Show me evidence of x! I’m all ears, just show one piece of evidence to support x!

>Nobody was ever imprisoned for questioning the Holocaust
Are you retarded?

Name someone who was imprisoned for questioning the Holocaust then?

I mean unless dailymail recently had a partnership with stormfront

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317083/German-grandmother-87-sentenced-ten-months-jail-denying-Holocaust-saying-Auschwitz-just-labour-camp.html

Expected but not enforced.

No but it must be a cocktail of mental illnesses including schizophrenia, narcissism and paranoia.

Denial

>The pair founded a now-banned education centre and she has written for a right-wing magazine where she has argued that the Holocaust never happened.
>She has been convicted on five other occasions for similar charges of incitement of racial hatred, but she has remained free as her lawyers appealed.
>Ursula Haverbeck, who describes herself as a revisionist historian, said at a public event in January 2016 that gas chambers in Auschwitz concentration camp “were not real”.
uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-holocaust/german-court-sentences-88-year-old-holocaust-denier-to-jail-idUKKBN1CM253
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42164853
Seems like it was more than "questioning".

It's called victimization. It gets you places. I use it a lot

Not always; some people are simply raised in a household where it's the norm. Ideology can and is very cultlike when it comes to familial influence.

Aren't white males the new victims, though? Being a persecuted minority and all.

>is there a name for this line of thinking?
Being lied to by society at large, then being lied to again by a group of social outcasts and not having the intellectual capacity to make sense of reality.

>and forbidding people from questioning anything related to it by law
Not for nothing but that's only europe which has less freedom of speech by law. The US you can question it all you want legally.

>>ok, take a look at this evidence of x, surely you’ll at least consider it like you said?
That never happened.

Attached: 1521115555268.jpg (500x717, 98K)

Why do you care so much about Holocaust denial?
It has no relevance to your life if you're not a Jew.

Also, I get this line of thinking from people on here as much, if not more than when dealing with the people OP is talking about.

They rely on other people to think for them and ask for a source on the hope that evidence countering their narrative doesn't exist. Then when evidence is provided, suddenly Harvard professors lack the credentials to speak with authority on topics.

She has also never been imprisoned. She's also an unrepentant Nazi widow with close ties to former Nazi and neo-Nazi leaders in Germany (such as Himmler's daughter) which is a bit different from some keyboard warrior who feels persecuted because Twitter suspended his trolling account..

>Seems like it was more than "questioning".
So what?

smolensk

user originally asked to provide an example of someone who was questioning the holocaust, not outright denying it, which is what's illegal in Germany.

Attached: goalposts.jpg (594x395, 89K)

It can't just be coincidence that a lot of people who say the holocaust never happened will often follow up with "but it should've"

Yes that granny with all that wealth and political power can influence society by the sheer power of holding an opinion.
That is in no way on the same tier as a keyboard warrior, absolutely no fucking way.

I bet your ancestors were inquisitors.

Attached: everyone i dont like is reddit.png (680x823, 1.1M)

>user originally asked to provide an example of someone who was questioning the holocaust, not outright denying it, which is what's illegal in Germany.
Didn't David Irving get imprisoned in Austria?

i know right

Attached: when.png (500x410, 142K)

Any honest historian should care.

Not him but yes and it was for specifically denying it

Well, I doubt we'd be living in such a shit environment if the holocaust did indeed happened. What's a few million lives compared to the lives of billions, especially whites?
Because you are reddit. And you have to go back.

>Not him but yes and it was for specifically denying it
My understanding was that Irving's position was that Hitler didn't know, not that Jews didn't get put in camps

point proven

>What's a few million lives compared to the lives of billions, especially whites?
>kill the minority for the greater good
Sounding awfully red there, comrade

Not sure about Austria, I believe he made speeches denying it in 1989 but that's about it.

I believe that was the Lipstadt trial where he tried to proclaim that he wasn't a denier. The trial proved him wrong with documents showcasing "read by the fuhrer" if memory serves right last time I read the "Denial" book.

Nonsense.
Why should an "honest" historian care passionately about a historical event that has nothing to do with him? Do you waste sleep over whether or not Caesar's war against Gaul was legal? Of course not, but I don't doubt that you have lost sleep arguing against Holocaust deniers.

>Yes that granny with all that wealth and political power can influence society by the sheer power of holding an opinion.
In fact, yeah. she can influence society by using wealth and political connections (to far right groups) to broadcast her message. Which is exactly what she's doing.
She's a granny in the same sense that Le Pen senior is a grandpa.

Red? What minorities were the commies killing, especially "for the greater good"? I'm just looking at this realistically. Jews have been a plague for humanity ever since the dawn of time and it's only the weakness of their hosts that allowed them to continue to exist. And that was undeniably a grave error.

