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

[Armor of God]

In this case there's little point in making any arguments at all, because of muh social conditioning. But it's obvious that you guys are trying to convince people, so strong arguments are necessary.

And a thorough, detailed study (on par with something like this https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hol...nvestigation-of-belzec-mass-graves-t1174.html ) would be by far the strongest revisionist argument. You realize after so many years of study and argumentation, revisionists haven't been able to find any compelling positive evidence to support their theories? This would be that, and the Jews would be right to be afraid (assuming the hoax is real).


This is Krege.

Not at all. I went through the same conditioning as practically everyone else, but as I came across more and more content to the contrary, it got me thinking. Years later, I now have very strong beliefs that the Holocaust as its taught is largely a hoax.

I have quite the repository of evidence that casts a massive doubt over the gas chambers, the daily lives of the inmates, photographs that were doctored post-war and many other facets of the hoax. I've used these to redpill quite a few close family members and friends.

Our current discussion is largely concerning mass graves, but if you look at all of the other elements of the general narrative, there is plenty that can be easily debunked. The 6 million figure for example is one of the biggest meme tier lies out there.

Even if 1 person is convinced to at least consider the possibility that the mainstream Holocaust narrative is largely bullshit, then that will have given value to all of this discourse.

I believe that the Jews were rounded up and sent to work camps. Over the course of their internment, a segment of the population (especially the old and the infirm) died. There were typhus epidemics that killed more people. Zyklon B was used to gas the clothing to try and control the spread of the epidemic at certain camps. Yes, some people were shot and killed. Some prisoners were mistreated. Another large segment of prisoners died when the Allies bombed the supply lines towards the end of the war. I don't believe that a total of more than 300,000 Jews died during this time (of all causes).

 

[Chugger]

I have quite the repository of evidence that casts a massive doubt over the gas chambers, the daily lives of the inmates, photographs that were doctored post-war and many other facets of the hoax. I've used these to redpill quite a few close family members and friends.

What's your best piece of positive evidence then? (As far as I can tell, the competent Krege report would be the only compelling positive evidence on the revisionist side)

My AI can explain to you the difference here, and why positive evidence is important,

Positive evidence in this context refers to direct, tangible proof supporting the established historical narrative of the Holocaust. This includes:

1. Physical artifacts (e.g., remnants of gas chambers, mass graves)
2. Contemporary documents (e.g., Nazi orders, camp records)
3. Eyewitness testimonies from survivors, liberators, and perpetrators
4. Photographic and video evidence
5. Archaeological findings

Negative evidence encompasses two main aspects:

1. Absence of expected evidence: Arguments like "if X happened, we would expect to see Y, but we don't see Y."
2. Critiques of existing evidence: Attempts to discredit or cast doubt on positive evidence by claiming fabrication, misinterpretation, or unreliability. This includes:
   • Challenging the authenticity of documents
   • Questioning the reliability of witness testimonies
   • Disputing the interpretation of physical evidence
   • Claiming photographic or video evidence is staged or misrepresented

Positive evidence is crucial in this debate for several reasons:

1. Conclusiveness: It provides direct support for claims.
2. Burden of proof: It meets the academic and legal standard for establishing claims.
3. Resilience: It's generally harder to entirely dismiss or reinterpret than negative evidence.
4. Cumulative effect: Multiple pieces of positive evidence create a stronger overall case.
5. Corroboration: Different types of positive evidence can mutually reinforce each other.

While negative evidence and critiques play a role in historical analysis, overreliance on them can be problematic. Revisionists often focus heavily on negative evidence, attempting to cast doubt on established facts without providing equally compelling positive evidence for alternative explanations.

Btw I accidentally sent out my last post early, there's another section to it that you didn't quote.

 

[Armor of God]

I have evidence of doctored photographs. I have images of newspapers decades before the war talking about the 6 million figure. I have evidence of amenities at the camps (theaters, brothels, fields for soccer). I even have samples of release orders for certain inmates. I have comparative studies of real gas chambers used to execute people vs. the alleged facilities at the camps. This is just to name a few.

