Thread 17967876

Holocaust denial laws undermine the credibility of the Holocaust, such that a parsimonious interpretation of the facts is correct. Holocaust revisionism, like reducing Asuchwitz's official 4million number to 1.3million or whatever further erodes the historical credibility of the Holocaust. This means that things like "it's all fabricated!" become a viable counterargument to even the largest library of texts and images.

You must show how each text and image *couldn't* have been doctored/fabricated, and that the *only* possible interpretation of these texts/images you can validate as *definitely* not being fabricated/doctored is that 6million (tolerance: 100 thousand) Jews were killed *specifically* for being Jewish and for no other reason. If you can't meet this goalpost, the Holocaust is itself regarded as a fabrication.

This particularly parsimonious interpretation of the facts doesn't carry over to most other historical events because those events do not require you to believe in them by pain of incarceration.

Will Holobunga believers rise to the burden of proof they now hold or will they tacitly concede the point?

>>17967876 (OP)
Note on some rules governing this thread:

If you just post a text/image, "it's fabricated!" is a valid rebuttal. With your post of the text/image, you must also post compelling evidence that it's definitely real. Once a piece of text/image is evaluated as "fabricated" once due to lack of supporting evidence for its validity, it will not be considered a second time.

We will use a three strike rule: once three pieces of fabricated Holocaust "evidence" are presented, the debate closes and the Holocaust is considered fabricated outright. Post *carefully*.

>>17967884
Follow-up rule: arguing with the OP's premise is a hard strike against the validity of the Holocaust just like posting fabricated (unconfirmed) "evidence" of it. Don't argue with the premise. The premise of the thread is correct. Meet your burden of proof or shut up.

If the thread expires before compelling evidence that could not have been fabricated that 6 million Jews were murdered specifically for being Jews and for no other reason is posted, the topic of the Holocaust resolves to "fabricated" now and forever.

>>17967876 (OP)
>muh 6 gorilion
I don't care and I'm still not gonna be Nazi.

>>17967876 (OP)
>Holocaust Denial Laws Undermine The Historical Credibility Of The Holocaust
If you're retarded, maybe.

>>17967929
>Follow-up rule: arguing with the OP's premise is a hard strike against the validity of the Holocaust just like posting fabricated (unconfirmed) "evidence" of it. Don't argue with the premise. The premise of the thread is correct. Meet your burden of proof or shut up.

STEEEEEEEEEERIKE ONE

>>17967876 (OP)

Now show the ret-coned signed that has 1.5 "million" rather than 4......LOL! Only off by a factor of 3, or so. LOL!

LIES, LIES, LIES!!!

No bodies. No bones. No nothing.

>>17967876 (OP)
I think this argument fails because Holocaust denial laws do not prevent good faith academic research into the holocaust, even if it goes against the mainstream narrative.

The real issue is that antisemitic Americans see Holocaust denial laws, and being unfamiliar with the fact that laws restricting speech that offends religious groups are very common outside of the US they assume this is some unique protection that only exists for Jews. No other country in the world has as extensive free speech laws, or views free speech as integral to its culture as the United States. In the Netherlands for instance you can be sent to prison for speech that is intentionally offensive to a religious group. Literally just calling Mohammed "the pedophile prophet" or calling Jesus "a dead kike on a stick" would be enough to face years behind bars. Holocaust denial laws are not at all out of the ordinary within that context, especially when you consider that 75% of Dutch Jews were killed in the Holocaust, so denial of that is almost certainly done to intentionally insult Jews.

>>17967876 (OP)
>This particularly parsimonious interpretation of the facts doesn't carry over to most other historical events because those events do not require you to believe in them by pain of incarceration.
In Armenia it is illegal to deny the Armenian genocide, but in Turkey it is illegal to say that there was one. Does the existence of those conflicting laws mean that the Armenian genocide both happened and didn't happen at the same time?

>>17967930
why should I care about your rules when you call the holocaust the "holobunga"? You are clearly arguing in bad faith.

>>17968211
>I think this argument fails because Holocaust denial laws do not prevent good faith academic research into the holocaust

Yes they do lol

>>17968215
It certainly makes both sides more dubious than they otherwise would have been, yes. These kinds of laws muddy the waters and make discerning fact from fiction, historically speaking, more difficult.

>>17968216
>why should I care about logic if you make fun of me

>>17968211
>calling Jesus "a dead kike on a stick" would be enough to face years behind bars

Can you cite even a single example of a Jew/Muslim getting incarcerated for years for denigrating Jesus? Or even an example of someone getting put to trial for it? No? Looks like these laws are pretty one-sided, shlomo.

>>17968247
can you actually back up this argument?

>>17968261
Holocaust denial laws literally forbids one from arriving at the conclusion that the Holocaust didn't happen? Hello?

>>17968211
>Follow-up rule: arguing with the OP's premise is a hard strike against the validity of the Holocaust just like posting fabricated (unconfirmed) "evidence" of it. Don't argue with the premise. The premise of the thread is correct. Meet your burden of proof or shut up.

STEEEEEEEEERIKE TWO

>>17968261
This is common knowledge?

>>17968267
no this is a misconception, the laws have carveouts for academic questioning of the conventional narrative of the holocaust. Outright denial requires such a complete and unjustifiable disregarding of valid sources that it can only be done in bad faith, and therefore is non-academic. But if someone were to say they think the holocaust death toll is inflated because x, y, and z evidence, or the holocaust was something that was not planned by Hitler in advance or even done with his knowledge because of x, y, and z evidence. These things would not run afoul of holocaust denial laws. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, yet you complain about it from a place of ignorance.

>>17968273
That is your source? Puh-thetic.

>>17968280
>>17968285

So far I'm not seeing any evidence being presented and everybody just arguing with the premise of the thread that they don't need to really provide any. The next post will be an attempt at providing evidence and demonstrating that it couldn't be fabricated, or the third strike will be issued at anybody arguing with the premise.

>>17968286
>comes to a history forum
>provides no (or worthless) source
>post soijack memes when others call him a retard
Any arguments made without authority to back them up are quite worthless and should be dismissed out of hand. You should have learned that on the very first day in your history undergrad.

>>17968291
>Any arguments made without authority to back them up are quite worthless and should be dismissed out of hand

Oh, so you mean like the Holobunga? Oops.

>>17968289
what evidence would you consider acceptable?

>>17968294
Something that couldn't be fabricated. If I can think of a way someone could just fake it, then they did.

>>17968293
Only a person arguing in bad faith could say this. You don't actually care about history, just justifying your hatred. You are why holocaust denial laws exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
>The Wannsee Conference (German: Wannseekonferenz, German pronunciation: [ˈvanzeːkɔnfeˌʁɛnt͡s] ) was a meeting of senior government officials of Nazi Germany and Schutzstaffel (SS) leaders, held in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee on 20 January 1942. The purpose of the conference, called by the director of the Reich Security Main Office SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, was to ensure the co-operation of administrative leaders of various government departments in the implementation of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, whereby most of the Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported to occupied Poland and murdered. Conference participants included representatives from several government ministries, including state secretaries from the Foreign Office, the justice, interior, and state ministries, and representatives from the SS. In the course of the meeting, Heydrich outlined how European Jews would be rounded up and sent to extermination camps in the General Government (the occupied part of Poland), where they would be killed.[1]
>The attendees from the Reich civilian ministries were high level administrators. Most were either the state secretary or an undersecretary. With the cabinet not meeting regularly, meetings between the state secretaries were the chief means of policy coordination among agencies.[33] The process of disseminating information about the fate of the Jews was already well underway by the time the meeting was held, and several of the attendees were aware that changes to the Jewish policy were already underway.[43] In addition to the invited guests, Heydrich instructed several SS officials from his RSHA component to attend.[44] In all, 15 officials attended the conference.[c]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wannsee_Protokoll_januar_1942.pdf

>>17968296
By this standard it is impossible to prove ww2 happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
>The Final Solution[a] or the Final Solution to the Jewish Question[b] was a plan orchestrated by Nazi Germany during World War II for the genocide of individuals they defined as Jews. The "Final Solution to the Jewish question" was the official code name for the murder of all Jews within reach, which was not restricted to the European continent.[1] This policy of deliberate and systematic genocide starting across German-occupied Europe was formulated in procedural and geopolitical terms by Nazi leadership in January 1942 at the Wannsee Conference held near Berlin,[2] and culminated in the Holocaust, which saw the murder of 90% of Polish Jews,[3] and two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe.[4]

>>17968302
>>17968308
See these posts on why citing Wikipedia can be summarily dismissed: >>17968280 >>17968285

>>17968306
Sounds rough. Maybe don't pass laws requiring you to believe things and sane people won't doubt it?

