So, what's the deal with the holocaust? Are there really such big holes in the story that justify skepticism?

I have to wonder whether Finkelstein is a pseudonym to keep from being crucified.

On the contrary, this is exactly the argument that history books around the world make when teaching students. There is never any discussion about the number of deaths or there manner of execution outside of established norms. The questions I listed in my previous post are but a few of the examples of questions that are not asked.

Any in some countries, questioning how many died in the holocaust even breaches laws. For example; in Austria the law dictates that "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media". Since "our other media" can easily be re-applied to social media platforms, anyone who suggests that the number of deaths during the holocaust was lower than six million, could be liable for prosecution.

The point I was trying to make, was that these laws are counter-intuitive, and that by silencing debate on the issue, you are making this worse.

Except that isn't true at all. 6 million is a general estimate. If you said 4 or 5 million died that wouldn't be considered an issue. There is no narrative that exactly 6 million people died and nobody is teaching that this is a holy, undeniable number.

Six million cannot be a "general statement" as when you say six, you do not mean four or five. You mean six. When studying the holocaust the number of deaths is not open to interpretation, and when you do suggest otherwise you are labelled as a holocaust revisionist.

Revisionists are treated in the same way as holocaust deniers and the laws of holocaust denial in Austria are a perfect example of it. "Grossly plays down" is open to interpretation by a court, and some would say that suggesting that only four million died is a violation of that law. And you're not a holocaust denier, are you user? So by six million, you mean six million, don't you? Not four million as you might suggest.

>you are labelled as a holocaust revisionist

because thats what you are if you want to revise the narrative of the holocaust you retard.

I'm Austrian, and coincidentally in pre-law, is there anything you want to ask me? You seem to be confused about our penal code

>in pre-law

hehe sorry, but I'll go with "aryanwolf1488" from hitlerwasright.blogpspot over you on this topic.

>Six million cannot be a "general statement" as when you say six, you do not mean four or five. You mean six. When studying the holocaust the number of deaths is not open to interpretation, and when you do suggest otherwise you are labelled as a holocaust revisionist.

Every single historical event, especially those on a broad scale like the Holocaust, is boiled down to an estimate for easy consumption. We say 60 million people died in WWII... this doesn't mean literally 60 million died, on the dot.

Do you know of any credible academic books that state "literally 6 million, as in literally that number no more or less, Jewish people died in the Holocaust"?

the jews won ww2

Absolutely, if I'm mistaken I'd like clarification on the subject. My understanding of Austrian law on holocaust denial is that grossly under-estimating the number of those genocided by the National Socialist regime is deemed as holocaust denial.

If this is incorrect, feel free to say as much although I'd like sources as well as the law in full.

My concern is not being labelled as a "holocaust revisionist" my ever so salty friend, my concern is that revisionists share the same fate as those who flatly deny the holocaust took place.

Of course none of the history books state that exactly 6 million died, but you are suggesting that 6 million is inter-changeable with 5 and 4 million. We are talking about potential deaths here, simply wiping a million or two off the number "because that's not really what I mean" is going to illicit the wrong response. In history books the go-to number is six million. Not 5.9, not 6.2, six million. I would think that on a subject as sensitive as this that getting the number as precise as possible would be important.

...

>In history books the go-to number is six million. Not 5.9, not 6.2, six million. I would think that on a subject as sensitive as this that getting the number as precise as possible would be important.

Mkay, here you say that they should say 5.9 or 6.2 to be precise, yet you also say

>Of course none of the history books state that exactly 6 million died,

So which is it? If a history book (one aimed at children or teens, no less) uses the estimate of 6 million, are they saying exactly 6 million died or not? You can't seem to decide.

>My concern is not being labelled as a "holocaust revisionist" my ever so salty friend, my concern is that revisionists share the same fate as those who flatly deny the holocaust took place.

You're being labeled as you are because you're sperging out over decimal points for no reason at all. The "6 million" number is an estimate that helps provide a general idea of how many people were killed, because it's impossible to know the exact number. WWI, WWII overall, the French Revolution(s), Vietnam War, the Titanic disaster--all of the death tolls in these events used in books are estimates. Yet you don't see the same level of pedantic "how did they ~know~ it was this estimate? What if it was a few decimal points difference? Gosh, it's important to be accurate for such a sensitive event..."

