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

[John.Doe]

There is no need to get into the minutia. This stuff falls apart right at the surface.

How very observant of you, you're right, all these bogus arguments you helpfully collated fall apart at the smallest inquiry!

1 This isn't about bigfoot

Right, its about the strength of the evidence and the use of physical, forensic science as opposed to eye-witness testimony and 'documents' of suspicious provenance Otherwise we'd be discussing the Nazi moon colonies, where the Jews were resettled as laborers.

We have Gobbel's diary...

Pictures from the Soviet Moon probes...

and eye-witness testimony....

My sister, Chane, was taken from me and dragged to a rocket with the rest of the women and many of the children. I too, should have been placed with the other children, but the Hauptsturmführer grasped my arm and declared I was fit to labor with a young man's strength. I had to watch through tears as the rocket turned winter into summer, for the moments of its flight from the frozen ground into the sky. I was gripped with fear, thinking my sister would explode like a firework, taking her from me like the bombs took our parents. Instead, it vanished into the night on a tail of foul smelling smoke, lost among the stars like a seed on a sand bar. I begged the soldier to tell me where my sister had gone, and he laughed. To the moon she went, he said, to grow Moon Pears in honor of Hitler. As for me, my path went to a labor camp......
- Schmul Goldberg "Lonely"

If we use 'documents and photos are irrefutable' then we have to accept as truth that the Jews were sent to the Moon

2 Nuremburg "tortured witnesses" - because being in a deathcamp is torture.

Hahah yes, just completely fail to engage with the premise, that tortured prisoners don't provide truthful testimony, only what will stop their torture. By ignoring it, you highlight, how clever.

3 As a holocaust denier you can travel, just not deny the holocaust. You don't make German laws, the Germans do.

So if laws are absolutely moral, and Germans made laws that allowed for executing the Jews, then Jewish extermination within German-held territory was perfectly fine?

4 Millions were killed and it's not a secret. The logistical means of the entirety of Europe was available for this as well as many other tasks, the main being attacking the Soviet Union. In comparison by scale, the holocaust was a footnote.

It wasn't a secret, but they had to destroy all the evidence and never issue orders directly in plain language? If it wasn't a secret, why didn't they just shoot the Jews as they found them, instead of shipping them off to camps for secretive gassing and cremation? Its logically inconsistent.

6 "So you think they killed and buried people, dug them up, just to cremate them again?"
yes not "again", but to cremate them and yes that's precisely what happened. more specifically, they would sometimes build the cremation grids on top of the existing mass graves, gradually "compacting" the "material."

I don't know why you put so many things in quotes, but the point remains. If it wasn't secret, why would they go through so much effort to hide the evidence?

7 The allied aerial photos of Auschwitz are well known, you can see the gassing facilities and the adjacent incineration pits, smoke and all.

So the aerial photos have the resolution to show the actual gas chambers, with gas pellets/canisters? Or do they show buildings labeled as 'gas chambers'? Also, why are they doing open pit burning, which is more suitable for disease control, when they have crematories right there?

 

[Bonesjones]

The only orders that would satisfy Bonesjones, would be a Himmler radio message, "Kill all Jews, everwhere,." specifying that everywhere is the whole of German occupied territory.

Yes I'm glad you finally realize how military orders work, high command orders something, with it being passed down to individual units.

Apparently Himmler would necessarily be sending these radio messages one by one, to each local commander, who really only had jurisdiction over a limited area. Because no messages of this kind exist, to Bonesjones this is critical evidence that the Holocaust Did Not Happen.

Yes that's how orders work, you have a chain of messages passed down from high to each chain of command. Without any evidence of both top to bottom orders you don't have orders.

What do we do have are radio telegrams like this, from Himmler to the Second Cavalry Regiment: "Explicit order of the RFSS. All Jews must be shot. Jewish women to be driven into the swamp."

Those evil Germans, killing partisans during a total war and also not eradicating all of the jews. Thanks for proving genocide isn't real yet again.

On September 13, 1941 Kurt Daluege, Chef der Ordnungspolizei, sent the following message to the HSSuPf of the forces in Russia,

Jewish propaganda made them think they were going to all be exterminated so they fought till they died, how is that the Germans fault exactly? They were still willing to take prisoners.

