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

[potato in mah painus]

The decision to terrorize and oppress people instead of unite them against the USSR really crippled the Axis battle plan. A few extremists and illiterate amoral peasants fell in line but your average socially conservative slav just couldn't tolerate the brutality.

Hitler saw the capitulation after ww1 so he wanted to maintain the German standard of living during the war. They didn't ration like they should have and refused to have women work so they enslaved people. Of course, their ideology was also entirely about subjugating lesser races.

IMO, this entire mindset of undesirables and enslavement is what tipped the balance in the allies favor from the start. Even if you ignore the Jews (I love this word filter lol) plight that was still 2-4 million potential solders, factory workers, and medical staff that the nazis squandered by enslaving or killing. Slaves do not innovate, they do not produce quality product, they only work hard enough to avoid punishment and you have to waste even more resources keeping them in line.

Imagine how many battles would have gone differently if there was an extra couple hundred tanks or aircraft fielded. Even worse the Nazis may have had Albert Einstein and his crew instead of the US. The world would be a very different place if they had the 'wonder weapon' first.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I have been somewhat inspired by the holocaust denial posters and the irefutable facts and logic, so I'm going to use my critical eye on a subject I'm completly detached and rational about.....

....Because this is total bullshit and I shall present my brilliant case no Christian was persecuted in Pagan rome which will completly exonerate the Hellenes

1) The Christian church has produced lots of art and cultural depictions of the Matyrs and has almost certainly in some context profited from it both in terms of material gains and rhetorically, this of coarse proves Christians are lying about the events that occured.
2) Many accounts of Christian matyrdom involve magic,mysticism and other such dramatic bullshit. Since I know these events didnt occur,this means that the Persecution overall was also false.
3) I find it hard to believe some of the logistical aspects of the persecutions-afterall lions don't just randomly eat people. I have read on a website by some guy that Damnatio ad bestias is undoable and I have definatly looked into it myself. Also Crucifixtion couldnt happen as you'd just fall off, you need to explain to me why you wouldnt.
4) Their are accounts in history of Romans Emperors not murdering Christians by the truckload for example, Trajan. Why would some Emperors not violently murder dissidents when others did?
5)Where are the bodies?
6)Their is very little documentation about persecution with little to no documents directly ordering it, For example Their are no writtings of Marcus Auralius on the subject outside of him mentioning he hates christians in a letter, since their is no written evidence that he specifically ordered it, it didnt happen.
7)Christianity has used these events to justify later acts of violence and aggressive cultural colonialism, I believe the persecutions where a conspiracy so Christians could conquer lithuania and other pagan countries.
8 )If the Persecutions happened why were there still Christians who survived?
9)Nero did not in fact fiddle as rome burned-he rode back to city to direct fire fighting, this means nero is a nice guy.
10)The logistics of the whole thing just don't make sense, how exactly do you order people to kill other people when you have public support, control of the state and a big army?
11) Other religious persecutions have occured in history, why didnt medieval Catholics talk as much as Zorostrian persecutions under Islam as much as the roman matyrs?
12)All the territories of the old roman Empire are controlled by Christians and specifically around the mediterranean and middle east, why is it all occured in those specific territories? Isnt that suspicious.
13)why was saying Christianity sucked during the medieval period was illigal? if the persecutions happened then it would be okay to say Christianity sucked in that period.
14) lots of stories where made up about it for example, peters upturned cross was made up around the 2nd century, since that event didnt occur, peter wasnt killed.

Now you may call me a disingenious fuckhead but I'm only questioning the 'facts', I'm just saying that if you pick at the details then it doesnt make any sense. It is on you to explain these things to me rather than me look into it myself.


Next I'll prove the Massacre of the Latins didnt happen by not looking into it because I'm quite fond of the Byzantine empire.

 

[potato in mah painus]

I have been somewhat inspired by the holocaust denial posters and the irefutable facts and logic, so I'm going to use my critical eye on a subject I'm completly detached and rational about.....
View attachment 1263501

....Because this is total bullshit and I shall present my brilliant case no Christian was persecuted in Pagan rome which will completly exonerate the Hellenes

