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

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

    Ongoing DDoS attack. kiwifarms.ru may work better for now.

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
I'm not going into 25 back and forth with you again, and you already know why.

You said coverups were impossible. That's wrong. Coverups are possible. I appreciate that you can acknowledge that, now.
Yes mass conspiracies w/ coverups are very possible. Holocaust after all was one, with a documented cover up, and you can see how well that turned out, with them leaving behind thousands of incriminating documents and enormous quantities of ash at supposed killing centers

I think a better question is whether a given conspiracy is likely. Some, like David Irving, speculate the Holocaust did happen, but it was the Jews that inflicted this wound upon their own body by intentionally provoking the Nazis so as to gather future sympathies. Some say Hitler was Jewish or possibly an agent of the Jews. I talked to one holocaust denier who said he thought the Jews really have done nothing bad in the world, but are being scapegoated by a still more elusive group.

So is it likely (forgetting for a moment how many people involved ended up outside of the iron curtain) an entity like the USSR covered up the existence of each and every resettlement camp, destroying or concealing millions of documents, suppressing millions of witnesses (who didn't talk even after the USSR fell) when they couldn't cover up an operation probably 1000 or 10,000 times smaller? (Katyn)--on top of all the Holocaust "proofs" they also manufactured

Call me crazy, but I say no, and to be honest, I don't even see a motive on their part. EG the soviets were basically holocaust deniers, in that usuallythey didn't put the Jews front and center, or even mention them

the famous Auschwitz plaque:

This-English-language-Birkenau-inscription-plaque-from-1967-is-one-of-20-plaques-in.png


the new Auschwitz plaque, created after the fall of the USSR:

Auschwitz-Birkenau%20memorial%20sign.jpg



Soviet textbooks didn't mention Jews:

1634694710393.png


So why believe in such a conspiracy? I'd say it is mostly the domain of anti-semites and 'white advocates' who are afraid of giving the Jews the ultimate victim card, but I'm open to other theories here
 
Last edited:

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Yes mass conspiracies w/ coverups are very possible. Holocaust after all was one, with a documented cover up, and you can see how well that turned out, with them leaving behind thousands of incriminating documents and enormous quantities of ash at supposed killing centers

I think a better question is whether a given conspiracy is likely. Some, like David Irving, speculate the Holocaust did happen, but it was the Jews that inflicted this wound upon their own body by intentionally provoking the Nazis so as to gather future sympathies. Some say Hitler was Jewish or possibly an agent of the Jews. I talked to one holocaust denier who said he thought the Jews really have done nothing bad in the world, but are being scapegoated by a still more elusive group.

So is it likely (forgetting for a moment how many people involved ended up outside of the iron curtain) an entity like the USSR covered up the existence of each and every resettlement camp, destroying or concealing millions of documents, suppressing millions of witnesses (who didn't talk even after the USSR fell) when they couldn't cover up an operation probably 1000 or 10,000 times smaller? (Katyn)--on top of all the Holocaust "proofs" they also manufactured

Call me crazy, but I say no, and to be honest, I don't even see a motive on their part. EG the soviets were basically holocaust deniers, in that usuallythey didn't put the Jews front and center, or even mention them

the famous Auschwitz plaque:

This-English-language-Birkenau-inscription-plaque-from-1967-is-one-of-20-plaques-in.png


the new Auschwitz plaque, created after the fall of the USSR:

Auschwitz-Birkenau%20memorial%20sign.jpg



Soviet textbooks didn't mention Jews:

View attachment 2641448

So why believe in such a conspiracy? I'd say it is mostly the domain of anti-semites and 'white advocates' who are afraid of giving the Jews the ultimate victim card, but I'm open to other theories here
Hard to believe you are not getting paid per word/reply to have such a long response to someone saying "coverups can happen".
 

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
word count 250. i get paid by the hour lol
I guess you deleted your prior post about copium, because that is too obvious a shill word.

Just know that the real effect you're having is making people real tired of your bullshit.
 

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
I guess you deleted your prior post about copium, because that is too obvious a shill word.