So we have radio message saying they were going to stop transmitting this kind of information by radio.

Yeah if you think your encryption is broken and your messages are being read, you change communication, this is standard during war. Unfortunately you are an idiot retard, so you don't know what anything actually means.

1 This isn't about bibigfoot

Yes it's about your lack of evidenciary standards and what conclusions that leads to. So if you believe those standards, then you believe in Bigfoot. Otherwise you are an idealog pushing an agenda and not someone looking for the truth.

2 Nuremburg "tortured witnesses" - because being in a deathcamp is torture.

Or the allies compelled testimony through torture to make their kangaroo court seem legit.

3 As a holocaust denier you can travel, just not deny the holocaust. You don't make German laws, the Germans do.

I've already publicly denied the holocaust for years, I'm in danger of being imprisoned in many countries, just for speaking the truth. Also the Germans have existed as vassal states of both the Soviet Union and the United States, so who really made those laws? They weren't for the benefit of Germany but for jews who clearly weren't German.

4 Millions were killed and it's not a secret.

So why are you double speaking, the holocaust either wasn't a secret or it was? How did those 4 million die, you do know a total war was being waged on the same territory? What's the criteria for a war death vs a holocaust death? Why do all holocaust promoters use one bolster the other?

The logistical means of the entirety of Europe was available for this as well as many other tasks, the main being attacking the Soviet Union. In comparison by scale, the holocaust was a footnote.

No the logistical means of Europe was entirely engaged in war, that's why people were being thrown in massive prison camps. If the holocaust was a footnote then it makes no sense to use any more than necessary resources to conduct it. So why didn't they just starve the jews to death? Why did they constantly invent Rube Goldberg devices to kill them?

5 Taken at face value, all these millions of jews were resettled in the East. In the immediate rear of advancing German armies on the Eastern front. OK. Where are they and their offspring? OK, so some immigrated to Israel and the USA. Again where are these millions of emigres?

That's how logic works, if you have a large group of people with no identifying death, they must have traveled. They didn't disappear into thin air. Who said they were behind the advancing German army? Who knows exactly where they went? We have clear indication worldwide of jews traveling pre and post war. We have evidence of jews in the USA hiding the amount of jews emigrating there. We also know millions of people died in the Soviet Union. It's logical that the Russians killed them all and blamed the Germans, just like they had been doing the whole time.

6 "So you think they killed and buried people, dug them up, just to cremate them again?"
yes not "again", but to cremate them and yes that's precisely what happened. more specifically, they would sometimes build the cremation grids on top of the existing mass graves, gradually "compacting" the "material."

None of what you said makes any sense. So they killed jews, put them in mass graves, buried the mass graves, then dug them up again, just to use those mass graves to cremate more on top of them? What do you mean by compacting?

7 The allied aerial photos of Auschwitz are well known, you can see the gassing facilities and the adjacent incineration pits, smoke and all.

Yeah, with the ones clearly labeled by the allies to tell you what you see, except it's missing the necessary stockpiles of fuel to cremate the millions said. The photos are also in the custody of Isreal, so there can be no further objective study. How convenient.

8 There were both labour and death camps. Both not OK.

I'm glad you the bastion of morality can dictate what is and isn't OK.

 

[mrt6732]

All confessions from German officers to soldiers were under some form of coercion, physical torture such as having testicles crushed or facing long prison sentences if they didn't go along with the current scheme. This is just one example of many that prove if the truth is on your side you don't have to resort to these measures. I'll ask one question, where did those shrunken heads at that Buchenwald camp display after the allies captured it disappear to? I know that disgraced US federal senator Thomas Dodd used one in a prop at Nuremberg but not long after that they were never seen again. They look like two male Brazilians instead of the two Polish men that Dodd claimed were beheaded because they talked to German women.

 

[Ignatius von Cistern]

I'll address the non-moon jews things.

Hahah yes, just completely fail to engage with the premise, that tortured prisoners don't provide truthful testimony, only what will stop their torture. By ignoring it, you highlight, how clever.

People testifying to torture at the nuremburg and other trials were not being tortured. I think they just wanted their story heard and possibly justice.

So if laws are absolutely moral, and Germans made laws that allowed for executing the Jews, then Jewish extermination within German-held territory was perfectly fine?