 

[Chugger]

I have evidence of doctored photographs. I have images of newspapers decades before the war talking about the 6 million figure. I have evidence of amenities at the camps (theaters, brothels, fields for soccer). I even have samples of release orders for certain inmates. I have comparative studies of real gas chambers used to execute people vs. the alleged facilities at the camps. This is just to name a few.

Discuss one of these in some detail, and illuminate for us how it is positive evidence for one of your theories (eg that the gas chambers and mass graves were hoaxed, the Reinhardt camps were mere transit camps, Jews were mass resettled and maintained in Occupied USSR)

 

[John.Doe]

revisionists haven't been able to find any compelling positive evidence to support their theories

Guess what, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Holocaust happened. You keep coming up with this dodge where you create a strawman position and then task people to then try and defend whatever ridiculous thing you've made up, a clear attempt in bad faith to try reversing the burden of proof. Whether there exists any evidence of Moon Resettlement or not has no relationship whatsoever to your consistent and repeated inability or unwillingness to defend your points. Stop throwing out these desperate attempts to distract the issue and defend your points or kindly suck start a shotgun.

You're little better than the AI you try to co-opt for bad argumentation. We know your script.

"There is no confirming evidence that positively demonstrates every detail of a position I assigned to you, therefore you are wrong and I am right."
"Uh, that's cool and all, but then where is your positive evidence proving your thesis?"
"There is no evidence, therefore you can't disprove my thesis."
"You just said a second ago that a lack of positive, detailed evidence demonstrates probable falsity, so how can you-"
"SHUT UP IDIOT, THERE WAS NEVER A MOON RESETTLEMENT AND YOU'LL NEVER PROVE YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY, RETARD!"

 

[Neodanthril]

this is hardly definitive proof but i just picked up apart of a series of books on wwii that cover 1939-1942 that was was a republishing of periodicals, published by oxford university press. no mention of gas chambers or holocaust in any of the four books. only a single mention of jews and then to say "everyone in the eastern front was starving, but jews suffered the most before being sent to concentration camps." no mention of six million gas chambers etc.

 

[Chugger]

Guess what, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Holocaust happened. You keep coming up with this dodge where you create a strawman position and then task people to then try and defend whatever ridiculous thing you've made up, a clear attempt in bad faith to try reversing the burden of proof. Whether there exists any evidence of Moon Resettlement or not has no relationship whatsoever to your consistent and repeated inability or unwillingness to defend your points. Stop throwing out these desperate attempts to distract the issue and defend your points or kindly suck start a shotgun.

You're little better than the AI you try to co-opt for bad argumentation. We know your script.

"There is no confirming evidence that positively demonstrates every detail of a position I assigned to you, therefore you are wrong and I am right."
"Uh, that's cool and all, but then where is your positive evidence proving your thesis?"
"There is no evidence, therefore you can't disprove my thesis."
"You just said a second ago that a lack of positive, detailed evidence demonstrates probable falsity, so how can you-"
"SHUT UP IDIOT, THERE WAS NEVER A MOON RESETTLEMENT AND YOU'LL NEVER PROVE YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY, RETARD!"

John Doe, do you agree with this statement?

In history, if you are making assertions about what happened, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Neodanthril]

this is hardly definitive proof but i just picked up apart of a series of books on wwii that cover 1939-1942 that was was a republishing of periodicals, published by oxford university press. no mention of gas chambers or holocaust in any of the four books. only a single mention of jews and then to say "everyone in the eastern front was starving, but jews suffered the most before being sent to concentration camps." no mention of six million gas chambers etc.

Oh I forgot to mention that the books were published in 1945, well before the Holocaust myth was established and it had been decided that the primary narrative was the gas chambers.

 

[Chugger]

this is hardly definitive proof but i just picked up apart of a series of books on wwii that cover 1939-1942 that was was a republishing of periodicals, published by oxford university press. no mention of gas chambers or holocaust in any of the four books. only a single mention of jews and then to say "everyone in the eastern front was starving, but jews suffered the most before being sent to concentration camps." no mention of six million gas chambers etc.

Oh I forgot to mention that the books were published in 1945, well before the Holocaust myth was established and it had been decided that the primary narrative was the gas chambers.

