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
1996? Why'd it take so long when they seemed much more confident immediately after the war? Got anything that isn't behind a subscription wall?

Looking at some other pages, the evidence was 25,000 microfilm pictures of documents? Okay, what's the chain of custody for that and again, why'd it take decades to forge produce?
 
1996? Why'd it take so long when they seemed much more confident immediately after the war? Got anything that isn't behind a subscription wall?

We could bypass the subscription wall with archived versions of that article.
 
I went down the rabbit hole of holocaust deniers a few years back. I think it’s ridiculous that talking about it is so taboo. I’m grateful there are still some corners of the Internet where we can discuss things like this freely.

IMO:
deniers can be put into two different groups: those who deny major facts about the holocaust and should be immediately laughed at and ignored and those who question certain details. I don’t think they should all be called “deniers”. Seems like a way to discredit anyone with questions. I will call these people “questioners”.

After reading through/watching a lot of denier/questioner content I believe there is few real arguments they have. Most points are theoretical (“why would the nazis do this when the world was watching”etc).

Things I don’t think detract from the narrative:
1. Liars: like people have mentioned up thread there will always be psychos who wish to be apart of something big even if it’s terrible (Tania Head 9/11). It doesn’t mean the event didn’t exist.
2. Starvation: questioners like to use this to say it wasn’t genocide and blame Allied forces for cutting off food chains. Evidence shows people were being severely underfed from the very beginning of the camps, not just in the end. I have no doubt that it affected camps towards the end of the war, but if the prisoners had not already been so emaciated more would have lived. Also, starvation is a method of war and genocide. (Serbs cut off supply to Bosnian towns to starve them out, this was the main way of British killing Indians)
3. “Football fields and orchestra” propaganda. This stuff was done for the pleasure of the Nazis. They saw it as a status symbol to have their own orchestra at their camp, making them look like superior camp managers trying to impress the higher ups. They were also used to show the Red Cross and anyone else who came knocking that life in the camps were just dandy and there was nothing to be concerned about.

Things I find questionable:
1. Gassing: the only point of contention I have. Should there have been pink or blue marks on the bodies? How long would they have to wait before opening it up and removing the bodies? Was there no smell? I find it hard to believe the “we thought we were going to take a shower” that persisted until the canisters dropped due to smell and marks on the wall from people trying to escape. I do think there had to be a quick way they killed off the elderly and children and I know they didn’t use bullets on each person. I’d like anyone’s feedback on this because this has always bothered me.

edit: Wanted to add that motive is the reason the word “genocide” is used. Gulags are a completely different story. No one was trying to remove a race from existence in Russia. Killing your own people is fucked up, but not genocide. Genocide has nothing to do with numbers.
 
Last edited:
There was a tweet from Seth Rogen mentionned in an article on the thread about Mel Gibson saying then Winona Ryder is an owen dodger.

Still one reply to Seth Rogen's tweet raised some eyebrows about the Holocaust.

It could be interesting to know what Winona Ryder think of the Holodomor and the Armenian Genocide.

On on a off-topic sidenote, we could wonder if some (((goyim))) do deliberately to get in trouble to have another Holocaust happening because they asked for a city to change its name?
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/06/24/jews-demand-st-louis-change-its-name/
 
How would not white-knighting for either side absolve Roosevelt and Chruchill (not to mention Hitler, Stalin and Tojo) of their fuck-ups?
Like I said in the post you quoted: by process of omission. The popular image of Churchill and Roosevelt in the western collective consciousness is still, I would say, largely positive (thanks, Hollywood) with few people having any idea that the two were, in reality, a pair of venal old fools who contrived completely unnecessary wars with Japan and Germany largely to flatter their own egomania.
 
Like I said in the post you quoted: by process of omission. The popular image of Churchill and Roosevelt in the western collective consciousness is still, I would say, largely positive (thanks, Hollywood) with few people having any idea that the two were, in reality, a pair of venal old fools who contrived completely unnecessary wars with Japan and Germany largely to flatter their own egomania.

Considering Germany and Japan were tossing every attempt at peace back at everyone's face (e.g. Hitler with Czechoslovakia) with little to no provocation, I wouldn't exactly call the war against them unnecessary.

Also, no mention of Roosevelt with the internment camps or Churchill's incompetence causing the Bengal Famine?
 
