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

[Chugger]

You have a lot of trouble going from point A to point B, don't you? Even with your own analogy...

People died from disease or war. They were cremated and their ashes buried. There is no evidence of genocide. Unless you have proof these specific people were gassed as part of an intentional plot to exterminate an entire ethnic group, then finding ashes is not evidence enough to prove anything other than corpses were burned.

I think we agree then, that based just on Kola's study we can conclude that mass body destruction and burial (likely on the order of hundreds of thousands of people) occurred at Belzec.

But the follow up question is, what the hell kind of a camp was Belzec? I think this is where the trouble is going to start for you, but I invite you to follow me down this path for a bit. Just like in the example you gave, about the husband and wife, your plausible explanation is going to need to be fleshed out.

 

[John.Doe]

your plausible explanation is going to need to be fleshed out.

No. The burden of proof is on you to prove your argument. You keep trying to flip it around and it isn't going to work, moron. Nobody is interested in letting you play that reverse card over and over.

 

[fresh pair of socks]

I think we agree then, that based just on Kola's study we can conclude that mass body destruction and burial (likely on the order of hundreds of thousands of people) occurred at Belzec.

But the follow up question is, what the hell kind of a camp was Belzec? I think this is where the trouble is going to start for you, but I invite you to follow me down this path for a bit. Just like in the example you gave, about the husband and wife, your plausible explanation is going to need to be fleshed out.

We don't agree. Take a look back at that example you said you agree with. The burden is on you to identify the victims and prove how they died. If you can't do that, then you have no argument.

 

[Bonesjones]

I think we agree then, that based just on Kola's study we can conclude that mass body destruction and burial (likely on the order of hundreds of thousands of people) occurred at Belzec.

We don't agree with you at all, we actively disagree because the study you can't stop quoting didn't even take pictures of their information. So they actively hid their information to generate a false conclusion.

But the follow up question is, what the hell kind of a camp was Belzec?

A transit camp. As you've been told 100 times.

I think this is where the trouble is going to start for you, but I invite you to follow me down this path for a bit.

There is no trouble but your inability to understand anything.

Also looks like https://codohforum.com/ is now up and running again with a fresh forum if anyone cares.

 

[Chugger]

We don't agree.

Why? How many people do you think died there? If we're taking Kola's study as accurate. Give an educated, sensible guess that fits with the data

I should remind you about cremation volume

So cremating 20,000 adult bodies would occupy 70,000 liters or 70 cubic meters.

Kola reported 20,000 cubic meters of grave space.

 

[Bonesjones]

Why? How many people do you think died there? If we're taking Kola's study as accurate. Give an educated, sensible guess that fits with the data

No one is taking his study as accurate you fucking retard. Stop posting.

 

[John.Doe]

If we're taking Kola's study as accurate.
If.....accurate.
IF

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. You keep trying to build a massive castle of finality and credulity based on the ephemeral blocks of "Ifs" and Assumptions, and it isn't going anywhere. You're obviously trying to work backwards from your conclusion and its pathetic.

 

[Chugger]

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. You keep trying to build a massive castle of finality and credulity based on the ephemeral blocks of "Ifs" and Assumptions, and it isn't going anywhere. You're obviously trying to work backwards from your conclusion and its pathetic.

I was responding to this yeah,

So what? There are some burned human remains, this proves what exactly? Did they perform any forensic analysis to find the cause of death? Evidence that these people died from being gassed, maybe? Anything at all to distinguish this from a mass burn site/grave for victims of typhus, which was common in the period? No?

These studies, and I use the term loosely, prove nothing except that some bodies were burned together at some point.

They prove more than this, obviously. If you're going to say they're fake they prove nothing, not even bodies being burned.

You're the one working backwards by assuming they're fake, which I guess now you have to do, because you see that it's obvious they don't accord w revisionism.

 

[Bonesjones]

They prove more than this, obviously.

No they don't, nigger.

If you're going to say they're fake they prove nothing, not even bodies being burned.

They are fake because they took photos of their dig yet avoided photographing the things they dug, retard.

