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

[Tablet County]

See he wanted them all dead, so he put them in camps and attempted to move them to Madagascar until France blocked it, so they instead exported them to Russia. That Hitler, so evil.

So Hitler believed that Jews were a threat to society, they deserved to be killed, they were conniving, subhuman scum who would sell their own mother, brother, and children for thirty pieces of silver. But he didn't want them dead, he just wanted to dump them in Madagascar where they couldn't possibly build a new Zion and couldn't potentially nation build and become a threat to society once again.
I believe the Jewish assrape machine and the holocauster more than I believe that Adolf Hitler didn't want to kill Jews, behead Jews, etc.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

I know more than you

Based on what lol. You can't tell the difference between the first stage of the Holocaust and the second, I doubt you have the intellect to learn anything about the religion.

So they killed jews in mass slaughters before they gassed and cremated them? Why would they do number 2 if number 1 was working?

Because number 1 was too mentally taxing for Himmler and his soldiers plus it cost too much in resources and manpower. Did you seriously not know about this?

 

[Bonesjones]

So Hitler believed that Jews were a threat to society, they deserved to be killed, they were conniving, subhuman scum who would sell their own mother, brother, and children for thirty pieces of silver. But he didn't want them dead, he just wanted to dump them in Madagascar where they couldn't possibly build a new Zion and couldn't potentially nation build and become a threat to society once again.

Yet we put dangerous animals in zoos and nature preserves. Hitler’s goal was the protection and advancement of the German people, not the eradication of jews. You know since they let them all leave before the war if they wanted or did you forget about that? Maybe study history and not holocaust class.

Based on what lol. You can't tell the difference between the first stage of the Holocaust and the second, I doubt you have the intellect to learn anything about the religion.

I've shown it, which is more than you can say. Since you bold face lie about things you quote, even when I point it out. Again, you are worthless and pathetic.

Because number 1 was too mentally taxing for Himmler and his soldiers plus it cost too much in resources and manpower. Did you seriously not know about this?

I thought the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who loved killing jews so much they sacrificed their own war effort to do so? But shooting people is too much? You really have zero critical thinking ability and only possess the intellect of a chatbot. You are ignorant of everything but holocaust talking points.

I notice you won't answer my Bigfoot question. Is it because you don't physically possess the ability to process it or what?

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

I notice you won't answer my Bigfoot question. Is it because you don't physically possess the ability to process it or what?

Because it's irrelevant lol. Courts convict on multiple witnesses agreeing without physical evidence existing all the time in rape cases

I've shown it, which is more than you can say. Since you bold face lie about things you quote, even when I point it out. Again, you are worthless and pathetic.

How have you shown any knowledge of judaism outside of pol talking points?

I thought the Nazis were genocidal maniacs who loved killing jews so much they sacrificed their own war effort to do so? But shooting people is too much? You really have zero critical thinking ability and only possess the intellect of a chatbot. You are ignorant of everything but holocaust talking points

You're getting mad. Bullets cost money and time to ship, they had a constant shortage of men, and those men had to be moved around to different areas to kill the Jews. It's much more efficient to have a centralized place where they brought Jews to kill. Funny how you claim that I don't have critical thinking ability but can't imagine logistics problems with manual killing.

 

[Kapros]

Considering the context yes. It's not like they weren't already mass slaughtering Jews in russia, it just got more efficient.

They weren't. Media jews in Britain made that up with atrocity propaganda to aid jewish emigration to the West. There were (justified) pogroms, but almost all of the commonly known details about them were just kind of made the fuck up.

 

[Betonhaus]

Now who can continue posting the longer, the one who has a vested interest in pushing lies that benefit them or the one who cannot believe someone can be that stupid?

 

[TJT]

So Hitler believed that Jews were a threat to society, they deserved to be killed, they were conniving, subhuman scum who would sell their own mother, brother, and children for thirty pieces of silver. But he didn't want them dead, he just wanted to dump them in Madagascar where they couldn't possibly build a new Zion and couldn't potentially nation build and become a threat to society once again.
I believe the Jewish assrape machine and the holocauster more than I believe that Adolf Hitler didn't want to kill Jews, behead Jews, etc.

~20 million Soviets died during the war.

Why are jews somehow special?

 

[TJT]

Because it's irrelevant lol. Courts convict on multiple witnesses agreeing without physical evidence existing all the time in rape cases



How have you shown any knowledge of judaism outside of pol talking points?



You're getting mad. Bullets cost money and time to ship, they had a constant shortage of men, and those men had to be moved around to different areas to kill the Jews. It's much more efficient to have a centralized place where they brought Jews to kill. Funny how you claim that I don't have critical thinking ability but can't imagine logistics problems with manual killing.

Starvation is overwhelmingly the easiest way to exterminate people. In fact, several million Red Army POWs were actually starved to death. Deliberately.

But gassing was more efficient. Just only for Jews. Yes.

