Did the holocaust really happen?

Look at that, he just so happens to have all these super sound arguments ready to go.

This is in no way set-up or a brigade. no way

>The absolute systematic gassing and burning of 6 million jews? No.
Then why is the narrative saying the opposite (opposite of no is yes)

>A. It's best to try and not get the death penalty or go to jail.
>B. The Nuremberg trials were nothing but for show, most of the people taken there were going to be put to death pre-decided.
I don't see how B is related. And by A, are you saying that they did indeed LIE?

>I think you can take holocaust history studies abroad, maybe in Israel.
Eh that seems like quite the investment. I feel like it'd be in the Jews' best interest to make all the information as concrete and open as possible... Or maybe not? I don't know.

? What are you talking about.
I answered his questions.

>talk
>defending hitler
It is very clear Hitler understood the mass genocide of Jews under his orders.

The two points are that he was perfectly fine with other ways of getting rid of Jews, and he might have not known the details of how Jews were killed. He always planned on getting rid of them one way or another and he ended up ordering the final solution.

No, but it should have.

Also Nuremberg was an illegal show trial, retroactively judging non-existing, non-defined "crimes", going against all law and custom until then and against all principles of right.

I'm not trying to be difficult but how do you reach these conclusions? I mean, to me, it seems LIKELY that Hitler would have known about it, but I am careful to not say things for sure... Do the soviets control these documents or something?

>Then why is the narrative saying the opposite (opposite of no is yes)
Because the public narrative is the result of poor American education. The public "narrative" and the actual academic standing are two entirely different thing.
What you learned in school what the holocaust was, most likely isn't what the holocaust was.
There is a smaller number of people were gassed and burned exclusively than 6 million.
>I don't see how B is related. And by A, are you saying that they did indeed LIE?
Who "lied", the allies did the best they could to conjour together a Kangaroo court and bounce the Nazis into prison.
Article 19 and 21 higlite this.
That being said, most were probably guilty.
Hess didn't deserve death IMO.
>impyling I'm defending the fuck wit who threw Europe into another mass European land war, stomped out anti-semitism, and started the total liberalization of Europe in less than 20 years
Fuck off.
Hitler was not the one to begin the orders of the mass murders. It was most likely Himmler, I will still assert that Hitler was realtivly unaware until after it was into full effect
>his orders
I would like to see this explicit order.
We had all of their radio communications decoded and their records were left pretty intact

>Jews' best interest to make all the information as concrete and open as possible
It is, you moron. The Holocaust is a pretty complex subject, so of course studies for it exist.

>We will never speak of it publicly. . . I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. ... The Jewish race is being — exterminated... that's quite clear, it's in our program elimination of the Jews and we're doing it, exterminating them . . . This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written . . .
- Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, in a speech given at Poznan (Posen, Poland) to a meeting of SS Major Generals on October 4, 1943
>Around the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 Heydrich, the Chef of the SIPO [Security Police] and SD [Security Service], told me in conversation that the Führer had ordered the physical destruction of the Jewish opponent.
- Adolf Eichmann, in his memoirs, which were taped by a reporter named Willem Sassen and then turned into a book
>Rudolf Höss, the Commandant of Auschwitz, wrote after the war that Adolf Eichmann, the bureaucrat in charge of organizing the deportations of Jews to the death camps, was "the only SS officer who was allowed to keep records concerning these liquidation operations, according to the orders of the Reichsführer-SS [Himmler]. All other units which took part in any way had to destroy all records immediately.

What did they mean by this?

delete this, the holocaust did NOT happen

It would be awesome to have primary source, side by side with the translation.
Anyway, this proves that Hitler may have not known what was going on for a long while.
He is still fully at fault for creating the conditions that allowed this to happen.

Shitpost and you guys let it go.

youtube.com/watch?v=wIa7QaRJAIA

/thread.

This is why Veeky Forums can't have nice things.

