As real-life victims and eye-witnesses die off...

The problem is that "credible, accepted" history is not history in the slightest. It is hysterics and nonsense that the critically-minded simply cannot accept.

There's a middle ground that people like this troll ZortMcfleen don't acknowledge: that there are very sane, very normal people who simply cannot accept the Holocaust narrative as it is presented. They cannot accept it not because they have an antisemitic agenda--a concept that people like Zort cannot acknowledge if they had a gun pointed to their head--but because they literally cannot accept the basic premise that wartime Germany was squandering their tiny oil supplies and wasting precious manpower potential on exterminating a people "simply because of who they were born as."

The normal, thinking person is prone to ask such questions as, "why did the Germans not just shoot them?" After all, that would be a much quicker way to dispatch people, if that was truly the intent. But if that was the intent, then why did they shave the prisoners' heads in order to stop the spread of lice? Why did they burn clothing in order to combat typhus? Why was there a hospital, why a soccer team, why an orchestra, why a swimming pool?

It does not add up. And THIS is the basis that forms a Revisionist. That is the basis from which I started to investigate Revisionism.

And as I have done so, I have been bombarded with facts that have continued to snowball to the extent that I am shocked at how much disinformation there is, as well as just how much back-scenes collusion and corruption amongst government entities. It was malicious.

I am not blindly accepting information. I always subject it to a plausibility test. The plausibility test often contradicts matters pertaining to the Holocaust. Another good test to employ is the "humdrum" test: that nearly all aspects of the Holocaust have a fairly routine, humdrum explanation far removed from all the hysterics. The use of Zyklon-B as a fumigation agent; "special treatment" literally meaning special treatment; vergassungskellar referring to a gas shelter--etc.

The fact of the matter is that the material evidence for the exterminationist case is slim to nonexistent. People like Zort will always refer to an imaginary "preponderance of evidence," of "mountains of documents," etc, but I see none of this. What I typically see is either Nuremburg confessions like the ridiculous Gernstein document or postwar documents, a lot of which are proven forgeries. These alleged "mountains of documents" simply don't exist in reality, only in imagination.

I'm not really asking for people to believe what Revisionists are saying: I'm simply asking that people take them seriously and stop destroying their lives, ruining their careers, and throwing around that meaningless buzzword "antisemitism." In fact, the fact that Jewish terrorists like the ADL literally bomb Revisionists only increases antisemitism, it hardly helps matters.

There are real people that died during the so-called Holocaust, real Jews who were persecuted at the hands of the NSDAP, real Jews who starved in the camps, who died as a result of typhus. THOSE people are real, and those people deserve to be remembered: for even a single loss of innocent life, even a single innocent person being persecuted is too many.

Those Jews are dishonored by the hysterical narrative that millions of people who never existed were murdered in fictional gas chambers that not only did not, but could not exist, and for which there is either no material evidence, or whose material evidence is being hotly contested by Revisionists with very compelling arguments and analysis.



As for you, Zort, I'm quite tired of the game that you are playing. If you want to actually discuss the matter at hand, then that is a different story. But if you are going to persist in your delusions, your character attacks, and your buzzwords, then there is nothing more to be said. There is valid ground to be gained from discussing this matter and from discussing Revisionism. But trying to silence or slander your opposition through hysterical beliefs is not helpful.

I agree with you about the need for an open investigation into the Holocaust; however, that means you will need to stop ruining the lives of Revisionists and throwing them in jail for their findings. No truly open investigation can exist so long as the opposing party is literally persecuted and silenced. And that's really all that we want.

Again, I don't have an agenda: my dispute with the mainstream Holocaust narrative is that it does not pass my mental tests for being plausible, realistic, or even consistent. Revisionism does not offer an "alternative camp" but it offers a genuine attempt to approach this issue and get the facts straight. Contrary to what you are saying, most Revisionists recognize the criminal and oppressive acts done by the Third Reich and condemn them. Most Revisionists object to the fact that Jews were interned at all.

The Einsatzgruppen is a difficult case, and no doubt things on the Eastern front were horrible. I have read that the ruthlessness of the Einsatzgruppen was rooted in the idea that only terror tactics will work against a population that had become so radicalized by the rhetoric of the Commissars or Stalin's death orders. I don't deny that the Einsatzgruppen were responsible for legions of summary executions and that a lot of innocent people perished in that process. I hold this belief because it seems plausible, realistic, and consistent with the evidence that we have.

Perhaps I would quibble with the numbers, only because, again, I don't believe that much effort has been made to the end of settling on truth for truth's sake but legend for politics and propaganda's sake. If we can really account for 1.3 million people then sure, that is the extent of the atrocity and it is terrible. If we cannot, then we should be more cautious to use such numbers.

After all, consider the frequently fluctuating Auschwitz death toll. Exterminationists themselves actually step into the Revisionist camp often when lowering the Auschwitz death toll or debunking the legends of Jewish soap and lampshades.

The important concept for me in this discussion in particular is not necessarily to emphasize what is actually true but that the process towards finding that truth should not place obstacles in front of the participant parties. Revisionists should be able to conduct their research without being bombed by Jewish terrorists, sent to prison and deported for their research and publications, their doctoral degrees denied or removed, their family lives ruined, etc. None of these things stand side-by-side with the quest for truth that we all should be after.

And is that not the case? I do not seriously believe that you want anything more than the truth. Nor do I. In the end, it is not the agenda that differs, but the data, the arguments, the documents, the materials we have encountered. And perhaps if we removed all of the hysterics, all of the character attacks, all of the obstacles, we could both approach this issue from both sides of the table and come to an agreeable conclusion regarding just what is the truth of the matter.

Literally millions fought on the Allied side. It it so amazing that a tiny handful of them turned out to be wackobirds?

Christ, Unglauber. How many sock puppet accounts are ressurecting to troll this board?

Original poster said "Those were built for one and one purpose only," .... those ovens were not designed for multiple bodies. Nor does the camp even remotely sound like it was "designed" for extermination.

And throwing in more bodies does not mean they'll cremate in the same amount of time as one body. The more flesh you are cremating the longer it takes.

Its real easy to just say you can cremate 2000 bodies in half a day. But logistically, its just not that simple. Nobody ever bothers to do that math.

And there was a lot more than swimming pools. Explain the prison money, post cards, theater etc.