So I spent my time in /pol/ and came out doubting a lot of details about the holocaust. I still doubt them to some degree, but I've also grown to trust pol much less and I've acknowledged that a lot of what got me to doubt the holocaust was good memes that aren't necessarily based on anything true.
I would like to come to a more reality based view of the holocaust, whichever position that ends up being. What books can I read that deal with this from a critical view on both sides? Are there any books which are in response to each other dealing with each others assertions? I don't want to just read up on one side of the issue and act like I've tried to research the problem, but I also feel like if it's just me deciding which books best represent both sides then I'm kind of deciding which view I want to take by choosing the books that are most likely to affirm that view.
Any help is appreciated
Looking For Books On The Holocaust
You can find actual testimony from the Nuremberg trials if you're looking for a direct source. There's tons of ficti
>What books can I read that deal with this from a critical view on both sides?
The holocaust is a historical fact, there is no "debate" about whether it happened or not.
What exactly do you mean by the holocaust though? For instance is a necessary part of the holocaust the death of at least six million jews? Are certain camps being death camps a necessary part of the holocaust? I'm not super convinced of all the anti-holocaust memes, but I'm looking for more than facebook level commentary
((( books )))
The standard book is Raul Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews. You could also read Vidal-Naquet's books on Holocaust denial. You should definitely read Norman Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, which was endorsed by Hilberg but is very very controversial.
Vidal-Naquet vs. Finkelstein will give you an alright overview of what the stakes are on either side. Holocaust deniers are mostly neo-Nazis with an ulterior motive and sloppy methods, and on the other side, a lot of shitty people exploit the memory of the Holocaust for gain and to manipulate politics. There is not much fruitful dialogue between deniers and the mainstream. People like Lipstadt advocate shutting down all denial as pure evil, as do most Euro governments. Check out the Faurisson controversy and the David Irving trial for example.
What it would take for that documentary to be correct in its accusations against Hilberg, a guy who spent his entire life researching the Holocaust, and being no great friend of the vast majority of Jews for his views on it, is hard to even imagine. The guy hated Arendt (she plagiarized him!), endorsed Finkelstein, was banned from Israel and censured by the Jewish community, and he isolated himself from most Jews as well. Hilberg would either have to be a weirdly stable combination of totally deranged and a complete genius, or he'd have to be a gigantic conspiracy theory thing.
But I saw some of that "One Third of the Holocaust" video on Youtube once on /pol/, and for a split second I was interested in how it claimed that Raul Hilberg seemingly using an unreliable source, the kind of obviously fake "survivor" account that Finkelstein often shits on. So you might watch that after reading Hilberg, and see whether its arguments hold up.
There are also some rare deniers who try to be more rigorous about it than others, I think one of them is an Italian guy. But the really tedious thing about Holocaust denial is that even if they are right, it would have to be at such a deep and fundamental level in the analysis that it'd still be easy to obscure in layers and layers of secondary smokescreening. That's why the 'could x ovens really burn y jews in z hours?' shit is annoying, because in theory there could be some kernel of truth in it somewhere, something that could force a readjustment of Hilberg's numbers and a radical reassessment of ALL mainstream scholarship's assumptions on the Nazi genocide machine, but it'd be impossible to prove conclusively. You'd have to go deep down into the bedrock of Holocaust history, find one axiom like the ovens thing or the 'those doors couldn't hold so many burning Jews!!' thing, and try to build your own house of cards up on that. And for what? To be known as yet another Holocaust denying guy.
Sorry I moved some stuff around in this post. When I talk about the documentary I'm always talking about the same one, from the fourth paragraph.
A holocaust is a sacred offering. One proof that the Jews a racist and think they are superior is the fact that it is named the holocaust.
These Jews believe they are the most sacred that in fact their genocide was a sacred offering to God.
Meanwhile this same thing could happen to another race and it would be themed genocide.
There is so much evidence that contradicts what is written about the Holocaust, and so many laws erected to keep it that way.
