Is there actual evidence holocaust deniers have that proves it never happened or is the denier movement just memes and...

Soviet accounts claimed that in Salaspils concentration camp Germans executed around 50 to 100 thousand people.

A recent study showed that actual count of people who died in the camp was 2 thousand, most of whom died from disease.
In total, the camp had held around 12 thousand people through its whole service under the Germans.

>A recent study showed
Sauce

The problem with history is if we do not have complete concrete evidence though, we base our facts off the writings of someone who was there, yet at the same time we have to realize the person documenting the original event is not machine but a human, and humans lie. Not saying David Irving is a good historian, but everything he says can't be discredited because of one act of libel.

Anything by the soviets might as well be trash. The soviets didn't even document how many people died in the gulags. Most of these people weren't even ID'd they picked them up off the street and shoved them into some mine until they died.

...

>>>REDdit

>but everything he says can't be discredited because of one act of libel.

No, but that's not the point.

Every single Third Reich historian agrees that there was a concerned effort to annihilate the European Jewry.

The fact that one single historian disagrees; who incidentally is a person who has been invited to neo-Nazi group meetings to talk about the Third Reich several times in his life, makes me suspicious that he isn't being sincere as a historian.

...

>be nazi
>be notoriously efficient and calculating
>be required to mount complex and taxing war effort
>waste resources constructing camps
>waste resources constructing industrial gas chambers and ovens
>waste manpower to oversee these camps
>waste railway cars to haul Jews away to camps
>waste railway cars to haul food for Jews in camps
>waste railway cars to haul equipment and gas tanks to camps

Ridiculous.

Like I said: "I'm not saying he's a good historian."

I am not a holocaust denier by any means, but the burden of proof is always on the person that is claiming that something exists or has occured. So you cant ask for proof that something didnt happen. That being said there is plenty of proof imo that it did.

So what's your point in mentioning him then?

...

This. What a waste of well trained soldiers and resources.

>be Nazi
>somehow have superiority over field officers

The majority of people were killed by death squads, not in camps.

"YOU CAN'T FIT 6 GORILLION IN AUSCHWITZ" is an argument on the same level as "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams".

Questions aren't evidence

>holocaust deniers in charge of understanding the water table

>What is Bertrand Russell's teapot

The nazi war machine was only efficient at the lower levels. Germany was an efficient developed capitalist economy which was taken over by the nazi party which was full of socios with inflated egos more interested in political power than achieving practical goals.

The fact that he's right that there is no documentation out there that confirms any number of people that were exterminated. Look at the thread topic.

Just because he's retarded about one aspect of the war, doesn't mean he doesn't bring up a good point. Nobody has found any sort of document that lead to the number 6 million. Nobody could possibly know how many people died in the holocaust from the gas chambers.

Lmfao at the OJ part. OJ was not guilty because LAPD tampered with blood evidence. He probably killed them though.

Daily reminder.

>holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.ar/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html
>4archive.org/board/his/thread/509405

Redpiller here.

The 6 million only comes from census data.

>be Jew
>see rising anti Jew sentiment
>do not report you are a Jew on the census

Really simple explanation.

>But I believe there was something about the crematoriums having wooden doors and that had to do with how they would react to the gas or something like that.
False.

>Also, just killing people with gas is a horribly ineffective way to kill people.
Shooting them makes your soldiers break down.

>shooting them makes your soldiers break down

The Einsatzgruppen were literally designed to shoot civilians behind German occupied lines. The draconian punishment instated in the Wehrmacht is what broke men down. The increase in resistance on the eastern front is what broke men down. Shooting people and burning houses to the ground was their release of frustration and a reaction to the rise brutality among the lower German ranks

...

...

Redpiller here.

Not an argument. Census data is the only real account, it's how we collect data on our population even today.

there's newspapers in the library of congress where the Jews claim 6 million have died years before WWII.

>"Aiz šiem vārtiem vaid zeme. Salaspils nometne 1941.-1944."
lsm.lv/lv/raksts/vesture/dzive/holokausta-pieminas-diena-nak-klaja-monografija-par-salaspils-nometni.a166031/

>Nu-Nazis can't even count to 14

check out this documentary for starters. Its not a denial, just a revisionist exploration. But it seems pretty thorough. youtube.com/watch?v=mmrHBT5h-BA

...

