What's new

Holocaust denial?

There are countless eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust... it's not really open to debate as to whether or not it happened. History is there for the learning, unfortunately most of the accuracy in history wasn't derived from school. It's a common theme in today's classrooms especially...

As for the "reported post" from an individual, it will stand... if the depictions of dead Jewish victims is to much for you to stomach, steer clear of this thread and possibly the subject of history altogether. I won't make a decision to participate in the recent cries to delete history so your ass can feel better (you know who you are).
 
As for the "reported post" from an individual, it will stand... if the depictions of dead Jewish victims is to much for you to stomach, steer clear of this thread and possibly the subject of history altogether. I won't make a decision to participate in the recent cries to delete history so your ass can feel better (you know who you are).

fuckin' A bud
if only more people understood that 'less is more' when it comes to forum moderation
 
[486 said:
;n110638]

clearly, but the goalposts for "holocaust denial" has moved from
'it didn't happen'
to the much more innocuous stance of
'why has it seen more air time than all the other genocide since'

Totally irrelevant as to whether or not it happened. People that use that bullshit need to expend their energy trying to get the other atrocities better publicized.
 
Totally irrelevant as to whether or not it happened. People that use that bullshit need to expend their energy trying to get the other atrocities better publicized.

I think you're missing what he's trying to say, the gen pop is stupid, and the goal posts of what is considered a denier has moved, thus anyone who criticizes how the Holocaust has been portrayed is now considered a denier.

I think everyone agrees that if you claim it all together never happened then you're a fuckin fruit loops :laughing:
 
I think you're missing what he's trying to say, the gen pop is stupid, and the goal posts of what is considered a denier has moved, thus anyone who criticizes how the Holocaust has been portrayed is now considered a denier.

I think everyone agrees that if you claim it all together never happened then you're a fuckin fruit loops :laughing:

No, I understand what he was saying, I just think the people that "moved the goalposts" are assholes and need to rethink the whole situation.
 
No, I understand what he was saying, I just think the people that "moved the goalposts" are assholes and need to rethink the whole situation.

I think everyone can also agree on that, but you gotta remember that everything is like that right now politically. Look at all the US history that's now considered "racist" it's now becoming generational retardation.
 
I think you're missing what he's trying to say, the gen pop is stupid, and the goal posts of what is considered a denier has moved, thus anyone who criticizes how the Holocaust has been portrayed is now considered a denier.

I think everyone agrees that if you claim it all together never happened then you're a fuckin fruit loops :laughing:

That's often the point used,
the general population is too stupid
I have news for you, people who say this have a very limited viewpoint of the world around them..
 
That's often the point used, I have news for you, people who say this have a very limited viewpoint of the world around them..

Ok, please elaborate on the conclusions you have jumped to
 
I worked with a guy from Sweden (became a US citizen) who was aware of the camps (used to give them food pkges over the fence) but believed the 6 million deaths number is too much...

From reading history, I think the Jews stole the Ukraine genocide & passed it off as their own-

Sweden was neutral during WWII and Sweden was the destination of the Danish Jews, who almost completely escaped the Holocaust. Only a few who didn't leave for some reason or other were captured, sometimes stubborn, sometimes the resistance or running an underground railroad for other Jews, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews

The Danish resistance who conducted them has been labeled "Righteous among the Nations" by the State of Israel, well, Yad Vashem, which is the Isreali institution which defines Holocaust orthodoxy, because of this. The individuals did not want to be named. How badass is that.

So your friend was either not in Sweden at the time he was feeding starving Jews, or he was confused, or you got the story wrong, or he's lying.

Hmm.



Millions deny that the Nazi party was in fact a socialist party and instead paint them as only being nationalists or fascists. I do actually agree with the argument that you are denying an aspect of the Holocaust by denying the link to socialism. Is that what counts as being a "partial" denier?

The idea of the NSDAP being a 'socialist' movement is only of interest to edgy people arguing on the internet. That's not a serious argument, and nobody serious thinks the Nazis were 'socialist'.

Fascism in it's 30's form was about Nationalism as a collective. Socialism is about class conflict and class as a collective, across national boundaries. So the part about putting people to work on highways is not socialist, in the same way that FDR putting people to work digging holes and filling in swamps is not socialism.

Germany already had a tradition of paternalistic welfare, led by Industrialists. Under the German and Italian fascist model, it is the responsibility of citizens to work for the Industrialists, and it is the responsibility of the Elite to care for their workers and people. Germany pioneered this long, long before Ford built factory houses in Detroit and Dearborn. It actually pre-dates the Industrial Revolution.

So, to be clear, the way that the Nazis were 'socialist' is very specifically not the way Socialism is socialist. Mussolini actually took some of the plays out of the Krupp and Thyssen playbook for his form of Fascism, which, to remind everyone, actually worked. It was military adventurism that did Fascism in.
 
I think everyone can also agree on that, but you gotta remember that everything is like that right now politically. Look at all the US history that's now considered "racist" it's now becoming generational retardation.

That's a huge problem. History is supposed to be FACTS, and screw the political bullshit.
 
