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

[FlamingPie]

Agreed. But it's hard to argue that they intended for them to die, unless you can make a good argument that they intended to lose the war. Bungled it a bit, yes. But intended to lose? Hard to believe.

Stalin was on the winning side of WW2 and that didn't stop him from butchering people.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Stalin was on the winning side of WW2 and that didn't stop him from butchering people.

Communists aren't people, so it's no shock that he was capable of that. What is shocking is how little the other allied nations cared.

 

[FlamingPie]

Communists aren't people...

No, but the argument that " it's hard to argue that they intended for them to die, unless you can make a good argument that they intended to lose the war" is kind of weak.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

No, but the argument that " it's hard to argue that they intended for them to die, unless you can make a good argument that they intended to lose the war" is kind of weak.

Why? Senseless butchery is the communist method, not the german method.

 

[FlamingPie]

Why? Senseless butchery is the communist method, not the german method.

It is if you're a socialist.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

It is if you're a socialist.

Whatever you say. Allying with the communists sure did save more lives in the end.

 

[JoyQ]

everyone is suited for labor. How old were those kiddos working in factories and mines of UK and US? ... and that's legit paying labor. Estimates put kids under 14 as 12-15%% in the concentration camps.

Behold entire village of Evminka that was sent to the concentration camp near Munich. The "crime" was living close to active partisan resistance zone, so they got sent off to work in Germany instead:

View attachment 1409082





it's a fair question. 6 million is what was presented at Nuremberg trials of 45-46 and accepted by all major parties as the official number. It's a guestimate toward the charges of murdering Trump's Chosen People. million more or less, would not make a difference on a guilty verdict.

There are estimates of 4mil +, 5mil+ ... it's all over the board by estimates made since 1945. It's probably high-ish watermark.

The nuance is that not all 6mil were gassed and not all who were gassed were Trump's Chosen People. The number includes or may include various reasons of death, in some estimates people who died after the liberation were considered as victims as well.

It doesn’t really matter what you think of children being suitable. They were transported to camps and were killed on arrival. That contradicts your assertion that extermination only happened around where they lived and those who were transported were to be used for work.

 

[TitanWest]

Barely anyone talks about the Holodomor, Pitetisti Prison, and persecution of gentiles in gulags. I wonder why....

Spoiler: Pure COINCIDENCE

 

[Lemmingwise]

value that the translation to english is accurate

I'm not a fluent German speaker, but it seems an accurate translation.

I wouldn't be able to identify his voice accurately and he sounds like he is giving a speech, if that helps.

I see Gynn here is going to play the "I am going to set my skepticism about the Holocaust happening so high that nothing short of me personally seeing and counting every skeleton will satisfy me, and even then I'll probably just say they're all fake, but set my skepticism of the Holocaust having been a deliberate massive conspiracy so low that schizophrenic mood boards and unsourced quotes borrowed from the Protocols of Zion are ironclad evidence" game.

I see you're battling imaginary enemies rather than having a discussion with the person you're talking to as usual.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Which one? It's immune because of the amount of political weight put against the Red Cross or any group to tow the line.

What's your citation for the electrocution chambers being faked?

How convenient. Glad someone out there knows the full, exact number of deaths, yet somehow we don't know the full, exact number of deaths.

Nope.

Except we know it's above 300k.

So we can say it's 4 million? 2 million? What's the lowest acceptable figure?

View attachment 1408912

Explain the tangent?

What do you mean? Who specificlly says that?

So where did you get the arguement from? It's seems unlikely you've based your position on origional research of primary soarces. I mean it's plausable since you don't appear particulary aware of the conventional stances when you ask stuff, but have you actually spent months browsing primary resoarces and synthesising an theory?

Oh yes, much like we don't know how many specically how many died in most historical events? Are their any other events you're critical off because we're using a estimate? I mean we have no idea how many Goths died at adrianople-does that mean no Goths died?

it's typically rounded to around 5.7 min, it ranks up the 9 max when you include other groups such as gays and gypsies. So no 4 is way too low.

Interesting soarce-where did you get it from? last two are towards the end of ww2 when most of the holocausting was holocaustdone, so it can written of as a good guestimate. some just say the word Holocaust which was a word already in usage prior to ww2-obliviousness to etmology isnt an arguement, several of them appear to be articles but their isnt any context, if I was to guestimate I'd suggest the 6 million in this context appears to refer to the amo
nt of jews in regional area's, typically it linked back to the martin glynn speech in relation to the spanish famine because it uses the word Holocaust and 6 million which is a very....odd interpretation of events Besides the phrases six million and holocaust, the most of the articles arnt linked with ww2, it also makes absolutly no sense since it would imply for some reason jews where bellowing about a staged plan to fake the Nazi mass murder of jews decades before nazi germany was relavent.