>there's newspapers in the library of congress where the Jews claim 6 million have died years before WWII.
Source?

yes, contrary to /pol/acks chimpouts, the holocaust has been studied, is studied and will be continued to be studied

youtu.be/Dda-0Q_XUhk

>"Greatest lie ever told"
>Its not denial

>>>r/holocaust

>88
hehe

/r/ing the three post debunking of this.

>>be nazi
>>be notoriously efficient and calculating
That's just a stereotype, the Nazis were actually very inefficient and incompetant

cool but the einsatzgruppen weren't the ones posted at the camps

Do you think every single person in the Einsatzgruppen was some kind of sociopath? How could massive killings (especially if it includes children and women) not have a psychological effect?

The way the German command handled the logistics of the invasion through Belgium was legendary.

Retarded post. There's newspapers mentioning 5, 4, 3, 7 million jews in different news that you are purposefully avoiding. I'll see if i can find the pic.

And that is not an argument. Nazis kept records of everything down to a T and you just saying "WRONG!" is utterly laughable.

So was the way Germans handled logistics on the east front.

More like Soviet commanders were incompetent.

See bottom right.
Taken from .

Keeping stringent records and holding strictly to grand plans can actually be counter-productive. It might seem a waste to cart around an excess of supplies, fuel and materiel, but like insurance, if something does go wrong the cost can be far greater if you don't have it.

all this proves to me is that Jews have lied about their death toll for centuries.

What death tolls retard? Did you even watch your own video? The articles mention 6 million jews endangered, not 6 million jews killed. The articles are previous to the holocaust. I know /pol/tards give jews some magical conspiracy attributes, but they aren't time travelers. The whole point is that, because jews had been mentioning 6 million previously, the death toll of the holocaust was already decided or some shit and is arbitrary. But this is wrong, since you can find jews mentioning a wide range of numbers for jews in trouble.
Not that the argument makes any sense to begin with, desu.

I have a couple of pithy little phrases you might like to google

"Sonderweg"
"Crooked path to genocide"
"Working towards the fuhrer"
"Ordinary Men" (might have to also tack on "Browning" at the end, avoid Goldhagen like the plague, he's a hack fraud)
"Banality of Evil" (the application to Eichmann is iffy, but the theory itself is great for understanding the apparatus of the holocaust)
"The grey zone (zona grigia)"
"Scapegoat (sociology)"
"Cumulative radicalism"

The problem isn't that there is an absence of evidence, there was literally tonnes of it, the problem is in understanding how such an event could have happened in the first place
how is it that the population under hitler could allow such a thing to happen, even willingly participate in it

Irving is operating on some warped level using the literal distance of Hitler himself from the reality of genocide to justify his conclusion that the holocaust wasn't a thing that happened, it's not actually a thing he can reasonably argue.

There is no "denying" that the holocaust happened, to do so would to ignore manifold physical evidence, witness testimony, survivor account, perpetrator testimony and admission and post-mortem philosophical and historical analysis

The REASONS why it happened are up for debate, the extent to which Hitler was involved is up for debate (although mind, HE DEFINITELY DID PLAY A LARGE ROLE), the extent to which it was borne in the public, or in the Bureaucracy is up for debate the reasons themselves why we debate it to this day are up for debate (seriously, read The Destruction of European Jews, don't puss out and get the student version either)

all numbers in the millions. 7 million, 5 million, 6 million. It's obvious they've been set on a number close to 6 million for decades before the holocaust.

Population surveys? Of course you can tell if there are 6 million (11 with all the other non-jewish victims) less people in Europe.

>get the jewish almanac
>count the jews in eastern europe
>write article about jews being endangered
Wow, those jews sure are some magical people.

I like your ability to simply ignore the fact that you fell for propaganda regarding the 6 million number. You truly are an independent thinker and skeptic, /pol/friend. May i ask why the video doesn't mention that you can find articles with any other number?

>prove something didnt happen
the burden of prove lies on holocaust affirmers

In general, yes.

