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

[History Speaks]

Most of the memes are the result of reading books, tbh.

View attachment 3482274
View attachment 3482279
View attachment 3482281
View attachment 3482282


Just a couple of weeks ago I was rifling through some books at a second hand bookstore and came across one in which they described living undercover under christian names in the Netherlands, yet still receiving the occasional mail from their family that were deported to auschwitz. I might find that incredible if I relied solely on the mainstream narrative and education on the subject.

The swimming pool meme absolutely relies on deniers having failed to read a book about Auschwitz. The pool was not in Birkenau and had no relevance to the Jews, yet the memers imply historians say the pool was right next to the gas chambers.

 

[History Speaks]

Lol you are actually citing the Bernard Holstein book and the masturbation machines meme. This 2004 publication was a fraud written by a non-Jew (Bernard Brougham) who was trying to grift off the Holocaust. Irrelevant and was not exposed by Holocaust deniers but mainstream journalists, among others.
Saying he disproves the Holocaust is like saying Eli Mosley and other stolen valor types disprove the Iraq War.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Lol you are actually citing the Bernard Holstein book and the masturbation machines meme. This 2004 publication was a fraud written by a non-Jew (Bernard Brougham) who was trying to grift off the Holocaust. Irrelevant and was not exposed by Holocaust deniers but mainstream journalists, among others.
Saying he disproves the Holocaust is like saying Eli Mosley and other stolen valor types disprove the Iraq War.

So you are reading closely what I share. Good.
Then instead of talking about memes, we can look at something peculiar.

What are your thoughts on Elie Wiesel? Who wrote that babies were thrown in the air and then shot down with machine guns in galicia. Here have his book, you can word search for "galicia" and find it yourself.

I'm sure he too was a secret non-jew trying to grift off the holocaust, lmao. Did the mainstream journalists give any of the attention that elie wiesel? Or his admission that he was telling lies? Nope, the mainstream rewarded him with a nobel prize.

How do you as someone who ostensibly values history, look upon someone as Elie Wiesel?

 

[History Speaks]

In terms of mail, there were letters sent to families in the Netherlands. We know these letters were fakes, coerced by the Nazis, because the letters were going off of scripts. Scholars have examined a batch of 52 letters sent from Jewish inmates of Auschwitz to Holland, and all of them used the exact same stock phrases, word for word.

One other point in regard to the lettters - Why did Dutch inmates send letters to their families, but Polish Jews did not? This is particularly odd since there were about 20x more Polish Jews deported to the camps (well over 2,000,000) than Dutch Jews (about 100,000).

To me, the answer is obvious. The Nazis felt the need to hoodwink Dutch Jews about their fate, since they lived in a relatively normal state before they were deported, and could more easily escape, or spread word of the genocide to their fellow countrymen, who were largely sympathetic to the Jews and anti-Nazi. In contrast, the Polish Jews were ghettoized, helpless, and cut off from the world, so there was less need to fool them about their fate.

In any case, the letters are obvious fakes and dictated by someone else, since common sense requires us to reject the idea that 52 out of 52 people, writing spontaneously, would use the exact same verbatim phrases in their letters to family.

 

[soulgains]

Im going to be honest, I don't give a shit either way about the holocaust. I just don't wanna have to deal with these kikes bringing it up every fucking year, and holocaust memorials being shoved down on our throats on American soil when we're the ones that freed them (or supposedly freed, if you're a denier).

 

[Bonesjones]

According to the mainstream history, Himmler called off the gassings in late 1944 as the Red Army was approaching Auschwitz, and ordered Jews to be given better care, as part of an attempt to cover up the exterminations. (As part of the cover up, he also ordered the four working gas chambers demolished, which is why they are in ruins today, though the mortar of the demolished buildings still contains considerable traces of hydrogen cyanide, something the deniers cannot explain.)

So Anne Frank being taken care of in a hospital in early 1945 is completely consistent with the mainstream history.

Other Jews were treated in the Auschwitz hospital before the exterminations ceased. But this is also consistent with the mainstream history. The desperate Nazis wanted to economically exploit the Jews before killing them, so if an able bodied Jew could be brought back up to snuff, they would not kill him, and would even treat him. Your problem is explaining why the Jews treated in the hospitals were teenagers or adults, not (until Himmler ordered an end to gassings in late 1944) very old or very young people.

With a handful of exceptions, very young people (children, not teens like 15 year old Anne Frank) simply did not survive Auschwitz. The meme photos you have seen of liberated children are either non-Jews, Jewish twins who had been preserved as guinea pigs for crackpot medical experiments, or Jews who arrived in late 1944 after Himmler's order to stop the gassings.

Deportations from one camp to another are also completely irrelevant and well understood by mainstream historians. The problem you have is explaining how millions of Jews disappeared in the Nazi camp system during the war, deportations from one camp to another do not explain this.

