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

[BEz939]

I'm sorry, but you're just a religious person at this point. Let me use my atheism priors to ask the same questions I would a religious person. How is the holocaust falsifiable at this point? How do you disprove it? And if there is no way to do so, then at the very least be honest and call it faith, or as Robert Jan Van Pelt would call it "inherited knowledge"

What makes you think they'll find a lot of ash at Treblinka? They've excavated other camps like Sobibór and revisionists are still waiting for video or pictures of massive amount of ash or bodies.

Oh really, what evidence is it that you choose to believe in then? Provide some examples. And don't be vague and say 'testimonies', say which testimony in particular. You don't believe in the evidence. You believe in authorities. Authorities told you that this is the truth and traumatized you as a kid by telling you horror stories.

Unsure about your first argument, because you believe the Holocaust is fasifiable and not provable, not I. Your second argument makes a decent amount of sense, but I’m not a big fan of specifics.

Even if they found the ash under there, you’d still hate the Jews. And if they didn’t find ash there I’d still be ambivalent on the Jews.

 

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

Unsure about your first argument, because you believe the Holocaust is fasifiable and not provable, not I. Your second argument makes a decent amount of sense, but I’m not a big fan of specifics.

Even if they found the ash under there, you’d still hate the Jews. And if they didn’t find ash there I’d still be ambivalent on the Jews.

No, I specifically think your belief in the holocaust is NOT falsifiable. Don't even try to claim that I don't think it's provable. I specifically said it was EASYLY provable, they just haven't provided ANY evidence

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Is there a point where Treblinka is disproved? Your hypothesis is that 900k to 1 million Jews were gassed with diesel exhaust at Treblinka. For this to have credence it must be disprovable, so how is it disprovable?
You don't want to give specifics because you don't have any. Like I said, you don't believe in evidence you believe it because someone sat you down to watch Schindler's List. You have the burden of proof, not me.

My hatred for Jews or lack there of is irrelevant. You're just calling me a sinner as the Christians would do, Suppressive person as the scientologists would, or a biggot as liberals would do in an attempt to steer away from the actual discussion. You believe that anyone who disagrees with the narrative is a bad person and you can therefore ignore what they have to say. If you're not going to argue the point then this is meaningless. Earlier you said "Pretty poor and pathetic attempts at arguments have been made many times on either sides," but thus far you're the only one who refuses to argue the point

 

[BEz939]

No, I specifically think your belief in the holocaust is NOT falsifiable. Don't even try to claim that I don't think it's provable. I specifically said it was EASYLY provable, they just haven't provided ANY evidence

Is there a point where Treblinka is disproved? Your hypothesis is that 900k to 1 million Jews were gassed with diesel exhaust at Treblinka. For this to have credence it must be disprovable, so how is it disprovable?
You don't want to give specifics because you don't have any. Like I said, you don't believe in evidence you believe it because someone sat you down to watch Schindler's List. You have the burden of proof, not me.

My hatred for Jews or lack there of is irrelevant. You're just calling me a sinner as the Christians would do, Suppressive person as the scientologists would, or a biggot as liberals would do in an attempt to steer away from the actual discussion. You believe that anyone who disagrees with the narrative is a bad person and you can therefore ignore what they have to say. If you're not going to argue the point then this is meaningless. Earlier you said "Pretty poor and pathetic attempts at arguments have been made many times on either sides," but thus far you're the only one who refuses to argue the point

Because there is no point in arguing over the holocaust. I don’t know if 900,000 people died due to Carbon Monoxide in gas chambers. I wasn’t there when the camp still existed. there aren’t many photographs of the camps. I’m more interested in the philosophy behind caring about this specific event.

 

[Kill a Troon for Pikamee]

The important question about the holocaust that nobody asks is not IF the holocaust happened but HOW to make the holocaust happen

 

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

Because there is no point in arguing over the holocaust. I don’t know if 900,000 people died due to Carbon Monoxide in gas chambers. I wasn’t there when the camp still existed.

Even if you can't know 100% you can follow the evidence and get a pretty good idea. I gave you the information you need to debunk it, remember? Or do you disagree with my sources? When Griffin 2008 finds:

An extensive literature review produced no scientifically reported cases of fatal CO poisoning attributed to diesel fuel exhaust . . . Lethal CO poisoning from inhalation of diesel fumes from any make or model of on‐road vehicle is virtually unheard of and contemporary medical literature does not report it.

