The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

The entire argument against the holocaust is just smoke and mirrors to divert from the only thing that matters: the death count. For being the number one thing people like to say is untrue, you'd think it will be the absolutely easiest shit in the world to prove, every country had for at least a century has a very good estimate how much population it has, how it's divided and it's kept in archives. It should be the extremely simple to just go after the documentation to prove that before and after the war the difference in the population amount doesn't amount to few millions (of course allowing for amount of deaths that roughly equal to combatant/non-combatant deaths of the other populations). And any attempt to try to argue for the data being forged will require insane amount of cooperation that's entirely unlikely.

But somehow it's not some meme that's being pulled around, but rather wooden doors and how doing a blowjob on a diesel truck has no health risks. It's a simple strategy because it requires other people to do the autistic thing of actually researching whether there are discperencies and the reason for them.

Since you're the smuggest retard to shit up this thread so far I'm not even going to bother to write my own response. Thomas Dalton puts it in the most layman term that everyone can understand (see attachment). The TLDR; global Jewish growth rates before the war are claimed to have been 5 times higher than the Jewish average after the war and 2 times higher than the global average at the time. Unless Jews had a miracle baby boom before WW2 that has never been seen before or since, then the numbers are bogus. This baby boom also came in a time when (6 million) Jews were claimed to be genocided, starved and deported by, amongst others, the Russian Czar (see my list of mentions of six million before Nuremberg in previous posts). Quite amazing to see such a big baby boom at such a difficult time!

Not that it matters because even if you gave us accurate numbers, which even though you claimed it to be extremely simple you didn't give us a source, it doesn't prove what you think it proves. All it would prove is that people were displaced, deported or died, which no one disputes.

Either explain where did all the dead jews go, or try to weasel how the massive amount of death wasn't a deliberate choice of the german command.

Got to love the shifting of burden of proof. All of a sudden the 6 million bodies, or the ash of the bodies, is no longer yours to prove. It's ours! This is not how it works, bud. YOU are claiming 6 million people were killed. 3 million of them in convoluted ways via gas. Now prove it. You people complain about us arguing about "autistic things," but it's what we're reduced to because of the lack of evidence. What is there for us to disprove? I've been begging you people to give me a piece of evidence, a photo, a video, a mass grave filled with ash, LITERALLY ANYTHING. BEz939 has yet to actually give a point of falsification. I can't argue against anything but the retarded narrative because, and I've used this quote 5 times and I'll use it again, as Robert Jan Van Pelt said about Auschwitz we don't have physical evidence. Narrative and testimony is all you have

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Why would ONLY the death count matter when investigating any historical event? If you look at a murder; you don't just look at the death count; it's worth examining who was responsible, what was the murder weapon. We are dealing with an event that multiple countries and multiple businesses are still starting new payments for up to this very day (even Dutch Railway, what choice did they have running the trains for the germans? It was such a secret too, supposedly the holocaust, so how could they be held responsible for not resisting german rule?).

I'll re-iterate; there are literal conferences of "jewish mineral claims against germany". That's how out in the open the claims are. All of this is built on a singular event; and apparently we are not allowed to think about anything besides the death count?

I always get the impression that I'm talking with a lawyer when someone wants to exclude everything except one thing from examination. If I wanted to ONLY talk about gas chambers or ONLY about non-jewish deaths, or ONLY methods, it would be no less biased.

Every bit of holocaust education has some form of how it was uniquely bad, either because of how uniquely evil the germans were, or how industrial it was, or how efficient. Certainly I don't believe anyone following education in the west will have heard "just the death number". And yes the other parts matter, as well as the numbers.

I remember asking in this thread at what number we can give a genocide a unique name like "the holocaust". Like would it still be a holocaust at 5 million? 4 million? Probably. What about 100.000 though? It's a very mild question, there aren't really wrong answers. I recognize it's a pretty subjective question. But when we speak about such terms as "holocaust denial" without even defining "holocaust" it is all more subjective in the first place.

