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

[Spud]

tries to defend Santa's existence.

Only a person who got coal doesn't believe in Santa.

 

[Tumbo II]

It happened but one group monopolizing their singular experience for decades then going on to commit more or less the same thing to another group of people but this time with financial and political backing that the Nazis never had leaves a bad taste in peoples mouth.

 

[the gouts]

often with deniers i've noticed, they want evidence spoonfed to them piecemeal so that they can pick it apart and play with it like a baby does their food. the burden of proof is always on the other party, even though the op of this thread links probably the most exhaustive and easiest to access source on holocaust denialism deboonking which they can freely sort through themselves.
all the evidence and proof in the world is right there in front of them, but they will never engage with it. not unless there is someone presenting to them that they can belittle during.
i also notice among them is a misconstrued belief of a central holocaust 'legend' which was formulated after the war and hasn't really been touched since, and because of this their 'revisionism' is breaking new mold. when in actuality holocaust historiography has proven continuous and wildly varied amongst scholars for as long as we've debated it, with differing schools of thought tackling the event through different perspectives and attitudes. questions like 'was the holocaust wholly unique, or is it just as comparable to any other genocide throughout history?', or the transition towards polish/yiddish/russian sources during and after the cold war (holocaust historiography, like much of WW2 history, was dominated by german writings and evidence up until around the 1970s) which opened up whole new cans of worms about things like local population participation in the holocaust, and whether or not some blame can also be held upon the countries the holocaust was perpetrated within.
anyways i'm just pissing into the wind, these are thoughts have been on my mind for a while and figured i'd put them out somewhere.
edit: up until the 1970s, for holocaust history specifically. it wasn't until the fall of the soviet union and the opening of archives did much of our german-biased misunderstandings of falsehoods over the war (specifically in the east) were finally countered.

 

[Bonesjones]

often with deniers i've noticed, they want evidence spoonfed to them piecemeal so that they can pick it apart and play with it like a baby does their food.

Spoonfeed me one corpse of a jew who was gassed to death, just one.

 

[the gouts]

Spoonfeed me one corpse of a jew who was gassed to death, just one.

you seem very into dead jew corpses, but very well:

Spoiler: der jude

via my source of this image: "A fenced off area containing pits used for the burning of bodies when the crematoria could not keep up with the workload in 1944. This is one of only three photographs that document the burning of bodies in Auschwitz-Birkenau."
open-air burnings to compensate for a workload the crematoria's could not keep up with. a detail which i find funny, as a classic denier talking point is the whole 'you cant bake x amount of cookies in only y amount of hours!' in reference to what they claim were inadequacies in the crematoriums abilities to keep up with the apparently-'supposed' metric tons of bodies. and here is a photograph of what seems to be just that, the crematoriums not being able to keep up.
we can also assume these were in-fact gas chamber victims they are burning, as gas chamber victims were usually the ones carted off on holocoasters into dutch ovens.
i'll give it to you though: as far as my cursory searches have uncovered, there are no photographs of corpses in any gas chambers.

 

[Bonesjones]

you seem very into dead jew corpses, but very well:

Spoiler: der jude

View attachment 6074721

via my source of this image: "A fenced off area containing pits used for the burning of bodies when the crematoria could not keep up with the workload in 1944. This is one of only three photographs that document the burning of bodies in Auschwitz-Birkenau."
open-air burnings to compensate for a workload the crematoria's could not keep up with. a detail which i find funny, as a classic denier talking point is the whole 'you cant bake x amount of cookies in only y amount of hours!' in reference to what they claim were inadequacies in the crematoriums abilities to keep up with the apparently-'supposed' metric tons of bodies. and here is a photograph of what seems to be just that, the crematoriums not being able to keep up.
we can also assume these were in-fact gas chamber victims they are burning, as gas chamber victims were usually the ones carted off on holocoasters into dutch ovens.
i'll give it to you though: as far as my cursory searches have uncovered, there are no photographs of corpses in any gas chambers.

Maybe read the thread, that picture has only been debunked 20 times. Also why are none of them in Nazi uniforms? Also why are they gassing Typhus victims instead of just letting them die? Also why do you have to assume, I thought you could prove it?

There's photos on the Dachau website that claims there are bodies in a gas chamber, that they also claim was never used. Almost like its all made up and makes zero sense.

