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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I've provided a ton of direct evidence in this thread. If you tell me, chugger I hereby commit to an honest investigation with you of the supposed direct evidence, and will stay razor focused on this supposed evidence without going off on silly tangents like muh newspapers, I'll show you. I just think the well has been poisoned too much for you to commit to anything like this.

Regarding missing records, what if I told.you that a million or 2 million people had been resettled, but there was no direct evidence of this whatsoever. No witness statements, no fuel records, no food supply or transport records, not even any specific locations where they went. Would this total absence of direct evidence render such a resettlement impossible?

Stay on topic faggot. Where the fuck is the evidence of millions of tons of coal that was allegedly used for cremation as per your fanciful theory ?

You get cornered like this and then you skip from argument to argument like a treacherous little kike, acting as if your prior claims don't exist anymore.
 
Stay on topic faggot. Where the fuck is the evidence of millions of tons of coal that was allegedly used for cremation as per your fanciful theory ?

You get cornered like this and then you skip from argument to argument like a treacherous little kike, acting as if your prior claims don't exist anymore.
I never said millions of tons of coal were used, millions of tons coal equivalent , which could be gasoline, wood.

Historians still believe in mass events if there are gaps in the record. They don't believe in mass events if there is no record whatsoever. I didn't set those standards, sorry you don't like them.
 
I never said millions of tons of coal were used, millions of tons coal equivalent , which could be gasoline, wood.

Historians still believe in mass events if there are gaps in the record. They don't believe in mass events if there is no record whatsoever. I didn't set those standards, sorry you don't like them.

Where is the evidence of the coal equivalents such as gasoline or wood ?

I'm not debating historians and I could give 2 shits about their standards or any other impotent calls to authority.

Go on kike, I'm listening.
 
Where is the evidence of the coal equivalents such as gasoline or wood ?

I'm not debating historians and I could give 2 shits about their standards or any other impotent calls to authority.

Go on kike, I'm listening.
Witnesses and residue at the sites like charcoal (burnt wood). But there isn't evidence for all fuel used.

The reason the standard is important is ecause your logical argument is, insufficient evidence for one aspect of mass event means mass event didn't happen, so you can say most mass events didn't happen, eg gigantic battles like Stalingrad. Do we have records for the all fuel needed to supply the front? Hell no dude, that's why this logic is ridiculous.

And what does this mean for resettlement theory, which rests on no direct evidence whatsoever? You won't answer this question because you're intellectually lazy, angry, scared, etc
 
Last edited:
I believe the claim was that the amount of fuel necessary to burn that many bodies is absurd and there is no evidence of the amount needed being transported to the areas where the supposed mass killings happened
So is the denial just denial of any extermination, or just that the numbers have been inflated?

What would the reasoning be for inflating the numbers in the latter case?

Note, I'm not a jew, I don't give a fuck, its already been settled as far as im concerned but I'm more just curious about the arguments
 
So is the denial just denial of any extermination, or just that the numbers have been inflated?

What would the reasoning be for inflating the numbers in the latter case?

Note, I'm not a jew, I don't give a fuck, its already been settled as far as im concerned but I'm more just curious about the arguments
Beats me, I'm not in the habit of making someone else's argument for them. This is the first mention of thermo recently so you can ask him what he thinks
 
So is the denial just denial of any extermination, or just that the numbers have been inflated?
There's a few different kinds of denial (eg David Irving believes in the mainstream story except thinks Auschwitz was exaggerated) but the one practiced here is that the Nazis treated the Jews really well all things considered, giving them health care, access to coffee/brothels/arts and recreation, and letting them loiter around in resettlement camps in Russia without working. Where Jews were unjustifiably killed or mistreated the Nazi government cracked the fuck down, disciplining or even executing the perps. There were no extermination camps, no mass program of killing, and the Jews that were killed/executed with Government authorization were either partisans or actively aiding partisans, or through extremely fair and limited reprisals, aimed at deterring war crimes from the other side.
 
Last edited:
There's a few different kinds of denial (eg David Irving believes in the mainstream story except thinks Auschwitz was exaggerated) but the one practiced here is that the Nazis treated the Jews really well all things considered, giving them health care, access to coffee/brothels/arts and recreation, and letting them loiter around in resettlement camps in Russia without working. Where Jews were unjustifiably killed or mistreated the Nazi government cracked the fuck down, disciplining or even executing the perps. There were no extermination camps, no mass program of killing, and the Jews that were killed/executed with Government authorization were either partisans or actively aiding partisans, or through extremely fair and limited reprisals, aimed at deterring war crimes from the other side.
Well, I disagree. Hitlers goal was to prevent the birth of the Jewish messiah, and the burning was a mockery to the burnt offering practice, so he for sure targeted davidic jews...but 6million? I'm not so sure
 
And what does this mean for resettlement theory, which rests on no direct evidence whatsoever? You won't answer this question because you're intellectually lazy, angry, scared, etc

This rat kike motherfucker right here…you’re the one employing an AI to make your “arguments” for you and you’re calling others “intellectually lazy, angry, scared, etc.” ?

Lol. Lmao even.

Thanks for admitting you can't prove your assertion. The holocaust is a lie and you know it.

Checkmate.

