>>17904694
>A. The Holocaust never happened at all.
There are many different definitions of what this means that have been used. Ultimately, there is one reality, but people have developed completely different perceptions of what that reality comprises, including what the purpose of the camps were, how many people died or were killed, what methods were used for the alleged atrocities that occurred, and so forth. See pic related as one of many examples. If you deny the claims made in this book, are you a denialist?
>That it happened on a far smaller scale than the 6 million figure that is commonly quoted.
Usually people who are labeled as denialists will not only insist that the claimed number of victims is grossly exaggerated, but also that the alleged atrocities never actually happened and were only fabricated after the fact by unscrupulous individuals.
They'll also argue that the mainstream narrative has created a false view of the original alleged intentions of the Nazi leadership. The often-cited word "extermination," for example, can simply mean deportation. The Haavara Agreement was a well-known Nazi policy. Nevertheless, the word "exterminate" is now often loosely insinuated or implied to have meant "killing," rather than deportation. That is to say, when the word "exterminate" was used, people will imply it wasn't referring to the well-known Nazi program of deporting these people out of the country, but it is instead implied that the word "exterminate" was originally meant to refer to the frequently-alleged atrocities, e.g. alleged gas chambers, combined with ovens that erased all evidence of the millions supposedly killed.
Many people, importantly, also question the characterization of the original intent. They question whether any of these camps were ever intended to be used, in reality, for mass execution of prisoners. And for the people today who choose to question that, this doesn't mean they agree with the Nazi propaganda or program either.
4chan Search
2 results for "0edb78ba00d8009c9b75f6377d298ac2"
>>17816965
>That said there have been investigations. WE have mass graves and testimony from both victims and perpetrators.
I thought they said all the bodies (including all of the bones of millions of people) were burned to ash with their magical inexhaustible supply of fuel, and that's why they couldn't find the mass graves correlating to the claims of the amount killed.
>and testimony from both victims and perpetrators.
Yes, there is plenty of testimony recorded. But the parts of the story where they all disagreed about what happened, is what we call "inconsistent testimony." This inconvenient reality is where the official "historians" came in, to try to present a "clean" narrative. The problem is they had to keep changing it over the years. The fact is that the whole official narrative is artificial. If you go to the testimony level, you final instantly there are tons of contradictions, except about the details that actually happened.
>>17816979
>There's no concrete part about the holocaust
The only part of the narrative that is concrete is the part that's not even controversial. But these people try to essentially say through some roundabout way, that because there were camps, that means virtually every claim of what happened in the camps is true. Even when these people are known to have a serious problem with honesty (due to their moral code, if you can call it that) and we find inconsistencies everywhere. Their official "historians" try to clean it up, but they keep changing their story too.
>That said there have been investigations. WE have mass graves and testimony from both victims and perpetrators.
I thought they said all the bodies (including all of the bones of millions of people) were burned to ash with their magical inexhaustible supply of fuel, and that's why they couldn't find the mass graves correlating to the claims of the amount killed.
>and testimony from both victims and perpetrators.
Yes, there is plenty of testimony recorded. But the parts of the story where they all disagreed about what happened, is what we call "inconsistent testimony." This inconvenient reality is where the official "historians" came in, to try to present a "clean" narrative. The problem is they had to keep changing it over the years. The fact is that the whole official narrative is artificial. If you go to the testimony level, you final instantly there are tons of contradictions, except about the details that actually happened.
>>17816979
>There's no concrete part about the holocaust
The only part of the narrative that is concrete is the part that's not even controversial. But these people try to essentially say through some roundabout way, that because there were camps, that means virtually every claim of what happened in the camps is true. Even when these people are known to have a serious problem with honesty (due to their moral code, if you can call it that) and we find inconsistencies everywhere. Their official "historians" try to clean it up, but they keep changing their story too.