Like I said in the post you quoted: by process of omission. The popular image of Churchill and Roosevelt in the western collective consciousness is still, I would say, largely positive (thanks, Hollywood) with few people having any idea that the two were, in reality, a pair of venal old fools who contrived completely unnecessary wars with Japan and Germany largely to flatter their own egomania.
1. Germany captured Danzig and said they'd stop, then captured Poland and said they'd stop, then captured France and said they'd stop, then captured several other countries that Britain had mutual defense treaties with and said they'd stop.... why the actual fuck would anyone think Germany's promise to stop would be true the tenth time they heard it? Also, Churchill didn't start the war, that was Neville Chamberlain, on approval from Parliament. Churchill inherited a war and a Parliament that wanted to fight it; the PM is not a tyrant who can just ignore the will of the electorate.
2. Japan directly attacked a US Naval Base on US soil and made it very clear they intended to take all of the US's Pacific holdings as part of their Pan-Pacific Sphere, including Hawaii. I suppose you think that FDR should have just handed Japan all that territory with a smile?
 
2. Starvation: questioners like to use this to say it wasn’t genocide and blame Allied forces for cutting off food chains. Evidence shows people were being severely underfed from the very beginning of the camps, not just in the end. I have no doubt that it affected camps towards the end of the war, but if the prisoners had not already been so emaciated more would have lived. Also, starvation is a method of war and genocide. (Serbs cut off supply to Bosnian towns to starve them out, this was the main way of British killing Indians)

If you looks at Soviet POW camps and concentration camp victims, they look a lot alike, emaciated bodies. Same deal with Gulags, people were worked to death.

Things I find questionable:
1. Gassing: the only point of contention I have. Should there have been pink or blue marks on the bodies? How long would they have to wait before opening it up and removing the bodies? Was there no smell? I find it hard to believe the “we thought we were going to take a shower” that persisted until the canisters dropped due to smell and marks on the wall from people trying to escape. I do think there had to be a quick way they killed off the elderly and children and I know they didn’t use bullets on each person. I’d like anyone’s feedback on this because this has always bothered me.

Gassing was a thing. During the Soviet revolution they even had mobile gassing trucks, they used CO as agent though, must have been pretty damn slow. They were obviously not too widespread because bullet is so much faster, but they did exist in very small numbers and are documented enough beyond doubt. I doubt that their contribution was great, it's too much work, too much logistics.

I don't doubt that some Nazi braniac figured that it may be a way to dispose of people quickly, but I doubt it. Poisonous gases are pain in the ass to deal with and could be lethal to guards in very small dosages. What percentage of people was killed in gas chambers vs all other ways to die in camps ... I don't know, but I bet it's not big.

edit: Wanted to add that motive is the reason the word “genocide” is used. Gulags are a completely different story. No one was trying to remove a race from existence in Russia. Killing your own people is fucked up, but not genocide. Genocide has nothing to do with numbers.

Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group

There were specific ethnic groups targeted, like Crimean Tatars, West Ukrainians as in they were rounded up like cattle, all of them and sent East without other considerations, simply because of ethnicity. On a limited scale it happened to Balts and other people as in smaller towns everyone was removed for Russian re-settlers to take their place and form powerbase to support Moscow. It also happened in republics down south.

Religious groups were pretty much exterminated, but it kind of applied to how religious you were, i.e. "zealots" and priests were automatically GTG.

The definition does not cover "class" but it should, very often the elites had very defined and distinct bio profile and did not intermix with peasants, so on DNA level they were def a special ethnic group of sorts.
 
Starvation: questioners like to use this to say it wasn’t genocide and blame Allied forces for cutting off food chains.
This appears to have been the accepted view of the U.S. military prior to the emergence of the Holocaust mythology in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Former U.S. Army Intelligence officer John Beatty, whose wartime responsibility was preparing daily intelligence briefings for the U.S. government, explicitly described the malnourished condition of concentration camp inmates as an extension of the Germans' inability to feed themselves late in the war, thanks to sustained Allied air attacks on their supply lines.

Wanted to add that motive is the reason the word “genocide” is used. Gulags are a completely different story. No one was trying to remove a race from existence in Russia. Killing your own people is fucked up, but not genocide. Genocide has nothing to do with numbers.
This is the most dishonest sort of hair-splitting. The Bolsheviks wanted to exterminate every trace of organic culture from the face of the earth and replace it with the New Soviet Man, hence they made a special effort to exterminate anyone considered to be of a high enough mentality to provide resistance to the Communist program on an intellectual, spiritual or cultural level, including priests, doctors, scientists, university professors and military officers. To say that the results would not have amounted to a genocide by any reasonable definition is simply mendacious.