 

[the gouts]

Maybe read the thread, that picture has only been debunked 20 times.

it is 285 pages long lol let me spare myself the trouble. though, we can always go for a 21st, go ahead

Also why are none of them in Nazi uniforms?

those are sonderkommando, not actual nazis. a sonderkommando was also the one to capture the image. per the source: "The photographs were secretly taken by a member of the sonderkommando and were smuggled out by the international underground in the camp."
why even ask this question? the photograph has already been debunked apparently so you should know the answer to that.

Also why are they gassing Typhus victims instead of just letting them die?

prove those specific corpses are the victims of typhus.

Also why do you have to assume, I thought you could prove it?

i mean you could locate the position of the image, find where it was taken relative to the camp, and then figure out the proximity of the image to a gas chamber and/or crematorium. that would be 'proving' it. you can also make the assumption that those were gas chamber victims based on my reasoning above. both are valid, but the former option would be a job and a half.

 

[Bonesjones]

it is 285 pages long lol let me spare myself the trouble. though, we can always go for a 21st, go ahead

Nah,

those are sonderkommando, not actual nazis. a sonderkommando was also the one to capture the image. per the source: "The photographs were secretly taken by a member of the sonderkommando and were smuggled out by the international underground in the camp."

How do you know they are, because it's labeled as such? What besides the label on the photo could you use to identify them? How did the sonderkommando get a camera in? We know they were stripped and all items removed before a physical examination. Are you suggesting they hid a camera in their ass? Who are these international underground? What else did they do? If the Nazis are genociding everyone, how would they have the time or ability to do any of the above? Make any of it make sense please.

why even ask this question? the photograph has already been debunked apparently so you should know the answer to that.

To poke holes in the story, because it's silly.

prove those specific corpses are the victims of typhus.

Prove they were gassed, prove anything about it.

i mean you could locate the position of the image, find where it was taken relative to the camp, and then figure out the proximity of the image to a gas chamber and/or crematorium. that would be 'proving' it. you can also make the assumption that those were gas chamber victims based on my reasoning above. both are valid, but the former option would be a job and a half.

So you are saying you might be able to prove it is what it says it is or you could just assume. Hmm. That burden of proof is looking real shakey by your own admission.

Why do you retards make it so easy?

 

[the gouts]

How do you know they are, because it's labeled as such? What besides the label on the photo could you use to identify them?

by the distinct lack of uniform (neither prisoner nor guard) and because they're not nazis, i would wager those were sonderkommando. sonderkommando were often enticed with rewards for their work, so the freedom to wear plain clothes gives it away.

How did the sonderkommando get a camera in? We know they were stripped and all items removed before a physical examination. Are you suggesting they hid a camera in their ass?

auschwitz was a massive sprawling complex of three main camps and some fifty or so subcamps. tens of thousands of people worked in and around the camp. one person getting their hands on a camera and taking an opportunity in open-air to photograph these crimes (whereas taking a photo of the crematorium specifically would be substantially harder if not impossible) is not nearly an impossible feat.

Who are these international underground? What else did they do?

sabaton made a song on it, you can take your research from there independently
its fucking banger by the way

If the Nazis are genociding everyone, how would they have the time or ability to do any of the above?

not everyone. again, auschwitz wasn't just birkenau, it was a complex staffed by thousands and imprisoned further thousands, and operated for years. i dont see how they don't have the time or ability.

Prove they were gassed, prove anything about it.

if you cant prove they died of typhus and i cant prove they died of gassing, then let's just agree to disagree.

So you are saying you might be able to prove it is what it says it is or you could just assume. Hmm. That burden of proof is looking real shakey by your own admission.

shrug. fair enough, but i'm just too lazy.

There's photos on the Dachau website that claims there are bodies in a gas chamber, that they also claim was never used.

link?

 

[John.Doe]

Modern methods of open air burning show similar numbers.

Yeah, a shame that the numbers are total bullshit, vastly underestimating the enthalpy of vaporization for water and overestimating the caloric value of wood. I don't know why you would use experiments from 1904 when we now know the thermodynamic equations, specific heats, enthalpy values, etc of everything with great precision. Enough to easily do the calculations with absolute mathematical certainty.

Oh, its because you're presenting bullshit that you don't understand.

However, air Curtain incinerators are not noted for fuel efficiency

Wait, so now the Germans were using Air Curtain Incinerators, and not open pits? That doesn't make any sense at all in light of the other things that you have posted, like smoke plumes (air curtain incinerators cut smoke plumes to near zero) or the pictures of what you claim are burn pits that don't have the machines to generate the air curtain. Or your prior claims about interior, sealed vessel cremations, either.