1) The Christian church has produced lots of art and cultural depictions of the Matyrs and has almost certainly in some context profited from it both in terms of material gains and rhetorically, this of coarse proves Christians are lying about the events that occured.
2) Many accounts of Christian matyrdom involve magic,mysticism and other such dramatic bullshit. Since I know these events didnt occur,this means that the Persecution overall was also false.
3) I find it hard to believe some of the logistical aspects of the persecutions-afterall lions don't just randomly eat people. I have read on a website by some guy that Damnatio ad bestias is undoable and I have definatly looked into it myself. Also Crucifixtion couldnt happen as you'd just fall off, you need to explain to me why you wouldnt.
4) Their are accounts in history of Romans Emperors not murdering Christians by the truckload for example, Trajan. Why would some Emperors not violently murder dissidents when others did?
5)Where are the bodies?
6)Their is very little documentation about persecution with little to no documents directly ordering it, For example Their are no writtings of Marcus Auralius on the subject outside of him mentioning he hates christians in a letter, since their is no written evidence that he specifically ordered it, it didnt happen.
7)Christianity has used these events to justify later acts of violence and aggressive cultural colonialism, I believe the persecutions where a conspiracy so Christians could conquer lithuania and other pagan countries.
8 )If the Persecitions happened why were there still Christians who survived?
9)Nero did not in fact fiddle as rome burned-he rode back to city to direct fire fighting, this means nero is a nice guy.
10)The logistics of the whole thing just don't make sense, how exactly do you order people to kill other people when you have public support, control of the state and a big army?
11) Other religious persecutions have occured in history, why didnt medieval Catholics talk as much as Zorostrian persecutions under Islam as much as the roman matyrs?
12)All the territories of the old roman Empire are controlled by Christians and specifically around the mediterranean and middle east, why is it all occured in those specific territories? Isnt that suspicious.
13)why was it saying Christianity sucked during the medieval period was illigal? if the persecutions happened then it would be okay to say Christianity sucked in that period.
14) lots of stories where made up about it for peters upturned cross was made up around the 2nd century, since that event didnt occur, peter wasnt killed.

Now you may call be a disingenious fuckhead I'm only questioning the 'facts', I'm just saying that if you pick at the details then it doesnt make any sense. It is on you to explain these things to me.


Next I'll prove the Massacre of the Latins didnt happen by not looking into it because I quite like Byzantine history.

You are doing exactly what needs to be done, questioning 'facts'. You are also quoting history that has been cataloged and written by organized religion, the most corrupt form of government that has a history of twisting their own holy texts to push political or economic agendas.

However I will refute you on two things, Gladiator lions were a common thing in rome, well documented across the entirety of roman history between archived text and artifacts recovered. They were starved and trained to attack and kill people for the sports events of the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_ad_bestias

Crucifixion is a very well documented and frequently performed form of execution from the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion. Effective procedures are available if you ever wished to actually put someone on a cross again, that way your victims don't fall off because you screwed it up.

The rest I can't really comment on for that era, because I honestly don't trust a lot of the history I have been taught and its not something I have dived into yet.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I have been somewhat inspired by the holocaust denial posters and the irefutable facts and logic, so I'm going to use my critical eye on a subject I'm completly detached and rational about.....
View attachment 1263501

....Because this is total bullshit and I shall present my brilliant case no Christian was persecuted in Pagan rome which will completly exonerate the Hellenes

1) The Christian church has produced lots of art and cultural depictions of the Matyrs and has almost certainly in some context profited from it both in terms of material gains and rhetorically, this of coarse proves Christians are lying about the events that occured.
2) Many accounts of Christian matyrdom involve magic,mysticism and other such dramatic bullshit. Since I know these events didnt occur,this means that the Persecution overall was also false.
3) I find it hard to believe some of the logistical aspects of the persecutions-afterall lions don't just randomly eat people. I have read on a website by some guy that Damnatio ad bestias is undoable and I have definatly looked into it myself. Also Crucifixtion couldnt happen as you'd just fall off, you need to explain to me why you wouldnt.
4) Their are accounts in history of Romans Emperors not murdering Christians by the truckload for example, Trajan. Why would some Emperors not violently murder dissidents when others did?
5)Where are the bodies?
6)Their is very little documentation about persecution with little to no documents directly ordering it, For example Their are no writtings of Marcus Auralius on the subject outside of him mentioning he hates christians in a letter, since their is no written evidence that he specifically ordered it, it didnt happen.
7)Christianity has used these events to justify later acts of violence and aggressive cultural colonialism, I believe the persecutions where a conspiracy so Christians could conquer lithuania and other pagan countries.
8 )If the Persecitions happened why were there still Christians who survived?
9)Nero did not in fact fiddle as rome burned-he rode back to city to direct fire fighting, this means nero is a nice guy.
10)The logistics of the whole thing just don't make sense, how exactly do you order people to kill other people when you have public support, control of the state and a big army?
11) Other religious persecutions have occured in history, why didnt medieval Catholics talk as much as Zorostrian persecutions under Islam as much as the roman matyrs?
12)All the territories of the old roman Empire are controlled by Christians and specifically around the mediterranean and middle east, why is it all occured in those specific territories? Isnt that suspicious.
13)why was it saying Christianity sucked during the medieval period was illigal? if the persecutions happened then it would be okay to say Christianity sucked in that period.
14) lots of stories where made up about it for example, peters upturned cross was made up around the 2nd century, since that event didnt occur, peter wasnt killed.