>apart from Ehlichs testimony, there are several documents which refer to this plan or are supplements to it

>...most of the plans essential elements have been reconstructed from related memos, abstracts and...

wow, really made me think.

>this nigga doesn't know about significant figures

>I would think that on a subject as sensitive as this that getting the number as precise as possible would be important.

Nigger when you're dealing with populations this large and events that take place over years and years, it's impossible to get a perfect estimate.

>If this is incorrect, feel free to say as much although I'd like sources as well as the law in full.

Please provide your sources, as well as the law in full, that shows that questioning how many died in the Holocaust is against the law and that you could be prosecuted for suggesting the deaths during the Holocaust were lower than 6 million.

The big deal, IMO, is that there was MAYBE 6 million killed total in the concentration camps. A large percentage of them Jews. However, this number pales in comparison to the the Japanese slaughter of Chinese civilians....and the atrocities committed by the Japanese in their camps were far worse (Unit 731).

The 'roughest' estimates for civilians murdered by the Imperial Army put it at 11 million. Non-Japense estimates put that number as high as 20-30 million chinese civilians slaughtered. Not to mention Unit 731 never getting not a single mention in history books....their horrors are too great to type here.

So why? Why the emphasis on the Jews and the German concentration camps? Was there a single Jewish rape numbering 30,000+ women/children? Was there a single camp that even approached 731 in hellishness?
>the answer is no

>a testimony is a plan
>multiple memos and abstracts with multiple contexts can be all put into one context and called a plan
Made me think harder
>he doesn't know "final solution" means deportation

you presented that as if there is LITERALLY no proof for it, while it clearly states mentioning of it in memos, abstracts, and testimonies

And general plan ost isnt the "final solution"

And the final solution isnt about deportation at all. Its literally about rounding them up into concentration camps for the purpose of slave labour

you can read it all here

prorev.com/wannsee.htm

Isn't it ~6 million Jews and 12-14 million others labelled as degenerate?

>Six million cannot be a "general statement" as when you say six, you do not mean four or five. You mean six.

The thing is, an estimate is something you say when you mean something near it

>multiple memos and abstracts with multiple contexts can be all put into one context and called a plan

The plan is not the object of reconstruction. The events that took place when the plan was executed are. Memos, etc testify to how those events unfolded, and the plan that they imply.

No, it's about six million Jews and another 5 million civilians deliberately executed by the Nazi government in a variety of ways. This doesn't count say, PoWs deliberately executed, and comes to around 5 million in total.

They were not all done in conecntration camps.

>he big deal, IMO, is that there was MAYBE 6 million killed total in the concentration camps. A large percentage of them Jews.

No, a good chunk of the killing was done by Einsatzgruppen and various units they grabbed for summary mass executions.

> However, this number pales in comparison to the the Japanese slaughter of Chinese civilians

I am not sure about that; you have similar death tolls in WW2 civilian wise for China and the USSR, and the Nazis had a whole bunch of other places they went a-killing as well.

>and the atrocities committed by the Japanese in their camps were far worse (Unit 731).

What metric are you using to define that?

>So why? Why the emphasis on the Jews and the German concentration camps?

Intent. The Japanese, cruel and rapacious as they were, weren't deliberately attempting to exterminate a demographic group in the belief that it would make the world a better place.

>Mkay, here you say that they should say 5.9 or 6.2 to be precise, yet you also say

>Of course none of the history books state that exactly 6 million died,

>So which is it?

No history book states that PRECISELY six million were killed, they state six million, and you yourself are supposed to extrapolate that as either exactly six million, and as you admitted, this can be taken as four or five million depending on your own view point on it.

>You're being labeled as you are because you're sperging out over decimal points for no reason at all. The "6 million" number is an estimate that helps provide a general idea of how many people were killed, because it's impossible to know the exact number.

If you are wondering why I am so concerned over "a few decimal points" it's because those few points could mean the difference between the reality of an extra 500,000 dying. Do we not have a moral obligation to provide clarity for what happened?

You say that we don't know how many died, I'm glad you agree with me, as I did state that in my last post. That is the one bit of information that is left out however, that we simply don't know how many died. The number could be higher, and it could be lower.