It doesn't help that air curtain burn pits/trenches wouldn't produce the kind of fine, grindable cremains that you could plausibly try to conceal, so we come back to the question of where are the hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of compressed ass littered with huge chunks of human bone?

 

[Chugger]

Yeah, a shame that the numbers are total bullshit, vastly underestimating the enthalpy of vaporization for water and overestimating the caloric value of wood. I don't know why you would use experiments from 1904 when we now know the thermodynamic equations, specific heats, enthalpy values, etc of everything with great precision. Enough to easily do the calculations with absolute mathematical certainty.

What do you mean by bullshit? They're not theoretical numbers. They dug pits, burned the carcasses, saw how much wood it took, wrote that down.

 

[Chugger]

It doesn't help that air curtain burn pits/trenches wouldn't produce the kind of fine, grindable cremains that you could plausibly try to conceal, so we come back to the question of where are the hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of compressed ass littered with huge chunks of human bone?

You clearly aren't familiar with the mainstream account which has the bodies being destroyed after burning through various means, sometimes by hand and sometimes with a ball mill type device. This is evidenced by witnesses and also documents. So small chunks are what has been found.

You've been reading this thread, so I take it you have Kola's studies. What do you think he means by "crematory"?

Holocaust Historical Society

Holocaust Historical Society

www.holocausthistoricalsociety.org.uk

 

[John.Doe]

What do you mean by bullshit? They're not theoretical numbers. They dug pits, burned the carcasses, saw how much wood it took, wrote that down.

The results of their obviously flawed 'experiments' contradict what we know to be the actual values important to the thermodynamic calculations required to address this issue. I couldn't tell you precisely what the flaws were in their experimental design, measurements, or calculations, but they must be pretty significant for how far off they were from the actual, correct value we currently have. A lot of early scientific investigations are fascinating, but their numeric findings are often obsolete due to advancements in instrumentation and experiment design.

You've been reading this thread, so I take it you have Kola's studies. What do you think he means by "crematory"?

Never heard of the dude, but if he's like you then he defines a 'crematory' as 'a magical machine that takes up no space, never appears in photographs or real life, requires no fuel, no maintenance and magically vaporizes Jew corpses so perfectly that no forensic evidence will ever exist.' Which is basically one step away from Nazi Wizards, but people are allowed to believe whatever stupid bullshit they want to believe. Whats your point?

 

[Chugger]

but they must be pretty significant for how far off they were from the actual, correct value we currently have.

How much wood is needed per kg in the best case scenario, most efficient destruction proceess?

Never heard of the dude, but if he's like you then he defines a 'crematory' as 'a magical machine that takes up no space, never appears in photographs or real life, requires no fuel, no maintenance and magically vaporizes Jew corpses so perfectly that no forensic evidence will ever exist.' Which is basically one step away from Nazi Wizards, but people are allowed to believe whatever stupid bullshit they want to believe. Whats your point?

Forensic evidence exists, eg did you look up crematory? It's in almost all the graves. Idk man, you asked if there were remains at the sites.

 

[Bonesjones]

by the distinct lack of uniform (neither prisoner nor guard) and because they're not nazis, i would wager those were sonderkommando. sonderkommando were often enticed with rewards for their work, so the freedom to wear plain clothes gives it away.

So you agree there is no identifying information found in the photos and are thus unreliable evidence for anything?

auschwitz was a massive sprawling complex of three main camps and some fifty or so subcamps. tens of thousands of people worked in and around the camp. one person getting their hands on a camera and taking an opportunity in open-air to photograph these crimes (whereas taking a photo of the crematorium specifically would be substantially harder if not impossible) is not nearly an impossible feat.

So they weren't trying to genocide jews if they were putting them in labor camps instead of exterminating them. Why would taking photos of building located in the middle of the camp be harder? It's a building. You'd think they would want to hide the cremation of thousands of bodies would be more of a priority, unless it wasn't a secret. That's the problem with the holocaust narrative, it piecemeal information together in a way that doesn't make any sense. It's just a form of propaganda to show shocking and emotional imagery so you don't think about it too much.

not everyone. again, auschwitz wasn't just birkenau, it was a complex staffed by thousands and imprisoned further thousands, and operated for years. i dont see how they don't have the time or ability.

So that doesn't raise any questions to you?

if you cant prove they died of typhus and i cant prove they died of gassing, then let's just agree to disagree.

