Provocation: Could World Wars II and I have been hoaxes?

[AmericanHurricane33]

I don't support this view. I'm simply creating a riddle to instigate investigation. I'm researching non-antisemitic historical revisionism and have come across the idea that the world wars may not have occurred as they say, or may be complete hoaxes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Darth_aurelius]

I don't support this view. I'm simply creating a riddle to instigate investigation. I'm researching non-antisemitic historical revisionism and have come across the idea that the world wars may not have occurred as they say, or may be complete hoaxes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

The assertion is so far beyond being ridiculous that it doesn't even merit any consideration from anyone who considers himself to know anything about the history of the 20th Century. Anyone who comes along and wants to impeach the factual veracity and credibility of universally recognized historical events will always have the burden of proof and persuasion on his side and since one can never actually prove a negative, then it is a priori impossible to disprove the existence of these factual events.

Also, there are literally millions of eye witness testimonies that have been recorded for posterity which, in the aggregate, confirm and corroborate the general chronological sequence of the most salient events that comprise these historical episodes (e.g., the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo, the trench warfare on the Western Front, the invasion of Poland, the annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc.).

To claim that such events of monumental significance were fabricated reminds me of what David Hume said of anyone who was making miraculous claims:

"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.... If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion"

[Tovarishcel]

no man the wars were real... maybe the good bad guys was not real... we dont know exactly reason everything happen, politics always lie

[JCel2001]

Wise men have said that History is written by the victors so no doubt there are some inaccuracies is our understanding of those wars, but they happened.

[AmericanHurricane33]

I love things that end up creating a kind of challenge to the conventional mindset. As I said, I don't support the idea. I just wanted to know if there could be some kind of support for it. Something like that would be very interesting.

[AmericanHurricane33]

I don't support this view. I'm simply creating a riddle to instigate investigation. I'm researching non-antisemitic historical revisionism and have come across the idea that the world wars may not have occurred as they say, or may be complete hoaxes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

The assertion is so far beyond being ridiculous that it doesn't even merit any consideration from anyone who considers himself to know anything about the history of the 20th Century. Anyone who comes along and wants to impeach the factual veracity and credibility of universally recognized historical events will always have the burden of proof and persuasion on his side and since one can never actually prove a negative, then it is a priori impossible to disprove the existence of these factual events.

Also, there are literally millions of eye witness testimonies that have been recorded for posterity which, in the aggregate, confirm and corroborate the general chronological sequence of the most salient events that comprise these historical episodes (e.g., the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo, the trench warfare on the Western Front, the invasion of Poland, the annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc.).

To claim that such events of monumental significance were fabricated reminds me of what David Hume said of anyone who was making miraculous claims:

"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.... If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion"

And since when is any human a reliable source of anything? Not even historical facts are beyond refutation. I think the idea of questioning wars is really cool because it would break conventional rational sense. Although, in nature we have things that break the idea that the universe has delimited laws, like amphibians appearing inside rocks. and we know that collective hysterias exist. one of the ways this hypothesis could be valid would be the question of the Mandela Effect generated by hysteria. it's something beyond imagination. I love things like that.

[AmericanHurricane33]

but of course the war happened. we're just being provocative. Or are we?? hahaha

[AmericanHurricane33]

Now, it is a fact that such a war, the second war, ended up generating a New Order absolutely hostile to any truly radical ideology.

[Darth_aurelius]

I don't support this view. I'm simply creating a riddle to instigate investigation. I'm researching non-antisemitic historical revisionism and have come across the idea that the world wars may not have occurred as they say, or may be complete hoaxes. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

The assertion is so far beyond being ridiculous that it doesn't even merit any consideration from anyone who considers himself to know anything about the history of the 20th Century. Anyone who comes along and wants to impeach the factual veracity and credibility of universally recognized historical events will always have the burden of proof and persuasion on his side and since one can never actually prove a negative, then it is a priori impossible to disprove the existence of these factual events.

Also, there are literally millions of eye witness testimonies that have been recorded for posterity which, in the aggregate, confirm and corroborate the general chronological sequence of the most salient events that comprise these historical episodes (e.g., the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo, the trench warfare on the Western Front, the invasion of Poland, the annexation of Czechoslovakia, etc.).

To claim that such events of monumental significance were fabricated reminds me of what David Hume said of anyone who was making miraculous claims:

"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.... If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion"

And since when is any human a reliable source of anything? Not even historical facts are beyond refutation. I think the idea of questioning wars is really cool because it would break conventional rational sense. Although, in nature we have things that break the idea that the universe has delimited laws, like amphibians appearing inside rocks. and we know that collective hysterias exist. one of the ways this hypothesis could be valid would be the question of the Mandela Effect generated by hysteria. it's something beyond imagination. I love things like that.

And you're approaching this more from a socio-psychological and epistemological paradigm whereby you are examining the mindset of those who accept conventional and widely held beliefs whereas I am looking at this from a historical and empirical or rationalist perspective which has a different emphasis.

Your point about humans being unreliable is fair but you have to look at the cumulative weight of not just eye witness testimony but also the physical infrastructure which remains, the documentation that exists and the other irrefutable elements of proof that can be adduced to support the existence of certain historical events.

You can always impugn the veracity of any event but again, the burden of proof and persuasion is on the person who is trying to present a contrary and conflicting interpretation of history and I consider that to be an insurmountable burden in the case of the World Wars.

If you said that some more discreet historical event didn't happen such as the birth and life of Jesus Christ, I would be more inclined to believe you since, like any historical event, the greater the passage of time, the more attenuated the sources become and the less reliable the original evidence will be.