Post: #276

(09-03-2017 02:50 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 02:09 PM)Valentine Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 12:54 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  It really disappoints me to see holocaust/genocide denial in threads and Nazi apologism trying to attach itself to red pill writing.

....

It really disappoints me when people don't read through this thread before posting.

I don't spend a lot of time on "The Earth is flat" internet threads either.
They have as much credibility as extermination denialism claims.

The evidence is very easy to find. And impossible to deny.
I have no problem with the facts being discussed. What I do have a problem with is the denialism
and apologism (lighter or heavier variants) for acts of Nazism and its supporters.
I'm out of this thread, so I won't be reading your reply.

Geez WTF is up with dudes having meltdown over discussions? I spent all night reading this thread, and proponent of both sides brought arguments & citations to the discussion... while a couple of dudes just became butthurt because some members don't believe this shit. Btw you're being butthurt about this right now, I'm damn sure one of your friend would castigate you

infinitely for writing on the "The Rape forum of Roosh V", and you wouldn't be able to have an discussionwith him because he wouldn't be able to detach his emotionality from his intellect because of the subject of Rape. You're doing the same damn thing! Keep reading, get angry... and then reply with intellect over what you don't agree with. That's how you grow a strong boundary... over anything

Post: #277

For context on the source (credit Wikipedia): Raul Hilberg (June 2, 1926 – August 4, 2007) was an Austrian-born Jewish-American political scientist and historian. He was widely considered to be the world's preeminent scholar of the Holocaust, and his three-volume, 1,273-page magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, is regarded as a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution.





Here's another great example of the "eyewitness testimony" you get from the "survivors":

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...66327.html

Quote:Yitzhak Ganon was taken to the Auschwitz-Birkenau hospital, where Josef Mengele, the so-called "Angel of Death," conducted grisly experiments on Jewish prisoners.

Ganon had to lie down on a table and was tied down. Without any anesthetics, Mengele cut him open and removed his kidney. "I saw the kidney pulsing in his hand and cried like a crazy man," Ganon says. "I screamed the 'Shema Yisrael.' I begged for death, to stop the suffering."

After the "operation," he had to work in the Auschwitz sewing room without painkillers. Among other things, he had to clean bloody medical instruments. Once, he had to spend the whole night in a bath of ice-cold water because Mengele wanted to "test" his lung function. Altogether, Ganon spent six and a half months in the concentration camp's hospital.

When they had no more use for him, the Nazis sent him to the gas chamber. He survived only by chance: The gas chamber held only 200 people. Ganon was number 201.

Here's another good one: https://www.bucknell.edu/x57001.xml

Quote:Even Josef Mengele, known as the Angel of Death for his cruel medical experiments on Jewish prisoners, checked on Goldfinger's condition after he was condemned to death for allegedly breaking his shovel. The bullet bounced off his skull and lodged in his shoulder, a wound that later became infected.

Goldfinger's last camp was Buchenwald where, on April 10, 1945, he was taken to the woods to be killed. Luckily, an American plane spotted the impending execution and began shooting at the Nazis. The Nazis hid from American fire among the prisoners before sending them back to camp where they were liberated the next day.

And remember: literally the entirety of the Holocaust narrative rests on the reliability of eyewitness testimony. There is zero forensic evidence. There is zero documentary evidence, despite the capture of thousands of tons worth of documents from the Nazi archives and the breaking of Nazi codes during the war. There is zero photographic evidence of a gas chamber. The only evidence provided is the eyewitness testimony of the survivors (the "survivors" of supposed death camps! How does that even make sense to begin with!?). The sheer absurdity of the story grows the further you dig into the details.

I had a good laugh at the quora link BelyyTigr posted. Everything posted there has been thoroughly debunked in this thread (which, of course, he would not lower himself to actually read). My favorite was the guy who posted pictures his grandfather took of some women at a labor camp. Uhh, exactly what the fuck does that have to do with the existence of gas chambers? This is the problem with this subject: it's surrounded by such controversy due to unprecedented social conditioning and brainwashing that people simply can't even begin to think rationally about it. You tell them, "There is no evidence for the existence of gas chambers," and they yell at you, show you a picture of a woman smiling inside a labor camp, call you an anti-Semite and show you the door. It's like, wait, what?

This is basically how it goes, over and over:

Revisionist: There is no evidence for the existence of gas chambers.
Average man: WHAT! You must be joking. There is so much evidence for the Holocaust. How dare you.
Revisionist: Where is the evidence?
Average man: Look, everyone knows the Holocaust happened! It's a fact. Only anti-Semites disagree.
Revisionist: *technical and logical arguments demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that gas chambers were not used by the Nazis*
Average man: I've seen the pictures! I've been to the camps! How dare you deny their suffering! You are a Nazi!

Every single time. Why? Because 99.99% of the people who "believe" in the Holocaust have done exactly zero research into it. The extent of the average person's Holocaust knowledge is simply a vague collection of keywords (six million Jews, gas chambers, concentration camps, final solution), the film Schindler's List and pictures from textbooks showing piles of emaciated corpses. They just assume there must be all sorts of deep scholarship and indisputable evidence behind it, but never bother to actually look into it themselves. If you do actually look into the supporting evidence for the Holocaust, the vast majority of it is eyewitness testimony (incredibly unreliable, as we have seen) and testimony derived via torture at Nuremberg (totally unreliable). Sometimes they will offer up a spreadsheet or a speech excerpt as proof of genocide. Remember, this was alleged to be an industrial scale death machine responsible for the deaths of over 10 million people. And their proof is...a liberally interpreted spreadsheet, the eyewitness testimony of people who claimed to witness pedal-driven brain-bashing machines and blood geysers spurting from the ground, and the "confession" derived from a Nazi after crushing his testicles and threatening to murder his family. No actual gas chamber. No dead bodies (you'd think they could produce at least one out of the millions). No logistical or technical documentation detailing the extermination program. Nothing. There is simply nothing there. It is a complete house of cards, hence why they criminalize its investigation: get near it and it collapses completely.

