/his/ - History

Do some research and some math. The cubic footage of an average human being is ~20 cubic feet. Let's imagine digging a hole the size of a football field (360 feet x 160 feet) and really deep. Let's say 20 feet deep. That would give us a hole that is about 1,000,000 cubic feet in size. Put humans in there. One million divided by 20 equals 50,000 humans. OK, so we dug out that gigantic hole and managed to fill it with just 50,000 humans. Where are we putting all the dirt we took out of the hole? Some will go back in to cover the bodies, most of the dirt will have to be spread around to hide it. And imagine, there are still another 5,950,000 humans still to bury. That is another 119 football field sized holes to dig.

Don't even bother trying to burn them in ovens. The fuel costs alone to burn 6 million humans would require more fuel than Germany used in the entire war to fuel its tanks, planes, and ships.

>>19152

>The ashes of a single human body would fit into a shoebox. Think how many shoeboxes would fit into a single large truck. Since ashes are non-toxic substance, they can be dumped anywhere, like fields and bodies of water (such as the marshland and river near Auschwitz).

Assumption.

>

Why would you assume it would take much fuel to burn bodies? According to Henryk Tauber, straw and wood were frequently used, and fat bodies would burn on their own. Another Sonderkommando, Filip Mueller, recalled that bodies were sorted for combustibility to help preserve their coke supply. Once one body was burning, the heat would spread to the others that were being destroyed.

I see that the only source off food you have is McDonalds and don't know how to cook. Humans body is ~70% water, and putting more bodies in the oven isn't going to speed up the procces but slow it down. I takes 6 hours for a body to burn in a crematorium and 5 hours of it don't include an indian ritual.

>As far as Jews go, there weren't even six million who died in the camps, nor were all of them burned. That number includes the million or so who were killed by the Einsatzgruppen outside the camps (who were buried in mass graves).

What mass graves?

I thought Nazis all hated and wanted rid of Jews, why are they so desperate to look like they didn't kill a bunch of them.

>it's ok to despise and want them dead but actually killing them will make us look bad!

>>19196

I would not provide entertainment for those I would like dead, but maybe be entertained by those who I'm killing.

>>19196

>only a nazi would doubt the official holocaust narrative

>who cares what the truth is? you want to know what the pyramids were intended for? cool. you want to know if the holocaust happened or happened like it is officially described? nazi!

>>19257

evil goy*

>>20314

The part with the image about the concentration camps is pretty consistent even though I wouldn't conclude that propaganda proves that they were primarily used to gas people.

>A fucking plate is not proving anything!

Well, who fucking knew? I mean they could have put up a plate stating "Hitler sucked of six million niggers here!" plates aren't hard evidence even when the fucking numbers change.

>people don't face trial for holocaust denial rhymes pretty good

In a lot of countries holocaust denial, or even critizing certain aspects of it is considered hate speech. A lot of people have been judged on the very premise of "the holocaust happend, because it happend, therefore your "evidence" is worthless". Even the laywers that defend thier case are fined for it. A notable example would be Sylvia Stolz who was imprisoned for one year and eight months for "Volksverhetzung" german equivalent of hate speech

>Nürnberger Trials

Even though it has little to do with the entire picture I just have to say it was a fucking kangaroo court, using it as "solid evidence" is risky

>There is no evidence because Nazis wanted no one to know and destroyed everything

Baseless thesis that results in a circleargument:"What proves that the Nazis gassed six million? The fact that they destoryed all evidence of it! But what proves that the evidence has been destroyed? It was destroyed because it happend and there is no evidence, thus the evidence must have been destoryed!" repeat ad infinium

>the other documents provide a grand picture

entirley subjectiv argument. "The way I see the grand picture the holocaust is undeniable!"

I won't adress the Richard Krege part one by one because it is kind of one big ad hominem. It starts by saying that he's an "unknown" engineer thus creating doubt in his credibility". Afterwards it argues that he wasn't really there because he would have been driven of the property intersting, why would you guard a mass grave so heavily that no one be there half an hour unseen? and wouldn't have had the time to do the tests. Insisting on peer to peer review is stupid since peer to peer review has lost it's credebility as a sign legitimacy since it became "Hey if you put your name on my paper I'll put mine on yours!". That he didn't respond is quite a legit concern though. The part with Iran is funny. It demonizes it even though iran is one of the few countrys were such a conference is even possible since you would be fucking jailed in other countries. The new scan is intersting though, can a scan properly detect layers of ash? I heard of that before and last time I checked it, they found a few burial sides underground but not nearly 800.000 bodies. If it can properly detect ash this would disprove Krege completly and make the rest of the paragraph, that seems to be there only to discredit him, useless. Especially the last part, why do people always get aggresive or defensive when they argue about the holocaust, unless the argument isn't "LOOK AT THIS PLATE IT PROVES ANYTHING!" or "THE DIRTY JEWS MADE IT ALL UP, WHY? BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMAN RATS!" I see no reason to resort to ad hominems or ridiculing the other side. "let's hope Airservices Australia reconsiders Krege's employment before he crashes a plane" top kek

As for the newspaper articles >>17941 sums it up

The whole debunking image has some intersting parts but I really can't take it seriously. It's heavily biased and picked the most Fox News trash tier denial clickbait picutres and refutes them by stating mostly unpersistent conclusions that are often based on a circleargumentation. Overall it's bait, it could have properly statet it's point but I guess that's not the purpose of a picture that someone saved as "usethisimagetotriggerpol". Oh and since this is a fucking long text I really don't give a shit about misspellings.

>>14988

The majority of Jews in Israel have voted saying that they want the equivalent of an apartheid regime with the Palestinian community being the equivalent of blacks, it's disgusting

>>15093

Ehh, it is a crime to deny it by it's pretty loose now, we'll just have to wait until the centenary of WW2 for real investigation to begin

>>16776

>Nazis weren't racist, Nazis didn't hate Jews

He said that the Jews praised him because he didn't want the fucking Jews running around screaming "he's going to kill us", he wanted them to come nicely to their holiday camps.

The British and the Americans also had black people fighting for them, it doesn't mean they weren't fucking racist. Also my propaganda.

>Nazi meant National Socialist Party

Nazi was derived from an English term, it meant "idiot" I believe.

>The Nazis were proud and left wing

Hitler joined the National Socialist Party as a means to get power, when he was in a position of power he allowed people to join who had the same ideals as him and soon removed the original members of the National Socialist Party. Also, having a Socialist front meant the Nazis could get the workers vote.

Also that poster was used so that people could see what big bad America was going to do to them if they lost the war.