>>17968310
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_January_1939_Reichstag_speech
>On 30 January 1939, Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany, gave a speech in the Kroll Opera House to the Reichstag delegates, which is best known for the prediction he made that "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" would ensue if another world war were to occur.[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Adolf_Hitler%27s_speech_in_Reichstag_%281939%29.webm

>>17968310
See pic related on why you're not arguing in good faith right now

>>17968312
Okay now here's your opportunity to show that the speech wasn't fabricated. See, this is the hard part. How do I know this is real? Your Holocaust denial laws require extra scrutiny. I know I said that you'd face a hard strike for not proving it right off the bat, but I'm going to be generous and give you a second try.

>>17967907
Your anti-Naziism and signaling of nonchalance makes me think you’re doing damage control.

>>17968319
>Your Holocaust denial laws require extra scrutiny.
I actually agree with you and OP in this regard in that yes, outlawing open dialogue regarding this ultimately undermines it, but that is still not good grounds for outright denial regardless. Thankfully I don't live in such a country.

>>17968306
Well, no. The standard only applies to things you're required to believe. There are no WW2 denial laws, so the burden of proof for it is lower. Do you understand?

>>17968319
prove that you are real and not an AI chatbot

>>17968326
>There are no WW2 denial laws
Actually, Russia has one.

>>17968211
Back to Phoenicia with thee! LIAR!

>>17968325
Okay that's fine. We'll compromise. Prove that 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz, as originally claimed, and that's our definition of "The Holocaust" that we'll work with. If you can't prove this, then "The Holocaust" did not happen.

>>17968330
"""Russia"""

>>17968334
Census records show a stark drop in the Jewish population before and after the war and we also have camp manifests, it's just a lot of data one has to shift through but it's there for people to just look up themselves

>>17968338
Wait, are you actually claiming that 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz?

>>17968334
Right? I mean no matter how "efficient" le ebil nancies were, there should be at least thousands of skeletons left, even if one allows for a very low percentage.

However, no such evidence exists, ever has existed or is even allowed to be confirmed, or denied via modern testing methods.

Once again, "It's all true, even if it never happened ;) "

>>17968338

data ain't physical evidence, and only a fool would trust "official govt. statistics" from such evil, nasty folks as the Nazis, right?

YOU LOSE!

>>17968338


b-b-b-b-but it's t-t-t-there......I-I-I p-p-p-p-romise.


Fuck, even the AI Zion Bot is low effort. LOL!

TRY HARDER!

>>17967876 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOve4jHO7M8

>>17968301
>You are why holocaust denial laws exist.

>>17967876 (OP)
Ukraine and Balt seething has done more to push Holocaust denialism into the mainstream than anything else in recent history.
It's even reached Western museums.
https://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-1031

>>17968665
Holocaust denialism is easy and sensible because some of the early claims were patently ludicrous and the anti-denial laws undermine the credibility of what's left to the point of it basically being a fairy tale.

>>17968665
I hope there will be more of it and it will cause even more seething. Because holocaust didn't happen, westoids are moralfagging cuckolds. So let the ukrops and baltoids deal with the jewish question like they used to during pogroms by raping jews to the point they have a generational trauma.

>>17968334
>Prove that 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz,
You deniers always reach for the most bizarre things that no one in academia has ever claimed. Maybe you never studied history at university and went to some shitty school and were taught that all six million died in gas chambers or 4 million "Jews" died at Auschwitz, but that speaks to nothing but the poor state of your country's education system.
>But but OPs sign!
Read it again

>>17968672
>rejects the compromise that could save him

STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERIKE THREE

And that settles it, the Holocaust is a fabrication. Thanks for showing up, folks. That's that.

>>17968676
>As originally claimed
Point to where "4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz" was originally claimed (aside from your own post of course)

>>17968714
>he's still trying to argue after the match is called

Uh?

Only a fool would deny the Holocaust. It is the most well-documented genocide in history, with 3,000 tons of evidence. Six million Jews disappeared from Eastern Europe, and there are hundreds of thousands of statements from various people. There are also existing camps and Hitler's own claims to "eradicate Jewry"

>>17968324
>stops caring about the historical veracity of the holocaust once it is established that it doesn't vindicate the German state
Your transparent tactics and weak conviction make me think you have ulterior motives beyond "truth".

>>17967876 (OP)
>>17967884
>>17967901
Why be this retarded. Just read the fucking proof for yourself its well documented if you leave /pol/.
And while you can disagree with the laws( dont exist where I live) They have zero bearing on the validity of facts.

>>17969449
>And while you can disagree with the laws( dont exist where I live) They have zero bearing on the validity of facts.

The facts: there's no reason to believe that these texts/photos are real and not fabricated. Verifying them is rendered harder due to laws prohibiting scrutiny.

>>17969452
so basically if you are living in USA (where there are no holocaust denial laws) then Holocaust happend according to you

What motivates the Jew to lie so much? Are they connected to an alternate reality or a different planet altogether?

>>17969452
All of the data is available in countries without denial laws. And it was all gathered pre denial laws. Again being retarded is not helpful or something to be proud of.

>>17969455
>>17969459
The denial laws are where the holobunga ostensibly took place. So. Yeah. I get that you want to dodge this issue, but uh, yeah, it's not going away.

>>17969463
Ok, so OP has never heard of this new thing called documents. That clears up a lot

>>17969465
I mean, OP discusses documents? He just (correctly) points out that denial laws undermines the credibility of those "documents"? Do... do you understand?

>>17967876 (OP)
its taboo to actually look into ww2 and not just eat the bullshit youre fed because all of hitlers enemies share one common denominator..........FINANCIAL BONDAGE TO JEWS

>>17969473
No they dont.

>>17969468
But they dont. Denial laws dont create reality warping fields you retards.
>>17969473
Its the most researched topic in all of history fucktard.

>>17969483
>But they dont. Denial laws dont create reality warping fields you retards.

Denial laws don't need to create reality warping fields??? They just make it harder to verify if regime propaganda is correct???? Hellooooo??????

>>17969486
None of those laws existed when the documents were gathered and reviewed. So how did they change documents before they existed. Also calling something regime propaganda means you have already chosen a side.

>>17969478
stop making it so easy

>>17969491
nazis are masters and making it easy

>>17969483
by researched you mean you get browbeaten if you even remotely go against the kike narrative.....i literally argued with a teacher who told me operation keelhaul didnt happen the us army would never do that after seeing the concentration camps i was told

>>17969491
wow random pictures. Wait I thought this whole thread was about how random out of context pictures arent evidence? You cant have it both ways retard.

>>17969495
israelis would look like that if amerigoys didnt fight their wars

>>17969502
if you insist kike............https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/26/Financier-saved-Churchills-career/4509538635600/ ....... https://dailytimes.com.pk/815952/churchills-dubious-financial-dealings/

>>17969496
Why do you believe operation keelhaul happened?
>>17969506
None of this passes OP's requirements for verification.

>>17969506
what does any of this have to do with Hitlers actions?