Post: #278

(07-31-2017 02:05 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  



Saw this old German news vid from 1948. Keep in mind that Allied Command was supervising everything and no news reel was allowed to be aired that did not have US stamp of approval.

They speak of 300.000 proven deaths in Ausschwitz for the entire duration.
That coincides with the daily reports that the concentration camp commanders had to send to Berlin daily - also the reports were researched by David Irwing.

It was on average 100 deaths - 1/3 illness, 1/3 old age/duress, 1/3 executions.

The news reporters did not think the numbers were low, but considered them terrible. And indeed they were - a solid number of course among them were Poles, gypsies, gays, political prisoners etc.

Actually Irwing found that more Jews died during the Eastern Blitzkrieg where entire villages of Jews were massacred - partly with enthusiastic help of native Ukrainians and Russians who were previously slaughtered by mostly Jewish Communis commissars.

Ah well.... messy stuff.

This video refers to a court proceeding. When a team of lawyers is seeking a criminal conviction they generally don't pursue unnecessary charges which they don't have a bulletproof case for, or try to link the deaths of victims they can't prove beyond shadow of a doubt were killed by the defendant, lest they cast doubt on the other charges and the remainder of their evidence. Certainly, 300,000 deaths is more than enough to get criminal convictions so why attempt to nail down a larger number and risk the airtightness of one's case?

My understanding is that the number in this video is registered prisoners only, not those who were immediately taken off the train and selected for execution, or others who slipped through the red tape. Logic would suggest that a warring nation isn't going to expend effort to tattoo numbers into a prisoners arm and enter them into the log books if they're slated to be taken out back and shot, or gassed. http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/aus...aq-09.html

That notwhithstanding, if all can agree that even 300,000 people met an untimely demise from various means at NAZI hands at Auschwitz it seems like we may be on the path to a tentative consensus.

(09-03-2017 03:05 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 02:50 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  I don't spend a lot of time on "The Earth is flat" internet threads either.
They have as much credibility as extermination denialism claims.

The evidence is very easy to find. And impossible to deny.

I can't stand guys like this; comes over and lectures everyone on their morality, makes a bunch of claims and says everyone who doesn't agree with him should be ashamed, claims to have undenaible evidence and offers none.
...
Making it illegal to question something is tyranny. If the evidence is really there someone should be able to conclude the claim made is true or untrue or inconclusive.

Edit - The issue is not whether this woman is attention whoring, or choosing approapriate things to be upset about, or whether she's been warned, or if she "should or shouldn't" follow the law.

It's about whether it's just or not to have a law that makes it illegal to believe or say something.

It's about nothing else.

Did you read his Quora link?

But I agree entirely about the right to speech. Grandma should be free to spout whatever nonsense her Alzheimer's ridden brain desires. Society should allow this and any discussion so that people can compare and contrast both the arguments and attitudes of those participating. On this thread, for example, you can read a denialist posting links which allege that someone can suck on the tailpipe of a 1930s diesel tank engine for 30 minutes without ill effect, and watch the poster double down when called out with cold, clinical facts. You can watch another prominent poster who has (ironically, given the text you quote) taken a position strongly questioning whether the Earth is in fact flat post about Auschwitz having a swimming pool, as if that were evidence of anything.

In the mainstream camp, I don't care if Auschwitz had 472 swimming pools (that would be one whole swimming pool per acre, by the way), I care about facts like "will inhaling straight diesel exhaust kill a human being in less than 30 minutes"? If yes, then why is this denialist website lying to me about it?

Let the best argument win. Stifling speech only lends credence to denialist claims of persecution. It may have been arguably necessary from a PR standpoint following the war but the time for even that justification has long since passed.

(09-03-2017 10:04 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Here's another great example of the "eyewitness testimony" you get from the "survivors":

Very curious, what issue do you take with these accounts? I don't know one way or the other about the reliability of any single witness, although a few hundred thousand combined bear some weight in my mind, but there doesn't seem to be anything unbelievable in your quotes.

(09-03-2017 10:04 PM)scorpion Wrote:  derived from a Nazi after crushing his testicles

Did you forget so soon? The testicle crushing was another denialist lie, already debunked. /thread-60328...pid1475877 One might be inclined to think you're pursuing a narrative rather than simply forgetful on a level which even NAZI grandma feels for, had you not reassured us so repeatedly of your only pursuit being truth.

There hasn't been a single thing in the Quora article that was debunked here. Your posts, on the other hand...

Post: #279

(09-03-2017 12:54 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  I've studied Nazism to degree level. It was Jews, Russians, other Slavs, gypsies, Communists, homosexuals, the disabled and numerous others all targetted for eventual extermination, when the German authorities saw no further use for them. Russia hasn't made up claims that 27m Soviets were murdered or killed. Nor have the Jews, or disabled or all the other groups. Russia infact has around HALF the popln it was expected to have by now, in pre war estimates. Slavic schoolkids were hung up by piano wire and the like. Some people should try reading some quotes by Heydrich and the like.

So why do we have genocide denialism/Nazi apologism trying to lag onto red pill thinking?

You are starting to mix here the ideologies in your hissy-fits. Communist Russia did the stringing up of goys. The Bolsheviks even took intestines, attached them to a pole and let the goys go forward. The Germans did not kill 27 mio. unless you count for all those soldiers who were sent without provisions, even without weapons to the frontlines and then were led to their death by the Bolshevik commanders.

Also don't try to mix the usual straw arguments of this discussion "tarnishing" the Red Pill. The Red Pill is only related to male-female relationships and does not even extend to Game, because I would call many men Red Pill who deny Game (MGTOWs, traditionalists, some evolutionary psychologists etc.)

