Who is to Blame for the Orthodox Historical Narrative?

[ConfusedJew]

Where did this idea of the Holocaust come from? Why did people make it up? How did thousands of people, including alleged perpetrators decide to confess to the Holocaust? Is there any other recorded hoax in the course of human history that has been at a fraction of this scale?

I don't see how this is humanly possible, let alone plausible. Will somebody please explain to me how anybody could possible even do this?

[Stubble]

It was a collaborative effort. Some intentional deception, some honest mistakes, some coercion and some just plain craziness.

When you get to tearing in to it, there were a lot of moving parts. Some of it, just snowballed. Judges did streamlining, government agencies and media did narrative control etc.

It is not a simple thing where I can just point and say, 'him, in the beige trenchcoat! He did it!'.

Example;
The Buchenwald table? US Army.
Majdanek lies? Soviet.

Etc, etc, etc...

Of course, it continues;



An insightful video from Ryan Dawson;


(Unfortunately, every single video of this documentary on bitchute is edited and has a different spin than the original [that is to say, they are different from the original, and, from each other], available on odysee. Odysee won't embed, so, if you are wondering why there is 'climate change' stuff and other off topic stuff, it is because, this isn't the original product [maybe it is and my copy is condensed, I prefer my edit however])

And the song plays on...

[HansHill]

You have the relationship completely inverted. Once this all continues to untangle, it will be the good people of Germany who will be demanding the answers to these questions. And many many other questions, too. Not only that, they will be demanding justice.

Buckle up, it's going to be a hell of a century.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Wir informieren die Welt
...Wir haben ab Mitte 1944 mindestens zweimal in der Woche etwas abgeschickt… durch die Welt. Ich glaube, es ist keine Ubertreibung, wenn ich sage, daß der größte Teil der Auschwitzpropaganda, die um diese Zeit in der Welt verbreitet wurde, von uns im Lager selbst geschrieben worden ist.
...Diese Propaganda in der Weltöffentlichkeit führten wir bis zum letzten Tage unseres Auschwitzer Aufenthaltes durch.

~ Zichronot fon Widerstand Auschwitz-Birkenau

We inform the world
...From mid-1944 onwards, we sent something at least twice a week… throughout the world. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that most of the Auschwitz propaganda that was spread around this time in the world was written by us in the camp itself.
...We carried out this propaganda in the world public until the last day of our stay in Auschwitz.

~ Memories of the resistance in Auschwitz-Birkenau, pgs 34-35.
Edited by David Szmulewski. Published in Paris, 1984

[Wahrheitssucher]

…How did thousands of people, including alleged perpetrators, decide to confess to the Holocaust? …

I don't see how…

Ah, but isn’t that because you don’t want to see?

Did you know that there were post-war show-trials for the functionaries and guards at camps where there were no mass-gassings?

Did you know that there are camps that people now know never had any ‘mass-gassing’ murders. Yet the British and French courts managed to obtain confessions which were particularly detailed on the bogus claims of mass-murder-by-gas at these.

So a few questions for you, confused jew:

Q1. why were there ANY allegations at all of mass gassings at camps that had no functioning, homicidal gas chambers?
Q2. from whom did the allegations come?
Q3. why did the Allies believe the claims and then hang men innocent of the crimes they were falsely accused of?

Do please answer.

I would like to share with you two remarks.

The first comes to us from Dr. Butz.
In a letter of 18th November 1979 addressed to a British weekly (New Statesman) about a long article by Gitta Sereny (2 November 1979) he made the observation that it is quite strange to claim to base a historical thesis like that of the formidable massacres of millions of human beings on ...confessions.
That claim is still harder to defend when you know that those confessions came from persons who had been conquered and that the ones who obtained those confessions were the conquerors.

My second remark is to recall that, in the cases from Ravensbrück — where people now know that there never was any ‘mass-gassing’ — the British and French courts obtained confessions which were particularly detailed on the alleged gassings.