Now you may call be a disingenious fuckhead I'm only questioning the 'facts', I'm just saying that if you pick at the details then it doesnt make any sense. It is on you to explain these things to me.


Next I'll prove the Massacre of the Latins didnt happen by not looking into it because I'm quite fond of the Byzantine empire.

Alright since you're making the comparison, you've said you believe the official account of the holocaust, right?

Does that mean you actually also believe the official account of christian martyrdom, including the magic involved? Or do you make a special dispensation for early christian myths, but not for the holocaust myths?

---

On a side issue, you do a poor job of making comparable comparisons. I kinda like the effort you put into this. It takes some thinking and creativity. You also show both your knowledge on roman/christian time and your lack of knowledge of events during the second world war. You would have been able to draw better parallels.

Point 13 is even working against your original point and I'm not sure you noticed.

 

[Emperor Julian]

You are doing exactly what needs to be done, questioning 'facts'. You are also quoting history that has been cataloged and written by organized religion, the most corrupt form of government that has a history of twisting their own holy texts to push political or economic agendas.

Point 13 is even working against your original point and I'm not sure you noticed.

No shit, I'm making fun of Holocaust denial by employing its shoddy lazy logic to another event-did you not notice how shit the arguements are? They're riddled with basic deductive fallacies and rudementry errors. I practically spelt it out several times.

I thought my 'joke' was a little too on the nose at parts and I should have understated it more but apparantly not.

Jesus fucking Christ. I'm half tempted to come up with an explanation of why yesterday didnt happen.

1) Why would I buy an apple pie? I'm not very fond of apple pie I prefer cherry, ergo this apple pie I'm eating doesnt make sense ergo we know yesterday didnt happen.

 

[Lemmingwise]

View attachment 1264175


No shit, I'm making fun of Holocaust denial by employing its shoddy lazy logic to another event-did you not notice how shit the arguements are? They're riddled with basic deductive fallacies and rudementry errors. I practically spelt it out several times.

I thought my 'joke' was a little too on the nose at parts and I should have understated it more but apparantly not.

Jesus fucking Christ. I'm half tempted to come up with an explanation of why yesterday didnt happen.

1) Why would I buy an apple pie? I'm not very fond of apple pie I prefer cherry, ergo this apple pie I'm eating doesnt make sense ergo we know yesterday didnt happen.

Well now I'm sure you didn't notice that you ended up satirizing your own position on the holocaust without even realizing it.

 

[RichardMongler]

Even with decent records (compared to what we have today) totalitarian meat grinder state statistics are tough to track due to the sheer scale of murders, displacements of people who get “lost” in the system, etc. This doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the statistics posted and a totalitarian state like Germany in the 1930s and 40s would definitely be capable of doing it. So if the six gorillion was actually 5,357,346 and this proves the chosenites are liars is nonsensical.

Another impetus for making this thread has been Mike Enoch's consistent harping on Holocaust denial for the past month or so. I'm seriously wondering why they insist on dying on this hill apart from what they've already stated because a pro-White movement gaining clout and political power doesn't necessarily mean it'll cause another Holocaust.

 

[potato in mah painus]

View attachment 1264175


No shit, I'm making fun of Holocaust denial by employing its shoddy lazy logic to another event-did you not notice how shit the arguements are? They're riddled with basic deductive fallacies and rudementry errors. I practically spelt it out several times.

I thought my 'joke' was a little too on the nose at parts and I should have understated it more but apparantly not.

Jesus fucking Christ. I'm half tempted to come up with an explanation of why yesterday didnt happen.

1) Why would I buy an apple pie? I'm not very fond of apple pie I prefer cherry, ergo this apple pie I'm eating doesnt make sense ergo we know yesterday didnt happen.

This is supposed to be the deep thought board and not shit posting. Why did you even bother posting that here if you didn't want it taken seriously?