Is this wrong? Are you choosing not to believe it like you said earlier? If so, why? When Hartenstein 1895 says earliest diesel engine exhaust contains 0.1% CO and the CDC says that level of CO is not lethal do you disagree? Do you once again CHOOSE (your word, not mine) not to believe the evidence or do you have a legitimate reason to disbelieve either source? Why use a gas known for its non-toxicity? They used diesel engines in sub-marines and mines specifically because it was less toxic that gasoline. And you can't even tell me if your belief CAN be disproved, which makes it religious by default.

Do you ask Jews why they care? They are the ones who are making like 5 movies a year about it. They still use it to justify their own war crimes and annexation

When the ICC investigates Israel for fake war crimes – this is pure antisemitism. The court established to prevent atrocities like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people is now targeting the one state of the Jewish people

It was also used as war propaganda against Iraq

Leaders of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies charged that German firms designed and built gas chambers, much like those used to kill millions in Nazi-era concentration camps, for Saddam Hussein’s regime.

We hear similar charges against every other enemy of Israel and the US. The Syrians were allegedly gassing civilians too, remember? Sounds familiar, huh? The holocaust is still the basis for Israeli terror.

They are also still milking it to take people's money. Just last year Germany had to give another 662 million USD, despite having economic troubles of their own and that's only the most recent pay out. Don't sit here and pretend like this horrible blood libel against the German people, that is used to justify war, annexation and breaking of international law, is somehow irrelevant. If it was, you wouldn't be sitting here coping endlessly. Do you go to other topics of revisionisms and ask "what's the point of this?" I'm guessing not. If it's irrelevant then why is it illegal? Why do Jews set the houses of revisionists on fire?

 

[BEz939]

Even if you can't know 100% you can follow the evidence and get a pretty good idea. I gave you the information you need to debunk it, remember? Or do you disagree with my sources? When Griffin 2008 finds:

Is this wrong? Are you choosing not to believe it like you said earlier? If so, why? When Hartenstein 1895 says earliest diesel engine exhaust contains 0.1% CO and the CDC says that level of CO is not lethal do you disagree? Do you once again CHOOSE (your word, not mine) not to believe the evidence or do you have a legitimate reason to disbelieve either source? Why use a gas known for its non-toxicity? They used diesel engines in sub-marines and mines specifically because it was less toxic that gasoline. And you can't even tell me if your belief CAN be disproved, which makes it religious by default.

Do you ask Jews why they care? They are the ones who are making like 5 movies a year about it. They still use it to justify their own war crimes and annexation

It was also used as war propaganda against Iraq

We hear similar charges against every other enemy of Israel and the US. The Syrians were allegedly gassing civilians too, remember? Sounds familiar, huh? The holocaust is still the basis for Israeli terror.

They are also still milking it to take people's money. Just last year Germany had to give another 662 million USD, despite having economic troubles of their own and that's only the most recent pay out. Don't sit here and pretend like this horrible blood libel against the German people, that is used to justify war, annexation and breaking of international law, is somehow irrelevant. If it was, you wouldn't be sitting here coping endlessly. Do you go to other topics of revisionisms and ask "what's the point of this?" I'm guessing not. If it's irrelevant then why is it illegal? Why do Jews set the houses of revisionists on fire?

I want to start with the bottom up and tell you that I do support revisionism of all topics. You seem to be looking for a debate about the specifics on Treblinka, something I didn’t intend for. But if you want to discuss Treblinka, I certainly can discuss Treblinka. Before I get into sources, I want to point out that you’re using figures for a 1895 Diesel engine. I understand you admit it’s an estimate, but it’s logical to presume that Diesel engines changed over nearly 50 years. The people with the narrative specified Diesel Engines. If it’s known pretty widely that Diesel engines don’t kill people like that, why would they chose to go with Diesel engines and not, say, gasoline engines? It’s not like they have to conform with the camp’s physical dimensions, the place was demolished when they had arrived. Also, your article’s abstract does mention that is is possible to die from diesel CO under the right conditions. But moving away from your article, it’s important to remember that back in the 80’s, Friedrich Berg of the IHR wrote an essay about how it was impossible to kill with the diesel fumes. That’s true, if you’re running the engines the way that they were meant to be used in trucks. However, you can modify Diesel engines. By tweaking with the Fuel Pump to get more fuel in, you can get the exhaust to Lethal Levels.

