The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Elon Musk launched Grokipedia today. Like his purchase of Twitter, this project is motivated by Musk's desire to counter the left-wing bias of Wikipedia.



Let's look at some pages related to the Holocaust. Here is a paragraph from Germar Rudolf's article.
https://grokipedia.com/page/Germar_Rudolf.

Rudolf's publications, including expansions of his report and edited volumes like Dissecting the Holocaust, emphasize empirical discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies, engineering feasibility of alleged gassing operations, and inconsistencies in crematoria capacities at Auschwitz, arguing from first-principles chemical kinetics and material science that mass gassings on the claimed scale were technically implausible.[4] These efforts positioned him as a key figure in historical revisionism, prioritizing verifiable physical evidence over narrative consensus, though they provoked legal repercussions in Germany under Section 130 of the penal code prohibiting "incitement to hatred" via historical inquiry.[1]

This seems like a very fair representation of Rudolf. The two citations go to holocausthandbooks.com and germarrudolf.com. Later down the page it cites codoh.com. So revisionist websites are not blacklisted.

Here is just a small part of the very long article on David Irving. This is very friendly to revisionism. Other parts are very establishment-friendly. I see no obvious bias as the article cites freely from the websites of Irving, Lipstadt, Evans, and MSM.
https://grokipedia.com/page/David_Irvin ... -estimates

During his 2000 libel trial against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, Irving testified that "the Nazis did not use gas chambers to murder millions of Jews during the second world war," describing the Auschwitz crematoria as post-war reconstructions built for propagandistic or tourist purposes rather than reflecting original Nazi infrastructure.[68] He has dismissed eyewitness testimonies of gassings as unreliable or fabricated, attributing them to hearsay, coercion under Soviet occupation, or incentives for survivors, and emphasized a lack of contemporaneous Nazi documents explicitly ordering or recording mass gassings.[69] Irving maintains that while atrocities occurred, including shootings by Einsatzgruppen in the East, the gas chamber narrative constitutes a distortion amplified by Allied and Soviet propaganda, unsupported by empirical forensic or archival evidence.[70]

Regarding death toll estimates, Irving has progressively lowered his figures from earlier acceptances of higher numbers, arguing that the conventional 6 million Jewish deaths lacks substantiation in Nazi records and relies on extrapolated or fabricated statistics.[71] He has estimated around 1 million Jewish deaths at Auschwitz specifically, attributing most to typhus epidemics, starvation due to wartime disruptions, and collateral effects of Allied bombings on supply lines, rather than deliberate extermination policies. Overall, Irving contends that total Jewish fatalities during World War II numbered in the hundreds of thousands to low millions, primarily from wartime conditions and irregular killings without a centralized genocidal program directed by Hitler.[72] He has cited German demographic data and Red Cross reports as indicating no evidence for mass-scale systematic murder, accusing mainstream historians of inflating numbers to serve political narratives.[73]

But let's get to the meat of it. Here is an article on gas chambers, which includes Nazi gas chambers.
https://grokipedia.com/page/Gas_chamber ... c-analysis

The article makes some fanciful claims that are clearly stretching the truth. For example, it claims that there are photographs which obviously do not exist, because if they did exist they would be proof #1 for the gas chambers. These are evidently part hallucination and part poor source material.

Converging eyewitness testimonies from over 100 survivors, Sonderkommando members, and SS personnel describe uniform procedures—herding into chambers, Zyklon B introduction via roof vents, and ventilation—cross-verified by Soviet liberation photographs from January 27, 1945, depicting crematoria ruins with identifiable gas chamber features like introduction shafts.

After that there is a short section on revisionist perspectives. Although it doesn't cite any revisionist sources, it still presents the issues more fairly than Wikipedia and with much less venom in its word choice.

Overall I'm quite impressed. Currently I don't see a way to suggest modifications to Grokipedia articles, but Musk has mentioned that something like that will exist in the future.

I spot-checked the articles on Kevin MacDonald and Arthur Butz, and it seems it's calibrated to have a detached and objective tone. There's none of the well poisoning you get with Wikipedia.

I looked up some apolitical articles (Squeeze Theorem, The Odyssey, Raymond Chandler) and all of them appear to have been copied from Wikipedia. So obviously they used that for a first cut.

The articles for political figures appear to be different. The article on Istanbul is different. I was going to search a few more it stopped working.

This is probably the main article that should be looked at
https://grokipedia.com/page/Evidence_an ... _Holocaust

True. First, I should point out that some of these articles are already being edited, but there's no apparent version history. For example, Irving's page referred inappropriately to "his final years", and that was edited out. For that reason, here is an archive I just made of the article on Holocaust evidence:
https://archive.ph/6Cyrh

The article begins by citing the USHMM's encyclopedia to say that the Holocaust is based not on witnesses or confessions but on "primary records", intercepts, and physical evidence.