I am asking for clarity on an important event. Not generalizations that can mask the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

You mention the numbers dead in WW1 and WW2, the last I checked, you're not liable for criminal prosecution if you suggest less died during these events than actually did. After-all, this was my main concern in my original post, the legality of it.

And if you believe I don't care about finding the exact numbers of dead during those events either, than you're reading what you want to read from my posts.

problem is everyone already has their mind made up on this subject, and it's most likely not based on their own research

go read all you can about treblinka, the fake train station, burning 750,000 people into nothing and not leaving behind a single trace of evidence

look at all the various plans of the camp, ALL based on (((eyewitness))) testimony, and all varying a significant degree

read about 'ivan the terrible' and his fucking whip

read about a single barbed fence intersperced with dead wood containing 750000 pepole to their deaths

and finally read about how literally all the evidence for this supposed truth, quite literally comes down to nothing more than 4-5 eyewitnesses

yeah sure you can really burn 3/4 of a million people, bones teeth, fillings fucking everything on fucking nigger tier barbeques made of railtracks and wood, stack the bodies literally like 4 stories high, just light a little fire underneath and burn all the bodies because human bodies are like fucking wood

it's literally not fucking possible. there's not enough evidence to even convict a single person of murder, at treblinka. and yet if you don't believe 750,000 people (this number is constantly revised) were diabolically tricked into their deaths by cyanide, no wait steam, oh actually it was electricity, no that wouldn't work it must have been a diesel submaring engine, of course! because submarine engines are readily found in the middle of europe, and the nazis were far too dumb to utilizie the millions of woodgas stoves..

oh and they all had their hair cut for some reason, in the gas chambers, by 16 barbers, packed 750 to a room the size of a kitchen

and if you ask for proof you're an evil nazi you're worse than hitler go to jail

>You mention the numbers dead in WW1 and WW2, the last I checked, you're not liable for criminal prosecution if you suggest less died during these events than actually did. After-all, this was my main concern in my original post, the legality of it.

Yeah, show me someone who was prosecuted over a differing estimate of a few hundred thousand.

The people who do get targeted aren't doing so because their number counts are a bit different from the mainstream; they're doing so because their numbers are low to the point of denying it was a systematic genocide attempt, which is how the criminality is phrased in every code I've studied.

nachkriegsjustiz.at/service/gesetze/gs_vg_3_1992.php

Specifically 3h, "grossly belittling" the number of deaths in a National Socialist atrocity.

Source is at the bottom of the page, .pdf hosted on this site: ris.bka.gv.at/

>weren't attemptting to exterminate a demographic group

Uh.....
>they wanted to eradicate or enslave every non-jap asian

Kys fa m

>No history book states that PRECISELY six million were killed, they state six million, and you yourself are supposed to extrapolate that as either exactly six million, and as you admitted, this can be taken as four or five million depending on your own view point on it.

Could you give an example of a academic book that says "6 million"? I've never read a history book that just says "6 million." Only "About 6 million," "an estimated 6 million." Heck, I've never even read middle-grade text books that don't include "estimated" or "about."

>I am asking for clarity on an important event. Not generalizations that can mask the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Yeah, I'm sure you're so concerned that the number isn't high enough, especially when you specifically bring up the legality of saying that the number if lower. Totally believe you're just ~~thinking of the dead~~.

>you're not liable for criminal prosecution if you suggest less died during these events than actually did

Please give concrete examples of people who were criminally prosecuted MERELY for stating that less than 6 million people died in the Holocaust.

>Grossly belittling

Grossly belittling is different than suggesting it could be lowering than 6 million, or questioning exactly how many people died in the Holocaust.

>they wanted to eradicate or enslave every non-jap asian

Did they? It seemed to be pretty standard colonialism, of killing enough people to make the rest fall into line and work for you. They didn't go on those kinds of rampages in their allied/subject polities, such as Thailand, or Hainan after pacification.

Not that I mean to condone Japanese atrocities, or imply they were in any way justifiable, but they weren't going "Let's kill all the Koreans/Philipinos/Javans"

It's double odd to me because the people who criticize Japanese colonial policy come from countries that successfully ethnically cleansed whole continents.