Note, I'm not a jew, I don't give a fuck, its already been settled as far as im concerned but I'm more just curious about the arguments

There are many different counter-arguments ranging from full on “it never even happened” all the way to “giant swathes of what we have been told are entirely fabricated”. I personally fall into the latter camp, for which I’ll provide a synopsis later on since you’re showing genuine interest.

Just remember one thing: the “undeniable truth” that is the mainstream Holocaust narrative is so impregnable that we are having to have this conversation on KF.

Try even having a civil discourse on the topic and you will get nuked off of every single fucking platform known to man.

Really makes you wonder now doesn’t it ?
 
Well, I disagree. Hitlers goal was to prevent the birth of the Jewish messiah, and the burning was a mockery to the burnt offering practice, so he for sure targeted davidic jews...but 6million? I'm not so sure
I mean this "preventing the birth of the Jewish messiah" is another kind of revisionism I'm not familiar with. As for the numbers, estimates from historians range between 5 and 6 million. There isn't consensus here on an exact figures and the "6 million" is tbh a rounded up figure (most estimates are lower).

Based on what I've seen, 5 million is something of a minimum. The assumption here is German documents are correct and they weren't inflating kill counts. In all probability there were many deaths that weren't documented, but we can only speculate about how many.
This rat kike motherfucker right here…you’re the one employing an AI to make your “arguments” for you and you’re calling others “intellectually lazy, angry, scared, etc.” ?
What should be worrying to you is that you can't argue against it.

What you're “intellectually lazy, angry, scared" about is being objective and turning the same critical eye on the narratives you like.


Checkmate
Checkmate, the battle of Stalingrad never happened since we can't account for the fuel transports to the front
Try even having a civil discourse on the topic and you will get nuked off of every single fucking platform known to man.
This is wrong too, see prominent Holo deniers on Twitter like Jake Shields.
 
Last edited:
This rat kike motherfucker right here…you’re the one employing an AI to make your “arguments” for you and you’re calling others “intellectually lazy, angry, scared, etc.” ?

Lol. Lmao even.



Checkmate.



There are many different counter-arguments ranging from full on “it never even happened” all the way to “giant swathes of what we have been told are entirely fabricated”. I personally fall into the latter camp, for which I’ll provide a synopsis later on since you’re showing genuine interest.

Just remember one thing: the “undeniable truth” that is the mainstream Holocaust narrative is so impregnable that we are having to have this conversation on KF.

Try even having a civil discourse on the topic and you will get nuked off of every single fucking platform known to man.

Really makes you wonder now doesn’t it ?
Exactly why I'm interested. I've rejected all mainstream narratives

So I'm on the fence. On one hand, the pharisees lie. But on the other hitler was a satanist with anti god motivations and the holocaust was prophecied in the bible

So it's a matter of this THING happened, but to what degree is it accurate? How much is bullshit, how much truth or embellished
 
I mean this "preventing the birth of the Jewish messiah" is another kind of revisionism I'm not familiar with.
You're not supposed to be familiar with it. If it gets out that hitler was religiously and supernaturally motivated, that destroys their argument that God is a "myth" and that the powers that be are motivated by objective evil (demons, satan, antichristinity)

It is easier for the powers that be to paint hitlers motivation as being mad at jews for owning banks.

If hitler was anti god, and the modern governments of the world are anti god, they become linked

Everything has to adhere to "the science". They can't acknowledge Satan's role in this, because that would mean acknowledging God and affirming biblical prophecy

It's the same reason most other things in history are dismissed as "myths".
 
The reality is that your entire perspective is warped by your third-world mentality. Germany was terrifying - so terrifying that many in Europe are deathly afraid of war, because of how much of a nightmare Germany became. The exact same mentality which had brought the world to modernity - the European "magic science" which are the only reason why there are more than 80 million Muslims in the entire world - was turned into a weapon.
Who the fuck are you and why isnt your yapping jewish niggermouth not cutten of their bodies?
 
I never said millions of tons of coal were used, millions of tons coal equivalent , which could be gasoline, wood.

Historians still believe in mass events if there are gaps in the record. They don't believe in mass events if there is no record whatsoever. I didn't set those standards, sorry you don't like them.
All petrochemicals were rationed during the last years of the war, that also includes the hydrogen cyanide tablets supposedly used in obscene quantities to gas people. The fact you jumped back to repeating the lies uncovered by these logistics once again when you got thread stomped 100 pages ago says a lot.
 
All petrochemicals were rationed during the last years of the war, that also includes the hydrogen cyanide tablets supposedly used in obscene quantities to gas people. The fact you jumped back to repeating the lies uncovered by these logistics once again when you got thread stomped 100 pages ago says a lot.
I don't know what you mean by pretrochemicals being rationed, they were clearly used for logistics, military supply, in factories. I showed in previous posts the amount needed to destroy bodies would have been a minuscule portion of total production of petrol/coal, and the process was largely complete by early 1944 when the war really turned for Germany.

This notion of Zyklon being rationed (or being a petrochemical) as well is hilarious, it was widely used for delousing, and in much higher quantities than ever assumed for killing purposes.

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to convince yourself the mass killing of a group people you probably think deserved to be killed didn't happen.
 
All petrochemicals were rationed during the last years of the war, that also includes the hydrogen cyanide tablets supposedly used in obscene quantities to gas people. The fact you jumped back to repeating the lies uncovered by these logistics once again when you got thread stomped 100 pages ago says a lot.
When did hydrogen cyanide tablet become made of petroleum
 
Back
Top Bottom