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

[mrolonzo]

I have not researched this question personally, but Richard Evans states that the Wehrmacht was not prosecuted for rape on the Eastern Front, only "racial shame." The German dehumanization of Russians thus reached the point where raping Russian women was said to be impossible.

The situation in the West was different, where if a German soldier was (for example) caught raping French women, he was punished by court-martial. But if Evans is correct, German soldiers were only given a slap on the wrist for raping Russian women, which partially explains why there was so much sexual violence directed at the latter by the former. (We all hear about the Red Army's sexual violence against German women, but for some reason not so much about the Wehrmacht's sexual violence against Slavic women.)

Numerous women who wound up in Wehrmacht brothels said after the war they had been kidnapped and forceably brought there in a similar manner to Japanese comfort women. All of the accounts I have read of this were from Slavic gentile women from Eastern Europe. For a variety of reasons (Nazi racial theory about the Slavic sub-human, greater respect for Western civilization than Eastern Europe, etc) the Wehrmacht behaved considerably less savage in the West than the East.

But regardless we know the Wehrmacht engaged in child-sex trafficking because they procured 15-year olds for their brothels. 15 year olds are not old enough to consent to prostitution. That is Jeffrey Epstein stuff at a systematic level.

Re - Dalton, I have a couple quibbles with his translations. But in general they are basically accurate. Which makes his benign interpretations of Goebbels' numerous genocidal pronouncements completely hilarious.

Do you actually think you are going to persuade non-biased people with this stuff, zo? I mean Dalton says that the passage where Goebbels says that 'in Germany, we have killed these Jews like rats' as non-murderous because



He also interprets "liquidate" in a non-murderous sense despite the fact that it of course means murder as applied to human beings, and the Nazis used it for murder in various other contexts, including a documentary produced by Goebbels which accused the Russians of "liquidiating" the Poles at Katyn.

I mean seriously dude, do you think this is the product of honest linguistic reasoning rather than bias?

Are you willing to quote Dalton here?

No biggie if you'd rather not.

By the way. Why do you merely quibble with Dalton?

Surely from your stance , you need to be refuting and destroying his position outright. Do you feel yourself able to make that case?

On the Western Front, brothels may well have been presented as an "anti-rape measure." But on the Eastern Front they were introduced to prevent German soldiers from having children with the Slavic "Untermenschen." (Condoms were required in the brothels and women underwent forced abortions.)

The Nazis were not "pro-white" bro. Ask a Pole or Russian. They committed genocide against Slavic "subhumans," and you are being anachronistic and silly in claiming them as muh ancestors, given that you are a Burger with 7 ethnicities (probably a couple of which are slavic).

Oh stop this silliness. We've been through this before. This hyperbole doesn't do you any favors.

 

[mgc]

So you deny that the Nazis ethnically cleansed, murdered, or enslaved millions of non-Jewish Poles and Russians? You deny that they razed cities, and planned to raze more (Leningrad and Stalingrad)?

And I am supposed to believe that your denial of these crimes is rooted in your reading of history, and not your weird emotional need you have to idolize the Nazis?

Why don't you just be Zo the American guy? You do not need to be Zo the neo-nazi.

 

[Certified_Autist]

This thread was over as soon as Chugger and History Speaks could not disprove John Doe's logistics and crematorium arguments.

So you deny that the Nazis ethnically cleansed, murdered, or enslaved millions of non-Jewish Poles and Russians? You deny that they razed cities, and planned to raze more (Leningrad and Stalingrad).

Nigga this has nothing to do with the Holocaust and now its just getting into "war". Its a war, people get killed and captured during wars. Millions of Germans were killed and captured too, and English and Italians, and French, etc, but you're ignoring that to talk about Poles and Russians because its convenient for you to misrepresent war deaths in certain areas. And lots of cities get purposely razed during wars. Yes this literally is a "both sides did it" thing. Exeter, Berlin, Leningrad, Hamburg London Dresden, Warsaw, Cologne, Stalingrad, Coventry, etc . Name a major city in Europe and regardless of who owned it or attacked it, it was probably razed or took significant damage during the war.

They just keep changing the subject every time they encounter a point they can't refute, and now its gotten to the point they're saying "muh Natzhees were anti-white" since they went to war with other white countries. This is simply a straight up diversion since it has nothing to do with the Holocaust. (especially the part they insist on defending about 6 million Jews being gassed with delousing gas and all the bodies vanishing)

 

[mgc]

Oh yes, the "law of thermodynamics" guy who friggin loves science.

My god you deniers are stupid. Lost causes I hate to say.

For the last time, fuel is not energy, but a source of energy. Heat is another one. And thus (contrary to John Doe's stupid assumptions about a fixed minimum amount of fuel needed to cremate bodies) cremation methods that retain more heat are going to require less fuel.