 

[Emperor Julian]

Well now I'm sure you didn't notice that you ended up satirizing your own position on the holocaust without even realizing it.

Well you don't really clarify what my origional point is (do you mean my first post on the thread or the first arguement in the post?) was but since the overall statement was Holocaust denial is full of lazy thinking deductive fallacies which look openly absurd when applied elsewhere and number 13 is an example of one, I suspect it's more you don't get why 13 is a bad arguement. I could be wrong but I'd require you to elborate?

This is supposed to be the deep thought board and not shit posting. Why did you even bother posting that here if you didn't want it taken seriously?

I'm not really sure how to explain to you that it's okay to crack a joke on tabboo subjects or 'serious' thread without being obnoxious. But to throw it back to-did failling to clock an obvious joke using a really heavy handed satire generate any introspection on if your critical thinking may not be up to notch since you believe and advocate very simular argruements when applied to the holocaust?

 

[Lemmingwise]

I could be wrong but I'd require you to elborate?

Since it's unclear to you, I presume you don't believe in the magical parts of christians in point 2. That then requires the threat of force for disagreement in point 13.

There's nothing absurd about being suspicious about threat of force mandating a certain world view or historic view. And since I presume you don't believe in at least some of the magical parts of the early christian accounts, this makes you a christ denier and the inquisition would like a word with you.




--

Most of your intentionally absurd points are about how christians would have had motive to lie/exaggerate and I think most people will agree that they did have motive and that they did exaggerate.

The bodies point doesn't work for something that happened more than 1000 years ago compared to something that happened less than 100 years ago. It's not exactly constant, but bones take about 50 years to become brittle, but longer to decompose fully, teeth longer yet still.

In the end if you did not intend to make somewhat relevant comparisons but only to share your incredulity with what you consider absurd, then your posts becomes an elaborate creative writing of "are you kidding me?"

 

[Emperor Julian]

Since it's unclear to you, I presume you don't believe in the magical parts of christians in point 2. That then requires the threat of force for disagreement in point 13.

There's nothing absurd about being suspicious about threat of force mandating a certain world view or historic view. And since I presume you don't believe in at least some of the magical parts of the early christian accounts, this makes you a christ denier and the inquisition would like a word with you.




--

Most of your intentionally absurd points are about how christians would have had motive to lie/exaggerate and I think most people will agree that they did have motive and that they did exaggerate.

The bodies point doesn't work for something that happened more than 1000 years ago compared to something that happened less than 100 years ago. It's not exactly constant, but bones take about 50 years to become brittle, but longer to decompose fully, teeth longer yet still.

In the end if you did not intend to make somewhat relevant comparisons but only to share your incredulity with what you consider absurd, then your posts becomes an elaborate creative writing of "are you kidding me?"

Not really section 13 refers to the usage of force to enforce Christian idea's in the medieval period, It doesnt actually dispells the basic truth the persecutions occured do they?
The closest equivelant for the Holocaust would be noting urban legands and errors which have occured....which doesnt cause retaliation. For example you can say the human skin lamp is bullshit or the Soviets numbers where way too high and no one will care. In fact exposing people who make shit up by pretending to be a survivor is applauded. You may face legal consequances for direct Holocaust denial but that doesnt disprove anymore than being persecuted by the medieval church would undo the early perseuctions-as a child might be taught two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm unfamiliar with any stories about the holocaust which involve magic which are part of academic history, but I'd be pretty comfortable backing you up that Gabriel didnt swoop down to save anne frank.

Yes but you missed the point completly if you think that's the issue, people may fuck up the recollection of events but that doesnt really counter the truth that said events occured. You undertand this point right?

The bodies reference is an obvious joke about how disengenious the arguement is when applied in general and I know pretty much everyone involved hasnt really looked/is deliberatly being contrarian since the methods of body disposal are well covered. We know where the bodies went during the Roman persecutions and we know where the bodies went during the Holocaust. Nobody asked where the bodies went in previous persecutions because nobody was looking to disprove or downplay it.

Well what can I say? i know with at least one the point flew right over your head (where did the bodies go) so it's pretty likely you don't 'get' why all these examples are terrible on their own merit so can't really cancel each other out anymore than I can zero to subtract from zero.

