The Holocaust

The deniers who actually try to research it do say that actually, they come up with ad hoc theories like the jews all died from disease, or "only" 1 million jews died.

The reason those aren't taken seriously is bad methodology and the fact that they are still using it to push an agenda of conspiracy theories about jews.

>It's anti-semitic to dislike Israel

Why is it a crime in several countries to contest the "official" version? Why were some people arrested for searching on the holocaust? Is there an other example of historical event historians can't search about?

Of course the Holocaust happened, you'd have to be completely retarded to say otherwise. However the death toll could have very well been exaggerated for political gains.

Because it's anti-semetic to go against the official version, goyim!

The thing is that the community who challenges the holocaust doesn't have much of a following at all, it's a small number of very obnoxious, very annoying, and very loud people on the internet rubbing against what's already accepted so that they can have their antisemitism validated in some form or another.

The only place where denial has truly taken hold is middle eastern regions, and even then not all of it. Mostly they cling to denial as a way to remove sympathy for Israel. While Israel itself is certainly not clean of crimes committed by their government, there's really no one virtuous voice to be heard.

But not only is the Holocaust a very real thing, the final solution of the Jewish Question was only a fraction of the grand design for a reformed Europe in the event of Nazi victory. The plans laid out in Generalplan Ost called for the elimination and removal of nearly all people-groups in Eastern Europe to make way for German colonial expansion.

If the German extermination programs continued uninterrupted, the death toll was drawn up to be between 180-200 million people to make way for a greater German Reich.

>political gains
Shut the fuck up. Half the people who died were political dissenters. Often extreme left-wingers and Soviet POWs. They would have no sympathy.

Literally this: There is no other reason.

I believe the reason there's so many people denying the holocaust/ generally disliking it because the 3rd Reich pretty much brought European nationalism to an end, and pretty much led to everything happening today in Europe.

Today if you consider yourself Nationalist or support a generally farther right-wing party you're instantly branded as a facist, racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe or pretty much any other buzzwords used by the left in an attempt to suppress people's views/ opinions.

It's also affecting the US, as most recently seen with the GOP nominee (Trump), who has been expressing very nationalist policies. Within an instant he was branded a racist, misquoted by leftist media, and his supporters all branded as racists themselves.
This applies to UKIP in Britain.

Who the fuck cares? We've had this thread every god damn fucking day. It was 70 years ago. I wish retard deniers and pretentious zionists would just shut the fuck up and get over themselves and move on.

>no Slovaks
>no Croats
>no Bulgarians
>no Hungarians

Geez I wonder why, it's like they only wanted to remove their enemies or something.

Or because they weren't living in the lands Germany planned to call their greater Reich.

Are you only pretending to be retarded?

By claiming that the numbers were exaggerated you can, for example, imply that the Jews lied about what really happened in order to generate sympathy or guilt, which can shield them from criticism, allowing them to get away with things they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
At least, I assume that's the logic.

I have a hard time believing this desu

This is even funnier.

On this subject, can we get a history of holocaust denial/prominent attempts to invalidate the holocaust?

Man that "Greater Reich" of theirs would've been a massive clusterfuck even in the best case scenario. What the fuck were the going to do with the rest of the USSR?

Because believing in something like the Shaver Mysteries takes more effort.

The Spanish Civil War and all of its executions and stuff isn't allowed to be looked into.

There are similar laws about the Rwandan Genocide, and I think a few others.

Hitler himself seems to have had only vague ideas. Sometimes he thought the idea of having limitless conflicts with the remainder of Russia would actually be a good thing.

In saner moments, the thought process was basically 'Indian reservation, but bigger."

Until VERY recently, it was illegal to doubt the North invaded South Korea.

I've yet to find a Holocaust Denier who was willing to call that one into question.

>I believe the reason there's so many people denying the holocaust/ generally disliking it because the 3rd Reich pretty much brought European nationalism to an end, and pretty much led to everything happening today in Europe.

That's a malformed thought. You're trying to connect one thing with something that doesn't logically follow:

>Today if you consider yourself Nationalist or support a generally farther right-wing party you're instantly branded as a facist, racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe [...]

>pretentious zionists

Meaningless buzzwords. Got any other insights for us?

