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

[AcidityLiquidity]

If they were lying about the soap, lampshades, death rollercoasters, and being masturbated to death- why are the gas rooms with wooden doors and miracle ovens that can torch 6 million bodies accepted?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

I agree that it is a just so story with questionable veracity. Doesn't change that that is what the guy told me.

Though the idea that subversion requires telepathy is alex jones tier. There are numerous documented instances of subversion in history, they don't require groups as large as those that worked on the manhattan project and jews aren't the only ones who've engaged in subversion.

The idea that the division is only a faked ploy, is again a projection you're making, as I neither believe it nor said it, but I've come to expect that from you at this point.

Internal strife doesn't preclude success you know. Europeans were fighting all kinds of wars in the age of colonialism where they all but conquered the world. The stronger countries they couldn't conquer, they did what they could to subvert, including things like the sale of opium.

1. Subversion doesn't require telepathy: subversion of virtually every country in the First World with perfect coordination, no defectors, and no material evidence does, and this is the gist of the 'ZOG" conspiracy.
2. I'm not projecting: I am addressing a possible counter-argument from other people in this thread in general. Maybe you don't understand that because English isn't your first language.
3. Internal strife precludes success when your theory hinges on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Jews are coordinating their actions across nations and ideological divides.

 

[TaimuRadiu]

If they were lying about the soap, lampshades, death rollercoasters, and being masturbated to death- why are the gas rooms with wooden doors and miracle ovens that can torch 6 million bodies accepted?

Not all 6 gorillon were killed in the ovens. Most were killed via starvation, disease, and Einsatzgruppen sweeps across the areas. It's notable that the mass deportations of German Jews occurred in the last 2 years of the war. German Jews. The East was allowed to do its own thing as long as they sent back tribute to the Nazis in the West. The savagery of the Ukrainians and the Poles towards their Jews surprised even the most hardcore Nazis.

 

[Lemmingwise]

1. Subversion doesn't require telepathy: subversion of virtually every country in the First World with perfect coordination, no defectors, and no material evidence does, and this is the gist of the 'ZOG" conspiracy.
2. I'm not projecting: I am addressing a possible counter-argument from other people in this thread in general. Maybe you don't understand that because English isn't your first language.
3. Internal strife precludes success when your theory hinges on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Jews are coordinating their actions across nations and ideological divides.

Lolwut. What's going on here? From where do you get the idea of perfect coordination, perfect subversion? You're replying to me, but now you're saying rather than projecting, you're addressing possible counterarguments.

Why would there be counterarguments? Of people defending telepathic perfect subversion?

Where did this idea of perfect coordination even come from?

Why don't you quote the sentence or idea that you're adressing? Did I miss something?

At risk of feeding the windmills, I can see your point about internal strife, but it doesn't hold, again you can compare it to european colonialism. There were huge internal divides, including ideaological, but it still ended up spreading christianity to every country in the world, if different flavors.

I don't even understand what kind of chimera of ideas you're trying to disprove. On the one hand you're addressing a perfect conspiracy and on the other full control of all 1st world governments. But why would you need a conspiracy or subversion if you had perfect control? I get why the idea seems ludicrous to you, but do you get that you're the one who invented that idea?

Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit even trying to respond to the core of what you're saying, considering your comment about english, which we both know is bullshit. But you do seem to care and you have acted honorably towards me in the past so I'm clinging to the hope that I'm wrong and it's just a miscommunication and you are trying to approach this honestly.

Finally, perhaps most constructively, can you create a summary of what conspiracy you think you are debunking? It seems you are trying to debunk a conspiracy of all jews, and only jews, that have full control over every first world country. Is that what you're trying to debunk? I see little value in trying to take that idea down. Elaborate. What am I missing here about your position?

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

If they were lying about the soap, lampshades, death rollercoasters, and being masturbated to death- why are the gas rooms with wooden doors and miracle ovens that can torch 6 million bodies accepted?

Because you must.

Lolwut. What's going on here? From where do you get the idea of perfect coordination, perfect subversion? You're replying to me, but now you're saying rather than projecting, you're addressing possible counterarguments.

Why would there be counterarguments? Of people defending telepathic perfect subversion?

Where did this idea of perfect coordination even come from?

Hyperbole is easier to mock.

Ironically, the very same "telepathic levels of communication without evidence" are how a good deal of people seem to perceive the carrying out of the holocaust, what with the whole "no evidence of the actual order" thing.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Hyperbole is easier to mock.

Ironically, the very same "telepathic levels of communication without evidence" are how a good deal of people seem to perceive the carrying out of the holocaust, what with the whole "no evidence of the actual order" thing.