>He chose the Swastika because he's perfect

He chose the Swastika because it was a symbol for peace, which doesn't mean he himself wanted peace, don't be so naive.

>>20687

>Nazi was derived from an English term, it meant "idiot" I believe.

Anything to back that up?

Nazi as a shortform of Nationalsozialist makes much more sense, especially if you actually speak german. Nazi is basically the same sound as in [Nati]onal. Same way you could call socialists (Sozialisten) in german "Sozi"s.

>>20684

Still absolutely no excuse to have such a law in "free" societies in the first place.

>>20690

here you go anon, should remember to sauce more often http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Nazi

and yeah, I agree, I guess they didn't want Anti-Semitizm to become the norm

>>20687

>he choose the swastika because it was a symbol of peace

I think to remember that the swastika was supposed to be connected to some acient aryan stuff.

>>20684

>we'll just have to wait until the centenary of WW2 for real investigation to begin

I honestly doubt that we'll get an unbiased review of WW2 in our lifetime. This of course depends on how long our current order will last and what will replace it since most of our current systems claim thier legitimacy in

>"THE NAZIS WERE THE ULTIMATE EVIL, THE GOOD GUYS WON!"

And that is just as stupid as to stay that they were the "good guys" or that there were any "good guys" at all

>>20795

your image is all fucked up. Tibetan should be Hindu

>>20863

You know, I actually thought that as well, don't blame me though, I didn't make the image

>>16410

is this satire?

>>17660

>>17662

of course all the holocaust deniers just ignore these posts

>>14749

>Implying pretty much everyone on the board isn't from /pol/

>>22131

It doesn't seem to be a majority at all, really.

>>17667

People saying the nazis were right for doing it don't deny it. People saying the nazis didn't do it, like them for other reasons.

Lol, fag.

>>20687

The Nazis WERE left wing. Rightwing would be tories or anti New Deal people.

>Nazi was derived from an English term, it meant "idiot" I believe.

Go suck dick some more.

>>18432

>>and get rid of the jews

>Source?

It's a reference to Nixon saying that he wants to get rid of jews from office. There's audio recordings of it.

>That's a bunch of crap. Nothing would be stopping one from keeping a low profile after the war and writing about their experiences until after things cooled down

Even after 70 or so years, jews are still having 90 year old men arrested for being part in the party. It will never cool down until all of them are dead. The only choice you have is to come out and deny it which will result with the rest of your life in prison or you agree with the whole story and keep your life.

>>20682

…is there such a thing as jewish baby-boomers?

It sound so wrong on so many levels.

>>22195

well theres such a thing as jewish kiddie fiddlers

>>22161

>Nazis WERE left wing

dictatorial leadership is about as far right wing as you can get…

>b-b-b-but my Russia

implying that Russia was, at any point, a left-wing society

>Go suck dick some more.

-coughs-

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Nazi

>>22227

Maybe you should actually read that link yourself.

Nowhere does it state that it was derived from an english term, nor was "idiot" (although it's not a simple translation as that) the only usage of it.

>>22232

dreadfully sorry, I posted the link quite the while back, got it a tad bit wrong but same difference

>>20692

>>22241

And I was the anon that asked you for source that day.

Don't forget it again this time. Wouldn't want to correct you a third time :^)

>>14747

I don't deny the holocaust ever happened but I deny the numbers as what this anon stated >>22199

Additionally, aren't the Soviet the one who put the plaques? Didn't the Bolsheviks regime consisted of jews and Lenin has Jewish ancestry?

>>22272

haha,I will try not to, anon

>>22374

Yeah, Lenin did have Jewish ancestry but he didn't make it public, hatred towards Jews was much too real in Russia

>>22374

If I remember right, Marx said that communism would happen in the top industrialized nation, Britain, and by a revolt of the proletariat, aka the less educated mass of workers. But the complete contrary happened, Russia was taken over and not by the proletariat but by a small elitist clique of jews (for the big part, like 70-80% they were jews..) that thought many times that they,d be slaughtered soon for what the mess they had done.

>>22380

Bolsheviks weren't 70-80% Jews, the majority were not Jews, that's one reason why everyone hated and didn't trust Trotsky. Trotsky also did not want to be leader of the Bolsheviks because he knew that people would hate him for being Jewish

>>22392

That's why I said small elitist clique of jews and not the bolsheviks because we all know they are not all equal in influence, power, charisma etc, and only the ones that really wants the dick will really fight for it. Trotsky as the head of the Red Army did kill lots of naive russians that truely believed in the revolution. All in all, plenty of russians fools everywhere but a handful of elitist jews that gathered at the command posts.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/putin-perpetuates-antisemitic-lie-of-first-soviet-mostly-jewish/2013/06/20/?print

Citation:

“I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said on June 13, during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

The last thing I'll ever do is to trust those stinking antidefamation websites over the Russians themselves. THEY are the ones that lost control of Russia for almost 8 decades and saw the royal family shot and their religion whiped out.

>>22426

Ah, I see what you mean but you took Trotsky's killings a little bit out of context. So I'm guessing the "naive russians" you spoke about included the Kronstadt Sailors? They attempted to make their own communist state but were crushed, but it was more that they did not understand why the Bolsheviks were ruling by terror. The Bolsheviks ruled by terror because Karl Marx claimed that every revolution has to be solidified through a reign of terror. Long story short, the Bolsheviks were not trying to be dictators, they were just following the rules put aside by Marx. Easy mistake to make though, anon.

Also, the "small elitist clique of jews" wouldn't have joined the Bolsheviks before the October Revolution as it wasn't the biggest party so it's highly unlikely they'd join them as not many people actually knew who the Bolsheviks were, outside of cities. Due to Jews in Russia being mainly peasants, it's more likely that they would have joined the Social Revolutionaries for power.

I'm not sure that it's right believing Putin over a pro-Zionist website, I'm pretty sure both are incredibly untrustworthy sources.

>>22429

The Bolsheviks, like it or not for them, ended up being dictators.

They were, simply put, following a scientific method of governance called Communism, so it is way worst than a typical dictatorship: this time it is done with the illusion of having the Truth on their side (a non-divine Truth) and, compared with the past, less people believed in this new social order than in the old traditionnal method based on a divine order, except the liberal elites and professions.

I can possibly buy the fact that Marx did not it to happen this way, something I heard many times, but to say that they did everything according to the plan is way worst than saying, like Marx, that : ''If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist".

Taking this info from an anti-zionist jew that lived in Israel, I'll say that the Jews in eastern europe really wanted communism, hated the Russian monarchy and hated the christian orthodox church, something totally natural in a sense to my eyes, considering their unique vision of the world as the chosen people by God.

