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

[Linako 2.0]

Will you change your ways not that you know you were laughably informed by deniers about how all references to murder of Jews by Himmler (along with numerous other Nazi leaders" are "mistranslated"? Or will you keep on groping for half-baked excuses to continue to live in your fantasy world?

No, because you talk like a fag and your shit is all retarded.
If you think talking down to me like that with delusions that you are somehow in reality that will just have me oppose you more.

 

[Bonesjones]

Strange that exactly zero evidence emerged of a conspiracy to "fake a genocide of 5 to 6 millions Jews and blame the Nazis for it," an infinitely more elaborate and implausible conspiracy than blaming the Germans for killing 22,000 in the Katyn massacre.

"Hey guys the people who committed the conspiracy and financially gain from it won't just admit they made the whole thing up!"

I have to go, and probably I won't be back for a few days. But you should know that deniers are in a difficult position because they have to present a case that is as strong and confident as the orthodox one.

Weird how all I have to do is point out your assertions are physically and scientifically impossible to carry out and you can't even begin to post evidence to the contrary is "a difficult position". Squirm some more you fucking worm.

My Translation - we have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do this, to kill these people who wanted to kill us."

Wasn't that from a speech about Partisans? You'd never take a quote out of context.

 

[mgc]

Wasn't that from a speech about Partisans? You'd never take a quote out of context.

He made it explicit that he was speaking about the "Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes" (extermination of the Jewish people), before he made these comments, which came after comments about how all the wealth the dead Jews had was being sent to the German government.

 

[Chugger]

Weird how all I have to do is point out your assertions are physically and scientifically impossible to carry out and you can't even begin to post evidence to the contrary is "a difficult position". Squirm

This is what happened in our last interaction?

They did dig up and catalog : "soil samples were withdrawn and examined"

I wonder how conscious you are of the alternate reality you have constructed for yourself

Anyway have fun guys

 

[Bonesjones]

This is what happened in our last interaction?

I wonder how conscious you are of the alternate reality you have constructed for yourself

Anyway have fun guys

Lmao get fucked you slime, now post anything related to the mountains of coal and wood to cremate millions of people. Jesus you really are a worm.

Also for all your talk about being academics, your entire lack of academic rigor would put everything you've ever worked on as being entirely suspect.

 

[Stan]

Much as I dislike him for his dishonesty in presenting himself and for trying to stake out a contrarian, Mattogno at least acknowledges that the mass graves at the Reinhard camps exist and that the ashes are human cremains and not just wood ash. MHK disputes the reason the graves are there and how many people they contain, but it seems you guys disagree with him, and there are no mass graves?

We understand your posts just fine. We understand everything you say and do. There's zero misunderstanding about the evidence you present and how you present it. We know that you do everything in a dishonest capacity.

This is ad hominem. You won’t address the facts we are presenting to you so you suggest we are part of some worldwide conspiracy to promote the Holocaust. We’re just KF users like you actually. We just live in reality.

Appeal to emotion, not an argument. eyewitness accounts are not reliable in courts of law without evidence so why should we believe these people's accounts when they don't want to search for evidence that they were actually exterminated?


You're describing more the holocaust affirmers who when provided with something that disproves their precious victim narrative will start scarping to the bottom of the barrel in hopes that the opponent has no argument against it, thus it will prove that the holocaust is 1000% real and you're not allowed to criticize ever.


I mean, that's what's happening now. look at Eli Weasel's fake and gay books that has you believe that jewish babies were thrown into the air and used as target practice for gattling guns, or that there were giant fire pits for mass cremation. It is illegal to question these claims in Europe btw.


It's issues with translation since Himmler used a word that germans use for fumigating out pests, of course propagandists will translate it to make it look like he's a saturday morning cartoon gloating about the extermination of jews.
It's kind of like how Hitler never used the word master race.