Maybe I should have made it less subtle and gone with a modern genocide or event which everyone agreed occured, for example that we woke up today. To explore your stance, you do understand how all 14 arguements are delibertly bad and don't disprove the early christian persecutions by the roman state? Do you not see how most of them could be applied to the rough equivelant in the Holocaust?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Not really section 13 refers to the usage of force to enforce Christian idea's in the medieval period, It doesnt actually dispells the basic truth the persecutions occured do they?
The closest equivelant for the Holocaust would be noting urban legands and errors which have occured....which doesnt cause retaliation. For example you can say the human skin lamp is bullshit or the Soviets numbers where way too high and no one will care. In fact exposing people who make shit up by pretending to be a survivor is applauded. You may face legal consequances for direct Holocaust denial but that doesnt disprove anymore than being persecuted by the medieval church would undo the early perseuctions-as a child might be taught two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm unfamiliar with any stories about the holocaust which involve magic which are part of academic history, but I'd be pretty comfortable backing you up that Gabriel didnt swoop down to save anne frank.

Yes but you missed the point completly if you think that's the issue, people may fuck up the recollection of events but that doesnt really counter the truth that said events occured. You undertand this point right?

The bodies reference is an obvious joke about how disengenious the arguement is when applied in general and I know pretty much everyone involved hasnt really looked/is deliberatly being contrarian since the methods of body disposal are well covered. We know where the bodies went during the Roman persecutions and we know where the bodies went during the Holocaust.

Well what can I say? i know with at least one the point flew right over your head (where did the bodies go) so it's pretty likely you don't 'get' why all these examples are terrible on their own merit so can't really cancel each other out anymore than I can zero to subtract from zero.

Maybe I should have made it less subtle and gone with a modern genocide or event which everyone agreed occured, for example that we woke up today. To explore your stance, you do understand how all 14 arguements are delibertly bad and don't disprove the early christian persecutions by the roman state? Do you not see how most of them could be applied to the rough equivelant in the Holocaust?

You continually refer to either "basic truth" or "the event" in referring to either christian persecution or the holocaust and don't seem capable or willing to examine the details, the building blocks of which such an event or basic truth is built out of.

This is why the term "holocaust denier" is linguistically worth its weight in gold. Even the list of deniers who's material and arguments I've engaged with, don't make the claim that no persecution or execution of jews took place.

It's why I asked earlier for what number of deaths would fulfill the requirement of being recognised as a holocaust.

Because everyone does have a different conception of what is meant by the term holocaust. In many people's heads its simply "persecution and state execution of jews". But that definition would turn 99% of holocaust deniers into holocaust affirmers. So there is more than just that. David Cole used the definition of his time "the genocide of 6 million jews with gas chambers" to argue there was a genocide, but not a holocaust.

When people call him a holocaust denier, most people assume he thinks jews lived hunky dory in nazi germany and think cole absurd and don't bother watching his documentary. I note that the video about david cole earlier in the thread did not even touch the topic of him clearly exposing the auschwitz museum of lying to visitors in regards to gas chambers.

---


And finally, it was clear to me what you tried to say with the bodies point, but I don't think you've really engaged with or thought about it in detail, because the numbers don't add up. It doesn't rule out large scale genocide, but it does rule out the official numbers.

I don't really engage in the details unless someone is genuinely curious and inquisitive. I don't really enjoy rhetorical slapfights anymore and don't share the work and research I put into things.

You strike me as someone who wants to vent his frustration and incredulity. I do see how absurd it looks to you. And it looks absurd because you give one side a far greater benefit of doubt than another. I suggest to you: don't award any side benefit of doubt. Assume ulterior motives from all parties and engage with the base components of a topic.

In regards to bodies, you might start with how many crematoria there were at auschwitz and what a reasonable capacity might be. You might end up asking, where are the bodies.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

Nazis boasted about six million Holocaust victims. But it was a Jew w…

archived 21 Apr 2020 13:18:29 UTC

archive.fo

If anyone needed more evidence that 6 million was a predetermined number.

On January 21, 1944, about a year and a half before the end of World War II, a dramatic item was published on the front page of Haaretz. Under the headline “Six million Jewish victims,” it brought unusual testimony for the time about the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. “Six million – that’s the calculation made by two young men in a meeting with members of their party organizations in Palestine,” the report said.
“With pencil in hand they counted the number of victims in each country and reached an astonishing number – 6 million Jews were murdered and killed and died in Nazi-occupied countries in death camps, concentration camps, labor camps and the various ghettos,” the article said.

 

[Emperor Julian]

You continually refer to either "basic truth" or "the event" in referring to either christian persecution or the holocaust and don't seem capable or willing to examine the details, the building blocks of which such an event or basic truth is built out of.