>Anyway, this proves that Hitler may have not known what was going on for a long while.
What?
How does the quote from Himmler and Eichmann not tell you otherwise? Even one of the most prominent holocaust deniers, David Irving, can concede that Hitler knew that something was happening.

I don't believe he gave the inital orders, and that is pretty much backed up by Functionalism.
Also, David Irving is a hack, he lost all credibility in court.

I've indulged in this argument before and it's honestly not worth it. Pretty much every point holocaust deniers put forth is easily refuted by some cursory research, so much so that they just give up the discussion altogether for utter lack of material.

"There wasn't enough fuel to burn those bodies! They were using the fuel for the tanks!"
"The crematoriums were coke fired."
"..."

And the shitpost continues
(Select all the images with ice cream)

As I remember, the transcript of that himmler speech was "discovered" long after the war was over.

It did, but records of it are not accurate in anyway. Since the Soviets seized most of it and held most of it secret. Plus there is always an agenda for the Russians when they released anything.

Don't forget it is the "final" solution. If the UK had been able to keep the Palestinian muslims under control and allowed the mass immigration of Germany jews. There would have been no holocaust. Germany would have simply shipped all the jews to Palestine. The germans would have even sent the jews to Madagascar.

>Then why is the narrative saying the opposite (opposite of no is yes)
it is not
there are no claims that the entirety of the holocaust victims were gassed and burned
a hueg proportion were simply shot, or starved

See son, this is BAIT and LOOK! He's got himself a fish

Honestly, nothing makes me question the reality of the holocaust more than this attitude.

>everybody who questions the established dogma is a neo-nazi arguing in bad faith

You're just asking for it.

Daily reminder that the nazis killed more slavs than jews

I don't think there is a single holocaust denier in the thread up until after this post m8.

Slavs are subhuman and you probably will vote for trump because he wants to race cuck Europe and support glorious Zion and Russia instead

>Durka durka: the post

Are you saying you choose beliefs just to be contrary to people who express confidence in theirs?

There are so many sources available to anyone with an actually curious mindset on the matter that is indeed very hard to believe anybody who comes and question it is actually genuine, yes.

>vote trump and putin 2016 XDDDDDDDDDDD
>upboat
Faggot JIDF.

user are you okay

I can literally hear muffled screams of your 9 year old wife while reading this post.

Essentially, yes. Or at least I attempt to.

All of these sources are post-war accounts under the scrutiny and influence of a completely dominant victor, painting the loser in the harshest light possible. Any effort to reconsider the record from a less interested, neutral perspective runs the risk of being branded "revisionist", and any historian who would undertake such a thing runs the risk of losing his job and standing, even setting out to explore the subject with the possibility that the holocaust might be minimized is dangerous.

The way I see it, if the holocaust DIDN'T happen, knowledge of the fact would be discredited in exactly the same way it is now.

So yes, I question the holocaust on account of it being morally unquestionable.

>Honestly, nothing makes me question the reality of [a historical event] more than [an attitude]
Good luck with your research then

Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler.

He also killed more Slavs.

But nobody treats the denial of any other historical event the way that holocaust denial is treated. Deny anything else, and at worst you're derided as a quack. Deny the holocaust, and people think you're a monster.

I think that's bizarre. To be considered morally despicable because you don't believe something happened? That's not scientific, empirical thinking. That's religious thinking.

are you unaware that holocaust historiography has seen some of the (relatively speaking, in terms of historical research) heated, wild, fluctuating debate, finds, arguments and yes, QUESTIONING virtually immediately following the war? that is the great intent-function debate? does that constant, detailed prodding and poking and looking under the hood -not go directly against the very idea you try to promote (that it is somehow impossible to research or revise)

I'm not saying that it's impossible to research or revise. I'm saying that there is no way that it could be substantially minimized, no matter the evidence, on account of the ideology surrounding it.

Wtf is coke fired?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel)