Just got done watching "Denial", thought it was alright.

>shilling your movie

>>1862397

oy vey

>>1862391
That's correct, so long as we are sticking with things like the Resurrection and so on.

>>1862453

Are you implying that Jesus isn't one of the most historically questioned topics in post-20th century historiography?

as a historian, this movie made me fucking rage. No refutable historian believes the holocaust happened as they say it did

>>1862469
Are you doubting that the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth isn't at near historian consensus that he existed?

>>1862469
More like from the 19th Century to the 1950's. While a lot of sensationalist pop works make it seem like questioning Jesus is on the cutting edge, almost all their examinations and points were iterated well over a hundred years ago. Since the 1950's, academically, most of the historical new ground has been in fresh possibilities for the Christian side. Obviously not the extent that there is anything near a scholarly consensus that Christ was Resurrected, but a lot of other conclusions that were previously considered damning in regard to Christian positions, now are being questioned more and more.

>>1862391
>that tagline

kek

This just seems like a massive miscalculation on somebodies part. Its trying to debunk holocaust denial claims but most people have never heard them so its just spreading the arguments over a wider area.

>>1862616

They sufficiently humiliate David Irving in the film enough to frighten the public from associating with him.

>>1862582

What's so funny?

>>1862569
Oo

>>1865339
because it is an oxymoron

One of these days, I need to actually finish going through the trial transcript.

I'm interesting in seeing it. I met Lipstadt and had a conversation with her a few years ago when she visited my undergrad. It's an interesting case, and one that wasn't really about the Holocaust; basically, Irving sued for for defamation (in a country where a conviction would have been easy to obtain) because she called him a Holocaust denier, when he actively gave talks about Holocaust denial. It was basically an act of intellectual cowardice to get a critic to shut up. It was about discourse more than the Holocaust.

>>1862391
>the main character's conviction that certain aspects of history are "beyond debate" and that you must accept them as fact.
I never got that impression from Lipstadt herself, although I can see a movie making that point (which is kind of sad, if the movie reduced the actual nature of the lawsuit to just proving the Holocaust). I don't really agree with it. Anything should be up for debate, as long as there's valid reason to.

>>1865850
Got bored halfway through it.

>>1865911
even if the debate results in suffering and maybe even death?

>>1866221
How would discussing the evidence for a historical event's existence result in suffering or death?

>>1865911
>>1866221
Narratives are dangerous. One can construct a complex narrative that only experts can unravel and debunk which they foten dont bother doing(cause thye got better things to do) which misleads many less able and critical individuals.
It provides different elements powerful narratives that ordinary people cannot disprove and are thus at least partially swayed by it.
Just go to /pol/ and look for yourself.

>>1865911
>as long as there's valid reason to
There is NO reason to doubt holocaust.

>>1862391
is this movie about jew being sad

>>1866248
Yeah, that's why I said valid. If you need to lie to make your case (like Irving did), then there's no valid reason to have the debate. I was answering a questing about the field of history in general, not holocaust denial; blame OP for asking a shitty question.

>>1866243
People in general suck at critical thinking and tend to only listen to evidence that agrees with what they want to hear. Holocaust denial is a good example of that; no credible historian takes it seriously, yet thousands of people are convinced that the event didn't happen because the only evidence they take seriously is what agrees with them.

In general, narratives that have the most evidence are common, especially nowadays; there's no way you can force everyone to accept a singular narrative if they already don't.

The answer is promoting critical thinking, not shutting down discourse so only one narrative can be allowed.

>>1866277
>In general, narratives that have the most evidence are common, especially nowadays; there's no way you can force everyone to accept a singular narrative if they already don't.


Not him, but is that really the case? I have an amateur's interest in military history, and even in the enormously well documented WW2, it's absolutely astonishing how much crap is widely believed, and even the introduction of countering evidence does little to stop it.

>>1866297
I'd say if you're talking about big events (like WWII happening), then yes, most people are familiar with the correct version of that history. You're right that popular misconceptions make people wrong about a lot of finer details, but since we were talking about the Holocaust, I was thinking on that scale.

Typically when you encounter incorrect narratives of big events (the South won the US Civil war, the Holocaust didn't happen, Fidel Castro killed JFK), they're fringe beliefs that the wider public doesn't take seriously. And the people that do maintain their beliefs contrary to the established narrative they were taught. In other words, people believe psuedohistory about big events usually do so because they think they're learning secret knowledge that the wider public doesn't know, not because it's the dominant narrative.

>>1866346

Two things I would like clarified, if you have the time.

1) How do you define the difference between "narratives of big events" and "narratives of small events? One I hear very frequently is that

>America really won the Vietnam war!

Which I would argue is more often rooted in jingoism than than because they think they're privy to some secret knowledge. It's certainly counter to the dominant narrative, and it's also a fairly major event, especially culturally if you live in the U.S.

2) And when you have somewhat interested but ultimately amateurish communities? People such as myself.

To take an example; I imagine the totally popular layman picked at random knows absolutely nothing about which tanks performed better than which other tanks in WW2, and honestly doesn't much care.

Then you get a somewhat more select community, wargamers, military aficionados, ex-servicemen, etc.,; they might not be historically educated, but they're interested in the subject matter, and they pick up what I'll call "pop history" on the subject.

If you go with WW2 tanks, you'll get a lot of pop history about how the M4 Sherman was a piece of junk and would get shredded in droves by German tanks, ultimately prevailing by driving over the shattered remains of the other tanks in the battalion.

That's not really true. If you're really interested, I can provide evidence to the contrary, but for the thrust of my argument, when I have been in discussions about such, it's astonishing to see the level of rejection you get countering the "popular" narrative: I've literally had people call US Army studies about tank performance published 10 years after the war dismissed as "propaganda to keep the tankers morale up while they were getting slaughtered". It's insane.

File: 1471991716447 (1).jpg (211KB, 653x588px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 653x588px

>>1862391

Its not just questioning history from an objective view, its denying the holocaust in order to promote neo-nazi ideals/propaganda

File: hol.jpg (26KB, 400x306px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x306px

>>1866248
>There is NO reason to doubt holocaust.

There's a whole nation that supports it, there must be something to the denial.

>>1866277
>promoting critical thinking.
There always were and always wil be rougly the same amount of population who lack critical thinking(whatever it means in that given period) and a few that do.
This will not change and the fact we are all becoming on average more educated in no way eleviates the relative gap betwee nth eexpert "thinkers" and the rest. Critical thinking skills are relative and only a few will always have the most advanced critical thinking skills thus "promoting critical thinking" is more a description of reality than a call for change.

>>1866526
There are whole nations that deny that AIDS exist (or, at least their governments and a big share of the population). Is there truth to the claim that AIDS doesn't exist? No.

>believe us goy: the movie
>by Jewish-controlled Hollywood
okay
there is no photographic evidence that proves 6 million were gassed to death and cremated in the time frame that is presented. many were displaced, ghettos existed, they were mistreated, but the shilling for the ebil nahtzees is propaganda for the subverted, who call it truth.

>>1866568
You got that backwards friendo. He's saying the truth doesn't need to be enforced. It can stand on it's own. Only lies need to be enforced.

>>1862391
The holocaust of course happened, but I wish Europe was less retarded when it came to topics like this and did like the Americans.

Instead of creating a law that say "You cannot hold this opinion, and if you do, you will be jailed for up to 10 years", the Americans who were interested in this debate started arguing with the deniers in the 90s and completely discredited them publicly.

Sure, some deniers still exist in America, but in a cultural sense, they made it untenable to hold that view.

>>1868105

How can you be jailed for holding an opinion?

If they try to arrest you just say "I change my mind" and they can't arrest you any more.

>>1868116
You can be jailed for publicly announcing that you don't believe the Holocaust happened, in many countries in Europe(thankfully not mine).

They'll judge you based on the fact that you said you didn't believe in it, and to them it doesn't matter if you change your mind, similarly to how it doesn't matter if you changed your mind after threatening to kill someone.

>>1862569

>No refutable historian believes the holocaust happened as they say it did
>refutable

so it's spot on

David Irving is right about there being no evidence that Hitler even knew about the holocaust.