Looks like you're right and it was just me being overly empathic/generous in my interpretation.

Guess it wasn't an unintentional strawman after all.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Looks like you're right and it was just me being overly empathic/generous in my interpretation.

Guess it wasn't an unintentional strawman after all.

Evil people with evil ideas they got from a handful of /pol/ info graphics don't deserve real arguments.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Evil people with evil ideas they got from a handful of /pol/ info graphics don't deserve real arguments.

View attachment 1455316
View attachment 1455322

"Race is a matter of accident"
"Give $35 million to jews"


(Reminder that germany and russia's had famines at that time, which much like WW2, didn't just kill jews)

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

View attachment 1466753

Isn't it contradictory to argue against systematic murder while agreeing that jews were herded to confined spaces or forced into hard labour (both prime locations to viral outbreaks) without stable access to food or medicine?

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Isn't it contradictory to argue against systematic murder while agreeing that jews were herded to confined spaces or forced into hard labour (both prime locations to viral outbreaks) without stable access to food or medicine?

The only reason the access to food and medicine became unstable was because of the war. It became unstable for just about everyone. To say that the instability was intentional or "systematic" you'd have to make the argument that they planned to lose. Such losses of life would have occurred to the interred japanese citizens had the US somehow lost the war.

Ironically, if they wanted to kill as many people as possible they'd have never deloused them with zyklon B at all. Typhus would have annihilated them.

 

[ZeCommissar]

View attachment 1466753

Regardless of the fact that the murder was planned, wouldn't the Nazi party still be at fault for forcing the Jewish people and other minorities into such conditions in the first place? I don't see how going "they didn't plan it, it just kinda happened by accident!" absolves the nazis in any way, or change the fact that a holocaust happened. Someone could make the argument that not as many jews would have died if the nazis had just stopped at persecution instead of rounding them all up into camps and ghettos.

Finally, what about the formation of other groups like the Einzatgruppen?

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Regardless of the fact that the murder was planned

That's not a fact until you can produce the order for it.

wouldn't the Nazi party still be at fault for forcing the Jewish people and other minorities into such conditions in the first place?

Not really. The camps were a response to the war that was forced on them. The original plan was to just kick them all out, and while expensive as fuck for Germany, it was working very well for both sides. If you think that was wrong, do you think a nation should not have any right to determine who lives in it?

I don't see how going "they didn't plan it, it just kinda happened by accident!" absolves the nazis in any way

Legally speaking, the intent to commit murder carries a harsher sentence than accidentally killing someone, so I don't really get what you're driving at. All instances of someone being killed should be treated the same?

or change the fact that a holocaust happened.

Obviously, no amount of evidence would change a "Fact", much like the "Fact" that genital mutilation is the absolute best treatment for gender dysphoria. Don't give me that weak shit argument from authority, especially since the meaning of the word "Fact" has waned significantly in the last few decades.

Someone could make the argument that not as many jews would have died if the nazis had just stopped at persecution instead of rounding them all up into camps and ghettos.

They started a civil war just 20 years prior that resulted in an absolute travesty of a government. What the hell did the Japanese US citizens do to deserve their treatment? They couldn't be trusted to not spontaneously become saboteurs? Well shit, the jews in germany actually did do that. I guess the "nazis" were doubly correct in their actions.

Finally, what about the formation of other groups like the Einzatgruppen?

Even if it was all true, which is suspect at best, it's still better than what the allies allegedly did.
Rapes during the "Liberation" of France
Rapes during the Soviet Occupation of Poland
Rapes during the sacking of Germany
Rapes during the sacking of Japan
Or just in general:
All the other shit we, as the victors of war, excuse ourselves of while sanctimoniously endowing our enemy alone with the raiment of "Evil" That shit is one of the many reasons why people question the "official" narrative. I can accept that in a war two sides pulled some heinous shit and are equally "bad" in the eyes of the other. In nothing other than fiction will I accept the concept of a war fought between pure good vs pure evil and neither should you.

 

[FlamingPie]

The only reason the access to food and medicine became unstable was because of the war. It became unstable for just about everyone. To say that the instability was intentional or "systematic" you'd have to make the argument that they planned to lose. Such losses of life would have occurred to the interred japanese citizens had the US somehow lost the war.

Ironically, if they wanted to kill as many people as possible they'd have never deloused them with zyklon B at all. Typhus would have annihilated them.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive, considering, IIRC, Hitler's mental state was probably starting to disintegrate after he fucked up the Soviet invasion.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Looks like you're right and it was just me being overly empathic/generous in my interpretation.

Guess it wasn't an unintentional strawman after all.