People speak to us about the three principal confessions of Auschwitz [Höß, Kremer and Broad], but they no longer speak to us at all about the three principal confessions of Ravensbrück: that of the camp commandant, Suhren, that of his adjutant Schwarzhuber and that of the camp physician, Dr. Treite.

Question: do you know what was the size of that ‘gas chamber’ that never existed?
Answer: nine meters by four and one half meters.

Question: Do you know where it was located?
Answer: five meters away from the two crematory ovens.

Question: Do you know how many persons were gassed there? [...etc., etc.]

...Two of the three persons who confessed at Ravensbrück were hanged, and the third [supposedly] committed suicide.

What is horrible is that without this lie about the "gas chambers" they would perhaps have saved their lives.
In regard to Suhren, Germaine Tillion wrote... that he began by displaying a "stubborn bad faith" in the course of his two trials (one at Hamburg, by the British and one at Rastatt, by the French). She adds this terrible sentence: "But, without that gas chamber created by him on his own initiative two months before the collapse, he could perhaps have saved his life”.

In regard to Schwarhuber — who confessed immediately — Tillion wrote these still more terrible lines, each word of which I ask you to ponder:
“According to the English investigators, from the first moment he had coolly faced his position, he judged himself lost and either to have peace (and the small privileges to which the prisoners who do not deceive the examing magistrates have a right), or else due to lassitude, indifference or to quite another reason, he took his course and held to it, without regard for himself or for his accomplices.
He was not a brute (like Binder or Pflaum); he had an intelligent expression, the appearance and behaviour of a psychologically normal man”.

~~ Professor Robert Faurrison. Summer 1981.

www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p103_Faurisson.html

Johann Schwarzhuber listens to his death sentence being read out at the Ravensbrück trial

[Archie]

Where did this idea of the Holocaust come from? Why did people make it up? How did thousands of people, including alleged perpetrators decide to confess to the Holocaust? Is there any other recorded hoax in the course of human history that has been at a fraction of this scale?

I don't see how this is humanly possible, let alone plausible. Will somebody please explain to me how anybody could possible even do this?

Jews claim that the atrocity allegations against them in Gaza are basically a hoax. So Jews obviously don't honestly believe such hoaxing is impossible. See here:
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=466

They obviously don't think it's impossible because they make arguments IDENTICAL to revisionists when the shoe is on the other foot.

I will again refer you to the FAQ. These two in particular (but there some of the other sections are also related)
"But how could such a massive hoax be possible?"
"But didn’t a lot of Germans confess to doing the Holocaust?"
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=443

For further reading, I would suggest

• Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in War-time, Containing an Assortment of Lies Circulated Throughout the Nations During the Great War, 1928. This is the classic text on atrocity propaganda. It is about WWI, but the lessons can be generalized.
• Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 1976. This revisionist classic focuses much more than is typical on how "the hoax" came about.
• Samuel Crowell, The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, 2009. Takes a chronological approach. Focuses more misunderstanding and rumor over deliberate hoaxing.
• Germar Rudolf, Nazi Gas Chambers, 2024. Short book focusing on the early trials in Stalinist Poland.
• Germar Rudolf, The Holocaust: Proven at Nuremberg?, 2025. Short book. Self-explanatory title.

In WWI, many of the atrocity stories were eventually acknowledged to be false. Although we see that even in 1928 after a decade, the claims were still taken seriously enough for Ponsonby to debunk them in print. After WWII, something very different happened. The Allies staged numerous war crimes trials in the immediate aftermath of the war. These trials are what established these claims as fact.

My question to you would be what justification you have for your assumption that the Allies, in the hysterical climate of the immediate postwar period, were absolutely objective and accurate. If you are honest enough to concede that they were obviously not objective at all, then your entire premise collapses.

[Archie]

Is there any other recorded hoax in the course of human history that has been at a fraction of this scale?

The obvious parallel would be that religions, whether true or not, can take hold for thousands of years. I don't want to get into any religious controversies here; I will just let you pick a religion of your choice that you don't believe in and fill in the gaps. Clearly, it's not impossible for false beliefs to take hold and reach a mass scale. There is also lots of precedent for governments lying and slanting things.