Just know that the real effect you're having is making people real tired of your bullshit.
nah just trying to diffuse our tension. in my mind, the 'dishonesty' you see in me, is you just running up against the limits of revisionist argumentation. That's not really your fault. Revisionism is a few inches away from flat earthism, not quite there but in the ballpark. There isn't a single convincing argument (I don't think) anyone can make against a person like me who is moderately well schooled and intelligent. Compared to some on skeptic forum I'm a newb.

So perhaps you should point out examples of my dishonesty for whatever audience exists for this thread. I promise I won't respond, giving you the equivalent of a free hit. This is fair though, cause as far as I see by default you're playing with a major handicap.
 

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
So perhaps you should point out examples of my dishonesty
Sure.

First you were like....
Grave was layers of "crematory contents" separated by total 1.5 meters of soil. Since the total depth was 4.5 meters lets say this grave consisted of 50% "crematory contents". 50% of 1350 meters = 675 cubic meters of ash . So in this single grave, assuming the ash was pure, you could fit 675*600 worth of bodies, or ashes of 400,000 people, that is roughly the estimated death total at Belzec
Then when challenged on that succesfully you were like....

I just don't get into corpse math, it ain't my thing
it's just not what I'm interested in.

I don't really get into this holocaust math stuff,

But then in the other thread you were like:
What laws of physics? Are you saying a body can't be destroyed by heat in 30 minutes or less
carefully as I could: I searched for this in google "livestock incinerator" "pounds per hour"

First link was this https://www.incinr8.com/ which looks to be selling a low rent "poultry incinerator", with stated capacity of 150 pounds per hour. This corresponds to two malnourished Jujus per hour, or perhaps 4 satan like Juju children.

But is this incinerator made to operate in "high-throughput” mode, meaning constantly in use without having to warm up or cool down? That could increase its efficiency further, and also it is a poultry incinerator, and by my reckoning chickens are not too large, so size might be a limiting factor

So you get into it...
...then when losing don't get into it....
...then in another thread get into it....

It's been dishonesty from start to finish and this is only scratching the surface.

Now finally, remember your promise, so that everyone can see you break it:

So perhaps you should point out examples of my dishonesty for whatever audience exists for this thread. I promise I won't respond
 
Last edited:

spinch

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
I'm reading this thread and genuinely pretty shocked.

I've always just accepted the holocaust as absolute truth although maybe exaggerated to garner more global sympathy for the Jews. Can I genuinely just ask any denier what their logic is behind denying it? Why they think it didn't happen- or what they think happened instead? Like what were the camps for if the Holocaust didn't happen?

Additionally, why do holocaust deniers tend to focus on the Jewish side of things, and not the thousands of homosexuals, Romanis/Gypsies, disabled people, and fringe Christians (ie jehovah's witnesses) who were also imprisoned/killed? Is it merely anti-semitism or do you think it's some globalist jewish coverup?

You're not going to change my mind but I like to be open and as educated as possible to all viewpoints. Feel free to answer.
 

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 19, 2018
Additionally, why do holocaust deniers tend to focus on the Jewish side of things, and not the thousands of homosexuals, Romanis/Gypsies, disabled people, and fringe Christians (ie jehovah's witnesses) who were also imprisoned/killed? Is it merely anti-semitism or do you think it's some globalist jewish coverup?
This one I can answer: because the Jews leveraged the Holocaust into an Apartheid ethnostate, and that was just the beginning of the rent-seeking off it, a (legal, mandatory) racket that continues to this day. The gypsies, homosexuals etc. got what the Ukrainians and Armenians got after their respective genocides, i.e. literally fucking nothing. Per the famous quotes, they focus on the Jews because that's where the money is.
 

spinch

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
This one I can answer: because the Jews leveraged the Holocaust into an Apartheid ethnostate, and that was just the beginning of the rent-seeking off it, a (legal, mandatory) racket that continues to this day. The gypsies, homosexuals etc. got what the Ukrainians and Armenians got after their respective genocides, i.e. literally fucking nothing. Per the famous quotes, they focus on the Jews because that's where the money is.
Yeah, I kind of figured that would be the answer. I'm against Israel as much as the next guy but I can't bring myself to pure anti-Semitism due to that.

