Give me the best UNBIASED sources that come from independent non Jew researchers. Also the sponsors must not be Jewish.
I am a former holocaust denier
Matthew Lopez
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
m.imgur.com
nizkor.org
en.wikipedia.org
holocaustresearchproject.org
twitter.com
Kayden Sanders
...
Logan Moore
Are we being raided by /pol/? This is the 3rd holocaust thread I've seen in the last 20mins
Grayson Fisher
>I am a former holocaust denier
Why? I mean, clearly there are no reliable sources for any specific number of deaths, and no one has been able to build up a clear picture of it in that regard, so it's unlikely that it happened in the specific way it's often claimed to have. But on the other hand most holocaust revisionist sources are loopy themselves and you'd have to be gullible to simply trust them.
My experiences is that most attempts to build up a picture of it have some clear agenda to them, whether pro or anti Israel, and its incredibly difficult to find something approximating a 'neutral' assessment of it compared to the massive amount of politically motivated ones.
Isaac Adams
Op is a new fag
Veeky Forums confirms Holocaust and deny the Holodomor
If you are a nazi you are wasting your time
if you are a commie you are right at home
There isn't anything else to talk about here
Levi Cook
>Prove that evolution exists with UNBIASED sources. I will also not read any sources from left-handed researchers, or any source sponsored by a left handed person.
Genuinely shut the fuck up. You are not only of sharply below average intelligence, but you've also somehow become convinced that your thoughts have worth and that it matters whether you can understand basic facts. The sooner you accept that you're defective the better. I'm not even going to encourage you to start learning. You're clearly ill equipped for it if you've at any point in your life believed Holocaust denial. You're clearly a lost cause given the fact that you've reached the point where you frame this question in this way.
You're not Socrates on a quest for truth, you're a shit-smeared, drooling village retard demanding everybody else slow down to try and convince you that the world is round. You will strain your stunted fucking skull to try and transform anything into anything you want. If someone doesn't laboriously tutor you in the obvious, it's because they obviously couldn't. If they do you don't listen, or refuse to engage with what they're saying while tossing out copypastas of fringe claims that have nothing to do with the established histriography, or you'll start dragging out shit that if you would think for five seconds you'd realise aren't good evidence of anything.
Joshua Turner
The classic example is using revised kill counts on a single Auschwitz plaque to cast aspersions on the established facts. The problem is the established histriography isn't based on that plaque. You toss out mad left field stuff that isn't part of the foundation of the established facts, and feel like that's attacking them because you know literally nothing about what the actual evidence is. You don't know what the target is, so you go by your fucking feelings and assume that every copypasta you find is not only accurate but is hitting home at the foundations of the evidence.
It's like if someone was explaining evolution to you, explained the science and documented evidence, and you flatly ignored it and pointed to someone who's not even a scientist who says we all evolved from giant preying mantis' a hundred thousand years ago. You found a false claim relating to evolution! Surely that negates the vast leviathan of proof that isn't in any way based on what the preying mantis guy said.
Cop the fuck on.
Christian Jones
It's basically impossible to prove a historical claim if you discredit anything that has a shred of bias.
As it's human nature to hold bias, and it's basically impossible to prevent that from showing up in research.
You can just look at how so much evidence points to things such as gas chambers, mass-starvation, mass-disease, and the lack of any attempt on the SS part to follow the Geneva conventions rules on how to treat prisoners.
But most of these claims come from either "biased" sources, or are discredited because of the chance that the people whom admitted to it may have been tortured.
You could also look at the Nazi ideology in general and make the implication that there was a genocide, as the deaths of so many civilians was not something that should've occurred, especially as it was so disproportionate to the other German civilians, but implications are not facts. So that doesn't work to prove it either.
Simply put, proving a historical fact is incredibly hard, because of human nature.
A good example is this.
Prove to me that millions of Aztecs died in the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire.
However, prove this without using any Aztec, or Spanish, sources, as these may be biased towards one of the view points.
Kevin Rogers
>and feel like that's attacking them because you know literally nothing about what the actual evidence is
What is the actual evidence though? You can rightly criticize those infographics as much as you want, as they tend to be shit, but I don't know what sources were actually used by historians to build up the specific numbers that are frequently quoted.