Also you bring up David Irwing as some kind of thought criminal while he went through scores of actual data and guys lik Henry Makow clearly point out that it is based on actual fact. Besides - the guy clearly says that some 4 mio. Jews died during the war - most killed, executed or starved by the Germans.

Furthermore - what is so fucking wrong about stating that some aspects of the Holoust were not exactly as reported? In my book it would be still a Holocoust if you treated a tribe as brutally as during WWII. They even had fucking concentration camps for children for fuck's sake! Children between ages of 2-16 were herded into special camps in Poland and most died miserably of disease, malnourishment etc.

There is no reason to add on the actual narrative.

I might also point out that I am a guy who would actually fight for Israel. If it was engaged in a war with a combined Caliphate, I would join their forces tomorrow. But alas - I would fight for other countries under similar circumstances as well. I personally even like the Jewish tribe, but I am just interested in the truth. And I am certainly not glorifying the fucking Nazis.

Post: #280

(09-03-2017 10:53 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  Very curious, what issue do you take with these accounts? I don't know one way or the other about the reliability of any single witness, although a few hundred thousand combined bear some weight in my mind, but there doesn't seem to be anything unbelievable in your quotes.

You can't be serious. If you actually take this nonsense at face value no wonder you swallow the entire story. If you aren't just playing dumb then your bullshit detector needs serious calibration. The man is saying that his kidney was surgically removed without anesthesia and that he was immediately sent back to work. This is flat out impossible. Nephrectomy is a serious invasive surgery. There is absolutely no way it could be performed on a conscious patient against his will, even if he was tied down. He would bleed to death on the table. This is also a surgery that typically requires at least a week's hospital stay post-surgery to recover. Here's a video of a nephrectomy for reference. Can you imagine trying to perform this on a screaming, thrashing person with the medical science of the 1940s? Give me a break.





Then there's his claim to have "spent the whole night in a bath of ice water". This is another outright impossibility. There is a condition called hypothermia which I assume everyone is familiar with. The man would have been dead within two hours at most.



He then claims that he was sent to the gas chambers, but since they only held 200 people and he was the 201st man in line, they apparently just forgot about him and let him wander away. Lol, what? Was this a systematic genocide machine or a carnival ride?

The literature of Holocaust survivor testimony is absolutely LITTERED with these type out absurdities and outright fictions. It's as if each survivor is trying to one-up the next in terms of telling some harrowing tale of escaping Nazi brutality. But funnily enough, the testimony of most survivors never gets cited or mentioned. Why? Because it's relatively boring compared to those tall tales: most Holocaust survivors simply talk about being sent on trains to labor camps, where they stayed for the duration of the war. No mention of gas chambers or ghoulish medical experiments.

Steven Spielberg produced interviews with 50,000 Holocaust survivors. What did most of them actually say?

(09-03-2017 10:53 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  Did you forget so soon? The testicle crushing was another denialist lie, already debunked. /thread-60328...pid1475877 One might be inclined to think you're pursuing a narrative rather than simply forgetful on a level which even NAZI grandma feels for, had you not reassured us so repeatedly of your only pursuit being truth.

There hasn't been a single thing in the Quora article that was debunked here. Your posts, on the other hand...

They say that even a blind squirrel will stumble into an acorn every once in awhile, but you seem incapable of telling the truth even by accident. You have been by far the most disingenuous and outright dishonest poster in this thread (does everyone remember the time when Gorgiass claimed his experience as an amateur mechanic qualified him to dismiss a detailed chemical analysis of diesel fumes? Or the time Gorgiass dismissed survivor illustrations of Sonderkommado removing gassed corpses without gas masks -an impossibility - as "artistic license". Or the time he cheerfully recounted his bedtime reading of a book entirely focused on character assassinations of prominent revisionists?).

The fact is that even Wikipedia (certainly no friend to Revisionism) documents the fact that SS men had their testicles crushed by Allied torturers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre_trial

Quote:Colonel Everett was convinced that a fair trial had not been granted to the defendants: in addition to alleged mock trials, he claimed that "to extort confessions, U.S. prosecution teams 'had kept the German defendants in dark, solitary confinement at near starvation rations up to six months; had applied various forms of torture, including the driving of burning matches under the prisoners' fingernails; had administered beatings which resulted in broken jaws and arms and permanently injured testicles'."[12]

Approximately sixteen months after the end of the trial, almost all the defendants presented affidavits repudiating their former confessions and alleging aggravated duress of all types.

The commission supported Everett's accusations regarding mock trials[specify] and neither disputed nor denied his charges of torture of the defendants.[12] The Commission expressed the opinion that the pre-trial investigation had not been properly conducted and that the members felt that no death sentence should be executed where such a doubt existed.[14] One of the members of the commission, Judge Edward L. Van Roden of Pennsylvania, made several public statements alleging that physical violence had been inflicted on the accused.

All but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.

Gorgiass, you are simply a liar. Your arguments have been discredited over and over. Your presence in this thread has blown up in your face, you have only done tremendous service to the Revisionist argument by repeatedly allowing me the opportunity to demolish your idiotic and dishonest claims in detail. Your inept attempts at debunking "Holocaust deniers" (clearly your personal bête noire - your appeals to objectivity are laughable) have backfired, and only served to enlighten hundreds of men to the actual truth of what happened during the Holocaust. Well done, and thank you.

Post: #281

This thread page reminded me that scorpion and Zelcorpion are 2 totally different RVF men despite their similiar usernames.

Post: #282

(09-03-2017 05:02 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 02:50 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 02:09 PM)Valentine Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 12:54 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  It really disappoints me to see holocaust/genocide denial in threads and Nazi apologism trying to attach itself to red pill writing.

....

It really disappoints me when people don't read through this thread before posting.

I don't spend a lot of time on "The Earth is flat" internet threads either.
They have as much credibility as extermination denialism claims.