As for the second part, yes. Jews need to get over the holocaust. Israel needs to stop using events of 70 years prior to justify slaughtering people. Jews in Hollywood need to stop making exploitation and trauma porn movies about the holocaust. They need to stop extorting Germans of money. I’m willing to hold any jew on this thread accountable if necessary. Alert me if any pop up.

my belief certainly can be disproved. I just need someone to do it.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I do want it on record that David Cole is no longer a Holocaust denier, if he ever was one in the truest sense of the word

Why was he called one in the first place?

The brush we paint people denier with is too broad and it's there to stop investigation (much like covid narrative these days).

As a matter of fact, David Cole confronted Ron Unz about an article published on unz.com on Holocaust denial.

I can't believe it took me this long to follow that link and the real reason I reply. That is a wonderful internet slapfight.

This thread is surprisingly civil in comparison.

 

[BEz939]

Why was he called one in the first place?

The brush we paint people denier with is too broad and it's there to stop investigation (much like covid narrative these days).



I can't believe it took me this long to follow that link and the real reason I reply. That is a wonderful internet slapfight.

This thread is surprisingly civil in comparison.

Oddly enough the holocaust thread is calm and composed while threads about some irrelevant story are filled with shit slinging and people calling each other fags every two seconds. I want to retract my previous statement, this is one of the better threads here.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Oddly enough the holocaust thread is calm and composed while threads about some irrelevant story are filled with shit slinging and people calling each other fags every two seconds. I want to retract my previous statement, this is one of the better threads here.

I think all the "This is gonna be a shitshow!" on the first page expecting a spergfest invited contrarians to try and turn it into a mature thread.

 

[BEz939]

I think all the "This is gonna be a shitshow!" on the first page expecting a spergfest invited contrarians to try and turn it into a mature thread.

True. There have been spergy arguments here on occasion cough cough Prussian Blue cough cough but it’s usually chill.

 

[Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes]

I want to start with the bottom up and tell you that I do support revisionism of all topics. You seem to be looking for a debate about the specifics on Treblinka, something I didn’t intend for. But if you want to discuss Treblinka, I certainly can discuss Treblinka. Before I get into sources, I want to point out that you’re using figures for a 1895 Diesel engine. I understand you admit it’s an estimate, but it’s logical to presume that Diesel engines changed over nearly 50 years. The people with the narrative specified Diesel Engines. If it’s known pretty widely that Diesel engines don’t kill people like that, why would they chose to go with Diesel engines and not, say, gasoline engines? It’s not like they have to conform with the camp’s physical dimensions, the place was demolished when they had arrived. Also, your article’s abstract does mention that is is possible to die from diesel CO under the right conditions. But moving away from your article, it’s important to remember that back in the 80’s, Friedrich Berg of the IHR wrote an essay about how it was impossible to kill with the diesel fumes. That’s true, if you’re running the engines the way that they were meant to be used in trucks. However, you can modify Diesel engines. By tweaking with the Fuel Pump to get more fuel in, you can get the exhaust to Lethal Levels.

As for the second part, yes. Jews need to get over the holocaust. Israel needs to stop using events of 70 years prior to justify slaughtering people. Jews in Hollywood need to stop making exploitation and trauma porn movies about the holocaust. They need to stop extorting Germans of money. I’m willing to hold any jew on this thread accountable if necessary. Alert me if any pop up.

my belief certainly can be disproved. I just need someone to do it.

No, I never wanted to debate the specifics on Treblinka. In fact I don't want to debate any of it with you. You know nothing about the topic, you've admitted as much. The point I was trying to make is that the positions of holocaust historians/affirmers and revisionists do not have the same credence. You tried to put traditionalism (for the lack of a better word) and revisionism in the same boat by claiming both to be equally biased and the reason why anyone would believe either side is because they choose to believe whatever evidence they want. This is nonsense and sounds like projection. This is why I've insisted on you giving me a single piece of evidence that drives your belief that this happened and, quite telling, you've yet to provide anything at all. Revisionists have always been open, and have been asking, for debate, while the credentialed historians never have been. Revisionists have done great bodies of work and always responded when a book was written trying to dispute their work. Credentialed historians VERY rarely give any responds no matter how obviously valid the criticism is. Revisionist writers have based their claims on extensive amounts of citations, while traditionalists often assert massive claims on the short testimony of one person. Revisionist forums have allowed for free speech and been open to debate, while most traditionalists have demanded that every forum disallow it and that it should be illegal to debate. These two sides are not equal.