You're obviously a towering intellectual!

Those who deny significant elements of the Holocaust, or dismiss it altogether are invariably either Jew-haters or mentally disturbed, along the lines of conspiracy theorists, schizophrenics, or others with diagnosable mental problems.

There's always another agenda.

An honest denier of the non-schizophrenic type, if asked, "Ok, if it didn't happen, would you have been cool if it happened?" will always, always answer "yes." Witness the widespread denial in the Arab world, which happens to be a Jew-hatin' world, the deniers among /pol/, Stormfront, and all other centers of this historical revisionism.

Great ad hominem friend.

>The Spanish Civil War and all of its executions and stuff isn't allowed to be looked into.

Really? By whom?

Nah, I have met a few Deniers that are of the poor, desperate, counter-knowledge type, that would honestly say "no."

>Why were some people arrested for searching on the holocaust?

Maybe English isn't your first language, so maybe you didn't exactly mean what you wrote above. If you did mean it, I have a very hard time believing that people were arrested for merely "searching on the holocaust." Provide examples.

Almost as good as "pretentious zionists"!

Hypocrisy much? Black kettle?

I'd lump them in with the mentally ill sort. Don't necessarily mean harm, but something :dem brains don't tink so good."

Nah, that's the saddest thing about counterknowledge types. They usually got problems, but not of the mental illness variety. They're just the grown up equivalent of that kid in your class who really wanted you to believe his father was a hitman or something.

I'm guessing that this one exists because it carries very real and immediate threats. This event is historically very recent, and could realistically flare up again.

The denial of established history is always about revisionism -- usually dishonest, and made by those who still have that old axe to grind.

Many of those old/recent hatreds are still alive. Rwanda is capable of more violence, I'm sure.

I'm still going to categorize them as "mentally deficient." Like your example -- fantasy world, pathological liar.

I've known so many in my life, and they're always just a bit (or more) loony-toons about more than one thing. And they tend to get worse as they get older, even if they never do get officially certified.

My brother started out as the simple "my daddy's a hitman" type, and now, decades on in a moment of candor, admitted that he is unsure of whether he himself is Jesus.

This is a pretty good thread considering the normal way these things go

see The thing that is "illegal" in some countries (which are off the top of my head all countries which the Holocaust took place - that is to say, Jews etc were rounded up from and killed) is straight up denialism, as it is viewed as a form of hate speech. Which is true, broadly. People aren't getting arrested for just "looking into the numbers". The extent to which the German state and its constituents can be held responsible for the Holocaust is like, the defining academic debate in German history post-war. See things like Hitler's Willing Executioners, Ordinary Men, Ian Kershaw, etc etc.
People are getting arrested for denying that the Holocaust took place at all, which is classified as a form of hate speech. Think of hate speech laws how you like, but it's a fairly consistent application of the law.

That's fucking sad. I have an uncle who's a moonlanding was faked type, and he's never gotten that bad. He just likes to feel smart.

>The thing that is "illegal" in some countries (which are off the top of my head all countries which the Holocaust took place - that is to say, Jews etc were rounded up from and killed) is straight up denialism, as it is viewed as a form of hate speech.
Even this isn't illegal in Germany. You have to also express it in a way that could cause 'public disturbance.'

Yeah, because of all this is done out in the open it's really quite easy to shut down claims that someone is just blithely researching into the Holocaust and the thought police came in and shut down their innocent inquiry. In every example I've seen of this, a denialist namedrops someone, you google them, and they're all like, "yeah the Jews deserved it lol"

I wasn't even the guy you were replying to, but he made a point.

The past is the past.

>he made a point

Yeah, but I made a better one. People who use ad hominems shouldn't complain about the use of ad hominems.

>the past is the past

Nice meaningless tautology you posted there on a board called Veeky Forums.

The other thing that they constantly claim that's rediculous is that the Soviet Union was super invested in promoting the Holocaust, while the Soviet Union did everything it could to discredit the holocaust.

If the Soviet Union had proof the Holocaust didn't happen, they'd publish that shit in 1945. The whole affair was sort of an embarrassment for them.

Speaking of which, Israel also didn't like to talk about it until after the Eichmann trial.

That's the problem with the intrynet. Many people would be better off with their provincial lives and simple thoughts.