> Eli Weasel

Can you at least pretend to be sensitive to the fact that these people suffered outrageous abuses? That they were packed in ghettos, starved, etc?? Not calling survivor testimony “fake and gay” would go a long way in making your assertions worthy of consideration. If you come out the gate calling survivors “weasels” then it makes it look like you have an ideological stake in this as a Pro-Nazi Hitler fanboy who isn’t really open to reason or debate about history.

We have photos of the crematory pits and eyewitnesses to the slaughter in the gas chambers, I’ve been posting their accounts to the thread.

Also, I can actually read German. I studied German since 9th grade and lived in Mainz for a year in my twenties. I still speak and read it better than any Nazi fanboy who isn’t a native; I had to write college term papers in German.

With that in mind, I’m going to quote the last paragraph of Himmler’s speech in its original German and offer some interpretation.

---

Ich will hier vor Ihnen in aller Offenheit auch ein ganz schweres Kapitel erwähnen. Unter uns soll es einmal ganz offen ausgesprochen sein, und trotzdem werden wir in der Öffentlichkeit nie darüber reden. Genau so wenig, wie wir am 30. Juni gezögert haben, die befohlene Pflicht zu tun und Kameraden, die sich verfehlt hatten, an die Wand zu stellen und zu erschießen, genau so wenig haben wir darüber jemals gesprochen und werden je darüber sprechen. Es war eine, Gottseidank in uns wohnende Selbstverständlichkeit des Taktes, dass wir uns untereinander nie darüber unterhalten haben, nie darüber sprachen. Es hat jeden geschaudert und doch war sich jeder klar darüber, dass er es das nächste Mal wieder tun würde, wenn es befohlen wird und wenn es notwendig ist.

Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. – "Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir." Und dann kommen sie alle an, die braven 80 Millionen Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen anständigen Juden. Es ist ja klar, die anderen sind Schweine, aber dieser eine ist ein prima Jude. Von allen, die so REDEn, hat keiner zugesehen, keiner hat es durchgestanden. Von Euch werden die meisten wissen, was es heißt, wenn 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 daliegen. Dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei – abgesehen von Ausnahmen menschlicher Schwächen – anständig geblieben zu sein, das hat uns hart gemacht. Dies ist ein niemals geschriebenes und niemals zu schreiben des Ruhmesblatt unserer Geschichte, denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir uns täten, wenn wir heute noch in jeder Stadt – bei den Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten und bei den Entbehrungen des Krieges – noch die Juden als Geheimsaboteure, Agitatoren und Hetzer hätten. Wir würden wahrscheinlich jetzt in das Stadium des Jahres 1916/17 gekommen sein, wenn die Juden noch im deutschen Volkskoerper säßen.

Die Reichtümer, die sie hatten, haben wir ihnen abgenommen. Ich habe einen strikten Befehl gegeben, den SS-Obergruppenführer Pohl durchgeführt hat, dass diese Reichtümer selbstverständlich restlos an das Reich abgeführt wurden. Wir haben uns nichts davon genommen. Einzelne, die sich verfehlt haben, werden gemäß einem von mir zu Anfang gegebenen Befehl bestraft, der androhte: Wer sich auch nur eine Mark davon nimmt, der ist des Todes. Eine Anzahl SS-Männer – es sind nicht sehr viele – haben sich dagegen verfehlt und sie werden des Todes sein, gnade[n]los. Wir hatten das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht gegenüber unserem Volk, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen. Wir haben aber nicht das Recht, uns auch nur mit einem Pelz mit einer Uhr, mit einer Mark oder mit einer Zigarette oder mit sonst etwas zu bereichern. Wir wollen nicht am Schluss, weil wir einen Bazillus ausrotteten, an dem Bazillus krank werden und sterben. Ich werde niemals zusehen, dass hier auch nur eine kleine Fäulnisstelle entsteht oder sich festsetzt. Wo sie sich bilden sollte, werden wir sie gemeinsam ausbrennen. Insgesamt aber können wir sagen, dass wir diese schwerste Aufgabe in Liebe zu unserem Volk erfüllt haben. Und wir haben keinen Schaden in unserem Inneren, in unserer Seele, in unserem Charakter daran genommen.