Curiously enough, the orthodox story is that the Holocaust is unique and unprecedented. Actually there is some debate about over "uniqueness" (technically all historical events are unique), but certainly it is an incredible and amazingly large-scale genocide. It would be unprecedented either way, whether it actually happened or whether it's a fraud.

[ConfusedJew]

I'm not seeing any arguments for any kind of a hoax here. There will be exaggerations and mistakes in any kind of chaotic war or conflict. A hoax, at this scale? I'm still waiting for anything to even consider as plausible here.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I don't see how this is humanly possible, let alone plausible.
Will somebody please explain to me how anybody could possible even do this?

How is that jews worldwide can collectively do this (see below), then lie about it and deny it even as they brag and applaud it on Hebrew TV?

Why do YOU never mention this cruel genocide and racist mass-murder by jews against civilians TARGETED BECAUSE they are not jewish?

Why have you NEVER commented on it, but have talked often about the suffering of jews?

How is this humanely possible, how could anyone do that: be concerned for the suffering of people almost a century ago but not express ANY care or concern for an imprisoned people being starved to death, blown to pieces, slowly crushed to death under collapsed masonry, shot, horrifically maimed and deprived of medical help and basic food and even water?



https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMhYP-0I ... x0eDQyaQ==

[ConfusedJew]

The obvious parallel would be that religions, whether true or not, can take hold for thousands of years. I don't want to get into any religious controversies here; I will just let you pick a religion of your choice that you don't believe in and fill in the gaps. Clearly, it's not impossible for false beliefs to take hold and reach a mass scale.

Religion involves supernatural beliefs that can't be falsified by definition.

The Soviet narrative of the Katyn Massacre from 1940 was falsified. The Soviets claimed that the Nazis killed Polish officers by using forensic exhumations, investigating German and later Soviet archives, and cross analysis of bullet calibers.

Why was it possible to overturn that false narrative while it hasn't been done for the Holocaust?

[Stubble]

The obvious parallel would be that religions, whether true or not, can take hold for thousands of years. I don't want to get into any religious controversies here; I will just let you pick a religion of your choice that you don't believe in and fill in the gaps. Clearly, it's not impossible for false beliefs to take hold and reach a mass scale.

Religion involves supernatural beliefs that can't be falsified by definition.

The Soviet narrative of the Katyn Massacre from 1940 was falsified. The Soviets claimed that the Nazis killed Polish officers by using forensic exhumations, investigating German and later Soviet archives, and cross analysis of bullet calibers.

Why was it possible to overturn that false narrative while it hasn't been done for the Holocaust?

Because people are fucking stubborn.

[Archie]

The obvious parallel would be that religions, whether true or not, can take hold for thousands of years. I don't want to get into any religious controversies here; I will just let you pick a religion of your choice that you don't believe in and fill in the gaps. Clearly, it's not impossible for false beliefs to take hold and reach a mass scale.

Religion involves supernatural beliefs that can't be falsified by definition.

The Soviet narrative of the Katyn Massacre from 1940 was falsified. The Soviets claimed that the Nazis killed Polish officers by using forensic exhumations, investigating German and later Soviet archives, and cross analysis of bullet calibers.

Why was it possible to overturn that false narrative while it hasn't been done for the Holocaust?

Religions typically have founding stories, founding leaders, and holy texts, all of which can be critiqued from historical and scientific perspectives. Many religious claims are certainly falsifiable.

The Soviet version of Katyn was the official history in Eastern Europe until around 1990 when ... the Soviet Union collapsed. Do you think it's a coincidence that the lie persisted for as long as the regime behind it?

[ConfusedJew]

Here is a step by step process suggested by Grok that would need to be followed to credibly debunk a mainstream historical narrative, specifically the use of gas chambers during the Holocaust.

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D ... 65698b9f4e

You guys have made an attempt to do a lot of these things, but here is where I see that you've failed.

Step 1: Define the Claim and Scope
- Here you've presented a hypothesis that there were no gas chambers which is fine.