>>17969452
>Verifying them is rendered harder due to laws prohibiting scrutiny.
Don't be retarded, take the fairly recent example of Lale Sokolov for example, who story was recorded and published by heathers morris in the Tattooist of Auschwitz. Many of his claims were found to be incorrect, as discovered and loudly pointed out by historians who work at Auschwitz itself (Auschwitz obviously being in Poland, which has Holocaust denial laws).
This case is an example of an author from a country without Holocaust denial laws (Australia) taking overly sensationalist and exaggerated claims as true, while historians from a country where such laws exist arguing for a milder and less horrific (as far as that can be said when referring to the Holocaust) truth!

>>17969502
even wikipedia cant deny winnie was a glorified hanukkah ornament

>>17969510
>we corrected some of our most outrageous details of our conspiracy theory but you are required to believe the core of it or else!!!!1

>>17969507
why do you believe the holocaust happened?

>>17969509
gee maybe because the "victims" spent the better part of the 30s demanding a new world war?

>>17969517
tons of evidence
also people who deny holocaust are usually insane schizo jews haters like >>17969521 so they always have an agenda in denying it

>>17969526
all i did was quote what jews themselves were saying prewar like i said all of hitlers enemies have 1 common denominator.......financial bondage to jews you learn things like this when you study it for 3 decades and have independent thought

>>17969533
so you are very cleary anti-jewish and you want to fight/kill them etc, that's why you are not creditable as you are too emotional about the subject and you are more interested in preaching your ideology than historical reserach

>>17969514
You're welcome to view their evidence and analyse it yourself. You've just got to show your workings, instead of lamely saying "it's all fake because... it just is ok!"

>>17968326
In the overwhelming part of the world you're not obligated to believe in the holocaust. Your logic is flawed.

>>17969539
youre right because i got angry that when i actually looked into ww2 i found everything was told in school was a lie now ive studied it for 3 decades i grasp why hitler called it purim 2.0......every aspect of america entering the war was jewish From unofficial President Bernard Baruch's cash and carry to Roosevelt's Jewish lawyer Oscar Cox Lend lease behind allied leaders you get jews jews jews more jews then jews hence why its like the COVID jabs you're just not supposed to remember goyim

>>17969552
its 99% in white countries because white countries are ruled by jews and israel firsters

>>17969526
>tons of evidence

Provide one (1) piece of evidence that couldn't have been fabricated.

>>17969539
>so you are very cleary anti-jewish and you want to fight/kill them etc,

Glad you could admit that we should discount any "evidence" provided by anti-Nazis. You know, like OP suggests.

>>17969574
OP here. I wasn't even getting into all of that. I was just raising the question of why I should take their atrocity propaganda at face value in light of the fact that in the jurisdictions the atrocity ostensibly took place in you're not allowed to even question it, and all they have to offer is basically an appeal to the authority of academics I'm questioning in the first place.

>>17967884
The burden of proof is on the claimant so we are under no obligation to prove the Holocaust. You on the other hand are now obligated to prove why or how it was exaggerated. Please do so.

>>17969616
>The burden of proof is on the claimant so we are under no obligation to prove the Holocaust.

You're the one claiming that the Holocaust is real and so is the "evidence" provided by the Allies in the aftermath of WW2. So prove that it was or we're right to disregard it.

>>17969601
>Why aren't you allowed to deny a genocide in the place it occurred
Because its a shameful chapter in a country's history and they dont want retards to pretend it wasn't that bad in case they try to do it again.

>>17969624
>why don't you believe my atrocity propaganda when I threaten you with incarceration

I wonder.

>>17969583
That literally wasn't your argument tho.
Your argument was that

1. Only evidence that "can't be fabricated" are acceptable.

2. to question whether ww2 actually happened based on that same logic of evidence isn't comparable because ww2 can be freely studied, the holocaust cn not be.

3. This is despite the fact that 90% of the world aren't limited to holocaust laws and can thus freely study it.

4. Ergo either the same logic of unacceptable evidence apply om whether ww2 was real or not also applies om 90% of the world regarding the holocaust.

So yes, your logic is flawed.
Based on your logic of acceptable evidence, you couldn't prove ww2 actually happened, which is just ridiculous.

>>17969621
>You're the one claiming that the Holocaust is real
I did no such thing. The rhetorical premise of the thread is faulty though. You dont show up to a debate and say "everyone else has to prove me right". You have to demonstrate your proof beyond the emotional appeal that it might not be 100% accurate because people will fine you for denial if you stand in the ruins of a concentration camp and start shrieking about how the Nazis dindu nuffin. Your premise is faulty and youre a shit debater so this thread is pretty much a nonstarter

>>17969631
>1. Only evidence that "can't be fabricated" are acceptable.

In cases where a certain interpretation of history is enforced by the law, yes, the burden of proof is increased significantly. Here's OP, in case you forgot to read the first sentence:

>Holocaust denial laws undermine the credibility of the Holocaust, such that a parsimonious interpretation of the facts is correct.

Now the question is, did you misunderstand OP or were you deliberately misinterpreting it? You will choose at least one. If you try to choose neither, you choose both.

>>17969639
>I did no such thing. The rhetorical premise of the thread is faulty though. You dont show up to a debate and say "everyone else has to prove me right".

It isn't faulty. Forbidding scrutiny of the Holocaust, which Holocaust denial laws do, raises the burden of proof of the claimant, in this case, the people who insist the Holocaust is real. By default it isn't.

Glad we could clear that up.

>>17969627
>Lacks basic emotional and social awareness
If you lived in the Reich they would have gassed you, fyi

>>17969647
Not an argument. Your next reply will be evidence that could not have been fabricated by the Allies. Failure to provide it is concession that OP is correct. Time limit: 15min.

>>17969624
freeing your country from a jewish monopoly = shameful .....yep youre a brisbrat

>>17969646
>It isn't faulty.
Incorrect
>Forbidding scrutiny of the Holocaust, which Holocaust denial laws do, raises the burden of proof of the claimant, in this case, the people who insist the Holocaust is real.
Actually youre the one warbling about this and brought it to the debate floor so by default the burden of proof lies with you as the claimant
>By default it isn't.
Incorrect.
>Glad we could clear that up.
If youre gonna be smug, being patently wrong in your entire post is the wrong way to go about it.

>>17969658
>Actually youre the one warbling about this and brought it to the debate floor so by default the burden of proof lies with you as the claimant

4chan isn't a debate floor. So! Last chance: Your next reply will be evidence that could not have been fabricated by the Allies. Failure to provide it is concession that OP is correct. Time limit: 15min.

>>17969651
>Still no arguments, just rhetorical gymnastics after he fails to follow the most basic rules of rhetorical debate
I accept your concession

Captcha:GAS4M

>>17969661
Final evaluation: we were discussing if the Holocaust was real and no evidence was provided for it. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Holocaust is real.

>>17969660
>4chan isn't a debate floor.
Incorrect
>So! Last chance: Your next reply will be evidence that could not have been fabricated by the Allies.
Proving a negative is a nonstarter.
>Failure to provide it is concession that OP is correct. Time limit: 15min.
I already accepted your concession on the ridiculousness of the debate on rhetorical grounds, thus any further discussion is meaningless because your initial framing is catastrophically bad. I once again accept your concession

>>17969668
Final evaluation: we were discussing if the Holocaust was real and no evidence was provided for it. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Holocaust is real.

>>17969666
>Still seething
Get rekt maggot

>>17969670
>Still no arguments and zero bitches to boot
I accept your concession

>>17969675
>>17969672
>loses the argument
>keeps saying "I accept your concession" like it's some kind of incantation that converts an L into a W

>>17969574
>youre right because i got angry
That's what I said
>>17969590
>Glad you could admit that we should discount any "evidence" provided by anti-Nazis.
Everyone is anti-nazi since it's a criminal ideology, it's like saying that police shouldn't arrest criminals becasue the police is "anti-murder"

>>17969683
>if I ban your opinion, it becomes wrong

Do Holobungaists really?

>>17969642
It's you have argue from a flawed logic.
Genocide denial is criminalized in most countries where the genocide occurred. There are multiple genocides of this case. As is the case with the holocaust.