Except for the "death marches", why would they give better care if they planned on bringing them into the interior to kill there? Are you calling Weasel a liar? Again, you neglect one side of history to push another then fail to take in account both.

 

[History Speaks]

So you are reading closely what I share. Good.
Then instead of talking about memes, we can look at something peculiar.

What are your thoughts on Elie Wiesel? Who wrote that babies were thrown in the air and then shot down with machine guns in galicia. Here have his book, you can word search for "galicia" and find it yourself.

I'm sure he too was a secret non-jew trying to grift off the holocaust, lmao. Did the mainstream journalists give any of the attention that elie wiesel? Or his admission that he was telling lies? Nope, the mainstream rewarded him with a nobel prize.

How do you as someone who ostensibly values history, look upon someone as Elie Wiesel?

I have not read Wiesel's book so I cannot comment on it.

Without commenting on Wiesel specifically, I can say generally that some witnesses have used poetic license, and others stated obvious falsehoods.

That proves nothing. Soldiers in World War I claimed to see supernatural creatures on the battle field. Does that mean there was no Battle of Mons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_of_Mons

In traumatic events, human beings often exaggerate, use poetic license, or even tell falsehoods. That proves nothing.

The evidentiary foundation of the Holocaust does not rely on the testimonies of victims, but documentary evidence referring to mass murder, non-coercive confessions (in private letters, private diaries, not in trial or at Nuremberg) of perpetrators, forensic evidence, population records, the problem of the disappeared millions of Jews in Nazi custody, construction records from the death camps (orders for the gas chamber buildings--not the delousing chambers--to be fitted with gas tight doors with peepholes, references to one of the buildings deniers deny was a gas chamber as a "gassing cellar"), the Einsatzgruppen reports, forensic evidence of hydrodgen cyanide in the ruins of the gas chambers, etc.

 

[History Speaks]

Except for the "death marches", why would they give better care if they planned on bringing them into the interior to kill there? Are you calling Weasel a liar? Again, you neglect one side of history to push another then fail to take in account both.

The death marches were not deliberate attempts to kill prisoners, but extremely brutal attempts to relocate them. Plenty of people were murdered by the Nazis on the death marches, but this was an ad hoc thing, not a matter of superior orders, since HImmler had called off the extermination operations in late 1944. Plenty more people succumbed from the elements, etc, during the marches. Remember that most of these (apart from perhaps the late arrivals) people were half dead already.

If you had been forced to go through something like this, I am sure you would not object to calling it a death march.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Im going to be honest, I don't give a shit either way about the holocaust. I just don't wanna have to deal with these kikes bringing it up every fucking year, and holocaust memorials being shoved down on our throats on American soil when we're the ones that freed them (or supposedly freed, if you're a denier).

I have yet to hear anyone claim that there weren't any camps liberated.

Without commenting on Wiesel specifically

Lmao, another dodge. You have no thoughts on the man whatsoever? No opinion? Surely you know about him more than just whether you read this book or not.

 

[Bonesjones]

The death marches were not deliberate attempts to kill prisoners, but extremely brutal attempts to relocate them. Plenty of people were murdered by the Nazis on the death marches, but this was an ad hoc thing, not a matter of superior orders, since HImmler had called off the extermination operations in late 1944. Plenty more people succumbed from the elements, etc, during the marches. Remember that most of these (apart from perhaps the late arrivals) people were half dead already.

If you had been forced to go through something like this, I am sure you would not object to calling it a death march.

So you are a holocaust historian who hasn't read the second most famous book about the holocaust?

You said there is extensive forensic evidence? Then you'll have no issue finding autopsy reports showing death by gassing then?

 

[History Speaks]

I have yet to hear anyone claim that there weren't any camps liberated.



Lmao, another dodge. You have no thoughts on the man whatsoever? No opinion? Surely you know about him more than just whether you read his book or not.

I do not understand how I am dodging when I admit freely that multiple witnesses have said falsehoods. I just deny its relevance. You also deny the relevance of eyewitness exaggerations in other contexts. For example as I mentioned various soldiers in the Battle of Mons claimed to have seen supernatural beings on the field of battle. You do not believe that this disproves that World War I or the battle of Mons happened.

I literally cannot evaluate Wiesel because I have never read his book. Nor do I think it is core to the historical evidence about the Holocaust. Historians do not place the same evidentiary weight on the books of victims, written years after the event, as the general public does. Contemporaneous documents are much more relevant because human memory is so frail, and human beings also frequently do not tell teh truth.

The contemporaneous documents overwhelmingly corroborate Nazi exterminations.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

I have yet to hear anyone claim that there weren't any camps liberated.



Lmao, another dodge. You have no thoughts on the man whatsoever? No opinion? Surely you know about him more than just whether you read this book or not.

The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day.
The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday's defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more--the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.

Genuinely, really makes me laugh every time I see this threads. Dodging, dancing around it, 'forgetting' about it. Hilarious how time offers no change to their behaviour.