You're the one working backwards by assuming they're fake

No I'm working from first principles, faggot

which I guess now you have to do,

There you go guessing and thinking when you are unable to do so

because you see that it's obvious they don't accord w revisionism.

Yes they legally aren't allowed to revise the holocaust, glad you remembered that. Stop posting.

 

[Chugger]

Stop posting.

To be clear I'm not responding to your posts because I find no value in interacting with you. Believe and do what you want, but you're just a reply guy for me.

 

[Bonesjones]

To be clear I'm not responding to your posts because I find no value in interacting with you. Believe and do what you want, but you're just a reply guy for me.

You just did, so you fail yet again.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

because you see that it's obvious they don't accord w revisionism.

The fact that many people in many countries gets prosecuted for pointing out that the holocaust gets milked way more than should further proves the question-ability of this topic. History is written by the victor to it's own favor regardless of how evil the person they antagonize is. This is why I take the topic with a grain of salt regardless of which narrative it is. I have a feeling if Hitler won the war. He'd portray America that way he wanted to and so on. Any winner of said war would inflate the wrongdoings of their enemies and milk off of it. This is why I believe there are no good sides to any conflict.

 

[Neodanthril]

It's a real shame denierbud can't keep his retarded Christianity sperging out of his otherwise very informative videos

 

[Mr. Frank Einstein Ràtheo]

Bunch of Shlomos practicing their rhetoric and getting nowhere. This thread is literally the Talmud.

You argue about the holocaust but you a) have no regard for what the word means in context and 2) have no regard for what the “Jews” call it (Shoah) and +) aren’t bothered at all with the fact that scripture outs them as fake Jews.

Start translating Hebrew yourself and find the truth.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

If they are not Jews, then what is the Holocaust? If “holocaust” is an offering BY a Jew, then why the hell would we refer to the death of Jews as a holocaust? Why is the prince of the Sanhedrin called Nasi? Why did Hitler marry a Jewess? Why was he Catholic?

By speaking in God’s name and calling himself Catholic, he is outed as a psyop. There is no more blatant psyop on earth than Catholicism. It is literally post-Messianic rabbinic Judaism. He was either ignorant of the passage I just cited, which is the subject of literally the whole of Hebrew Scripture (the children of Jacob subverted by the children of Esau), or he knew about it and he was instrumental in accomplishing one of the final protocols.

So what of these facts you retards? If he was a psyop, and the Jews are not Jews, then what are you even talking about? You are lost in the weeds. Slow down and learn about the Jews and learn about Nasi and learn about Nazid and stop giving credit to people who you know are liars when they tell you they are Jews!

And again EVA BRAUN WAS A “JEWESS”, you’re asking the wrong questions! And it’s so obvious that you are, therefore I’m convinced at least half of you are literally rabbis.

 

[fresh pair of socks]

They prove more than this, obviously. If you're going to say they're fake they prove nothing, not even bodies being burned.

You're the one working backwards by assuming they're fake, which I guess now you have to do, because you see that it's obvious they don't accord w revisionism.

This study you keep on cling to can't even confirm who died or how.

Any study, no matter the subject, must be able to withstand independent scrutiny. Yet, if anyone tries to examine the holocaust, they are labeled revisionists and neo-nazis.

Why is scrutiny important? Look at the recent controversy of mass indigenous grave sites in Canada. One study found anomalies underground, and they were subsequently referred to as proof of cultural genocide. Only, the graves don't exist. You can also pay attention to the shifting narrative of the people wanting to believe in the genocide. First they said the graves exist. Then, as that was proven false, they said the graves exist, but in smaller numbers. Then, the graves exist, but they are older than we thought. Now, everyone knows the grave sites never existed. An overzealous group of people invented a genocide out of thin air and clung to whatever study could support their fantasy.

A big problem with holocaust scholarship is that it can never be held to rigorous academic scrutiny. Anyone who tries will find themselves quickly cast out of academia. So, why should anyone take the study you keep referencing at face value?