 

[Bonesjones]

Because it's irrelevant lol. Courts convict on multiple witnesses agreeing without physical evidence existing all the time in rape cases

No it's not, it's very relevant. You can either admit you believe in Bigfoot or admit you have zero standards for evidence besides "they are Jewish so I will always believe them". It's a trap you've sprung on yourself yet again. Crazy how you keep falling into these.

How have you shown any knowledge of judaism outside of pol talking points?

Crazy how you admit your religion that you believe in so deeply and heavily that you will excuse the behavior of anyone who also believes in it as "pol talking points". So another self own.

You're getting mad. Bullets cost money and time to ship, they had a constant shortage of men, and those men had to be moved around to different areas to kill the Jews. It's much more efficient to have a centralized place where they brought Jews to kill. Funny how you claim that I don't have critical thinking ability but can't imagine logistics problems with manual killing.

I'm not mad, you keep pretending you know things about me because you are grasping at straws. Bullets in war are already widely available, men are also already there. It takes far more resources to move people who need to be corralled and guarded to a central area than to just kill them. You have no idea what logistics are nor how they work.

Now who can continue posting the longer, the one who has a vested interest in pushing lies that benefit them or the one who cannot believe someone can be that stupid?

I've been doing it for years at this point, why stop now?

 

[Betonhaus]

I've been doing it for years at this point, why stop now?

To be fair being able to say "I fucking told you so" is pretty satisfying.

 

[A Real Munson]

Because number 1 was too mentally taxing for Himmler and his soldiers plus it cost too much in resources and manpower.

This is something that never makes sense to me. This was too mentally taxing for the same people who had enough hatred of Jews to force them into brutal slavery, while starving, beating, torturing, and skinning them to make lampshades but gunning them down in a field was too much for these same Germans? What's the rationale there?

Similarly, guns, bullets, and death squads, cost too much money and manpower, but building obscene numbers of massive furnaces, gas chamber shower rooms, electrified railcars, airtight furniture vans of death with uniquely large engines and complex exhaust systems: these were all an improvement of logistical efficiency? How is that, because that genuinely does not make sense to me.

Also, would you please answer my previous question. Why did you choose to leave off the paragraph which describes that none of the alleged gas chamber vans had been recovered? Leaving that off invites quite fair speculation as to your genuosity. Did you think it was a trivial detail?

Courts convict on multiple witnesses agreeing without physical evidence existing all the time in rape cases

In those cases, which I think you might be overstating the frequency of, the reliability of those witnesses and the weight to provide their testimony is taken into consideration, also, there would need to be a lot of additional circumstantial evidence at hand, and the weight applied to that circumstantial evidence would also be a factor.

In this case, I think the reliability of liberated Polish mechanics, and captured German soldiers, as witnesses, might reasonably be called into question.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

They weren't. Media jews in Britain made that up with atrocity propaganda to aid jewish emigration to the West. There were (justified) pogroms, but almost all of the commonly known details about them were just kind of made the fuck up.

I'm referring to the mass slaughters of operation Barbarossa, not the earlier pogroms.

Starvation is overwhelmingly the easiest way to exterminate people. In fact, several million Red Army POWs were actually starved to death. Deliberately.

But gassing was more efficient. Just only for Jews. Yes.

It's easy but slow, Nazis were focused on efficiency. Waiting a few weeks for Shlomo to die of hunger is not a good idea if you want to kill as many Jews as possible while also having them work until their slot to die is up.

Crazy how you admit your religion that you believe in so deeply and heavily that you will excuse the behavior of anyone who also believes in it as "pol talking points". So another self own.

When I pointed out how you know nothing except cherry picked facts, you claimed to know more than me. When I asked you to show any knowledge despite talking points, this is apparently a self own. I'll give you another chance, why are Jews not allowed to ride horses on shabbat and what category of work does that fall under?

You can either admit you believe in Bigfoot or admit you have zero standards for evidence besides "they are Jewish so I will always believe them".

You're attempting to set up a kafka trap with a ridiculous question but I already have explained to you that having multiple witnesses that agree with each other, even if there's no physical evidence, is considered reliable. Most rape cases use this method of evidence.

Bullets in war are already widely available, men are also already there.

There were specialized Einsatzgruppen units that were designated for killing Jews that totalled 3k soldiers. That wasn't enough so Himmler sent 21 battalions of Order Police and that still wasn't enough. You also ignore the psychological impact on soldiers slaughtering innocents. For a Nazi, you seem completely ignorant about this phase of the Holocaust.

It takes far more resources to move people who need to be corralled and guarded to a central area than to just kill them.

Somehow sending German soldiers to every small village in Nazi occupied Russia to shoot 400 Jews is more efficient then loading those Jews in a train, sending them to a central labor camp to work for the Nazis, and then killing them when their slot is up.

This was too mentally taxing for the same people who had enough hatred of Jews to force them into brutal slavery, while starving, beating, torturing, and skinning them to make lampshades but gunning them down in a field was too much for these same Germans? What's the rationale there?