Tyler Long
I'm not a holocaust denier, I fully believe it happened.
I gotta admit though I am having real trouble dealing with the fact of Jews being so disproportionate in the gommies in Germany and the initial Soviet Union and among useful idiots/fellow travelers and outright spies in the US.
Like I really need a credible and solid explanation for why the fuck they were so goddamn prevalent. Likewise for Jewish feminists.
Leo Foster
So because you don't know what they are, they must therefore not exist? Here's a thought. Why don't you GET some of these books on the Auschwitz death count, or any other camp, or the overall total, and look at the citations embedded in the book. Real works of scholarship have them. Then, if you're interested, they'll lead you down an archival trail to the primary source documentation that supports the overall figures. I hope you can read German, since most of these will come out to German transit records.
Dylan Campbell
But of course, you would never think to demand the same explanation of Latvians.
Jayden Torres
Before someone more patient and more knowledgeable than me might actually have a go at squeezing an answer into a Veeky Forums comment, have you made honest efforts to find this out, or are you just playing dumb to push holocaust denial? For example, if I was in the situation you claim to be in, if I, in all good faith, wanted the answer to that question, the very least I would do is have a look at this:
en.wikipedia.org
That's a page giving the broadstrokes overview of what's wrong with a lot of the holocaust denial you've probably already read. In the process, it seems to end up describing, in brief, the basis of the established facts. I mean, don't read that and think you've got the full picture, but it's a much better, much better sourced read than anything you'll find on Veeky Forums, and the footnotes may form a good springboard for further reading.
Ayden Jackson
I'm not claiming that all 'baised' sources should be thrown out, as all sources come from some form of bias and its inevitable that the issue is framed in some way.
The issue is the the overall approach to most examination are completely shrouded in some particular assumption that is then used to define the nature of the investigation. Many 'anti-holocaust denial' approaches assume that 6 million Jews died by default and assume the burden of proof that anything happened otherwise to fall on the deniers. Conversely, many deniers will assume that all testimony is suspect if it conflicts with anything they believe regarding the existence of any gas chamber at all.
It's not that bias exists, is that the topic, being so tremendous, is so polarized for political reasons, as is usually approached as a weapon to wield for a cause than as something to honestly look at from the bottom up, which is understandable given the current climate makes this barely feasible and certainly without profit to anyone who would undertake such a thing.
Sebastian Martin
Because we already know the Latvians are atlanteans running the world against the Bogandoffs, user. This is world history 101.
Brody Sullivan
>Give me the best UNBIASED sources that come from independent non Jew researchers. Also the sponsors must not be Jewish.
Primary source:
1942 Kurt Prüfer document
In this memo, Kurt Prüfer, top senior engineer from Topf & Sons, the company that manufactured the crematory ovens, describes the capacity to burn 80,000* bodies per month at Auschwitz-Birkenau as "not yet sufficient".
Why was a capacity to burn 80,000 bodies a month at Auschwitz-Birkenau deemed "not yet sufficient" in this 1942 memo?
Why did they need to burn more than 80,000 bodies a month in a camp that had a peak capacity to hold only 200,000 people?
* This is the lowest minimum conservative estimate that can be extrapolated from this memo, the actual number calculated from this memo is 104,160 bodies per month (or 3472 per day), assuming the ovens functioning at 73% effectiveness.
John Hill
By the way, the person who uploaded this is an Austrian former Holocaust denialist who really investigated the topic and had the intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong.
Hudson Gomez
Primary Source #2:
Vergasungskeller memo
nizkor.org
1943 memo by SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Karl Bischoff [Chief Architect at Auschwitz-Birkenau] concerning the progress made on Krematorium II.
In this letter, the word "Vergasungskeller" is used to describe the supposed "morgue." that has been identified as the Auschwitz gas chamber.
That word means exactly what it sounds like: "gassing basement," a (homicidal) gas chamber. This was a slip which not only proves that there was a gas chamber in Krema II, but that the architect Bischoff knew exactly what he was constructing.