As a side note, I'm not even sure some of these are real or if they're all from the times since the print is shit and the typing font mutates a lot and their's bugger all context, I also suspect the soarce deliberatly omited all the articles which give differant numbers or names for anti sementic persection and by 'suspect' i mean know.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/6_-FO-371-36653_Daily-Worker.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/27/daily-telegraphs-holocaust-article-in-1942-that-went-unheralded

Tangent-why do soarces which get the number wrong and right both get used as evidence? Would the red cross number be 'faked' if it was 6 million? Arnt you just moving the goalposts?

You can just say "I'm not going to answer the question."

So.... who wants to tell him about the communist terrorist group being given free reign in most of America's major cities?

If you were just looking for 'gotcha' binary, then you shouldnt have asked the question and I wouldnt have had to bother considering the thought experiment.

I'm not even sure where to begin with that-do you think the Soviet union is alive and well and secretly running antifa? Are you afraid I'm a KGB agent deep oping to get Null? It could be a joke I suppose but it's so...random access.




.....Jesus what a boring waste of time, I could be looking at amusing pictures of cats.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

I'm not a fluent German speaker, but it seems an accurate translation.

I wouldn't be able to identify his voice accurately and he sounds like he is giving a speech, if that helps.

I listened to it. The man, allegedly Himmler, what he says matches the subtitles. Does anyone have a link to what he says immediately after?

Explain the tangent?

If, somehow, a neo-nazi takeover of the US occured and they began to crack down on anyone or anything that said the mass exterminations were real, would you believe it if the Red Cross came out at some point with new documents which stipulated that the old ones were wrong and that they now confirm that the mass exterminations never happened?

What do you mean? Who specifically says that?

From the Black Book of Polish Jewry (1943)
Wikipedia link
PDF of the actual book.
Page 131:

I should also note that the book itself is in fact an act of deliberate propaganda, but is still considered authentic. As wikipedia states:

According to Michael Fleming, neither the editor, Jacob Apenszlak, nor his collaborators, stated the true scale and manner of the Holocaust in Poland, seeking to elicit empathy from an American public which at that time "was marked by a high level of antisemitism". Fleming further wrote that "the fate of Polish Jewry was narrated without, in the most part, reference to the death camps". He attributed those issues to self-censorship and compromises made to satisfy the "US censorship and propaganda organs". The book was sponsored by Eleanor Roosevelt (wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt), Albert Einstein, Senator Robert Wagner and several prominent Americans, Jews, and Poles including high-ranking officials and community leaders.

It's seems unlikely you've based your position on origional research of primary soarces. I mean it's plausable since you don't appear particulary aware of the conventional stances when you ask stuff

I don't ask stuff because I don't know it, I ask to find out why you believe it, what did you find that I missed, etc etc.

but have you actually spent months browsing primary resoarces and synthesising an theory?

Years, on and off. Regretfully I do not posses the greatest memory, as my username implies. It might have been wiser for me to work a few weeks to months to compile a great corpus of information for reference before I began posting in this thread.

Oh yes, much like we don't know how many specically how many died in most historical events? Are their any other events you're critical off because we're using a estimate?

Not in particular, just the ones i'm not allowed to question.

it's typically rounded to around 5.7 min, it ranks up the 9 max when you include other groups such as gays and gypsies. So no 4 is way too low.

Do the census data back up those losses?

Interesting soarce-where did you get it from?

Probably /pol/. I'll see if I can find the actual papers where they were printed. A surprising amount of them have been digitized, but like with that Black Book, you have to skim through a shitload to find it.

it also makes absolutly no sense since it would imply for some reason jews where bellowing about a staged plan to fake the Nazi mass murder of jews decades before nazi germany was relavent.

The Joy of Six

There are, it seems, quite a few Jews who appear, as near as I can tell, to believe that there was a divine precondition to the Jews being able to return to Israel, and that precondition was that they must somehow be exactly 6 million fewer in number. Now, whether or not the Jews believed that lying (to God) about the 6 million was sufficient, or that they intentionally stirred up as much trouble as they could to get as many of them killed in a sacrifice, a Burnt Offering, I cannot tell. But Gematria is a big deal to them, this number is a big deal to them, getting Israel back was the biggest deal to them and they got it. The Holocaust has been used as a shield to protect Jews and Israel ever since.

Would the red cross number be 'faked' if it was 6 million?

The closer it is to the actual events, the less time there was to fake things along a singular narrative. So the farther from the events, the less credible they are, to me at least. So no, If the red cross had reported 6 million in 1945 or so, I'd be inclined to believe it. But they did not.

 

[Cyril Sneer]

Here, since you clearly want it:

Spoiler

View attachment 1405799

So you have no effective counter-arguments, in other words.