True scholarship demands skepticism. You can approach a piece of research with the idea that it is false, but if you honestly follow the evidence, you can find out whether or not your conclusion is correct after thorough examination. It's not revisionism to call something fake. Either the study stands on its own, or it does not. You can point to as much AI mathematics as you like, but you still can't say whose remains are buried, or even how much of the debris is actually human remains, instead or just dirt or charcoal.

 

[Chugger]

This study you keep on cling to can't even confirm who died or how.

As I've said many a time, all the study shows is that mass body destruction and burial happened within the grounds of the Belzec camp. And it's not an exception, there were studies done at around this time at Sobibor and Chelmno and they show the same thing.

These places were pegged as extermination centers in 1942, and then they find mass grave sites there which are larger than any other ever found. Coincidence?

 

[fresh pair of socks]

As I've said many a time, all the study shows is that mass body destruction and burial happened within the grounds of the Belzec camp. And it's not an exception, there were studies done at around this time at Sobibor and Chelmno and they show the same thing.

These places were pegged as extermination centers in 1942, and then they find mass grave sites there which are larger than any other ever found. Coincidence?

It was a coincidence in Canada. That same exact logic you used here was put forth by the "cultural genocide" believers, before it was all revealed to be fabricated.

Coincidence is not evidence. That's why studies must be rigorously challenged. That's why determining who died, how they died, how many died, and when exactly they died is critical for your own point. You can't answer any of that, but you want people in this thread to follow along with your best guesses and coincidences.

 

[Chugger]

It was a coincidence in Canada. That same exact logic you used here was put forth by the "cultural genocide" believers, before it was all revealed to be fabricated.

Is this what you're talking about? https://www.ncregister.com/news/three-years-later-canada-mass-graves-remain-unproven

Give me some more info here. I don't see any fabricated reports, like what some would claim with Kola at Belzec

 

[fresh pair of socks]

Is this what you're talking about? https://www.ncregister.com/news/three-years-later-canada-mass-graves-remain-unproven

Give me some more info here. I don't see any fabricated reports, like what some would claim with Kola at Belzec

There has been a movement in Canada to force the government to acknowledge the "cultural genocide" of the indigenous population. Genocide in this case being broadly defined as assimilation. The movement was largely unsuccessful, because there was no real evidence of a large-scale conspiracy to eradicate the indigenous people by any means.

To gather evidence, a study was conducted at a school where alleged atrocities took place. Ground radar was performed, finding over two-hundred "anomalies." These anomalies were subsequently turned into the bodies of hundreds of children by the people trying to force the government to acknowledge "genocide." The media and politicians quickly and uncritically picked up this narrative, spreading it across the world. Finally, the truth about the Canadian genocide was revealed.

Only, the bodies never existed. The study was done in the hopes of finding *something* which it did accomplish. Activists, journalists, and politicans turned *something* into genocide, despite no real evidence existing. How the government responded to this lack of evidence is in the very link you posted: they sought to criminalize denying the genocide that was now exposed as unsubstantiated.

For the average person, the parallel would be obvious, but I know you are quite dense, or at least playing at it. The study you keep presenting found what we can call "anomalies." What are they? Even your study cannot conclude. You, and the community at large, have decided that they can only be evidence of the holocaust. The holocaust happened, therefore evidence of the holocaust must exist, therefore any suspicious or unexplained anomaly proves the holocaust happened. And anyone who says otherwise will face powerful legal and societal pressure.

You want to use your study to prove the Germans gassed millions of jews and cremated them? You need to prove who is in those graves and how they died. Thus far, all you've presented is circular logic: the holocaust happened; jews were systematically murdered in a death camp; it then cannot be a coincidence that the graves are unrelated, because the holocaust happened.

If you want to persuade me to see your side, you need to connect the dots. You will have a hard time doing so, though. There is a reason, after all, that questions about the holocaust are not tolerated. The event doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Bonesjones]

The study you keep presenting found what we can call "anomalies." What are they? Even your study cannot conclude.

They cannot conclude the truth because it's legally, socially, academically not allowed to reach the wrong conclusions. So they generate half studies that find just enough information to support the result they look for and search no deeper than that. Notice how @Chugger doesn't even address satellite ground detection showing zero mass graves at the same site, his feeble mind can't even comprehend it.