---

The first bolded sentence of this speech uses the verb “ausrotten”. This originally meant “to root out” and referred to plants (zB Ich habe die Oesterglocken ganz ausgerottet) but Himmler uses it here when describing what must be done to Jews. He’s not talking about “transplanting” or “resettlement”; his meaning is closer to “exterminate” or “eradicate”.

That Himmler uses dehumanizing vocabulary in reference to the Jews is some what of a Nazi cultural norm, reflective of the way Nazis viewed them; like undesirable weeds needing to be uprooted.

The second sentence of this speech would disprove what @mrolonzo said about Aktion Reinhard being a “financial program”, as Himmler outright states that the Jews have already had their wealth taken from them.

The next bolded sentence says “we have a moral right and obligation vis-a-vis our people to murder those people who would have slain us.” The verb “unzubringen” that you’re objecting to is general in the sense that it can be applied to animals, but in the context of the sentence, which mentions no animals, Himmler means the Jews, and he means death. He’s being quite explicit.

Himmler is telling his men in this speech that he expects them to remain true to Nazi ideology like they did during Kristallnacht and internal Nazi purges, and furthermore instructing them not to steal non monetary items like hats and cigarettes from the Jews so that loot can enrich the Reich. Himmler tells his men the reason why the Holocaust was being concealed from the public; even high ranking Parteigenossen who are comfortable with the “ausrotten” of Jews in principle don’t want “ausrotten” to happen to Jews they know personally.

Himmler even goes on to say that “at the end, while we fight the bacteria we do not want to be infected by it and die.” He’s threatening his men with death if they’re caught looting Jewish stuff that belongs to the Reich, on the eve of his troops being in charge of a lot of that stuff.

The loot he’s talking about is coming from the “ausgerottete” Jews that are being “umgebracht” in the “endloesung”. If you know German please explain how Himmlers own words should not prove that Jews were being systematically killed and separated from whatever valuables they had left.

 

[Linako 2.0]

Can you at least pretend to be sensitive to the fact that these people suffered outrageous abuses? That they were packed in ghettos, starved, etc?? Not calling survivor testimony “fake and gay” would go a long way in making your assertions worthy of consideration. If you come out the gate calling survivors “weasels” then it makes it look like you have an ideological stake in this as a Pro-Nazi Hitler fanboy who isn’t really open to reason or debate about history.

Why should I?
Again, appeal to emotion, not an argument; Why should I take the time to read your wall of text that's so long it's impossible to quote it unless I reply to your other posts and insert the parts I want to quote?

 

[Lemmingwise]

One thing that I think some deniers don’t get is the purpose of learning about the holocaust.

For me, the holocaust is the intentional killing of millions of innocent people, and is a great case study on how extreme nationalism, propaganda, and manipulation can lead to terrible tragedies. Worrying about whether or not 5 or 6 million died is less relevant to the fact that nazis tried to murder millions, and succeeded in it.

I don't know if you just realized you implicitly called people deniers for thinking it's 5 rather than 6 million, which is the point I have been arguing with you.

Why isn't just accuracy important?


@Stan

I am growing pretty frustrated with mrolonzo tbh;

Like chugger and history speaks he is a single issue tourist that almost exclusively posts in this thread. Chugger brought him here essentially. It was a bit of history that resulted in chugger being banned from codoh and codoh later discovering he gl0spana which was his name there, had moved here.

Can you at least pretend to be sensitive to the fact that these people suffered outrageous abuses?

But did he though? If a number of his statements are obviously false, how do we know his camp experience was worse than say what was experienced by people in japanese prison camps?

I was surprised to learn what the experience was like for my grandparents in japanese prison camps compared to what, say, movies had made me believe about them.