"How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life!"

youtube.com/watch?v=I5lgAUHVFC4

>attacks me on that but doesn't even touch "retard deniers"

This is the shit I'm talking about. I wasn't even saying a god damn thing about either side. I honestly don't care. Every single day we have this thread. Every single day it's the same thing. No matter who you are you come in with a fucking agenda and shout and scream in your little soundproof walls of meaningless insults in the same way every time. I'm sick of it. Everyone is sick of it. These threads only exist to confirm one side's complex. It doesn't even matter which side is right, because no matter what they both have the same shitty intentions doing this. Just fuck off.

It's cute that you are able to use the term "ad hominem" and all, but wouldn't recognize one of your own if it crawled up and bit you on the ass.

> Just fuck off.

The towering intellectual strikes again!

>Why is it a crime in several countries to contest the "official" version?
Is it? You will find that denial laws usually specify "public denial and incitement" or somesuch language
>Why were some people arrested for searching on the holocaust?
Were they? See above.
>Is there an other example of historical event historians can't search about?
No, because historians can "search about" pretty much everything. In case you are asking about laws similar to the holocaust denial laws (which in no way prevent "historians searching about" the holocaust), the communist crimes get a similar treatment in some Eastern European countries for example.

Sure, whatever. I'm done. Come back tomorrow then. Make the same thread. Make the same posts. Do it every single day. I know you need it because you have no other confirmation in your life. Because even though you've proven you're right all those times before to the same people and gotten baited by the same shitposters, you're empty if you don't do it again and again and again. Have fun.

Weirdo. This is the very first time I've ventured into one of these threads.

But please, continue your diatribe and rant!

Then by all means, ad hom away, friend.

As meaningless as this topic that's been discussed ad nauseum.

Keep on shitposting.

I never said that its wrong to criticize Israel like any other country, but Israel isn't treated like any other country most of the time. It becomes the nation-state embodiment of "the Eternal Jew". All Jews living within its borders are charactaturized into the most vile stereotypes imaginable, and all Jews outside its borders become scrutinised and questioned about their "loyalties to Israel".
Criticism of policies such as settlements and the blockade of Gaza is perfectly acceptable, but making Israel into the Eternal Jewish State, controlling the world's media and economy from behind closed doors and revelling in greed and violence, is not acceptable.

Nice canard.

Israel is singled out among all the nations on earth with much, much worse track records in every respect (including marginalizing -- or genociding -- minorities... minorities hellbent on its absolute destruction).

This reeks of dishonest selectivity, and stinks suspiciously of anti-Semitism. No other rationale.

I know this is a weird question to ask but can someone post a site which collects all the or the most important holocaust evidence?

I have a friend who recently started to deny the holocaust and nothing so far seems to persuade him to reconsider.

don't bother, he'll just say that it's "biased"
you probably won't be able to convince you even if you get a holocaust survivor to show him their tattoo

Yeah that's the sad part I'm afraid. It just kind of makes me mad since he's actually pretty bright guy but I guess the NEET lifestyle got to him

nizkor is fairly comprehensive, good luck friend

theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/05/baltasar-garzon-trial-franco-crimes
A judge tried to open up records on some mass graves and is facing legal action for it.

The way I look at it, Germany was bombed to hell and they could barely feed their own troops, let alone provide food and medicine to the prisoners in concentration camps.
I think a lot of them died of disease and starvation, there's no denying that.
If the war went a different way and it was the USA getting bombed to shit by the Japanese and they found the internment camps on the west coast filled with dead and dieing asian people, I think It would have been a very similar case to the Nuremberg trials and the aftermath of the Holocaust.

There's just some parts of the Holocaust I have trouble believing in. Like the ovens in Auschwitz burning jews at impossible speeds and the horror stories from some of the survivors just seem too far-fetched.

I don't think any change in history would allow the japs to hurt the American food supply.

Night Will Fall was indeed excellent

Read this book, it describes who they are, why they do it, how they do it, and debunks many of their claims

Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It

I know, just using it as an analogy.
The point is, if a nation is fighting invaders from all directions, while getting their industry and infrastructure bombed to hell on a regular basis, there's no way they could keep all the prisoners from dieing of disease and starvation.