Look at Himmler. Guy hated Jews but when attending an execution of Jews in Minsk:

Heinrich Himmler toured the Eastern Front and on 15 August 1941 he visited Minsk and ordered Arthur Nebe, the commander of Einsatzgruppen B, to carry out an execution in his presence of one hundred inmates of the Minsk prison. SS- Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, Himmler’s deputy and liaison officer at Hitler’s headquarters was also present and he recalled the execution committed by members of Einsatzkommando 8 that day:

An open grave had been dug and they had to jump into this and lie face downwards. And sometimes when one or two rows had already been shot, they had to lie on top of the people who had already been shot and then they were shot from the edge of the grave. And Himmler had never seen dead people before and in his curiosity he stood right up at the edge of this open grave- a sort of triangular hole- and was looking in.

While he was looking in, Himmler had the deserved bad luck that from one or other of the people who had been shot in the head he got a splash of brains on his coat, and I think it also splashed into his face, and he went very green and pale; he wasn’t actually sick, but he was heaving and turned round and swayed and then I had to jump forward and hold him steady and then I led him away from the grave.

https://www.holocausthistoricalsociety.org.uk/contents/einsatzgruppen/himmlervisitsminsk.html

Quoting a post I found:

We know through eyewitness accounts of Himmler's visit to Minsk in August 1941 where he watched Einsatzgruppe B shoot Jews. According to the witnesses' testimony Himmler became very nervous after the shooting started. He couldn't bear looking at the executions. Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, Einsatzgruppen leader and later head of anti-Partisan operations in the USSR addressed Himmler: "Reichsfuehrer, those were only a hundred. (...) Look at the eyes of the men in this commando, how deeply shaken they are. Those men are finished (Sie sind fertig) for the rest of their lives. What kind of followers are we training here? Either neurotics or savages." (Arad: Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, p. 8.)

There's also Otto Ohlendorf's testimony during Nuremberg.

He speaks extensively about the psychological impact on his men from carrying out mass murders, talks about rotating out personnel who were "emotionally unfit", the implementation and impracticality of using the gas vans for women and children, his men's discomfort with having to shoot people once they understood what was about to happen to them, and how his men hated using the gas vans due the emotional and psychological trauma of off-loading sealed containers full of the soiled corpses of women and children. He also talks about the preferred methods of execution vis-s-vis psychological damage and how he enforced particular methods in order to maintain unit cohesion.

Page 223 https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-IV.pdf

Why did you choose to leave off the paragraph which describes that none of the alleged gas chamber vans had been recovered? Leaving that off invites quite fair speculation as to your genuosity. Did you think it was a trivial detail?

Because I figured it was obvious. If one had been recovered I would have posted it instead of the quotes from the mechanics.

there would need to be a lot of additional circumstantial evidence at hand, and the weight applied to that circumstantial evidence would also be a factor.

Which there's plenty of.

 

[Tablet County]

Yet we put dangerous animals in zoos and nature preserves.

Dangerous animals aren't Jews, dipshit. A lion is guileless, an elephant can't operate weapons, giraffes can't invent, hippos can't speak in the ears of more powerful nations to sway them to their side, hyenas can't win hearts and minds through propaganda, the chameleons won't bribe the zookeepers, the menagerie at the zoo isn't going to create its own mini-society within it in order to subvert the entire park.

Hitler’s goal was the protection and advancement of the German people, not the eradication of jews. You know since they let them all leave before the war if they wanted or did you forget about that?

And this proves that Hitler didn't want to kill all Jews how?
As you say, his primary goal was to make Germany great again, and while Jews were no doubt an obstacle to this goal their eradication off the face of the Earth was less of a priority than making Germany a great nation.

No it's not, it's very relevant. You can either admit you believe in Bigfoot or admit you have zero standards for evidence besides "they are Jewish so I will always believe them". It's a trap you've sprung on yourself yet again. Crazy how you keep falling into these.

"You have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with my case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with my case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm on Kiwi Farms arguing against the Holocaust, and I'm talkin' about Bigfoot! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in this thread deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed mass debate, it does not make sense!"
This is the single worst, most midwitted gotcha I've ever seen and you should oven yourself.

~20 million Soviets died during the war.

Why are jews somehow special?

Never argued Jews were special, but if you're going to act like a man who believed that Jews were a subversive group that were a threat to society had no desire to see Kike heads roll then you're either being wilfully obtuse or you're dumb.
I ask you in return; what makes Hitler special? No other nation or political leader in the history of the world has been swept up for as thoroughly as Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Hirohito doesn't get any leeway for the Rape of Nanking or Unit 731, Mao is still raked over the coals centuries later for his struggle sessions and his horribly inefficient policies. Mussolini gets made fun of for fumbling the bag, and "blackshirt" is still used as an insult for oppressive partisans. Pol Pot's indiscriminate murder and hatred of glasses isn't hotly debated. You yourself have already pointed out the atrocities carried out by Stalin. But somehow in a benighted time of wickedness Hitler was pristine, milky-white and unassailable. Hitler alone was noble and Christlike in an evil world, having never done or ordered anything that could be considered atrocious. He was a strong leader who made tough decisions and revealed to the world the evils of Zionism, but at the same time had no interest in plucking the root of all evil, even though the purported 6-gorillion would've been a drop in the bucket compared to his contemporaries.