I will say for the Gypsies/Homosexuals/ETC the Holocaust was not the mass genocide like it was for the Jews- I just find it funny that deniers never mention them. They just completely erase their history because it's not relevant to their conspiracies.

the gays did get their very own genocide in the 90s tho
 

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Additionally, why do holocaust deniers tend to focus on the Jewish side of things, and not the thousands of homosexuals, Romanis/Gypsies, disabled people, and fringe Christians (ie jehovah's witnesses) who were also imprisoned/killed?
I just find it funny that deniers never mention them
The affirmers almost never mention them either. It's because the definiton of holocaust or shoah doesn't typically include them.

Don't take it from me. Just look at how it's defined in other places.

Wikipedia:
IMG_20211021_012544.png

A holocaust website:
IMG_20211021_012612.png


Oxford dictionary:

IMG_20211021_012747.pngIMG_20211021_012758.png




---


Another reason is that there is no resource value to people being right about non-jewish deaths. None of the payments for the holocaust have been to gypsies or homosexual survivors of the holocaust. Today there are still conferences of jewish mineral claims against Germany that rely wholly on the holocaust.

I mentioned it before in this thread, but just a couple of years ago the dutch royal railway had to pay millions for using trains to transport jews when the netherlands was occupied by a foreign military force.



 
Last edited:

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Lol these sillies think the Jews faked the holocaust for some shekels (if Germany had to pay so much, how come they are now the healthiest economy in Europe?) and the state of Israel.

These sillies also think that the Jews controlled the US and Britain prior to WW2 so why was this even necessary? What if this conspiracy which involved millions happened to be unraveled?

These sillies also know nothing about history, eg the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

Holocaust sometimes includes non-Jews but usually not, cuz by definition it is about the Jews. If you want to include all deaths unnecessarily caused by German racially motivated war, that would probably be like 40 million, 48 if you include the German people who were essentially brainwashed and mass suicided by their leadership. The Holocaust is the most dramatic and blatant crime though, so it's no surprise it's been played up to this extent.

or what they think happened instead?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Or they never talk about it at least.
Additionally, why do holocaust deniers tend to focus on the Jewish side of things, and not the thousands of homosexuals, Romanis/Gypsies, disabled people, and fringe Christians (ie jehovah's witnesses) who were also imprisoned/killed? Is it merely anti-semitism or do you think it's some globalist jewish coverup?

Holocaust has of course been 'pushed' by influential Jewish groups etc, but some people would like it to be indicative of a mythical level of power and control on the part of Jewry--and also their immorality and questionable character. Like how fucking deranged do you have to be to fake your own people's genocide?

An interesting question that I doubt any deniers here will answer: if Holocaust indeed happened as described (world's biggest genocide committed by an advanced and "cultured" nation), should it be studied and well known, and would it be interesting to you? To me the interesting thing about it is that today most of us live in a society not fundamentally dissimilar from 1930s Germany.
 
Last edited:

Sincere Sinner

kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 10, 2021
Can I genuinely just ask any denier what their logic is behind denying it? Why they think it didn't happen- or what they think happened instead? Like what were the camps for if the Holocaust didn't happen?
The short version is that they were work camps. Why do you think "Abreit Macht Frei" ("work makes you free" roughly) was written on those gates? I do not believe the Nazis were guilty of a deliberate campaign of extermination, but I do believe they were guilty of having a long term plan of forceful expatriation of various "undesirables", and used the various peoples in their work camps as indentured slave labor, basically. These things are pretty objectionable in and of themselves, but I guess that just wasnt good enough for some.

Germany was a relatively small nation locked into a long grueling conflict with larger powers than itself for an extended period of time. They were short of labour, both on the front lines and on the homefront to fuel that war machine. Hence, work camps.

When Germany inevitably began to lose, their country was being actively invaded and occupied and they had long since lost air superiority. At this point, why the fuck would they bother maintaining supply lines to liabilities like these work camps so far and isolated away? They didn't. People starved, they lacked medical supplies, ordinary diseases and causes like dysnetry claimed them. Awful and ugly no doubt, but by no means a willful and deliberate act of mass murder. Thats the TLDR version.

Notice how banal this version of events is? Real life often is. Hitler is not a fucking Saturday morning cartoon villain who wastes resources killing six million people while actively fighting and losing in the largest conflict the world has ever seen because hes just that psychotic and unhinged.
 