>>1862616
They made this movie to control the arguments on both sides.

>>1866475
>David Irving
Most of the things in that text is true but the part saying that he can not be considered a historian is ridiculous.

David Irving is pretty much the only person on earth who can call himself an expert on ww2. He has gone through pretty much every single document in existence from the German and British side of the war and he has been honest with his findings

>>1868862
>David Irving is pretty much the only person on earth who can call himself an expert on ww2
ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

>>1868068
If that were the case, then it would be fine for me to falsely accuse person X and his family in a newspaper that they are child molesters, and that the company they own dodges taxes and is involved in drug money laundering.
If it's true and I knew it to be, then it'd be alright because "truth can stand on it's own"
If it's false and I knew it to be, then it'd be alright because "truth can stand on it's own".

Would they have the right to demand a correction on the false accusation? No, because "truth can stand on it's own". Nevermind a psychopath hunting one of them down and killing them for the false accusations.

>>1862391
>that certain aspects of history are "beyond debate" and that you must accept them as fact.
NEVER

QUESTION EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME OR BE A SLAVE

>>1866277
>The answer is promoting critical thinking, not shutting down discourse so only one narrative can be allowed.

>The answer is promoting critical thinking, not shutting down discourse so only one narrative can be allowed.

>The answer is promoting critical thinking, not shutting down discourse so only one narrative can be allowed.

>The answer is promoting critical thinking, not shutting down discourse so only one narrative can be allowed.

>The answer is promoting critical thinking, not shutting down discourse so only one narrative can be allowed.

>>1870189
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>1862575

It depends what you mean. Was there a Jesus of Nazareth? Yes, dozens of them, Jesus was a common name. But the historical basis for Christianity begins and ends with his sayings, those passages in the gospels prefaced with "Jesus said...", the narrative of the gospels is pure fiction.

>>1866248

Nonsense, there's every reason to doubt every historical event. The holocaust is a pretty solid event tho, the facts supporting it are extensive and the arguments against it require one to posit extraordinary levels of conspiracy between groups that have no reason to conspire together, such as the USSR and Israel, and require you to ignore the physical evidence, and are typically "supported" with half-truths and outright falsehoods.

Everybody involved is a loser. It's almost like this pathetic meme case was the best thing that ever happened to their career. Oh wait, it was.

No aspect of history should be beyond debate.

The more Jews talk about the holocaust the less I care desu

If Turkey and Japan can deny genocide and still get shekels, who cares if robert mugabe calls himself hitler

>>1866233
It can hurt feelings, you brute!

File: armenia not a genocide.jpg-large.jpg (60KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 720x576px

>>1870335

The holocaust was truly horrific, but at this point almost everyone involved is dead. It's a done deal, like the burning of the Great Library or the massacre of the Sabines.

The way certain people make shekels exploiting the memory is more than a little disgusting, and even worse are the people who try to use it as an argument to get privileges of various kinds.

Holding it up as some holy relic is not helpful, it's not illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide so why the holocaust?

>>1870431
sauce? whether or not that's legitimate I more naked girls on crosses

>>1870431

>t's not illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide so why the holocaust?

It is illegal to deny the Armenian genocide in a lot of places.

>>1870469
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

File: armenia not a genocide.jpg (19KB, 432x285px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 432x285px

>>1870448

That particular picture is a reconstruction from a movie. Pic related is the original, it's pretty faithful imo.

>>1870461

Really? Well it shouldn't be, that's absurd.

>>1870486

And now you move from a positive argument to a normative argument.

Holding freedom of speech as sacrosanct is a pretty American value. I'm guessing you're American, I am myself, and I too agree that there probably shouldn't be restrictions on denying historical events, however stupid it might be.

But a lot of the world doesn't share that mindset, and it's not surprising that they ban, or at least attempt to ban, all sorts of topics of discussion. Hell, even American freedom of speech isn't absolute, you have all sorts of (admittedly fringe) doctrines such as Fighting Words and obscenity that SCOTUS has ruled not covered by the 1st amendment.

It's only absurd because you're applying a set of values that you have to other people who probably don't share those values.

File: armenian not a genocide-4.jpg (128KB, 564x383px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 564x383px

>>1870469

Firstly, I don't give a single shit about Christians and Yazidis. Let their god save them if he can.

Second, the Kurds may have been the tools, but the agent of the genocide was the T*rkish government. But why am I surprised a T*rd would try to weasel out of his guilt by blaming others? You '''people''' are worse than googles.

>>1870448
Search "SkatingJesus" on Deviantart

>>1870502
>I'm guessing you're American

Nope, but I do recognise that free speech is the basis of ALL rights.

>such as Fighting Words and obscenity that SCOTUS has ruled not covered by the 1st amendment.

Personally I think speech itself should be unrestricted, but that you should be held somewhat responsible for any negative outcomes that directly extend from your speech, such as someone being killed in a stampede when you shout "Fire!" on a theatre for example. But yes most people don't agree and that's sad.

But I would say that ruling any area of study as prohibited is absurd by almost any standard. It's the kind of thing religions do, it's absurd to see a government doing it.

>>1870531
>Nope, but I do recognise that free speech is the basis of ALL rights.


And how do you get to that conclusion? That seems a bit absurd, insofar as you have recognizeable statements of declarations of rights long before freedom of speech or assembly or associated notions come along.

>But I would say that ruling any area of study as prohibited is absurd by almost any standard. It's the kind of thing religions do, it's absurd to see a government doing it.

And since when are governments and religions so different from one another? Hell, the second half of the first amendment needs to be in place precisely because there would otherwise be so much overlap between the state and religions, which is why so many states for so long had official (usually tax supported) churches.

>>1870549
>And how do you get to that conclusion?

I mean that without it, you can lose any other right. Basis was the wrong word, guardian or sustaining principle perhaps.

>And since when are governments and religions so different from one another?

There has been a lot of cross-over but today the two are essentially separate even in countries with established churches. But the trend has been fairly inexorable of governments basing their policies on empirical data and public opinion while religion sticks to it's simple "god said it, therefore it's true" stance. To see a government in this day and age acting in such a religious manner proves mirth from the anachronism, which strikes one as absurd.

>>1870553

Yes those Greek slaves really worked out well for you there.

>>1870553
Yes that was your goal fucking roach. You starved your Armenians until millions died because you were afraid they would side with Russia.

>>1870598
>I mean that without it, you can lose any other right. Basis was the wrong word, guardian or sustaining principle perhaps.

Not necessarily. Again, people managed to defend rights towards religious exercise, freedom of travel, property succession, personal integrity, etc. without structures allowing them freedom of speech. Usually the alternative is some sort of armed recourse, but it does happen.

>There has been a lot of cross-over but today the two are essentially separate even in countries with established churches.

But I would argue that's because of a general decline in religious fervor much more so than any fundamental structural difference between the two.

>But the trend has been fairly inexorable of governments basing their policies on empirical data and public opinion while religion sticks to it's simple "god said it, therefore it's true" stance. To see a government in this day and age acting in such a religious manner proves mirth from the anachronism, which strikes one as absurd.

Not really, no. Governments try to legislate morality all the time, hell, even empirical data is often a support; where the core of a legislative initiative is based on some sort of moral approach.

For instance, lots of governments have heavy taxes on alcohol. Not so much that they need the specific revenue, but because they want to discourage alcohol usage, and making it cost more does that. This in turn will be supported by reams of paper demonstrating the health effects of too much booze. But that in turn is all based around some sort of axiomatic goal about what peoples lives should be like.

We have laws against murder because we axiomatically decided that human life is a good thing.

But we also have lots of much more direct laws about legislating moral lines. Every town I've ever heard of will refuse to zone a strip club near a children's school, because children shouldn't be exposed to sexuality like that, etc.

>>1870610

What white guilt? A T*rd is no more white than a google is. I don't condemn you '''people''' for your crimes, I expect no better from you, I simply view you as a pest to be removed. Not a virulent or pressing pest, something minor but irritating that will have to be '''dealt with''' at some point, inshallah.