 

[mgc]

Deniers should just come out and admit that they reject history as a discipline, like some Postmodernists did. I would respect deniers more if they just admitted that they do not buy into the historical method, and said everything humans think they know about the past are just narratives based on value judgments and power structures.

(To be fair to Bones he sort of did admit this when he said he does not believe in most historical events.)

My biggest problem with deniers is how they pretend to be operating within the discipline of history. That is laughable. History is all about constructing explanatory narratives based on positive evidence. Given the total inability of the deniers to provide a positive alternative explanation, supported by evidence, for how millions of Jews disappeared in the German camp system, they are not actually operating within the field of history.

That would change if they searched for and found evidence of resettled communities of millions of Jews who had been transitted out of the camp system. But they do not even try to search for such evidence, probably because at some level they know the Jews were not resettled but died in the camps.

By the way since Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886) history as a discipline in the West has been based primarily on documents. By all means question the legitimacy of history as a field of knowledge, or say that the whole field of Western history is illegitimate because CSI. But do not simultaneously claim to be participating in historical discussion or analysis.

 

[Linako 2.0]

Holocaust believers should just come out and admit that they reject history as a discipline. I would respect them more if they just admitted that they do not buy into the historical method, and think everything humans think they know about the past are just narratives based on value judgments and power structures.

For holobunga believers to pretend to be operating within the discipline of history—which is all about constructing explanatory narratives based on positive evidence—is laughable, given the total inability of beliebers to provide a positive alternative explanation, supported by evidence, for how millions of Jews managed to vanish without a single trace

By the way since Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886) history as a discipline in the West has been based primarily on documents. By all means question the legitimacy of history as a field of knowledge, or say that the whole field of Western history is illegitimate because CSI. But do not simultaneously claim to be participating in historical discussion or analysis.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Deniers should just come out and admit that they reject history as a discipline, like Foucalt did. I would respect them more if they just admitted that they do not buy into the historical method, and think everything humans think they know about the past are just narratives based on value judgments and power structures.

Truthfully nobody is interested in the respect of an egyptian fatty that dropped out of chemistry and couldn't even make jihad bombs like a respectable muslim.

You can't even admit how stupid your "remaining heat is a seperate source of energy" point was and looking back you only believed something like that because you took official holocaust narrative tm documents at face value and couldn't apply high school level physics to see how it didn't make sense.

So even if you had been correct, which you are not, why the fuck would anyone care about your "respect", when you can't even concede a much smaller mistake that even chugger wouldn't support without adding an additonal clause.

 

[Bonesjones]

There are international standards for determining mass graves that are entirely reasonable, anything that falls short of that standard is a potential mass grave and not a mass grave. Again, your lack of academic rigor is on display.

I'm sympathetic to how the war effected almost every single person in the world, I am not specifically sympathetic to a group of war profiteers that won't let scientific study interrupt their free money. To conflate the two shows your own ideological drive.

Again dehumanizing language is no more proof of the Holocaust than me calling you a fucking genius is evidence of your towering intellect.

To be fair to Bones he sort of did admit this when he said he does not believe in most historical events.

I don’t believe in assertions without evidence. If you believe history is true factual record and not an approximation agreed upon by the winners, then I've got an ocean front property to sell you in Auschwitz.

For deniers to pretend to be operating within the discipline of history—which is all about constructing explanatory narratives based on positive evidence—is laughable, given the total inability of the deniers to provide a positive narrative alternative, supported by evidence, for how millions of Jews disappeared in German custody.

We've routinely shown academic rigor for holocaust denial including holes in our own evidence and valid explanations for those holes and what can be realistically believed in the consequences of that. While you just ignore anything contrary to your own claims and pivot arguments away to hide your own gaps in logic, scientific explanation, and your own ability to argue your points.

I do a better point of arguing your own arguments for you. That's fucking pathetic.