As for the dilemna of chosing Putin over a pro-zionist website, I'll go with Russia since this problem concerned them for almost 80 years and they suffered a lot from it, it would be insulting not to at least keep an ear open for their version of this story.

>>22450

-erase (at the 3rd line) compared with the past.

>>22450

Russia was just was not ready for communism, you have to wonder what would have happened if the Government had survived to a point where Russia became a developed state. It's sad really, but Lenin and other brash Bolsheviks should beheld accountable to the millions of lives lost due to their "revolution".

Yeah, they followed the plan but the plan was meant for a developed country, not for Russia; it was never going to work.

It's understandable that the Jews wanted Communism, considering their social prejudice. It is also understandable that they hated the Church; who is the anti-zionist Jew, anon, a friend? I bet it's interesting seeing his point of view.

Oh I'm not saying "ignore what the Russians are saying", I'm just saying you may want to look for a third-party, perhaps look at reactions to what Putin had said? See what the Russian population had said about it?

>>22457

I'm totally with you about the fact that Russia was not ready for communism, but I'll add that I think that no nation was ready for communism -or capitalism or liberalism. For me it's the two side of the same coin, a atheist and materialist view of the existence that's so arrogant that it see itself as a civilizational role-model to be followed and imposed by proselytism worldwide.

As for science as a method of governance, I think that, while it may achieve undeniable material gains, it fails terribly on the intellectual level and spiritually, as if doing the two at the same time is impossible to do at all, which is not surprising to me.

Google or search youtube for Gilad Atzmon (the professionnal jazzman). He's not a personnal friend but I like what he say, he's what the jews would call a self-hating jew..

I think the Russian people is massively behind Putin; look at our occidental elites, they blow, they all are traitors or incompetents in the best cases.

>>15023

>>14977

Kanako, and then Ayase, were easily the best two girls of the series, followed by Kuroneko. I don't know what either of you two were on…

Still sort of confused. From comparing evidence in this thread, it still seems like the holocaust did happen. But there do appear to be some problems in terms of false stories (i.e. soap) and logistical impossibilities. Gassing and ovens do seem pretty impractical for a nation trying to win a war on two fronts.

>>22545

The 25-30 millions of russians killed by industrial warfare is the real holocaust, except that it is a religious term used by the jews, so a genocide may be more appropriate. Also how many chinese died to the modernized japaneses?

It's a good thing that those 2 nations are not huge crybabies like the jews right? We'd be swimming in 10 times the censorship and eternal debts to pay to those chosen nations by god if it was the case… or maybe they just do not have any strings to pull on us.

>>22567

Oh I'm not going to deny that plenty of Jews (specifically Zionists), will scream MUH 6 MILLION for cheap sympathy and an excuse for their bullshit. Ever read the Holocaust Industry by Norman Finklestein? Great read on that subject.

But we're not arguing over whether modern kikes will use tragedy for a cheap get-out-of-jail-free card. We're arguing about whether the holocaust happened or not.

Is this thread going to be stormfag containment general?

>>22374

Lenin's mother MAY be jewish. She came from a place where jews lived, and no further information was found on it, if she had jewish ancestry, she wasn't religious. Lenin wasn't religious either, he was a revolutionnary mainly inspired by his brother.

The bolchevik regime had a lot of jews even before Stalin came into power, but Stalin didn't like political judaism. During his purges, he killed many of those jews.

Also, on the numbers, custom ovens and gas chambers were built as you can see here >>19152 . Germans were good at industrialisation.

>>22380

Trotsky was a bourgeois jew, Lenin wasn't. Jews in Europe and Russia had been traditionally discriminated against (couldn't own land), it seems obvious that they were more likely to believe in a "classless world where everyone would be equal" type of ideology.

>>24897

Yep, Trotsky also didn't want the power Lenin had because he knew people would hate having a Jew in power

>>24863

Most of the stormfags left after their points (which is to say inforgraphs, not actual reseach) was refuted.

That said, I still hope zionists will stop spewing obvious bullshit like soap and lampshades.

>>24897

Trotsky have complicated history about his jewish Identity. When he was a teenager, he was still jew and even joined some Zionist groups in Russia. But the time Russian revolution happened, he was an Atheist.

let's see what dr william pierce has to say

>Dr William Pierce Katyn forest in 1940

>>25238

Neat vid but nothing there to dispute any aspect of the holocaust, also is there any evidence at all that backs up his claims of the kattyn graves?

>>24863

Maybe if you learn to sage

>>25271

this documentary is what got me onto the train of not buying the holocaust story, it is primarily about treblinka, sobibor, and belzec. i don't ever accept anything as pure truth if it hasn't passed through my own sensory perception, but I'm pretty convinced after this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dxsVSzL4HE

if anyone has seen this or is familiar with the points made and has counterpoints i'm interested too.

>>26425

Too many assumptions and half-truths.

>>25271

>Children and babies were hurled against the walls

Why is this highlighted? Anyway it reminds me of Psalm 137.

>O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

>Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

>>17662

> FUCKING AMERICUNTS

debunked an Australian, an Italian, and a Canadian. YA FUCK AMERICA. :^D

I don't understand /his/ if this board is about real history, then why the fuck do you tards believe the holohax happened?

>>14807

Bro David Cole blew gas chambers out of the water

>>14830

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't fred leuchter design and build some gas chambers?

Once you actually build things it becomes pretty easy to spot faults

>>14934

The laughter

I can't contain it

Jews shoot out so many babies that there are apparently only around 14 million worldwide now. Why did the jews of 1940s who were nonstop having babies to counter the -6 million stop having babies

It'd be nice to look at jewish population from 1920s to 1940s to see if their baby making skills are really as good as you say they are. I do see where you're coming from, and genuinely want to see those numbers but everything is filled with holocaust shit when I try to Google jew pop

>>14934

>>1948

>>number of Jews in the world

>>15,600,000 to 18,700,000

>taken from an almanac that didn't manage to estimate the death toll of the war yet

http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/worldalmanac.html

>Only in 1949 are postwar estimates employed, the figures given are for estimates made in 1948. A year or two lag seems to be common for various other population estimates given by the World Almanac.

>>28552

You may find this funny but there are people who deny the existence and use of nuclear weapons.

>>15844

Hitler had absolutely no knowledge of anything bad happening to jews. Historians will tell you that. Hitler was trying to save his people and then the jews declared war on him. Don't try to make a truth of what really happened you imbecile

>>28608

Are you seriously quoting shit from a site whose headline says

>Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died

at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

It's cool if I quote anons from /pol/ as a source right?