Oh and the metric:

At 731-

>live vivisection of thousands, including organ removal to see how long people could live without vital ones
>frostbite testing where they froze limbs using water/winter and broke them off to check nervous response (live subjects)
>liquid nitrogen testing where they froze/rapidly thawed limbs using boiling water to test skin adhesion (by ripping layers of skin off)
>pressure testing on live subjects (putting them in chambers and increasing/decreasing pressure til organ rupture/kidney expulsion from anus)
>flamethrower testing on live subjects
>arty testing on live subjects
>grenade testing on live subjects
>starvation testing en masse
>live vivisection of pregnant women to see how long fetuses could survive out of the womb
>emotional shock research where they had families watch their mothers/sons/daughters be gassed/dismembered alive to study the long-term psych implications of the survivors

There is far more, and far worse. And that was just off the few workers who spoke and the little burned research documents that weren't destroyed when they vaporized the camp prior to capture.

What the Japanese did at 731 and in Nanking was on a level the Germans could not, and would not, accomplish. The Germans still believed the 'Jew' to have been human at one point.
>The Imperial Japanese had been raised viewing non-Japanese Asians and Chinese as fleshly imposers of their true perfection.

To this day there is still intense hatred between Chinese and Japanese. I live in America and the worst racism I've ever witnessed was an argument between a Japanese nationalist and a Chinese nationalist. I don't think that hate will ever go away.

They did not care if the Chinese fell in line. Ideally they wanted to create enough dissent to give reason to eradicate them all. Until the US liberation of China they were well on their way - farm output was down some 65% and starvation was putting 80-90 million civilians at risk within the year. Hence our acting when we did.

You're literally trying to equate 6 gorillion with a minimum of 11 million KNOWN Chinese dead....and that being the lowest estimate. The higher ones, including collateral civilian deaths, put it as high as 25-30 million.

user, I suggest you look up some of the holocaust literature. I'd start with this.

amazon.com/Auschwitz-Doctors-Eyewitness-Miklos-Nyiszli/dp/161145011X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482034496&sr=8-1&keywords=Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account

You HAD vivisection, weapons and healing experiments, infection rate experiments (just shoot them and leave the wound open, or, if you want to hurry things up, smear some mud or shit on it), sterilization method experiments, and truly bizarre shit like attempts to induce heterochromia by pouring acid in peoples eyes.

You haven't really convinced me.

>They did not care if the Chinese fell in line.

Sure they did. Show me some of these massacres that happened among their subject troops in China in those puppet governments like the one they set up in Nanking after the infamous rape, which still managed to have enough legitimacy to amass around a million troops willing to fight for the Japanese.

>Ideally they wanted to create enough dissent to give reason to eradicate them all

Prove it.

>Hence our acting when we did.

Oh please. U.S. intervention in the Pacific was much more directly tied to the Jpaanese attacking European colonial possessions. They were at the war in China for almost a decade by the point that you started seeing material sanctions.

>You're literally trying to equate 6 gorillion with a minimum of 11 million KNOWN Chinese dead

No, actually I'm not. I'm pointing out that the Holocaust alone accounts for about 11 million dead, deliberate executions of PoWs probably give you another 4-5 million, and deliberately targeted population segments that are not usually considered part of the holocaust; such as the Dutch famine in the winter of 44-45, or their actions against Italian civilian populations after the Allies started gaining ground there add up to another million or so. They probably have more body counts. You haven't made your case for the Japanese being crueler than the Nazis. And you certainly haven't shown that the Japanese intended to obliterate native populations and resettle them with their own people.

Learn to read.

good to see the JIDF hard at work even after the election

imgur.com/a/725A7

Posted in every holocaust thread until you like it.

Oh shoot, were you posting this entire time thinking you were in /pol/? That explains a lot. This is Veeky Forums.

imgur.com/gallery/725A7

nobsrussia.com/2016/12/14/so-you-live-in-a-dictatorship-part-i-you-have-no-beliefs/

>problem is everyone already has their mind made up on this subject, and it's most likely not based on their own research

Reading conspiracy theory websites is not research.

meine freundin, you prove your own falsehood.

The law bans any Nazi praise or defending of any of their atrocities, to blatantly say it's a holocaust denial law is where you're wrong. It has nothing to do with the holocaust to be labeled such anymore than the butchering of Prague, the many of atrocities on the eastern front, or the needless invasions of Nederlands and Denmark
What, you think WE don't have any closet or open nazi sympathizers?

Of course we do

Does anyone actually get in trouble for it?

Of course not.