The evidence is very easy to find. And impossible to deny.
I have no problem with the facts being discussed. What I do have a problem with is the denialism
and apologism (lighter or heavier variants) for acts of Nazism and its supporters.
I'm out of this thread, so I won't be reading your reply.

Geez WTF is up with dudes having meltdown over discussions? I spent all night reading this thread, and proponent of both sides brought arguments & citations to the discussion... while a couple of dudes just became butthurt because some members don't believe this shit. Btw you're being butthurt about this right now, I'm damn sure one of your friend would castigate you

infinitely for writing on the "The Rape forum of Roosh V", and you wouldn't be able to have an discussionwith him because he wouldn't be able to detach his emotionality from his intellect because of the subject of Rape. You're doing the same damn thing! Keep reading, get angry... and then reply with intellect over what you don't agree with. That's how you grow a strong boundary... over anything

The reaction you're seeing here is very instructive.

Almost anywhere else, this discussion would have been shut down and members banned long ago.

It's rare that a discussion of this kind goes on in a mixed forum, not consisting of hardcore white supremacists (even if some would think some here are).

That means you have 2 choices, either get in there and debate rationally or meltdown and stay away. In the end, the conclusion of a debate such as this is not given. That's why it is a debate. Very few people are used to debating and definitely not used to debating "given facts" of modern society. Fewer still have an ability to detach and read the oppositions argument without prejudice. I am willing to read and entertain everything at least once. Most people are not and simply can't make good arguments as a result. You have to understand the opposite argument to debate it.

Post: #283

Quote: Fewer still have an ability to detach and read the oppositions argument without prejudice.

Yes, this is a philosopher's forum.

Post: #284

Is there any somewhat credible documentary on the matter? I know I'll be told "Oh this is such a taboo subject that they wouldn't dare" or got silenced. Though at this point I'm not sure if it actually matters. It's a bit like God. You cannot prove there is one but you will still have billions acting as if a God does exist. The Holocaust is treated the same way, it may have Swiss cheese holes all over, the vast majority will still believe what they are told.

Edit: I know the Greatest Story Never Told and will try to watch it soon, though I'm skeptical.

Post: #285

(09-04-2017 06:22 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  Is there any somewhat credible documentary on the matter? I know I'll be told "Oh this is such a taboo subject that they wouldn't dare" or got silenced. Though at this point I'm not sure if it actually matters. It's a bit like God. You cannot prove there is one but you will still have billions acting as if a God does exist. The Holocaust is treated the same way, it may have Swiss cheese holes all over, the vast majority will still believe what they are told.

Edit: I know the Greatest Story Never Told and will try to watch it soon, though I'm skeptical.

The best you can do is try to get a hold of original Nuremberg trials. If you manage to see them unedited you will see how they were complete showtrials that would make Stalin proud. We're talking people bringing in Papa New Guinea shrunken heads and claiming the Nazis did it. Compare what you see there to modern standards ("weapons of mass destruction") and use the same critical mindframe.

Post: #286

(09-04-2017 06:22 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  Is there any somewhat credible documentary on the matter? I know I'll be told "Oh this is such a taboo subject that they wouldn't dare" or got silenced. Though at this point I'm not sure if it actually matters. It's a bit like God. You cannot prove there is one but you will still have billions acting as if a God does exist. The Holocaust is treated the same way, it may have Swiss cheese holes all over, the vast majority will still believe what they are told.

Edit: I know the Greatest Story Never Told and will try to watch it soon, though I'm skeptical.

http://germarrudolf.com/germars-views/an...visionism/

Post: #287

The amount of bullshit in this thread is rather disturbing.

I'm only a professional historian, so what would I know? I must be in (along with all of my colleagues) on the (((conspiracy)))!

Post: #288

(09-05-2017 12:51 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The amount of bullshit in this thread is rather disturbing.

I'm only a professional historian, so what would I know? I must be in (along with all of my colleagues) on the (((conspiracy)))!

I am a research scientist, and I agree- The amount of creationism and flat-earth nonsense and 'its-to-crazy-to-be-natural-some-deity-with-a-long-beard-must-have-done-it' stuff makes us look ridiculous, and denying the expertise of other men on this forum is simply childish.

More importantly, why give the left more ammo? They already have just about every tv station, newspaper, university, and publishing house in America. They need more help? The more holocaust deniers and creationists in our ranks, the sillier we will look and the harder it will be to get our message across (and no, calling yourself a 'seeker of truth' or proponent of 'intelligent design' or however you want to pretty it up does not make you legitimate and an equal part of the discussion). Don't even get me started on the Nazis and racists. As soon as we start tolerating people like that, we are doomed.

Post: #289

Guys.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but those two comments have about zero arguments on the subject matter. Just passive-aggressive snark.

Post: #290

(09-05-2017 01:49 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  Guys.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but those two comments have about zero arguments on the subject matter. Just passive-aggressive snark.

No, it's not passive-aggressive. I'm being outright aggressive. This "fact-finding thread" is a disgrace to any intellectual pretensions this forum has. Trying to argue that the Holocaust never happened is tantamount to insisting that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is 6000 years old, or that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical figure. There are 0 (read, ZERO) PhDs in relevant fields who hold to this viewpoint, and it is rightfully treated as an absolute joke in the academic world.

The issue with Holocaust denial more generally is that, since there's no real way to explain the data on its model, it has to explain data away. Just dismissing the reality of gas chambers, mass executions, etc. on the claim of "it's eyewitness testimony alone" is complete bullshit. There are literally hundreds of events in history for which we have no evidence beyond written sources and eyewitness testimony, but nobody denies their historical reality.

I don't care one way or another if people here like Jews, don't like Jews, whatever. I do care that lies are being told about historical events.

Somebody is going to whine about "Holocaust denial laws." In the United States, there are no Holocaust denial laws. Strangely enough, there isn't some sort of widespread academic denialism in the United States. If a historian could actually show (with evidence, not just casting aspersion on the material) that the Holocaust never happened, he makes his career.