Considering Germany and Japan were tossing every attempt at peace back at everyone's face (e.g. Hitler with Czechoslovakia) with little to no provocation, I wouldn't exactly call the war against them unnecessary.
It was the other way around, actually. Germany and Japan made numerous attempts to negotiate with the U.S. and Britain prior to hostilities really getting ugly, but were repeatedly rebuffed.

Also, no mention of Roosevelt with the internment camps or Churchill's incompetence causing the Bengal Famine?
No. How many people outside of India have even heard of the latter?

Germany captured Danzig and said they'd stop, then captured Poland and said they'd stop, then captured France and said they'd stop, then captured several other countries that Britain had mutual defense treaties with and said they'd stop.... why the actual fuck would anyone think Germany's promise to stop would be true the tenth time they heard it?
More like why would Germany keep trying to negotiate with Britain, when the "perfidious Albion" label was so well-earned by things like violating Norwegian and French neutrality (the latter resulting in the loss of almost 2,000 French naval personnel), turning tail and running without warning during the Battle of France (leaving the French and Belgian forces to try and plug the gap left in their lines) or, as seen later in the war, turning over ostensible allies into Soviet custody despite assurances to the contrary.

Also, Churchill didn't start the war, that was Neville Chamberlain, on approval from Parliament. Churchill inherited a war and a Parliament that wanted to fight it; the PM is not a tyrant who can just ignore the will of the electorate.
Churchill may not have started it, but he very much wanted it. He had been constantly demanding hostilities against Germany for a long time before Chamberlain unwisely made it official.

Japan directly attacked a US Naval Base on US soil and made it very clear they intended to take all of the US's Pacific holdings as part of their Pan-Pacific Sphere, including Hawaii. I suppose you think that FDR should have just handed Japan all that territory with a smile?
FDR allowed the Japanese to attack a US Naval base on US soil to provide the pretext for war with Japan that he had been seeking for the past several years, all the while continually trying to provoke and drive to desperation the Japanese by cutting off their economy from needed raw material imports and refusing the consequent Japanese pleas for diplomatic meetings to try and address whatever the hell Roosevelt's problem was.
 
Once again, Germany with Czechoslovakia...
That's quite a delightful can of worms all of its own that I'm finding quite fascinating to study the various aspects of, such as the Slovaks allying with the Germans because they found them less odious than the Czechs, and the Czechs secretly trying to buy British intervention through Churchill and other British politicians.

not to mention Japan's invasions of China in the 1930s.
No one was going to war with Japan over China (except technically the Russians, and then only briefly).
 
This appears to have been the accepted view of the U.S. military prior to the emergence of the Holocaust mythology in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Former U.S. Army Intelligence officer John Beatty, whose wartime responsibility was preparing daily intelligence briefings for the U.S. government, explicitly described the malnourished condition of concentration camp inmates as an extension of the Germans' inability to feed themselves late in the war, thanks to sustained Allied air attacks on their supply lines.

This is the most dishonest sort of hair-splitting. The Bolsheviks wanted to exterminate every trace of organic culture from the face of the earth and replace it with the New Soviet Man, hence they made a special effort to exterminate anyone considered to be of a high enough mentality to provide resistance to the Communist program on an intellectual, spiritual or cultural level, including priests, doctors, scientists, university professors and military officers. To say that the results would not have amounted to a genocide by any reasonable definition is simply mendacious.

It was the other way around, actually. Germany and Japan made numerous attempts to negotiate with the U.S. and Britain prior to hostilities really getting ugly, but were repeatedly rebuffed.

No. How many people outside of India have even heard of the latter?

More like why would Germany keep trying to negotiate with Britain, when the "perfidious Albion" label was so well-earned by things like violating Norwegian and French neutrality (the latter resulting in the loss of almost 2,000 French naval personnel), turning tail and running without warning during the Battle of France (leaving the French and Belgian forces to try and plug the gap left in their lines) or, as seen later in the war, turning over ostensible allies into Soviet custody despite assurances to the contrary.

Churchill may not have started it, but he very much wanted it. He had been constantly demanding hostilities against Germany for a long time before Chamberlain unwisely made it official.