Forgive me for not wanting to waste any more of my brain cells walking through an argument I have likely had several hundred times in the past eight years, especially because many people (not talking about you specifically: you are fairly reasonable) in this thread have repeatedly demonstrated no interest in a discussion, instead wanting to just blare the same debunked points over and over and over until everyone else gives up.
It's effective, I'll give them that.

 

[MrJokerRager]

The holocaust never happened, there I said it.

Also Hitler should have gassed the Jews.

Also Armenian Holocaust was a genocide.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Even if it was all true, which is suspect at best, it's still better than what the allies allegedly did.

You're putting alleged offenses next to alleged offenses

On the one side we have rape and on the other genocide. Why do you say that rape is worse?

Perhaps I'm missing something, I did not read your entire links.

Forgive me for not wanting to waste any more of my brain cells walking through an argument I have likely had several hundred times in the past eight years, especially because many people (not talking about you specifically: you are fairly reasonable) in this thread have repeatedly demonstrated no interest in a discussion, instead wanting to just blare the same debunked points over and over and over until everyone else gives up.
It's effective, I'll give them that.

I genuinely wish I could say the same about you in regards to this thread.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Forgive me for not wanting to waste any more of my brain cells walking through an argument I have likely had several hundred times in the past eight years, especially because many people (not talking about you specifically: you are fairly reasonable) in this thread have repeatedly demonstrated no interest in a discussion, instead wanting to just blare the same debunked points over and over and over until everyone else gives up.
It's effective, I'll give them that.

Petulance is not a virtue. If there's nothing for you here, what keeps drawing you back? Because someone is wrong on the internet?

You're putting alleged offenses next to alleged offenses

On the one side we have rape and on the other genocide.

The term "genocide" didn't exist during or before the war. For all of history up until that point killing loads of people civilian or otherwise was just called War. it's only after we won WW2 that we began to moralize about it, again only focusing on what our enemies did. But despite the fact that throughout history every war was all about killing your enemies, there were still rules to warfare and raping and pillaging was largely seen as an act of barbarism unsuited to civilized men. I've heard that there were instances of Germans raping and pillaging during the war. I've also heard they were promptly shot to death for it.

Why do you say that rape is worse?

Perhaps I'm missing something, I did not read your entire links.

You should definitely check the last link, the allies did a lot of heinous shit. Mutilating the dead, killing people who've surrendered, not taking prisoners as a general order, experiments on soldiers, horrible torture to get every confession at Nuremberg, the firebombing of Dresden, the use of atomic weapons on cities, etc etc.

As for the rapes, generally speaking killing people in war is one thing but raping them before killing them is very different from a moral character standpoint. It's something we associate with thugs and barbarians for a reason. In terms of waging war between modern civilized nations, its completely unnecessary. It's something we rightly look down on the Congolese for doing. Such horrific acts happening all over the European theater with little to no long-term consequences essentially strips the allies of any possible moral high ground because it shows that they didn't give a fuck about the people they were "liberating", it was just an excuse to destroy a people and an ideology which threatened the central banking system and nothing more.

I'm not saying rape is "worse" than "genocide", I obviously don't think the national socialists ever did anything of the sort. Why should I believe the words of rapists and thieves? But even if I do take the term "genocide" seriously, the Allies also committed "genocide" countless times if we're going by the extremely vague criteria of the UN Genocide Convention, which again was invented purely to tack on more supposed crimes against the conquered.

For the sake of argument, if it is the case that both parties are equally guilty of genocide, as if that's something new to war, i'm still going to side with the party that didn't turn a blind eye to wholesale raping and pillaging on multiple continents.

But i'm not even allowed to think that because saying anything at all about what the allies did is holocaust denial.

 

[Linako 2.0]

Came here from the George Floyd thread to repost how over the past few decades school has done nothing but shove the holocaust down our throats and that being the only history they teach us; They would also teach it to us in English class too for some reason.

The problem is, we don't teach the World Wars as world wars, we teach them as "what has Hollywood made interesting movies about lately" so they can show Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List and the teacher can take multiple days off showing films. When we learned about WWII in school the Pacific Campaign was glossed over in about 5 minutes with "Pearl Harbor was attacked so we nuked Japan" basically. The Mediterranean campaign didn't get mentioned at all, nor did what was going on in China or Burma. Russia only got mentioned because Stalingrad is really dramatic. Nothing about buzz bombs, no mention of rationing on the homefront but plenty on Japanese internment (yet nothing on the highly decorated 442nd Infantry, composed almost entirely of Americans of Japanese descent because that would necessitate mentioning the Mediterranean campaign).