This is not a test for morality. I'm simply saying Holocaust denial is illegal in some places and you not being a native of those places don't get to decide if it's right or wrong. It just is. Don't like it, don't go there and don't complain about it.

It wasn't a secret, but they had to destroy all the evidence and never issue orders directly in plain language? If it wasn't a secret, why didn't they just shoot the Jews as they found them, instead of shipping them off to camps for secretive gassing and cremation? Its logically inconsistent.

Wehrmacht had direct orders to shoot commisars and jews on sight. The rest of the holocaust was the murder of unarmed civillians on suspician of being jewish. It's dishonorable and immoral. This is why it was hidden. It's not a secret, because it, the T4 and the genocide of slavic people wasn't hidden well enough. You couldn't hide it. The bet was that the germans win the war and the victors write history.

I don't know why you put so many things in quotes, but the point remains. If it wasn't secret, why would they go through so much effort to hide the evidence?

The nazi government was hoping to retain power at least within German borders even after defeat on the eastern front. Mass graves with women an children in them left behind on liberated territory would be bad optics for future politics. So they cremated as much of it as they could.

So the aerial photos have the resolution to show the actual gas chambers, with gas pellets/canisters? Or do they show buildings labeled as 'gas chambers'? Also, why are they doing open pit burning, which is more suitable for disease control, when they have crematories right there?

Yes we can see the gas chambers, sorting facilities, the crematoria and the cremation pits for the overflow to the crematoria with what looks like bodies being incinerated in them. They don't have labels on them, but plenty of people have testified to what they were and when we go to their ruins, we find evidence that this is what they might have been used for. We also have architectural plans, as well as physical evidence from other facilities where the same equipment and techniques were used to dispose of the thousands of dead per day.

 

[Ignatius von Cistern]

Yes it's about your lack of evidenciary standards and what conclusions that leads to. So if you believe those standards, then you believe in Bigfoot. Otherwise you are an idealog pushing an agenda and not someone looking for the truth.

Strawman argument.

Or the allies compelled testimony through torture to make their kangaroo court seem legit.

What evidence do you have that this testimony was extracted by torture?

I've already publicly denied the holocaust for years, I'm in danger of being imprisoned in many countries, just for speaking the truth. Also the Germans have existed as vassal states of both the Soviet Union and the United States, so who really made those laws? They weren't for the benefit of Germany but for jews who clearly weren't German.

I don't agree with you being imprisoned for it, because I think it's important to revisit the arguments for and against, but I also don't make these laws and neither do you. So what else is there to say. Don't go to Germany, I guess.

Yes, East & West Germany were vassal states, but they were also German. Nothing is 100% one thing or another. They were acting in their own interest at least some of the time, even on the Eastern side. They also did not aid Israel. No-one in Europe did, at least not at state level.

So why are you double speaking, the holocaust either wasn't a secret or it was? How did those 4 million die, you do know a total war was being waged on the same territory? What's the criteria for a war death vs a holocaust death? Why do all holocaust promoters use one bolster the other?

The germans tried to make it a secret, they failed. It's not a secret any more. Unarmed civilians from territories not under attack were being deported to the death camps. Unarmed civillians from cities behind the frontlines were being herded out to forests and fields and then and shot. You kind of need to decide is it's not six million or if you want six million more.

No the logistical means of Europe was entirely engaged in war, that's why people were being thrown in massive prison camps. If the holocaust was a footnote then it makes no sense to use any more than necessary resources to conduct it. So why didn't they just starve the jews to death? Why did they constantly invent Rube Goldberg devices to kill them?

They starved them to death also. Starvation is inefficient, because people are a resilient animal. The idea was to murder as many jews as possible before the war was lost, which was clear in November 1941 at Moscow and clearer still the following winter at Stalingrad.

That's how logic works, if you have a large group of people with no identifying death, they must have traveled. They didn't disappear into thin air. Who said they were behind the advancing German army? Who knows exactly where they went? We have clear indication worldwide of jews traveling pre and post war. We have evidence of jews in the USA hiding the amount of jews emigrating there. We also know millions of people died in the Soviet Union. It's logical that the Russians killed them all and blamed the Germans, just like they had been doing the whole time.