In this particular instance, however, there's quite a bit of evidence posted towards the Holocaust, defining "holocaust" as the intentional extermination of minorities, such as Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally disabled, etc. whose death tolls loom in the millions, has quite a bit of evidence behind it. That establishes enough for a prima facie case that the Holocaust did indeed happen. If you want to remain skeptical, you're going to have to come up with some sort of reason why none of that stuff is valid.

>That establishes enough for a prima facie case that the Holocaust did indeed happen
the only thing that establishes that is that the victor decides whats true and whats false
e.g. debunking the "evidence" is illegal where im from

>the only thing that establishes that is that the victor decides whats true and whats false

Right, that's why the Stab in the Back myth was so prevalent and actually posed enormous influence on the rise of the Nazi party.

>e.g. debunking the "evidence" is illegal where im from

I very much doubt that. Even countries that ban holocaust denial allow for investigation into the details; Chris Browning hasn't been incarcerated for Ordinary Men, even though he overturned a few sacred cows.

Maybe in popular culture, certainly not true in academia.

They pursued several superweapons that never came to be. They were wasteful.

good goyim

Freedom of speech really isn't enshrined in Europe the same way it is in America.

That never made sense to me.
But I guess that makes me an antisemite.

>I very much doubt that.
kill yourself fag
doubt all you want arguing what im arguing on this thread makes me a criminal
>Stab in the Back
>myth

>Hitler was a bad man
>therefore a bad story being told about him and his state is automatically and completely true since he's a bad man and those two go together
>absence of evidence makes you an antisemite
>if you double check the facts you're a racist and should be imprisoned

Solid science.

>Stab in the Back
>myth

So, you have no idea what you're talking about, even in the rise of the Nazi party. What a surprise.

user, the "stab in the back myth" is a notion that the Germans were winning , and it was the Jews (and other undesirables) who pressured the German government and forced a loss on the homefront. In World War ONE. A boycott of German businesses, in 1933 has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And despite the fact that the Germans (in fact, a relatively powerless sect of Germans) were definitely the losers, they managed to influence the popular understanding of history here quite a bit.

>doubt all you want arguing what im arguing on this thread makes me a criminal

Yes, it does. Not because of your doubt, by the way, but because you'd almost certainly be considered to be inciting racial hatred, what with your incredibly specious argument and blaming DA JOOOOOOOOZ for everything. Go ahead and say similar things about Armenians, or Italians, or Thais, and you'd get a similar treatment, it's not about the holocaust.

>imaginary quotes
Solid argument.

>Which is why Chris Browning is in prison when he goes on lecture tour in Europe

Oh wait, that's wrong!

Does the Holocaust's factuality change anything today?
Everyone hates Jews now. The left can't stand Israel because sandniggers are more important than Holocaust victims. The right can't stand Jews ( no surprise ).
Blacks aren't particularly fond of Jews. Shitloads of muslims would gladly genocide them out of existence. Asians are maybe a bit more fond of Jews because of their business acumen, but they'll openly say Hitler was a great leader, so there's that.

If tomorrow a study were released that showed it was all a hoax, life would go on.
The Holocaust is only an integral the moral horizon for a few good goy academics. Everyone else doesn't bother too much with it.

you really must be high on your own farts dont you?
i know what the stab in the back "myth" is and its based on a strawman
the accusation is that the germans blamed the jews for losing but in fact the stab in the back myth is about jews in germany, who are supposed to be rooting for the german side, were sabotaging the german war effort(e.g. through boycotts,desertion,communist agitation)
thus they are not real germans because they were sabotaging their own country
> but because you'd almost certainly be considered to be inciting racial hatred
when exactly did i incite racial hatred point it out to me please and i will apologise
>what with your incredibly specious argument
which argument? point out the flaws and i will retract it
>and blaming DA JOOOOOOOOZ for
everything
when did i blame jews for anything point it out please

Being against israel does not equate being against jews. As far as i'm concerned, jews are indistinguishable from any other group of people, orthodox jews aside. On the other hand, holocaust denial is used by neonazi groups as a way of making their ideology less unappealing and to introduce retards to their conspiracies. Discussing the holocaust is more of a defense of historical truth and exposing stormfag propaganda than it is about jews.

t. lefty

>Being against israel does not equate being against jews.

And it just so happens most Jews support Israel.