>the jews were set to destroy germany. Hitler was a savior of the world. The jews have misled everyone. Nizkor is a lying site

It looks like your site lies according to my source you retarded monkey

>Nazis actually believed that the Jews are an irredemably evil race, the creators of communism and capitalism, the puppetmasters behind all of Germany's enemies, and the greatest threat to the Aryan race

>they never tried to kill them though

>>28617

Muh bolsheviks is a good sign of what powerful jews do when they gain true power

>>28615

And? Why ad hominem, when presented with facts that destroy your argument?

Instead, focus on pointing out, why the data presented is outright lies.

>>28614

>Hitler was trying to save his people and then the jews declared war on him.

Ironically, war on Jewry is already in Gottfried Feder's manifesto from 1919.

Hitler's way of saving people included getting rid of Jews. Therefore, it is him, and not the Jewry, who declared war (in a metaphorical sense).

>>28620

I didn't read it after I saw it claiming 12 million jews died

Would you like to read my source on why Obama is a bad president from "I hate niggers so much I'm seeing colors"?

>>28622

>I didn't read it after I saw it claiming 12 million jews died

wow that's exceptional reading comprehension you got there

the site gives estimates 4.5-5.5 million

12 million refers to the 12 million European Jewish population that suffered (alongside pretty much everyone else in Europe) during the war

nice out-of-context citation btw

>>28618

I hate when people say this.

>Muh Bolshevik war-crimes

The Bolsheviks were following Karl Marx's rules to achieve Communism, one of which is a period of terror to consolidate their power. The Red Terror left thousands dead but it was seen as necessary, also the figures take into account deaths from the Civil War where the Reds attempted to arm the populace, whilst the numerous White armies often alienated the peasant population.

>Muh Lenin

Lenin may have came from Jewish ancestry, it is unsure, but he denied his ancestry because he did not practise Judaism and didn't identify as a Jew in any way.

>Muh Trotsky

Trotsky was a Jew, yes, but after Lenin's death he was advised to perform a coup with the Red Army but didn't because he knew that other countries would use "Russia has a Jewish leader" as an excuse to create anti-Communist propaganda.

>Muh Zinoviev and Kaminev

They both originally voted against the October Revolution and they despised Trotsky for labelling them cowards. They were fucked in the power struggle, they were shot soon after Stalin came into power/

>Muh Stalin

He wasn't even Jewish.

>Muh NKVD leaders

All three may have been Jewish and they did not survive the purges, their successors did not have a good chance of living either.

To be honest, you're disabled.

>>17662

>>17660

Thank you so much for this shit, best info graph i have seen in a while

How much of a resource drain was the committing of the holocaust itself?

I'm sure that there were lots of patriotic German jews who would have liked to prove their loyalty in the war, and it seems as though the SS units would have been much better used in combat. From a completely pragmatic perspective was the material cost of running the camps high?

>>28677

Well a lot of the camps were labour camps that were using forced labour, so I'd say the camp costs would have been nothing compared to the income generated by the camps. Also, loyal German Jews were originally used as a policing force in the ghettos, perhaps they did the same jobs in the camps?

>>28680

Surely the input was greater than the output. Plus I'm sure German citizens in the camps would have been more productive in the general workforce.

>>22116

I wouldn't if you didn't stuff walls of text and multiple points into a single messy infograph. That is one of the big things you don't do in making an infograph, it's just one big messy TL;DR that takes too long to make sense of what your point is..

>>28681

in my opinion the output would be greater than the input, but I'd need proof because this is just our assumptions

>>28617

Thats the thing. Sadly Adolf Hitler was not harsh on the eternal enemy of mankind, the jew. He let the jews leave Germany which resulted in them spreading their anti-German propaganda around the world, even in India.

The jewish holocaust is obviously a massive lie, part for the course of the jewish agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cwjbcm1h18

>>14996

>claims TWELVE million Jews die

POLACK GOES FULL RETARD

This thread reeks of pseudohistory, i can't believe it's still up on /his/

>>18938

>Where are we putting all the dirt we took out of the hole?

lol, are you retarded? Has nobody in your near family died? Have you never visited a graveyard and spotted a new grave?

I believe that few million Jews were killed here and there but I don't understand why Jews are some special snowflake shit for this. 13 million Russians died at the same time and that's only civilians. That's the big bullshit when people talk about many genocides. Same with Armenian too. Way more other people died at the same time frame by invading forces but those were "official" invasions so deaths are completely expected and are okay to be forgotten.

>>18212

The pic is just a cumunungus cloud tbh. :^)

Actually I like this getting widespread. It will make more people realize how retarded nuclear fear mongering is. Or maybe it'll backfire.

I just want Fallout with my NukaCola tbh. We need to discuss more alternate histories.

>>28641

I don't know why both the Zionists and the Nazis emphasize Trotsky's Jewishness. I remember reading that these commies with Jewish origins pretty much hated the idea of Jewish identity, religion, or anything related to Judaism. Rosa Luxemburg, for example, was against the idea of nationalism. She pretty much was even more extreme ('ultra-left') than Lenin and Stalin. Dunno why the latter two are often vilified, while she, the more insane one, is often held in high regards.

>>29296

Pretty much every warcrime from that era is conviniently glossed over in favour of the holocaust. Be it holodomor, nanking, the japanese death cruisers, what the nazis did to the russians, what the russians did to germans, what russians did to other russians, the rhine meadow camps or the fact that burgers collected japanese body parts. The average pleb knows shit all about history but you can be sure they know about the six million lampshades and soaps. It's a damn shame if you ask me, especially since the whole "genocides, never again!" message does seemingly not aply to any currently happening genocide.

>>29347

>muh strong independet wymon who need no country!

I'm on the fence about this. What does /his/ say with regards to the points made by pastor Anderson in this video?

Things like the number of people cremated was literally impossible given the number of crematoriums at Auschwitz and the number being gassed, or that most of the mass graves at Treblinka were never found.

I've been looking at this site as well http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact/cremation3.html ; it says victims were cremated in open air pits when crematoriums were inoperable. But open air pits are much less efficient than crematoriums, there would have been much more evidence of remains as other shave stated in this thread.

I am not a Nazi but as others have pointed out there's lots of inconsistencies within the official story and lots of things don't make sense.

>>29863

Just have a look in the thread, many people give their opinions.

>>29953

>>29863

>believing this idiot

>>29954

He also hates fags and is a King James onlyist if I remember right. The guy might be an idiot, but that's what makes him entertaining.

