg trials with the same context, "Judicial Notice". Please show the forum before you get banned, the convictions or conclusions of gassings mentioned below.

Only Holocaust deniers have come to a different conclusion, of, there were no gas chambers. They then fail to revise history and agree what really happened. As outliers, Holocaust so-called revisionists need to be able to explain, logically and evidentially, why they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

In threads on gaskammer, or other topics you alway mention corroboration. On a thread made to discuss corroboration you immediately delve into other topics, the same circular patterns of a dog chasing its own tail. You were asked by Fritz Berg to provide some real evidence of a single gassed Jew years ago before he passed away. You never did but waffled about corroboration etc.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a revisionist or denier by default. There are some who think you are not the sharpest knife in the draw, more of a hammer perhaps.

This thread, where the OP constantly misrepresents the evidencing and investigations already carried out, explains why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

Repeating this mantra ad nauseum shows the fish bowl syndrome you have. I do not think you can think outside of the fishbowl which is why topics forever circle.

Nazgul wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:47 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:09 am The initial investigations were by Polish intelligence reporting to the Government in Exile in London.

Spies infiltrating, hearing rumours, sending back disinformation.

There was spying, there were rumours and there was also a lot of eyewitness, accurate testimony, from escaped prisoners and Poles who worked nearby to the camps.

West German investigators and prosecutors, who ran the death camp staff trials, also came to the same conclusion. Historians and journalists, from all over the world, have also gathered and assessed the evidence, and they also come to the same conclusion.

These trials were based on the Nurenberg trials with the same context, "Judicial Notice". Please show the forum before you get banned, the convictions or conclusions of gassings mentioned below.

Please evidence the West German's abandoned their inquisitorial system, for that used at Nuremberg.

Only Holocaust deniers have come to a different conclusion, of, there were no gas chambers. They then fail to revise history and agree what really happened. As outliers, Holocaust so-called revisionists need to be able to explain, logically and evidentially, why they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

In threads on gaskammer, or other topics you alway mention corroboration. On a thread made to discuss corroboration you immediately delve into other topics, the same circular patterns of a dog chasing its own tail. You were asked by Fritz Berg to provide some real evidence of a single gassed Jew years ago before he passed away. You never did but waffled about corroboration etc.

I am using examples of actual evidence.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a revisionist or denier by default. There are some who think you are not the sharpest knife in the draw, more of a hammer perhaps.

This thread, where the OP constantly misrepresents the evidencing and investigations already carried out, explains why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax.

Repeating this mantra ad nauseum shows the fish bowl syndrome you have. I do not think you can think outside of the fishbowl which is why topics forever circle.

Stop repeating the same old claims. Please come up with something new.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 7:34 am I hear you, it's definitely circular and doesn't add a ton. That said, I do think strong criticism is important to keep all of us on our toes, and Nessie has in many ways been a valued contributor in that regard. Nonetheless, some 'throttling' might be in order, to allow others on the forum to have a chance to develop and debate their own ideas and topics, without everyone getting stuck in the same merry-go-round with Nessie's "bullflop bingo", over and over again.

I'm firmly in the pro-Nessie camp. Yes he's highly repetitive, however he takes his rhetorical clobberings in good humour and never spergs out. He is also well behaved and doesn't encroach onto the Discussion thread, which i think warrants its own kudos, as he knows he would not be welcome there.

His main "benefit" to CODOH however, is that I've never actually seen him getting the better of anybody - meaning any lurker who jumps into any random thread, has an overwhelming chance of seeing some point of contention being dunked on, which is very satisfying to see.

As for how to handle his rubbish, i like the idea of mods intervening and removing his derailment posts into the junk folder - a good example of this is the AI thread, where if you go to page 15 there is almost no discussion of AI happening at all, and as such I have stopped following it. Just to be clear, I'm not singling Nessie out for every derailment in the universe, however he tends to indulge.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 11:26 am I am using examples of actual evidence.

Fritz demanded more than the evidence previously presented; inconclusive at best and lying at its worst. Repeating the same crap over and over will not make anyone believe it. It is only rebounding within the skull owned by you.

When someone uses SHC to support cremations one knows that their mind is not in the right realm.

I am watching a TV series on crime. Three girls were murdered by being burned inside their house. Do you think they combusted spontaneously?

HansHill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 11:28 am

Callafangers wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 7:34 am I hear you, it's definitely circular and doesn't add a ton. That said, I do think strong criticism is important to keep all of us on our toes, and Nessie has in many ways been a valued contributor in that regard. Nonetheless, some 'throttling' might be in order, to allow others on the forum to have a chance to develop and debate their own ideas and topics, without everyone getting stuck in the same merry-go-round with Nessie's "bullflop bingo", over and over again.

I'm firmly in the pro-Nessie camp. Yes he's highly repetitive,

A repetition caused by the repetitive claims continually made. None of you seem to be capable of any reflection or learning. For example, the constant suggestions that I am the one lacking evidence to support the gassing narrative, when in fact there is a lack of evidence to support any of the alternative narratives suggested by so-called revisionists. That is exemplified by the fact that 100% of the eyewitnesses who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas say they were used for gassings. There are zero eyewitnesses who support the various revisionist theories about usage.

... however he takes his rhetorical clobberings in good humour and never spergs out. He is also well behaved and doesn't encroach onto the Discussion thread, which i think warrants its own kudos, as he knows he would not be welcome there.

Indeed.

His main "benefit" to CODOH however, is that I've never actually seen him getting the better of anybody - meaning any lurker who jumps into any random thread, has an overwhelming chance of seeing some point of contention being dunked on, which is very satisfying to see.

That is what you like to imagine. Lurkers, who see that I can point out that 100% of the eyewitnesses support the gassing narrative, whether they are Nazis from Germany or Ukraine, or Jewish from Poland, France, Hungary or Greece, a group not normally inclined to collude with each other, will see that evidentially, I win, hands down. Hopefully many lurkers will also see how reliant so-called revisionists are on misrepresentation, lying and logically flawed arguments, with my constant, repetitive corrections.

As for how to handle his rubbish, i like the idea of mods intervening and removing his derailment posts into the junk folder - a good example of this is the AI thread, where if you go to page 15 there is almost no discussion of AI happening at all, and as such I have stopped following it. Just to be clear, I'm not singling Nessie out for every derailment in the universe, however he tends to indulge.

It tends to be others who derail, for example Nazgul has just introduced spontaneous human discussion into this thread. I have no intention of continuing with that. I have indulged your derailment!