But then again, you're misunderstanding what makes Civil Law institutions so different than Anglo concepts of Common Law, and if you've never studied the latter, you're far from likely to understand the former.

Is that the guy who was recently tried and who thus had a real interest in portraying himself as repentant in front of a court rather than contradicting a well established narrative and risking to be locked up for the few years he has left?

Yes.

Yes. I have spoken to some pretty educated people about it and they lamented the fact that they would be fired if they shared their opinion widely.
It's become a sticking point for a lot of people so there's a lot of misinformation flying around. If you know anything about body disposals, burning and decomposition rates then you should already know the numbers have to be wrong. And, if the numbers have been obfuscated that casts doubt on other things.
Imo people were put into camps. No one was gassed en mass and their certainly wasn't mass body burnings. Whether from sickness of from execution some people died but not nearly as many as are reported in modern times.
Frankly, there are far more evil and gruesome acts in WW2 by the germans. No one gives a fuck though, because muh genoicide.

That quote is made up though. He didn't say that.

>I have spoken to some pretty educated people about it and they lamented the fact that they would be fired if they shared their opinion widely.

I have spoken with some pretty educated people about the flat Earth and they lamented the fact they would be fired if they shared their opinion widely. Imo above us is still universe and not a glass ceiling, but the Earth for sure is flat.

>grossly belittling

That's not "questioning the official story", that's saying "lel the Nazis only killed 6,000 Jews not 6,000,000". Going "I propose that the Nazis only managed to get their hands on 3 million Jews and the discrepancy is because the remainder fucked off to Israel or other nations before they could get counted again"* would be perfectly fine because scholars have been debating the full extent of the Holocaust since the end of the war. Even the 6 million number was only roughly estimated by comparing the last census taken before the war with the first one taken afterwards.

*numbers used as an example

The difference being, you snide shit, is that science disagrees with that. There is far more evidence to the contrary. If, without using specifics from holocaust reports, which for the sake of this argument are in contention, can show me that it isn't highly improbable and undauntingly inefficient for the currently proposed events of the holocaust to exist THEN you would have a point.
The fact that you cannot is what differentiates the two situations.The fact that people haven't made flat-earthing illegal speaks volumes as well.

>If you know anything about body disposals, burning and decomposition rates then you should already know the numbers have to be wrong.
If you know anything about cremation you would know that it only takes so long today because Western nations have a fuckload of laws regarding the proper and ethical way to dispose of a body.

If you don't give a shit about the corpses you're burning and toss in multiple corpses at once you can easily dispose of the numbers quoted.

>There is far more evidence to the contrary.
uh-uh sure thing thing buddy. Those evidence to the contrary being Leuchter report, right?

There are several witnesses for the lampshade Story. The actual lampshade vanished in 1945 though. A Major Reuben Cares examined 3 pieces in Buchenwald and came to the conclusion that „all three specimens are tattooed human skin". An actual lampshade fabled to be made from human skin was later found in the DDR. A new examination could not proof it was made from human skin.

>the only stats on body disposals are legal cremations
Speaking of wrong, why don't you tell me all about it?

>there are illegal cremations using ovens

I bet you think a pyre is the same thing, too.

>((( )))

pls leave

>The theory that the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews is insane. Where's all the eyewitnesses of such a huge thing?
>Right here?
>They don't count as eyewitnesses of the Nazi attempt to kill Jews because they're Jewish. Got any REAL eyewitnesses?

If you cite non-jews they'll just say they were coerced by the west into false confessions. You can't win.

Welcome to arguing with retards.

Not him, but take a look at this.

ia802607.us.archive.org/11/items/cremationdead00eassgoog/cremationdead00eassgoog.pdf

If 1875 ovens can cremate an adult male body in 45-55 minutes, I somehow don't believe it would be slower when the Nazis are burning bodies. And of course, when you consider that a good chunk of the bodies are women and children, with less mass to burn, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all that a facility like Auschwitz which had 52 muffles operating simultaneously in 1943 could burn over a million bodies.

Finkelstein is pretty based. He's a jew who's dedicated his life and career to point out the hypocracy in other jews by using every jewish trick in the book.
He constantly bashes the use of the holocaust as some kind of argument, despite having lost family members himself.

The Jews got to you good, huh?