File: academia.jpg (102KB, 778x253px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 778x253px

>>1870636
>Again, people managed to defend rights towards religious exercise, freedom of travel, property succession, personal integrity, etc. without structures allowing them freedom of speech

Yes but only by EXERCISING their speech. They weren't prevented from doing so but they absolutely could have been, had the King or Bishop decided not to hear it. And yes in theory free speech ameliorates many of the tensions that can lead to civil war, although ofc it didn't work in America in the 1860's or indeed today.

An institutional structure dedicated to protecting the right to speech, such as SCOTUS, ensures that even the censorious SJW's can't outright ban words they don't like, whereas in Britain the presumed right to speech is curtailed by "hate speech" legislation. There are literally British people in jail right now for calling someone a google or faggot over social media, this is as absurd as laws restricting holocaust denial and it stems from the same source, no unequivocal right to free speech.

>Governments try to legislate morality all the time

Kind of, but even in ultra religious America their legislation is tepid. A GOP candidate may talk about "ending the abortion genocide" but once in office his policies will be shit like "required counselling before abortion" or adding a week to the maximum age of the fetus before termination, he won't just say "okay no more abortion, it is against God". So when he /does/, it's an absurdity, like if a preacher in his pulpit gave a sermon on how important it is to floss.

>For instance, lots of governments have heavy taxes on alcohol. Not so much that they need the specific revenue, but because they want to discourage alcohol usage, and making it cost more does that.

This is different in kind to a prohibition on denying the holocaust. Alcohol does significant social and personal harm, like smoking, it makes sense for an evidence-lead government to try to limit it.

>>1870636
>Murder and zoning

Also examples of government's role in promoting public welfare, not really comparable to holocaust denial which is more akin to a blasphemy law.

>>1870722
>Kind of, but even in ultra religious America their legislation is tepid. A GOP candidate may talk about "ending the abortion genocide" but once in office his policies will be shit like "required counselling before abortion" or adding a week to the maximum age of the fetus before termination, he won't just say "okay no more abortion, it is against God". So when he /does/, it's an absurdity, like if a preacher in his pulpit gave a sermon on how important it is to floss.

In large part because governmental structures are intentionally weak in America, with lots of interlocking veto mechanisms. That's less because an individual candidate really wants something like a week's counseling as opposed to banning abortion outright, but he can't get away with the latter, so takes a slice rather than the whole loaf.

>This is different in kind to a prohibition on denying the holocaust. Alcohol does significant social and personal harm, like smoking, it makes sense for an evidence-lead government to try to limit it.

And how are you defining "social and personal harm" without getting to social mores and axioms as to what is a good person and a good society? You can wind that back to holocaust denial.

>Holocaust denial encourages anti-Semitic activity
>We think anti-Semitic activity is bad
>Therefore, we will ban holocaust denial.

Simple, neat.

>Also examples of government's role in promoting public welfare, not really comparable to holocaust denial which is more akin to a blasphemy law.

And again, that "welfare" is based around holding certain values, not anything immediately objective. This too, is about promoting certain values. You can't really escape it.

And given the existence of things like hate crimes, hate speech, anti-discrimination laws, and public modesty laws, I don't even think most governments are trying to hide it.

>>1870763
>In large part because governmental structures are intentionally weak in America

This is true, and there are indeed examples outside America such as Ireland's total ban on abortions. But this is more religion influencing government than it is the two coming together, or government acting in it's own right, as is the case with holocaust denial laws which afaik no religious head lobbied for or actively supports.

>social mores and axioms
These can't apply to holocaust denial, it's not evil to be wrong and it generally does nobody any harm, either.
>a good society
I can see how you could argue that going around denying the holocaust might stir up public disturbances-- for the most part made up of anti-deniers-- that could be harmful to society, but if we value free speech as we should then part of 'a good society' must be 'free enough to be publicly wrong and offensive'.

>This too, is about promoting certain values

Only in the most abstract of senses, not as core doctrines as in religions or holocaust denial. Government may have a moral 'direction', but it is concerned with the practical and the achievable. Religion and pseudohistory are absolutely grounded and centered on their moral principles, these are the chief focus of their policies, regardless of the possibility or advisability thereof.

>I don't even think most governments are trying to hide it.


I agree but as you said most people don't value free speech like I think they should.

>>1870821


>These can't apply to holocaust denial, it's not evil to be wrong and it generally does nobody any harm, either.

Except that laws against holocaust denial are in every case I"m personally aware of, extensions of laws banning nazi or nazi-like parties, or promotion of things like hate speech or racial prejudice. It's not explicitly denying the holocaust, it's denying the holocaust to rehabilitate nazism, which admittedly often get conflated.

>I can see how you could argue that going around denying the holocaust might stir up public disturbances-- for the most part made up of anti-deniers-- that could be harmful to society, but if we value free speech as we should then part of 'a good society' must be 'free enough to be publicly wrong and offensive'.

But not everyone values free speech.

>Government may have a moral 'direction', but it is concerned with the practical and the achievable.

The war on drugs argues heavily otherwise.

>I agree but as you said most people don't value free speech like I think they should.

But then why are you making a normative argument to describe an action of government or governments? Yes, if you have a government that holds speech and expression to be its highest values, it wouldn't have such laws. That's why, for instance, you don't have holocaust denial laws in places like the U.S. But since many governments are not built along those lines, you see different policies rising to the top. I'm not even sure where you're going with this.

>>1869017
Weak argument. Men get falsely accused of rape all the time and the women face no repercussions.

>>1870836
>extensions of laws banning nazi or nazi-like parties

Which are also absurd. So much for free association! Let the nazis dress up and goosestep around, let them be mocked for the absurdities they are and not criminalised like they're some threat. In the immediate aftermath of the War, yeah sure ban them, but 70+ years later? Literally why.

>But then why are you making a normative argument to describe an action of government or governments?

Because not everyone agrees with me, why else would I need any laws? Why ban murder if everyone agreed not to murder? We ban it because some people don't agree.

>I'm not even sure where you're going with this.

Simply that the US is a better state than Germany, Austria and France and wherever else holocaust denial laws exist. But of course it's just my opinion, what else do I have?

>>1870273
>no reason to conspire together, such as the USSR and Israel
Are you kidding me? You don't see how demonizing Nazis and forcing Germany to pay billions in reparations stood to benefit both the USSR and Israel? And are you forgetting that the USSR helped to found Israel, and they were close allies until 1955?

>>1870512
>the agent of the genocide was the T*rkish government
Which was controlled by the Young Turks, which was dominated by...

...wait for it...


...Donmeh Jews.

>>1870878

I only mentioned those two but of course the USA, Britain, France, Poland, etc etc etc must all be in on the conspiracy. Where they all close allies? And why would the USSR continue to be holocaust realists after their break with Israel, and Israel's realignment with the West? Particularly given the long history of jew-hatred in Russia, exposing the global conspiracy of the Judeo-Capitalists would have given the Soviet regime a boost in popularity and humiliated the West, and yet they never did. Still don't, in fact, despite the constant attempt by America to provoke Putin into a war he would lose.

>>1862391
>everyone knows x happened
>x is unproven

If you know something, then it must be already, previously proved, you cannot "know" something unproven. Then, if she needs to prove the holocaust, then no one really know if it really happened.

>>1870904
>I only mentioned those two but of course the USA, Britain, France, Poland, etc etc etc must all be in on the conspiracy. Where they all close allies?
They were all Allies. Everyone who won the war had something to gain by demonizing the Axis. They all wanted to pin all of the moral blame for the war on Germany forever.

>And why would the USSR continue to be holocaust realists after their break with Israel, and Israel's realignment with the West? Particularly given the long history of jew-hatred in Russia, exposing the global conspiracy of the Judeo-Capitalists would have given the Soviet regime a boost in popularity and humiliated the West, and yet they never did.
The "death camps" were coincidentally all in Polish territory occupied by Soviet troops. The Western Allies only occupied "labour camps." The Eastern Bloc would have had as much moral credibility to lose by exposing the plot as the Western Allies. In fact, to hurt the USSR, the Western Allies did expose the USSR trying to pin the blame for the Katyn Forest Massacre on the Germans. The West would have exposed the rest of the plot during the Cold War, except that Britain and France needed to keep the Germans demonized because those two countries had started the war and wanted to shift as much moral blame to Germany as possible.