Step 2: Identify and Collect Primary Sources
- You've done a thorough job looked at primary sources from what I've seen although I don't think any of you have actually visited Nazi, Polish, or Soviet archives. Have any of you done that or even been to a Holocaust museum?

Step 3: Cross-Reference Secondary Sources
- You've done a pretty good job here too although I haven't seen anybody do a good job critiquing any of the death counts, especially Hilberg.

Step 4: Evaluate Physical and Forensic Evidence
- You've done a good job cataloging the evidence although I don't think it has been interpreted properly or reasonably which is a separate issue. I'm still going through that in the other Markiewicz report thread.

Step 5: Assess Testimonies and Eyewitness Accounts
- Here you've done a good job collecting the evidence but I think you fall short in analyzing the inconsistencies. There are so many consistencies of core details, that have been reported independently, and you've magnified some of the minor inconsistencies. I also don't think that you've adequately taken into consideration what one should appropriately expect from witnesses that would have endured unimaginable hardships and suffering. I haven't seen a compelling answer for how there could be so much consistency across thousands of witnesses but you've done a good job pointing out the inconsistencies.

Step 6: Contextual Analysis
- This is where I think you guys really start to fall short. I haven't seen any compelling arguments for why there were anti-Jewish laws put into place. Poor consideration of the logistics, secrecy measures, and wartime constraints that would affect evidence preservation and quality.

Step 7: Address Counter-Evidence
- The work here is mixed. We're still working through some of the forensic evidence. I guess it's OK to say that the gas chambers were used as morgues but why would so many people have died or been put in prison there in the first place? I haven't seen a good reason for why cyanide residues were found in the "morgue" but not the barracks for example or why the Nazis ordered way more Zyklon B than would have been necessary for delousing. Why would they have needed 15 muffles in a crematorium?

Step 8: Develop an Alternative Hypothesis
- This is the weakest part of your guys work in my opinion. Here are some questions that haven't been adequately answered.
- If not extermination, what was the primary function of camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau?
- How do you account for the documented deaths of millions (e.g., deportation records, pre- and post-war population data)? Yad Vashem has millions of names of people that went "missing" after WW2.
- Why did the Nazis order so much Zyklon B if they didn't need so much for delousing?
- How can there be so many consistencies across so many different eyewitness reports, both from the Nazis and survivors?

Step 9: Test the Hypothesis Against Evidence
- Does the alternative hypothesis explain all primary sources, physical evidence, and testimonies as effectively or better than the consensus?
- Are there gaps or contradictions in the alternative hypothesis? The hypothesis must withstand scrutiny under the same standards applied to the established narrative (e.g., Occam’s Razor, consistency with evidence).

I don't think the alternative hypothesis explains why the Nazis destroyed the crematoria, the existence of the physical evidence of many dead (even if you don't find millions of intact bodies and skeletons), or how so many testimonies can generally point in the similar direction. I don't think it is even close to the orthodox narrative, even if that will have some imperfections and gaps as any narrative will.

Step 10: Peer Review and Scholarly Engagement
- This hasn't been done while it was for the Katyn Massacre. I am personally not a strong believer in peer review, although it tends to be self correcting over multiple decades even if it can be terribly wrong for 20 years.

Step 11: Document and Publish Findings
- This has been done but not in a formalized way. There are Holocaust related guardrails, but if you depersonalize the event, you could ask abstract questions about the Holocaust and it would be realistic in agreeing or disagreeing with the fact pattern and so far I have not seen anything like that as a whole.

Step 8 is where I think you guys fall short the most. I don't see a viable alternative explanation for any of this as a whole although you've pointed me towards specific issues that I didn't know about like how some Nazis were abused after the war.

Maybe you guys can fill in some of these gaps.

Purpose of the camps:
- Explain the documented infrastructure, such as crematoria, gas-tight chambers, and mass graves, in a non-extermination context (e.g., as facilities for labor, delousing, or other purposes).
- Account for the secrecy surrounding these camps, including restricted access, coded language in Nazi documents (e.g., "special treatment"), and the destruction of records by the Nazis as the war ended.
- Provide primary source evidence, such as Nazi documents or testimonies, supporting the alternative function (e.g., records showing camps were solely for forced labor or quarantine).