We can prove they died of Typhus, considering the red cross showed up and said they did. 250k died, which is why they were doing things like cremating dead bodies and delousing clothing and buildings. You know the exact opposite of genocide.

link?

You can just go back and follow the conversation about 5 pages it's been posted several times.

You clearly aren't familiar with the mainstream account which has the bodies being destroyed after burning through various means, sometimes by hand and sometimes with a ball mill type device. This is evidenced by witnesses and also documents. So small chunks are what has been found.

"They used advanced crematory to disintegrate the bodies so there's no leftovers"

so where is the fuel to do all that

"actually they used less advanced machinery to do it and crushed up the leftovers"

so where's the machinery to do that?

"They used advanced crematory to disintegrate the bodies"

You've been reading this thread, so I take it you have Kola's studies. What do you think he means by "crematory"?

Kola didnt do any studies, he did a preliminary observation. Hey look deja vu again, you just loop between arguments since you have no point

How much wood is needed per kg in the best case scenario, most efficient destruction proceess?

how much wood did they have on hand? It doesn't matter how much they could have used, it matters how much they had to use.

Forensic evidence exists, eg did you look up crematory? It's in almost all the graves. Idk man, you asked if there were remains at the sites.

No it doesn't, you are cherry picking one preliminary study to apply it everywhere. The study didn't conclude anything, seeing that they never dug up nor forensically examined the site. They just did some core drilling and said "must be jews" so they could continue pushing the holocaust narrative with no objective conclusion. Most likely because the result would be even more refutation of the Holocaust and more evidence of Soviet warcrimes.

 

[the gouts]

So you agree there is no identifying information found in the photos and are thus unreliable evidence for anything?

yes actually, i am truly and utterly btfo

So they weren't trying to genocide jews if they were putting them in labor camps instead of exterminating them.

you're misunderstanding the point - my point isnt that auschwitz was actually just a labor camp, my point is that it wasn't only an extermination camp. the necessary distinctions between labor, concentration, and/or extermination camps/sub-camps in relation to the holocaust - and the varied populations of ethnicities which were housed with them - are rarely taught however, so i don't blame you for the confusion.

Why would taking photos of building located in the middle of the camp be harder? It's a building.

i meant inside of the building, in-action. there are photographs of the outside of the building which you can see smoke plumes billowing out

You'd think they would want to hide the cremation of thousands of bodies would be more of a priority, unless it wasn't a secret.

im pretty sure they did try, seeing as we have so little photos of cremations taking place. but theres only so much you can do when smoke billows out into the air every day.

That's the problem with the holocaust narrative, it piecemeal information together in a way that doesn't make any sense. It's just a form of propaganda to show shocking and emotional imagery so you don't think about it too much.

tying back to my initial point about the 'holocaust narrative' myth - there is no such thing. not in the way you think of it, anyways. the holocaust's historiography has evolved, changed, and been mended countless times over the years. theres are whole books on the this, like dan stone's apty titled The Historiography of the Holocaust , as well as yehuda bauer's Rethinking the Holocaust .
when the only research you've ever done has been spoonfed to you through /pol/ infographics and debating people online then yeah, things will seem 'piecemeal'. you can always try and pick up a book on the subject, of which there are plenty. something like the thousand-page magnum-opus of the late david cesarani Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews is hardly something i'd call piecemeal.

So that doesn't raise any questions to you?

is it supposed to? no one who takes holocaust scholarship seriously even remotely denies the combination of labor, concentration, and extermination which could be found in many of the larger and smaller camps in the nazi camp system. nor does it make the holocaust any less plausible.

You can just go back and follow the conversation about 5 pages it's been posted several times.

no spoonfeed me smh

We can prove they died of Typhus, considering the red cross showed up and said they did. 250k died, which is why they were doing things like cremating dead bodies and delousing clothing and buildings. You know the exact opposite of genocide.

ok lol

 

[Bonesjones]

yes actually, i am truly and utterly btfo

Yeah you actually are. Funny how much proof of the Holocaust falls apart when you remove it from the context that you put it in.

you're misunderstanding the point - my point isnt that auschwitz was actually just a labor camp, my point is that it wasn't only an extermination camp. the necessary distinctions between labor, concentration, and/or extermination camps/sub-camps in relation to the holocaust - and the varied populations of ethnicities which were housed with them - are rarely taught however, so i don't blame you for the confusion.