>52 ovens running 24/7
>each one cremating a single body every 45 minutes
>1664 bodies per day
>607360 bodies per year
>at a single camp
>assuming 1 body per oven taking 45 minutes each

Naw man, this some Jewish Physics or some shit it don't make no sense.

What exactly SHOULD the Nazis have done with the Jews instead?

Jews instinctively hated all nationalist movements and had been attacking the Nazi movement since, what, the 1920s, both in words and through violence. Jews had organized boycotts and economic sabotage against Germany in the 1930s. Jews had assassinated party members and government officials during peacetime. Before the war even started, Jews had petitioned foreign governments to invade the Third Reich and even exterminate the entire German people.

So the Nazis were just supposed to let these people run free in Germany during a fucking war? Of course they interned them. That's what you do to enemy aliens you can't trust in a war. That's what we did. It's a matter of self-preservation. Jews still caused plenty of problems anyway despite their mass internment, including armed insurrections.

If the Nazis didn't have the food, medicine, or other resources to keep them alive in the camps, and even resorted to exterminating them wholesale just so they'd have less mouths to feed, what what else should the have done?

>52 ovens running 24/7

WHo claimed that?

>each one cremating a single body every 45 minutes}

Less than that. 45 Minutes is the MAXIMUM, assuming they're using at then 70 year old technology, and every person they burn is an adult male, and nobody who died had a body disposed of outside the crematoria.

>1664 bodies per day

Which is why the Nazis themselves claimed much higher than that. Pic related.

>607360 bodies per year

You do realize that Auschwitz was open for more than a year and most estimates put the death toll at 1.1-1.5 million, yes?

>Naw man, this some Jewish Physics or some shit it don't make no sense.

It makes perfect sense, you just don't want it to.

>Jews still caused plenty of problems anyway despite their mass internment, including armed insurrections.
Yeah, why couldn't they shut the fuck up and just rot in silence.

No, user. I'm agreeing with you and mocking the people saying that the crematoriums couldn't handle the numbers claimed.

My apologies. I didn't note the sarcasm, since I'm used to /pol/ types saying that kind of shit in all seriousness.

My point is imagine what they would have done if they were given free range, especially in Germany.

It would have been a repeat of the Jewish-led German Revolution of 1918 but worse.

You really demand that the Nazis just let that happen?

Considering how much damage the Jews did to the war effort despite being locked up, you demand that the Nazis should have never locked them up in the first place?

Oh no, I'm saying even using the high times and assuming that just Auschwitz was cremating bodies for only a single year...it still accounts for 600k bodies. They could have easily disposed the number claimed across the entire concentration camp network.

>It would have been a repeat of the Jewish-led German Revolution of 1918 but worse.
>Jewish led

I didn't know the Imperial German Navy was Jewish.

>My point is imagine what they would have done if they were given free range, especially in Germany.

Yes, I'm sure that half a million Jews in Germany, most of whom were already barred from any sort of position even as important as elementary school teaching, could have caused widespread damage. Oh wait, no, I don't.

>It would have been a repeat of the Jewish-led German Revolution of 1918 but worse.

You mean, the revolution against the provisional government that had already decided to end the war because it was hopeless and not the Kaiser's?

>Considering how much damage the Jews did to the war effort despite being locked up,

What are you talking about? What enormous damage did they do to the war effort? And things like the warsaw ghetto uprising happened primarily because they were being murdered en masse and their backs were to the wall.

>Yeah, why fuck in silence.
agree

How about not persecuting them and enjoy their desire to prove their patriotism like Imperial German Army did in the Great War?

>Jews instinctively hated all nationalist movements
We both know that's bullshit.

The leadership of the Free Socialist Republic of Germany was almost entirely Jewish.

The Free Socialist Republic of Germany was not the group that overthrew the Kaiser and took control of Germany in 1918. They were, in fact, rebelling against that group.

>Yes, I'm sure that half a million Jews in Germany, most of whom were already barred from any sort of position even as important as elementary school teaching, could have caused widespread damage. Oh wait, no, I don't.
Ignorant.

>You mean, the revolution against the provisional government that had already decided to end the war because it was hopeless and not the Kaiser's?
The war was still being fought.

>What are you talking about? What enormous damage did they do to the war effort? And things like the warsaw ghetto uprising happened primarily because they were being murdered en masse and their backs were to the wall.
You know who else had their backs to the wall? Germans.