Yes, diesel engines change over time but the CO output have stayed very stable and trended towards less CO output. Every other composition I can find in a hurry show lower levels of CO, not more. What seems to be changing is the accuracy of the testing equipment, as the Hartenstein composition is a flat 0.1 while the newer ones show numbers like 0.043%.

"If it’s known pretty widely that Diesel engines don’t kill people like that, why would they chose to go with Diesel engines and not, say, gasoline engines"

Again with this new fallacy I've never actually seen before. If it doesn't already exist I'm calling this the "Holocaust Blunder Fallacy." The fact that the narrative doesn't make any sense is not a point against revisionism. I didn't make it up, THEY DID.

"That’s true, if you’re running the engines the way that they were meant to be used in trucks. However, you can modify Diesel engines. By tweaking with the Fuel Pump to get more fuel in, you can get the exhaust to Lethal Levels."

I can tell you now support revisionism because you just did it. This has not been claimed by any official body. You made this up and it's telling. You are now actively trying to make your belief fit with reality. This is not rational. You've already concluded the holocaust happened and you're working your way backwards. The problem is they DID use the engine for both killing and in trucks in the mobile gas-vans. Modifying the engine will severally impair its ability as an engine. It has to both be lethal and fully operational.

It needs to not only be lethal, it needs to be VERY lethal. This is the chosen weapon used to kill, in total, 2 million Jews alone. They claim 800 people in some of the chambers every 2 hours. Thus you need to kill them fast enough to fill the chamber, 10 people per square meters dick to ass, gas them and remove the bodies in 2 hours. If we're going to pretend that this is possible it needs to be EXTREMLY lethal, not just having the possibility of being lethal. They had coal/wood generators that would have CO levels of upwards of 60%. Why not use those?

 

[BEz939]

No, I never wanted to debate the specifics on Treblinka. In fact I don't want to debate any of it with you. You know nothing about the topic, you've admitted as much. The point I was trying to make is that the positions of holocaust historians/affirmers and revisionists do not have the same credence. You tried to put traditionalism (for the lack of a better word) and revisionism in the same boat by claiming both to be equally biased and the reason why anyone would believe either side is because they choose to believe whatever evidence they want. This is nonsense and sounds like projection. This is why I've insisted on you giving me a single piece of evidence that drives your belief that this happened and, quite telling, you've yet to provide anything at all. Revisionists have always been open, and have been asking, for debate, while the credentialed historians never have been. Revisionists have done great bodies of work and always responded when a book was written trying to dispute their work. Credentialed historians VERY rarely give any responds no matter how obviously valid the criticism is. Revisionist writers have based their claims on extensive amounts of citations, while traditionalists often assert massive claims on the short testimony of one person. Revisionist forums have allowed for free speech and been open to debate, while most traditionalists have demanded that every forum disallow it and that it should be illegal to debate. These two sides are not equal.

Yes, diesel engines change over time but the CO output have stayed very stable and trended towards less CO output. Every other composition I can find in a hurry show lower levels of CO, not more. What seems to be changing is the accuracy of the testing equipment, as the Hartenstein composition is a flat 0.1 while the newer ones show numbers like 0.043%.


Again with this new fallacy I've never actually seen before. If it doesn't already exist I'm calling this the "Holocaust Blunder Fallacy." The fact that the narrative doesn't make any sense is not a point against revisionism. I didn't make it up, THEY DID.


I can tell you now support revisionism because you just did it. This has not been claimed by any official body. You made this up and it's telling. You are now actively trying to make your belief fit with reality. This is not rational. You've already concluded the holocaust happened and you're working your way backwards. The problem is they DID use the engine for both killing and in trucks in the mobile gas-vans. Modifying the engine will severally impair its ability as an engine. It has to both be lethal and fully operational.

It needs to not only be lethal, it needs to be VERY lethal. This is the chosen weapon used to kill, in total, 2 million Jews alone. They claim 800 people in some of the chambers every 2 hours. Thus you need to kill them fast enough to fill the chamber, 10 people per square meters dick to ass, gas them and remove the bodies in 2 hours. If we're going to pretend that this is possible it needs to be EXTREMLY lethal, not just having the possibility of being lethal. They had coal/wood generators that would have CO levels of upwards of 60%. Why not use those?