Every time Israel needs something and the UN doesn't approve, they begin spouting their Holocaust crying and '''muh 6 million'''.
so many laws erected to prevent investigation and censor Holocaust deniers***
Ernst Junger described German losses in the Great War as "hecatombs." Comparing massive losses of life to sacrificial firestorms was nothing new, and certainly not unique to Jews.
Holocaust Industry by Finkelstein is great for assessing the modern cultural industry surrounding remembrance, as well as America's and Israel's role in that
In regards to the first paragraph, are the books in the pics related what you were talking about? Do you know about the different volumes of the first brought up in the documentary mentioned?
I want to make sure I'm understanding who is who her. Am I correct in saying that Raul Hilberg is a Jewih man who defends a pretty standard view of the holocaust, Pierre Vidal-Naquet wrote against holocaust revisionism, and Norman Finkelstein wrote against some of the political usage of the holocaust and Raul Hilberg approved of his book? Just to be sure I understand this, none of these people are holocaust skeptics? I might be misunderstanding this as you mention Vidal-Naquet vs. Finkelstein which could imply otherwise.
Is there anything specifically you are referring to with Vidal-Naquet vs. Finkelstein? Is it just there ongoing writings referring to each other? In regards to Lipstadt and David Irving did they produce anything worth reading?
I'm watching the video right now and a lot of it is the kind of stuff I'm used to, but all in one place. I would like to get to the bottom of some of these claims myself, but I don't know how much that will help. Also are you saying that Raul Hilberg although he didn't question the history of the holocaust received a lot of abuse for just his views on the political usages of it? Just making sure I get it
The last paragraph is the kind of stuff that I hear the most of, and I would love to find a collection of reposes to. I think the way to explained it is pretty accurate, there's kinda something there, but it's not the kind of thing that gets discussed, and if you bring it up you screw yourself in the process even if you're honestly inquiring
>So I spent my time in /pol/
Sorry didn't realize I was limited to one pic
last book
I'm sorry but the numbers just DONT ADD UP
I CANT TELL WHO IS LYING ANYMORE?!?!
>For instance is a necessary part of the holocaust the death of at least six million jews?
Does it really matters if its 5 instead of 6 million. imo when you past a certain level of inhumanity numbers have a relative importance.
Is the Rwandan genocode "better" because of lower body counts or worse because of higher death/population %? How can you start comparing millions of tragedies?
>I'm not super convinced of all the anti-holocaust memes, but I'm looking for more than facebook level commentary
But the holohoax is facebook memes. The only "proofs" (like the gas chamber's analisys) are fallacious because of methodology errors at best or in mala fides at worst. Every respected hystorian agree on the holocaust and the only reason you can doubt them is believing in jew's cospiration or nazi propaganda (of course they're going to relocate millions of people in Madagasgar, I see no logistical problems in that, totally a feasible plan)
Also I don't understand why refusing the "Holocaust narrative". If Hitler's views on jew were (and are) right, the only logical course of action is to exterminate them all since they are mastermind scheemer with no morals or loyalty to outgroups and live only to corrupts others cultures. It's almost like neo-nazis are ashamed of their ideology.
It's not about what is betteror worse, but what definitions we hold ourselves to. For example, with nimbers I am making up, if I say I believe that 10,000 Jews were specifically killed in the manner usually described for the 6,000,000 then I will be called a holocaust denier, not because I think no Jews died, but because I don't think the correct amount of Jews dies, but where is the bottom on this 4,000,000, 5,000,000, 5,100,000? That's what I'm curious about
I'm completely prepared to accept that thereare facebook memes on both sides, I just don't appreciate people coming in and spouting nonsense when I'm looking for book recommendations. If your side is strong then suggest the best book you've read from your side and move on
And again I'm not talking about what is right here ethically, only what truly happened historically, and which books best express that from both sides opinions
>A holocaust is a sacred offering.
Where did you got that exactly? Shoah means either great trouble/devastation, storm/clouds or desert, judging from its several appearances in the Tanach.