Post: #291

The real atrocity of this thread is that supposed "academics" and "historians" of this forum who do this shit for a living can barely conscript an equally or superior argument against a couple well read members of the forum without resorting to the emotional state of a child.

Stop being a bitch and bring facts to your posts.

Post: #292

(09-05-2017 02:19 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 01:49 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  Guys.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but those two comments have about zero arguments on the subject matter. Just passive-aggressive snark.

No, it's not passive-aggressive. I'm being outright aggressive. This "fact-finding thread" is a disgrace to any intellectual pretensions this forum has. Trying to argue that the Holocaust never happened is tantamount to insisting that the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is 6000 years old, or that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical figure. There are 0 (read, ZERO) PhDs in relevant fields who hold to this viewpoint, and it is rightfully treated as an absolute joke in the academic world.

The issue with Holocaust denial more generally is that, since there's no real way to explain the data on its model, it has to explain data away. Just dismissing the reality of gas chambers, mass executions, etc. on the claim of "it's eyewitness testimony alone" is complete bullshit. There are literally hundreds of events in history for which we have no evidence beyond written sources and eyewitness testimony, but nobody denies their historical reality.

I don't care one way or another if people here like Jews, don't like Jews, whatever. I do care that lies are being told about historical events.

Somebody is going to whine about "Holocaust denial laws." In the United States, there are no Holocaust denial laws. Strangely enough, there isn't some sort of widespread academic denialism in the United States. If a historian could actually show (with evidence, not just casting aspersion on the material) that the Holocaust never happened, he makes his career.

In a way I am not surprised you say this. While I do not have a doctorate in history, but have a degree in it. I know better than to dismiss something outright just because no one else in the PhD world agrees with it.

Hell there are things even Jared Diamond has written that no one else at his level agrees with, and for a mainstream historian/anthropologist/archaeologist/biologist guy, he is kinda mainstream with his own cult following.

Interviews are just evidences. They might be factual or flimsy. I myself ended up finding out various things my grandmothers told me about the family history was flat out wrong, misdirection, or loosely accurate. DNA, birth/death records, census records, filed lawsuits, Dawes Rolls, etc. helped me narrow down who was Native American, how much, which correct tribe(s), which ones were slaves, which ones were white/black/mixed or not, etc. etc.

Had I listened to these elderly women only, I would have been barking up the wrong tribe trees for a long ass time. They all meant well, but they did not know much about what they were talking about, nor did the menfolk in the family. My brother and I found evidence of scandalous stuff like incest, side families by a few men, etc. that they were intending to take secrets wise to their graves. Shit was literally a redpill for my bluepill brother and cast quite the pall over him. For me this was normal stuff we encountered when looking for slave records back in school.

If you really are a historian, you could at least counter argument or poke some holes in what is presented here.

I said I would dig through this thread when I got the time later, and I am intending to keep that promise. I have been keeping notes on my observations as I been viewing all the material this week, and I have been looking for other stuff as well. I will be sure to write out what I think when I have gathered enough within reason. I did not study this area of history in college, so this is not my specialty area, so it may take a little while.

I would encourage you to dig yourself and at least see if anything makes sense to you or not and compare it with what you know.

Post: #293

(09-05-2017 02:57 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  If you really are a historian, you could at least counter argument or poke some holes in what is presented here.

I said I would dig through this thread when I got the time later, and I am intending to keep that promise. I have been keeping notes on my observations as I been viewing all the material this week, and I have been looking for other stuff as well. I will be sure to write out what I think when I have gathered enough within reason. I did not study this area of history in college, so this is not my specialty area, so it may take a little while.

I would encourage you to dig yourself and at least see if anything makes sense to you or not and compare it with what you know.

Holocaust denial is such a lunatic idea that I don't think it warrants real examination or research, anymore than something like creationism does.

But, to satisfy your (and many other posters') curiosities, I'll take one of scorpion's posts, as he's been one of the more vigorous advocates for denialism.

(12-31-2016 02:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  If you told me that tens or even hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered by the Nazis through deliberate starvation or directly by machine gunning them into pits, that would strike me as believable. But when you tell me that six million Jews were murdered in gas chambers (that were conveniently destroyed) and their bodies incinerated into fine ash (without a single gassed body remaining anywhere) and that zero surviving logistical, architectural, engineering or other written documentation exists to support that claim, I am highly skeptical. All we're left with is fragments of speeches and diaries taken out of context, confessions obtained through torture and preposterous eyewitness testimony. Honestly, for an alleged crime of this magnitude, shouldn't the evidence be utterly overwhelming? You find more hard evidence for a single murder. This is six millions alleged murders. Why is hard evidence so difficult to come by? Doesn't anyone else find it bizarre that you're reduced to proving the alleged murder of six million people in an industrial-scale genocide operation by quoting from a speech? Is that really the best evidence available? What does that say about the claim, if so?

There are a few significant issues with this account of events. First, he automatically assumes that all Jews who died were gassed; that there was no "Holocaust by bullets" as it were, and that nobody died of starvation/disease/etc. This is a straw man, and it's the same straw man that David Irving used during his defamation suit against Barbara Lipstadt. Anyone who knows anything about the Holocaust would know that Aktion Reinhard, the systematic use of gas chambers and concentration camps, did not start until mid-1942. However, as is entirely evident in documentary sources (c.f. Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men: Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland), mass executions of Jews were carried out long before that.

Essentially, the Germans would capture the area, the rear guard would come up, and a designated unit would gather all the Jews in a central area. They'd be sent on a forced march (often into a ravine/forest/etc.), forced to dig their own graves, and shot. It's estimated that this "Holocaust by bullets" killed between 1.5 and 2 million Jews.