I didn't miss anything, I'm directly refuting you. Saying they used them for slave labor directly refutes genocide. You don't waste your time not killing things you are trying to kill. The Nazis attempted to emigrate all Jews and were unable to, so they put them in camps while they made arrangements. They used them for labor in the mean time. Remember Anne Franke went through multiple death camps before dying in a hospital of Typhus. If any part of it were true she would have been killed on entry.

i meant inside of the building, in-action. there are photographs of the outside of the building which you can see smoke plumes billowing out

It's impossible to photograph things that don't exist.

im pretty sure they did try, seeing as we have so little photos of cremations taking place. but theres only so much you can do when smoke billows out into the air every day.

Wait till you find out the Nazis were so evil they would cremate the dead and place them in urns so they could be sent to their families. Truly monstrous.

tying back to my initial point about the 'holocaust narrative' myth - there is no such thing. not in the way you think of it, anyways.

Yes there is. That's literally the point. The Narrative was made first and then facts were molded to fit the narrative. Again you can't show a single gassed jew. They should have been laying around the camps that were freed. Medical doctors could have autopsied them to provide proof that it happened and it could be relayed to international communities to help condemn the Nazis. That never happened though. Why not?

the holocaust's historiography has evolved, changed, and been mended countless times over the years.

Yeah which implies it's bullshit. The facts have existed for 80 years, there's nothing new to discover that isn't intentionally left out. Why else would Jews try so hard to hunt down anyone left who could provide testimony that would refute the holocaust? Gotta protect that reparations.

theres are whole books on the this, like dan stone's apty titled The Historiography of the Holocaust , as well as yehuda bauer's Rethinking the Holocaust .

Guys there's books. Whole books! Hundreds of books on the holocaust, sure they all agree in lockstep and provide the same perspective on the limited facts available, most are published in countries it's illegal to question the holocaust in, so the end result is sanitized and redundant.

when the only research you've ever done has been spoonfed to you through /pol/ infographics and debating people online then yeah, things will seem 'piecemeal'.

There it is, the same fall back argument. Why does everyone who shows up to argue for the Holocaust all fall into the same group of idiots. Do they give you a website full of bulleted points? Do you take a class on arguing for the Holocaust?

you can always try and pick up a book on the subject, of which there are plenty. something like the thousand-page magnum-opus of the late david cesarani Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews is hardly something i'd call piecemeal.

Why would I read 1000 pages of some idiotic book full of the same facts I've discovered and refuted on my own. You'll never be able to argue the fact that you have zero dead jews that were gassed to death. It was proven in court, all you have is shreds of paperwork and faulty eyewitness testimony you hope to combine into a holocaust golem you can point to.

is it supposed to? no one who takes holocaust scholarship seriously even remotely denies the combination of labor, concentration, and extermination which could be found in many of the larger and smaller camps in the nazi camp system. nor does it make the holocaust any less plausible.

You'd see how it does if you started from a blank slate. Pretending like holocaust scholarship is serious is a major tell. When everyone involved has to reach the same conclusion under threat of life, liberty, security, a normal living, you don't have scholarship, you have propaganda. Why don't you ask David Cole or David Irving about holocaust scholarship?

no spoonfeed me smh

No. Go read the thread and see every point you've made get repeatedly shot down and exposed for it's bullshit or don't. I'm not here to make you not be a retarded nigger.

 

[the gouts]

Saying they used them for slave labor directly refutes genocide.

this is not true

The Nazis attempted to emigrate all Jews and were unable to

this was genocide when it happened to the american indians and it would have still be genocide if it happened to the jews. but it didnt, they were killed instead.

the Nazis were so evil they would cremate the dead and place them in urns

they dont exist but any photographs of them are just cremations for urns bro

Again you can't show a single gassed jew. They should have been laying around the camps that were freed.

and they were and you can look up liberation aftermath photos to find this

Medical doctors could have autopsied them to provide proof that it happened and it could be relayed to international communities to help condemn the Nazis. That never happened though. Why not?

but they did though
a few times actually

Do they give you a website full of bulleted points?

yes actually

Yeah which implies it's bullshit. The facts have existed for 80 years, there's nothing new to discover that isn't intentionally left out.

sir every single historical topic ever has had the historiography behind it evolve and change and gone through revisions
also there is always more to discover. the fall of the soviet union and the subsequent opening of its archives is prime example of this

When everyone involved has to reach the same conclusion under threat of life, liberty, security, a normal living, you don't have scholarship, you have propaganda.