 

[Stan]

Lmao get fucked you slime, now post anything related to the mountains of coal and wood to cremate millions of people. Jesus you really are a worm.

Also for all your talk about being academics, your entire lack of academic rigor would put everything you've ever worked on as being entirely suspect.

Decorum, please, bones.

Why should I?
Again, appeal to emotion, not an argument; Why should I take the time to read your wall of text that's so long it's impossible to quote it unless I reply to your other posts and insert the parts I want to quote?

I already explained why. When you refer to a specific Jewish camp survivor as a “weasel”, and act deliberately dense because a Jewish Rabbi objected to archaeologists exhuming a mass grave of Jewish cremains, and generally act like an asshole to Jews, it suggests to people who aren’t Jew-bashers and Hitler fanboys that you’re not approaching this issue from a place of reasoning but from one of Antisemitism.

Basically, you’re making it harder for me to take you seriously when you’re so openly anti-Semitic.

PS my post is long because I’m quoting verbatim, which is what many posters here want. If you don’t read my posts I’ll not bother to respond to yours.

But did he though? If a number of his statements are obviously false, how do we know his camp experience was worse than say what was experienced by people in japanese prison camps?

I was surprised to learn what the experience was like for my grandparents in japanese prison camps compared to what, say, movies had made me believe about them.

Even if we only consider what you guys think the camps were for (resettlement); then Jews in Nazi occupied territory lost all their property, were progressively banned from any gainful occupations, were crowded into ghettos where food and fuel were scarce (by design, I might add) and deported East and separated from their families. And then a bunch of them just disappear for a reason no denier can adequately explain (they died.)

In Goebbel’s own words: “I should not like to be a Jew in Germany.”

Even if we only consider the fraction of Nazi offenses against the Jews that deniers in this thread are willing to acknowledge, what they went through was awful. I would hope you can agree that nobody should have everything they own stolen out from under them, be forced into KZs, and then be deported in a cattle car East without any food or water.

The lack of sympathy or sensitivity coming from certain posters here is astounding; it’s like you all agree with Hitler that the Jews are subhuman and their trauma means nothing to you. This isn’t pol, and calling Jews “weasels” undercuts your own credibility.

 

[Stan]

@Stan

I have to go, and probably I won't be back for a few days. But you should know that deniers are in a difficult position because they have to present a case that is as strong and confident as the orthodox one. Even someone like @Lemmingwise who is far more agnostic than most I'd wager is near 100% convinced that mass gassings never happened and anyone who believes this is a fool.

This happens to some extent with every debate, but becomes ridiculous and cartoonish with the Holocaust because of the comparative strength of evidence of the claims. It might be a better look for them actually not to argue on substance at all and just do character assassination.

So there has to be some sensitivity to this. Getting them to do joint research has yielded the best results so far, as with me and Rapechu.

Anyway good luck and enjoy the cowfucked brain of Carlo Mattogno

Enjoy the break, I will take one too once I have a chance to read and respond to an effort post Lemmingwise wants to complete.

The tips are helpful.. ty.

Ngl I am going to write a lolcow thread for Mattogno pretty soon, the more I learn the more of a cow I find him to be.

 

[Bonesjones]

Decorum, please, bones.

Fuck you nigger, this is a shitposting thread on a doxxing website.

Basically, you’re making it harder for me to take you seriously when you’re so openly anti-Semitic.

I don’t care what you think of me, I only expect you to address my arguments. Which you've failed to do.

But did he though? If a number of his statements are obviously false, how do we know his camp experience was worse than say what was experienced by people in japanese prison camps?

We don't and if he posts obvious verifiable untruths, everything he says is suspect from that point on. That's how integrity works.

In Goebbel’s own words: “I should not like to be a Jew in Germany.”

Even if we only consider the fraction of Nazi offenses against the Jews that deniers in this thread are willing to acknowledge, what they went through was awful. I would hope you can agree that nobody should have everything they own stolen out from under them, be forced into KZs, and then be deported in a cattle car East without any food or water.