>As far as i'm concerned, jews are indistinguishable from any other group of people
so niggers and kikes are indistinguishible? thats racist senpai

Irrelevant. Even if true, i don't need to use a proxy variable.

Sure, westernized ones.

>the accusation is that the germans blamed the jews for losing but in fact the stab in the back myth is about jews in germany, who are supposed to be rooting for the german side, were sabotaging the german war effort(e.g. through boycotts,desertion,communist agitation)

No, it's actually pretty specifically tied to WW1, where they served with greater ratios than native Germans in the army.

Oops. Your "proof" that they sabotaged the war effort is a newspaper article claiming that "Jews declared war on Germany" by boycotting certain products.

>when exactly did i incite racial hatred point it out to me please and i will apologise

>which argument? point out the flaws and i will retract it

You've claimed that the Holocaust is a lie because the "winners write history", when confronted with a pretty clear example as to how the losers wrote history and created considerable influence because of it, you've doubled down by claiming that a 1933 boycott of the Jewish overlord hivemind means that it was true.

You have also claimed that "investigation or denial" of facts in the Holocaust will get you a prison sentence. There are numerous, actual historians who investigate and even overturn then-common notions of the holocaust. For some strange reason, none of them have run afoul to generally European laws concerning holocaust denial.

>when did i blame jews for anything point it out please

Retard, you've done it 8 lines upthread in your own post.

nah dude you got it wrong, WE WUZ SUPERSOLDIERS N SHIET, DA BROWN ITALIANS BE KEEPING US DOWN

>he fell for the "Germans are 100% hyper efficient ants" maymay

The fuckers were also building tanks too heavy for their own components, endless prototypes of super duper ultra weapons and rockets that served no purpose other than to blow up an irrelevant number of Allied civilians.

What anti Jewish sentiment? I though the Nazis dindu nuffin?

>it's actually pretty specifically tied to WW1
i never argued the opposite
>where they served with greater ratios than native Germans in the army
nope not true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenzählung
>The Jewish authorities, who themselves had compiled statistics which considerably exceeded the figures in the brochure
>were...informed by the Republican Minister of Defense that the contents of the antisemitic brochure were correct
>Oops. Your "proof" that they sabotaged the war effort is a newspaper article claiming that "Jews declared war on Germany" by boycotting certain products.
>Oops. Your "proof" that they sabotaged the war effort is a newspaper article claiming that "Jews declared war on Germany" by boycotting certain products.
> Your "proof" that they sabotaged the war effort is a newspaper article claiming that "Jews declared war on Germany" by boycotting certain products.
you read that into itt yourself
that paper was WW2 related has nothing to do with WW1
>You've claimed that the Holocaust is a lie because the "winners write history"
i didnt
i said the burden of proof lies with people who believe the holocaust happened
> because the "winners write history"
which is a fact germany was still (nominally) sovereign after WW1 they only capitulated after WW2 and writing pro 3rd Reich books is illegal here
>claiming that a 1933 boycott of the Jewish overlord hivemind means that it was true
i never claimed that your hallucinating
>Retard, you've done it 8 lines upthread in your own post.
i didnt
i presented you with what the "stab in the back myth" states and what the strawman of it is
i never said that that is my opinion
youre hallucinating
>For some strange reason, none of them have run afoul to generally European laws concerning holocaust denial.
bullshit legalism
let me give you an example:
the death toll at ausschwitz has been officially lowered but youre still not allowed to deny the six million figure
thats how historians get around that

>i said the burden of proof lies with people who believe the holocaust happened

The French Revolution NEVER happened. The burden of proof lies with the people who think it did. And LOL if you think the paintings, memoirs, and newspapers are true~~~ french revolution shekels

>reading the historiography of the Nazi regime and of the Holocaust makes you a Jewish puppet
sure bud

>note: In the post I disavowed Daniel Goldhagen, a "historian" who literally argues that the Germans willingly and knowingly killed Jews because of a unique brand of "eliminationist" antisemitism that had been bubbling away since the Medieval period, he's a fucking racist and an idiot responsible for such humbdingers as "Germans had always been autistic in their viewpoint towards the jews, but their autism was about to get worse" (paraphrased... from Hitler's Willing Executioners, read a book)
>note also: Hannah Arendt and her Banality of Evil caused major controversy because it characterises the Nazis as REGULAR HUMAN BEINGS, contrary to any "Jewish conspiracy" which would see Germany raked over hot coals for all eternity for their crimes against the Jewish Race, she was immediately and unfairly castigated on a public forum as a self-hating Jew (her ideas have obviously endured)