In terms of the "lack of physical evidence" that scorpion is claiming, you have to keep in mind that the Nazis want to cover up evidence of their crimes. The large scale cremation of bodies occurs because of the fallout of the Katyn Forest massacre, which (as the Nazis saw) almost drove a wedge between the Soviets and the Western Allies. The "preposterous eyewitness testimony" remark is an attempt to cast aspersion on the thousands of verified accounts, as well as ignores the fact that the commandant of Auschwitz himself, Rudolf Hoss, wrote an autobiography in which he discussed the events of the Wannsee conference and the actions carried out at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Post: #294

Quote:Trying to argue that the Holocaust never happened

Is there a single post in this thread which has argued the holocaust never happened?

I see a lot of denial in this thread, but it's not from the skeptics. At most people have called into question how many were killed and the manner they were killed.

Why people get so triggered over this is truly amazing.

Post: #295

So the documents that show Nazi officials discussing the camps in thinly veiled terms mean nothing? I've met a holocaust survivor. I know when a man is lying. He wasn't.

The attempts to show Auschwitz as having a swimming pool and play areas are ridiculous. It used to be a Polish army barracks, the Germans commandeered it to turn it in to a death camp.

The only questions I have are over the specific numbers. I think 6 million is too high. More like 1.5 to 2 million, when you look at the maths. Doesn't make the crime any less heinous.

Lastly, one or two weird eyewitness accounts that support holocaust denial theories don't overrule the thousands of accounts that back up the accepted version of events.

Agree with everything you've said Truth Teller. Apt username.

Post: #296

(09-05-2017 06:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Trying to argue that the Holocaust never happened

Is there a single post in this thread which has argued the holocaust never happened?

I see a lot of denial in this thread, but it's not from the skeptics. At most people have called into question how many were killed and the manner they were killed.

Why people get so triggered over this is truly amazing.

I concur.

If anything, the evidence is suggesting so far that more non Jewish people were killed than Jewish.

The argument here is the monopolization of Jewish cultural interests on this horrific time of history at the expense of many other forgotten groups who by my own understanding suffered much more. The other folks who are freaking out in this thread seem to miss this point.

If we're going by death counts as a measure of suffering, WW2 was really a Russian holocaust more than anything.

The world will be a better place when all those who remember this horrific war have past.

Post: #297

(09-05-2017 06:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Why people get so triggered over this is truly amazing.

Agreed, there's too much moral indignation over these events that happened 70+ years ago, especially when they bear little to no resemblance with actual current events. There comes a time to let old emotions go.

Post: #298

(09-05-2017 05:11 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Rudolf Hoss, wrote an autobiography in which he discussed the events of the Wannsee conference and the actions carried out at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

There's no need to take Rudolf Hoss on his word (as a loser in a war), since we have the Wannsee protocols and the only, repeat, only thing that could be even remotely interpreted as relating to the Holocaust is a single line:



That's it.

I've read it, there is nothing about the Holocaust here, not a single sentence discussing killings or death camps.

All there is, that one sentence:

Quote:Anstelle der Auswanderung ist nunmehr als weitere Lösungsmöglichkeit nach entsprechender vorheriger Genehmigung durch den Führer die Evakuierung der Juden nach dem Osten getreten.

Diese Aktionen sind jedoch lediglich als Ausweichmöglichkeiten
anzusprechen, doch werden hier bereits jene praktischen Erfahrungen
gesammelt, die im Hinblick auf die kommende Endlösung der
Judenfrage von wichtiger Bedeutung sind.

Quote:Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of
emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided that
the Führer gives the appropriate approval in advance.

These actions are, however, only to be considered provisional, but
practical experience is already being collected which is of the
greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the
Jewish question.

Ok, so that is all there supposedly is to plan, orchestrate and direct an unprecedented genocide.

Not exactly a smoking gun?

I agree it can be interpreted omniously, but that's the key here "interpreted". It could simply be referring to the KZ camps in Poland. Auswitch II, the camp for jews, was built in 1942 following the Wansee conference of January 20, 1942. It is rather clear then that the passage refers to the building of these KZ camps and the "evacuation" of the jews to them. However, nothing in the Wansee protocols support that they were to be used for genocide. You have to be honest and admit this. It is simply not there.

The entire idea becomes even more ludicrous when you consider that the "jewish question" is dealt with in great detail otherwise in the Wannsee Protocols:

Quote:The work concerned with emigration was, later on, not only a German
problem, but also a problem with which the authorities of the countries
to which the flow of emigrants was being directed would have to deal.
Financial difficulties, such as the demand by various foreign
governments for increasing sums of money to be presented at the time of
the landing, the lack of shipping space, increasing restriction of
entry permits, or the cancelling of such, increased extraordinarily the
difficulties of emigration. In spite of these difficulties, 537,000
Jews were sent out of the country between the takeover of power and the
deadline of 31 October 1941. Of these
approximately 360,000 were in Germany proper on 30 January 1933
approximately 147,000 were in Austria (Ostmark) on 15 March 1939
approximately 30,000 were in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia on
15 March 1939.
The Jews themselves, or their Jewish political organizations, financed
the emigration. In order to avoid impoverished Jews' remaining behind,
the principle was followed that wealthy Jews have to finance the
emigration of poor Jews; this was arranged by imposing a suitable tax,
i.e., an emigration tax, which was used for financial arrangements in
connection with the emigration of poor Jews and was imposed according
to income.

Again, how curious that the Nazis wrote in detail about how the jews were "emmigrated" by which means, how the nazis paid them to go away basically. Not lacking in detail.

In fact, the Wannsee Protocols makes it abundantly clear what the goal is:

Quote:By order of the Reich Marshal, a Reich Central Office for Jewish
Emigration was set up in January 1939 and the Chief of the Security
Police and SD was entrusted with the management. Its most important
tasks were
a) to make all necessary arrangements for the preparation for an
increased emigration of the Jews,
b) to direct the flow of emigration,
c) to speed the procedure of emigration in each individual case.
The aim of all this was to cleanse German living space of Jews in a
legal manner.

In a legal manner.