"Deportation to the East" in that context means approximately the Prypyat River, Polesse and maybe the Baltic states. The former two are a swamp even today. The Baltic states killed their jews. So again, what "deportation to the East," other than to Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno and the other camps such as Trostinek?

None of what you said makes any sense. So they killed jews, put them in mass graves, buried the mass graves, then dug them up again, just to use those mass graves to cremate more on top of them? What do you mean by compacting?

It was done slightly differently in different places, but the technique was either digging up the bodies and cremating them on grills made of rails or stacking firewood on top of the uncovered graves and cremating more bodies on top, firewood being the usual fuel used in both cases.

Yeah, with the ones clearly labeled by the allies to tell you what you see, except it's missing the necessary stockpiles of fuel to cremate the millions said. The photos are also in the custody of Isreal, so there can be no further objective study. How convenient.

There are no stockpiles, probably because they were used immediately and freshly cut more as the need arose. Yes, Israel documents the holocaust as a state policy, because that's why Israel exists. No surprises there.

I'm glad you the bastion of morality can dictate what is and isn't OK.

Well, would you object for being interned for being a holocaust denier?

 

[Bonesjones]

I'll address the non-moon jews things.

Aww the first dodge.

Strawman argument.

And the second.

What evidence do you have that this testimony was extracted by torture?

Read the thread, it's not my job to spoon feed you basic facts about the holocaust.

I don't agree with you being imprisoned for it, because I think it's important to revisit the arguments for and against, but I also don't make these laws and neither do you. So what else is there to say. Don't go to Germany, I guess.

Yes, East & West Germany were vassal states, but they were also German. Nothing is 100% one thing or another. They were acting in their own interest at least some of the time, even on the Eastern side. They also did not aid Israel. No-one in Europe did, at least not at state level.

Germany has paid billions in reparations for the Holocaust, of course they aid Isreal.

The germans tried to make it a secret, they failed. It's not a secret any more.

When did they make it a secret? Before and during the war, jews were expulsed from Germany. That never changed, they tried to send them to Madagascar and were stopped. You can't keep a secret of something you never did.

Unarmed civilians from territories not under attack were being deported to the death camps.

You mean prison camps were they were processed and exported.

Unarmed civillians from cities behind the frontlines were being herded out to forests and fields and then and shot. You kind of need to decide is it's not six million or if you want six million more.

Except there's ample evidence of partisan fighters and towns protecting them. During this time the allies indiscriminately bombed civilians, so killing civilians was never off the table. That doesn't make it genocide. So you'll need to rethink your arguments.

They starved them to death also. Starvation is inefficient, because people are a resilient animal.

Starvation is a guarantee of death, withholding of shelter and water in an even shorter time. You can do nothing and win, yet they chose a heavily laborious intensive method of killing, makes sense.

The idea was to murder as many jews as possible before the war was lost, which was clear in November 1941 at Moscow and clearer still the following winter at Stalingrad.

Lmao, then why didn't they use the large stockpile of nerve gas? Why didn't they just dig mass graves and bury them alive? Why would they choose to gas them?

"Deportation to the East" in that context means approximately the Prypyat River, Polesse and maybe the Baltic states. The former two are a swamp even today. The Baltic states killed their jews. So again, what "deportation to the East," other than to Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno and the other camps such as Trostinek?

You do know all of those are transit stations on the border of European scale railroads with Russian scale railroads, trains are forced to stop for passengers to switch over to the other. I bet they left that out of Holocaust class though.

It was done slightly differently in different places, but the technique was either digging up the bodies and cremating them on grills made of rails or stacking firewood on top of the uncovered graves and cremating more bodies on top, firewood being the usual fuel used in both cases.

"Guys we are losing the war, what should we do?"

"I know let's dig up those bodies we buried so we can cremate them and bury them again!"

Or what's more likely is that the Germans dismantled their base and the Soviets used the same site for their own murders. You see militaries prize the same places for the same reasons. So you wouldn't leave behind infrastructure if you couldn't help it. I know this is lost on you idiots because you aren't well educated.

There are no stockpiles, probably because they were used immediately and freshly cut more as the need arose. Yes, Israel documents the holocaust as a state policy, because that's why Israel exists. No surprises there.