I might as well go into full shill mode here...this book describes the history of holocaust denial and the major events (Zundel trial in Canada, David Irving suing some lady who called him out on his bullshit research and then getting btfo in civil court in England, etc)

I meant to link this :

You have to understand that questioning any aspect, from the figures to the methods of execution gets you labeled a holocaust denier. I for one fall into the former category, but I can't be open about lest I become a social pariah and lose my job (work for a university). The fact that a chemist was imprisoned for giving scientific proof that certain "gas chambers" couldn't have been used for execution and the reality that many documents at Nuremberg were fabricated by the Soviets and US by their own admission should be evidence enough that there is nothing objective about official holocaust historiography.

As a chemist, you should know that hydrogen cyanide doesn't need an airtight chamber to kill

I'm not a chemist. I'm an archivist. That's not what he was knocked for though. He was knocked for not narrowing the search for the specific cyanide in Zyklon B, which is probably whatever you're shilling about, and instead cyanide overall. The sheer fact that there wasn't enough cyanide to have been used as a gas chamber from ANY source let alone Zyklon B is enough for me to question whether those chambers were used for executions. I'm mostly just iffy about numbers though, especially considering how much fabricated documentation is floating around.

>Fabricated documentation
Then go to the source. The IG Farben trial in 1947 made public the amount of Zyklon B ordered by the Nazis and where those canisters eventually ended up.....Why would a camp like Majdanek be ordering a 7 year supply of the stuff every month during the fall of 1943?

If you don't trust the Americans or Russian reports there are plenty of other information sources you can use to collaborate them

But the Soviets did push it
Why would they have denied it

Name the chemist so we can laugh at you when it turns out he's a full-blown denialist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

>If you don't trust the Americans or Russian reports
That's the thing. With the US and Russians admitting to fabricating German documentation, you don't know if those sources are factual or not.

>trusting anything from an immediate post-war trial run by
user...

Germar Rudolf. He didn't become a holocaust denier until after his findings. The ironic thing is that he set out with the experiment to get holocaust deniers to shut the fuck up.

nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/forensic.html

archive.is/TZ1Sz

That only refutes part of Rudolf's findings and I already discussed the non-discrimination of iron cyanide here

wow, some eyewitnesses remember events incorrectly, this literally never happened any other times in history. this can only mean that all other evidence is false too, and that the whole genocide is a lie! thanks for opening up my eyes man!

nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/blue.html

You are quite literally only repeating yourself here.

Knee jerk self-inflicted guilt.

I'm not a holocaust denier, but it's preposterous that it's illegal to research a historical event. Holocaust deniers are right on the money with their motto : "truth does not fear investigation".

You battle holocaust denial with facts and logic, not censorship.

I just don't know what that other user is objecting to here? It's quite clear that Rudolf's findings are wrong, to the point where he was refused his PhD

As has been stated several times in the thread, it is not illegal to research the Holocaust. It is the subject of the largest controversy in modern academic history.
It is illegal to incite hatred through denial of the Holocaust. Denialists are not bringing anything to the table in terms of research.

Chill nigger, I never said holocaust didn't happen. But these accounts weren't "remembered incorrectly", they were invented by the survivors.

>As has been stated several times in the thread, it is not illegal to research the Holocaust
Sure it's not illegal to research it... as long as your publications don't go against the mainstream narrative. Then it indeed becomes illegal.

Even if holocaust denial is wrong, there is no moral justification for censoring it. Should it be illegal to publish books claiming that the earth is flat?

>It is illegal to incite hatred through denial of the Holocaust.
"Incite hatred" is the lamest phrase ever invented to silence dissenters. It's telling that in Europe people are going to jail for "inciting hatred" for posting anti-refugee tweets, while femen can strutt naked into churches with no repercussions whatsoever (it's just free speech, you see).

It's also telling that antisemitism is much more prevalent in Europe, where anti holocaust denial laws are active, compared to America, where there aren't any such laws.

> Denialists are not bringing anything to the table in terms of research.
That is beyond the point. The point is whether free speech exists or not.