Of course the official numbers were 11 million originally (ignoring a couple of higher estimates from early french sources), which is only roughly half jews, which means it's a disservice to only always think and speak about jews and an incredible disservice that all of the holocaust payment schemes went only to jews. That above all should raise questions. But I can't talk about that right? I can only talk about the death count. And only the jewish deaths matter. It's a sickening double standard.

If we are speaking about whether a murder occured, the absolute number one thing that is important is whether there were actually a murdered person involved or not. Afterwards you can argue the specifics of who did it and how, but it would be a pretty interesting thing to try to argue how a massive death count coinciding with a location being conquered is somehow not related.

I'll agree with you with there being worse genocides over the course of (particularly recent) history. But the Holocaust was in the end chosen to be an important thing, partly because jews presence in politics and media and partly because western countries like to think they are better than third country savages.

If you want to argue that the holocaust is an unfair money drain then it's a legitimate opinion, but arguing the event itself didn't happen probably does more to damage your claim rather than support it.

Since you're the smuggest retard to shit up this thread so far I'm not even going to bother to write my own response. Thomas Dalton puts it in the most layman term that everyone can understand (see attachment). The TLDR; global Jewish growth rates before the war are claimed to have been 5 times higher than the Jewish average after the war and 2 times higher than the global average at the time. Unless Jews had a miracle baby boom before WW2 that has never been seen before or since, then the numbers are bogus. This baby boom also came in a time when (6 million) Jews were claimed to be genocided, starved and deported by, amongst others, the Russian Czar (see my list of mentions of six million before Nuremberg in previous posts). Quite amazing to see such a big baby boom at such a difficult time!

Not that it matters because even if you gave us accurate numbers, which even though you claimed it to be extremely simple you didn't give us a source, it doesn't prove what you think it proves. All it would prove is that people were displaced, deported or died, which no one disputes.


Got to love the shifting of burden of proof. All of a sudden the 6 million bodies, or the ash of the bodies, is no longer yours to prove. It's ours! This is not how it works, bud. YOU are claiming 6 million people were killed. 3 million of them in convoluted ways via gas. Now prove it. You people complain about us arguing about "autistic things," but it's what we're reduced to because of the lack of evidence. What is there for us to disprove? I've been begging you people to give me a piece of evidence, a photo, a video, a mass grave filled with ash, LITERALLY ANYTHING. BEz939 has yet to actually give a point of falsification. I can't argue against anything but the retarded narrative because, and I've used this quote 5 times and I'll use it again, as Robert Jan Van Pelt said about Auschwitz we don't have physical evidence. Narrative and testimony is all you have

Your attachment is fucking shit. The guy goes on to talk about how the growth rate is unreasonable (he probably never seen a ultra conservative jewish family), but ends up saying that it's validated by official data that was written before ww2 (guess jews are timelords) so he'll ignore it anyways. I have a feeling the guy didn't even bother doing the basic detective work of sifting through actual data, just googling shit and saying he'll ignore it since he doesn't like it. Also the guy in the link gave a source of the numbers and you'll assuredly also ignore it.

You are the one trying to argue something that is opposite of he norm, the burden of proof is on you and only you. It's like you'd start arguing Winston Churchill didn't exist because of some contrived evidence and then told me it's my duty to both refute that evidence and prove he did exist. And if you want evidence of the holocaust just go into something like yad vashem.

Your claim is nonsensical, let's say that you are right in that there were no mass execution by gas. This doesn't disprove mass deaths, it just disproves deaths by use of gas. The lack of clear method didn't mean either the jews didn't die in massive amounts, or that it cannot be directly attributed to the actions of the german authority.

Also out of curiosity, do you believe the current white european population is undergoing genocide?

 

[BEz939]

Show the dead jews or shut up. It's that simple, prove there exists any evidence of 6 million (over 10 million counting all the other casualties) dead. You can't, so why bother with the rest?

If I don’t believe 6 million died, but I can give evidence that the Germans exterminated maybe 1-2 million Jews with purpose of genocide, is that still a holocaust to you?

 

[Bonesjones]

If I don’t believe 6 million died, but I can give evidence that the Germans exterminated maybe 1-2 million Jews with purpose of genocide, is that still a holocaust to you?

Can you even do that? I believe where the evidence leads.

 

[BEz939]

Can you even do that? I believe where the evidence leads.

Maybe. I really don’t care, I’m just here to look for spergy arguments. I can’t tell you and the other guy apart, are you the Diesel engine Treblinka guy?

 

[Bonesjones]

Maybe. I really don’t care, I’m just here to look for spergy arguments. I can’t tell you and the other guy apart, are you the Diesel engine Treblinka guy?

Hiding behind apathy because you don't want to be wrong makes you a coward. I don't know if there is anything more pathetic.

 

[BEz939]

Hiding behind apathy because you don't want to be wrong makes you a coward. I don't know if there is anything more pathetic.

Eh you make a point. Are you the diesel Treblinka guy?

 

[L50LasPak]

Hiding behind apathy because you don't want to be wrong makes you a coward.

Worse. I'm a tourist.

 

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

Your attachment is fucking shit. The guy goes on to talk about how the growth rate is unreasonable (he probably never seen a ultra conservative jewish family), but ends up saying that it's validated by official data that was written before ww2 (guess jews are timelords) so he'll ignore it anyways. I have a feeling the guy didn't even bother doing the basic detective work of sifting through actual data, just googling shit and saying he'll ignore it since he doesn't like it. Also the guy in the link gave a source of the numbers and you'll assuredly also ignore it.

He has probably seen ultra conservative Jewish families. They're still around today. They were around after the war too. Israel is full of them. And yet the population growth (excluding immigration) isn't close to 1.4 today or then, despite them having their own homeland with a high level of pro-natal policies which they didn't have before.

You are the one trying to argue something that is opposite of he norm, the burden of proof is on you and only you. It's like you'd start arguing Winston Churchill didn't exist because of some contrived evidence and then told me it's my duty to both refute that evidence and prove he did exist. And if you want evidence of the holocaust just go into something like yad vashem.

No, the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim. The holocaust is the positive claim of systematic murder of 6 million people. The norm of the claim is largely irrelevant. If the norm is to believe god exists that doesn't mean it is on a disbeliever to prove he's not. If most people think a person is guilty of a crime doesn't mean it's his job to prove his innocence. If the vast majority of western governments and medical science™ believes a mentally ill homosexual cutting his dick off makes him a woman that doesn't make it so.

Oh shit, I didn't think of going to the Yad Vashem to look for proof. I'm going to send an email to all the revisionists writers to tell them about this amazing resource of knowledge you found! Give me a direct link to the proof on Yad Vashem's website that you find convincing. I'm not doing your work for you

Your claim is nonsensical, let's say that you are right in that there were no mass execution by gas. This doesn't disprove mass deaths, it just disproves deaths by use of gas. The lack of clear method didn't mean either the jews didn't die in massive amounts, or that it cannot be directly attributed to the actions of the german authority.

If you deny the gassings you deny the holocaust. Ask your beloved Yad Vashem about that. I'm done now. This tactical revisionism and lack of a stance or proof of anything is just arguing in bad faith. Either give me something solid and link to it directly, I'm not going on a treasure hunt, or fuck off

I have a question for people who still believe in the holocaust despite knowing the lack of evidence. The US government is currently trying to astroturf the Tulsa """race massacre""" (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, among others) as the holocaust of American blacks where super wealthy black wallstreet was destroyed by jealous white bois because WE B RIIICH AND SHEEIIT! In the future they're going to claim that this, along side slavery, is the reason why blacks are doing so poorly financially. My question is this. When astroturfing of this blood libel is complete and every historian who dares question the story of white people throwing dynamite from planes to kill blacks because they're jealous of their wealth gets sacked and slandered by the media, what will you do? Will you rim nigger asshole and affirm it like you do with Jews and pay reparations with a smile on your face? When kids get this drilled into their heads in public school in the same way they do with mandatory holocaust classes what will you say to them? That the story is ludicrous? That didn't stop you from believing the holocaust. Will you say there is no evidence and we only have retarded witness reports? Because that's literally all you have with the holocaust

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

He has probably seen ultra conservative Jewish families. They're still around today. They were around after the war too. Israel is full of them. And yet the population growth (excluding immigration) isn't close to 1.4 today or then, despite them having their own homeland with a high level of pro-natal policies which they didn't have before.

The population growth reduces with more education and easier access to birth contol. Regardless this reduction in population is the big thing that holocaust deniers wouldn't touch despite being the entire crux of their argument (that there was no genocide).

No, the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim. The holocaust is the positive claim of systematic murder of 6 million people. The norm of the claim is largely irrelevant. If the norm is to believe god exists that doesn't mean it is on a disbeliever to prove he's not. If most people think a person is guilty of a crime doesn't mean it's his job to prove his innocence. If the vast majority of western governments and medical science™ believes a mentally ill homosexual cutting his dick off makes him a woman that doesn't make it so.

Oh shit, I didn't think of going to the Yad Vashem to look for proof. I'm going to send an email to all the revisionists writers to tell them about this amazing resource of knowledge you found! Give me a direct link to the proof on Yad Vashem's website that you find convincing. I'm not doing your work for you

That's a faggot atheist argument that's ridiculousness can be shown in the "prove that Winston Churchill existed" example. The entire way our science works is having a norm and having an alternative argument need to show it is more likely than the norm. Also if most people think a person is guilty of a crime it is his job to prove he isn't through work with either the police (if he isn't accused of it yet) or his lawyer (in the court of law), that's how our law system works. And you keep complaining that there is no proof despite literal museums full of it, photographs and recorded testimonies.

If you deny the gassings you deny the holocaust. Ask your beloved Yad Vashem about that. I'm done now. This tactical revisionism and lack of a stance or proof of anything is just arguing in bad faith. Either give me something solid and link to it directly, I'm not going on a treasure hunt, or fuck off

I have a question for people who still believe in the holocaust despite knowing the lack of evidence. The US government is currently trying to astroturf the Tulsa """race massacre""" (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, among others) as the holocaust of American blacks where super wealthy black wallstreet was destroyed by jealous white bois because WE B RIIICH AND SHEEIIT! In the future they're going to claim that this, along side slavery, is the reason why blacks are doing so poorly financially. My question is this. When astroturfing of this blood libel is complete and every historian who dares question the story of white people throwing dynamite from planes to kill blacks because they're jealous of their wealth gets sacked and slandered by the media, what will you do? Will you rim nigger asshole and affirm it like you do with Jews and pay reparations with a smile on your face? When kids get this drilled into their heads in public school in the same way they do with mandatory holocaust classes what will you say to them? That the story is ludicrous? That didn't stop you from believing the holocaust. Will you say there is no evidence and we only have retarded witness reports? Because that's literally all you have with the holocaust

That's completly illogical. Proving there were no gassing doesn't magically make the population decrease disappear or not the fault of the germans. Even if the deaths were caused indirectly by famine or diseases that's not something that can happen without the encouragement of the then ruling bodies. Also you wouldn't recieve any proof, so what's even your point of arguing I should give one? The population statistics you provided are a proof, now argue how the jewish people planned for a holocaust and artificially inflated their population before the nazis were even a thing.

Anyways your final argument is just rambling, others poisoning the well doesn't mean that any other genocide is untrue. And I doubt you would give even a fraction of the effort to "find the truth" of events like the Rwandan genocide.

 

[BEz939]

Honestly hitler’s war effort would have gone better if he didn’t waste materials on a genocide

 

[Lemmingwise]

That's completly illogical. Proving there were no gassing doesn't magically make the population decrease disappear or not the fault of the germans.

The case for population as claimed is pretty much non-existent. And the cause of death isn't some inconsequential thing. Dutch population died due to lack of food too.

Being unable to prove mass gassing doesn't mean there wasn't deaths that were direct (shooting, gassing per person), but it does pretty much end the mass extermination "final solution" narrative. Unless you were silly enough to believe the open grave burnings I suppose, but I don't think anyone that has ever lighted a barbecue believes those.

 

[Question Mark]