Mind you, I'm not even arguing whether the Holocaust did or didn't happen or that Hitler was or wasn't The Great Satan. Hell, if everything I've been told about international Jewry is true then Hitler was too nice. Bitchmade even, for not having a stronger answer to the JQ and an idiot for underestimating the ability of Jews to subvert and despoil.

 

[Bonesjones]

It's easy but slow, Nazis were focused on efficiency. Waiting a few weeks for Shlomo to die of hunger is not a good idea if you want to kill as many Jews as possible while also having them work until their slot to die is up.

So the focus was in labor and not murder? You contradict yourself. Figure out your arguments before you post.

When I pointed out how you know nothing except cherry picked facts, you claimed to know more than me. When I asked you to show any knowledge despite talking points, this is apparently a self own. I'll give you another chance, why are Jews not allowed to ride horses on shabbat and what category of work does that fall under?

They aren't cherry picked facts they are key portions of your belief system. Again show me where I lied about any part of what I said? Rabbis still cut and suck baby dicks to this day. You've done nothing to distance yourself from these gross pedophiles and accept it as a normal part of your religion. Riding horses isn't work, no matter what you're told. If riding a horse is work (if making something else work for you is work) then shabbos goy is work and so is walking. Everything you believe is contradictory and has no internal consistency.


You're life and religion and culture is a joke. So again if you didn't think it was ok to lie to goys, then why wouldn't you be honest in this conversation?

You're attempting to set up a kafka trap with a ridiculous question but I already have explained to you that having multiple witnesses that agree with each other, even if there's no physical evidence, is considered reliable. Most rape cases use this method of evidence.

Most rape cases involve a question of consent, not of action. You again don't understand your own arguments.

There were specialized Einsatzgruppen units that were designated for killing Jews that totalled 3k soldiers. That wasn't enough so Himmler sent 21 battalions of Order Police and that still wasn't enough. You also ignore the psychological impact on soldiers slaughtering innocents. For a Nazi, you seem completely ignorant about this phase of the Holocaust.

So they had special murder squads thar were bad at murder? How deliciously evil. Do you have any argument not built entirely on lies and retardation? Baba Yar totally happen guys, we know because they couldn't find the bodies nor traces of the thousands of pounds of lead bullets left in the soil.

Somehow sending German soldiers to every small village in Nazi occupied Russia to shoot 400 Jews is more efficient then loading those Jews in a train, sending them to a central labor camp to work for the Nazis, and then killing them when their slot is up.

So they rounded them up and sent them to camps instead of just shooting them, this was more efficient than ?? You are mentally deficient. And yet again you admit they didn't want to kill them but use them for labor, some genocide this is.

Dangerous animals aren't Jews, dipshit. A lion is guileless, an elephant can't operate weapons, giraffes can't invent, hippos can't speak in the ears of more powerful nations to sway them to their side, hyenas can't win hearts and minds through propaganda, the chameleons won't bribe the zookeepers, the menagerie at the zoo isn't going to create its own mini-society within it in order to subvert the entire park.

I guess the deep water jew isn't a myth, they can just up and leave across 100 miles of ocean any time they want.

And this proves that Hitler didn't want to kill all Jews how?
As you say, his primary goal was to make Germany great again, and while Jews were no doubt an obstacle to this goal their eradication off the face of the Earth was less of a priority than making Germany a great nation.

They kicked the jews out, the ones who didn't leave were put in detention camps while they sorted out a destination, war broke out. It's a simple timeline that fits all facts. If he wanted them dead they would have been dead in days from water denial or weeks from food denial. You have to deny facts that exist to make the narrative work. That's why the holocaust is always a narrative in search of facts. That's why everyone who argues for its existence constantly has to mislead and lie to make it fit.

This is the single worst, most midwitted gotcha I've ever seen and you should oven yourself.

No. He admitted what his standard of evidence is for belief, he can either admit he made it up or believe the ridiculous. It's not my problem he's too dumb to not have a philosophy of mind.

what makes Hitler special?

Nothing, he stood up against jews and they hate white people and anyone who inconveniences them. They eternally hold grudges.

 

[Tablet County]

So they rounded them up and sent them to camps instead of just shooting them, this was more efficient than ?? You are mentally deficient. And yet again you admit they didn't want to kill them but use them for labor, some genocide this is.

By definition rounding people up in camps and using them for manual labor and then killing them is more efficient then wasting good bullets on them yes. Now did this means it happened or that it was the most efficient thing that could've been done? Maybe not, but acting like it's somehow less efficient is just silly.

I guess the deep water jew isn't a myth, they can just up and leave across 100 miles of ocean any time they want.

What a blow to my argument. Ah yes, no one in the international community could possibly hold any empathy for a group of people who were deported to a small tropical island with no infrastructure, nor could the Jewish diaspora possibly figure out boats!