It still doesn't change the fact that 95% of the human population, including many parts of Europe, are perfectly able to question the holocaust and aren't restricted in their research of it.

Your main argument is that it cannot be researched freely, which is can by most people, so it's only an argument that applies on a tiny fraction, thus it's not absolute.
And evidence can only exist if its in absolute. Otherwise it wouldn't be evidence.
Do you understand this?

You literally said that you define evidence based on what cannot be manipulated, which is a pretty broad term that makes it difficult to virtually prove anything.

If this is your main argument, then it's extremely weak.

>>17969691
>Your main argument is that it cannot be researched freely

You need to be able to research it freely in the place in which it ostensibly occurred, otherwise the atrocity propaganda about that place becomes inherently more dubious, to the point that you can dismiss it out of hand.

Glad we could clear that up.

>>17969687
>commits murder
>get arested
>m-muh freedoom...
lol

>>17969698
>having an opinion communists don't like is murder

>>17969691
>Your main argument

Your main argument is that we need to take atrocity propaganda from jurisdictions that forbid questioning it at face value. That's an extremely weak position to argue from in a historiographical context.

>>17969701
being nazi = being a murderer, you can't go around this, if someone is a pacifist nazi then he is not nazi at all

>>17969694
What's stopping you from researching the holocaust where it occurred? That's not criminalized.

>>17969706
>being nazi = being a murderer

Oh okay, so then NSDAP weren't murderers and weren't Nazis, since what they did was legal in the jurisdictions they did it. Got it.

>>17969712
You cannot research the Holocaust freely in Germany/Poland/etc because you may not arrive at the conclusion that it did not actually take place.

>>17969703
I was adrssing your main argument. Moron.

You said evidence isn't evidence if it can be manipulated, which would make it impossible to prove anything happened, even ww2 as a whole.

You also said holocaust isn't comparable to ww2 because you can research it freely, which 95% of the human population can.
And evidence is an absolute, if the evidence exist it exists. It doesn't exist for some and not for others.

>>17969714
you mean legal in the laws they made after they delegalized and imprisoned/murder all opostion?
under what laws they killed Ernst Röhm and 1000 of other political enemies in 1934?

>>17969715
You don't have to present your conclusion in Germany or Poland.

You can still freely research it.

>>17969727
>I was adrssing your main argument. Moron.

You didn't address the main argument, though. The main argument is that it's reasonable to disregard atrocity propaganda from jurisdictions where you aren't allowed to question it.

What's dumber, believing the Holocaust was fake or arguing with a retard who believes the Holocaust was fake? This is why we can never have nice things on this board. Everyone (even whites) cares so much about 6 millions Jews while nary a single tear was shed for the 10 million of dead Europeans or 20 million of dead Chinese. Who the fuck cares?

>>17969731
Going to have a hard time proving the holobunga exists using only evidence that has nothing to do with jurisdictions with holobunga denial laws lol

>>17969734
I wasn't quoting the main argument you moron. I was quoting the post I was quoting.

>>17969736
The dumbest of all: believing the Holocaust was

>>17969738
You were quoting OP. So anyway, you were given the choice between ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation, and you refused to answer, which means you chose both lol lmao

>>17969737
Majority of Arkenian genocide research was done in Turkey and Armenia by non-turks and non-armenians.

It's not hard at all to conduct a research and the law doesn't prevent you from doing so, nor are you obligated to publish your research in Poland or Germany.


Again, it's you who have a flawed logic. Again. Same as the "legitimate evidence" argument.
You couldn't prove anything by your own definition of evidence.

>>17969750
>Arkenian
Armenian*

>>17969750
>Again, it's you who have a flawed logic

No actually, it's basic historiography to regard atrocity propaganda from jurisdictions where you aren't allowed to question it with heightened scrutiny.

This includes basically everywhere the Holocaust ostensibly took place. Holocaust denial laws suppress all evidence pointing away from belief in the Holocaust, which is in itself evidence that the Holocaust never happened.

>>17969759
Holocaust is not atrocity propaganda, it wasn't used against nazis during the war

>>17967876 (OP)
>>17967884
>>17967901
this exact reasoning can be applied to the Rwandan Genocide.

>>17969759
>where you aren't allowed to question it with heightened scrutiny.
Ans again, only like 5% of the human population are affected by this law, the remaining 95% can question the holocaust.

>This includes basically everywhere the Holocaust ostensibly took place
And it's standard practice to criminalize genocides where they took place. Holocaust is no exception, except more states were affected by it (and involved in it).

>Holocaust denial laws suppress all evidence pointing away from belief in the Holocaust
No it doesn't.
And if it does, then explain in what way.

The law only criminslize denial, it doesn't restrict research.
If it does then in what way?

>which is in itself evidence that the Holocaust never happened.
Except evidence exists in absolute. It doesn't exist for one person and not for another. Either it exists or it doesn't.

So there are two great flaws with this conclusion and that is
1. What about every other genocide that is criminalized
2. What about those who aren't subjected to these laws.
3. How do you define evidence as it exists.
4. How can you prove anything based on your definition of evidence.

>>17969768
>Holocaust is not atrocity propaganda, it wasn't used against nazis during the war

That's not what atrocity propaganda is. You can create atrocity propaganda after the war has ended.

>>17969782
So what?

>>17969785
>Ans again, only like 5% of the human population are affected by this law, the remaining 95% can question the holocaust.

And again, the relevant part of the global population is the jurisdiction in which the atrocity propaganda is about. I stopped reading here because you literally do not respond to the things written to you.

>>17969794
But it was not used to shame germans, neither in the west or east so it doesn't make sense either to call it atrocity propaganda

>>17969797
>But it was not used to shame germans

No, they publicly shamed German *civilians*.

>German state doesnt oppress holocaust research

Germar Rudolf has been jailed numerous times, and is on the run in the US. Even lawyers representing holocaust revisionists have been jailed.

>>17969802
>swimming pools
Oh shit he did it he actually did the thing

>>17969802
if the photo itself says its genuine I guess it passes OP's muster automatically.
LoL why even make these threads if you have no intention of actually engaging honestly.

>>17969801
they did not, only some allied soldiers got emotional when they found out tens of thousands of death bodies in the concentration camps, but Holocaust was not used by the victorious countries as a reason why they fought and occupied germany so holocaust is not an atrocity propaganda

>Gemini, an LLM trained by far left lunatic Google, keeps agreeing with the Holocaust denier if he just asks the right questions

Man... holobungaists are really taking a shelacking tonight.

>>17969797
...not used the shame germans? it's *actively* being used to shame germans 80 years later

>>17969806
>Hitler was le bad because he didnt do the holocaust.

Case proven; holocaust is fabricated rubbish

>>17969802
>keep the enemies of state in luxurious perma vacation camps while millions of germans suffer on eastern problem
what was shitler problem?

>>17967876 (OP)
Never forget the fo-
>Wait a minute...

>>17969807
Its not my thread, Im just adding to it.

If no one can post something proving the holocaist its not my problem.

>>17969796
>And again, the relevant part of the global population is the jurisdiction in which the atrocity propaganda is about.
Ok so the people in states that were affected and/or participated, which follows the standard practice on criminalizing genocide denial where it occurred.

Also how is 5% of the human population "more relevant"?

>I stopped reading here because you literally do not respond to the things written to you.
You stopped reading because your logic becomes bullshit as soon as its tested in a debate.
You stopped answering because you have no answer to the question as of what evidence are there that research on the holocaust is being suppressed, like you're suggesting. What stops someone from conducting researching on the holocaust? What evidence do you have for this claim? The law only criminalize denial but there is no law that regulates research.

Your only argument was that it's illegal to publish the wrong conclusions in Poland or Germany, but there is nothing that says you must publish the conclusion of your research in these countries, especially if you're not a citizen there.


You also fail to give any proper objective definition on what you regard as legitimate evidence, nor do you adress the fact that evidence can only exist or not exist, it cannot be both. Even if laws exist for 5% of the population, the evidence still exists for remaining 95%.

