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

[Rapechu]

@Chugger

Unfortunately, I can't find the German internal documents I referred to earlier, I thought I had them saved on my other computer, but foolishly, I didn't save them when I first encountered them long ago, so now they are lost to history unless OCD forces me to waste more time trying to google them. Anyways, we can find plenty of evidence of German legitimacy for their cause for war:

Legitimacy of claims:

Free City of Danzig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Danzig was 95% German, only ~3.5% Polish. Polish interest in the city was for how they could economically exploit it, not based on the wishes of the public, which democratically voted an NSDAP government for multiple elections in a row.

Semi-related: In 1920, Polish protestants voted to remain part of Germany. Their vote was ignored and they were made part of Poland instead because victors decide the rules. This is just an illustration of how national self-determination was ignored in order to try to destroy Germany after WW1. It is because of this sort of denial of the will of the public that we saw conflicts popping up so often in the region.

Jewish/Finance influence in Britain leading to worsening of relations

Hitler seizing property from Rothschilds, this is upsetting to Britain's government as the Rothschilds were very influential in Britain. The royal family personally issued a complaint to Hitler about this.

Winston Churchill spent £40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze

The qualities that were to make Churchill a great war leader came very close to destroying him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him into colossal debt.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Winston Churchill had massive banking losses and had gone bankrupt, he had been saved from his debts by people who sponsored his return to politics and effectively owned him.

“We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?”-Winston Churchill

Churchill admits in letter to Stalin that he never intended to have peace with Germany.

Hitler, of course, knew this very well. In Saarbrücken, on October 9th, 1938 he said: "...All it would take would be for Mr. Duff Cooper or Mr. Eden or Mr. Churchill to come to power in England instead of Chamberlain, and we know very well that it would be the goal of these men to immediately start a new world war. They do not even try to disguise their intents, they state them openly..."34

This is just corroboration of what I said earlier, that Hitler blamed Churchill and Eden specifically as being pawns of international financiers, and being the ones responsible for Britain entering WW2 against Germany.

Why Germany attacked

In addition to my earlier statements about Poland's illegal occupation of Danzig...

Well we should say they did end up attacking, which was a momentous decision given the fact it might trigger a world war. Over just a tiny ("symbolic" as you say) territory. There must have been some internal justification of this path, the risk and reward so to speak.

Britain was trying to convince Romania and other countries to enter into an anti-German alliance. Britain was also arming itself for war and had a much superior economy to Germany. In general, if a war was inevitable, then waiting would be diplomatically and economically disadvantageous for Germany, so attacking was the only option when it was clear peace had failed.

On October 1923, Stanislaus Grabski, who later was to become Minister of Public Worship and Instruction, announced: "We want to base our relations on love, but there is one kind of love for one's own people and another kind for strangers. Their percentage is decidedly too high here. Posen [which had been given to Poland after the First World War] can show us one way to reduce that percentage from 14% or even 20% to 1½%. The foreign element will have to see if it would not be better off elsewhere. The Polish land is exclusively for the Poles!"20

"(The Germans in Poland) are intelligent enough to realize that in the event of war no enemy on Polish soil will get away alive... The Führer is far away, but the Polish soldiers are close, and in the woods there is no shortage of branches."21
-Henryk Baginski, Poland and the Baltic, Edinburgh 1942. Quoted in Bolko Frhr. v. Richthofen, op.cit. (Note 19), p. 81

Polish intellectuals making quite genocidal statements publicly, I could spam up the thread with quotes like these

…I traveled up to the Polish corridor where the German authorities permitted me to interview the German refugees from many Polish cities and towns. The story was the same. Mass arrests and long marches along roads toward the interior of Poland. The railroads were crowded with troop movements. Those who fell by the wayside were shot. The Polish authorities seemed to have gone mad. I have been questioning people all my life and I think I know how to make deductions from the exaggerated stories told by people who have passed through harrowing personal experiences. But even with generous allowance, the situation was plenty bad. To me the war seemed only a question of hours. -Donald Day, Chicago Tribune

Poles were arresting and shooting ethnic Germans. I could spam up the thread with quotes like these as well.

I could go on, Poland was engaging in many provocations against Germany. I don't think the Germans actually engaged in any provocations at all against Poland before WW2 (like imprisoning and shooting Poles, or encroaching onto Danzig militarily). Hitler did everything completely above the table and sent reasonable compromises, while Britain was gathering allies against Germany and Poland was sabre-rattling and attacking Germans.

 

[Marley Rathbone]

Pretty good article about one of the main holocaust researchers admitting that there really isn't any physical evidence, and that they rely on "eyewitness testimony" which happens to be made decades after the fact after everyone got their stories coordinated.