>>1870962
>They were all Allies. Everyone who won the war had something to gain by demonizing the Axis. They all wanted to pin all of the moral blame for the war on Germany forever.
>It's literally a global conspiracy

You can't make holocaust look more ridiculous than by simply letting them talk.

>>1871013
>holocaust deniers

FTFM

>>1870962
There is so much wew lad in this post that it's a bit hard to digest. I think the biggest is
>France and the U.K. started WW2

I'd love to hear your reasoning for that.

File: david_irving.jpg (192KB, 1051x1218px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1051x1218px

>be David Irving
>claim that Auschwitz gas chambers are "mock-ups built by the Poles"
>stand in a Munich court room and call upon your audience to "fight a battle for the German people and put an end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told against this country for fifty years"
>Deborah Lipstadt calls you a Holocaust denier
>sue her for libel

Is he "our guy"?

>>1871024
Question: Did Germany declare war on Britain and France, or did Britain and France declare war on Germany?

>>1871062
Question: Did Germany declare war on Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Stares of Ameica, the USSR, and others?

File: wew lad.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>One example brought was his diary entry for 17 September 1994, in which Irving wrote about a ditty he composed for his young daughter "when halfbreed children are wheeled past":

>I am a Baby Aryan
>Not Jewish or Sectarian
>I have no plans to marry an
>Ape or Rastafarian.

>Christopher Hitchens wrote that Irving sang the rhyme to Hitchens' wife, Carol Blue, and daughter, Antonia, in the elevator following drinks in the family's Washington apartment

The absolute madman

>>1871070
The only one of those that is relevant to our line of argument ("Who started the war?") is Poland. The rest are red herrings that I summarily dismiss.

A world war is when many great powers come into conflict. Germany was a great power, but Poland wasn't. Germany's invasion of Poland did not constitute the start of a world war. Now, France and Britain were great powers. Their declaration of war on Germany constitutes the start of the world war. They could have held off and let Germany and Poland sort out their regional conflict, but they decided now was the time to destroy Germany, and they declared war. That was their decision. That was their responsibility. They started the war.

>>1871141
ayyyyyyy

File: Oscar_Wilde_portrait.jpg (735KB, 2190x3291px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 2190x3291px

>>1871035
>be Oscar Wilde
>claim that sex with girls is icky
>stand up in Belvedere salon and call upon your audience to slake their thirst for homoflesh
>some newspaper calls you a faggot
>sue them for libel

Is he "our gay"?

>>1871141
>Germany's invasion of Poland did not constitute the start of a world war.
>France and Britain both promise to declare war if attack Poland
>attack Poland
>France and Britain declare war
>BUT Y U SO MAD IS JUST OF MINOR NATIONS
>WE WUZ GREAT POWER

>>1870866
>and the women face no repercussions.
Because false rape accusations exist, there are personality rights. The violation thereof gives you a legal title enabling you to demand reparations. So, there are repercussions, and because there are, truth is not "able to stand on its own" in this case.

>>1871265
Oscar Wilde lost his libel case, and as a result was arrested because homosexuality was a crime punishable by two years in prison in England.

Daniel Irving, by contrast, sued multiple authors for publishing sections of books that criticized him for falsifying evidence and distorting historical documents. He deliberately avoided suing Lipstadt in America (where he would have been required to prove that her statements were defamatory) and instead sued her in England, where the law required her to prove that her accusations of him being a holocaust denier and bigot were true, hence why the movie in the OP exists.

During the proceedings Irving approached Penguin Books (but not Lipstadt) offering a settlement where he would drop the lawsuit against them in exchange for them destroying all remaining copies of Lipstadt's books and giving him five hundred British Pounds. They rejected his offer, Irving lost his case, and was made liable to pay the entirety of the trial's costs, which bankrupted him.

>>1871627
>Oscar Wilde lost his libel case
>that's the joke

>>1868862
>David Irving is pretty much the only person on earth who can call himself an expert on ww2.

go to bed david

>>1868105
>The Americans who were interested in this debate started arguing with the deniers in the 90s and completely discredited them publicly

You mean like in this gem?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRrP7AevKi4

The rabid defense of the Jewish narrative by what amounts to modern day theologians ('Historians' who are experts in the rhetoric and dialectic of allied propaganda) never ceases to amuse me.

>>1870904
Not only would there need to be a global conspiracy at work, this global conspiracy would also need to last throughout several generations and governments of even the opposite ideology.
If you have a leftist government that partook in the grand conspiracy, and a rightist one comes into power, or vice versa, what's stopping the government from exposing the lies of the previous government to gain a huge popularity boost? Nothing, so holocaust deniers need to widen the conspiracy yet again. It not only becomes a world-wide conspiracy, but also a multi-generational and all-party-encompassing one. Anything that would falsify the claim that there is no Holocaust becomes part of that conspiracy.

See, for example, this guy >>1873564, who basically claims that all modern historians throughout the world, of multiple generations and all sorts of allegiances, are either intentional liars or deluded fools. If you think a bit about the numbers and origins of those historians, you'd quickly realize just how improbable that claim is.

>>1868116
French here
Had the cops come to my house when I was 16 because I posted a Muhammad caricature on a French forum

As I was a minor I only got two week of street cleaning during Christmas holydays, but you can get convicted is you're over 18

>>1874596
>Intentional liars or deluded fools

That is a cynical outlook. I do not think this of priests, though I am sure some fit into those categories. They are intellectual vanguards for the post-WWII order, one fully steeped in holy Jewish victimization and a good/evil paradigm that establishment historians almost universally follow and accept.

As far as your claims of 'conspiracy', vague conceptions of 'left' or 'right' governments are irrelevant. We see more than ever the farcical nature of this 'choice'. It is why one of the most consistent non-partisan issues is the unquestioned defense of the Jewish state and above all the Jewish narrative.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

>>1875058
>As far as your claims of 'conspiracy', vague conceptions of 'left' or 'right' governments are irrelevant.
Do you agree that a succeeding government can have a vastly different ideology and a big interest in discrediting the previous government?

>>1865911
>It was basically an act of intellectual cowardice to get a critic to shut up.

Irving has done time in prison for refusing to shut up. Hardly a "coward", same for Zundel etc.

File: 1305777770096.jpg (10KB, 240x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 240x250px

>>1873564
>The rabid defense of the Jewish narrative by what amounts to modern day theologians

deniers literally either have half truth talking points or just completely make shit up and spout these talking points to clueless plebs to try and win them over to their cult of hitler.

Then whenever they are ever confronted with someone who actually studies history and points out why their points or wrong, they just cover their ears and worm away. They call any source that proves them wrong "omg so biased!" while they take ANYTHING written on neo-nazi blogs as dogmatic fact because it just fuels their confirmation bias.

Deniers actually fucking believe that inmates dying of shit like typhus "doesnt count" and actually think the official narrative is "all 6 million jewish victims died in gas chambers" and then try to hide behind a thin veneer of "I-Im just curious!" to hide the fact that they are vehement psychopathic anti-semites and/or neo-nazis and hitlerboos.

you guys are basically just snake oil sales men trying to shill nazism by getting rid of the whole genocide thing attached to it. My favorite "argument" of all is that "its not that bad!" one, where you just make up some bullshit number of victims.

>It was only 1 million tops
>only about 30,000 jews died, and it was mostly from typhus anyway
>nah, it was like 25,000 and it was all the allies fault to for bombing the """""'supply lines"""""

>>1875071
Of course, in specific ACCEPTED avenues.

The question of the Jewish state and Jewish victimization is NEVER questioned.

Take the US Election this year, again unquestioning loyalty to the Zionist state is the single non-partisan issue.

http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774

Jewish donors make up 50% of cash contributions to Democrats, 25% of Republicans. False choice.