Last edited:

IAmNotAlpharius

Nothing to see here. Move along citizen.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Holodomor was clearly Western war propaganda.
No one can show me the "ten million" corpses that Stalin supposedly killed.
I’m skeptical of any old figures simply because they’re old. They don’t have the tech or even the records we do today. Stalin’s ineptitude likely killed more than Hitler did intentionally. They both have a lot of blood on their hands but as far as im concerned Mao is numbah wan.
 

Super-Chevy454

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
The affirmers almost never mention them either. It's because the definiton of holocaust or shoah doesn't typically include them.

Don't take it from me. Just look at how it's defined in other places.

Wikipedia:
View attachment 2643765

A holocaust website:
View attachment 2643766


Oxford dictionary:

View attachment 2643769View attachment 2643770




---


Another reason is that there is no resource value to people being right about non-jewish deaths. None of the payments for the holocaust have been to gypsies or homosexual survivors of the holocaust. Today there are still conferences of jewish mineral claims against Germany that rely wholly on the holocaust.

I mentioned it before in this thread, but just a couple of years ago the dutch royal railway had to pay millions for using trains to transport jews when the netherlands was occupied by a foreign military force.



Speaking of the definition of Holocaust and it might be worth to check an eye, I saw a French article from a Montreal newspaper who referred the Armenian Genocide as "Holocauste Arménien"(Armenian Holocaust) in a article about tourism in Turkey published back in 1994.

It could be interesting if there's others old newspaper articles who once referred the Armenian Genocide as Holocaust as well.
 

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Speaking of the definition of Holocaust and it might be worth to check an eye
Just a bit of a random sample:

1914 about german burning corpses at Esternay:

holocaust1.PNG

holocaust2.PNG

Forestfire in 1936:
forestfire.PNG

Around the 40's I found quite a few examples of it being used to hype movies:

movie.PNG

Going through newspapers, holocaust very occasionally reffered to nazi germany, but the vast majority of uses are for large fires, particularly older articles. After the war most common from my sample seems to be the threat of nuclear or war holocaust. In the 60s we get first jewish newspapers and then all newspapers using it more to refer to nazi germany, but also kennedy's statement about the threat of racial hatred leading to holocaust.

I've only searched washington DC newspapers if I used the archives right and only sampled them fairly randomly.
 

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Notice how banal this version of events is? Real life often is. Hitler is not a fucking Saturday morning cartoon villain who wastes resources killing six million people while actively fighting and losing in the largest conflict the world has ever seen because hes just that psychotic and unhinged.
I agree, interning those people for years would have almost certainly had a higher resource cost. Nazi decision to kill the Jews was probably a more pragmatic decision than say letting most of the Soviet POWs starve to death

Actually it's revisionists that attack the Hollywood cartoon version of the Holocaust . They should pick up a book of real history instead, like Browning's Origin of the Final solution . Not much too attack there
 

Bonesjones

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
I agree, interning those people for years would have almost certainly had a higher resource cost. Nazi decision to kill the Jews was probably a more pragmatic decision than say letting most of the Soviet POWs starve to death

Actually it's revisionists that attack the Hollywood cartoon version of the Holocaust . They should pick up a book of real history instead, like Browning's Origin of the Final solution . Not much too attack there
Hey look you don't understand how upfront vs over time consumption of resources work. Or you do and are just deflecting again.

Also look at you referencing sources again without posting arguments. When you don't read what you post and just imagine it says something that agrees with you.
 

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Hey look you don't understand how upfront vs over time consumption of resources work. Or you do and are just deflecting again.

Also look at you referencing sources again without posting arguments. When you don't read what you post and just imagine it says something that agrees with you.
Yeah maybe you can explain it for me. If I pay 100 dollars up front for something, vs 20 bucks a month, which deal is better for me over the course of a year or two?
 

Bonesjones

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Yeah maybe you can explain it for me. If I pay 100 dollars up front for something, vs 20 bucks a month, which deal is better for me over the course of a year or two?
Depends on cash liquidity, amortization of debts is always better than upfront because of inflation. If you weren't a moron you'd know this. Why would you pay more in resources to kill someone you are using in a labor camp and thus deny yourself exponentially?
 

Similar threads

G
Artcow KFC Nyan Cat
Youtube, Reddit and DeviantArt Sperg
Replies
12
Views
4K