The closer in time you get to 1945, the more unbelievable and outlandish the eyewitness stories appear. Stories about blood gushing in fountains out of the ground, etc. Or stories of people put in a room and electrocuted until there was nothing but a layer of ashes on the ground.

Holohoax "Scholar" Puts Foot in Mouth

Tim Ryback is a renown and respected "expert" of the so-called "Holocaust." His 2004 article in the WSJ was a comical case of foot-in-mouth folly.

www.realhistorychan.com

 

[Chugger]

@Rapechu So to sum up your argument, you're saying

the Rothschilds and other Jewish groups were driving English policy (your best evidence here is the suggestion that Churchill- who was not in a position of power in 39 - owed them money?)

Britain was planning on gathering an alliance of different states to eventually invade Germany (you provided no evidence here)

Lastly that Poles were "arresting and shooting" Germans prior to the invasion, thus justifying German invasion

-----

On this last point, it's a bit strange off the bat that Hitler was completely silent here. No speeches throughout all of August, then a flurry on Sept 1, the first day of the war. How much pressure was being put on the Poles to stop these supposed incidents and expulsions? (any other sources here/ Donald Day later went to work for the Nazis propaganda arm)

It also isn't clear from your description whether or not Germany seriously wanted and hoped for peace in the weeks leading up to the war. Clarification here?

 

[Chugger]

Pretty good article about one of the main holocaust researchers admitting that there really isn't any physical evidence, and that they rely on "eyewitness testimony" which happens to be made decades after the fact after everyone got their stories coordinated.

The closer in time you get to 1945, the more unbelievable and outlandish the eyewitness stories appear. Stories about blood gushing in fountains out of the ground, etc. Or stories of people put in a room and electrocuted until there was nothing but a layer of ashes on the ground.

Holohoax "Scholar" Puts Foot in Mouth

Tim Ryback is a renown and respected "expert" of the so-called "Holocaust." His 2004 article in the WSJ was a comical case of foot-in-mouth folly.

www.realhistorychan.com

This is pretty funny. This is the paragraph that gets you guys going.

“Of course, the historical and circumstantial evidence of a premeditated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is overwhelming. There are the watch-tower-girded enclosures of Nazi concentration camps and the extensive testimonials of Holocaust survivors, as well as the court protocols of Nazi war criminals, but there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent. The Nazis were scrupulous when it came to obscuring the "Final Solution" in bureaucratic euphemism and also dismantling or obliterating their machinery of death. The dearth of hard evidence has fueled a growth industry in Holocaust-denial.”

Ryback is wrong to say there is 'little forensic evidence', because as previously discussed enormous quantities of human ash were found at the major extermination camps. No "holocaust researcher" denies this. Ryback instead is talking about "the machinery of death", aka the gas chambers, which yeah were all destroyed. Deniers turn a gaffe into admission there is no evidence.

Maybe they should try to answer why they have no documentary, witness, or forensic evidence of mass resettlement in 42/43. @Rapechu tried a few pages back but moved onto a different subject. I hope and expect that we will return to the topic after we finish discussing the origins of ww2

 

[Bonesjones]

This is pretty funny. This is the paragraph that gets you guys going.



Ryback is wrong to say there is 'little forensic evidence', because as previously discussed enormous quantities of human ash were found at the major extermination camps. No "holocaust researcher" denies this. Ryback instead is talking about "the machinery of death", aka the gas chambers, which yeah were all destroyed. Deniers turn a gaffe into admission there is no evidence.

Maybe they should try to answer why they have no documentary, witness, or forensic evidence of mass resettlement in 42/43. @Rapechu tried a few pages back but moved onto a different subject. I hope and expect that we will return to the topic after we finish discussing the origins of ww2

So post this overwhelming proof, finding what could be human remains and saying "yeah thats it, that's them" isn't proof of anything. Its evidence that has to be investigated further. There has been no attempt made to do so because the people telling the holocaust story know it would fall apart if they did so.

I know you project so much you could be a drive in theater but it's old and tiring at this point.

 

[Chugger]

So post this overwhelming proof, finding what could be human remains and saying "yeah thats it, that's them" isn't proof of anything. Its evidence that has to be investigated further. There has been no attempt made to do so because the people telling the holocaust story know it would fall apart if they did so.

maybe you should try answering my simple questions on the matter

in another thread lol, or wait until we're done with this ww2 origins discussion so not to muddy stuff up

 

[Marley Rathbone]

This is pretty funny. This is the paragraph that gets you guys going.



Ryback is wrong to say there is 'little forensic evidence', because as previously discussed enormous quantities of human ash were found at the major extermination camps. No "holocaust researcher" denies this. Ryback instead is talking about "the machinery of death", aka the gas chambers, which yeah were all destroyed. Deniers turn a gaffe into admission there is no evidence.