Fate of Victims:
- Provide an alternative explanation for the fate of the approximately 6 million Jewish victims (e.g., deportation to other regions, natural deaths, or survival in undocumented locations).
- Use primary sources, such as emigration records, post-war population surveys, or other documentation, to show where these individuals went if not exterminated.
- Address specific records, such as the Korherr Report (1943), which details the "reduction" of Jewish populations, or deportation lists from ghettos like Warsaw or Lodz.

Use of Zyklon B and Other Agents:
- Provide evidence that Zyklon B was used solely for delousing or other non-lethal purposes, despite its documented delivery in large quantities to camps like Auschwitz (e.g., invoices from Degesch, the supplier).
- Address forensic evidence, such as the 1994 Krakow Institute of Forensic Research report, which found cyanide residues in gas chamber walls consistent with homicidal use, and propose an alternative explanation supported by comparable forensic data.
- Explain the logistics of Zyklon B distribution, including why it was used in sealed chambers with gas-tight doors, as described in survivor and perpetrator accounts.

Testimonies and Eyewitness Accounts:
- Propose an alternative explanation for why survivors (e.g., those interviewed by the Shoah Foundation) and perpetrators (e.g., Adolf Eichmann, SS guards at Nuremberg) described gas chambers.
- Provide evidence of widespread fabrication or inconsistencies across testimonies. Here you guys have done this for small details but not in a way that could explain how so many people described many similar details of the gas chambers.
- Account for corroboration between independent sources, such as survivors who never met but described similar processes (e.g., selection, undressing, gassing at Auschwitz).

Logistical and Administrative Evidence:
- Provide an alternative interpretation of documents like the Wannsee Conference protocols (1942), which outline the "Final Solution," or the Höfle Telegram (1943), which lists death tolls at extermination camps.
- Account for logistical arrangements, such as the transport of millions to camps with no return records, or the construction of high-capacity crematoria (e.g., Auschwitz’s Krema II–V, capable of processing thousands of bodies daily).
- Use primary sources to support the alternative interpretation, such as records showing non-lethal purposes for these logistics.

Historically, attempts to develop alternative hypotheses denying the use of gas chambers (e.g., by Holocaust deniers like David Irving or Robert Faurisson) have failed to meet these criteria. They typically rely on selective evidence, misinterpretation of documents, or unverified claims, and they collapse under scrutiny due to inconsistencies and inability to account for the full scope of evidence.

[HansHill]

Grok

Consider this a warning.

[ConfusedJew]

The Soviet version of Katyn was the official history in Eastern Europe until around 1990 when ... the Soviet Union collapsed. Do you think it's a coincidence that the lie persisted for as long as the regime behind it?

A lot of relatively smaller things can easily get buried for a period of time but they often come to light over time. Tens of thousands of casualties, compared to the millions who died in WW2, is less likely to be prioritized, especially for political reasons. Serious cracks started showing much earlier than the collapse of the Soviet Union but they were suppressed for political reasons.

In 1951, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Madden Committee (1951–52) concluded that the Soviets were responsible, but the matter remains politically sensitive. The truth of the massacre was preserved by Polish underground memory. By families and émigré communities who preserved the truth in private or in exile.

Beginning in the 1980s, serious cracks started to emerge. Katyn started to become a symbol of Soviet oppression and underground publications started circulating the truth. The Soviet Union was far more repressive than any country in the West. Although due to war trauma, the ability to question the Holocaust and spread anti-semitism has been repressed so I am somewhat sympathetic to those complaints, up to a point.

In 1987, a joint Soviet–Polish historical commission began investigating Katyn.

I just haven't seen anything comparable to the Katyn Massacre from you guys other than some of the abuse of senior Nazis after the war. Katyn had survivors or descendants of survivors who said that it was false and a US House Committee concluded that the Soviets were responsible.