Tell me you've never started a fire before. The JIDF never sent their best.

Well, would you object for being interned for being a holocaust denier?

I object to people defending evil, either out of ignorance or because they are paid to. So which are you? Maybe both.

 

[Ignatius von Cistern]

Lmao, then why didn't they use the large stockpile of nerve gas

I'll addrees just this one because it's a little bit more interesting than your other points which I mostly addressed already.

The answer is that nerve gas was being stockpiled for use on the battlefield. Repeated use at a controlled killing site would create logistical problems, up to and including rendering the site unusable.

CO & zyklon were not effective in open areas, but were better suited for repeated indoor use, decontamination being a simple venting. Nerve gas can kill through skin contact, you'd have to keep recruiting new zonders to keep hosing things down, venting would be its own hazard. It's just easier with engine exhaust or zyklon b.

 

[Bonesjones]

I'll addrees just this one because it's a little bit more interesting than your other points which I mostly addressed already.

The answer is that nerve gas was being stockpiled for use on the battlefield. Repeated use at a controlled killing site would create logistical problems, up to and including rendering the site unusable.

CO & zyklon were not effective in open areas, but were better suited for repeated indoor use, decontamination being a simple venting. Nerve gas can kill through skin contact, you'd have to keep recruiting new zonders to keep hosing things down, venting would be its own hazard. It's just easier with engine exhaust or zyklon b.

They aren't sending their best folks. You'd think they would send someone competent to talk about the holocaust, instead they send absolute idiots.

 

[Ignatius von Cistern]

They aren't sending their best folks. You'd think they would send someone competent to talk about the holocaust, instead they send absolute idiots.

You're not competent to talk about the Holocaust. You are either motivated by hate or are trolling. Hate makes you stupid and trolling....well holocaust denial is a little quaint, let's put it that way.

I often ask online fascist hunters this question. It's a great litmus test. Can you tell the difference between nazism and democracy? Let's start with the basics.

 

[Bonesjones]

You're not competent to talk about the Holocaust.

You don't anything about the holocaust, so read the whole thread and get back to me.

You are either motivated by hate or are trolling.

I'm motivated by the truth, which has lead me to hate lying jews, it's a simple chain of events.

Hate makes you stupid and trolling....well holocaust denial is a little quaint, let's put it that way.

Jews are stupid,just like you. You don't know the first thing about the holocaust yet pretend to. Just another pathetic idiot here with nothing to say and too many words to say it.

I often ask online fascist hunters this question. It's a great litmus test.

What's an online fascist hunter? What the fuck are you even talking about?

Can you tell the difference between nazism and democracy? Let's start with the basics.

Can you tell me why Hitler hated the use of gas and refused to use it even if it meant losing the war? Why would someone not gas battlefields but gas people in small closed rooms with no ventilation?

 

[Ignatius von Cistern]

Can you tell me why Hitler hated the use of gas and refused to use it even if it meant losing the war? Why would someone not gas battlefields but gas people in small closed rooms with no ventilation?

Hitler was gassed in WWI, yes, but this did not prevent him from ordering the production of tonnes of Tabun. The reason the Germans did not widely use gas in the battlefield is because they feared the allies would use it in retribution. They felt blitzkrieg would be sufficient. They actually used it at least once in Crimea.

Why would someone not gas battlefields but gas people in small closed rooms with no ventilation?

Because you probably could not process the bodies or access the chamber for maintenance without PPE. Because it is so potent and would be a hazard to the rest of the camp including its guards. Because CO & Zyklon B is cheaper.

 

[Bonesjones]

Hitler was gassed in WWI, yes, but this did not prevent him from ordering the production of tonnes of Tabun. The reason the Germans did not widely use gas in the battlefield is because they feared the allies would use it in retribution. They felt blitzkrieg would be sufficient. They actually used it at least once in Crimea.

Hey look you used Google, let's see what you left out (all holocaust promoters are fundamentally dishonest)

At a May 1943 meeting in the Wolf's Lair, however, Hitler was told by Ambros that Germany had 45,000 tons of chemical gas stockpiled, but that the Allies likely had far more. Hitler responded by suddenly leaving the room and ordering production of tabun and sarin to be doubled, but "fearing some rogue officer would use them and spark Allied retaliation, he ordered that no chemical weapons be transported to the Russian front."