Maybe they should try to answer why they have no documentary, witness, or forensic evidence of mass resettlement in 42/43. @Rapechu tried a few pages back but moved onto a different subject. I hope and expect that we will return to the topic after we finish discussing the origins of ww2

The discovery of enormous quantities of human ash is new to me. Honestly, I've never heard of that before. Would you please provide links? I'm not up to speed on the resettlement controversy, I see no point in it being valid or not. Obviously many populations all over Eastern Europe were being forcibly removed both before and after the war. No denying that.

 

[Bonesjones]

maybe you should try answering my simple questions on the matter

in another thread lol, or wait until we're done with this ww2 origins discussion so not to muddy stuff up

First you'd do an entire archeological dig of belzec. So you'd know exactly what was where and what it consisted of. You'd obviously find the gas chambers you'd be looking for if they existed. So why didn't they just use the core samples to narrow down where they should be and do an entire excavation? Obviously they were just looking for enough evidence to support a narrative and not looking for a factual discovery of what, when, where, and who. Then you could separate all of the "crematory remains" to figure its exact volume. Why didn't they do this? Oh because it would prove that nothing happened but a cover up by Soviet forces.

Now answer, where is the direct proof that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. That gas chambers existed in any physical form. That the holocaust happened outside of eyewitness accounts. Where is the physical evidence to support your claim. No, it magically was destroyed isn't an answer.


Why do you always want people to slow down or post somewhere else? Weird how none of us have problems keeping our facts And stories straight. Is it because you are a stupid liar who can't keep up?

 

[Chugger]

The discovery of enormous quantities of human ash is new to me. Honestly, I've never heard of that before. Would you please provide links?

you can start here but there is info scattered throughout these threads, as go the whims of holocaust deniers

I'm not up to speed on the resettlement controversy, I see no point in it being valid or not.

The point is the Germans diligently tracked the whereabouts of the Jews in their custody as would any country with those they deemed dangerous state enemies. They tracked them in ghettos and labor camps and wherever else they might be, including neutral countries. But then in 1942 ghettos across Europe were dissolved and millions of Jews disappeared in terms of paper trail, including 3/4s of the Jews sent to Auschwitz, and 99% of the Jews sent to camps Belzec, Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor.

Revisionists think these camps were transit camps, for sending Jews to the East. However there's no record of this, and no evidence (whether documentary or witness) of any mass resettlement in the East. I might as well say these millions of Jews were picked up by UFOs Ernst Zundel style and brought to a Nazi base in Antarctica, or say the Germans found an entrance to the hollow earth and dumped the Jews in there.

This doesn't prove the Holocaust happened of course, just shows that it is thousands of times better evidenced than the proposed alternative.

My suggestion to revisionists would be to try to find a more evidenced alternative

Obviously many populations all over Eastern Europe were being forcibly removed both before and after the war. No denying that.

True, but the difference is there's evidence of these population transfers, meaning evidence of people leaving point A and most importantly arriving at point B. With the Holocaust, there's nothing to suggest they got to point B

 

[Rapechu]

@Chugger I am done talking to you for now. You are way too slimey. You tried to argue this point before, I posted evidence of undocumented camps in the east, you just responded "oh jewish slave labor and concentration camps aren't the same thing" (the hell?). Okay, so they weren't moved to the east to be "resettled", they were moved to the east for "slave labor" if you want to be petty about semantics and lie by omission.

You also brought up the ashes at Belzec which were never seriously analyzed, which did not include a comparable amount of bone remains, which were heavily tampered with and dug up multiple times, and filled with other random bulk matter, and had tons of foreign furnace content dumped on top of them.

After I proved these points, YOU changed the topics, not me, I just followed the new topics you set. Now you're trying to act like I didn't prove all my points and you're just going to try and reset the whole argument? You're literally just going to keep doing this again and again because I've seen you do it every single time no matter how badly the argument has gone for you in the past.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

@Chugger I am done talking to you for now. You are way too slimey. You tried to argue this point before, I posted evidence of undocumented camps in the east, you just responded "oh jewish slave labor and concentration camps aren't the same thing" (the hell?). Okay, so they weren't moved to the east to be "resettled", they were moved to the east for "slave labor" if you want to be petty about semantics and lie by omission.

You also brought up the ashes at Belzec which were never seriously analyzed, which did not include a comparable amount of bone remains, which were heavily tampered with and dug up multiple times, and filled with other random bulk matter, and had tons of foreign furnace content dumped on top of them.

After I proved these points, YOU changed the topics, not me, I just followed the new topics you set. Now you're trying to act like I didn't prove all my points and you're just going to try and reset the whole argument? You're literally just going to keep doing this again and again because I've seen you do it every single time no matter how badly the argument has gone for you in the past.

"Slowly, I began to hate them" - Rapechu 2025 'My Struggle'.