Why is it the Nazis are going to these great lengths to discuss and debate how to legally expell the jews of Germany if this is supposed to be the conference where the Holocaust is being ordered?

Now here is something VERY interesting:

Quote:Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are
to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews,
separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to
these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless
a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of
the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it
is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a
the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

Again, nazis are not making any excuses for their views. None. They gleefully remark that no doubt many jews will perish from hard work, but then - absurdly if we believe the official story - discuss what to make of the survivors.

It simply makes no sense if we are to believe the nazis planned a deliberate full scale genocide of the jews.

Conclusion: No one here denies that jews were sent to camps in Poland or that the nazis were not exactly too concerned if many perished from the conditions. What has little factual basis is the planned mass genocide by means of gassing.

Edit: I want to make clear that the above alone, the KZ camps for ALL jews, is in itself a great crime against humanity and utterly despicable. I honestly feel nauseous reading the passage I quoted. I also am not at the point where I can or will say that there wasn't genocidal killings in those camps. There could very well have been. What I find improbable is that it was ordered from the top down already at Wannsee. The evidence doesn't suggest that. These things are important when we deal with a topic that is the foundation myth of the post-WW2 world.

You have to compare to what the Japanese allegedly do in China. That was also atrocious crimes against humanity including medical experiments, mass killings and rapes. However, those crimes are not deemed "original sin" for which the Japanese should be replaced by foreigners in their own country. THAT is my interest in this matter. That if we are to accept demographic replacement in Europe (and by extension US), because of the unprecedented and unique evil of the white European, then it has to be based on fact. If the evil committed is not an "evil above all others" and not "evil in which all Germans were complicit" then the replacement of Europeans is not morally justified (it's not anyway).

It's good even for skeptics to read this stuff, so we're not tempted to believe that fascism is a-ok and not that bad. Not that we think so, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because communism was a great evil, does not make the nazis less evil.

Post: #299

Truth Teller, I believe the fundamental error you are making is looking at the Holocaust as just another event in history. Your first instinct is thus to look to the opinions of fellow historians and the views of the established literature. This is an understandable approach for a historian, but it is the wrong one if you are trying to understand what actually happened in this specific case. The Holocaust is not a remote historical event of antiquity, it is something that occurred in living memory, and it is an event which has been politicized to a greater degree than literally any other in the history of mankind. This politicization has resulted in a situation where public dissent from the established historical narrative can be met with literal imprisonment in much of the West. In countries where you won't be tossed in prison for challenging the consensus view, you will be certainly blacklisted from academia and all forms of traditional media, and even with established tenure you risk getting fired and tarred with the label of anti-Semite for life. Given this situation, it should be completely unsurprising that all mainstream historians steer clear of the Holocaust minefield (look what happened to the previously well-respected David Irving when he made the case). There's simply no incentive whatsoever to go there. It is therefore the height of foolishness to rely on historians to inform us of the truth of the Holocaust. Luckily, we don't require their expertise, most of which, by the way - as those who do the research themselves have found - is simply based on the testimony of the same few dozen individuals. Given that these events happened in the 1940s and not 4000 B.C., we have an incredible amount of extant evidence to examine for ourselves, without being forced to rely on (the heavily politicized and disincentivized) opinions of historians. The correct approach is therefore to treat the Holocaust as a crime. You're playing historian when you should be playing detective.

As detectives, we are interested primarily in evidence. Any working detective or prosecutor will tell you that physical and forensic evidence are the grade-A standard for securing a conviction. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and often breaks down under cross examination. What I have essentially been doing in this thread is cross-examining the eyewitness testimony of Holocaust survivors who claim to have seen gas chambers, ghoulish medical experiments, blood geysers, human lampshades and other such heinous things. As I have shown repeatedly, almost all of this testimony has serious flaws for a number of reasons. Further, when examining the actual forensic evidence we have from the alleged death camps, we find nothing that would indicate the existence of gas chambers. These forensic tools include chemical analysis of the alleged gas chamber walls, the inadequate construction and design of the crematoria and "gas chambers" to physically accommodate the number of victims proposed, ground penetrating radar used on the site of alleged mass graves and the numerous claims which are simply physically impossible (i.e. burning thousands of bodies in pits with the fat from the bodies themselves as the only fuel, gassing and cremating multiple thousands of persons per day in camps with only 8 crematory ovens, gassing and burying hundreds of thousands of people and then later exhuming the bodies and burning them, etc...).

My interest in exposing the lies of the Holocaust is not driven by some sort of autistic obsession with historical trivia, nor does it have anything to do with Hitler worship or anti-Semitism. I am simply interested in knowing the truth. My research has led me to conclude that the Holocaust narrative - which leans heavily on the existence of gas chambers and a deliberate plan of Jewish extermination - is simply not true. And given the unprecedented politicization of this topic and the outsized influence its legacy has had on shaping the modern world, the fact that it is NOT true has enormous repercussions for the West.

If we accept that the Holocaust narrative was essentially the foundation on which the post-war order was established in 1945, we are admitting that we have built our house upon a lie. Lies are like shifting sands, always changing, forever unstable (we have seen exactly this in regards to the "facts" surrounding the Holocaust - which are constantly being revised downward). A house built upon lies is a house built upon sand, and is destined for collapse. We must build our house upon a rock, and truth is that rock. It is therefore necessary to dispel the lies of the Holocaust, the fruits of which - white guilt, globalism, forced multiculturalism, Israel-worship, etc... - are destroying the West from the inside out. The lies of the Holocaust are at the root of the cancer that is killing us. And that cancer must be excised if the West is to survive.

Post: #300

Just leaving this here, from a Jewish news agency to boot:

http://www.jta.org/2017/01/31/news-opini...historians

Quote:WASHINGTON (JTA) — “Five million non-Jews died in the Holocaust.”