The lack of sympathy or sensitivity coming from certain posters here is astounding; it’s like you all agree with Hitler that the Jews are subhuman and their trauma means nothing to you. This isn’t pol, and calling Jews “weasels” undercuts your own credibility.

Again doing bad things isn't the holocaust, stop conflating the two. You dishonest fuckface.

 

[Linako 2.0]

I already explained why. When you refer to a specific Jewish camp survivor as a “weasel”, and act deliberately dense because a Jewish Rabbi objected to archaeologists exhuming a mass grave of Jewish cremains, and generally act like an asshole to Jews, it suggests to people who aren’t Jew-bashers and Hitler fanboys that you’re not approaching this issue from a place of reasoning but from one of Antisemitism.

His name is literally Weasel, do you not remember having to read Night every year in school?.

Basically, you’re making it harder for me to take you seriously when you’re so openly anti-Semitic.

man you really love your precious jews, do you volunteer to do metzitzah b'peh in your free time?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Even if we only consider what you guys think the camps were for (resettlement)

If you read my posts, you would know this doesn't apply to me. Perhaps I should drop my big effort post if you're just going to take things broadly rather than read precisely.

And let's keep things in check here. All david cole disagreed with was the gassing. His reputation was destroyed and he was beat up. Considering how things looked when I knew very little details, I thought he was probably right.

The only reason my opinion has marched towards maybe a lot more being falsifications, is because the obvious ones don't get corrected.

If I only approach these things kindly, calmly and purely factually, I have to deal with constant dishonest conversation, as you could have seen if you followed the energy discussion and try to judge it without bias. And I constantly get attacked for presumably defending the worst monstrous possible human actions. They did the same to cole in debates, where they didn't answer his questions. They just told stories about terrible things that happened, which may or may not have happened. We know how many obviously fake witness accounts there have been.

So when I approach things calmly and fairly, as I do with you, I also run into people like history speaks and chugger who constantly feign ignorance, make accusations, slide topics, try to darvo. And to people if you have two sides, like in the cole debate, one side speaks about terrible hardship and the other comes with a more autistic point like, why does the museum lie to visitors and say these are the original gas chambers when the buildings were built after the war?

Then the average viewer is going to be emotionally engaged with the horror stories, true or not.

So absurdist humor and exaggeration is a way to actually force the conversation. To on the side embrace the accusation, because any accusation that makes you flinch is a weapon against you, and on the other hand say some things that enrages the shills, who know they are lying, and in their anger will make more mistakes. Though the best joy is in the veiled refferences that they can't admit they understand (because it would expose them) but will still bug them. Because fuck people that intentionally lie on subjects like this.

 

[Stan]

If you read my posts, you would know this doesn't apply to me. Perhaps I should drop my big effort post if you're just going to take things broadly rather than read precisely.

And let's keep things in check here. All david cole disagreed with was the gassing. His reputation was destroyed and he was beat up. Considering how things looked when I knew very little details, I thought he was probably right.

The only reason my opinion has marched towards maybe a lot more being falsifications, is because the obvious ones don't get corrected.

If I only approach these things kindly, calmly and purely factually, I have to deal with constant dishonest conversation, as you could have seen if you followed the energy discussion and try to judge it without bias. And I constantly get attacked for presumably defending the worst monstrous possible human actions. They did the same to cole in debates, where they didn't answer his questions. They just told stories about terrible things that happened, which may or may not have happened. We know how many obviously fake witness accounts there have been.

So when I approach things calmly and fairly, as I do with you, I also run into people like history speaks and chugger who constantly feign ignorance, make accusations, slide topics, try to darvo. And to people if you have two sides, like in the cole debate, one side speaks about terrible hardship and the other comes with a more autistic point like, why does the museum lie to visitors and say these are the original gas chambers when the buildings were built after the war?

Then the average viewer is going to be emotionally engaged with the horror stories, true or not.