So he stockpiled gas in concern for allied gassings and didn't want to use it at all? How illuminating.

After the Allied invasion of Italy, the Germans rapidly moved to remove or destroy both German and Italian chemical-weapon stockpiles, "for the same reason that Hitler had ordered them pulled from the Russian front—they feared that local commanders would use them and trigger Allied chemical retaliation."

Wow he even went out of his way to ensure they weren't used even accidently.

Let's see that gas attack:

After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimushkay quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."

But wait you click and read the Quarry article, what does it say?

Most Soviet guerrillas died, as the group ran out of ammunition, food and water and resorted to extreme techniques of survival such as preparing meat of the dead livestock earlier killed in the mine entrances and gathering water condensed on the mine ceilings. The defenders also attempted to dig their own wells in the catacombs as deep as 14 m to reach the phreatic water layer.

The German forces surrounded the quarries with barbed wire fencing, blocked the entrances and exits and bombed and shelled them. General Hermann Ochsner [de], the chief of the chemical forces, proposed the use of a non-lethal irritant gas to smoke the partisans out of such hiding places, but he was denied permission to carry out the attack

Oh they didn't gas them at all. Whoops.

On the night of December 2, 1943, German Ju 88 bombers attacked the port of Bari in Southern Italy, sinking several American ships—among them the SS John Harvey, which was carrying mustard gas intended for use in retaliation by the Allies if German forces initiated gas warfare. The presence of the gas was highly classified, and authorities ashore had no knowledge of it, which increased the number of fatalities since physicians, who had no idea that they were dealing with the effects of mustard gas, prescribed treatment improper for those suffering from exposure and immersion.

The whole affair was kept secret at the time and for many years after the war. According to the U.S. military account, "Sixty-nine deaths were attributed in whole or in part to the mustard gas, most of them American merchant seamen"[103] out of 628 mustard gas military casualties.[104]

The large number of civilian casualties among the Italian population was not recorded.

Wow so the allies gassed thousands of civilians and covered it up. Thanks for showing us.

Because you probably could not process the bodies or access the chamber for maintenance without PPE. Because it is so potent and would be a hazard to the rest of the camp including its guards. Because CO & Zyklon B is cheaper.

If only we could compare a gas chamber with a "gas chamber". Oh wait if you could actually read, then you'd see we've been doing it for 10 pages and showing how fucking dumb you all are in the process.

I wish you were the slightest bit clever, it gets boring when you only have one tactic that's so easily dismissed.

 

[Chugger]

Bonesjones, out of curiosity, why do you have so much confidence about your position? Is it because of A) your in-depth knowledge of the subject, great familiarity with both mainstream and revisionist history? I don't think this is the case, so maybe it's B) you're a genius level intellect, capable of quickly grasping complex historical topics in ways that few other people can. Or is it C) the debate is ridiculously one sided, the mainstream position is akin to flat eartherism.

I don't think it's because we are retards or whatever. The arguments that I make are basically me restating the views of historians or taking precedent from sites like Holocaust Controversies. Your supreme confidence should come from A B or C, unless your position is that every Holocaust defender is sub optimal IQ wise or just flatly lying.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Those evil Germans, killing partisans during a total war and also not eradicating all of the jews

I have no idea if the radio statement is accurate. But if it is, specifically trlling a cavalry unit to kill all jews and "drive jewish women into the swamp", does this not sound like genocidal intent? Was every jew a partisan?


Overall I'm really happy that you guys are getting along so well. It's like cold war soviet and american spies being sent to antarctica for 6 years and after each trying their intrigue on the other's information sources and serving a different master, end up having more in common with each other than the places they're from.

One time I overheard a father in a fastfood joint trlling his 11 and 9 year old son (thats how old they seemed) about how they should be careful about jews.

I'm curious, to everyone: which of you discuss the holocaust with people face to face?

 

[Bonesjones]

Bonesjones, out of curiosity, why do you have so much confidence about your position?

Its easy to be confident in the truth. You've had literally years to come up with anything that could prove me wrong and are unable.

Is it because of A) your in-depth knowledge of the subject, great familiarity with both mainstream and revisionist history?