 

[History Speaks]

Genuinely, really makes me laugh every time I see this threads. Dodging, dancing around it, 'forgetting' about it. Hilarious how time offers no change to their behaviour.

I am not Jewish, I am half Egyptian half English. I just am against dumb shit (Nazi LARPing) and alienated young men falling into rabbit holes that consume their lives.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

I am not Jewish, I am half Egyptian half English. I just am against dumb shit (Nazi LARPing) and alienated young men falling into rabbit holes that consume their lives.

Don't worry homie. Being a shabbos goy makes you an honorary kike. You should be getting a coupon for a 1% discount off of Matzah in the mail. If you're not, I recommend that you contact your local Rabbi; they should be able to give you a coupon book.

Also; lol, mutt.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Genuinely, really makes me laugh every time I see this threads. Dodging, dancing around it, 'forgetting' about it. Hilarious how time offers no change to their behaviour.

I posted that on reddit once and replaced "jew" with "trump supporter" and found staunch agreement, upvotes and comments detailing how accurate I was and how well I described their experience with their uncle/cousin/neighbor. Memes aside, I do think there's something universal in the way it describes the experience of cognitive dissonance between two people that fundamentally disagree about something.

It's kinda like that cold-reading thing, if you're familiar with it, where someone says he can determine your personality by analyzing your handwriting. And then in a group of 12 everyone receives a letter that they think is very accurate about them. And then they find out they all received the same letter.

At its core I think the people that value truth and have the habits to pursue truth are to a certain degree are the outliers. If you think about it, it also requires courage to not dodge, which people can do instinctively, "just in case it's a trap", which you saw from @Chugger when I asked him simply if he reads german or not. Though I suppose the typical higher neuroticism and rarer physical fitness can both contribute to jews being more likely to have that kind of fearful disposition. Which is also why they can frighten each other with lies about the past.

I am not Jewish, I am half Egyptian half English. I just am against dumb shit (Nazi LARPing) and alienated young men falling into rabbit holes that consume their lives.

Maybe you're the alienated young man that fell into the rabbit hole that is the kiwifarms. It's not to late to get out of wonderland and protect yourself from this self-destructive path.

 

[History Speaks]

In terms of establishing the veracity of a genocide I am interested in contemporaneous documents, the confessions of perpetrators (who, provided that they are not being coerced or being criminally prosecuted, have no incentive to lie about having committed genocide if they did not), and forensic evidence. The memoirs of a single victim may be of human interest, but they are not by themselves strong evidence.

 

[History Speaks]

Maybe you're the alienated young man that fell into the rabbit hole that is the kiwifarms. It's not to late to get out of wonderland and protect yourself from this self-destructive path.

I have to admit I lold at this.

But I need to be here and trigger deniers, because they will help me expand my channel when I post the next video (should be within a couple days).

 

[Stabmaster Arson]

In traumatic events, human beings often exaggerate, use poetic license, or even tell falsehoods. That proves nothing.

"Just because these are proven lies, doesn't mean it wasn't true"

This is the most Jewish cope I've ever seen. I'm frankly in admiration at you having the balls to even try such complete bullshit as a narrative.

 

[Lemmingwise]

the confessions of perpetrators (who, provided that they are not being coerced

Compared to victims, what makes them immune to exaggerate, use poetic license, or even tell falsehoods? How is the recollection of a single perpetrator not comparable evidentiary wise compared to the recollection of a single victim?

Everyone has motives and incentives, as was pointed out earlier numerous times in the thread in more or less detail (considering you've been a member for a year, I presume you've read some of it), murderers can exaggerate what they've done. So even if there's no signs of torture, there may still be incentives, for people on any side, and to claim that you can be sure there aren't, is pretty much an admission of either bias or shoddy scholarship.

But I need to be here and trigger deniers,

Can you point to four deniers?

 

[Bonesjones]

In terms of establishing the veracity of a genocide I am interested in contemporaneous documents, the confessions of perpetrators (who, provided that they are not being coerced or being criminally prosecuted, have no incentive to lie about having committed genocide if they did not), and forensic evidence. The memoirs of a single victim may be of human interest, but they are not by themselves strong evidence.

Odd how you order those. I'm only interested in clear physical evidence that can't be manipulated. Since confessions are easily coerced, documents can be forged or altered to fit any external viewpoint. Eyewitness accounts can't be relied on to do anything but state plain facts. Which leaves you in a pickle. Since to prove your assertions you need a multitude of things to even begin. There is no proof of millions of Jewish deaths, you lack the millions of tons of leftover ash and bone and teeth. You lack the machinations of how they disposed of all it, you lack the ability to do basic math to see how the theory of gas chambers doesn't begin to add up. These aren't things you can hand wave away or not address, these are key features that have to be conclusively proven. Without it, you do as you do, which is look for pieces of hearsay and documents that when put together make the appearance of Soviet claims.

It doesn't matter how many shipping manifests of jew arrivals you have when all departures have been deleted to cover up the rest.