It’s a statement that shows up regularly in declarations about the Nazi era. It was implied in a Facebook post by the Israel Defense Forces’ spokesperson’s unit last week marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. And it was asserted in an article shared by the Trump White House in defense of its controversial Holocaust statement the same day omitting references to the 6 million Jewish victims.

It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis.

Indeed, say those close to the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, its progenitor, it is a number that was intended to increase sympathy for Jewish suffering but which now is more often used to obscure it.

The White House statement sent waves of dismay through the Jewish community, including among groups that have been supportive of President Donald Trump.

By mentioning the “victims, survivors, [and] heroes of the Holocaust” without mentioning the Jews, said a host of Jewish organizations, the Jan. 27 statement risked playing into the hands of the European right, which includes factions that seek to diminish the centrality of the Jewish genocide to the carnage of World War II.

In defending the omission of Jews from the statement, a White House spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, sent CNN a link to a 2015 Huffington Post-UK piece titled “The Holocaust’s Forgotten Victims: The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis.”

Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, on Monday appeared to cite the same source, saying that the Nazis’ victims included Roma, gays, the disabled and priests. He called complaints about the statement “pathetic,” although some of those objections came from two groups that otherwise have been supportive of Trump, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Zionist Organization of America.

In the wake of the controversy, the world’s two leading Holocaust museums, in Washington and in Jerusalem, issued statements emphasizing the centrality of the annihilation of the Jews to the understanding of the Holocaust; neither mentioned Trump.

The “5 million” has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, “I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews.”

Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.

“I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”

Bauer and other historians who knew Wiesenthal said the Nazi hunter told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.

It caught on: President Jimmy Carter, issuing the executive order that would establish the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, referred to the “11 million victims of the Holocaust.”

Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote in 2011 how the number continues to dog her efforts to teach about the Holocaust.

“I have been to many Yom Hashoah observances — including those sponsored by synagogues and Jewish communities — where eleven candles were lit,” she wrote in an article in the Jewish Review of Books in which she lacerated Wiesenthal’s ethical standards. “When I tell the organizers that they are engaged in historical revisionism, their reactions range from skepticism to outrage. Strangers have taken me to task in angry letters for focusing ‘only’ on Jewish deaths and ignoring the five million others. When I explain that this number is simply inaccurate, in fact made up, they become even more convinced of my ethnocentrism and inability to feel the pain of anyone but my own people.”

The problem, according to Bauer, who has debunked the number repeatedly in his writings over the decades, is not that non-Jews were not victims; they were. It is that Wiesenthal’s arbitrarily chosen tally of non-Jewish victims diminishes the centrality to the Nazi ideology of systematically wiping any trace of the Jewish people from the planet.

In fact, he said, the term “genocide” could accurately be applied to the 2 million to 3 million Poles murdered and millions more enslaved by the Nazis. But the mass murder of the Poles, Roma and others should not come under the rubric “Holocaust,” a term that Holocaust historians generally dislike because of its religious connotations but nonetheless have accepted as describing only the annihilation that the Nazis hoped to visit on the Jews.

“All Jews of the world had to be annihilated,” Bauer said. “That was the intent. There was never an idea in Nazi minds to murder all the Russians.”

The number 5 million also adheres to no known understanding of the number of non-Jews killed by the Nazis: While as many as 35 million people were killed overall because of Nazi aggression, the number of non-Jews who died in the concentration camps is no more than half a million, Bauer said.

Using the 11 million figure often leads to muddled history. The Huffington Post-UK article Hicks linked to, for instance, lists as a separate class “twins,” as if Josef Mengele, the murderous doctor at Auschwitz, sought out twins of any heritage for his experiments. In fact, they were chosen only from among the Jews and Roma arriving at the camp.

Mark Weitzman, the director of government affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that Wiesenthal, in advancing the number, “never intended to minimize the Jewish specificity of the Shoah,” the Hebrew word for Holocaust.

“He was trying to draw attention to the fact that there were other victims of Nazi genocide,” Weitzman said.

Nonetheless, Weitzman acknowledged that Wiesenthal’s formulation, decades later, was inadvertently contributing to the efforts among right-wing nationalists in Europe to minimize Jewish suffering in the Holocaust.

“This is used as a political tool to minimize the Jewish aspect, to write it out of history, or to maximize other victims’ suffering to make them the prime victims and claim a place of honor in the role of victims,” he said. “Unfortunately to some people, it becomes a competitive game, especially for political purposes.”

The White House has endeavored to show that the statement has Jewish approval. Spicer said a Jewish staffer descended from Holocaust survivors helped draft it, and Politico, citing a source, reported late Monday that it was Boris Epshteyn, a Russian-born Jew who is one of Trump’s advisers.

The IDF spokesperson’s Facebook post, which also neglected to mention the Jewish victims, said that “11 million men, women, and children perished in the Holocaust. Share their stories and speak their names to keep their memory alive.” The post was later changed to include the 6 million Jewish victims, but the reference to 11 million remains.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, who founded the Wiesenthal Center and delivered the benediction at Trump’s inauguration, told CNN on Tuesday that Trump’s statement was a “mistake,” but one he did not believe was intended to diminish Jewish suffering.

“I do not accuse President Trump of wanting to dishonor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust who were Jewish, but it was a mistake,” he said.

Lipstadt, writing this week in The Atlantic, is not so sure, given the affinity that some in the Trump administration – particularly Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, have to the “alt-right,” a movement that has embraced the resurgent nationalism now prevalent in parts of Europe.

“It may have all started as a mistake by a new administration that is loath to admit it’s wrong,” she wrote. “Conversely, it may be a conscious attempt by people with anti-Semitic sympathies to rewrite history. Either way it is deeply disturbing.”

Bauer agreed.

“The Trump statement makes a salad of the Holocaust,” he said. “This is soft denial.”

Even leading Jewish scholarly sources have to dance around the topic carefully. They said it themselves, the holocaust is solely a Jewish experience and the others who suffered can sod off.