When I was still in school we spent more time on the Holocaust than anything else related to WWII. I'd bet most Americans would struggle to name one battle of the Pacific Theater other than Pearl Harbor and maybe Iwo Jima if they saw that one movie. The Eastern Front wasn't even mentioned, the battles in China or India weren't mentioned, the African Campaign wasn't mentioned, it was basically just: "Holocaust, therefore Hitler bad, therefore D-Day and France. Also Pearl Harbor happened so we nuked Japan, but it was BAD." Wanted to hear more about Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, or even Stalingrad? Tough shit, here's more bullshit about lampshades and belts made out of Jews. Italy? Who cares? Holocaust.

I hate to say it but as a kid, I probably learned more about WWII from movies and video games than I did in school. And WWI was basically a footnote. We heard plenty about the Holocaust but nothing about the Soviet Union's various purges, famines and mass executions.

I shit you not, I once had a supervisor ask me, "which one was the Hitler war?"

Stalin isn't necessarily lionized, but he's also a footnote. I also had an English teacher tell us that 1984 was actually about what would have happened if Germany had won WWII (even though that's decidedly *not* what happens, as Oceania was created by the US's absorption of the Western hemisphere, the British Isles, Australia, and South Africa). No mention of how the whole book is about a Soviet-style regime in the Anglosphere.

This is virtually my exact experience too. I remember that he had to watch Escape from Sobibor and the opening beach scene from Saving Private Ryan. We had a lot of Holocaust talk and read The Diary of Anne Frank. Some names like Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill and Stalin were brought up but nothing was really in depth about anyone. We actually did watch the Alec Baldwin movie Nuremburg and did a mock trial where half of us had to be the defendants and the other half were the prosecutors which was kind of cool albeit it sort of shallow. WW1 was essentially just being told the name 'Franz Ferdinand' and about the only other thing covered was Vimy Ridge (because Canada).

The only other things we even covered in History classes if I recall correctly had to do with the fur trade (which no one cared about because it's mind numbing how boring of a topic it is) residential schools, the Avrow Arrow and the Komagata Maru.

And like everyone else says, my public school telling of WW2 was 90% holocaust, 10% nukes. I'm old enough that the narrative was War Bad rather than Whitey Bad, but the curriculum is the exact same.

It was sometime in college when I randomly stumbled upon the existence of the Holodomor, and the shock that I had never heard about such a massive genocide at all, despite growing up watching the history channel and having an interest in history, started to make me wonder what else I hadn't been told.

A lot, it turns out.

Absolutely no mention of any of the Japanese atrocities, all it was for me was: "Japan bad, but America WORSE! Internment camps, nukes, we treated POWs bad too!"
Nothing at all about the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, Unit 731, Japanese soldiers beheading and prying fingernails of Australian/American POWs, the massive civilian casualties at Okinawa, etc.
The rebuttal for all of this is of course: "Well America never treated POWs very nice either!"
What, because we didn't provide them with goose down pillows and they had to eat Spam instead of caviar? If I'd lived during the 1940s and fought for the Axis and you gave me an option between being captured by Americans or the Japanese, I'd be trying to find some GIs to turn myself in.

Also, nothing mentioned of some of the very valid reasons why the nuclear bombs were justified. If for whatever reason the nuke didn't exist at that point, one of the only ways to stop Japan would have been a massive campaign of firebombing cities [which did happen to an extent as we know] or a total amphibious invasion of the Japanese mainland. I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone why that would have been terrible, and much worse than the result of those two bombings. One can argue about the ethics of nuclear proliferation until the cows come home, but the fact remains that it was the best option to end the Pacific War, and the reasons for this fact you will hardly hear about in school because nuanced education is dead.

Speaking of internment camps, how many Japanese Americans are resentful of that 80 some years later? Not too many, I'd wager, or at least I don't hear about it. You can't say the same for the Jews, or God forbid, black Americans who are still enraged over shit that happened 160 years ago or more. Mostly because I don't believe Japanese Americans [or Asian Americans in general for that matter] are interested in being victims and beating the war drum over old shit.

Likewise, Vietnam was basically skimmed over. Given that I went to school a somewhat long time ago in a shitty district, our textbooks stopped at the Gulf War, which was also skimmed over. Notably absent as well was the Korean War. I have met grown ass adults who graduated high school that knew the Korean War happened, but couldn't tell you WHEN it happened. One guy thought it started in 1972.