Nothing, he stood up against jews and they hate white people and anyone who inconveniences them. They eternally hold grudges.

He stood up to Jews by... not killing them?

They kicked the jews out, the ones who didn't leave were put in detention camps while they sorted out a destination, war broke out. It's a simple timeline that fits all facts. If he wanted them dead they would have been dead in days from water denial or weeks from food denial. You have to deny facts that exist to make the narrative work. That's why the holocaust is always a narrative in search of facts. That's why everyone who argues for its existence constantly has to mislead and lie to make it fit.

Certainly but again, I'm not arguing that the Holocaust happened, I'm arguing that it's farcical to believe a man who said he wanted Jews dead didn't want Jews dead. He didn't have to be frothing at the mouth, screeching about how he wanted the Jews dead "NOW NOW NOW!". Kicking them out of the country is less of a hassle than rounding them up and killing them.

No. He admitted what his standard of evidence is for belief, he can either admit he made it up or believe the ridiculous. It's not my problem he's too dumb to not have a philosophy of mind.

So he either accepts belief in bigfoot, thereby admitting his beliefs are bullshit, or admits his beliefs are bullshit thereby admitting his beliefs are bullshit?
Your arguments are sophist retardation and you should be hung from a lightpost for tainting the realm of rhetoric with this dishonest garbage.

 

[Bonesjones]

By definition rounding people up in camps and using them for manual labor and then killing them is more efficient then wasting good bullets on them yes. Now did this means it happened or that it was the most efficient thing that could've been done? Maybe not, but acting like it's somehow less efficient is just silly.

If you are arguing for genocide and they are not being killed, then your argument is faulty. So now the argument isn't they wanted to exterminate jews as quickly as possible but to something else. Again you've contradicted your own assertion. This is called moving the goal posts.

What a blow to my argument. Ah yes, no one in the international community could possibly hold any empathy for a group of people who were deported to a small tropical island with no infrastructure, nor could the Jewish diaspora possibly figure out boats!

Yeah it is a blow because you have no argument. They didn't want to kill them they wanted them far away in a place that was easily contained, a large island does both. Again you fixate on genocide being the goal instead of expulsion. I thought you weren't arguing for the Holocaust but all your thought processes betray you.

He stood up to Jews by... not killing them?

You do know what words mean right? All you do is go Hitler bad murder jews like some sort of retarded robot, when the basic facts show that wasn't even a goal. At worst it was the consequences of the eastern front and partisan warfare.

Certainly but again, I'm not arguing that the Holocaust happened, I'm arguing that it's farcical to believe a man who said he wanted Jews dead didn't want Jews dead. He didn't have to be frothing at the mouth, screeching about how he wanted the Jews dead "NOW NOW NOW!". Kicking them out of the country is less of a hassle than rounding them up and killing them.

So the large paper trail showing intent and action is meaningless because jews say he tried to genocide them, when you ask them to prove it they can supply zero physical evidence of it happening. Makes sense.

So he either accepts belief in bigfoot, thereby admitting his beliefs are bullshit, or admits his beliefs are bullshit thereby admitting his beliefs are bullshit?
Your arguments are sophist retardation and you should be hung from a lightpost for tainting the realm of rhetoric with this dishonest garbage.

No he said that multiple eye witnesses was enough to prove something happened, not only is there multiple eye witnesses for Bigfoot there's even video tape. That's a much higher standard than the holocaust, since there is zero video tape of jews walking into gas chambers or corpses being cremated in the crematory. So look at you try to misrepresent my argument. Whose dishonest garbage now? It's not my fault you are another retard joining the fray.

He's already tacitly admitted that there is no evidence for jews being gassed that isn't entirely circumstantial. There are no bodies, there is no logistic train to either kill or cover up it happening.

 

[Tablet County]

If you are arguing for genocide and they are not being killed, then your argument is faulty. So now the argument isn't they wanted to exterminate jews as quickly as possible but to something else. Again you've contradicted your own assertion. This is called moving the goal posts.

Never argued that Hitler ever engaged in genocide, argued that your argument was faulty. Please keep up.

Yeah it is a blow because you have no argument.

Yes I do, you're just pretending I don't because actual arguing is difficult when all you have is sophistry.

They didn't want to kill them they wanted them far away in a place that was easily contained, a large island does both.

Which would've been an idiotic idea anyway as forcibly shipping a bunch of Jews on to a tropical island with no infrastructure would've likely brought on as much of a negative reaction from the international community as the six gorillion. Might've actually been worse, seeing as there's a paper trail to prove it.

Again you fixate on genocide being the goal instead of expulsion. I thought you weren't arguing for the Holocaust but all your thought processes betray you.

Not arguing for the Holocaust. It may have happened, but there's enough reasonable doubt and ulterior motives from both sides to keep me from definitively picking an answer. But it is strange that the only people who ever deny the Holocaust are ideologically captured in one way or another.

You do know what words mean right? All you do is go Hitler bad murder jews like some sort of retarded robot, when the basic facts show that wasn't even a goal. At worst it was the consequences of the eastern front and partisan warfare.