>>17969813
>What was shitler's problem?

Being a good man in difficult times?

>>17969802
>Jews lived in luxury while germans were starving or getting killed during Hitler's rule
lol, nazis are not sending their brightest minds
>>17969811
>it's *actively* being used to shame germans 80 years later
Which country that is at war with Germany uses Holocaust as an atrocity proaganda aganist them?

>>17969808
>commie claims falsehood
>gets corrected
>doubles down on the lie

>>17969825
But we he make the enemies of the state that were not even citzes of Reich live in Luxury while 10 millions of germans were drafted and forced to die for their safety?
>>17969828
But I was not proven wrong

>>17969824
>You stopped reading because your logic becomes bullshit as soon as its tested in a debate.

You didn't test it, though, you just denied standard historiography because it leads to some very nasty conclusions about the Holocaust: >>17969759

>>17969834
>But I was not proven wrong

You were: >>17969801

>>17969836
Then where is your evidence that research on the holocaust is being banned or suppressed?

>>17969824
>>German state doesnt oppress holocaust research
You stopped answering because you have no answer to the question as of what evidence are there that research on the holocaust is being suppressed, like you're suggesting. What stops someone from conducting researching on the holocaust? What evidence do you have for this claim? The law only criminalize denial but there is no law that regulates research.


Germar Rudolf, the pre-eminent holocaust researcher, the author of the encyclopedia and publisher of the most detailed scientific study on it - has been jailed numerous times, and is on the run in the US.

Even lawyers representing holocaust revisionists have been jailed.

And you assert this is what? Not oppression?

>>17969839
By a text generator without sources?

>>17969818
you can google endless things proving it if you want. Nobody is going to post anything because this is just a schizo thread, with some people questioning why OP cares so much about holocaust denial laws. WW2 is the most researched and documented event in world history. We have more proof for the holocaust than most every other event in human history. More evidence for the holocaust than Rome existing. People are just responding because the inner working of you schizo's is fascinating.

>>17969843
>In July 2019, Rudolf was arrested near his home in Red Lion, Pennsylvania for "open lewdness" after being found exercising at 4:06 a.m. in a public park "naked from the waist down." He was later found guilty of indecent exposure and open lewdness, for which he was sentenced to two years of probation.[21][22]
Your smoking gun is a degenerate schizo (many such cases)

>>17969843
bro Germar is a chemist. He is the pre eminent holocaust denier not researcher. He is not a professional historian or even journalist.

>>17969842
>Then where is your evidence that research on the holocaust is being banned or suppressed?

Uh, Holocaust denial laws are my evidence that research on if the Holocaust actually happened is banned or suppressed? Hello?

>>17969844
Your sources for the Holocaust are, what, again? Only cite evidence from primary sources that either couldn't have fabricated the evidence (very difficult) or had no reason to (all of the Allies fall under this).

>>17969845
>WW2 is the most researched and documented event in world history.

Is it?

>>17969853
Yes.

>>17969851
>Your sources for the Holocaust
3000 tons of documents, testiomones from 100k people across the europe including high ranking nazis, existing camp structures, photos of mass graves, nazi anit-jewish rethoric, 6 million Jews mysteriously dissapearing from Eastern Europe etc the standard stuff

>>17969795
>So what?
so it is an irrational standard to apply to determining whether a genocide happened or not.
Rwanda has laws that ban questioning whether the genocide happened or not. Yet, we have evidence from before Kagame came to power of Hutus slaughtering Tutsis in a systematic manner. What's more, the entirety of the congo wars are completely unintelligible and even impossible if the Rwandan genocide did not happen. And since we know that the congo wars did happen, than it must be said that your standard of evidence is not sensible.
in essence:
>if the premise (P) is true (T), then the Rwandan Genocide (RG) could not have happened
>if RG could not have happened, then the Congo Wars (CW) would be false (F)
>CW=T
>ergo, P=F

>>17969826
>>17969834

Its a camp not luxury dufus.

>>17969845
Dude, you could could even just mention the Stroop report or the Jeager report or the Pressac work. LMAO But you dont because youre just shitlords trying to claim the holocaust is real.

>>17969847
He's literally a german, many are naturalists who exercise outside. He was exercising at 0400 when its dark. He wrote a detailed book about it. In fact he's a family man.

>>17969847
Bro he's literally researcher, he's done extensive research - more than anyone excepting some of his collleagues.

>>17969857
Ahem:
>Only cite evidence from primary sources that either couldn't have fabricated the evidence (very difficult) or had no reason to (all of the Allies fall under this).

So. Yeah.

>>17969860
>so it is an irrational standard to apply to determining whether a genocide happened or not.

No. See: >>17969759

>>17969857
Examined and broken down, the testimonies are hearsay, rumour or propaganda when you actually read them. Most documents show no holocaust. E.G those of the Auschwitz camp at the very time they were supposed to be committing mass murder.

>>17969861
How many Germans could afford freely swiming in pools in 1943 while also enjoying a location free from bombers and not having to get drafted into a bloody war?
>>17969866
3000 tons of documents, testiomones from 100k people across the europe including high ranking nazis, existing camp structures, photos of mass graves, nazi anit-jewish rethoric, 6 million Jews mysteriously dissapearing from Eastern Europe

how do you debooonk all of that?

>>17969843
So you're admitting that this man was able to conduct a research on the holocaust to the extent that it led him to thr conclusion that it's not real, yet you continously argue that research on the holocaust is being suppressed.

What your showing with this (supposed) anecdote is that his research was both legal and possible (which proves my point) and only became a problem when he tried to publish it in a state where denial was criminalized.

So again, we're back on the square 1 of the debate. You said the holocaust must be fake because a person is requires to believe it happened, yet 95% of the human population isn't required to believe in it by default, and that research on it isn't criminalized or suppressed.

Which brings us back to the definition of evidence, and how you're going to prove that even ww2 was a real thing, since your sole definition of evidence is what theoretically cannot be manipulated.

>>17968302
>>17968308
>>17968312
These are proof the holocaust happened

>>17969870
>How many Germans could afford freely swiming in pools in 1943 while also enjoying a location free from bombers and not having to get drafted into a bloody war?

The Reich created many facilities and gave many benefits to the people - so it wasnt unusual.

>3000 tons of documents, testiomones from 100k people across the europe including high ranking nazis, existing camp structures, photos of mass graves, nazi anit-jewish rethoric, 6 million Jews mysteriously dissapearing from Eastern Europe
how do you debooonk all of that?

By examining it decade after decade? Which was done years ago?

>>17969868
>the testimonies are hearsay, rumour or propaganda
Did you studied all millions of them for this claim? Since holocaust was a common knowladge about the populations of Eastern Europe in 1943
Also you missed some of my other evidence

>>17969866
>>Only cite evidence from primary sources that either couldn't have fabricated the evidence (very difficult)
nta, but your burden of proof here is fucked. You have to demonstrate how it could be faked first before the other guy can demonstrates how it couldn't be faked. You'd need to really get into the weeds of the actual evidence, and quite frankly, I don't think either of you guys are well-informed enough on mid-19th century photo editing or tracing the providence of different accounts and other pieces of evidence to confidently win such a debate. At best it will descend into nonsensical autistic screeching.

>>17969867
>CW=T
>P=F
you're one black-ass hutu nigger, aren't you?

>>17969874
>The Reich created many facilities and gave many benefits to the people - so it wasnt unusual.
How many Germans were regulary relaxing at pools in 1943?
>By examining it decade after decade?
Someone stops you? Do you think that Polish or German police will come to New York and arrest you if you look at them online?

>>17969876
>nta, but your burden of proof here is fucked.

It's not. See: >>17969759

>mid-19th century photo editing

WW2 happened in the mid-20th century...

>>17969885
or right, got my centuries mixed-up, lol
don't see how that post refutes what I said though

>>17969887

It's refuted here: >>17969759

The Holocaust denial laws raise the bar for acceptable evidence quite a bit in standard historiography. You really do need to present evidence that either couldn't be fabricated or came from people/entities which had no reason to lie, and that evidence has to be overwhelming, in order to claim that the Holocaust definitely happened. Little to no such evidence exists.