 

[mrolonzo]

Oh yes, the "law of thermodynamics" guy who friggin loves science.

My god you deniers are stupid. Lost causes I hate to say.

For the last time, fuel is not energy, but a source of energy. Heat is another one. And thus (contrary to John Doe's stupid assumptions about a fixed minimum amount of fuel needed to cremate bodies) cremation methods that retain more heat are going to require less fuel.

Vague blather. No one gives a shit.

 

[Certified_Autist]

Oh yes, the "law of thermodynamics" guy who friggin loves science.

My god you deniers are stupid. Lost causes I hate to say.

And there you go again dropping half your previous arguments without acknowledging the counter-points I brought up in my previous comment.

For the last time, fuel is not energy, but a source of energy. Heat is another one. And thus (contrary to John Doe's stupid assumptions about a fixed minimum amount of fuel needed to cremate bodies) cremation methods that retain more heat are going to require less fuel.

And there is no such thing as a 100% efficient furnace, so all burning methods will not retain 100% of heat, meaning you need to coninuously add fuel, and the fuel that would be required was far in excess of what was actually used. You and John went through this like 20 pages ago lol.

 

[mgc]

and the fuel that would be required was far in excess of what was actually used.

No, you cannot know this, because the Topf method (burning multiple bodies at once, running the cremas all day, etc) was 1) far more fuel efficient than mainstream commercial cremation methods, and 2) because "minimum needed fuel" (unlike minimum needed energy) is not a thing in a global sense, but depends instead on specific circumstances, i.e. cremation methods.

The next part in the conversation involves you straw-manning me as saying burning 3 bodies at once takes less fuel than burning one body alone (I am not saying this, but instead saying, given the proper dimensions in the crema, it takes less fuel to burn 3 at once than burning 3 bodies individually in three sessions ).

But I am not doing this conversation again. You all have the wits of geese and did not prove your "friggin love science" argument to anyone but fellow C-student denier cultists.

 

[Bonesjones]

Oh yes, the "law of thermodynamics" guy who friggin loves science.

My god you deniers are stupid. Lost causes I hate to say.

For the last time, fuel is not energy, but a source of energy. Heat is another one. And thus (contrary to John Doe's stupid assumptions about a fixed minimum amount of fuel needed to cremate bodies) cremation methods that retain more heat are going to require less fuel.

Here's an experiment even you can do. Boil some water. Remove it from source of heat. Now add something cold to the water. See how the temperature goes down? Now wait 5 minutes, see how the temperature still goes down?

Now imagine it's a brick oven. Cremation works the exact same way.

This is your explanation on how you are dumber than a 5th grader.

 

[Certified_Autist]

No, you cannot know this, because the Topf method (burning multiple bodies at once, running the cremas all day, etc) was 1) far more fuel efficient than mainstream commercial cremation methods, and 2) because "minimum needed fuel" (unlike minimum needed energy) is not a thing in a global sense, but depends instead on specific circumstances, i.e. cremation methods

The next part in the conversation involves you straw-manning me as saying burning 3 bodies at once takes less fuel than burning one body alone (I am not saying this, but instead saying, given the proper dimensions in the crema, it takes less fuel to burn 3 at once than burning 3 bodies individually in three sessions ).

You and @JohnDoe went through this, and surprise burning bodies still requires fuel even if you burn several at once, and assume that they were all burned in super-efficient crematoriums (and not in open burn pits like many Holocaust memoirs claim), the amount of fuel that would be required was still far in excess of what was actually provably used.

But I am not doing this converation again. You all have the wits of geese and did not prove your "friggin love science" argument to anyone but fellow C-student denier cultists.

Even funnier coming from you, calling us C- students while you have no understanding of thermodymanics or mathematics. And calling us "cultists" when you believe things even after being shown evidence they are mathematically and logistically impossible.

And I am supposed to believe that your denial of these crimes is rooted in your reading of history, and not your weird emotional need you have to idolize the Nazis?

Am I supposed to believe that your claims these crimes occured is rooted in your reading of history, and not your weird emotional need you have to demonize the Nazis?

Every single Ad hominem argument you make is blatant projection, maybe stay away from those since its kinda a bad look for you.

 

[Chugger]

Therefore we can relax and have a more convivial discussion as I don't demand much of you either.

6. I have a question, what drives you in your quest against us?

All right

A lot of reasons, some of which are noble, and some of which are less noble. The noble reasons you probably won't believe, so I'll spare you, but the least noble reason is that I take pleasure in crushing people, even if they're only dimly aware they're being crushed.