Its first example of such a document? The Wannsee Conference, which as we all know concerned primarily emigration and deportation. In order to make it about "mass shootings, gas chambers, and deliberate privation", you would have to interpret things into it that aren't written. Therefore this hardly qualifies as a supportive primary source document. (Readers who are unfamiliar with these facts can learn them from the revisionist encyclopedia: https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/event ... rence/905/)

The article's second example is the Korherr Report, which it claims used "euphemisms like 'special treatment'" to mean killing. This ignores that "special treatment" is used for Theresienstadt, where mass executions are not alleged. At the same time, actual death tolls are mentioned explicitly in the report, and they are quite meager relatively speaking. Since killing is not written in the document, but instead requires interpretation and a good bit of mental gymnastics, this does not qualify as a supporting primary source document. (https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/histo ... chard/624/)

Its third example is the Hofle Telegram, which again is evidence of deportation, not murder. For example it tells us that 12,761 Jews were evacuated by the Majdanek rail line in just the last two weeks of 1942. If they were instead executed, that high rate of killing would have made Majdanek the principal killing center at that time, but in actual fact Holocaust historians do not consider Majdanek a killing center and particularly not on this date. They say that only about 78,000 people died there in the entire history of the camp. The Hofle Telegram therefore contradicts the extermination hypothesis. (https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/docum ... -hans/326/)

This is all rather standard argumentation, so I won't continue, but as you can see the article's foundations are shaky from the first paragraph. It continues on like that for many pages. It doesn't hallucinate as badly as AI usually does. Instead it's very similar to the Wikipedia article, presenting the most uncharitable intepretation of all the best evidence while excluding all the contrary evidence. An example:

Supply and logistics records further substantiate operations, such as orders for Zyklon B pesticide from Degesch firm to Auschwitz, logged as 6 tons delivered in 1943-1944 for "disinfection" but quantities inconsistent with delousing needs given camp hygiene protocols.

6 tons is not inconsistent with disinfection. As Mattogno points out in Neither Proof Nor Trace, p.83, one single disinfestation of all the buildings at the three main Auschwitz camps would "have required almost 4 metric tons of Zyklon B", under standard operation procedures.

Further, we know Sachsenhausen is a much smaller camp which also received large shipments of Zyklon. As just one example, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz received equal shipments of 195kg Zyklon on invoices dated 30 April 1944. But while Sachsenhausen was at one time claimed by the Soviets to be the site of hundreds of thousands of gassings, those claims have since been discarded almost in entirety.

At several points in the article we see possible hallucinations or bad logic. For example, it claims the Birkenau morgues were "designed to hold up to 2,000 victims per gassing", whereas they were actually designed as morgues first and supposedly repurposed as gas chambers later. It claims the Krakow study found "mean 0-0.08 mg/kg" (actually 0-640 µg/kg) of cyanide in the morgues and "up to 9.3 mg/kg" (actually 0-900 µg/kg) in fumigation rooms. Later it claims similar numbers for Leuchter's report, also wrong. It attempts to argue that "the absence of Prussian blue staining in gas chamber walls" actually "refute(s) denial arguments". It claims that for Babi Yar there are "Photographs from the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission [which] capture blindfolded victims and mass pits," but no such photos exist that I'm aware of.

Halfway down the page the article abruptly turns revisionist, noting that the claim for Auschwitz of 4,756 cremations per day is probably not right but instead "potentially 300-1,000 bodies daily". It notes that the documented ventilation for the supposed gas chambers was "standard ventilation for body storage" which aligns with their labels as "morgues". It says that exhumed cremains at Auschwitz are "in quantities incompatible with cremating over one million bodies". It says GPR surveys "reveal no large undisturbed mass graves beneath crematoria sites". Probably all of this is the result of someone diligently trying to modify the page. That last statement isn't particularly true or phrased well.

Perhaps 5% of the page is dedicated to revisionism, which isn't much, though admittedly more than you could hope for from any other major publication. It cites only two good revisionist sources: Rudolf and Sanning.

I am not going to personally engage in trying to correct these articles, because I don't think AI is the right way to do historical revisionism, but it should be interesting to see where it goes. I predict Musk will support censorship on this topic.

Registered users can suggest changes/corrections to Grokipedia articles, so I asked Grok:

Question: "If I suggest a change to Grokipedia, will it evaluate the change and tell me the reason is was accepted/rejected?"

Ans:
Yes, Grokipedia evaluates suggested changes through its AI system (powered by Grok), which reviews submissions for accuracy and potential integration into articles. However, based on user experiences and available details about the process, there is no built-in notification system that informs you whether your suggestion was accepted or rejected, nor does it provide reasons for the outcome. Submissions via the website's pop-up form are processed asynchronously, but they appear to vanish without tracking or follow-up. As an alternative, you could message me (Grok) directly with your suggested correction and supporting sources, and I can evaluate it here with reasoning provided in real time.

This might prove interesting. I suggest a separate CODOH Forum category - Correcting Grokipedia, where deniers can report their efforts to challenge/correct Grokipedia.