So absurdist humor and exaggeration is a way to actually force the conversation. To on the side embrace the accusation, because any accusation that makes you flinch is a weapon against you, and on the other hand say some things that enrages the shills, who know they are lying, and in their anger will make more mistakes. Though the best joy is in the veiled refferences that they can't admit they understand (because it would expose them) but will still bug them. Because fuck people that intentionally lie on subjects like this.

I know you’re being calm and nice, and I do want to read your effort post. My criticism is more towards those like bones and lonzo who are quite brash and vulgar.

What I was getting at, is that even if we were to accept the most expansive kind of Holocaust denial, the Nazis still put the Jews through a lot and even the most diehard denialist should acknowledge that and proceed with a minimum of respect for the Jewish people. Otherwise it will be very hard to get anywhere with those who aren’t already in his corner. Those who are using those slurs and that degree of indifference look like hollering Nazi rage pigs.

To me though, calling a Holocaust survivor a “weasel” isn’t “absurdist humor and exaggeration”, it’s a belittling and slandering of the some of the worst trauma imaginable. Doing it to piss off affirmationists is counterproductive. Those who are willing to use those terms come off as anti-Semitic, and that antisemitism strikes me as the real reason they doubt the Holocaust happened.

The antisemitic comments are DARVO and ideological sperging, hard to take seriously. I come to this new to the debate but fairly good on the history, ready to have a conversation with those who aren’t gonna insult me and the Jews as a way of avoiding the questions I have.

 

[Bonesjones]

What I was getting at, is that even if we were to accept the most expansive kind of Holocaust denial, the Nazis still put the Jews through a lot and even the most diehard denialist should acknowledge that and proceed with a minimum of respect for the Jewish people if he wants to get anywhere with those who aren’t already in his corner. Otherwise he just looks like a hollering Nazi rage pig.

Ok so they can get 20k like the Japanese did, oh wait they exceeded that amount 1000x? Guess they can pay it back. How much in reparations do I get for being forced to listen to decades of unfounded lies?

To me though, calling a Holocaust survivor a “weasel” isn’t “absurdist humor and exaggeration”, it’s a belittling and slandering of the some of the worst trauma imaginable. Those who are willing to use those terms come off as anti-Semitic, and that antisemitism strikes me as the real reason they doubt the Holocaust happened.

"Oy vey, we just did a little lie about millions of us being killed for money, what's that compared to mean words?"

The antisemitic comments are DARVO and ideological sperging, hard to take seriously. I come to this new to the debate but fairly good on the history, ready to have a conversation with those who aren’t gonna insult me and the Jews as a way of avoiding the questions I have.

Your questions are irrelevant compared to your own assertions. They are just another dodge of your own claims meant to muddy the waters of discussion.

Again with even more specifics: the holocaust is the claim of a policy of genocide against jews that involved the gassing and cremation of millions.

1. Prove that the policy exists and was carried out. This includes orders from Hitler and other top brass. It also includes multiple widespread occasions of these orders being carried out.

2. The capability to carry these orders out. You have to prove gas chambers existed and crematory existed capable of carrying these orders out in a systematic fashion. This was an industrialized killing, so ad-hoc measures aren't actually evidence for it.

3. That they actually carried this out. So you have to prove the logicists above and beyond normal activity. And provide evidence for the claimed amount of murders.

This could also included forced starvation, but you'd have to prove they were intentionally denying food that they had.

These are the basic assertions of the Holocaust. Not forced labor camps or transit camps where people died.

 

[Linako 2.0]

To me though, calling a Holocaust survivor a “weasel” isn’t “absurdist humor and exaggeration”, it’s a belittling and slandering of the some of the worst trauma imaginable.

Bruh, I literally told you his name is Eli Weasel, the fact you think of the animal is your own anti-semetism showing.
if your handler finds out, I don't think he'll let you go to the metzitzahs anymore.