>>29955

>"'Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies" Leviticus 19:27

It's true, parts of the Bible aren't said because they're not popular but why the fuck does a guy who preaches that gay people should all be killed cut his hair? He's fucking retarded because he himself is leaving parts of the Bible out because he doesn't agree with them.

Obvious closet homosexual.

>muh 1.5 gorrilion

wake up sheeple the western media and the super rich Armenians just wont stop spreading the lie

>>30030

kek

>>30858

>>30859

Oh shit mang is dat some 1/3 of the holocaust?

Fucking loved that video I watched it all the way through and it really opened my eyes.

I believe the holocaust happened, but I never understood why professional historians act so childish towards holocaust revisionism. Most historians agree that historical research means to question everything, never take something at face value and that everything is at least to some extent biased by the worldview of its author. There even is a school of thought in historiography that states that objective knowledge of the past is unattainable. But whenever the holocaust gets mentioned the official story is always 100% true and utterly unquestionable.

This is particulary bad for two reasons:

1. Applying a taboo in historical research always undermines the historical accuracy of said research. Even if every story told by holocaust revisonists is a lie, refusing to apply scepsis on the holocaust means that there is a reasonable chance urban legends surrounding the holocaust won't get debunked. Also, some numbers could easiliy become overestimated if researching the possibility that the holocaust was bigger than previously believed is acceptible, whilst researching the opposite is not.

2. Refusing to take holocaust revisionism seriously means refusing to debate holocaust revisionism, which I believe could actually benefit present-day National-Socialism. When sombody starts believing the holocaust didn't happen he usually becomes more attracted to National-Socialism, not only because it means that the most undesireable part of the Nazis didn't happen in his mind but also because he now most likely believes the holocaust is a huge conspiracy involving the Jews. When historians refuse to debate the arguments made by holocaust revisionists, holocaust revisionist lose the only professional opposition to their views and naturally more people will get persuaded by them.

>>32078

It's because there is already extensive research that questions various interpretations of the Holocaust. The functionalist versus intentionalist school is one of the largest debates in the modern historical profession. Literally nobody is claiming that the "official story" (whatever that is) is 100% true and accurate. They're just not making the bullshit claims the denialists do. This doesn't undermine the accuracy of the research: pretty much every claim that has been made in this thread has been conclusively debunked. It just stops people making outlandish claims about the Holocaust, pretending that they're "disinterested, dispassionate researchers" when they're Neo-Nazis, and wasting everybody's time.

Current stances on debating revisionism vary amongst historians. You'll find there's a group of people dedicated to debunking revisionism, of which the Nizkor project is part. But as you've seen, the denialists dismiss Nizkor out of hand. Literally for no reason - a guy up the thread dismissed it because he misread the header on the website and refused to read anymore. There's ample anti-revisionist literature out there, revisionists literally just stick their head in the sand to deny it.

>>32079

>pretty much every claim that has been made in this thread has been conclusively debunked

No, they haven't.

>the denialists dismiss Nizkor out of hand

Nizkor is an unreliable source and has been wrecked by denialists before. It quotes Goebbels' diary out of context to prove that Nazis were ebul.

Also

>only (neo)nazis are denialists

Kek

>>32079

Of course, if historians already conclusively debunked all revisionist theories ignoring them won't harm historical credibilty, but even without holocaust deniers in the picture a taboo can arise, like >>14768 said about Hayden White, who took the postmodernist view that positive knowledge about the past is unattainable, but refused to apply the same views on the holocaust.

And when it comes to the denialists, in my experience historians don't even attemt to debunk revisionist theories in the first place. Nizkor appears to be made entirely by this Ken McVay, who, as far as I know, is a layman. And it seems like most debunking is done by laymen Michael Shermer is the only professional historian I know of who made an attempt at debunking holocaust revisionists.. When confronted with holocaust denial historians usually point out that there is a mountain of evidence proving the holocaust happened. My problem with this view is that historians are the ones in the position to actually present that mountain of evidence and if no one is actually prepared to do so the mountain becomes invisible at best and non-existant at worst.

>>32173

Sorry, I restructured my post to make a more coherent story and must've fucked up the interpunction at some point.

>And it seems like most debunking is done by laymen Michael Shermer is the only professional historian I know of who made an attempt at debunking holocaust revisionists..

should, of course, be:

And it seems like most debunking is done by laymen. Michael Shermer is the only professional historian I know of who made an attempt at debunking holocaust revisionists.

This is bait.

>>17660

>>15118

glad to see not all /pol/acks are drooling retards from 'murrica

>>32255

the rest are in poland

I just stumbled across this .pdf and thought it was worth leaving here:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350019.files/Shermer-how-we-know-holocaust.pdf

I typically stay away from "freethinking" or "skeptical" writers (and in fact I didn't realize who wrote it when I came across it), but Shermer did a good job with this excerpt.

>>32255

I'm actually a 'Murrican, but that doesn't give me carte blanche to reinterpret Yuropoor history in a way incongruous with the historical facts.

>>32500

This is an incomplete debunking and I'm a little too bored to continue it, but here's a paste bin of it:

http://pastebin.com/p2A4MXTM

There's a gap at Kremer, because I continued on and decided to get to that later. But I've spent too much time on it.

Here's a link debunking the book he coauthored, probably better argued than mine:

http://codoh.com/library/document/1756/

>>20914

Unless you're Indiana Jones you don't know.

>>16411

german here,

im 19 and I was told the soap and lampshade story first and later on we ernt through holocaust education again and we had to watch a film about how they made soap from jewflesh and painted pictures on their skin.

Sogar unsere devotesten SJWs hatten es schwer den Scheiß zu glauben…

>>16415

I accept this notion as well.

Antijew Propaganda was quiet dehumanising so it seems just fitting that they did not want to waste ressources in order to feed their jewish prisoners later on but got rid of them instead.

>>30858

>>30859

These vids are really good. Concise explanations about how some logistics of the holocaust simply wouldn't work. Though I will definitely have to read a but more to see if the original sources about the 4-person oven and the elevator aren't just mistakes on behalf of the authors.

>>32564

Looking at one these links in the pastebin

http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/hoess.htm

This has some shaky sources. Some link newspaper articles from 25 or even 70 years ago that you can't really access.

It also cites other denial sites which is a bit suspicious, but I did a bit more digging and I found this

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=974

The guy uses the following sources

11.R. Hoess, p. 179.

12.R. Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn, (London, 1983), p.237. Also:

R. Faurisson, "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Hoess." The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 7(4) (1986) pp.389-403.