Believe it or not I don't see revisionism as a threat to orthodox history, so that's not why I'm here. A historical theory backed by shitty or non-existent evidence has no chance of gaining traction . Literally no history in the history of the world has been accepted in this way.

This thread was over as soon as Chugger and History Speaks could not disprove John Doe's logistics and crematorium arguments.

Actually @JohnDoe made no argument. I asked him directly and he did not reply.

 

[Bonesjones]

A historical theory backed by shitty or non-existent evidence has no chance of gaining traction . Literally no history in the history of the world has been accepted in this way.

That you know of. Hey look its your own ideological blinders showing again. Someone never told me this so it can't be true!

Actually @JohnDoe made no argument. I asked him directly and he did not reply.

If you don't understand how a lack of logistical support for your own theory is its deathnell, no one can convince you of anything because your ideas are not based on factual reality, they aren't even based in possibility. It's the equivalent of saying Hitler used his laser eye beams to cremate jews.

Here's a retard analogy for you, so even you can understand it: if you claim you can drive a car 1000 miles, and we know your car gets 20 miles to the gallon, unless you can prove you have 50 gallons of gas or the ability to purchase 50 gallons of gas. We dont even need to worry about if you'll get there or not. Since step 1 is having the ability.

 

[Certified_Autist]

Actually @JohnDoe made no argument. I asked him directly and he did not reply.

He made plenty of arguments, you're once again being deliberately misleading. This is the question you asked

Thank you sir

So let's assume the fuel requirements are actually really high, as high as with civilian crematoria which can't burn multiple bodies together and are generally heated up from room temperature before each use

But why do you think this is a problem for the holocaust narrative? I want you to walk me through your reasoning here.

The answer is obvious, the Holocaust narrative claims the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and disposed of the bodies. If the claimed method by which they disposed the bodies is proven to be impossible, then that calls into question the accuracy of the Holocaust narrative.

You're a lot of things, but you're clearly not stupid so don't play stupid. You are capable of grasping that argument.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

• posts on doxing website
• introduces himself with all three names and his brand name
• introduces himself as a grad student here to argue the Holocaust with bigots (just the white ones though)
• gets robust debate
• calls people stalkers for responding
• calls people stalkers for posting / responding to information he posted himself

How to win at KiwiFarms. No wonder you're an "academic"; you're too dumb and lazy for anything else.

The discussion thread is gone, but Cockerill's interest in the Holocaust is commercial. He's here to promote his brand.

Spoiler: receipts

Honestly I’d be more than happy to take the l on some relatively meaningless thing like grammar. The trouble is I’m right lol.

By the way I am going to be debating Jim Rizoli in my channel next Sunday, 1 pm est. you are all welcome to comment or ask questions in chat so long as you don’t violate tos (from what I understand from YT, I can entertain denial arguments because I am debunking them, but you will have to stick to arguments about the Holocaust, not Jew theories or racial slurs).

You will have to watch my debate with Jim rizoli this Sunday, as I know you will, to analyze the changes in my mic, physiogamy, and breathing patterns. Everyone here is welcome to call in if you abide by YT tos.

By the way, to the guy who posted a picture of me - at least I show my face. Being overweight is a bad but changeable thing (usually rooted in addiction, like smoking or gambling). cowardice is much less malleable.

First, why would I not plug myself? It shows I am selfish, yes, but so is everybody, including even you, I daresay. Moreover, my self promotion here is working, given the massive amount of engagement I am getting from all of you.

You could argue that it is tasteless for me to promote my channel, and you would be quite right. But we are on kiwifarms, where tastelessness is a virtue if anything.

Regarding your second point, I will admit that there is a thin line between cowardice and prudence. But there is still something foundationally lame about being an anon, and the better anons recognize this.

I was being sarcastic because it is obviously my mom, and you could figure it out for yourself. Like almost everybody I get my surname from my father, although I frequently go by my full name (Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill) in highly formal contexts (not kiwi farms lol).

It is rather douchey to do so, but it the identity with which I was raised.

My god I leave here for a few hours and the thread completely dies.

The idea that most of you will not hate watch me is laughable.

As of tomorrow my vacation is over. I am sure I will still post here, but you guys are going to have to sustain this thread without me for the most part.

I do not consider this to be a risky road, but I certainly plan on engaging you--and with much bigger audiences than today--so we will see!

Perhaps of interest - David Irving (appears to) completely repudiate Holocaust denial, including acknowledging exterminations ot Auschwitz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyav1uh0KqA

By the way my debate with Jim Rizoli is online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRpWoY8IRdw

Dude, I am a PhD student in history. I know it is douchey to say this, but I am sorry I know a lot about how the world was in the past.