This is why the term "holocaust denier" is linguistically worth its weight in gold. Even the list of deniers who's material and arguments I've engaged with, don't make the claim that no persecution or execution of Trump's Chosen People took place.

It's why I asked earlier for what number of deaths would fulfill the requirement of being recognised as a holocaust.

Because everyone does have a different conception of what is meant by the term holocaust. In many people's heads its simply "persecution and state execution of Trump's Chosen People". But that definition would turn 99% of holocaust deniers into holocaust affirmers. So there is more than just that. David Cole used the definition of his time "the genocide of 6 million Trump's Chosen People with gas chambers" to argue there was a genocide, but not a holocaust.

When people call him a holocaust denier, most people assume he thinks Trump's Chosen People lived hunky dory in nazi germany and think cole absurd and don't bother watching his documentary. I note that the video about david cole earlier in the thread did not even touch the topic of him clearly exposing the auschwitz museum of lying to visitors in regards to gas chambers.

---


And finally, it was clear to me what you tried to say with the bodies point, but I don't think you've really engaged with or thought about it in detail, because the numbers don't add up. It doesn't rule out large scale genocide, but it does rule out the official numbers.

I don't really engage in the details unless someone is genuinely curious and inquisitive. I don't really enjoy rhetorical slapfights anymore and don't share the work and research I put into things.

You strike me as someone who wants to vent his frustration and incredulity. I do see how absurd it looks to you. And it looks absurd because you give one side a far greater benefit of doubt than another. I suggest to you: don't award any side benefit of doubt. Assume ulterior motives from all parties and engage with the base components of a topic.

In regards to bodies, you might start with how many crematoria there were at auschwitz and what a reasonable capacity might be. You might end up asking, where are the bodies.

You continually refer to either "basic truth" or "the event" in referring to either christian persecution or the holocaust and don't seem capable or willing to examine the details, the building blocks of which such an event or basic truth is built out of.

Yes that's because I'm totally correct and I have examined most of the prominant denial arguements-they all suck, they suck so bad I can usually shit on them with a google search even if I don't know the reply off the top of my head. So whn I say the event or basic truth I am correct.

This is why the term "holocaust denier" is linguistically worth its weight in gold. Even the list of deniers who's material and arguments I've engaged with, don't make the claim that no persecution or execution of Trump's Chosen People took place.

Holocaust deniers tend to know the outright denial is a really weak sell so go for a more pussy footing mudying of the water. Human psychology tends to be that whoever seems to be that entertaining a more moderated response sounds more rhetorically sound. their are outright deniers but Holocaust Downplayers doesnt have quite the same ring. But if you're upset about terminology then you're on weak ground.

It's why I asked earlier for what number of deaths would fulfill the requirement of being recognised as a holocaust.

You can call it whatever you wish as long as your acknowlague it since that's just semantic wrangling I recall a neo-nazi called it pest control. Ironically I actually found him more constructive to talk than deniers because he fucking owned his dumb beliefs instead of downplaying the awkward parts.

Because everyone does have a different conception of what is meant by the term holocaust. In many people's heads its simply "persecution and state execution of Trump's Chosen People". But that definition would turn 99% of holocaust deniers into holocaust affirmers. So there is more than just that. David Cole used the definition of his time "the genocide of 6 million Trump's Chosen People with gas chambers" to argue there was a genocide, but not a holocaust.

When people call him a holocaust denier, most people assume he thinks Trump's Chosen People lived hunky dory in nazi germany and think cole absurd and don't bother watching his documentary. I note that the video about david cole earlier in the thread did not even touch the topic of him clearly exposing the auschwitz museum of lying to visitors in regards to gas chambers.

I think we've talked about Cole before, if memory served he's a complete sped

(checks up)

Yeah I was right he actually argued 2 Millions less victims so he isnt just arguing about the semantics is he? Fun little read about some of his work since you seem a fan

Debunking David Cole's Auschwitz video

Exploring Holocaust history. Debunking Holocaust denial.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com

Also that really really doesnt like black people from his twitter, he writes like a parody of a republican to the point where he re-tweets ann coulter

And finally, it was clear to me what you tried to say with the bodies point, but I don't think you've really engaged with or thought about it in detail, because the numbers don't add up. It doesn't rule out large scale genocide, but it does rule out the official numbers.

They really do, counter question how do you think they figured out how many?