Can't really find much for the first two with a search (the second is a book but it's only referenced on other denial sites and in one shady looking bookstore), but the third one links to another site. It is still a denial site, but I thought I would look anyways.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html

I admit the IHR at least tries to be professional and does provide sources, but all of them seem to be of books, not all of which are readily available (meaning vital context is missing for those facts, if they are indeed there).

Long story short, better/more objective/more readily available sources needed.

>>32601

My biggest gripe with the holocaust other than stuff like soap and lampshades is that it tends to overshadow every other genocide (especially 20th century ones) in history classes. You can teach it, but ignoring every other human tragedy in favor of it pisses me off.

>>32564

I just skimmed it and I'm not even going to bother with it anymore.

>Historians argue about the holocaust all the time, but these guys who argue against it happening are different (for some reason/because I say so).

The difference is that historians aren't debating the historicity of the Holocaust, they're debating how it happened. They're not debating the "if" after conclusive evidence has been put forward, they're debating the "how."

>Yes, it has shrunk. It used be electric chairs, electric floors, masturbation machines, holocoasters, gas-ovens, diesel engines, etc. Of course, it's shrunk because those are all false.

Prove that stories about things like masturbation machines and holocoasters were taken seriously by the historical establishment in the first place as real phenomena. These are in the same category as tales of mass-produced human soap and Nazi lampshades, which Holocaust historians freely admit to be urban legends. The estimated toll of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust never "shrunk" because the four million number of Soviet propaganda was considered doubtful by Western historians in the first place.

>Gas chambers are false too.

Based on post hoc rationalizations for contrary evidence (the German witnesses were almost invariably forced to admit to crimes they never committed by the Allies, even though there's no case for this when it comes to witnesses like Hans Muench or Oskar Groening) and Fred Leuchter's bogus study (which was falsified by The Institute for Forensic Research)?

>no documents detailing the extermination, only "codewords".

You mean like Himmler's use of the word "ausrottung," which unequivocally means extermination? How about the Wannsee Protocols:

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

What's the rationalization for the Jaeger Report listing the executions of thousands of women and children? Were they all just partisans, conveniently? How about Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939 where he prophesies "die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa"? He also made very similar statements in January 30 and November 8 in 1942.

How about this Goebbels diary entry from March 27, 1942:

"The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government, beginning near Lublin, to the East. A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out this action, is doing it pretty prudently and with a procedure that doesn't work too conspicuously. The Jews are being punished barbarically, to be sure, but they have fully deserved it. The prophesy that the Fuhrer issued to them on the way, for the eventuality that they started a new world war, is beginning to realise itself in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities to rule in these matters. If we did not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would annihilate us. It is a struggle for life and death between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution, which is demanded by the way things are and thus appears to be unavoidable. Thank God during the war we have a whole lot of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here. Jewry has nothing to laugh about…"

Thought I may add this in

https://archive.is/Sf8ig

Not a denier, but this shit drives me up the wall. Limiting discussion is not the answer.

I don't really see why we need to argue so much whether the holocaust happened or not. Why does /pol/ hold it as one of the most important things they should "redpill" people about?

Whether 60 trillion jews died or not, it doesn't mean anything today. There are more important issues to discuss.

>>33050

> it doesn't mean anything today

It actually means way too much today. It shouldn't mean anything today, but that's not the reality we're living in.

>>32650

Those in power pushing for draconian free speech laws don't seem to realize that they're just giving the negationists more ammunition. Not just for the Holocaust, but for other genocides, too:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/cambodia-passes-law-making-denial-of-khmer-rouge-genocide-illegal-8649701.html

>>33050

The Holocaust is hugely important in that it's used as an ideological tool for the subversion of the West and Jewish self-aggrandizement. The problem is that /pol/ goes full retard by buying into complete nonsense rather than taking the sensible Norman Finkelstein route (i.e., the Holocaust definitely happened but it's doesn't work as a blank check to pay for the misdeeds of Jews today).

>>33198

this

Also a question for /pol/acks, why do you want Jews to leave your country when you hate it even more when they join Israel?

>>33198

>believe something false or else you're retarded

The story as it is is utterly untenable.

>>32649

>I just skimmed it and I'm not even going to bother with it anymore.

So I'm not going to bother with you, who have already made up your mind on the topic as you so credulously believe Shermer's pathetic article.

I mentioned the word that's "damming" in that Goebbel's quote. But here have a video.

>>32636

Thanks for the glance over.

>>33210

>So I'm not going to bother with you, who have already made up your mind on the topic as you so credulously believe Shermer's pathetic article.

I looked at some of your objections and they weren't valid in the slightest. Why waste my time when the rest of your critique is likely on that same level? Does "credulous" to you mean anyone who isn't willing to take your crankish narrative seriously?

>I mentioned the word that's "damming" in that Goebbel's quote.

Are you talking about playing word games with straightforward German words like "Ausrottung" or "Vernichtung" to make them contradict the meanings available in any German dictionary? If you're going to assert that certain words used to mean something else but changed meaning after World War II, then you'd better be prepared to prove it.

>>33213

>Though I didn't know there were other genocides that were illegal to deny. Any others aside from that one?

Cyprus passed a law banning Armenian Genocide denial:

http://www.ibtimes.com/armenian-genocide-denial-law-cyprus-expected-increase-tensions-turkey-1867718

Switzerland, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, have banned genocide denial in general, and the Holocaust denial laws of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Lithuania also cover Marxist atrocities. I think as far as Europe goes, Holocaust denial seems to be considered a much bigger deal, though. That's probably because the Chosen People™ comprised such a significant percentage of the victims.

>>33237

>if my dictionary says something, therefore it's automatically true

>Usage? what's that?

>Words change over time? That's, that's, that's absurd

Dictionaries can fail in capturing the essence of a word I know because I love words and there usages aren't used completely in a denotative way.

>words like "Ausrottung" or "Vernichtung"

Isn't it the believers' job to prove that those are what they mean in those contexts?

http://pastebin.com/2s4G9DKP

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-17-46.asp

cntrl+f "Not in a single speech in that sense"

>>33213

Anon, that's a little difficult to do without spending some time in it. The things that got me to start thinking the Holocaust wasn't what it is purported to be is a few videos that are no longer on youtube. But if you want to watch something that shows the subterfuge of these people, then watch the Treblinka Archaeology Hoax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5_1tGHbIXI

>>14747

>>>/pol/

>>33244

Very high quality post.

Good job telling an OP to take it to a different board in a 10 month old thread after the board owner himself explicitly allowed the thread, fucktard.

>>33248

There certainly is name calling to a certain amount but it does not hinder the discussion significantly, try looking at the denial thread on halfchan /his/, if it's still there, it was just utterly terrible, the whole thread consisted of strawman arguments, namecalling and those terrible fucking paint pictures.