 

[Chugger]

Here's a retard analogy for you, so even you can understand it: if you claim you can drive a car 1000 miles, and we know your car gets 20 miles to the gallon, unless you can prove you have 50 gallons of gas or the ability to purchase 50 gallons of gas. We dont even need to worry about if you'll get there or not. Since step 1 is having the ability.

Ok step 1, I showed this.

Based on a figure provided to me by a denier, I calculated that destroying these bodies just with oil would consume a negligible amount (a fraction of 1%) of their yearly production. And of course they could supplement with other more readily available sources like wood and coal.

So they had the capacity to do it, even if I made a gross underestimate. What's step 2?

The answer is obvious, the Holocaust narrative claims the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and disposed of the bodies. If the claimed method by which they disposed the bodies is proven to be impossible, then that calls into question the accuracy of the Holocaust narrative.

Yes but why is the claimed method impossible?

If the claim was all the bodies at Auschwitz were burned indoors you might have a point, but that was never the claim.

 

[Bonesjones]

Ok step 1, I showed this.

Based the figure provided to me by a denier, I calculated that destroying these bodies just with oil would consume a negligible amount (a fraction of 1%) of their yearly production. And of course they could supplement with other more readily available sources like wood and coal.

So they had the capacity to do it, even if I made a gross underestimate. What's step 2?

No you didn't. You suggest that they could have used oil. 1% of millions of barrels isn't a small amount you fucking idiot. That is hundreds if not thousands of trains full of tanker cars. Proving again you don't even know your own arguments beyond trying to find the slightest bit of info so you can handwave the rest away.

You don’t have a rebuttle, you barely have the formation of an arguement. Saying they could have done this just shows how poorly thought out and evidenced your entire narrative is. You do not live in reality you schizo freak.

Yes but why is the claimed method impossible?

If the claim was all the bodies at Auschwitz were burned indoors you might have a point, but that was never the claim.

Because you can't start a fire by rubbing two coins together, idiot. There are laws of physics that cannot be broken. If you cannot make your theory work within these laws its not a theory it's the mind games of a child, which you are. You imbecile, you moron, you fucking nigger retard.

 

[mrolonzo]

All right

A lot of reasons, some of which are noble, and some of which are less noble. The noble reasons you probably won't believe, so I'll spare you, but the least noble reason is that I take pleasure in crushing people, even if they're only dimly aware they're being crushed.

Believe it or not I don't see revisionism as a threat to orthodox history, so that's not why I'm here. A historical theory backed by shitty or non-existent evidence has no chance of gaining traction . Literally no history in the history of the world has been accepted in this way.


Actually @JohnDoe made no argument. I asked him directly and he did not reply.

Ok lemme guess.

Noble reasons;
1. Fix those mentally ill nazis and right wingers
2. Prevent pro white terrorism thereby
3. Contribution to small increase in general world happiness

Ignoble;
1. Crushing those stupid nazis and right wingers
-----

In the end, the reason revisionists do the work in the way they do is for posterity.

Years from now, there'll be alot more people reading it. The result will be clear.
This will be coupled with the eventual examination of the areas like Treblinka et al. And the holocaust museum.

Thus, in our view , like gravity we've already won. The holocaust has to be propagated. It cannot be defended.

 

[Chugger]

You imbecile, you moron, you fucking nigger retard.

hold on Bones, as Certified_Autist said , I'm clearly not stupid so there's something else happening in this convo. I'm either lying or have made a horrendous mistake, or you have made a horrendous mistake, but we both know I'm not stupid.

You don't seem like a normal person at this point, so I am inclined not to continue

In the end, the reason revisionists do the work in the way they do is for posterity.

Years from now, there'll be alot more people reading it. The result will be clear.

Just make sure to never publish a list of your best evidence

 

[mrolonzo]

hold on Bones, as Certified_Autist said , I'm clearly not stupid so there's something else happening in this convo. I'm either lying or have made a horrendous mistake, or you have made a horrendous mistake, but we both know I'm not stupid.

You don't seem like a normal person at this point, so I am inclined not to continue


Just make sure to never publish a list of your best evidence

Apparently they think you're very very stupid. This began when you guys started telling them about science.

Everything we publish defeats you. Even my little bit. You had no answer so you wanted to "reframe" it and get us running around making lists for you. Pathetic.

 

[Chugger]

Everything we publish defeats you. Even my little bit.

Great so I'm gonna give the list your official seal of approval. Stronger than the evidence for the Holocaust, gotcha

 

[mrolonzo]

Great so I'm gonna give the list your official seal of approval. Stronger than the evidence for the Holocaust, gotcha

Good lord no.

That's only the rules and regulations.

We haven't even discussed the Auschwitz stuff. Which is why I asked you if you'd got the book yet.