You strike me as someone who wants to vent his frustration and incredulity. I do see how absurd it looks to you. And it looks absurd because you give one side a far greater benefit of doubt than another. I suggest to you: don't award any side benefit of doubt. Assume ulterior motives from all parties and engage with the base components of a topic.

Honestly as I've previously mentioned I mostly feel a detached distaste for the intellectual lazyness inherant in denial. Like a craftsman looking at shoddy work. If I were to apply that logic then the Denial party would be buried. You're talking about a group where the cream of the Crop is David "I'm not racist" Cole beyond that you've got scum, conspiracy nuts, the mentally ill, Middle eastern theocrats who want Israel nuked, the proponants of an ideology which is used as a point of referance for human evil, anon internet posters and off coarse people who genuinly hate Jewish people. With a lot of overlap. a better question would be how you can make that suggestion without a hint of irony?

In regards to bodies, you might start with how many crematoria there were at auschwitz and what a reasonable capacity might be. You might end up asking, where are the bodies.

I already did, years ago. It's very unlikely you can present me an arguement I havnt heard. Here's the first entry on google for holocaust body disposal.

Body Disposal at Auschwitz: The End of Holocaust-Denial

The logistics of corpse-cremation at Auschwitz are exhaustively analyzed, and the latest arguments of Holocaust-deniers thoroughly debunked. Relying extensively on contemporary documents, Prof. Zimmerman shows how hundreds of thousands of bodies were disposed of at the Auschwitz death camp.

phdn.org

I doubt it'll persuade you of for a number of reasons butIt'll give you a start on where I'm coming from but it's the tip of the iceberg on this stuff and is written by an actual academic as opposed to a tabloid hack. Start rolling from there and look for peer reviewed academic litterature They get paid money to discredit each other.

Question-do you think an major early 20th century industrial power would struggle to dispose of bodies on an industrial scale if it wanted to? Also you completly changed the subject once I explained why your previous arguement was bad .

 

[Lemmingwise]

Also you completly changed the subject once I explained why your previous arguement was bad .

I wasn't even making an argument about your fictional absurdist account of what a holocaust denier personal account of christian persecution might look like. I gave some off the cuff observations because I enjoyed the unusual perspective that your effort gave.

What would even be the point of engaging in argumentation over something like that? I think you even made that point yourself.

Yes that's because I'm totally correct and I have examined most of the prominant denial arguements the denial arguements-they all suck, they suck so bad I can usually shit on them with a google search even if I don't know the reply off the top of my head. So whn I say the event or basic truth I am correct.



Holocaust deniers tend to know the outright denial is a really weak sell so go for a more pussy footing mudying of the water. Human psychology who seems to be entertaining a more moderated response sounds more psychologically sound. their are outright deniers but Holocaust Downplayers doesnt have quite the same ring. But if you're upset about terminology then you're own weak ground.



You can call it whatever you wish as long as your acknowlague it since that's just semantic wrangling I recall a neo-nazi called it pest control. Ironically I actually found him more constructive to talk than deniers because he fucking owned his dumb beliefs instead of downplaying the awkward parts.



I think we've talked about Cole before, if memory served he's a complete sped

(checks up)

Yeah I was right he actually argued 2 Millions less victims so he isnt just arguing about the semantics is he? Fun little read about some of his work since you seem a fan

Debunking David Cole's Auschwitz video

Exploring Holocaust history. Debunking Holocaust denial.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com

Also that really really doesnt like black people from his twitter, he writes like a parody of a republican to the point where he re-tweets ann coulter



They really do, counter question how do you think they figured out how many?




Honestly as I've previously mentioned I mostly a detached distaste for the intellectual lazyness inherant in denial. If I were to apply that logic then the Denial party would be absolutly buried. You're talking about a group where the cream of the Crop is David "I'm not racist" Cole beyond that you've got raging, conspiracy nuts, the mentally ill, Middle eastern theocrats who want Israel nuked, the proponants of an ideology which is used as a point of referance for human evil, anon internet posters and off coarse people who genuinly hate Trump's Chosen people. With a lot of overlap. a better question would be how you can make that suggestion without a hint of irony?



I already did, years ago. It's very unlikely you can present me an arguement I havnt heard. Here's the first entry on google for holocaust body disposal.

Body Disposal at Auschwitz: The End of Holocaust-Denial

The logistics of corpse-cremation at Auschwitz are exhaustively analyzed, and the latest arguments of Holocaust-deniers thoroughly debunked. Relying extensively on contemporary documents, Prof. Zimmerman shows how hundreds of thousands of bodies were disposed of at the Auschwitz death camp.

phdn.org

I dount it'll persuade you of for a number of reasons butIt'll give you a start on where I'm coming from but it's the tip of the iceberg on this stuff and is written by an actual academic as opposed to a tabloid hack. Start rolling from there and look for peer reviewed academic litterature They get paid money to discredit each other.

