You mean besides Leuchter, the expert on the topic of execu…

Thanks for this! Truly this was the intention of the original post to try to have a modest debate over these types of arguments and test my own understanding of the subject matter. To do a good job responding to these i need a little time so please bear with me, but these are the conversations I'm interested in.

Regarding Leuchter see this study which says there was residue of cyanide found in the alleged gas chambers.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Regarding 6 million. That's not how many were burned in the facilities. Around 3 million is more accurate. The rest of the 3 million were killed outside of the camps. 6 million is the total killed, not total cremated.

If you're interested in the numbers debate, a good thought experiment is the Hungarian deportation of Jews I mentioned where about 400k Jews were killed in the span of 2 - 3 months in Auschwitz.

If we can make that math work, 3 million over the course of the whole war isn't hard to imagine.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 999 studies saying that.

Leuchter's findings contradicted the official narratives. So he was attacked and smeared. Then studies proved him wrong.

Sounds familiar? I know it's terrible, but "science" bows to power.

Do you think Leuchter was lying? Was he a secret Nazis?

But sure, maybe it was just a coincidence that the nazi degenerates murdered exactly the number of jews the jews were talking about before it even started.

Who knows.

Regarding 6 million figure being mentioned before, I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to but I have seen memes of old news clipping mentioning 6 million Jews being in danger in the early 1900s. But if you read those clipping they are specifically in reference to the Jewish population of Russia which was endangered by either the pogroms or civil war. I did some brief research about estimates of Jewish population in Russia during that time period and 6 million seemed a good estimate. So I'm not sure why news clipping pointing out Jewish population in danger in Russia causes suspicion when 6 million is the estimate of casualties after a war ended in Europe in 1945

If you want to educate me on the official narratives, you are wasting your time. I'm aware of them.

Everybody is.

The question is at what point do you think they are no longer credible?

How many lies are you willing to swallow before you admit that governments are full of shit?

Maybe the Nazis killed 6 billion jews, I don't know. Both numbers seem pretty wild and given the context of war, propaganda and justifying your own actions, they make a lot of sense.

All I know is that the Nazis were collectivists. They don't care about humans or their lives and rights.

Just like commies or your government.

Auschwitz number of casualties was indeed revised down several times. Because, for example, Russia used a 4 million figure and even put it on a plaque at the camp. But no historical scholars took that figure seriously and regarded it as Russian anti nazi propaganda. There was immediate response from historians and researchers that this value wasn't realistic. Early researchers were mentioning the currently accepted 1.1 almost immediately. It took some decades of thorough research for the broader historical community to agree that this estimate was most accurate.

The Auschwitz museum officially revised their figure down to 1.1 million in 1990. It took so long for them because they were under soviet control. And the soviets aren't exactly paragons of historical objectivity

Who are "paragons of historical objectivity"?

The West??

The people who, when you check their work, seem to do a good job of researching and maintaining objectivity?

Oh sorry I see what you're saying. The west and the principal of free speech has certainly served us better in terms of allowing for genuine scholarship and objectivity than the soviets...

Where exactly is free speech when it comes to the Holocaust?

How do you think it would go for the most "objective, peer-reviewed scientist" if he starts having doubts and presents research contradicting the official narrative?

You know exactly what would happen.

And so does every scientist. I think you underestimate how much people instinctively conform to not threaten their careers.

No I think you would be surprised if someone attempted genuine scholarship and it was clear they weren't biased, trolling or worse. If they approached the topic with the right amount of solemnity and respect I believe they would be able to have an open dialogue with historians about the facts.

Its not appropriate to assume some of the harsh response we see for holocaust deniers and revisionists is an indication of harmful bias at a systemic level that wouldn't allow genuine scholarship. You have to take into account that the following could both be true:

a. most of the holocaust deniers have been bad actors and were not doing genuine scholarship but were clearly biased and possibly knowingly propagandizing for a dangerous ideology.
b. there are groups and individuals actively fighting a propaganda war intentionally trying to push a historical narrative with the intention of harming a particular community or politically empowering their own dangerous community.

Given these, its understandable why many might resort to a default negative attitude towards this topic leading to rejection and marginalization. But you would have to prove that this attitude precludes genuine scholarship.

If someone thought they had an interpretation of the evidence that challenged the currently accepted narrative, and they presented it with the respect, thoroughness and care it deserves, I think they would get by with nary a scratch.

If you have evidence otherwise, of seemingly genuine attempts at scholarship leading to negative consequences, lets review it

Friend, where the hell have you been during Covid?

Im talking about the holocaust. But I think the events of covid actually aligns with this interpretation. During the heat of the moment, there was certainly strong government and social pressure to suppress certain narratives.

But those narratives still got out. And not only did they get out, but many were ultimately vindicated. Is there any Covid narrative that is currently being suppressed or not being allowed to go through the processes of genuine scholarship? Ivermectin? Lab leak theory? Lockdowns are bad? We shouldn't push vaccines on young people?

I remember watching content from seemingly well regarded physicians during that time that were questioning all of those. Im sure you can find cases where some physicians suffered consequences from govt pressure, but what you can't say is that the narrative didn't get a lot of attention. And what you cant say is that ultimately, many of these narrative didn't get a chance to go through genuine scholarly processes.

Doesn't this prove my point? That the truth tends to find the light? For me, the story of covid proves the theory, that after 60 years, if the holocaust denial narrative hasn't found a way to force itself to be reckoned with, the problem isn't with society, the problem is with the narrative.

Now the failure to keep the truth hidden despite massive efforts to contain it is supposed to be proof that there is no effort to hide the truth??

Hundreds of thousands of people died because those who argued for early treatment were silenced.

To point out that govt and institutions try to control truth as a blanket statement to invalidate any historical narrative you decide to reject is silly, given that historically, these attempts to control the truth almost always fail eventually.

Alright.

Im just saying it has to be a case by case thing. Is it possible the holocaust is a big conspiracy? Lets consider it. But you cant just point to the fact that governments tend to lie as the argument, you have to dig in to the details and nuances.

Is there a chance that pathological liars sometimes speak the truth? Sure.

You take your chances, I'll take mine.

Good luck

I think our fundamental difference is our faith in humanity :D

Im more of an optimist. Bad actors in positions of power making bad policy are the minority, at least in the west. And while some may fall victim to harmful ideologies, there's an army of free people at the ready to challenge them, to discover the truth and to reject evil.

Ok im going to get off this soapbox now

The difference is faith in authority.

I think power turns people into demons. Even saints.