Obviously. I can tell at a glance what someone knows about the holocaust, why do you think I just picked apart his argument before he was done making it.

I don't think this is the case

No one cares what you think, retard.

so maybe it's B) you're a genius level intellect, capable of quickly grasping complex historical topics in ways that few other people can.

I'm clearly smarter than anyone arguing for the Holocaust, considering there's been atleast 20 of you who can't stand up to basic scrutiny.

Or is it C) the debate is ridiculously one sided, the mainstream position is akin to flat eartherism.

It's obviously this one sided because you are unable to make an argument nor give evidence that's not openly manipulative or concealing of the truth.

don't think it's because we are retards or whatever.

You are.

The arguments that I make are basically me restating the views of historians or taking precedent from sites like Holocaust Controversies.

Yeah it's obvious, you can't think for yourself nor make your own arguments. You just regurgitate what other people tell you showing your gaping holes in knowledge, logic, experience.

Your supreme confidence should come from A B or C, unless your position is that every Holocaust defender is sub optimal IQ wise or just flatly lying.

It's all of the above, retard.

I have no idea if the radio statement is accurate. But if it is, specifically trlling a cavalry unit to kill all jews and "drive jewish women into the swamp", does this not sound like genocidal intent? Was every jew a partisan?

You do understand a brutal war was going on right? Civilians are generally left alone during war unless they are aiding guerilla fighters. Not just shooting them all is showing great restraint.

I'm curious, to everyone: which of you discuss the holocaust with people face to face?

I'll openly discuss it with anyone but I go out of my way to not bring it up just because I know the typical response.

 

[MajinGoku]

Dude, you literally have in the Talmud a story about an oven that teaches that Jews no longer listen to God, and will continue arguing until He gave up and stopped guiding them. He just found people that will listen.

Please dont waste your time arguing with people who disagree with you on religion you cant change their minds.

 

[Ignatius von Cistern]

Oh they didn't gas them at all. Whoops.

you left out the end of that last sentence you quoted from wikipedia which says that survivor testimony is that gas was used.

Wow so the allies gassed thousands of civilians and covered it up. Thanks for showing us.

off-topic.

I'm curious, to everyone: which of you discuss the holocaust with people face to face?

sometimes and I often have change the topic as they are friends and we just have to agree to disagree.

arguing about it online is much like arguing with feminists. they'll quickly go off-topic with strawmen and whataboutisms and call you an incel with a small dick. see above.

 

[Bonesjones]

you left out the end of that last sentence you quoted from wikipedia which says that survivor testimony is that gas was used.

Yeah because it didn't happen, unless you can prove they were gassed, they weren't. Caves are places of low oxygen and you can think you were gassed because of lack of fresh air. So why would we believe them over someone who said they wanted to but were ordered not to? Again, it's a pathetic attempt to suggest a policy of gassing people by Germany when it's been explicitly rejected on every level.

off-topic.

No it's very much ontopic, stop trying to piecemeal narratives by limiting facts.

sometimes and I often have change the topic as they are friends and we just have to agree to disagree.

Sounds like a cowardly way to argue.

arguing about it online is much like arguing with feminists. they'll quickly go off-topic with strawmen and whataboutisms and call you an incel with a small dick. see above.

Aww he tries sad backhanded insults, what a crybully. You have no knowledge, no logic, nothing to bring to the table. I don't need to call you anything that isn't self evident.


So again, how can you prove the holocaust is real? I gave you a few simple guidelines to follow and all you can do is cry.

 

[MajinGoku]

Why arent the stories of the innocent roma and homosexuals killed by the nazis talked about? I know the jews have a whole country to advocate for them, but there are enough gay people and roma to spread awareness for what happened to them.

 

[Meriasek]

The Germans insisted on artisanally made equipment and then sent those craftsmen and engineers off to war. Then they got surprised that the quality of their equipment turned to shit when it was made by unskilled slave labor in literal death camps. Its sorta funny in a perverse way.

That's odd, because the Germans were among the first to introduce mass production techniques into their weapons manufacturing. The MP40 and MG42 heavily relied on stamped steel parts, unlike previous weapons that used a lot of machining. They just didn't have the manpower and resources to match the sheer industrial capacities of the US (once ramped up) and the USSR.