Question-do you think an major early 20th century industrial power would struggle to dispose of bodies on an industrial scale if it wanted to? Also you completly changed the subject once I explained why your previous arguement was bad .

A couple of posts back you made a comment about what you considered the absurdity of engaging in this discussion. You have this mental image of nazi holocaust deniers that are all into it because of an overriding irrational hatred of jews, or irrational overriding love of hitler that are trying to fight his battles beyond the grave.

I've already told you I don't engage in slapfights over it, I only share the details of my research with people that have some curiosity or inquisitiveness. I welcome a critical look, but I'm not interested in trying to force a horse to drink.

Let's say I took your line of argument for myself, someone who has strong doubts with a couple of parts of the official story?

------

Holocaust affirmers never engage with details because they know some parts of the official story are a house of cards and instead rely on attacking holocaust deniers, reputationally and profesionally.

That way it's always true that only crackpots and conspiracy theorists defend it, because we'll either turn the person into a fringe person and in so doing scare anyone with a career worth protecting to never even mention the topic, regardless of their thoughts on the matter.

I should probably throw in a question without answering yours, right?

In regards to answering your question, I will assert that I'm correct. I am simply right. And correct.

-------

That's what it'd look like if you had a discussion with your mirror image. Only finagling over inconsequential stuff.

Your source claims that the soviets were 100% correct about auschwitz deaths, despite you saying earlier in this thread that you take the current official historical perspective of auschwitz deaths rather than the original soviet version. Shouldn't you now dismiss that source for holocaust denial, because they got something wrong? Or does it make no sense trying to find one perfect all explanatory source like we're in sunday school, and should instead construct an image in accordance with the facts as we can unearth them?

If you ever want to have a real talk about stuff that matters you're welcome to ask for it.

Finally, it's pretty fucking funny to me that you consider david cole to be so absolutely abominable that he might even tweet someone as milquestoast as ann coulter, and that his real crime that proves this holocaust denier is a bad person, that he is a republican. Oh no, a republican. CNN warned me about those people.

 

[Emperor Julian]

You've just re-interated your previous stance in a slightly differant way, you talk about details but the entire process of holocaust denial is cherry picked, it involves going through all the evidence and finding something which you think doesnt make sense and then waving that over the massive piles of stuff which confirms the opposite , which is exactly what you did with that soarce I sent.

It's unlikely I'll take you up on you're offer, you've said nothing which I havnt heard before to the point where you've implicitly re-enforced my views on holocaust deniers. Although I'll admit having to explain a joke was a novelty.

Finally, it's pretty fucking funny to me that you consider david cole to be so absolutely abominable that he might even tweet someone as milquestoast as ann coulter, and that his real crime that proves this holocaust denier is a bad person, that he is a republican. Oh no, a republican. CNN warned me about those people.

I wasnt commenting on ann because she's offensive(Although she is a bit of a cunt) I'm commenting on her because she's a hack , like Cole.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I only share the details of my research with people that have some curiosity or inquisitiveness. I welcome a critical look, but I'm not interested in trying to force a horse to drink.

It's unlikely I'll take you up on you're offer

I'm not surprised. It's been a pleasure.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I'm not surprised. It's been a pleasure.

Agreed having you explain an deliberatly bad train of logic for satire as legit was quite funny.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Remember the times when the Iranian president Ahmadnejad or should we said ayatollahs' puppet, said he denied the Holocaust? One cartoonist have an unorthodox way to debunk this.

And speaking of the Armenian Genocide, one article titled it "The Forgotten Holocaust" and I wonder if the Holodomor along with Mao's Cultural Revolution could be in the same category? https://allthatsinteresting.com/armenian-genocide-photos ( http://archive.vn/nun5I )

In the seven decades since the Holocaust, thunderstruck scholars and laypeople alike have consistently asked themselves how it could have happened. What far too few realize, however, is that just two and half decades before, something like it already had.

On a off-topic sidenote, Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad did pay respect to the victims of the Holodomor.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

On a off-topic sidenote, Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad did pay respect to the victims of the Holodomor.

Hmm...I wonder how much compensation the descendants of the Jewish led Bolsheviks have had to pay to the Ukrainian people.