 

[Bonesjones]

@Chugger I am done talking to you for now. You are way too slimey. You tried to argue this point before, I posted evidence of undocumented camps in the east, you just responded "oh jewish slave labor and concentration camps aren't the same thing" (the hell?). Okay, so they weren't moved to the east to be "resettled", they were moved to the east for "slave labor" if you want to be petty about semantics and lie by omission.

You also brought up the ashes at Belzec which were never seriously analyzed, which did not include a comparable amount of bone remains, which were heavily tampered with and dug up multiple times, and filled with other random bulk matter, and had tons of foreign furnace content dumped on top of them.

After I proved these points, YOU changed the topics, not me, I just followed the new topics you set. Now you're trying to act like I didn't prove all my points and you're just going to try and reset the whole argument? You're literally just going to keep doing this again and again because I've seen you do it every single time no matter how badly the argument has gone for you in the past.

He also mentioned him posting on the Codoh forum, yet completely ignores anything posted there that proved him wrong. His only strategy to being wrong is to ignore it ever existed in the first place. Which he's done here many many times and is still doing. Notice how he avoids answering easy direct questions and only changes the subject to something else when he's at wits end.

 

[Oglooger]

I leave this thread for a few months and then see that not only does Chugger still post here, but it's the only thread he posts in.
Why would anyone just come here only to defend the holocaust narrative?

 

[celebrityskin]

Pretty sure that there isn’t a Holocaust denier who doesn’t openly hate Jews or believe all sorts of other conspiritard stuff about them.

Holocaust denial is never “just asking questions”, it’s always either to just hurt people’s feelings or done with an alterior motives. Same with Armenian Genocide and Srebrenica deniers. They don’t really know what they’re talking about in any case.

 

[Bonesjones]

Pretty sure that there isn’t a Holocaust denier who doesn’t openly hate Jews or believe all sorts of other conspiritard stuff about them.

Holocaust denial is never “just asking questions”, it’s always either to just hurt people’s feelings or done with an alterior motives. They don’t really know what they’re talking about in either case.

Maybe they all hate jews because they have direct experience with how awful they choose to be and not for some intrinsic quality they were born with.

 

[celebrityskin]

Maybe they all hate jews because they have direct experience with how awful they choose to be and not for some intrinsic quality they were born with.

then why Holocaust deniers heavily concentrated in countries with no Jews such as Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, Malaysia etc.?

 

[Oglooger]

then why Holocaust deniers heavily concentrated in countries with no Jews such as Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, Malaysia etc.?

They see what they're doing to the Palestinians.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Pretty sure that there isn’t a Holocaust denier who doesn’t openly hate Jews or believe all sorts of other conspiritard stuff about them.

Holocaust denial is never “just asking questions”, it’s always either to just hurt people’s feelings or done with an alterior motives. Same with Armenian Genocide and Srebrenica deniers. They don’t really know what they’re talking about in any case.

So you believe in the holocaust because people that don't are mean?
Also, lol at the literal Israeli coming in. Maybe you smoked out chuggers main?

 

[Bonesjones]

then why Holocaust deniers heavily concentrated in countries with no Jews such as Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, Malaysia etc.?

Its illegal in many countries where it supposedly happened to deny and social suicide in most of the west due to propaganda efforts. That only leaves countries unrelated and ones with heavy Muslim presence. Then they use that to say it's just bias.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Pretty sure that there isn’t a Holocaust denier who doesn’t openly hate Jews or believe all sorts of other conspiritard stuff about them.

Assume a person who thinks the holocaust is wildly exaggerated. Assume that person came to that conclusion after careful consideration, after presuming it to be true for years before.
Assume that this person tries to act, think and speak in good faith.

Now, what is this person's perception of jews, that there are so few who would honestly and openly be able to discuss this subject, but instead either experiences censure or dishonesty.

What is this person's perception of jews, that they produce holocaust movie after holocaust movie, and shower these movies with awards (to the degree that Gervais once joked in his show that the only reason Winslet didnt have an oscar is because she didn't do a holocaust movie... which ended up coming true when she did one in real life).

Do you presume this person as a result would have a generally positive or negative bias towards jews?

Would this person then be prone to think: "hey, if they lied about this, possibly the event with the strongest pr in the last century, what else might I have been lied to about?"

Voila, you get a person that looks like someone that openly hates jews (openly calls out their bullshit) and "other conspiritard stuff".

Pleased to meet you. I am that person.

Although admittedly, holocaust was not the first lie that got me into curious research mode, that was when I started noticing wikipedia information control by hosted editing events and specifically, the removal of the frankfurt school info.

But yeah, there is just as much room for the relationship to be inverse; one that starts with allegiance to truth, and then makes enemies along the way when detecting antagonists to truth.