>the Free Socialist Republic of Germany

Wasn't the one that deposed the Kaiser and tried to get out of the war. They were revolting against the Weimar republic, not the Kaiser.

They are, quite literally, completely irrelevant to the outcome of WW1

>Ignorant.

Exactly what is wrong with that statement? Germany's Jewish population was tiny; most of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Polish and from the USSR, hardly in a position to do much to Germany anyway.

>The war was still being fought.

>January 4th-15th 1919
>War still being fought.

No, actually, it wasn't. The armistice had already been signed and peace negotiations were ongoing.

>You know who else had their backs to the wall? Germans.

Yes, Germany was in existential threat of being destroyed when the Nazi government took power. I'm sure you'll be able to cite that, since you've done a great job of substantiating your other claims.

>The war was still being fought.
Not after November 11,1918 it wasn't. And "being fought" vastly overplays the success of the German Army leading up to the armistice.

>How about not persecuting them
You mean give enemy aliens who have bitterly opposed your party since the beginning free range in your country during a total war.

>their desire to prove their patriotism like Imperial German Army did in the Great War?
Haha.

>We both know that's bullshit.
Jews hate goyim in general. They fucking despise goy nationalism. Always have and always will. You're the one bullshitting.

My stance regarding the holocaust is that it's just blown out of proportion and that I find it unfair how jews expect special treatment for this while shit like the Armenian genocide is so ignored by the international heads

The only question I have lingering about the whole deal is how dirty are the soviets hands in regards to things. Katyln (sp?) After all was origionally presented as evidence against the Nazis in nuremberg when we know now the soviets did that nastyness. The soviets had a habit of shooting rebels as much as they did arming them out of paranoia and fear of arming any potetially anti-soviet factions that could arise in the occupied nations after the rolled through. I dont question at all the holocaust happened, I just wonder if a few of the added bodies on the piles in poland 1945 were put there by soviets not Nazis.

>When studying the holocaust the number of deaths is not open to interpretation
Brah any serious historian will write "generally estimated" at 6 million because not every single person was tallied. 6 million is a general number, but we can't even get the exact casualties right for half of the eastern front battles. I'm sure many many Poles, Gypsies and Jews slipped through the cracks of the general estimate.

>You mean give enemy aliens who have bitterly opposed your party since the beginning free range in your country during a total war.
Enemy Aliens? Strong words... And again Jews opposed the Nazi party, mainly because it was fucking aimed against them from the start.

>Haha.
During the Great War Jews had higher enlistment rates than Germans, funny isnt it?

>They fucking despise goy nationalism.
They supported Czechoslovak nationalism, for example.

Are you literally shaking right now? You project such strong feefees.

>I just wonder if a few of the added bodies on the piles in poland 1945 were put there by soviets not Nazis.

This wouldn't surprise me at all, and an especially vindictive Soviet Union would have all the incentive in the world to make the punishment for the Nazis even more heavy handed.
But the "moral of the story" or the lesson of the holocaust is the dangers is allowing paranoia and xenophobia to drive the actions of a state into genocide. It was institutional policy to exterminate the undesirables. So we associate the holocaust with the nazis because they had the policy to conduct in. The extra deaths are sort of just the damage of WWII's scale of conflict.

so why are there so many movies about the holocaust

>period of massive strife and struggle involving millions of people each with their own stories
>some of the brightest examples of humanity burned in the midst of some of the darkest pits humanity ever sunk to

i dunno fampai, doesn't really seem like the kind of setting people would want to set stories in

>jews opposed the nazis from the beginning!!

Wow they opposed a man whose first publication and step into the public eye was a book about how the German army getting assraped was because of the Jews and Communists?

>why are there so many movies about WWII
>why are there so many movies about the Vietnam War
>why are there so many movies about the wild west
>why are there so many movies about murders and vendettas

Wow it's almost like humanity enjoys stories of immense tragedy, personal courage and the strength of the human spirit.

>Americans needed to utilize the victory in WW2 for propaganda purposes, therefore Nazis had to be painted as evil
>What German atrocity should we paint?
>The biggest one? But we must paint Slavs as subhumans! We cannot make our people feel sympathy for them!
>How about atrocities in France? Too small... Frenchies just bowed to conquerors
>What about holocaust? Ideal!