As Pressac points out, "The inspection report enclosed with the letter makes it possible, through a process of elimination, to establish that Bischoff uses 'Vergasungskeller' to designate 'Leichenkeller I' of Krematorium II."
Holocaust-deniers have claimed that this room was not a homicidal gas chamber. What it is they are less sure of. They have proposed that it is (Leuchter) a morgue, (Mattogno) a delousing chamber, (Faurisson) a storage place for fumigation supplies, or (Butz) a fuel gas generation room or sewage treatment room or air-raid shelter.
Note that the term used by the Nazis for the delousing chambers was "desinfektionskammer" ("disinfection chambers"), and they were located on a different sector of the camp, so this term cannot be refering to delousing operations.
Nathaniel Williams
>had the intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong.
Neat, most people won't do that. Even if they're overwhelmingly proven wrong
Jack Foster
Primary Source #3:
Posen speech
In this speech, given by Himmler to high-ranking Nazi officials behind closed doors, on October 4, 1943, he describes the ongoing efforts in accomplishing the "extermination of the Jewish race", describing "thousands of corpses" and his efforts to punish those Nazi officers who stole "marks, furs or watches" from the "bodies" of the Jews.
We have the entire speech recorded in AUDIO, which you can hear in this link:
en.wikipedia.org
Is this not Himmler's voice?
Alexander Garcia
Primary Source #4:
Einsatzgruppen experiments with "gas vans"
We know einsatzgruppen [Ethnic-cleansing death squads in the East] had numerous problems with desertions and suicides. As a result, experiments were conducted with "gassing vans", but these were still cumbersome as they drew the attention of people and could only fit a few people at a time, leading to the Wansee Conference and the "Final Solution"
holocaustresearchproject.org
We have all of this documented, Germans described this with cold-hearted efficiency, like this letter describing the operation of an experimental gassing van on the Eastern Front:
>Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door. The reason for this is that when it becomes dark inside the load rushes toward what little light is left.
>This hampers the locking of the door. It has also been noticed that the noise provoked by the locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by the darkness. It is therefore expedient to keep the lights on before the operation and during the first few minutes of its duration. Lighting is often useful for night work and for the cleaning of the interior of the van.
We have the physical copies and scans of these letters and reports. Pic related.
Jason Clark
Yeah, it takes a lot of guts to examine your beliefs and admit you were wrong. I have the feeling the main problem with political fanatics is exactly this refusal to examine their own bias carefully.
They get "married" to an ideology and belief, waste hours defending it, and then it becomes harder and harder to admit you may have been wrong.
Imagine being some pepemaga /pol/tard telling your parents Hitler did nothing wrong or posting fascist pepes on Facebook. Pretty hard to come back from that.
Gabriel Sanchez
I feel the need to point out that you shouldn't use the worrd "Aztec" in this context siince it's imprecise as fuck and 99% of the people who use the term are usiing it to refer to something else.
If by "Aztec", you mean "Anybody from a culture in pre-colonial mexico, guatamala, belize, etc", then you want the word "Mesoamerican", as that's the name of that cultural region. The "Aztec empire" is merely a single (albiet the most influential and politically powerful one) state of tens to hundreds.
If you mean "Anybody in the Aztec empire", then you should probably say that, or even more accurately "Anybody in the Aztec triple alliance or it's tributaries/controlled territory". The "Aztec empire" was really a trio of allied city-states (Tenochtitlan, Tlacopan, and Texcoco, with Tenochtitlan having the most power and influence) which ruled over many other tributaries and strategic city-states and kingdoms, and even then "ruled over" is sort of misleading, since these states kept their internal governance in most causes and were merely kept in line with the threat of force if they didn't comply. This was pretty typical for multi-city mesoamerican states
If you mean "anybody in those 3 ruling cities", then say that or "anybody in the triple alliance".
If you mean "Anybody belonging to the same cultural-ethnic ovegroup that the triple alliance cities and related ethnicties", which is what "Aztec" actually meant in the original language, then you'd want to be using the word "Nahua" which is synonymous with thatt but has less of the modern linguistic baggage "Aztec" does.