That diesel thing has nothing to do with the moving truck gas vans. It has to do with the gas chambers of Treblinka. I don’t believe in the gas vans being that effective, which brings me on to my second point.

If you think that revisionism means that you don’t believe or are even just skeptical of ANYTHING ever said about the holocaust, your definition is too broad. No one on earth believes literally everything in every book and every movie or documentary about the holocaust. The holocaust is too big of a topic for there to be one official narrative.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

It's not true that Germany brutalized the Belgian population. IN the campaign of 1914 German soldiers were harassed by Belgian partisans daily. What the Germans did, namely shooting civilians, burning down villages, and confiscating goods, was not only justified but necessary to maintain peace in Belgium and Northern France. After 1915 partisan attacks greatly diminished in number, almost to 0. The measures the Germans undertook saved more lives than if they didn't.

The acts the Germans undertook in Belgium, no matter how much Entente propaganda wants you to believe, were not compulsive acts of barbarity as seen by the treatment of the various ethnic groups in the Russian empire under the German occupation. The Ukrainians in particular were especially kind, bringing gifts to German soldiers on Easter and Christmas (what should be noted is that the Jewish population did not give any German gifts, acting very passive aggressively), and the Germans in return were also kind. This was because, unlike the psychotic acts of the Belgians, there were basically no Slavic partisan attacks.

We must also separate fact from fiction. The story about German soldiers crucifying a Canadian soldier is simply fiction. There is no evidence, not even first hand accounts. It was simply a rumour that became a good story for propaganda. Another pervasive lie is that of Edith Cavell. Shockingly, articles are still written today about her heroic deeds of "Saving British Soldiers From Death," when that couldn't be farther from the truth. Cavell was a British nurse trapped in German occupied Brussels, she aided 60 British soldiers and 15 French soldiers cross the Dutch border and enter Britain. For all intents and purposes she was a spy who collaborated with other spies. Spies, even up to today, get the death penalty. So it was no surprise that Edith Cavell was arrested and shot for being a spy.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The entire argument against the holocaust is just smoke and mirrors to divert from the only thing that matters: the death count. For being the number one thing people like to say is untrue, you'd think it will be the absolutely easiest shit in the world to prove, every country had for at least a century has a very good estimate how much population it has, how it's divided and it's kept in archives. It should be the extremely simple to just go after the documentation to prove that before and after the war the difference in the population amount doesn't amount to few millions (of course allowing for amount of deaths that roughly equal to combatant/non-combatant deaths of the other populations). And any attempt to try to argue for the data being forged will require insane amount of cooperation that's entirely unlikely.

But somehow it's not some meme that's being pulled around, but rather wooden doors and how doing a blowjob on a diesel truck has no health risks. It's a simple strategy because it requires other people to do the autistic thing of actually researching whether there are discperencies and the reason for them.

 

[BEz939]

The entire argument against the holocaust is just smoke and mirrors to divert from the only thing that matters: the death count. For being the number one thing people like to say is untrue, you'd think it will be the absolutely easiest shit in the world to prove, every country had for at least a century has a very good estimate how much population it has, how it's divided and it's kept in archives. It should be the extremely simple to just go after the documentation to prove that before and after the war the difference in the population amount doesn't amount to few millions (of course allowing for amount of deaths that roughly equal to combatant/non-combatant deaths of the other populations). And any attempt to try to argue for the data being forged will require insane amount of cooperation that's entirely unlikely.

But somehow it's not some meme that's being pulled around, but rather wooden doors and how doing a blowjob on a diesel truck has no health risks. It's a simple strategy because it requires other people to do the autistic thing of actually researching whether there are discperencies and the reason for them.

it’s always the how, and then the specifics on the how.

 

[Bonesjones]

The entire argument against the holocaust is just smoke and mirrors to divert from the only thing that matters: the death count. For being the number one thing people like to say is untrue, you'd think it will be the absolutely easiest shit in the world to prove, every country had for at least a century has a very good estimate how much population it has, how it's divided and it's kept in archives. It should be the extremely simple to just go after the documentation to prove that before and after the war the difference in the population amount doesn't amount to few millions (of course allowing for amount of deaths that roughly equal to combatant/non-combatant deaths of the other populations). And any attempt to try to argue for the data being forged will require insane amount of cooperation that's entirely unlikely.