You aren't even arguing against me at this point, just spouting a bunch of useless adhoms and reiterating your own positions.
The basic facts are that Adolf Hitler wrote this:

If the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, were to triumph over the people of this world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind. And this planet will once again follow its orbit through the ether devoid of humanity, just as it did millions of years ago... Eternal Nature inevitably avenges those who violate her commands... Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: In defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Look at that passage, in it he describes Jews and their philosophy as a threat to mankind, not merely Germany. You're telling me that Hitler "stood up to" what he claimed to be a threat to humanity by merely telling them to fuck off and forcibly detaining the ones who wouldn't? Or did Jews edit the contents of Mein Kampf to support their narrative of a great and terrible Shoah?
As I said, it's entirely possible that the Holocaust was a Holohoax and there was no policy official or otherwise to exterminate the Jews, nor any action taken to kill them/use them for manual labor after they were detained. But you can't look me in the metaphorical eye and tell me that Hitler didn't want to destroy the Jews, justifiably or not. If he wanted to "resist the Marxist creed of the Jew" by throwing them out of his country, that was only a stopgap measure. He would, eventually, have to deal with the Jew, whether that would be in showers and mobile Holocaust trucks now or in a later day of the rope-esque pogrom in the future.

So the large paper trail showing intent and action is meaningless because jews say he tried to genocide them, when you ask them to prove it they can supply zero physical evidence of it happening. Makes sense.

Jews didn't say this:

Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attack from within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants a flag of revolution on the very battlefields.

In economics he undermines the states until the social enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected to his financial control.

In the political field he refuses the state the means for its self-preservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history and past, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.

Culturally, he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere of his own base nature.

Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, until the last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world have fallen.

Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic peoples Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slaves lot of permanent subjugation.

The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.

The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too

Are you actually reading what I'm typing or are you merely reacting to stimuli? I can tell from the way you type that English isn't your first language, so maybe you aren't picking up what I'm putting down. Never denied the paper trail, never said the Holocaust happened. All I said was that it's obvious that Hitler had a bone to pick with Jews and pretending that isn't true is not only intellectually dishonest, it's plain ol' regularly dishonest. Unless this righteous indignation toward Zionism was all theater in order to sway a growingly antisemitic German populace to his side.

No he said that multiple eye witnesses was enough to prove something happened, not only is there multiple eye witnesses for Bigfoot there's even video tape. That's a much higher standard than the holocaust, since there is zero video tape of jews walking into gas chambers or corpses being cremated in the crematory.

He's already tacitly admitted that there is no evidence for jews being gassed that isn't entirely circumstantial. There are no bodies, there is no logistic train to either kill or cover up it happening.

I don't expect there to be extensive video tape in an era where personal camcorders weren't invented, no. If there's such extensive documentation of the existence of bigfoot I'm surprised you don't believe in bigfoot's existence.
Cheap jabs aside, fair enough. Though at this point I'm going entirely on your word that this paper trail exists (I've no reason to believe it doesn't, but still) and your insultingly childish rhetorical question about bigfoot is still gay and you should be stoned to death for it.

It's not my fault you are another retard joining the fray.

On that we can agree, my linguistically-challenged friend.
I'd like to conclude my spergery by asking more of a philosophical question: do you think the Holocaust should've happened? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[draggs]

Are you asking if anyone at the time had contradicted the testimony, or are you asking why the show trials would have not thrown out testimony that was extracted through coercion?

"Some claim the conquering army were charging people with human rights violations, which were outlawed ex post facto. If this were the case, why didn't they object? "

Damn, I have been BTFOd with facts and logic. Is this really what you're hanging your hat on?

"The prisoners of the conquered army, after surrendering unconditionally, have already confessed to breaking laws we just invented. Case closed."

I'm asking why your Aryan supermen were such weak bitches that they bent over without complaint and admitted to silly lies, when there are thousands of examples of lesser men refusing to do so throughout history, paying the price for their obstinacy and earning the admiration of honorable men?

Anyway, care to explain how the Jews forged the more than 3,000 tons of records that were used as evidence at Nuremberg, and in Poland? 200,000 sheets of paper is one ton. 3,000+ tons = 600,000,000+ sheets of paper. How did the Jews manage such a thing? Not a single fuckup that exposed the mendacity? No one at the time who said:

Hey wait a minute, this memo from Himmler saying 'shooting the Jews is too hard on the einsatzgruppen, they're getting drunk all the time, we need to find a better way,' it's obviously a forgery that's been planted in the SS files...

Or the minutes of the Wannsee Conference? The reports from SS bureaucrats like Eichmann detailing the progress of Aktion Reinhard?

Contemplate the strength and guile of the Jews, to pull off such a fantastic endeavor

 

[Bonesjones]

Never argued that Hitler ever engaged in genocide, argued that your argument was faulty. Please keep up.

There is no fault in my argument there is only a fault in your comprehension.

Yes I do, you're just pretending I don't because actual arguing is difficult when all you have is sophistry.

