learn some history mate, "atrocity propaganda" concerning holocaust had been in full effect since well 1941 (with mass shootings during barbarossa), and by 1942, when death camps opened, these were reported on as well . but don't take my word for it:
This is true, and it also recycled WW1 propaganda stories like bayonetting babies and such.
ps. will respond more in full when I have the time.
Well I had to yank you're chain a little to see what you're made of. At this moment you seem sincere so I'll operate on that presumption for now.
I watched a speech of Irving where he said he thought the mainstream numbers were roughly accurate
Was this before or after he spent 3 years in prison for ""trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust"?
Revisionists, on the other hand, have not adressed the reality that no documentation or testimony has yet been discovered that can shed any light on the fate of the millions of 'resettled' Jews. Would you acknowledge the lack of evidence, and does it bother you at all?
I look at it like a poisoned well of evidence on the one hand and a lack of evidence on the other.
I'll also disclose my personal biases in general. They tend to against whichever side feels the need to lie, with having somewhat stricter requirements for the official version of accounts than for those who challenge it, because the latter isn't really one side but hundreds of sides. If there are 99 crackpot theories, there might still be the 100th that is exactly or as close to the truth as you can get. The net result is that I'm more likely to go against the official story of anything rather than with it, but it's a bias I am aware of, try to challenge and try to balance out with work and research.
One of the reasons why I have this bias, is that the easiest way to discredit any revisionism on any subject is to just produce some crackpot revisionism theories for it. Very cheap, very effective. There was a paper written on this, but I haven't been able to find this paper a second time. If anyone knows the one I'm talking about, please give me the name and the researcher, or better yet, the paper. IIRC he was hired by the CIA and then the paper disappeared from the scientific journals it had been published in.
Yes, there is a lack of evidence for revisionism, and yes it bothers me. Although considering the treatment of such people as Irving and Cole, I'd say the responsibility for that lack of evidence isn't as much on the revisionist side as it is on those who persecuted them.
I also find it difficult to extract the historical perception from the fact that it is an active political and resource filled discussion, when just years ago jewish organisations extorted Dutch Railway for running trains during a militarily occupied Netherlands. When one side engages in such economic aggression against a company/people who clearly had little responsibility for it, then that raises questions about the truthfulness and morality of those organisations and people. This is pretty much like the american examples, where holocaust is used as a political tool against white americans when they, if anyone, are among the secondary or tertiary people who should be beneffiting in the glory of putting a stop to the holocaust, rather than as a kind of perpetrators who should feel guilty.
Just as a reminder, there is a jewish conference of mineral claims against germany.
But with those things said, I'm not looking for a partisan position, I'm looking for truth using the tools I have. In the hierarchy of organisations I don't trust, I don't put the nazi regime that far below the unnamed jewish organisations I mentioned earlier. When Irving retreated his position to there not being a written order from hitler to exterminate jews, I do wonder if that's the sanitation of a person rather than an attempt at finding truth. However considering how anyone who tries to write truth about things relating to jews, I have some experience with this in various capacities, I also see how someone might build up understandable biases and start to think that hitler was the one chance at reconciling the two. If his goal and actions were in line with seperation and segregation rather than extermination, that is.
there were no peculiar results re 6 million
Without reading the whole thing; do you mean to say there were no peculiar news article results in teh past re 6 million?
I'd like to know your positiion and discuss with you, rather than act like I'm discussing with him, as he can't reply and you might not share his view.
----
TLDR and some clarifaction: I don't think it unlikely that the nazi regime, or elements within it covertly, would have the goal of genociding jews. I have serious doubts about the scale and there's few sources I find trustworthy in an environment of victors writing the history books, persecution of those who challenge the official story and a bunch of obvious falsehoods in the official story that has been revised numerous times since nonetheless, never mind the active propaganda streaming out of hollywood and european school education filling people with biases regarding this subject. It's a long TLDR, and I never really like agnostic positions, I rather spitball a position that I think is likely and as it stands I think the nazi regime is probably responsible for around 50.000 - 200.000 jewish deaths and as such easily meets the bar for genocide, but not one particularly unique historically. It took japanese christians about 50 years to recover their absolute numbers after the atom bomb on little rome. I haven't looked closely at the records and numbers, I admit my ignorance in this and I see that if we continue this discussion I will have to, but my presumption as it stands is that jewish numbers did recover faster, with considerable possibility of migration and possible hiding under non-jewishness like in colonial spain after the war, as well as soviet victims.
Long TLDR. Sorry. I'm just giving my thought process as I didn't have time to edit.