>One proof that the Jews a racist and think they are superior
Not going to argue that there aren't a lot of disgusting and racist remarks in Judaism concerning the gentiles and that many Jews are racist, but the Jewish cannon is vast, and no one believes and obeys EVERYTHING written in it, and there are many different movements under the umbrella of Judaism, not to mention the existence of atheist Jews or Jews that don't even feel any relation to the Jewish people, so it's rather generalizing to say all of them are racist.
>These Jews believe they are the most sacred that in fact their genocide was a sacred offering to God.
I heard controversial opinions of rabbies saying that the holocaust was a punishment, but never that it was literally a sacrifice to god.
>Meanwhile this same thing could happen to another race and it would be themed genocide.
Not true, the Armenian genocide is also called the Armenian holocaust, the Israeli government didn't completely recognize it officially to maintain the good relations it had with Turkey in the past.
Animal rights activists (also some holocaust camp survivors) compare the industrial killing of animals to the Jewish holocaust, and there's a large vegan movement in Israel. I also heard a lot of times people here refer to the war in Syria as a holocaust.
>There is so much evidence that contradicts what is written about the Holocaust, and so many laws erected to keep it that way.
Personally I don't think there should be any laws against holocaust denial and it seems absurd.
>Every time Israel needs something and the UN doesn't approve, they begin spouting their Holocaust crying and '''muh 6 million'''.
Unfortunately true, and many of us here that aren't mass zionist blockheads criticize the cynical usage of the holocaust by retards like Netanyahu to promote their interests.
Denying the Holocaust by Deborah Lipstadt is a good look at Holocaust denial. IIRC it's Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It? that kind of makes a mockery of the Institute for Historical Review.
look at your own pic related
auschwitz was a work camp
You know the structure of Auschwitz right ...
Healthy prisoners were put to work. The unhealthy, old, or very young were dealt with in short order.
Every Man Dies Alone, by Hans Fallada.
Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin is a good account of the Holocaust that doesn't fall into the "allied scheme" of history.
The point is that 10k dead Jews is not a genocide but killing 4, 5 or 6 millions is. And if don't understand this you're either retarded or in mala fide.
I can't recommend you a book because the one I've read isn't translated in English. (rebaldoria.com
If you can read it do it because it's a fairly unbiased opinion on every nation's camps (it even equate nazi's lager with urss gulag). It does not talk about holocaust revisionism thought.
pic related is the bibliography
Karski report
...
There are a lot of books that prove it didn't happen, my favorite though is about the Zundel trial in Canada where it was proven in a court of law it didn't happen. The judge even said, "The truth is no defense". Truth being the Holocaust didn't happen.
Did Six Million Really Die? by Barbara Kulaszka is a book on the trial with transcripts included. You can find a pdf pretty easily.
Pretty good bait, there are people dumb like this.
Primo Levi's Survival in Auschwitz or If This Is A Man is what I'd recommend.
To deny the occurrence of the Holocaust is brainless.
“You who live safe
In your warm houses,
You who find warm food
And friendly faces when you return home.
Consider if this is a man
Who works in mud,
Who knows no peace,
Who fights for a crust of bread,
Who dies by a yes or no.
Consider if this is a woman
Without hair, without name,
Without the strength to remember,
Empty are her eyes, cold her womb,
Like a frog in winter.
Never forget that this has happened.
Remember these words.
Engrave them in your hearts,
When at home or in the street,
When lying down, when getting up.
Repeat them to your children.
Or may your houses be destroyed,
May illness strike you down,
May your offspring turn their faces from you.”
good goy
>deny
Reminder that jews are totalitarian semites; their culture isn't nuanced like those of the European. This feature comes out in a lot of ways that includes calling people "deniers" for questioning an event many "survivors" every year get caught lying about, and the facts of which remain far from conclusive. We're dealing with a people who do not share the western conception of honesty and we have every right to investigate the stories they spin into moral tales intended to make us feel guilty.