>>14747

What's the point of denying it. Will you deny holodomor to whiteknight communism too?

I mean, it's better if all those jews died, no? Khokhol population have miraculously doubled too, despite Stalin's tried in genociding them.

It's just fucking miracles, ain't gonna explain it.

Most people who died from German hands were Poles, but Jews get all the fame. Why.

>>14747

I thought this was a history board, not /pol/ having an insane burden of proof against things they don't agree with thread?

>>34365

I hate when /pol/acks screenshot and repost shit from /pol/ and just hope nobody can be bothered to follow the links.

For example, the Red Cross created that list as an estimation to how many were killed, once the dust settled and hundreds of thousands were not coming home and the Russians revealed the extent of the death camps in the East could an official estimation be created. The Red Cross have addressed this issue and corrected the statement.

And I hate this "wooden gas chamber door" meme, during the end of the war the Final Solution was slowing down so guards replaced the doors with easier to open wooden doors that opened from the inside. Also, after the war doors were replaced for convenience of investigators and later tourists.

Zyklon B burns depends on the length of exposure, also bodies can be seen to have wounds that show soreness or weeping which could be from the gassing. Also, cameras and other equipment were in black and white, meaning the pictures taken meant that if a person was tinted red from the gas, it would be difficult to show in the photography.

The "Holocaust survivors testifying" thing is just a minority of thousands of survivors of the holocaust, most likely wanting to get away from the crowd and know that they'll get a shedload of money bagging an interview. Also, the guy says that it is illegal to question it but that law is barely enforced anymore, otherwise revisionist Historians and the Holocaust deniers he posts about would be in jail right now.

sage because why the hell would I want /pol/ seeing this thread on the front page, the fact that someone went out of their way to find a thread about the Holocaust just to post mindless shit about how stupid they think someone is is a bit pathetic.

I'm honestly so confused what to think on this subject. /pol/ raises a lot of interesting inconsistencies and odd cover ups but at the same time I know theres a bias there so of course they will push their "Holohax" narrative hard. If anyone could please tell me what the prevailing PRO-Holocaust existence evidence is so I can compare? I don't want to go around believing that the holocaust was at least mostly a lie without both sides.

>>34539

tl;dr cry baby /pol/ bitch denies the holocaust and thinks he's a martyr fighting the system

>>34540

>piles of bodies (doesn't prove they were murdered, just that they died)

Makes sense that the Nazis didn't film themselves killing Jews to be honest. Pretty sure that they're guilty of mass-murder anyway for criminal negligence and the placing of undesirables in camps, even if the gassing of Jews is a myth.

>I have gone out of my way to talk to people about the Holocaust–normal people, that is, on chatrooms, in real life, etc.

Autism alert.

>

That is because, unfortunately, the Holocaust is a religion. It has replaced Christianity to become the religion of the liberal West.

Topkek.

>They need to believe that Western culture is evil, that they are guilty, for only if they have this can they be detestable negro-worshiping gay degenerates.

What even.

What I do not understand is how holocaust-deniers just brush off the disappearance of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people, as if it never happened. These people did die and the camps did exist; whether these were concentration camps or extermination camps is a debate for revisionist historians but you can not deny the WHOLE holocaust, it's crazy.

>>34549

>Makes sense that the Nazis didn't film themselves killing Jews to be honest.

But an autopsy report, document, or anything that would attest to this killing would help, of course.

>What I do not understand is how holocaust-deniers just brush off the disappearance of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people, as if it never happened. These people did die and the camps did exist; whether these were concentration camps or extermination camps is a debate for revisionist historians but you can not deny the WHOLE holocaust, it's crazy.

No-one is doing that.

You clearly haven't read any revisionist literature. I am debating they were concentration camps.

Did you even read my post?

>>34557

>But an autopsy report, document, or anything that would attest to this killing would help, of course.

Okay, put yourself into the shoes of people working in the concentration camps: "The Ruskies are coming, oh shit, what should I do? Should I destroy all of this incriminating evidence against me and my superior officers, as well as the Kaiser? Yes, that seems like a great plan". While this would not account for the wholesale missing of documents, I am pretty sure documentation does exist which recognises the Holocaust but please correct me otherwise as I am not incredibly vested in Holocaust

>I am debating they were concentration camps.

Could you explain to me what you believe these camps were, in my opinion the camps were concentration camps that housed undesirables, such as Jews and Poles, and prisoners of war. These also doubled as slave-labour to help produce for the war effort, I am unsure about gas chambers though as accounts of "gas-chambers" came from the same people who spoke about "lamps-made-of-human-skin" and "piles-of-hundreds-of-thousands-of-glasses". I do not really understand how else you can interpret this, especially due to the Anti-Jewish attitude that Germany had for years under Kaiser II's Social Darwinism and Weltpolitik, the Weimar Republic's war against the Sparticists and Hitler's general Anti-Judaism and Lebensraum ideology.

>Did you even read my post?

Yeah man, I'm not that bigoted, I just find that you're being a tad bit over the top, especially in the third paragraph in your second post. Also, you did not actually say what your argument was, only that you "couldn't be silenced" and all the "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" attitude that is popular with tin-foil hat NEET types. You even said, and I quote word for word, "National Socialists did not decide to kill the Jews and that this is simply a lie told by the Jews themselves who have something to gain from it" so what was I supposed to think, you believed that the holocaust happened to some extent? Because with this statement there is piratically no other conclusion I could draw from this than that you deny the holocaust completely.

>>34558

There are no documents.

Camps served many functions, primarily: they interned prisoners, both political, partisan, and POW, and they served as staging areas for the populations to be transferred to Palestine.

>>34559

There was no way that Hitler was planning on deporting Jews to Palestein, he was even allied with multiple Arab states in the Middle East who would never allow for such a thing to happen. Also, where is the documentation for these deportation camps and why were the camps in such abysmal conditions and the death rate so high in the camps? Why were the SS guarding the camps, elite and knowingly anti-Semitic troops when it would have been much easier to use police to guard the camps and allow the civil service to run them and organise the deportation of the Jews? Also, why were the camps such a secret if they were for supposedly good intentions?

>>34560

>There was no way that Hitler was planning on deporting Jews to Palestein

Believe it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

>why were the camps in such abysmal conditions and the death rate so high in the camps?

You can blame your buddies Churchill and Stalin for that. In fact, conditions in the camps were quite exemplary until the end of the war. They were very hygienic, with several precautions being taken in order to ensure cleanliness for everyone. There were hospitals, delousings, cremations, and more. The death rate only became high when the camps were flooded with people fleeing from the east and not enough supplies being able to cover for everyone–excellent conditions for disease and starvation to spread. Which is what happened. Can you prove to me that the piles of bodies are not those who perished from hunger and disease as a result of these conditions?