It was far more important to educators that we be beaten over the head repeatedly with the Holocaust and the Confederacy rather than giving anyone a robust, well-rounded education in history.

hey have to hammer in about WWII and the Holocaust to appease the board behind the history curriculum, one that probably receives a lot of money from interest groups or individuals to make sure their pet topic is taught. That's why you might have times where even if everyone in the room knows the exact talking points about WWII that are going to be used, the teacher has to drone through them anyway with an "I know you guys already know all this, but a gotta go through this," or else it'll cause problems.

If, God forbid, they focus less time on the Holocaust they'd receive a bunch of bitching and hand wringing about it. It's like Canada and sanitized Native history being forced down everyone's throats with "Everyone was singing Kumbaya until the evil Europeans came," and residential schools (which I do think were awful but it's ad nauseam)

Sperging about the education of WW1 and WW2 in school, mind you, this was over 40 years ago, but there is something interesting.

Prior to 1979 even though my family moved around a lot, I got a pretty rounded education on WW1 and WW2. One of the most vivid ways the teacher showed us how WW1 happened is she gave us all slips of paper. She had us roll a die three times. Once, we pulled white slips, those were people in the class we were neutral to. Then we pulled red, those were people in the class we didn't trust and might not like (You could get the same name in red or blue interestingly enough). Then you pull the number of blue ones.

Now, she took us outside, had groups of us be at the jungle gym, another group at the slides, another group at the hopscotch and said: OK, Kimmy was assassinated by Bobby. Who's friends with Kimmy? OK, who's friends with Bobby.

And the whole class devolved into a shitshow.

Then we learned about how it bogged down, how technology shifts created the stalemate as tactics and strategy didn't catch up. Then we learned, as elementary school kids, that it left everything destroyed in Europe (the slides, hopscotch, and jungle gym) while the US, largely Africa, Indochina, China, and Japan (the swings, teeter totter, ect) were all fine.

Then we learned about how the economy was destroyed. She taught this by handing out monopoly money and cranking the price of bread until we were handing out multiple $100 for a loaf of bread.

She asked if someone came up and said "You baby sister gets to live, your mommy and daddy can have food, and your house will be warm and the roof fixed, just sign my petition!" if we would.

Well... duh.

Oops, my class elected Hitler to power.

Then we learned more. How the US was providing war material, how Japan and China were wrestling. We watched a few old black and white movies. Some old guys came into class and talked. One who served in Africa, one in Europe, one in the Pacific, one who worked at home driving trucks coast to coast to move valuable supplies. Then how hundreds of thousands of American troops would have died taking Japan (The Purple Heart medals printed for the amphibious landing of Japan are still given out to this fucking day) and millions of Japanese would have died. How Japan's war crimes were ignored in order to provide the US a Far East ally and base to offset the rapidly growing Soviet Union and Communist China, how Nazi scientists then took part in the Green Revolution and NASA.

We got variants. Discussion of the colonization of America by the European powers, the colonization of Africa, the stripping of South America, on and on, till the Revolutionary War where we learn it was close because some generals tried to fight the British on their own terms. We read Johnny Tremain and stuff like that. I first read that particular book in 3rd Grade and we discussed it in class.

We had problems with New Math and Esperanto and the Metric System, but that was the 70's, baby.

Then... the early 80's happened. Holy shit.

By the mid-80's it was all "MUH JOOZ!" and reading diary of a heeb, Hitler was evil and all germans were evil for summoning him from Hell to punish the Joice, and on and on.

So, what happened?

The establishment of the Department of Education. It immediately shifted focus from actually learning about history (The Code of Hammurabi, Roman Laws, Chinese Dynasties, Japanese Dynasties because these were all tied to World War 2 and the Korean War and the recent Vietnam War) so we could understand how we had been lucky enough to have been born in America at the time we were over to focusing entirely on MUH JOOZ! MUH EBIL GERMANS! MUH MISUNDERSTOOD COMMIES!

The Department of Education raped 40 years worth the education.

Fucking prove me wrong.

Education suddenly shifted focus.

 

[schizoid PD]

Not all 6 gorillon were killed in the ovens. Most were killed via starvation, disease, and Einsatzgruppen sweeps across the areas. It's notable that the mass deportations of German Jews occurred in the last 2 years of the war. German Jews. The East was allowed to do its own thing as long as they sent back tribute to the Nazis in the West. The savagery of the Ukrainians and the Poles towards their Jews surprised even the most hardcore Nazis.

The issue is.... most people believe right now: That far right activists under the direction of Trump as a Russian puppet are planning to turn the USA into a Fourth Reich. Now.... I have have the internet, so I can access alternative sources and know that to be untrue. But I wonder... what of people in 1938? Where's their alternate news source? I'm not saying it's absolutely wrong, but in that age... When the paper was the only source. Who do you believe? No one even ever mentions the mass rapes in Germany today.