I don’t think one person making a statement means the whole army believed this to be true. Besides, they did not have the immediate satisfaction of taking photos and sharing documents with each other like we do now. If one guy says “I think we caused this” then went back to America where thousands of documents And photos had been put together Showing a clearer timeline they can change their mind.

Just because one person said something one time does not change the countless amounts of evidence supporting the contrary.

John Beatty wasn't just "one person," he was the designated nexus through which U.S. military intelligence was transmitted to the U.S. government. You want to talk about photos and documents and timelines? That was literally his job. He wrote a book in 1951 arguing that fighting the Germans had been a horrible mistake, and there's no mention of a "holocaust," but rather merely a reference in passing to Jewish concentration camp inmates becoming malnourished because the Germans (thanks to Allied bombing) couldn't feed them or themselves, and to the best of my knowledge Beatty was not alone in this accounting (neither Churchill's nor Eisenhower's war memoirs make any mention of a planned extermination of Jews, either, if memory serves).

The Auschwitz concentration/extermination camp was an extreme case and did utilize Zyklon B. Now Zyklon B is based on Hydrogen Cyanide, which is a gas that dissipates quite quickly, so again, you could just open the doors. It is also used extensively (and was originally developed partially) to kill bugs, including lice, so it was in fact used for decontamination - even most of the stuff that was shipped to extermination camps served this purpose primarily. But because Auschwitz genuinely industrialized killing, it actually had large scale ventilators installed for the underground chambers to ventilate them even faster. Auschwitz had the capacity to gas nearly 9000 people at the same time. It had 7 buildings, some of them originally barns, solely dedicated to this.

Except camp records indicate that inmate deaths apparently declined as Zyklon B became available...

Some people in the thread believe there's no basis for there having been gas chambers. Three reasons are the frequent lies and changing of stories of those claiming them, lack of evidence and fake gas chambers that are paraded as real ones. There is some deviance where some think there was a plan of extermination and some that don't think there was one....

...There is no contest on the idea that jews were persecuted. There is some contest on whether there was a plan of extermination.

One of the perennial problems in defending the Holocaust mythos is that there doesn't seem to be any paper trail (very strange for an almost maniacally-bureaucratic people like the Germans) nor evidence of a direct order for Jewish extermination. This absence so vexed Raul Hilberg, one of the premiere architects of the Holocaust narrative, that he ultimately declared that the Germans planned and carried out an attempted extermination of Jewry in Europe via literal telepathy, stating that "what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."

After awhile, they were all "death camps," of a sort. Just like how the "doctors" in charge of the euthanasia centers kept killing retards until the very last day the Allied troops arrived, the SS kept killing undesireables because they could. You are probably a soft man whose only experiences with the truly insane, violent and demented might be via Kiwifarms. They were insane and blamed the people they were told to "guard" for the war, so why not engage in a bunch of spiteful killing at the very end?

There were many trix the Nazis did to say that they weren't actually killing them, like registering 10 000 people who died in one day as having "heart attacks."

If you cared enough to go back to the source materiel you can find Goebbels' diaries easily enough for yourself, as well as a recording of Himmler outright saying that the role of the SS in general was to kill the Jews - the Einsatzgruppen in particular. Unless you're going to say the Einsatzgruppen were good boys who dindu nuffin.

If the SS were such a gaggle of violent psychopaths, why did they execute concentration camp commandant Karl-Otto Koch for mistreating prisoners, and on a verdict that by so doing, he had disgraced both himself and the SS as a whole?

My niggerkike, rounding up your citizens in a camp where 400,000 of them died is still an absolutely shitcunt thing to do. Exaggerating the numbers would make the Jews look WORSE, sure, but it wouldn't make the Nazis any BETTER.

Yeah, but then the Allies went and forcibly removed about 12-14 million ethnic Germans from Central Europe and at least several million of them died along the way and we're just supposed to brush that off like "eh, whatever, had to be done to ensure future peace in Europe"?

The USA euthanized its fair share of retards as well. It was a fad in those times, the USA somewhat pioneered it, so it would be easy for people of the time to claim that the germans did it as well.

That touches on something else that I've been thinking about as well: American (and other Allied) troops were hardly Boy Scouts in all instances, and there's a rather long list of unbecoming conduct by the same across the 20th century. Granted, some instances are probably exaggerated to some degree by the people on the other side, but from the Vietnam-style search-and-destroy excursions of the Philippine–American War (where General Jacob Smith ordered the killing of all Filipino males aged 10 and up) to the British torture and execution of suspected Mau-Mau rebels in Kenya, to things like the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix Program, Canadian paratroopers torturing Somali thieves to death or Abu Ghraib, it seems like it quite often doesn't take much for the stress of war to push many soldiers into committing what we would call war-crimes, but in instances involving the nations that came out on top at the end of WWII, they tend to be downplayed or written off as isolated incidents or the result of an unfortunate breakdown of normal military discipline, whereas in the case of German troops in WWII we're supposed to believe that such incidents were instead a systemic and calculated outgrowth of their country's politics/national character.