The kind of heightened skepticism OP lists is normal and correct. A special exception to it was made for the Holocaust, for hopefully obvious reasons.

>>17969871
Whats the point of researching a subject to not publish it? If you cant publish it, then the research itself is suppressed. Even lawyers are jailed for this and they are not publishing anything but simply representing a position or a client in court.

>>17969875>>17969873

Yes, there's alot of research on the claims. An encyclopedia too.

>>17969876
I think OP was expecting too much from /his/

>>17969895
>holocaust didn't happen!
>why do you think so?
>i won't say but there is some reserach that exists somewhere

great work, nazism has a bright future with people like you

>>17969882
About the same as were couped up in camps.
>>17969882
>Someone stops you? Do you think that Polish or German police will come to New York and arrest you if you look at them online?

Rudolf is living in exile from his homeland for publshing his research on the holocaust - the truth is no defence in Germany.

>>17967901
>If you argue against me it proves I'm right

>>17969898
>the holocaust happened!
>why do you think so?
>the people who defeated the not sees + jews said so
>i'm skeptical of that
>heh well you need to prove they didn't or else you're a murderer/nazi

Great work, communism has a bright future with people like that.

>>17969901
>you have to countenance rejection of historiography in a historical discussion

>>17969899
Damn, no wonder that nazis got stomped so hard, they were just chilling at the pools instead of making weapons
>>17969899
Are you german?

>>17969894
>The Holocaust denial laws raise the bar for acceptable evidence quite a bit in standard historiography
ok, according to who? What histiographical expert makes the same histiographical claims that you do?
>but muh ai expleened this already
AI chatbots are not a reliable source for anything.
pic rel

>>17969907
>Are you german?

Are you Jewish?

>>17969898
You havent asked why the holocaust cannot be considered anything less than a conspiracy theory.

Let me guess, you wont even just me.

>>17969903
3000 tons of documents, testiomones from 100k people across the europe including high ranking nazis, existing camp structures, photos of mass graves, nazi anit-jewish rethoric, 6 million Jews mysteriously dissapearing from Eastern Europe

how do you debooonk ALL of that?
saying
>uhh but some reserach somewhere did, maybe
doesn't count yknow

>>17969910
I'm Polish
Anyway, are you German? Does the law stops you from examining the evidence?
>>17969911
laws aganist criminal totalitarian ideology like nazis, whitewashing people that enslaved and burned europe is a big no, not just about the holocaust

>>17969903
Kek

>>17969907
Actually somewhat true, they didnt want total war. Still took 3 empires to beat them lol.

>>17969909
According to any other historical area of enquiry - youre welcome to name even one that is suppressed or even just treated in the same way.

>>17969914
No one is stopping you asking for the encyclopedia or the studies.

>>17969919
Being a Polish supremacist or a commie is a big no. Sorry. There's the door, you can leave.

>>17969906
A law controlling your speech isn't historiography

>>17967876 (OP)
>Jews were killed *specifically* for being Jewish and for no other reason
Do you consider Mein Kampf as a credible source? It was published in 1925, way earlier than anything else, so it should be above suspicion.
Hitler straight up writes in there that he wants to kill all Jews, I'd say that makes it an open and shut case in regards to the motive: the guy wanted to kill the Jews because they were Jews.

>>17969925
>According to any other historical area of enquiry - youre welcome to name even one that is suppressed or even just treated in the same way.
you're dodging the question anon. What histiographical method are you using? If it's a common one as you say, you should be able to name it as well as the experts who employ it. That way, i'd at least know you aren't just making shit up.

>>17969928
Its suppression of historiography

>>17969929
The SS executed those who murdered jews in camps. Auschwitz healthcare system treated jews and poles alike.

>>17969925
>Actually somewhat true,
Kinda, I read most germans didn't care about shitler so when they were forced to work 14 hours per day they were just doing shit work on purpose
ALSO
Towards the end of the war, over half of the economy worked on a slave labour, that means it was bascialy Poles, Russians and Italians who enjoyed pools in Germany, Jews who enjoyed pools in Poland while Germans were experiencinghell on the eastern front

my fucking sides

>Being a Polish supremacist or a commie
I'm neither of those so guess I get to say?

>>17969909
>ok, according to who?

According to basically all mainstream historians when evaluating the historicity of any purported atrocity other than the Holocaust. The Holocaust is given special rules. Did you read the entire post?

>>17969928
Yes, that's the point the OP is raising.

>>17969942
>According to basically all mainstream historians when evaluating the historicity of any purported atrocity other than the Holocaust.
name one, and where he laid out what evidence he'd consider valid or invalid

>>17969938
>Kinda, I read most germans didn't care about shitler so when they were forced to work 14 hours per day they were just doing shit work on purpose
ALSO
Towards the end of the war, over half of the economy worked on a slave labour, that means it was bascialy Poles, Russians and Italians who enjoyed pools in Germany, Jews who enjoyed pools in Poland while Germans were experiening hell on the eastern front. My fucking sides"

LMAO. They were doing excellent work, and most men went to the front so other work had to be done by someone else. Using forced labour is legit.

>I'm neither of those so guess I get to say?
Then what are you?

>>17969929
Okay you've got a motive. Good start. Now show they did it and positively demonstrate that whatever evidence you submit wasn't just atrocity propaganda by the Allies post-war. That last part is key.

>>17969947
>Using forced labour is legit.
So let me get this straight
Jews were chilling at the pool that Hitler bulid in Poland
Poles, Russians and Italian slaves were chilling in the German's pools
While Germans were eating bullets in Stalingard

I'm starting to undestand why a lot of Germans don't really like Hitler

>Then what are you?
dunno, I support nice things like freedom and not hating and killing people

>>17969937
>The SS executed those who murdered jews in camps. Auschwitz healthcare system treated jews and poles alike
Those would be things that happened. I'm not arguing about what happened, I'm leaving that to someone with more time to waste.
I'm arguing that killing Jews because they were Jews was in Hitler's manifesto/political program book, so once the facts are proven to OP's satisfaction, the motive behind them cannot be argued.
Or are you going to say that not even taking words straight from Hitler's mouth is good enough? Because that gets into full intellectual dishonesty. Lower than I'd expect from OP, for all that he's a faggot.

>>17969935
There are a few techniques and terms for this sort of thing, but there's a bunch of different angles conventional historians approach it from.

One term that comes up a lot is "source criticism," and its application here: arguing that the Allies have a reason to fabricate the Holocaust and so that needs addressing. "Hermeneutics of Suspicion" comes to mind, which is presupposing that hidden interests, distortions, etc; its application here: it's basically just the OP. This exact topic is addressed in something termed the "Memory Law Critique" (the Holocaust isn't the only thing like this), and in "Propaganda Analysis" skepticism toward atrocity claims is assumed.

Do you want me to come up with the names of the historians who used these terms? This topic of atrocity propaganda/claims being regarded with a sideways glance really, legitimately is a common theme in historiography.

>>17969895
>Whats the point of researching a subject to not publish it
Your argument was that you couldn't even research it.
So which is it?
Do you have difficulty staying coherent in the debate?
Here let me help you
>>17969715
You said "you cannot research on the holocaust that may arrive at the wrong conclusion".
You also doubled down on that argument here>>17969759 that merely researching on the holocaust isn't fully possible because researching it is being suppressed (despite the fact that you gave an anecdote of a man who researched it and successfully came to the negative conclusion).

Now you're saying research that leads to the negative conclusion is possible but now you want to argue the possibility of publications.

So are we arguing this now? Or are we still on the research possibility argument? You're not being coherent. Maybe low iq?

>>17969959
German soldiers are doing their duty, That doesnt mean they want to mistreat everyone in captivity - its not efficient anyway. Healthy people work better.