Yes, at that point in time conditions were abysmal. Germany was accepting aid from worldwide Jewish groups in order to manage the camps when things were at their worst. It would have been great if there was no war at all so that nobody had to suffer–but you can thank Churchill for that!

>Why were the SS guarding the camps, elite and knowingly anti-Semitic troops when it would have been much easier to use police to guard the camps and allow the civil service to run them and organise the deportation of the Jews?

I don't have an answer for that.

>Also, why were the camps such a secret if they were for supposedly good intentions?

They weren't a secret, that's begging the question. You are using the idea that thing you are trying to prove was happening (exterminations) because there is no sufficient reason to explain why it was hidden, but you didn't prove that it happened in the first place. The red cross examined the camps, American intelligence knew what was happening, the people associated with Farben knew what was happening, and I'm sure many others.

>>34561

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

What this shows to me is that, at best, Nazi Germany attempted to rid itself of Jews through deportation but, when war broke out, they could not handle the task of deporting the Jews and, instead, killed them or allowed their deaths. At worst it just shows propaganda by the Nazis to get Jews to go on trains to concentration camps.

By the way, when I use the term "concentration camps" I use it in the literal "people are concentrated into camps" kind of way, not the "MUH SIX MILLION" way.

>In fact, conditions in the camps were quite exemplary until the end of the war.

Neither you or I know this and are believing secondary evidence, unless you have evidence for this?

>They were very hygienic, with several precautions being taken in order to ensure cleanliness for everyone. There were hospitals, delousings, cremations, and more.

All of the areas that you listed as being made to protect Jews are hotly debated to harm Jews in different ways. For example, even if you believe that crematoriums would used only for cremation, you have to take into factor that the Jews actually strongly oppose cremation as it involves the destruction of the body, something that harbours the soul in Judaism. Also I have to bring up the issue of why the Germans would waste so many resources keeping Jews alive in these camps when it would have been much easier to allow the Jews to stay in Germany and Poland and contribute to the war effort. Concentrating them in small confinements with no where to go until after the war finished just seems idiotic; even when the war was being lost, why were people not moved along if the German army cared so much for them?

>Can you prove to me that the piles of bodies are not those who perished from hunger and disease as a result of these conditions?

No, this is what I believe, however I do believe that this was deliberate and due to the people in the camps being used as a labour force.

>It would have been great if there was no war at all so that nobody had to suffer–but you can thank Churchill for that!

The German invasion of Czechoslovakia was needlessly aggressive and Germany's growing power in central Europe was obviously a threat to the super-powers of the time. I hate Churchill as much as the next guy but Germany was breaking the Treaty of Versailles and were overly aggressive and expansionist.

>I don't have an answer for that.

The Germans would have known how to organise these camps as the British had similar problems concerning concentration camps during the Boer War.

>The red cross examined the camps, American intelligence knew what was happening, the people associated with Farben knew what was happening, and I'm sure many others

The Red Cross was micro-managed by Germany, they weren't allowed to visit places freely and most likely did not know about actual concentration camps, instead seeing "fake" camps that were in good condition. And what I'm saying is why didn't the Nazis make such a big and amazing gesture public? Why did they not tell the world about how they were saving the Jews and about how amazing these camps were that housed the Jews, ready for their new life in Palestine? Why did he ally with Arab leaders who were angry at Jews coming over to Palestine when he was going to anger them even more when he had plans to deport millions of them on Arab shores?

>but you didn't prove that it happened in the first place.

You can't really prove that anything had happened, due to the variables involved, but concerning the evidence it is likely that it did happen, however, in my opinion, not the gas chamber part of the equation.

This seems like the best place to ask; was the Holocaust really about just getting rid of races that the Nazi's didn't like, or was it more about getting rid of business owners owners at the time?

Let me clarify, as I understand it, Jews made up 50% of business owners in Germany before the Holocaust, and they also made up 50% of it's victims. I also know that Hitler borrowed money from many business owners to get Germany out it's post-WW1 economic depression, so my theory is that he was more focused on exterminating people he owed money to, rather than making Germany racially pure, and the whole "Jews are an evil race!" thing was just a way of using the widespread antisemitism of the German people at the time to justify it.

I'm not an expert on this subject by any means, and I have no real evidence to back up my conjecture, so I apologize if this post is mind-numbingly retarded.

>>35318

I'd argue that Hitler was one of the (relatively) few high-positioned Nazis that genuinely believed in the entire Aryan superiority dogma. Although the Jews were not the only ones to be slaughtered during the Holocaust (with others being political enemies [esp. Commies], members of the clergy, homosexuals, and so forth), I think Hitler genuinely believed that the Jews were the root cause for behind the existence of the other groups he didn't like.

To counter your theory: Firstly, even though Hitler did have strong monetary supporters in the German industrial/business sector; many of which hoped he'd save their asses from the communists; I would find it surprising (though admittedly not impossible) if the rich Jewish upper class would have sponsored Hitler while the latter was actively trying for them to be removed from Germany (the part about extermination only came around later on).

Secondly: Assuming Hitler simply wanted to get rid of the wealthy German jews (which would not have been the first time something like that happened, ask the Spanish monarchs), while would he have taken the considerable logistic effort to also get all the Jews in Poland, Eastern Europe, etc., etc.?

Of course he would have to hide his financial relations behind a wall of anti-semitism, but as far as the Jews outside of Germany (or say, the Jews outside of Europes industrialized countries) were concerned, he simply could have come up with an explanation how they weren't dangerous enough to be worth the worry at the moment (of course not without the promise to do a little bit of genocide on them later on). For all he cared, he could have let the Eastern-European Jews flee to the Soviet Union, because the Bolsheviks already were evil incarnate to him anyway.

In conclusion: I'd say Hitler was a true believer in the madness he sputtered. The Holocaust was one example of this, but there are plenty of others (his bullheadedness regarding Stalingrad would come to mind).

>>35324

>In conclusion: I'd say Hitler was a true believer in the madness he sputtered.

Yeah, just read Mein Kampf

>>34548

Found the cuckchan poster

>>34603

People are just going to let this slide because "muh 60000000 :((("

>>34603

>Explain why the Vatican, the US Department of State, British & American intelligence, IG Farben and IG Farben's connections, and others, all either denied or had no knowledge of exterminations.

>British & American intelligence

Do you have some source for that? That's quite interesting, if true.