A bit strange and predictable that the Protocols history and written merit thread has 404'd off the face of the Earth, but this thread is still here. It's shameful, because the other thread contained some unusually accurate and little known and pertinent information, both about those particular books and writing in general.
Hmm. So it was deleted?
Yeah those are all the right books.
Yes on Hilberg, but his account of the Holocaust actually adjusted the number to be quite a bit lower than mainstream estimates and he became a persona non grata. He was an odd guy and it's worth reading some article on him about his reaction to Arendt plagiarizing him. It goes over his personality. He spent decades researching the Holocaust, but felt that banning denial was cowardly.
Yes, Hilberg and Finkelstein were friends, and Hilberg endorsed Finkelstein's book on abuses of the memory of the Holocaust.
By VN vs. F I only meant, two different ways of viewing the issue. Not any one controversy. But VN was involved in plenty of letter exchanges and controversies.
>In regards to Lipstadt and David Irving did they produce anything worth reading?
Finkelstein says Irving is useful as a devil's advocate, but Irving is definitely a card carrying neo Nazi. He's more of a journalist historian than an academic historian, his greatness as a historian came from his ability to track down tons of figures and sources in Germany that no one else could, using his personal connections and social engineering. He sued Lipstadt for slander for saying he was a Holocaust denier or some shit, and it was a big show trial. After that he became much more openly neo-Nazi. Some of his earlier work is probably worth reading for you, if you're interested in drastically non-mainstream depictions of how the Nazi state went about its business and perpetrated war crimes.
>even if you're honestly inquiring
The standard discourse in Europe is that even "honestly inquiring" is tantamount to neo-Nazism. Lipstadt would say that we have to ban people from even doubting or expressing doubt.
>oy vey goy don't you care about the 300,000 killed in Auschwitz? I can't believe you don't care about the 1.5 million. You don't want your peers to think you aren't deeply concerned about the 4 million, do you goy? We can't ever forget the 6 million.
Thanks a lot for your responses
>he fell for the fiction meme
someone on his linked a book "treblinka, death camp or transit camp" something like that, you can read it online
Blew my fucking mind desu, I've already two of the other books ( there's a whole series) it's written in the academic style with everything g sourced and cited so it seems legit to me ( before reading the book I tried to read as much of the official narrative around treblinka as I could, and I could find no lies or anything I the book
Would highly reccomend
I too enjoy a good fiction
5.5 million Jews were killed
A little over 1 million from gas chambers. 1-2 million by death squads. Most died from typhus, starvation or worked to death in the other camps.
The Nazis built roughly 500 camps and only 6 of them were actual extermination camps with gas chambers and the like.
Some people provided fake testimony because that's what some people will always do much like there have been fake 9/11 survivors.
The holocaust happened. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Pol is full of retards and teens that can't understand anything with a little nuance or complexity, their world view is very simplified.
>having the internet in 2017
>still believing this fiction
The thing jews are most known for around the globe is their inability to tell the truth. Glad it's finally starting to wear off and people are looking into this fable themselves. You can never trust these people. They are schemers to their brittle bones.
>this man was EVIL!
>that man was EVIL!
>hah, those bigots can't into nuance and complexity, hah!
Here, OP, if you are really serious, this site has all you need. It's the nature of imageboards to have a pretty shallow understanding of all things, including about the Hollywood speciality called the holocaust. I was intrigued most by it being illegal to simply talk about in 16 countries, then Ursula Haverbeck's interview that got her jailed, and then reading some of the books in this list.
tldr
> dear goyim
> 6 million
> hope we turn your kids against you
> hitler was evil for trying to take over the world that britain and the us and the ussr had already taken over
Take the functionalism/structuralism redpill. There was no order by the Fuhrer but there were several competing polycratic structures in national socialism that enabled self-reinforcing actions in the chaotic time of war.
The holocaust didn't follow one master plan but was rather a by-product of radicals in the German war machine. Subsuming the extermination of Jews under one label inadvertently hides this fact
Hi, David Irving. This probably happened some, but no evidences shows for it being at much scale.
I wonder who is behind this post.
my diary desu