General Discussion clarification for questions

[Mvpenn8]

Hello everyone,

I realize that this is a contentious topic, and I anticipate opposition—but request you to remain open-minded and to read this.

We have learned for decades now that 6 million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis by means of almost exclusively gas chambers in death camps like Auschwitz and Treblinka. Not just is this account accepted but mandated by law in many countries, dissent being the equivalent of hate.

But I have ended up raising serious questions about a lot of details in this account.

Not out of disrespect—because history needs to be open for questioning. And when some part of history is off-limits to discussion, that's when we need to question it the most.

Ask yourself:

- Where is Hitler's explicit, clear command?

- Why are there so many of the supposed gas chambers post-World War II rebuilds?
- Why are no Red Cross accounts of the time written that include the term "genocide"?
- Why are some "survivor" accounts inconsistent, or subsequently proved to be untrue?
- Why is the number "6 million" being published in newspapers well before WWII has even begun?
I am not disputing that Jews were persecuted. I am disputing that there is a premeditated, industrial murder of 6 million by gassing and that **the evidence is historically, logistically, and forensically questionable**.

I'm not asking you to surrender. I'm asking you to debate. Be prepared with your sources, and I'll be prepared with mine. If truth indeed is on your side—why fear the debate?

[BlueBird2]

I've read books from both sides, from the victims and the persecutors. Both tell roughly the same story. That would be unusual if they were lies.

Politicians speak a twisted language. For example, our government is planning new "special funds." These are the exact opposite: debt, and it's not even defined what exactly they will be for. It's understandable that the Red Cross and those in power at the time didn't use clear language. When it came out what they did with the disabled people, there was a great pushback and they had to delay the program. They learned from that and did it in secret. However, there is a protocoll of the Wannensee Conference in clear language.

After the war, mass murder was confirmed in numerous trials.

I see that the victors are writing history and have committed crimes against the German people that are not talked about much. That is why I read and ask wittnesses I trust and know and I come to the conclusion that maybe the number may have been lower or higher. The history you question is true.

[Mvpenn8]

You say victims and perpetrators tell the same story—but I’d ask, which perpetrators? Most of the so-called “confessions” at Nuremberg came after intense psychological and sometimes physical pressure. Rudolf Höss’s confession, for example, was taken after beatings and sleep deprivation. Would such a confession hold in any fair court today?

You refer to the Wannsee Conference—everybody always does—but the language used remains vague. It talks of deportation and "special treatment," but nowhere is gas chamber or systematic extermination mentioned. Euphemism? Maybe. But that's guesswork piled on top of bureaucratic obscurity.

And as for consistency, let me point out the inconsistency of the numbers. Auschwitz's death toll was revised from 4 million to just over 1 million. The number six million wasn't revised along with it. That alone should raise an eyebrow. If this is one of the best-documented crimes in history, why are the numbers so flexible?

The Red Cross, an autonomous, neutral organization, made visits to camps like Theresienstadt and said nothing of gas chambers or industrial slaughter. That does not prove that the Holocaust never took place, but it does invalidate the argument that it was wholly transparent and self-evident at the time.

And trials? Let's remember—those were held by the victors, on their terms. Justice in war's wake has rarely been impartial. I'm not saying all the trials were a sham, but we must consider the political context. The Allies themselves committed atrocities—Dresden, Hiroshima—and had a vested interest in presenting the Nazis as exceedingly evil.

Now, when someone like me asks questions—why so many sealed archives? Why criminal laws against revisionism in Europe? Why is archaeology at extermination sites so limited?—we’re treated as heretics, not scholars. That’s not how truth works. That’s how dogma works.

You claim the history I dispute is true. I claim the history you're defending deserves questioning—not out of hate, but out of a desire for intellectual honesty. If it's as strong as claimed, it should be able to withstand questioning. The fact that it's protected by law suggests fear—not certainty.

[BlueBird2]

I'm not referring to the Nürnberg trials. I'm referring to the trials conducted by Germans in German courts.

There was no autonomous, neutral organization.

"Auschwitz's death toll was ... just over 1 million." Are you listening to yourself?

[Mvpenn8]

I'm glad you're answering—but you're missing my point.

You quote post-war German courts as if they were impartial. They were **not**. These were trials held under close Allied observation, in a defeated, demoralized, occupied nation—hardly the conditions for **independent judicial inquiry**. The political climate made it **impossible** to present any defense that questioned the official story. Careers, reputations, even freedom were at stake.

Let's be honest: these were not trials in any conventional sense. They were **rituals of guilt**, conducted under compulsion to conform. Most of the "confessions" were made under threat or duress—just as we saw at Nürnberg, except with a German flag on the wall of the courtroom.

And as for Auschwitz:

You're quoting the new death total—"just over 1 million"—but you're presenting it as though it **doesn't conflict with earlier stories**. The original charge at Nuremberg was **4 million**, carved on the memorial plaque at Auschwitz until the 1990s. When the total was lowered, the **overall Holocaust death total wasn't adjusted downward**.

Why?

Because it's **no longer about evidence**—it's a matter of rescuing a narrative.

I am demanding consistency. If the central death camp total was inflated by 3 million for decades, on how many other aspects is the account based more in politics than fact?

I'm not sensationalizing here. I'm demanding historical accountability, no matter how sacrosanct the subject.

So yes—I'm listening to myself. Are you?

[BlueBird2]

I'm not willing to discuss with you any further.

Just to make it clear, I quoted your statement with the number of victims to show you your cold heart. What if it were "only" 1 million? You throuw around with numbers and can't feel what is behind each number.

"Let's be honest" - you are suggesting I am not honest. I have better things to do than to discuss with you.

[Mvpenn8]

I understand that this is an emotional subject for many, and I don’t fault you for reacting personally. But if we’re going to engage in historical discourse, we must separate emotion from analysis.

You accuse me of having a “cold heart” for questioning numbers—but that’s precisely the problem with this conversation. History isn’t protected by emotion—it’s tested by evidence. If you believe that “only” one million dead means I somehow lack empathy, then you’re misinterpreting my purpose entirely.

I am not minimizing suffering. I am challenging the accuracy and consistency of a narrative that has become immune to scrutiny.

As for honesty: “Let’s be honest” is not an accusation. It’s a rhetorical invitation for both of us to look beyond political pressures and inherited beliefs and to assess the facts objectively.

You say you have better things to do than debate me—that’s your choice. But refusing to engage doesn’t invalidate the questions I’ve raised. In fact, it highlights the very climate of intellectual fear surrounding this topic.

[searchinmyroots]

Mvpenn8,

So in the event what you are saying has some support, where does that leave us?

Still with millions of dead Jews and others.

What's the point?

[Mvpenn8]

The point is that a dishonest subject is being pushed on everyone in the west and anyone questioning it can get punished.
The reason i came here is so i can learn more about this topic and see if i was in the wrong. Not to spread uneducated hate like the 'free palestine' yahoos.
From my standpoint it seems like a jewish idealogy is being pushed on soceity. If a muslim was doing what a lot of what many jews were doing, they would be hated beyond belief.
Not that they are any better, because to be honest jews are one of if not the smartest group of people on earth.

[searchinmyroots]

What ideology is that?

Murdered people are murdered people, no matter what the actual count is.