I get that the hegemony that the Holocaust has over discussion of 20th century history is regrettable given the numerous other genocides and terrible things to have occurred, and I do agree that theJewish people themselves ham it up for the sake of a good narrative; but denying that the Holocaust happened is literally impossible in the wake of postwar trials in which actual nazis pleaded guilty to perpetrating such war crimes. If it's all a jewish conspiracy wouldn't they fight tooth and nail to reject such charges against them. Calling somebody a goy for reciting well respected arguments in it's historiography whilst also not substantiating your claim with anything meaningful beyond debunked conspiratorial ramblings is anti-intellectualism in the highest form.

Follow your leader, commit suicide

Not him but:
>the death toll at ausschwitz has been officially lowered but youre still not allowed to deny the six million figure
Soviet numbers were always considered propaganda to western historians and never taken into account. If you get any book from a respected western historian prior to the number of victims being lowered, you'll see none uses the soviet numbers.
>Shortly following the camp's liberation, the Soviet government stated that four million people had been killed on the site, a figure now regarded as greatly exaggerated.[164] While under interrogation, Höss said that Adolf Eichmann told him that two and a half million Jews had been killed in gas chambers and about half a million more had died of other causes.[165] Later he wrote, "I regard the figure of two and a half million as far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities".[166] Gerald Reitlinger's 1953 book The Final Solution estimated the number killed to be 800,000 to 900,000,[167] and Raul Hilberg's 1961 work The Destruction of the European Jews estimated the number killed to be a maximum of 1,000,000 Jewish victims.[168]
>In 1983, French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at a figure of 1,471,595 deaths, including 1.35 million Jews and 86,675 Poles.[169] A larger study started by Franciszek Piper used timetables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate at least 960,000 Jewish deaths and at least 1.1 million total deaths,[170] a figure adopted as official by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in the 1990s.[171][e] Piper stated that a figure of as many as 1.5 million total deaths was possible.[171]

I'm against legislating on the subject of the holocaust, but you retards should be making a better job of not repeating neonazi propaganda without researching for two minutes.

nice strawman, no one denies the holocaust we just put it at 100k-1m Jews died tops

Not an argument

>you retards should be making a better job of not repeating neonazi propaganda without researching for two minutes
do you really think i risk prison time because of "two minutes" of research?

I'm sure if you are able to deny the holocaust in a chinese cartoon forum you can google the estimated death toll for Auschwitz according to western historians to see if the propaganda you repeat makes sense.
Spoiler: it doesn't.

my point is i didnt just commit a crime without having put the research time into it
is it so hard to understand that there might be something behind "holocaust denial" when people risk prison time for it?

But the French Revolution never happened. And despite all of the contemporary evidence that it happened, you still have to prove that it happened.

Everybody in this thread is clinging to that 6 million figure
The Jews were not the only ones killed in the holocaust, and clinging to that figure only endorses the narrative that the Jews have special victim rights...

if we were to expand it a bit, the actual figure of those who died in the camps is 11 Million, counting non-jewish ethnic slavs, non-jeish ethnic Poles, political prisoners, the handicapped in the Eugenics program, homosexuals, and those killed extra-judicially after the fact from comfortable beneficiaries of this system. ect. ect. if we were to stretch it further you could go to 15 million becuase of the POWs that died as a direct result of mistreatment in the camps

Fallacy fallacy cuckboi
Can you not still see how at a conservative estimate 100thou dead is a depressing statistic
>oh but the commies were worse despite not having any relation to this argument
I would also like you to explain the sudden disappearance of this supposed 6 million without resorting to census data, people don't just disappear like that...

>that there might be something behind "holocaust denial" when people risk prison time for it?
That just shows that there are some people that are very invested in it.

There are UFO conspiracy theorists that break into military bases to get proof for ayyyliums. Does that mean that there is something behind UFO conspiracies just because there are some very deluded people into them?