Maybe go back to the first post and read this whole thread. Since you are clearly clueless.

Which would've been an idiotic idea anyway as forcibly shipping a bunch of Jews on to a tropical island with no infrastructure would've likely brought on as much of a negative reaction from the international community as the six gorillion. Might've actually been worse, seeing as there's a paper trail to prove it.

So its better to kill people than to relocate them?

Not arguing for the Holocaust. It may have happened, but there's enough reasonable doubt and ulterior motives from both sides to keep me from definitively picking an answer. But it is strange that the only people who ever deny the Holocaust are ideologically captured in one way or another.

You are arguing for the Holocaust. You just said only ideological motivated people would deny it happening. So your default statement is that it happened and it must be proven otherwise. It's not that Jewish media has promoted it as being true with no factual basis and admitting they don't have evidence for it they say they do.

You aren't even arguing against me at this point, just spouting a bunch of useless adhoms and reiterating your own positions.
The basic facts are that Adolf Hitler wrote this:

Nice pilpul.

Look at that passage, in it he describes Jews and their philosophy as a threat to mankind, not merely Germany. You're telling me that Hitler "stood up to" what he claimed to be a threat to humanity by merely telling them to fuck off and forcibly detaining the ones who wouldn't? Or did Jews edit the contents of Mein Kampf to support their narrative of a great and terrible Shoah?

Illegal immigrants are a threat to mankind, does that mean we should annihilate them all or send them back to where they came from? You make huge leaps in defense of the Holocaust narrative.

As I said, it's entirely possible that the Holocaust was a Holohoax and there was no policy official or otherwise to exterminate the Jews, nor any action taken to kill them/use them for manual labor after they were detained. But you can't look me in the metaphorical eye and tell me that Hitler didn't want to destroy the Jews, justifiably or not. If he wanted to "resist the Marxist creed of the Jew" by throwing them out of his country, that was only a stopgap measure. He would, eventually, have to deal with the Jew, whether that would be in showers and mobile Holocaust trucks now or in a later day of the rope-esque pogrom in the future.

That's a slippery slope fallacy, I thought you were some argument king.

Are you actually reading what I'm typing or are you merely reacting to stimuli? I can tell from the way you type that English isn't your first language, so maybe you aren't picking up what I'm putting down. Never denied the paper trail, never said the Holocaust happened. All I said was that it's obvious that Hitler had a bone to pick with Jews and pretending that isn't true is not only intellectually dishonest, it's plain ol' regularly dishonest. Unless this righteous indignation toward Zionism was all theater in order to sway a growingly antisemitic German populace to his side.

You have no knowledge base to even discuss this. Resort to tired pilpul tactics ontop of it. Of course he had a bone to pick with jews, he clearly explains why. You keeping words in my mouth and pretending I've said things I didnt. Maybe go study post world war 1 Germany. Communist jews literally tried to overthrow the government.

I don't expect there to be extensive video tape in an era where personal camcorders weren't invented, no. If there's such extensive documentation of the existence of bigfoot I'm surprised you don't believe in bigfoot's existence.
Cheap jabs aside, fair enough. Though at this point I'm going entirely on your word that this paper trail exists (I've no reason to believe it doesn't, but still) and your insultingly childish rhetorical question about bigfoot is still gay and you should be stoned to death for it.

I don't believe in Bigfoot because the physical evidence is nonexistent, just like the holocaust. Retards arguing for the Holocaust say that eyewitness accounts are proof enough, which is a poor standard of proof for anything. It's a perfect analogy for how ridiculous the holocaust narrative is. They assert things happen with no evidence, claim eyewitness testimony as proof, then cobble together whatever bullshit they can to corroborate it. They've literally argued that hospitals and delousing agents are proof of genocide despite them being the exact opposite.

On that we can agree, my linguistically-challenged friend.
I'd like to conclude my spergery by asking more of a philosophical question: do you think the Holocaust should've happened? If so, why? If not, why not?

I don't think anyone should be harmed for things they didn't do. Having a basic moral code makes your speculative questioning silly.

I'm asking why your Aryan supermen were such weak bitches that they bent over without complaint and admitted to silly lies, when there are thousands of examples of lesser men refusing to do so throughout history, paying the price for their obstinacy and earning the admiration of honorable men?

Germany just lost a war involving the resources of half the planet. They weren't in much position to do anything besides try to keep things from being worse for their families. Over 2 million German soldiers were starved to death post war.

Anyway, care to explain how the Jews forged the more than 3,000 tons of records that were used as evidence at Nuremberg, and in Poland? 200,000 sheets of paper is one ton. 3,000+ tons = 600,000,000+ sheets of paper. How did the Jews manage such a thing? Not a single fuckup that exposed the mendacity? No one at the time who said:

How did the military might of the 3 largest nations do whatever they wanted? I dunno man, if the Nazis can make 6 million jews disappear, I guess they could forge a couple documents if needed. Also the whole thing was exposed at the time, it was a Kangaroo court to give moral justification to a horrendously bloody war that left 10s of millions of people dead. War crimes only belong to war losers.