>>1875095
>Deniers actually fucking believe that inmates dying of shit like typhus "doesnt count" and actually think the official narrative is "all 6 million jewish victims died in gas chambers" and then try to hide behind a thin veneer of "I-Im just curious!" to hide the fact that they are vehement psychopathic anti-semites and/or neo-nazis and hitlerboos.

Nice strawman, so enlightened

>>1875086

>make a career out of denying the holocaust
>someone calls you a holocaust denier
>sue them for defamation

Irving is a clown that is only taken seriously by stormfags because hes the closest they have to an authority figure who just confirms their conspiracy theories by expertly picking and choosing historical events to talk about, knowing full well the people he talks to will never fact check him

>>1875121
Yeah his decades as a well renowned historian before coming out and saying the Holocaust was a fabrication were just buildup for him to start lying to encourage hatred of jewish people for absolutely no good reason at all.

Do you have any evidence for anything you've said or are you just writing off decades of Irving's work as being all lies?

File: 50de95fb07d81.image.jpg (142KB, 719x760px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 719x760px

>>1875119

Thats not a strawman, this is something I encounter multiple times in every single /pol/ thread about the holocaust I see.

They always bring up the fact that "its impossible for 6 million people to be gassed!" and then offer some math equation showing that, then I have to fucking explain to them that not every victim of the holocaust was killed in a gas chamber, and it usually takes multiple post for me to drill this into their thick skulls.

same thing for the typhus thing. If someone every post a picture like this, they always say "lol looks like typhus to me, not gas!" as if thats somehow not someone dying. Also going back to my first point.

deniers like to present themselves as "historians" just questioning something, but they are clearly dog whistling nazism and either have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the holocaust or are deliberately lying

>>1875134
>Yeah his decades as a well renowned historian

He was literally never this, at all. Not even close.

Again, the only people who think Irving is of any historical importance are neo-nazis

>>1875121
Kershaw praised Irving as a legitimate historian working outside of the establishment in the 1980s.

>>1875095
Funny, you accuse me of ad hominem and then proceed to label me a psychopath. Countless military men in the past have dismissed casualty numbers as inconsistent and unreliable, even in the modern day we cannot get accurate predictions on casualties in the Syrian War (often the differences are in the hundreds of thousands). The true snake oil salesman are those that hold up these numbers as gospel for the holy Jewish order.

>>1875134

His very first book is a load of crap with obvious false claims (Dresden had more people killed in it than Hamburg, despite that being absurdly improbable, as the latter had more bombs dropped over a longer period on a denser concentration of people!), and was repeatedly contacted by his supposed sources who wanted him to stop misrepresenting what they told him.

He was a joke from first to last.

>>1862569
go back to /pol/

>>1875137
>I won some arguments on /pol/ so the Holocaust narrative CANNOT be questioned

Wow, you sure convinced me.

>>1875134
>Do you have any evidence for anything you've said or are you just writing off decades of Irving's work as being all lies?

The Lipstadt Trial pretty much concluded that he wasn't a serious historian, but a propagandist who occasionally was correct, but only when it suited his needs.

File: 15mirth.jpg (203KB, 478x947px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 478x947px

>>1875137
Oh, you're just retarded.

Nobody has ever claimed nobody died in the camps, the challenge presented by revisionists is the accusations of deliberate mass extermination through gas chambers, steam chambers, pedal powered brain bashing machines, masturbation machines, etc against the Germans.

>They always bring up the fact that "its impossible for 6 million people to be gassed!" and then offer some math equation showing that, then I have to fucking explain to them that not every victim of the holocaust was killed in a gas chamber, and it usually takes multiple post for me to drill this into their thick skulls.

The claim is not that 6 million Jews died in all of occupied Europe, it's that 6 million were killed in death camps. There were plenty of Jewish casualties who were killed in combat or were civilians killed by bombs or starvation without ever entering a camp, do you include that as part of the "Holocaust"?

>same thing for the typhus thing. If someone every post a picture like this, they always say "lol looks like typhus to me, not gas!" as if thats somehow not someone dying. Also going back to my first point.

>waahh people died :( so what difference does it make if they died of disease or mass extermination via nonexistent gas chambers

Why are you even on /his/


>deniers like to present themselves as "historians" just questioning something, but they are clearly dog whistling nazism and either have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the holocaust or are deliberately lying
hurrdurr anyone who doesn't think like I do is retarded or lying


PS if anyone is picking and choosing what they want to present, it's the official holocaust narrative. Look at all the ridiculous shit in the Nuremberg documents (which were used as a pretext to execute dozens of people, including a newspaper editor who drew mean cartoons of jews), or in survivor testimony which have conveniently been excluded from the official narrative NOW.

>>1875144
>Kershaw praised Irving as a legitimate historian working outside of the establishment in the 1980s.

Kershaw called him a maverick. This is hardly praising him as a legit historian. All going back to my point about deniers and their love of half truths

> Countless military men in the past have dismissed casualty numbers as inconsistent and unreliable, even in the modern day we cannot get accurate predictions on casualties in the Syrian War (often the differences are in the hundreds of thousands).

because this clearly isnt you just questioning a number, its you trying to shill nazism because you hate jews for whatever reason. And it clearly is psychopathic behavior to somewhat endorse a genocide like that, or down play it.

If we're being honest, we all know you guys know it happened, you simply either dont give a shit or agree with it. This is all just an attempt to clean up the image of nazism so you can then bring it back

>>1875154

you said deniers never said shit like that and I pointed out that they do, all the time. dont get all pissy and passive aggressive

File: 1461710476023-1.png (91KB, 800x798px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x798px

>>1875157
The Lipstadt trial concluded that eyewitness testimony outweighs physical evidence if you have the wrong opinion.

>>1875168
>The claim is not that 6 million Jews died in all of occupied Europe, it's that 6 million were killed in death camps. There were plenty of Jewish casualties who were killed in combat or were civilians killed by bombs or starvation without ever entering a camp, do you include that as part of the "Holocaust"?


No, the claim is that 6 million Jews were killed as results of deliberate extermination by the Nazi regime. The huge numbers, possibly as high as 2 million, killed by the Einsatzgruppen who were not in camps, are most definitely part of the Holocaust.

Not even him, you daft retard.

>>1875099
You are moving the goalpost. We were talking about the historicity of the Holocaust, not the nature of the Jewish state and the moral status of the Jewish people.
Your "NEVER" is also kinda ironic, considering that in Germany itself the far left and obviously the far right questions the Jewish state, and the far right the moral status ("victimization") of the Jewish people all the time.

You are also missing the fact that this is a world-wide issue. You are basically claiming that there is worldwide, multigenerational "non-questioning" of the historicity of the Holocaust, while the Iranian government is steeped with Holocaust-denial, and the very nature of the historical sciences, which are choke full of arguing about all sorts of specific aspects all the time, because science is about the process, not the result, doesn't lend itself to that view.

>>1875177
My point still stands and nitpicking isn't going to make you right. What about the possibly millions of Jews who were killed because of combat, bombing, starvation, etc and not killed as part of a deliberate extermination campaign? How many fucking Jews do you think were in Europe?

>>1875176
No... no it didn't.

>>1875197

>My point still stands

What point?

>What about the possibly millions of Jews who were killed because of combat, bombing, starvation, etc and not killed as part of a deliberate extermination campaign?

Those are not counted, unless of course such starvation or other privation is deliberate, like what Hans Frank talks about repeatedly as his leader of occupied Poland.

> How many fucking Jews do you think were in Europe?

Well, according to the Nazis own estimates, about 11 million. Modern demography puts it a bit lower, at about 9.6 million.

>>1875191
>We are talking about the historicity of the Holocaust, not the nature of the Jewish state and the moral status of the Jewish people

Those seemingly separate topics are forever deeply linked, whether you accept it or not. An attack on one is an attack on all.

I did not move the goalposts, the anon (don't know if it was you) said that left and right governments in our societies would be bound to question ALL aspects of their respective orthodoxies. I wanted to establish that this is false. The Jewish narrative is not permitted to be questioned in Europe, and it is political (and financial) suicide in North America.