but we dont reach the same conclusions, though?
there are active debates about whether or not it was a bottom-up or top-down directed operation, how much blame we can lay on the hands of occupied countries in their participation in the holocaust, how comparable is the holocaust to other genocides throughout history? et cetera. the only conclusion that is unanimous is that it happened, lol

Why don't you ask David Cole or David Irving about holocaust scholarship?

david irving sued deborah libstadt for calling out on his bullshit and then got absolutely btfo by God Amongst Men Richard Evans during cross examinations. his book about the trial, Lying about Hitler, is a very amusing read frankly.
im not familiar with david cole doe

most are published in countries it's illegal to question the holocaust in, so the end result is sanitized and redundant.

illegal to deny* the holocaust in. remember, youre not a revisionist, you are a denier. you are denying the holocaust.
however i am not going to sit here and defend the criminalization of holocaust denial. in fact, here are the previously mentioned deborah libstadt and richard evans arguing against the criminalization of holocaust denial. criminalizing any sort of speech like that is wrong and should be disavowed.

Hundreds of books on the holocaust, sure they all agree in lockstep and provide the same perspective on the limited facts available

>gives you a list of books about the evolution of historiography of the holocaust
>"this is proof that it's bullshit, there's nothing new to discover!"
>turns around and complains that books on the holocaust which he has never read are all in complete agreement and provide the same perspective on things
i find this particularly funny because there are books like hitler's willing executioners which were panned for overly demonizing the germans, accusing the book of racism and germanophobia. almost as if historians give a fuck about accuracy and aren't in it merely to slander nazi germany and its citizens out of some top-down judeo plot to delegitimize fascist and nazi ideology.

 

[Bonesjones]

this was genocide when it happened to the american indians and it would have still be genocide if it happened to the jews. but it didnt, they were killed instead.

The Indians weren't genocided they are just sore losers, they exist as a vassal state and are mad they get told what to do.

they dont exist but any photographs of them are just cremations for urns bro

Expose your own lack of knowledge besides what you've been spoon fed.

but they did though
a few times actually

I noticed there wasn't any posts of those autopsy reports, just people talking about them existing, in law this is called hearsay and isn't evidence. It's a trick they use to invent evidence that doesn't exist.

yes actually

I know, that's why you are all retards and can't make a basic argument that isn't instantly defeated by drunk idiots on the internet.

there are active debates about whether or not it was a bottom-up or top-down directed operation, how much blame we can lay on the hands of occupied countries in their participation in the holocaust, how comparable is the holocaust to other genocides throughout history? et cetera. the only conclusion that is unanimous is that it happened, lol

Wow the holocaust totally happened and you can only argue if it happened on accident which isn't industrial genocide or it happening because they ordered it but only with code words and telepathy, amazing. We've picked both sides and you can choose! You can't argue that it didn't happen by looking at the physical evidence and concluding that it's all nonexistent, just follow our orders so we keep making hundreds of millions of dollars a year! Stupid goy!

david irving sued deborah libstadt for calling out on his bullshit and then got absolutely btfo by God Amongst Men Richard Evans during cross examinations. his book about the trial, Lying about Hitler, is a very amusing read frankly.
im not familiar with david cole doe

Except he won when they stated they have zero physical evidence to prove their assertions. They admitted it in court. Also not knowing who David Cole is shows you are just another IDF retard with nothing to say and no interest in anything but wasting people's time.

criminalizing any sort of speech like that is wrong and should be disavowed.

Unless it's the holocaust then we can pretend it doesn't matter, sure we will say it should be legal but never take any action to do otherwise. Your games are old and dumb.

i find this particularly funny because there are books like hitler's willing executioners which were panned for overly demonizing the germans, accusing the book of racism and germanophobia. almost as if historians give a fuck about accuracy and aren't in it merely to slander nazi germany and its citizens out of some top-down judeo plot to delegitimize fascist and nazi ideology.

Don't demonize the evil awful genocidal Germans, they aren't Nazis! You know unless they stop giving jews money, then do whatever. Do whatever you want but don't deny the Holocaust! That makes you worse than Hitler! It's really transparent when you retards come in here pretend to know all about the holocaust and also not know anything that would show you know about the holocaust, so you can control the conversation. Except, we are more autistic than you are retarded. We've seen your bullet points and attempt to manipulate the conversation and it's all so hollow. You are just a retard with nothing to say.

 

[Chugger]

The study didn't conclude anything, seeing that they never dug up nor forensically examined the site. They just did some core drilling

Lol, you think they just did thousands of drills and didn't examine what they were extracting?