>dunno, I support nice things like freedom and not hating and killing people
You hate truth so whats the point of this bulshit?

>>17969960
>you going to say that not even taking words straight from Hitler's mouth is good enough?

Are you saying that your imaginative interpretations of hitler's words should be accepted or everyone else is dishonest? Really?

>>17969919
>Anyway, are you German? Does the law stops you from examining the evidence?

I'm American. There are a number of ways these laws preclude me and others from verifying/evaluating the presented evidence is legit. You have to kind of just take them at face value, you can't go to Poland and start poking around Auschwitz to see if the physical evidence supports the documents/images you bring up over and over again.

I don't get why you think these efforts to shut doubters up is not suppression, though. Are you a communist?

>>17969973
>You said "you cannot research on the holocaust that may arrive at the wrong conclusion".

Here's what I said:
>You cannot research the Holocaust freely in Germany/Poland/etc because you may not arrive at the conclusion that it did not actually take place.

Whatever free research you do on the topic of the Holocaust, you need to do it elsewhere. The anecdote of the researcher was someone else.

Do... do you understand? Everything I said is correct.

>>17969968
>arguing that the Allies have a reason to fabricate the Holocaust
They did not, Allies didn't use Holocaust as justyfication for war, didn't use it as an explanation for Holocaust, and didn't use it to shame and discredit Germans when Manstein and other nazis were bulid NATO. Neither did Soviets
>>17969976
>German soldier duty is to die to defend Poles and Jews and give them higher standards than that of Germans
lol, did Hitler really loved Poles and Jews more than Germans?


>>17969977
>There are a number of ways these laws preclude me and others from verifying/evaluating the presented evidence is legit
Why are you not arrested yet then?
>you can't go to Poland and start poking around Auschwitz to see if the physical evidence supports the documents/images you bring up over and over again.
You can tho, ofc it's a musem so we can't expect some fat unwashed hs droput neonazi to destory it becasue he wants to expose joos conspiracy but if you behave then why not, that would require leaving your room tho

>>17969973
I didnt say researhing it is not possible in germany, thats someone else.

I say that its possible to sit at your desk and write against it, but to research and publish your findings is illegal as is representing the client that does so.

So by this, holocaust denial concluding research is de facto though not de jure illegal in germany. Holocaust research that is published making the illegal conclusion is de jure illegal in Germany.

That is clear oppression.

Is there any proof the holocaust wasnt fabricated propaganda by the notoruously dishonest soviet union and unitd states?

Is there any proof that (((Hitler))) even existed

>>17969995
>You can tho, ofc it's a musem so we can't expect some fat unwashed hs droput neonazi to destory it becasue he wants to expose joos conspiracy but if you behave then why not, that would require leaving your room tho

But you can concrete over an alleged extermination camp i.e. Belzec, to prevent anyone examining what could be buried there?

>>17969995
>lol, did Hitler really loved Poles and Jews more than Germans?

All Germans loved Poles and Jews, get over it.

>>17969995
>>arguing that the Allies have a reason to fabricate the Holocaust
>They did not

Atrocity propaganda can be used ex post facto. It can also be used to denigrate the losers of a war after by the winners of it, as the Allies did by forcing German civilians to go through humiliation rituals about the Holocaust. Do you understand?

You have to understand this.

>>17970003
>But Mr Churchill, we just destroyed our empire and all our wealth to fight our ethno graphic brothers and sisters in Saxony. Why?

Uuuuuhhhh.....those germans are nasty brutes, so they needed to be destroyed whatever the cost. Here's something we just found showing how brutish they were...

>>17969996
Ok so we can agree then that researching on the holocaust to the point that you can reach a negative conclusion on it, is in fact possible.

Yes?

>>17970015
Ive addressed this here; >>17969996

>>17970002
>All Germans loved Poles and Jews, get over it.
Enemies of Poland are enemies of mankind according to G.K. Chesterton but idk if Hitler really loved Poles and Jews more than Germans, he was kinda shit leader if he did (minus getting his whole country occupied and destroyed ofc)
>>17970003
>Atrocity propaganda can be used ex post facto
but it wasn't used ex post facto, it was not used aganist RFN or GDR, it wasn't used aganist Nazis bulding NATO or to prevent nazis from occuping high positions in RFN

>>17970023
>but it wasn't used ex post facto

It was. We already went over this. This is the part where you update your views on this to conform to the facts or I move on because you're untrainable.

>>17970023
By RFN I mean FRG (West Germany) btw, my mistakee
>>17970030
American soldiers geting emotional over piles of corpses they themselfs found during the war and doing this on their own doesnt' count as state propaganda

>>17970023
>Enemies of Poland are enemies of mankind according to G.K. Chesterton but idk if Hitler really loved Poles and Jews more than Germans, he was kinda shit leader if he did (minus getting his whole country occupied and destroyed ofc)

Yes he loved them, even attended Pidsulskis funeral, but why would he love Poles and Jews more than Germans? He wouldnt and that is reasonable and fair.

>but it wasn't used ex post facto, it was not used aganist RFN or GDR, it wasn't used aganist Nazis bulding NATO or to prevent nazis from occuping high positions in RFN

It was extensively until pressure began to build that it was hurting german rebuilding and recruitment into the cold war. And millions of germans were Nazis so there was no point in going further. Later, in the 70s the holocaust propaganda industry was created in the wider west. This is all well studied.

>>17970034
>American soldiers geting emotional over piles of corpses they themselfs found during the war and doing this on their own doesnt' count as state propaganda

These are soldiers forcing local germans to take part in this allied propaganda.

>>17969968
I'd consider Source criticism to really be the only relevant term that you brought, but thank you regardless. You do bring-up a valid point with biases, but that's only applies to sources from the allies themselves; sources gathered from the Nazis themselves as evidence would not fall under this as they did not have a bias towards atrocity propaganda directed themselves. The same can be said of physical evidence, as it has no bias as a matter of fact. Even if you say that the allies' presentation of these pieces of evidence is biased, it doesn't in and of itself mean that they are all forgeries, just as a prosecutors presentation of evidence does not invalidate it's use in prosecuting a defendant. If you wish to dismiss evidence of the holocaust, you have to demonstrate that it is unreliable, such as by showing it's impossibility or it's unreliable providence or what have you. If you wish to say, for example, that some account of genocide is impossile or unlikely, then you'd demonstrate it by producing more reliable sources that contradict it, or showing that it's stated providence is impossible or unlikely. The burden of proof remains on you if you wish to dismiss pieces of evidence that are not from (or purported to come) from the allies themselves.

>>17970041
Here you have Józef Beck visting Neue Wache in Berlin and paying his respect to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier there, according to your logics that proves that Poles also loved Germans and no atrocities, persecution or doing mean things like taking Gdańsk or Poznań away from Germans actually never happen
>>17970044
> take part in this allied propaganda.
Dead bodies found in concentration camps was propaganda?

>>17970055
>according to your logics that proves that Poles also loved Germans and no atrocities, persecution or doing mean things like taking Gdańsk or Poznań away from Germans actually never happen

Why? Poland had many crazy types. Beck can still love germans.

>>17970055
>>17970055
>Dead bodies found in concentration camps was propaganda?

Yes, ofc.

Hitler loved aliens also, pic rel.

I actually don't think the Nazis intended to exterminate the jews. I think the original plan before the war was to treat them like second class citizens and encourage them to emigrate. Once Germany started the war the Nazis decided they needed slave labor and the Jews were the perfect candidates (especially in the occupied territories to hide it from the German public). What we think of as the holocaust was probably a mix of Nazis killing Jews they considered unfit to work, random acts of violence by sadistic soldiers, disease from the cramped conditions, and starvation when Germany prioritized resources for ethnic Germans once they started losing the war. In summary I think that the Nazis intentional crimes against the Jews were pretty much morally equivalent to American slavery and segregation on a larger scale and the genocide itself was outside of anyones control.