The systematic killing of Jewry in different countries was widely reported on in 1942, with Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor being identfied as killing centers, though the method of killing wasn't quite known. https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-holocaust-thread.68380/page-45#post-10170528

 

[Neodanthril]

John Doe, do you agree with this statement?

In history, if you are making assertions about what happened, the burden of proof is on you.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative.

The systematic killing of Jewry in different countries was widely reported on in 1942, with Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor being identfied as killing centers, though the method of killing wasn't quite known. https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-holocaust-thread.68380/page-45#post-10170528

Because journalists and politicians never lie right? But before I attempt to address an argument, what is your position exactly? What is your argument? Funny you doing mention the infamous Auschwitz, with its well known gas chambers in your list of "killing centres"

 

[Chugger]

It is logically impossible to prove a negative.

The thing about it is revisionists are making assertions, eg claiming Jews survived *somewhere* is an assertion.

If you say you are making no assertions about what happened, as John Doe maybe will do, that creates a lot of problems for any history. But I guess we will have to see, if that's the route he takes.

Because journalists and politicians never lie right? But before I attempt to address an argument, what is your position exactly? What is your argument? Funny you doing mention the infamous Auschwitz, with its well known gas chambers in your list of "killing centres"

Sure they lie, and those articles themselves aren't good evidence of a mass killing program. What I am arguing is that there were a lot of rumors and reports coming out of Europe that mass killing was happening. It's not some thing that was conjured up post-war.

 

[Neodanthril]

The thing about it is revisionists are making assertions, eg claiming Jews survived *somewhere* is an assertion.

If you say you are making no assertions about what happened, as John Doe maybe will do, that creates a lot of problems for any history. But I guess we will have to see, if that's the route he takes.


Sure they lie, and those articles themselves aren't good evidence of a mass killing program. What I am arguing is that there were a lot of rumors and reports coming out of Europe that mass killing was happening. It's not some thing that was conjured up post-war.

You go out of your way to not make a definitive argument, I will not waste my time building a fort for you to assault if you will not give me the same pleasure. Good day

 

[Bonesjones]

The thing about it is revisionists are making assertions, eg claiming Jews survived *somewhere* is an assassertion

No it's a logical conclusion. You are asserting that millions of people disappeared. You can't provide proof of any of it. You have no bodies, you have no method of disposal, that only leaves travel.

If you say you are making no assertions about what happened, as John Doe maybe will do, that creates a lot of problems for any history. But I guess we will have to see, if that's the route he takes.

We are debunking your assertions. There is no problem here but your own, provide 6 million corpses or fuck off.

Sure they lie, and those articles themselves aren't good evidence of a mass killing program. What I am arguing is that there were a lot of rumors and reports coming out of Europe that mass killing was happening. It's not some thing that was conjured up post-war.

The Iraqi-Kuwait war was started under false pretenses of Iraqi soldiers killing infants. All wars use lies to justify the killing of their own people. The rumors of death camps is irrelevant, the factual basis of them existing is. Again, you've had years and thousands of hours of posting to prove the holocaust exists in any capacity and all you have to show for it is failure.

 

[Chugger]

You go out of your way to not make a definitive argument, I will not waste my time building a fort for you to assault if you will not give me the same pleasure. Good day

You don't think "there were a lot of rumors and reports coming out of Europe that mass killing was happening" (1942 and earlier) is definitive? I don't know how to make you guys happy.

 

[Chugger]

No it's a logical conclusion. You are asserting that millions of people disappeared. You can't provide proof of any of it. You have no bodies, you have no method of disposal, that only leaves travel.

Basically you're saying that if there's no evidence they were killed, that means they must have survived?

 

[Bonesjones]

Basically you're saying that if there's no evidence they were killed, that means they must have survived?

Is English your third language?

 

[Chugger]

Is English your third language?

I can't always be sure what you mean because some of the things you are saying I find very questionable, in terms of basic logic.