FDR allowed the Japanese to attack a US Naval base on US soil to provide the pretext for war with Japan that he had been seeking for the past several years, all the while continually trying to provoke and drive to desperation the Japanese by cutting off their economy from needed raw material imports and refusing the consequent Japanese pleas for diplomatic meetings to try and address whatever the hell Roosevelt's problem was.
Here, since you clearly want it:

1593109784367.png
 
If you looks at Soviet POW camps and concentration camp victims, they look a lot alike, emaciated bodies. Same deal with Gulags, people were worked to death.

Gassing was a thing. During the Soviet revolution they even had mobile gassing trucks, they used CO as agent though, must have been pretty damn slow. They were obviously not too widespread because bullet is so much faster, but they did exist in very small numbers and are documented enough beyond doubt. I doubt that their contribution was great, it's too much work, too much logistics.

I don't doubt that some Nazi braniac figured that it may be a way to dispose of people quickly, but I doubt it. Poisonous gases are pain in the ass to deal with and could be lethal to guards in very small dosages. What percentage of people was killed in gas chambers vs all other ways to die in camps ... I don't know, but I bet it's not big.





There were specific ethnic groups targeted, like Crimean Tatars, West Ukrainians as in they were rounded up like cattle, all of them and sent East without other considerations, simply because of ethnicity. On a limited scale it happened to Balts and other people as in smaller towns everyone was removed for Russian re-settlers to take their place and form powerbase to support Moscow. It also happened in republics down south.

Religious groups were pretty much exterminated, but it kind of applied to how religious you were, i.e. "zealots" and priests were automatically GTG.

The definition does not cover "class" but it should, very often the elites had very defined and distinct bio profile and did not intermix with peasants, so on DNA level they were def a special ethnic group of sorts.
I’m not very familiar with Russia’s history, I am more of a Holocaust buff. I do believe in the gas trucks. I have seen footage of it. The first time I’ve heard of it being used by the Nazis was with mentally ill/disabled people. They would bring the trucks right up to the sanitarium doors and put them in the trucks. I do believe they were trying to save the doctors and nurses the heartbreak of killing them to an extent and maybe not scare them too much but that may be giving them too much credit.

I also thought that most died by means other than gassing but the general consensus is that at camps many elderly, women and young children were killed off immediately. How then we’re they killed?

Burning the bodies in crematoriums took a lot longer than had been infected in readings/docus. Seems like an inefficient way to do things unless they cared about destroying evidence more than anything. This would also explain why they found so many bodies at the end. They ran out of time to cremate them. (Or they were at camps that didn’t have crematoriums)

This appears to have been the accepted view of the U.S. military prior to the emergence of the Holocaust mythology in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Former U.S. Army Intelligence officer John Beatty, whose wartime responsibility was preparing daily intelligence briefings for the U.S. government, explicitly described the malnourished condition of concentration camp inmates as an extension of the Germans' inability to feed themselves late in the war, thanks to sustained Allied attack

I don’t think one person making a statement means the whole army believed this to be true. Besides, they did not have the immediate satisfaction of taking photos and sharing documents with each other like we do now. If one guy says “I think we caused this” then went back to America where thousands of documents And photos had been put together Showing a clearer timeline they can change their mind.

Just because one person said something one time does not change the countless amounts of evidence supporting the contrary.

I will retract my statement on gulags. I don’t know enough on the topic to comment. If you meant the Holdomor I absolutely believe it was genocide. I don’t think gulags were built for the purpose of genocide only.
 
Things I find questionable:
1. Gassing: the only point of contention I have. Should there have been pink or blue marks on the bodies? How long would they have to wait before opening it up and removing the bodies? Was there no smell? I find it hard to believe the “we thought we were going to take a shower” that persisted until the canisters dropped due to smell and marks on the wall from people trying to escape. I do think there had to be a quick way they killed off the elderly and children and I know they didn’t use bullets on each person. I’d like anyone’s feedback on this because this has always bothered me.

Guy from middle Europe here who has access to primary sources and plenty of survivor interviews in their native language (as well as having attended various lectures given by one of 'em when he was still alive in my area).

The use of gas chambers, while not uncommon, is sometimes exaggerated in American media, particularly concerning the Dachau camp. One of the major misconceptions pertains to which gas was used - Zyklon B is well known, but to my knowledge not the most commonly used overall (see below). A lot of gas chambers simply used carbon monoxide, exhaust fumes, meaning it was the closed off nature that was fatal in combination with the gas. The moment you opened the doors and waited a few minutes, you could go inside again no problem and carbon monoxide doesn't stay in a room for a long time (imagine running your car in the garage for an hour and then opening the garage door). In fact, before camps, they made gas-cars. Basically large trucks you could close somewhat airtight and then fill with exhaust fumes to kill prisoners on the go.