>>1875191
>You are also missing the fact that this is a world-wide issue. You are basically claiming that there is worldwide, multigenerational "non-questioning" of the historicity of the Holocaust, while the Iranian government is steeped with Holocaust-denial, and the very nature of the historical sciences, which are choke full of arguing about all sorts of specific aspects all the time, because science is about the process, not the result, doesn't lend itself to that view.

It is illegal, and where it's not illegal you'll most certainly lose your job, to challenge anything about the official holocaust narrative.

Why? If the evidence is so concrete, why imprison 87 year old women for disagreeing with it?

>>1875168
>Nobody has ever claimed nobody died in the camps

Once again, deniers using bullshit half truths. I never said that, I said deniers think the official narrative is all 6 million victims were gassed, which is true because I see this argument from them all the time and its like pulling teeth to explain to this that this was never the official narrative.


>The claim is not that 6 million Jews died in all of occupied Europe, it's that 6 million were killed in death camps. There were plenty of Jewish casualties who were killed in combat or were civilians killed by bombs or starvation without ever entering a camp, do you include that as part of the "Holocaust"?


You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. 1 million people at least were killed by the Einsatzgrouppen in eastern europe. around 70,000 were killed in Action T4.

Once again, not every single victim was killed by gas chambers in a camp. This is literally a bullshit strawman argument that deniers use.

>>waahh people died :( so what difference does it make if they died of disease or mass extermination via nonexistent gas chambers

yeah, you being edgy and not caring about those peoples lives isnt an argument anon. They still died, and yes, when they are in the camps, its the governments responsibility to care for them, so they are responsible for their deaths, which was obviously intentional.

>hurrdurr anyone who doesn't think like I do is retarded or lying

You see, you post childish meme shit like this and you wonder why no one takes you propagandist seriously. That and the complete lack of knowledge. You guys are basically the creationist of history

>>1875214
>You guys are basically the creationist of history

/thread

Nothing more to see here.

File: 1459402564292-0.jpg (73KB, 263x477px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 263x477px

>>1875209
>9.6 million
>6 million holocausted
>??? killed because of the war via combat, airstrikes, starvation, etc
>half a million flee to Israel
>hundreds of thousands flee to other Allied powers/neutral countries
>hundreds of thousands-millions more still survive in occupied Europe

Numbers seem a little ridiculous there senpai.

>>1875197
>My point still stands and nitpicking isn't going to make you right.

oh how quaint. You say this and are the same type of asshole who uses the "YOU SEE, THIS GUY LIED ABOUT BEING IN THE HOLOCAUST SO IT MEANS IT NEVER HAPPENED!" argument.

I know you have a bunch of images ready to go to lol.

>dude they just all died on accident! Just completely ignore all of Hitlers anti-jewish speeches, the anti-jewish dogma of nazism, the pogroms against jews in the third reich, the eventual rounding them all up into brutal concentration camps, and the eastern european death squads

lol you are clearly making this shit up as you go.

Also, heres Himmler talking about the holocaust himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_cmbi3iIg

>>1875229

You are literally making shit up anon. And making shit up based on your complete lack of knowledge.

>Numbers seem a little ridiculous there senpai.

who cares what you think? You are a holocaust deniers whos making this shit up as you go. And nice cherry picked image after you bitched about cherry picking.

I already know you are going to just shitpost crap like this from your "holohaox" folder because you realize you have no idea what you are talking about in an impotent attempt to save face since you cant articulate an actual argument beyond edgy stromfront memes

File: 1459403078093-1.jpg (394KB, 799x918px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 799x918px

>>1875214
>I said deniers think the official narrative is all 6 million victims were gassed

Which is a strawman.

>You clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. 1 million people at least were killed by the Einsatzgrouppen in eastern europe. around 70,000 were killed in Action T4.

Okay so what about the rest killed by other wartime causes, not deliberately executed for the crime of just happening to be Jewish. We're talking about millions of dead Jews, could the drop in Jewish numbers perhaps be related to a war going on where 100 million people were killed?

>Once again, not every single victim was killed by gas chambers in a camp. This is literally a bullshit strawman argument that deniers use.
No that's a bullshit strawman you're using. You can break down the numbers by camp on those they claim were gassed and it wouldn't make logical sense. Usually when these math problems you're referring to happen they're in relation to a single camp's supposed deaths+supposed ovens, i.e Auschwitz.

>yeah, you being edgy and not caring about those peoples lives isnt an argument anon. They still died, and yes, when they are in the camps, its the governments responsibility to care for them, so they are responsible for their deaths, which was obviously intentional.

waaahhh people died in a war

I'm not being edgy, it's just retarded to equate people dying during WW2 of disease (Germans were too at this point) to massive extermination via steam chambers or masturbation machines or whatever.

>You see, you post childish meme shit like this and you wonder why no one takes you propagandist seriously. That and the complete lack of knowledge. You guys are basically the creationist of history

Every post you've made has been some variant of calling people dumb or accusing everyone who disagrees with you of deliberately lying to hurt Jew feelings for no good reason. Sorry if I'm not taking you seriously senpai.

>>1875229
Why? If there were 9.6 million, and 6 million were killed, that leaves 3.6 million. Half a million to Israel (if that is a real #, I'm just trusting you, though I probably shouldn't), leaving 3.1 million. There are 2.4 million Jews in Europe today, so even if "hundreds of thousands" did flee to other countries, it adds up pretty well.

>>1875176
Lipstadt's lawyers imposed a gag order during her trial with Irving. Was prevented not only from testifying in court but also from speaking to the press.

They knew full well that a single word from this know-nothing's mouth would sink the ship

>Survivors of the Holocaust (the entire Jewish race) are entitled to feelings that are irrational. Their anguish entitles them to a position that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted
>Abraham Foxman

>>1875224
Funny you make that comparison.

Passage from Atzmon:

>The Holocaust contains numerous essential religious elements. It has priests (eg. Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt) and prophets (Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, those who warn of the Iranian Judeocide to come). It has commandements and dogmas (eg. 'Never Again') and rituals (memorial days, pilgrimage to Auschwitz, etc.) It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (eg. kapos, gas chambers, chimneys, dust, shoes, the figure of the Musselmann etc.) It also has a temple, Yad Vashem, and shrines- Holocaust museums- in capital cities worldwide. The Holocaust religion is also maintained by a massive global financial network, what Finkelstein terms the 'Holocaust Industry' as well as such institutions as the Holocaust Education Trust. This new religion is coherent enough to define its 'antichrists' (Holocaust deniers) and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust-denial and hate-speech laws)

>>1875229

>half a million flee to Israel

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html

The 1936 Jewish population of Israel is 384,078, the 1946 population is 543,000. That's not a "half million", and it completely discounts any Jews that came in from places other than Europe, like America or any of the arab countries.

>hundreds of thousands flee to other Allied powers/neutral countries

Such as?


>hundreds of thousands-millions more still survive in occupied Europe

No they don't.

>>1875270
>Lipstadt's lawyers imposed a gag order during her trial with Irving. Was prevented not only from testifying in court but also from speaking to the press
Lawyers advise their clients to do this in pretty much every lawsuit

>>1875270
What's your point faggot? People also capitalize morally on the historical slavery of African-Americans and demand reparations for it, even though it ended 150 years ago.

The fact that people moralize doesn't mean it didn't happen.

>>1875258
>Which is a strawman.

No it isnt, this is what I not only encountered in numerous other thread, but what you just did yourself.

>Okay so what about the rest killed by other wartime causes, not deliberately executed for the crime of just happening to be Jewish. We're talking about millions of dead Jews, could the drop in Jewish numbers perhaps be related to a war going on where 100 million people were killed?

yeah, or maybe because the german government was actively seeking them out to kill them. Now lets think about this anon, if they are rounded up into camps and then executed there, how is this just collateral damage?

inb4 you deliberately misinterpret what I said about not all victims dying in gas chambers to mean literally no one at all ever died in the camps.

>No that's a bullshit strawman you're using. You can break down the numbers by camp on those they claim were gassed and it wouldn't make logical sense. Usually when these math problems you're referring to happen they're in relation to a single camp's supposed deaths+supposed ovens, i.e Auschwitz.