Here is the AI's interpretation:

Bonesjones is arguing that the claim of Jewish survival or relocation is not an assertion, but rather a logical conclusion based on what they perceive as a lack of evidence for mass extermination. Their argument can be broken down as follows:

1. They claim there's no proof of millions of people disappearing.
2. They assert there are no bodies found (in the numbers claimed).
3. They argue there's no proven method of disposal for millions of bodies.
4. Given these premises, they conclude that the only remaining explanation is that the people must have traveled elsewhere (i.e., survived and were relocated).

The "logical conclusion" Bonesjones is referring to is that if millions of Jews didn't die as claimed in the Holocaust (which they dispute), then those people must have survived and gone somewhere else.

@John.Doe In light of our previous conversations, what do you make of this "process of elimination" method of doing history?

 

[Bonesjones]

I can't always be sure what you mean because some of the things you are saying I find very questionable, in terms of basic logic.

I'm glad you found a new toy to play with but this thread is about arguing the holocaust. Maybe find a more useful avenue of expression.

 

[Armor of God]

Discuss one of these in some detail, and illuminate for us how it is positive evidence for one of your theories (eg that the gas chambers and mass graves were hoaxed, the Reinhardt camps were mere transit camps, Jews were mass resettled and maintained in Occupied USSR)

I have seen over 40 articles from old newspapers with dates ranging from 1869 to 1939 which reference a population of 6 million Jews.

Articles from the 1800's reference 6 million Jews facing expulsion from Russia...various charity drives and appeals to politicians to help relocate these people over the course of decades. This continued into articles from the 1920's and 1930's...always this magical figure of 6 million.

The propagandized figure has since been a bedrock of the mainstream Holocaust propaganda, as if all 6 million were rounded up and killed, which we have shown over and over is a logical impossibility.

You talk of rumors of people being rounded up and mass executed, but they were being loaded into trains and transported to work camps. The people who remained never saw them again because only the workers and guards inhabited those work camps. They figured that these people were all getting gassed but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary (that they were conscripted for labor).

 

[Chugger]

I have seen over 40 articles from old newspapers with dates ranging from 1869 to 1939 which reference a population of 6 million Jews.

Articles from the 1800's reference 6 million Jews facing expulsion from Russia...various charity drives and appeals to politicians to help relocate these people over the course of decades. This continued into articles from the 1920's and 1930's...always this magical figure of 6 million.

Is the AI interpretation of your argument fair?

Based on the statement provided, Armor of God's argument can be summarized as follows:

1. Frequency of occurrence: They claim to have seen over 40 newspaper articles spanning from 1869 to 1939 that mention "6 million Jews."
2. Consistency over time: The figure of 6 million appears repeatedly across multiple decades, from the late 19th century through the 1930s.
3. Variety of contexts: The number is used in different scenarios, including:
   • References to Jews facing expulsion from Russia
   • Charity drives
   • Appeals to politicians for help with relocation
4. Implied significance: By referring to it as a "magical figure," they suggest that this repetition is more than coincidental and potentially carries some special meaning or significance.
5. Implication of pre-dating the Holocaust: By focusing on pre-1939 occurrences, they seem to be suggesting that this figure was in use well before the events of the Holocaust.

And here are the implications, and relevance to your claim that this proves a hoax. I guess you believe in #3.

From a revisionist perspective, the implications of this argument could be seen as follows:

1. Pre-existing narrative: Revisionists might argue that the repeated use of "6 million" before World War II suggests a pre-existing narrative or symbolic number in Jewish discourse, rather than an accurate count of Holocaust victims.
2. Questioning authenticity: They might use this to cast doubt on the accepted Holocaust death toll, implying that the figure was chosen for its cultural significance rather than historical accuracy.
3. Conspiracy theories: Some might go further, suggesting a deliberate propaganda effort to establish this number in public consciousness before using it in relation to the Holocaust.
4. Challenging historical methodology: Revisionists could use this to question the rigor of mainstream Holocaust historiography, arguing that accepted figures might be based on cultural tropes rather than hard evidence.
5. Symbolic interpretation: They might argue that the number has mythological or religious significance in Jewish culture, rather than representing a factual count.
6. Media manipulation: Some might claim this shows a pattern of media manipulation by Jewish interests over a long period.
7. Undermining credibility: By highlighting this pattern, revisionists aim to sow doubt about other aspects of the accepted Holocaust narrative.