 

[FlamingPie]

If the SS were such a gaggle of violent psychopaths, why did they execute concentration camp commandant Karl-Otto Koch for mistreating prisoners, and on a verdict that by so doing, he had disgraced both himself and the SS as a whole?

Never mind that prisoners were shot and/or worked to death in Buchenwald. Also, Koch's execution also had a lot to do with the fact that he was a spastic that lost a bunch of Soviet prisoners and kept embezzling Nazi funds.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm trying to point out the flaws inherent in official beliefs that become mandatory and how they resist revision, but nobody wants to talk about that I guess

Your question will be ignored because in answering it people are required to to cross over into wrongthink territory.

My niggerkike, rounding up your citizens in a camp where 400,000 of them died is still an absolutely shitcunt thing to do. Exaggerating the numbers would make the Jews look WORSE, sure, but it wouldn't make the Nazis any BETTER.

Perhaps you need to revisit your assumption that that is what everybody is trying to do.

They were transported to camps and were killed on arrival.

If children were killed on arrival, why are there still people alive who experienced the camps?

Why do numerous testimonies come from people that were children in the camps?

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Barely anyone talks about the Holodomor, Pitetisti Prison, and persecution of gentiles in gulags. I wonder why....

Spoiler: Pure COINCIDENCE

View attachment 1409929
View attachment 1409930
View attachment 1409931View attachment 1409932
View attachment 1409933

Isn't it kind of a circular logic? The fact that people constantly bring up the holocaust to debate it perpetuates its existence. If people just went on other points of attacks against jews then the whole subject wouldn't been as popular. Ditto if people constantly brough up the Holodomor in conversations of whether it happened or not, then it would feel more omnipresent.

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Perhaps you need to revisit your assumption that that is what everybody is trying to do.

so uh

what about those roma, huh? anyone care about them?

 

[Lemmingwise]

what about those roma, huh? anyone care about them?

Seems like a non-sequitor considering what you're replying to. How does that even relate to what I said?

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Seems like a non-sequitor considering what you're replying to. How does that even relate to what I said?

A large percentage of Roma died within the Holocaust and there has never been any proof offered to compensate for the dead

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Seems like a non-sequitor considering what you're replying to. How does that even relate to what I said?

Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, those all count, maybe not for the "Holocaust" but definitely in the context of Nazis being murderous bastards

If we were talking about the Holodomor it would be perfectly fair game to bring up the people who were oppressed along with the so-called "kulaks"

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, those all count, maybe not for the "Holocaust" but definitely in the context of Nazis being murderous bastards

If we were talking about the Holodomor it would be perfectly fair game to bring up the people who were oppressed along with the so-called "kulaks"

Well the jews have monopolized the whole affair and made it all about them. Hell, they even fought to prevent the USA's concentration camps being called "concentration camps".

In 1998, use of the term "concentration camps" gained greater credibility prior to the opening of an exhibit about the American camps at Ellis Island. Initially, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the National Park Service, which manages Ellis Island, objected to the use of the term in the exhibit. However, during a subsequent meeting held at the offices of the AJC in New York City, leaders representing Japanese Americans and Jewish Americans reached an understanding about the use of the term. After the meeting, the Japanese American National Museum and the AJC issued a joint statement (which was included in the exhibit) that read in part:

A concentration camp is a place where people are imprisoned not because of any crimes they have committed, but simply because of who they are. Although many groups have been singled out for such persecution throughout history, the term 'concentration camp' was first used at the turn of the [20th] century in the Spanish American and Boer Wars. During World War II, America's concentration camps were clearly distinguishable from Nazi Germany's. Nazi camps were places of torture, barbarous medical experiments and summary executions; some were extermination centers with gas chambers. Six million Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust. Many others, including Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals and political dissidents were also victims of the Nazi concentration camps. In recent years, concentration camps have existed in the former Soviet Union, Cambodia and Bosnia. Despite differences, all had one thing in common: the people in power removed a minority group from the general population and the rest of society let it happen.

The New York Times published an unsigned editorial supporting the use of "concentration camp" in the exhibit. An article quoted Jonathan Mark, a columnist for The Jewish Week, who wrote, "Can no one else speak of slavery, gas, trains, camps? It's Jewish malpractice to monopolize pain and minimize victims." AJC Executive Director David A. Harris stated during the controversy, "We have not claimed Jewish exclusivity for the term 'concentration camps.'", while also stating "Since the Second World War, these terms have taken on a specificity and a new level of meaning that deserves protection. A certain care needs to be exercised."