No it isnt. And please stop name dropping strawman as if you know what it is or as if its some "automatic win" for you. Theres also something called "the fallacy fallacy" anon.

>waaahhh people died in a war

>I'm not being edgy

lol. You are deliberately ignoring what I said and just repeating this bullshit argument you just made up on the spot that all the victims were killed by accident, which you of course have literally no proof for.


>Every post you've made has been some variant of calling people dumb or accusing everyone who disagrees with you of deliberately lying to hurt Jew feelings for no good reason. Sorry if I'm not taking you seriously senpai.

Because you are dumb. Im trying to explain why, but you are being thick headed and would rather just worship hitler and hate jews instead. You are continuing to post your cherry picked images from your holohoax folder just like you said

File: 4mirth.jpg (179KB, 490x946px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 490x946px

>>1875236
>oh how quaint. You say this and are the same type of asshole who uses the "YOU SEE, THIS GUY LIED ABOUT BEING IN THE HOLOCAUST SO IT MEANS IT NEVER HAPPENED!" argument.

You made quite a jump from what I was saying there. The entire Holocaust narrative is built on eyewitness testimony. My jpgs are just demonstrations of why eyewitness testimony, especially in a situation where one stands to profit from a good victimization story, is unreliable.

You still didn't address my point. How do you get to the 6 zillion number BEFORE equating in Jews killed via combat, bombings, and starvation outside camps.

>dude they just all died on accident! Just completely ignore all of Hitlers anti-jewish speeches, the anti-jewish dogma of nazism, the pogroms against jews in the third reich, the eventual rounding them all up into brutal concentration camps, and the eastern european death squads

Yeah he just hated Jews for no good reason and Jews did nothing at all to make people dislike them.

>Also, heres Himmler talking about the holocaust himself

Nice meme, I like that the entire "proof" of the holocaust is taken from this clip. No documents though or mentions of gas chambers.

>>1875252
Every single one of your posts can be summed up as:

>UR LYING AND DUMB U FUCKIN NAZI

>And nice cherry picked image after you bitched about cherry picking.

I wasn't complaining about cherry picking. I was complaining about you addressing a minor flaw in the way I wrote my statement and attacking that instead of addressing my point.

I cherry picked this from the Nuremberg Documents. People were murdered based on this "evidence" that even Holocaust promoters don't mention anymore

>I already know you are going to just shitpost crap like this from your "holohaox" folder because you realize you have no idea what you are talking about in an impotent attempt to save face since you cant articulate an actual argument beyond edgy stromfront memes

and more whining NAZI STORMFRONT UR DUM

>>1875286
>What's your point faggot?
Touched a nerve there, eh Schlomo?

Interesting that the Africans have not been awarded their reparations. Jews have received individual penance and then some in the form of substantial aid to their false state.

I guess that is a false equivalence, right Rabbi?

>>1875297
>The entire Holocaust narrative is built on eyewitness testimony.

So, are the train tickets to the AR camps and no consequent tickets out (funny, for a "transit camp") eyewitness testimony? Are the patents for the Prufer crematoria, which combined in Auschwitz could incinerate 4756 bodies a day eyewitness testimony? Is the Jager report eyewitness testimony? Is Jan Markiewicz's investigation of the Auschwitz facilities and discovering evidence of cyanide usage eyewitness testiomony?

>Yeah he just hated Jews for no good reason and Jews did nothing at all to make people dislike them.

Moving the goalpoasts there, anon. Now you're not saying that the Jews all died by accidents out of the Nazi party's hands, but they had it coming.

File: bischoff letter.jpg (120KB, 750x1010px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 750x1010px

>>1875297
>The entire Holocaust narrative is built on eyewitness testimony

No it wasnt. One again, you continue to engage in an actual strawman and present a bullshit official narrative to argue against.


>Nice meme, I like that the entire "proof" of the holocaust is taken from this clip.

Yeah, I only presented you with audio of Himmler talking about it, but thats not enough though, huh? Heres a DOCUMENT talking about GAS CHAMBERS though, now lets see you worm your way out of this one.

>>1875213
>It is illegal, and where it's not illegal you'll most certainly lose your job, to challenge anything about the official holocaust narrative.
>
>Why? If the evidence is so concrete, why imprison 87 year old women for disagreeing with it?
Oh, stop giving me this bleeding-heart story and crying me a river by acting like Haverbeck is a random harmless, nice grandma, that said that one time in a coffee shop.

She is the leader of the rightist extremist revisionist training center "Collegium Humanum" and "Verein zur Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des Holocaust Verfolgten" (VRBHV), which was "accidentally" founded founded on the day of the Reichskristallnacht,
her husband was part of the Nazi leadership (Reichsleitung des Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Studentenbundes (NSDStB) + Reichsleitung der NSDAP).
To get the (short!) sentence that she did, which she only got after repeatedly ignoring warnings until she was eventually fined, upon which she continued and was only then sentenced on probation, which she ignored again and only then was sent to prison, you honestly have to literally deny the Holocaust thousands of times and in prominent positions.

Furthermore, actual scientific research, you know, the thing using scientific methodology, can write about the Holocaust all it wants. German historians writing about the Holocaust disagree and challenge the claims of other historians writing about the Holocaust all the time.

>>1875299
>Touched a nerve there, eh Schlomo?

>I guess that is a false equivalence, right Rabbi?

Reminder that holocaust deniers are simply people questioning something in history and are in now way neo-nazi and anti jewish propagandist!

File: pol.png (175KB, 700x646px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 700x646px

>>1875299
>Schlomo
>Rabbi

Yeah I'm done. No use arguing with this kind of shitposting.

File: 1459402751865-2.png (681KB, 1101x1846px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1101x1846px

>>1875266
And what of Jews killed in normal wartime circumstance?

>>1875291
>yeah, or maybe because the german government was actively seeking them out to kill them. Now lets think about this anon, if they are rounded up into camps and then executed there, how is this just collateral damage?

I'm obviously speaking about collateral damage and combat deaths, which you've chosen to once again lump into the Holocaust numbers. How many Jews were in Leningrad or Stalingrad as fighters or as civilians and died? Those weren't because of your death squad or holocaust claims, so if the number of Jews killed for the crime of being Jewish is 6,000,000, that means there were tons of other Jews killed due to the war. I just don't see how it makes sense since the total number of Jews killed would have to be well over 6,000,000 in that case.

>lol. You are deliberately ignoring what I said and just repeating this bullshit argument you just made up on the spot that all the victims were killed by accident, which you of course have literally no proof for.

I can't prove the strawman you made up on the spot :^) for me. Checkmate I guess.

>Because you are dumb. Im trying to explain why, but you are being thick headed and would rather just worship hitler and hate jews instead. You are continuing to post your cherry picked images from your holohoax folder just like you said

so
>ur dumb
followed by another strawman

Think I'm about to leave this thread because I don't feel like arguing with a child.


Never forget the 500k kikes killed in steam chambers at Treblinka, buried, dug up, cremated while stacked on top of eachother on a giant grill, then reburied as ashes.

>>1875321
>How many Jews were in Leningrad or Stalingrad as fighters or as civilians and died?

NO ONE COUNTS THEM AS HOLOCAUST VICTIMS IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

Holy shit its like talking to a brick wall.

And saying "strawman" over and over again isnt an argument anon.

>Never forget the 500k kikes

totally just questioning history guys and in now way are you a nazi propagandist at all!

File: auschwitz release form.jpg (18KB, 500x319px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x319px

>>1875307
>Are the patents for the Prufer crematoria, which combined in Auschwitz could incinerate 4756 bodies a day eyewitness testimony?
>patents
lol, there's a patent out there for a water-powered car too

The rest I don't quite feel like arguing about because you've chosen to throw out 5 different things and I cba if you cba to put effort in.

I'd ask though, why would a death camp like auschwitz...release prisoners for health or good behavior reasons? We have the physical evidence for that.


>Moving the goalpoasts there, anon. Now you're not saying that the Jews all died by accidents out of the Nazi party's hands, but they had it coming.