Or the minutes of the Wannsee Conference? The reports from SS bureaucrats like Eichmann detailing the progress of Aktion Reinhard?

Contemplate the strength and guile of the Jews, to pull off such a fantastic endeavor

You mean when they talk about expelling jews? You mean when they talk about fighting partisans?

Its a simple trick to associate war time deaths with genocide to inflate the decreasing amount of jews killed in the holocaust. Again, it's all a narrative looking for facts.

 

[Tablet County]

There is no fault in my argument there is only a fault in your comprehension.

You know for someone who accuses others of engaging in pilpul you sure do seem to love that form of rhetoric.

Maybe go back to the first post and read this whole thread. Since you are clearly clueless.

More worthless ad hominem.

So its better to kill people than to relocate them?

If Jews are an existential threat to humanity then yes, otherwise you're only taking half-measures. You don't deal with cancer by taking it and moving it somewhere else, you purge it from the body.

You are arguing for the Holocaust. You just said only ideological motivated people would deny it happening.

Reading comprehension dumbass; I said it's strange that the only people who ever seem to engage in Holocaust denialism are all motivated by ideology. My pattern-recognizing brain has never noticed a Holocaust denialist who was merely an independent truth-seeker. I've seen people who were skeptical of the Holocaust who were, but never full-blown denialists. Granted, this may be because only those who are ideologically motivated have the will to actually talk about it in a social climate where the Holocaust is taken as unassailable fact.

So your default statement is that it happened and it must be proven otherwise. It's not that Jewish media has promoted it as being true with no factual basis and admitting they don't have evidence for it they say they do.

It's funny that you joked that I was a robot who only spouts the same few talking points while you behave like some kind of chatbot. It's like you don't actually parse what I'm arguing, you just know that I'm your opponent and so I must believe such and such a thing and behave in such and such a way.

Nice pilpul.

Here you are again, characterizing my arguments as "pilpul" so that you don't actually have to engage with them. It's a weird thing to do when I'm not even Jewish. Is your frame of reference so narrow?

Illegal immigrants are a threat to mankind, does that mean we should annihilate them all or send them back to where they came from? You make huge leaps in defense of the Holocaust narrative.

I'm sorry, what? Illegal immigrants are a threat to mankind? I can say quite a few things about illegal immigrants but I don't think that they pose an existential threat to humanity as a whole. And if they did then yes, they should be annihilated because as a threat to humankind, allowing them to exist means that they will pose a threat no matter where they are, unless they're only a threat when they immigrate to other countries illegally and are otherwise nonentities.
I'm going to be fully good faith and assume there's some grave miscommunication going on here because equating "people who enter another country illegally" to "a group of people whose modus operandi is to subvert and puppeteer all nations and lead humanity to ruin out of spite" is a bit of a leap.

That's a slippery slope fallacy, I thought you were some argument king.

Do you even know what words mean or are you just a series of blurbs?
The destruction of the Jewish race is not some slippery slope that Hitler was going to fall down because he dared dance with antisemitism, it's the logical conclusion of his ideology, or was he blowing smoke up everyone's ass in Mein Kampf, pretending Jews were an existential threat for political gain?
Tangentially, I also don't know where you got this impression that I think I'm some kind of "argument king" from. Are you sundowning and you've mistaken me for someone else you argued with in this thread? Being retarded myself, I don't have to be the King Of All Arguments to know retardation when I see it.

You have no knowledge base to even discuss this. Resort to tired pilpul tactics ontop of it.

I'm starting to wonder if you even know what pilpul means or if you just think it's some silver bullet which slays any argument raised against you.

Of course he had a bone to pick with jews, he clearly explains why.

Where in my posts did I claim that Hitler never explained why he had a bone to pick with Jews or that this bone of contention was unjustified? I think he explained his position pretty well.

You keeping words in my mouth and pretending I've said things I didnt.

The fucking IRONY.
When have I done this? The closest I think I came to putting words in your mouth was saying that your bigfoot conundrum was intended as a trick question where both answers would lead to the same conclusion.
You on the other hand have consistently ascribed meaning and motive to me which I don't possess, shadowboxing with an imaginary version of me while I watch bewildered from the corner.

Maybe go study post world war 1 Germany. Communist jews literally tried to overthrow the government.

Okay.

I don't believe in Bigfoot because the physical evidence is nonexistent, just like the holocaust. Retards arguing for the Holocaust say that eyewitness accounts are proof enough, which is a poor standard of proof for anything. It's a perfect analogy for how ridiculous the holocaust narrative is. They assert things happen with no evidence, claim eyewitness testimony as proof, then cobble together whatever bullshit they can to corroborate it. They've literally argued that hospitals and delousing agents are proof of genocide despite them being the exact opposite.

Again, fair. Nothing I can really say against that.

I don't think anyone should be harmed for things they didn't do. Having a basic moral code makes your speculative questioning silly.

This is the most slippery, evasive non-answer I've ever seen. Are you certain you aren't a member of the Tribe?