Because stormcunts are obnoxious faggots who shit up litterally every thread they touch.

>you're wrong
>well, I can't prove it
>but you care enough to rebut me, so you're probably a Jew

the absolute state

The reason society at large makes fun of Holocaust denial is the same reason they make fun of flat Earthers, Jehova's Witnesses and bigfoot hunters: they fly in the face of evidence, rely on emotion, and involve themselves with daily regimens of mental gymnastics.

Thats not questioning, thats denying. Even the headline says denying. Post someone who was jailed for questioning, as you claimed.

>to broadcast her message
Which means absolutely nothing when most people don't deny the holocaust. Nobody except those who already deny it would care about what she has to say.
She cannot influence the politics.
>She's a granny in the same sense that Le Pen senior is a grandpa.
You are insane.

>The trial proved him wrong with documents showcasing "read by the fuhrer" if memory serves right last time I read the "Denial" book.
I don't know about the details of that trial, I've only ever read Hitler's War, which is what I thought was the extent of what he said
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_War#Primary_theses

Do you know what they considered denial? I think much of the frustration around "denial" comes from the perception that alternate narratives that also fit the historical record are criminalized. If Irving said something contrary to the historical record I'd be surprised to be honest.

>why should historians be passionate about history

I know your stormcunt """""historians""""" are just propagandists wearing a different hat, but actual historians do lose sleep wondering and arguing about historical events.

>but actual historians do lose sleep wondering and arguing about historical events.
You're a fucking faggot, not an (((actual historian)))

Attached: 2ff.jpg (680x496, 37K)

>Do you know what they considered denial?
No clue, sorry that's what frustrates me as well. I only managed to read 1 chapter because I couldn't be assed to buy the book. I remember 2 cases clearly:
>Irving claims hitler didn't know
>Himmler documents showcasing "Read by the Fuhrer"
>Irving tries to claim that Hitler probably didn't read it and it was stamped like that because it was on his table
>Additional evidence is that it had font size sizeable enough for Hitler to read without his glasses
>Irving intentionally (or accidentally) translated "Railroads" into singular "Railroad"
that's the best I can tell you right now, but do get your hands on the book if you can, should clarify stuff.

Wait I think it was "Transports" and "Transport" as in Trains and train, not railroad.

>only Jews care about the truth
Interesting point

>Why should an "honest" historian care passionately about a historical event that has nothing to do with him?
>Why should a historian care about history?

Leave Veeky Forums and never return you stormcunt.

>he isn't joking and actually does find it wierd people are passionate about history

Sad. Very very sad.

Veeky Forums is populated entirely with obnoxious faggots who shit up everything they touch, get used to it. Do you hear me moaning making threads about the Amerindian faggot, the pregnant Anne Frank meme or the turk LARPer?

Toughen up and stop worrying about the opinions of irrelevant people in the internet. You will never change the mind if a Holocaust denier so why waste your time?
>b-but people HAVE to think the Nazis were evil!
Why?
Nazism is irrelevant to the modern era and if it did somehow become relevant making threads on Veeky Forums moaning about it would do nothing to change that.

>lose argument
>w-well why do you care so much, eh M-m-mister Goldburg
>well of course I care about history, this is a history board
>JIDF DETECTED SHILL SHILL I WIN

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Stormfag had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Attached: doubt.png (762x576, 32K)

Not the guy you're responding to, but Irving says several things contrary to the historical record. You can go through it here in the judgment about the Lipstadt trial, bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html but offhandedly

>Irving is very quick to point out any holes or credibility issues in people who make Hitler look bad. People who make Hitler look good, on the other hand, are often deliberately misrepresented for honesty or accuracy, downplaying things like Nazi party membership or sympathies.
>Odd, inconsistent translations of primary source documents that inevitably make Hitler look better.
>Accepting as clearly accurate documents with incredibly bad provenance, as long as they're exculpatory to Hitler, the reverse, of course, is not true.
>Tries to set up Goebbels going to far as the mastermind behind the Holocaust. In fact, Hitler is often cast as someone trying to protect the Jews from the full virulence of German anti-semitism.
>And oh yeah, Dresden's 6 digit death toll, which would make it about twice as deadly as operation Gomorrah, despite that being impossible.

>Why should an "honest" historian care passionately about a historical event that has nothing to do with him?
How can you not identify the retarded nature of this question?

It's not the stormfaggots that need convincing. It's the otherwise normal people who might start to believe their bullshit without some to call them out on it.

You're not making fun of them though, you're wasting your energy trying to convince them that they are wrong. They don't care that you're "making fun of them", they're just glad that an outsider is taking them serious enough to interact with them.