You;d appear more credible if you didn't have to strawman me in every single post.

>>1875309
>she has different opinions than me so belongs in jail

liberal tolerance, everyone

>>1875326
>NO ONE COUNTS THEM AS HOLOCAUST VICTIMS IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

That's my point you illiterate fucking retard. That's been my point the whole time. You're claiming 6 million just for being Jews PLUS countless others killed due to the War itself, I'm saying the numbers of dead Jews you're claiming is ridiculous.

>totally just questioning history guys and in now way are you a nazi propagandist at all!

WAAAHHH WAYCIST!!111!!!

I'm just a paid propagandist who has done no research into anything at all, you caught me.

>>1875321

http://prorev.com/wannsee.htm

heres the Wannsee Conference anon. I know youre not going to read it, so let me tl;dr it for you.

>11 million jews in europe circa 1942
>goes into detail as to what counts as a jew based on the reichs criteria
>these jews are going to be rounded up into ghettos
these ghettos will act as holding stations
>from here, the people in there will be shipped to concentration camps for forced labor as needed.

This means every jew was accounted for by the german government, and also placed under their care. So no, you meme that you just made up about it all being collateral damage has literally no backing to it.

Even before then, when the Einsatzgrouppen was in eastern europe, they would go through town rosters, find out all the jews, and then kill them. The worst one being the Babi Yar Massacre.

The nazi government was rounding up jewish people and then killing them.


>b-but those people in camps died of starvation and sickness! its not the nazis fault! :(

Phillip Bouhler of the SS was in charge of a program called Action 14f13 (after his success in Action T4 which killed off mentally retarded and crippled people) This whole program was to go around to the camps, give medical evaulations on the inmates, and if they were too ill to continue working, they would simply be killed off so the government wouldnt have to waste what tiny amount of money they were spending on them still since it was late in the war and they needed all the money they could save.

Yes, I know more than this than you do.

>>1875346
>That's my point you illiterate fucking retard. That's been my point the whole time. You're claiming 6 million just for being Jews PLUS countless others killed due to the War itself, I'm saying the numbers of dead Jews you're claiming is ridiculous.

this is an incoherent none point that makes literally no sense. You are going so off the tracks now

>WAAAHHH WAYCIST!!111!!!


yeah because it shows you have a serious confirmation bias and that you are in fact just a neo-nazi shill and not just someone questioning history

also, you asked for a document or a mention of gas chambers and I provided you with a document mentioning gas chambers which you conveniently ignored

>>1875308

>>1875333
>I'd ask though, why would a death camp like auschwitz...release prisoners for health or good behavior reasons? We have the physical evidence for that.
because it was not solely a death camp
and people like this were not the primary victims of the camp and the holocaust
but rather for example forced labor serving short term sentences
in fact this kristian guy is supposed to report to the labor office for a new assignment

>>1875338
Dude, she, among other things, literally said things like:

>„Bereiten Sie sich auf den Tag der Wahrheit vor. Er ist nahe und nicht mehr aufzuhalten“
("Prepare yourselve for the Day of Truth. It is near and cannot be stopped.")

Combine that with her saying:
>„Machen Sie so weiter wie bisher, dann könnte sich ein neues Pogrom ereignen, das entsetzlich würde.“
("Keep proceeding like you are, then there could be a new pogrom that would be horrifying.")

She said that to the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. That's the sort of innocent grandma you're talking about: Someone threatening other people with violent pogroms.

>>1875333

>patents

Yes Patents. Why would they need mass cremation facilities if they weren't expecting mass numbers of bodies? I would remind you that at that rate, they could go through the entire Auschwitz population in about 14 days. Were they really expecting the entirety of the camp population to be gone in 2 weeks?


>I'd ask though, why would a death camp like auschwitz...release prisoners for health or good behavior reasons? We have the physical evidence for that.


Because Auschwitz was a complex of over 50 separate camps, and only one of them, Birkenau, was the "death camp for Jews". You had plenty of less repressed folks there too, like PoWs from all over, political dissidents, people who refused to fight, etc.

>You;d appear more credible if you didn't have to strawman me in every single post.

Using your own statements isn't a strawman.

>>1875297
>Yeah he just hated Jews for no good reason and Jews did nothing at all to make people dislike them.


>>1875197
>millions of Jews who were killed because of combat, bombing, starvation, etc and not killed as part of a deliberate extermination campaign?


The latter denies nazi involvement, and the former claims that it was justified. You can't have it both ways.

>>1875350
>This means every jew was accounted for by the german government, and also placed under their care. So no, you meme that you just made up about it all being collateral damage has literally no backing to it.

Strawmanning again. I didn't claim that, I said it doesn't make sense to claim 6 million Jews killed by deliberate execution for the sake of being Jewish IN ADDITION TO collateral damage.

>The nazi government was rounding up jewish people
ok
>and then killing them.
prove it with physical evidence. Quite a jump from forced labor which the conference you cited claims

>Phillip Bouhler of the SS was in charge of a program called Action 14f13 (after his success in Action T4 which killed off mentally retarded and crippled people) This whole program was to go around to the camps, give medical evaulations on the inmates, and if they were too ill to continue working, they would simply be killed off so the government wouldnt have to waste what tiny amount of money they were spending on them still since it was late in the war and they needed all the money they could save.

Yeah and mengele personally tortured every child while listening to Mozart.

>>1875357
>yeah because it shows you have a serious confirmation bias and that you are in fact just a neo-nazi shill and not just someone questioning history

Ever consider I got to this "nazi" position by questioning history?

>also, you asked for a document or a mention of gas chambers and I provided you with a document mentioning gas chambers which you conveniently ignored

uncited jpg in German, very helpful

I'm done with this bullshit desu. Your entire argumentative strategy is to strawman, personally insult, and throw out 10 claims at once knowing I'm not going to bother to argue every single one with some retard.

ttylbby

File: Its-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-that-they-have-been-fooled..jpg (266KB, 850x535px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 850x535px

>>1875368
>Yeah and mengele personally tortured every child while listening to Mozart.

So I provided an actual example of how they were killing people and then you blow it off with an ironic straw man(while of course bitching about strawmen)?

Not an arugment

>Ever consider I got to this "nazi" position by questioning history?

You got the nazi postilion because you received some shitty public school education, then got into conspiracy theories and believed them without question. And now that you have people telling you exactly why you are wrong about them, you are stubbornly doubling down on them

>uncited jpg in German, very helpful

the name of the file is literally "Bischoff Letter"

I provided you with literally EXACTLY what you asked for and you still worm out of it. And you asked for evidence of of the nazi government killing them and I provided you with that and in the same sentence you write it all off with some edgy joke.

Thanks for proving to everyone what childish and dumb memers you deniers are.

>I'm done with this bullshit desu.

thats right, run away with your tail between your legs spouting your buzzwords after you asinine claim was proven to be utter dogshit, like the edgy worm you are

>>1875368
>uncited jpg in German, very helpful

well what else would a letter from germans be in lol

>>1875368
>uncited jpg in German, very helpful
Not him, but he gave the source in the filename (the bischoff letter) and the important bit is underlined.

The central sentences says: "Die iron concrete ceiling of the corpse cellar hasn't been able to be caved out yet due to the effect of frost. It is irrelevant, though, because the gassing cellar could be used for that."

It also talks about ventilation engineers not being able to deliver a ventilation installation.

>I'm done with this bullshit desu.
Tail in his hands, there he runs the moment he can't face the evidence.

>>1870866

You're a stupid person that thinks he's a smart person.

>>1875415
>"Die iron
The iron*

Also note that the word "Vergasung" (gassing) in "Vergasungskeller" (gassing cellar) is only used in conjunction with gassing humans. It wouldn't be used in the context of lice or clothes.

>>1875310
>>1875311
Yes, don't address any of my points. I don't actually think you are Jewish, that would be giving you too much credit. You are proud boot lickers.

File: jew count richard.jpg (59KB, 533x290px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 533x290px

hmm...

>>1868105
>Post from 2 days ago
Fucking hell slow boards are shit.

Could anybody give me direction about these debates anon alluded to here?