>>17970073
>What we think of as the holocaust was probably a mix of Nazis killing Jews they considered unfit to work, random acts of violence by sadistic soldiers, disease from the cramped conditions, and starvation when Germany prioritized resources for ethnic Germans once they started losing the war. In summary I think that the Nazis intentional crimes against the Jews were pretty much morally equivalent to American slavery and segregation on a larger scale and the genocide itself was outside of anyones control.

A fairly balanced take however, research shows that Auschwitz healthcare system used state of art tech to save the lives of jews unfit for work on arrival - which was the point of dreaded "selections" on the ramp at the train stop.

>>17970053
>You do bring-up a valid point with biases, but that's only applies to sources from the allies themselves; sources gathered from the Nazis themselves as evidence would not fall under this as they did not have a bias towards atrocity propaganda directed themselves.

Nazis captured by the Allies in things like the Nuremberg Trials, which were show trials that put the Holocaust on judicial notice, were placed under duress. It's appropriate to disregard their testimony.

>The same can be said of physical evidence

The physical evidence is inconclusive at best. There's nothing supporting the six million number in the physical evidence. Individual Jews, yes, six million, no.

>If you wish to dismiss evidence of the holocaust, you have to demonstrate that it is unreliable

The Holocaust denial laws renders all evidence from the Allies and people they control unreliable. It tarnishes their own credibility decades after the fact. It was an unnecessary own goal, but they did it.

>If you wish to say, for example, that some account of genocide is impossile or unlikely, then you'd demonstrate it by producing more reliable sources that contradict it, or showing that it's stated providence is impossible or unlikely. The burden of proof remains on you if you wish to dismiss pieces of evidence that are not from (or purported to come) from the allies themselves.

In short, no. We're right to raise acceptable evidence standards in lieu of Holocaust denial laws. We don't have an intellectual obligation to believe the Holocaust really happened as-described or at all. Actions that undermine its credibility, well, undermine it, and that's that.

>>17970072
>Beck can still love germans.
Not enough to give them Gdańsk I guess? or stop the killing of 3 billion germans in the corridor
But he was in germany and pay respect to some grave so I guess thats nullify all of that and makes Germany into an agresor in 39

>>17970095
anon, I'm not actually trying to prove or disprove the holocaust to you, I'm just trying to demonstrate to you that the standard of proof set by the OP is nonsensical. As a matter of fact, your own reply implicitly demonstrates this.
>Nazis captured by the Allies in things like the Nuremberg Trials, which were show trials that put the Holocaust on judicial notice, were placed under duress. It's appropriate to disregard their testimony.
Here, you actively engage in arguing on why a source is to be dismissed by presenting how it's context might make it unreliable
>The physical evidence is inconclusive at best. There's nothing supporting the six million number in the physical evidence. Individual Jews, yes, six million, no.
again, actively engaging in a source and why it might not demonstrate your opponents point
>In short, no. We're right to raise acceptable evidence standards in lieu of Holocaust denial laws
except, you don't even raise those standards yourself. In your post, you are implicitly accepting that the burden of proof lies on you for demonstrating that the evidence for the holocaust narrative is poor at best, rather than on your opponent's that it is beyond reproach. You are capable of demonstrating why a source is unreliable and why it might actually support your position, which directly contradicts the OP which states that such a thing should not be possible due to genocide denial laws. The entire premise which you are trying to defend is invalidated by the very arguments you employ to prove it.

>>17970146
That's fair to a degree, I suppose. That being said, I do unironically hold the view that the Holocaust denial laws raise the bar quite a bit. Not to the extent that all evidence can be summarily dismissed, but that the reason for dismissal can be a lot flimsier than if no such denial laws were in place. That much I'm entirely sincere about. So I guess OP's use of the phrase "parsimonious interpretation of the facts" carries into my own thinking, but not to the extent that it's totally impervious to evidence, just particularly skeptical in light of the pressures imposed to believe the atrocity claims.

Personally I wouldn't call myself a Holocaust denier, but definitely a skeptic. It reeks of exaggeration at a minimum. The fixation with the number six million further erodes credibility; if it turns out four million rather than six million Jews were killed by the Nazis, then the Holocaust is verifiably fake, because they were so adamant about it being *exactly* six million, give or take a few thousand. The tolerance certainly isn't even one million. That number is fucking important to the narrative. Key.

>>17970127
Yes, not enough to give then Danzig. He was a Polish politician subject to Polish political concerns not german concerns first and foremost.

Thus, Poland can still be the aggressor, especially given the generous terms offered.

>>17970193
but he went to germany and pay respect to the grave, that means poles loved germans were incapable of being the aggressor according to your logic

>>17970199
Except for the Poles doing the damage.

>>17970206
mpossible beck was paying respect to some grave, that causes Poles to be incapable of harming germans

>>17970182
>if it turns out four million rather than six million Jews were killed by the Nazis, then the Holocaust is verifiably fake, because they were so adamant about it being *exactly* six million, give or take a few thousand
that doesn't make any sense. If it turns out a million died, then a million died, not that no-one died at all. Different casualty estimates don't disprove the occurrence of a historical battle, just how many on which side died.

>>17967876 (OP)


That's about 3,000 people a day every day for 4 years straight...........think about how stupid you have to be to believe that.

>>17970290
That is 100 percent plausible considering the scale of the operation and several Nazi leaders have made claims that they were capable of carrying out more than this as a matter of fact. Personal Incredulity is not an excuse anon.

>>17970290
Soviets got a minimum of 700,000 people in the great purge of 1936-7. That's almost 1,000 people per day, over the course of two years, done by a regime that was way more disorderly and dysfunctional.

Now just what are those darn Jews up to?

I dare anyone to take a trip to Majdanek and tell me that shit is fake.

>>17970301

"""plausible""" Try harder, Schlomo.

How many babies are you killing a day in Palestine?

>>17970377
Which is 1/3 the amount I cited for 1/4 the time, you dumb, fucking Kike.

Learn Maths, retard. ;)

>>17970268
The key Holocaust claim is that Nazis killed specifically 6 million Jews for being Jews. So if any part of that turns out to be false then no it didn't happen.

>>17970377

That works out to about one "person" every 30 seconds, round the clock, nonstop, without a break EVER for 4 years straight in a single location with a just a few shriveled up corpses......... <------- not even my pet goldfish is this dumb and gullible. Why are you?

Entertaining /pol/fag ideas is like throwing peanuts at chimpanzees and expecting them to write Shakespeare. The Holocaust is one of the most well documented events and denial of the systematic effort by the Nazis to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe is a sign of several mental illness and/or lack of connection to reality. They put up the facade of skepticism, yet don't engage in any actual scholarly discussion because they get upset when their retarded claims are subsequently proven wrong by the scholarship.
Pic related is an essential reading for anyone actually interested in studying the people who devised, planned, and put into motion the Holocaust. Here is a good stream about debunking many of the frequently perpetuated Holocaust denial claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJZFpU6-QkM

>>17970860
See: >>17970860
>Follow-up rule: arguing with the OP's premise is a hard strike against the validity of the Holocaust just like posting fabricated (unconfirmed) "evidence" of it. Don't argue with the premise. The premise of the thread is correct. Meet your burden of proof or shut up.


So thank you for conceding that the Holocaust is false.

>>17970865
Why should charitably engage with OP's post when it's clear he's being disingenuous?

>>17970879
>charitable

You're misunderstanding the dynamic here. He's being uncharitable with you, not the other way around. You're just screeching into the void.

>>17970880
reading comprehension devil strikes again

>>17969742
The dumbest thing is caring about Jews. You worship them which is why you hate them because they can do what you can't

>>17967876 (OP)
>>17967884
you are confused and you don't understand what the burden of proof means.
you are the one who states that a certain historical event did not happened, and your claim is an opinion?
a documented historical event is considered a consensus in any self respecting academic institution.
if you have a counterargument, that's fine, but i haven't seen anything substantial that can support your opinion/shitpost.

the set of rules you proposed should apply to you first, prove that what you say is true and we'll go from there. no one here owes you anything.