If you mean "The Mexica, or the specific Nahua culture in Tenochtitlan and it's sister city of Tlatelolco which it absorbed", since most of the time people are talking about "Aztec culture" or "Aztec society", they are actually talking specifically about the Mexica (or are talking about Nahua cultures generally but using the Mexcia as the main example), then you should say the Mexica.
Oliver Mitchell
Lol commie bitch you fell for the fucking bait XD
Hudson Kelly
>deny the holodomor
lel
Nathan Murphy
>deny the Holodomor
Is this just because they're Commie Plebbitors?
Nolan Sanders
Genuinely shut the fuck up. You are not only of sharply below average intelligence, but you've also somehow become convinced that your thoughts have worth and that it matters whether you can understand basic facts. The sooner you accept that you're defective the better. I'm not even going to encourage you to start learning. You're clearly ill equipped for it if you've at any point in your life believed in the holocaust. You're clearly a lost cause given the fact that you've reached the point where you frame this question in this way.
You're not Socrates on a quest for truth, you're a shit-smeared, drooling village retard demanding everybody else slow down to try and convince you that the world is round. You will strain your stunted fucking skull to try and transform anything into anything you want. If someone doesn't laboriously tutor you in the obvious, it's because they obviously couldn't. If they do you don't listen, or refuse to engage with what they're saying while tossing out copypastas of fringe claims that have nothing to do with the established histriography, or you'll start dragging out shit that if you would think for five seconds you'd realise aren't good evidence of anything.
Luke James
Nobody here denies the Holodomor except for a couple of tankies that get BTFO on a regular basis.
Lurk more newfriend.
Connor Powell
JIDF TRIGGERD
Luke Evans
Genuinely shut the fuck up. You are not only of sharply below average intelligence, but you've also somehow become convinced that your thoughts have worth and that it matters whether you can understand basic facts. The sooner you accept that you're defective the better. I'm not even going to encourage you to start learning. You're clearly ill equipped for it if you've at any point in your life believed in the holocaust. You're clearly a lost cause given the fact that you've reached the point where you frame this question in this way.
You're not Socrates on a quest for truth, you're a shit-smeared, drooling village retard demanding everybody else slow down to try and convince you that the world is round. You will strain your stunted fucking skull to try and transform anything into anything you want. If someone doesn't laboriously tutor you in the obvious, it's because they obviously couldn't. If they do you don't listen, or refuse to engage with what they're saying while tossing out copypastas of fringe claims that have nothing to do with the established histriography, or you'll start dragging out shit that if you would think for five seconds you'd realise aren't good evidence of anything.
Nicholas Nelson
>Genuinely shut the fuck up. You are not only of sharply below average intelligence, but you've also somehow become convinced that your thoughts have worth and that it matters whether you can understand basic facts. The sooner you accept that you're defective the better. I'm not even going to encourage you to start learning. You're clearly ill equipped for it if you've at any point in your life believed Holocaust denial. You're clearly a lost cause given the fact that you've reached the point where you frame this question in this way.
You're not Socrates on a quest for truth, you're a shit-smeared, drooling village retard demanding everybody else slow down to try and convince you that the world is round. You will strain your stunted fucking skull to try and transform anything into anything you want. If someone doesn't laboriously tutor you in the obvious, it's because they obviously couldn't. If they do you don't listen, or refuse to engage with what they're saying while tossing out copypastas of fringe claims that have nothing to do with the established histriography, or you'll start dragging out shit that if you would think for five seconds you'd realise aren't good evidence of anything.
Luis Barnes
>Nobody here denies the Holodomor
You mean 70% of Veeky Forums are ''nobody''? this board is literally /leftypol/ + /r/atheism
Luke Miller
Your imagined /leftypol/ boogeyman isn't as prevalent here as you think
Most people here don't like commies, or nazis, get it through your thick skull
Ayden Powell
I didn't know it was humanly possible to be this butthurt
Isaiah Ross
>deny the Holodomor
dude what
Matthew Hernandez
He is probably one of those people who try to rationalize why someone dosent want to worship nazis by calling them jews/commies, or any other assortment of buzzwords