But somehow it's not some meme that's being pulled around, but rather wooden doors and how doing a blowjob on a diesel truck has no health risks. It's a simple strategy because it requires other people to do the autistic thing of actually researching whether there are discperencies and the reason for them.

You mean like when the Red Cross said that about 200k people died at auschwitz mostly from Typhus and then they said it was entirely made up?

Edit: also most arguments begin by asking if it's physically possible for what they are suggesting could happen, using proof that the methods and means are impossible. Its silly to argue if there are 5 or 500 unicorns when you can't prove the existence of 1.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

On the other hand, "The greatest story never told" is childish propaganda that I switched off after 30 minutes.

if that's the case then you're a fucking moron because that documentary is 6 hours long and it takes like a full hour to reach Hitler's participation in WW1. If any fact about Hitler that isn't prefaced by "Hitler is an evil disgusting man" is childish propaganda then you're simply not fit to have a discussion about anything regarding Hitler.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

You mean like when the Red Cross said that about 200k people died at auschwitz mostly from Typhus and then they said it was entirely made up?

Edit: also most arguments begin by asking if it's physically possible for what they are suggesting could happen, using proof that the methods and means are impossible. Its silly to argue if there are 5 or 500 unicorns when you can't prove the existence of 1.

Don't even get what's even your first point, as for the second, it's a retarded analogy. The holocaust is a (primarily) german genocide of the jewish european populace, not about a single death camp and its method of execution. Either explain where did all the dead jews go, or try to weasel how the massive amount of death wasn't a deliberate choice of the german command.

 

[Bonesjones]

Show the dead jews or shut up. It's that simple, prove there exists any evidence of 6 million (over 10 million counting all the other casualties) dead. You can't, so why bother with the rest?

 

[Lemmingwise]

The entire argument against the holocaust is just smoke and mirrors to divert from the only thing that matters: the death count. For being the number one thing people like to say is untrue, you'd think it will be the absolutely easiest shit in the world to prove, every country had for at least a century has a very good estimate how much population it has, how it's divided and it's kept in archives. It should be the extremely simple to just go after the documentation to prove that before and after the war the difference in the population amount doesn't amount to few millions (of course allowing for amount of deaths that roughly equal to combatant/non-combatant deaths of the other populations). And any attempt to try to argue for the data being forged will require insane amount of cooperation that's entirely unlikely.

But somehow it's not some meme that's being pulled around, but rather wooden doors and how doing a blowjob on a diesel truck has no health risks. It's a simple strategy because it requires other people to do the autistic thing of actually researching whether there are discperencies and the reason for them.

Why would ONLY the death count matter when investigating any historical event? If you look at a murder; you don't just look at the death count; it's worth examining who was responsible, what was the murder weapon. We are dealing with an event that multiple countries and multiple businesses are still starting new payments for up to this very day (even Dutch Railway, what choice did they have running the trains for the germans? It was such a secret too, supposedly the holocaust, so how could they be held responsible for not resisting german rule?).

I'll re-iterate; there are literal conferences of "jewish mineral claims against germany". That's how out in the open the claims are. All of this is built on a singular event; and apparently we are not allowed to think about anything besides the death count?

I always get the impression that I'm talking with a lawyer when someone wants to exclude everything except one thing from examination. If I wanted to ONLY talk about gas chambers or ONLY about non-jewish deaths, or ONLY methods, it would be no less biased.

Every bit of holocaust education has some form of how it was uniquely bad, either because of how uniquely evil the germans were, or how industrial it was, or how efficient. Certainly I don't believe anyone following education in the west will have heard "just the death number". And yes the other parts matter, as well as the numbers.

I remember asking in this thread at what number we can give a genocide a unique name like "the holocaust". Like would it still be a holocaust at 5 million? 4 million? Probably. What about 100.000 though? It's a very mild question, there aren't really wrong answers. I recognize it's a pretty subjective question. But when we speak about such terms as "holocaust denial" without even defining "holocaust" it is all more subjective in the first place.

Of course the official numbers were 11 million originally (ignoring a couple of higher estimates from early french sources), which is only roughly half jews, which means it's a disservice to only always think and speak about jews and an incredible disservice that all of the holocaust payment schemes went only to jews. That above all should raise questions. But I can't talk about that right? I can only talk about the death count. And only the jewish deaths matter. It's a sickening double standard.