The Auschwitz concentration/extermination camp was an extreme case and did utilize Zyklon B. Now Zyklon B is based on Hydrogen Cyanide, which is a gas that dissipates quite quickly, so again, you could just open the doors. It is also used extensively (and was originally developed partially) to kill bugs, including lice, so it was in fact used for decontamination - even most of the stuff that was shipped to extermination camps served this purpose primarily. But because Auschwitz genuinely industrialized killing, it actually had large scale ventilators installed for the underground chambers to ventilate them even faster. Auschwitz had the capacity to gas nearly 9000 people at the same time. It had 7 buildings, some of them originally barns, solely dedicated to this.

Every extermination camp certainly had the rumors and for some perhaps, the knowledge, that the "showers" were actually gas chambers. Note also that most people that were in a concentration camp equipped with a gas chamber that was actually regularly in use, wouldn't be there long, for obvious reasons. Meaning there isn't all that much time to wisen up and for word to get around and honestly, no matter what you've suffered through - the idea that someone would actually build a gas chamber for the sake of industrialized killing is - at that time, still insane and far fetched. People were herded, forced inside and at first, most likely relieved - because the rooms were built to look like showers and people will cling to any sort of hope. You're not clawing much or leaving a ton of marks on concrete walls when you're in a room with dozens of people.

Usually there'd be a pipe either above or below to allow gas to enter and only after the first 1-2 minutes of nothing happening would some people panic. Even if someone can detect the smell, which is unlikely because the majority of people cannot detect Zyklon B, it's odorless to almost everyone - you are in a crowd of people that have no access to sanitation. It takes some time for the smell to become apparent enough to the few that can even detect it and at that point, the doors are closed and locked tight and you are probably already out cold, since it is lethal in small amounts (a single pound could kill about a hundred people)

I visited one of the concentration camp gas chambers and they are absolutely built like large scale prison showers. It is genuinely stomach churning when you actually see how banal it looks and then realize there was never any water hooked up.
 
Last edited:
The New York Times said:
The Red Cross has long acknowledged its awareness of the treatment of Jews during World War II, maintaining that if it had disclosed what it knew, it would have lost its ability to inspect prisoner of war camps on both sides of the front.
But they never had access to allied camps with german prisoners, so that's a lie.
The New York Times said:
No one at the museum has had an opportunity to study the material
How shocking. When does anyone ever get to study the evidence?

So all they have are thousands of pictures of typed or written documents that nobody has tried to or likely could prove ever existed. They could have been made that year with sufficient methods to make them appear old, and even some of the best methods of dating might fail to determine their legitimacy. This evidence is completely worthless.
 
1996? Why'd it take so long when they seemed much more confident immediately after the war? Got anything that isn't behind a subscription wall?

Looking at some other pages, the evidence was 25,000 microfilm pictures of documents? Okay, what's the chain of custody for that and again, why'd it take decades to forge produce?


No idea I havnt really looked into it and they might have already, I can also think of a few plausable reasons off the top of my head but I really don't need to as nothing about what you said really negates the statement at all, also it isnt behind paywall. Unless the US charges while the UK doesnt, which is plausable but somebody already sent an archived link.

That's just speculation.

If you're just going to rationalize why a direct example which specifically shows what you wanted doesnt count, you could save us both a certain degree of time by not asking and I can just go back to just browsing amusing pages about furfags.
 
Last edited:
If you're just going to rationalize why a direct example which specifically shows what you wanted doesnt count, you could save us both a certain degree of time by not asking and I can just go back to just browsing amusing pages about furfags.
I meant no offense to you and I appreciate your efforts. Just that this supposed evidence is weak as hell and would likely be laughed out of court in any other matter. Chain of custody matters, as does being able to determine the legitimacy of documents.
 
I meant no offense to you and I appreciate your efforts. Just that this supposed evidence is weak as hell and would likely be laughed out of court in any other matter. Chain of custody matters, as does being able to determine the legitimacy of documents.
Historical matters are not held to the same scrutiny as a court of law. If that were the case, you would be incapable of proving any historical event happened to satisfaction.
 
I'm not interested in the debate but did anybody know that the incel Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger's grandfather was one of the first and most prolific to photograph the death camps upon the camps being freed?

George Rodger.

oo-ee-oo
 
Back
Top Bottom