>People are getting arrested for denying that the Holocaust took place at all
Literally how is this justifiable

I can point to countless breakthroughs in Holocaust research that "go against the mainstream narrative". Are you familiar with the Historian's Quarrel at all? It's basically the entire field of German history going at each other over who is to blame for the Holocaust. In the 90s, Hitler's Willing Executioners caused an uproar when it "went against the mainstream narrative". When claiming that the earth is flat has killed twelve million people, then maybe there would be equivocation there. This idea that there is a "mainstream narrative" outside of well, the facts of the matter, is a total myth.

It's not "telling" that antisemitism exists more in Europe, where it has had 2000 years to fester. The hate speech laws are completely irrelevant to the amount of antisemitism in countries, unless you are suggesting some causal association between the two, which is laughable.

>Free speech meme

It's almost as if different countries have different understandings of free speech

>literally Trump is Hitler

The user made a good point.

>I can point to countless breakthroughs in Holocaust research that "go against the mainstream narrative". Are you familiar with the Historian's Quarrel at all?
No, I know nothing about holocaust research. But I don't need to know anything about it to justify my position. It's great that some revisionist research was allowed. Why not allow all of it?

>When claiming that the earth is flat has killed twelve million people, then maybe there would be equivocation there.
First of all, google the meaning of the word "equivocation". I think the word you were looking for was "equivalency".

Second of all, is that supposed to change anything?! Should free speech laws be adjusted for each historical event according to its death toll? How nonsensical. Any historical event, regardless of its death toll, should be up for inspection.

> This idea that there is a "mainstream narrative" outside of well, the facts of the matter, is a total myth.
Well that's what the words "mainstream narrative" refer to. Just like the mainstream narrative of Ancient Egypt, or the mainstream narrative of =>insert historical event

2/2

>It's almost as if different countries have different understandings of free speech
There aren't different flavors of free speech you fucking moron. What's next, saudi arabia has their own version of "free speech"?

By the way, are you only in favor of blasphemy laws concerning the holocaust or are you also in favor of blasphemy laws for other things?

You cock suckers will never convince of the the 6quadrillion
You faggots can all go suck my uncircumcised penis

>No, I know nothing about holocaust research.

I know you don't.
I mean equivocation. As in, "twelve million people dying in living memory because of an ideology" is not the same as "some people believe the earth is flat". Countries - as mentioned earlier, countries where the Holocaust took place - decided to ban denialism as a form of hate speech. This isn't "revisionism", it is straight up denial that something that killed 12 million people took place. You are, at least, correct in comparing it to flat earther in this regard.

>Well that's what the words "mainstream narrative" refer to.
I know you don't know anything about Holocaust research but I'd encourage you to look up Functionalism vs. Intentionalism for proof of how utterly out of your depth you are.

I did not claim that America was not anti-Semitic. It remains so, actually. But if you are trying to claim that the amount of anti-semitism in America vs. Europe is due to a handful of court cases involving Holocaust denial that have happened in the past 50 years, and not two thousand years of Jewish ostracisation, then I don't really know what to say to you.

>There aren't different flavors of free speech you fucking moron.

I get that you haven't done the most rudimentary sort of reading on this issue that you seem so passionate about (it would help, at least, if you had picked up On Liberty), but different countries having different understandings of free speech is pretty much the norm. Yes, Saudi Arabia has their own version of "free speech", which they enforce through a system of law and societal pressure, in the same way any other country does. That you would find this controversial is unnerving

>I know you don't.
And like I said, that is completely irrelevant.

>As in, "twelve million people dying in living memory because of an ideology" is not the same as "some people believe the earth is flat"
In what way are they not the same?

>This isn't "revisionism", it is straight up denial that something that killed 12 million people took place.
And this denial should be legal.

By the way I'd like you to answer my questions:
>You'll always have some crazies arguing that the ancient egyptians descend from aliens and that the pyramids were spaceships. Should they be sent to prison too?

And

>By the way, are you only in favor of blasphemy laws concerning the holocaust or are you also in favor of blasphemy laws for other things?

Anyways you don't have any legs to stand on. Raul Hilberg, the father of holocaust research is against holocaust denial laws, for fuck's sake.

>Yes, Saudi Arabia has their own version of "free speech", which they enforce through a system of law and societal pressure, in the same way any other country does.
Protip : their version of free speech is called "not free speech."