I went to Aushwitz a few months ago. It was a humbling experience. I don't understand how people don't believe it happened but then again there is Antifa so people believe stupid crap.

Because:
  1. All of the 'death camps' were in the former Communist-controlled eastern bloc. When I was a kid, they were still calling Western concentration camps 'death camps'. That is not the case. Communism is the polar opposite of Fascism. The Soviets covered up the Katyn massacre and tried to blame it on Nazis. The Communists were 100% completely and totally full of shit. So the fact that all of the 'death camps' were in the area controlled by the Fascist's enemies removes some credibility.
  2. You didn't see a single gas chamber or crematoria that were used by Nazis during the holocaust. This has been covered extensively. The Nazis demolished the crematoria and we have the aerial recon photos proving this. Then the Communists came out and for decades asserted that the gas chambers were the actual ones. It was only after the fall of the USSR that this was finally proven. So that also removes credibility.
  3. The atrocities committed by the Nazis were vastly, vastly exaggerated in the decades after the war. Truly ridiculous stories which took years to sort out. Mine carts which ran down an inclined plane which the Nazis filled with Jews. At the bottom of the rails was a burning pit. The mine-cart was hinged, so that the Jews would race down the hill in the cart, then it would tip up and spill the Jews into flames. Like a cartoon.
So, to be clear:
  1. It appears that the East was used as the extermination area because
    1. The Nazis literally planned to murder all of the witnesses and enslave a small portion which would be reduced in number year by year until the entire Liebensraum was de-populated of its inhabitants and filled with Germans. The initial number for the Soviet Union was like a 30% reduction of population. Poland was higher, and of course Poland suffered the most by percentage in the war.
    2. That's where most of the Jews were, and for the Jews in the Balkans etc, that's where the railroad lines went.
  2. Auschwitz appears to have been an actual extermination camp, Auschwitz II-Birkenau was the Jewish death camp. There were 3 death camps in Auschwitz. The rest of the worker's dormitories were for slaves working at the IG Farben and Krupp factories there. Auschwitz was specifically of interest to the Allies because IG Farben is a chemical company, and they were producing synthetic petroleum there. Taking down the Krupp works was a bonus.
  3. The Nazis committed actual weird and monstrous atrocities. Human experimentation was real, though not as extensive as supposed and not as extensive as Unit 731 run by the Imperial Japanese.
But the thread is about Holocaust Denial so I am providing the reasons why people deny the Holocaust, and why Auschwitz is not the perfect standard to 'prove' that the Holocaust happened. Auschwitz is literally Communist Propaganda. We have photographic proof that exterminations took place there, but visiting the camp is like visiting a Wild West movie set. It's literally re-constructed, and sometimes, inaccurately.
 
Yeah, I'm hoping to get the chance.


For the people who deny/dispute the numbers, or say "they make it out to be that only Jews were killed", it is officially recognized that around 6 million Jews were killed, and around 7.5 million "others" on top of that. So less than 50% of those who were killed were Jews. If you took history in high school, they likely made it sound like 98% of those killed were Jews, along with a few gypsies and gay men. At least certainly the high school I went to did. High school history is unfortunately either too condensed, too dumbed down, or perhaps is presented with a certain amount of bias to accurately reflect what is commonly believed by actual historians. I may be a "partial" denier for making that statement too, although I do not believe it was any sort of a Jewish conspiracy to steal the limelight from the other people who were killed. I think post-war Jewish groups were far more organized when it came to demanding recognition, and with the rise of the Iron Curtain the death of certain Eastern Europeans was largely ignored by the public in the west, and publications aimed at schools are inherently biased towards lobby groups as their selection is often based on the interests of those groups versus the interest of presenting history with as little bias as possible.

If Jews were 'far more organized when it came to demanding recognition', then they actually are in a 'conspiracy to steal the limelight from the other people who were killed'.

Your statement is contradictory.

Here's how it works: Among a group of people who underwent an event together, the people who are trying to 'steal the limelight' are the ones who get heard. So the Jews who escaped the Holocaust and say "the Nazis were killing us and they killed many others" aren't heard.

What gets heard are the actual lime-light stealing Jews who say "The Nazi atrocities were the Holocaust, and it was Jews who suffered most". Those are the people who inform what gets published, what is taught in colleges to History teachers, and what movies get made.

The proof is in the name: Holocaust. Holocaust is a term coined to specifically describe the extermination of Jews by the Nazis. That there were MORE non-Jews exterminated is now casually placed under the moniker 'Holocaust'.

So, 'The Jews' did not steal the limelight, but some Jews did. Specifically. And many other Jews went along with this because it is in their interest. After all, the entirety of Central European Jewry was exterminated, and most of Western and Eastern European Jewry was displaced and or killed. So Jews see themselves as a small group and they have to protect themselves. Thus Zionism. This is perfectly understandable, but it doesn't change the fact that some Jews did in fact push themselves to the front of the line of the Oppression Olympics.

Meanwhile, those Jews were aren't anti-Gentile can look around and say "Yes, Poland suffered, and horribly, but there are many Poles left. Yes, Russians suffered, but there are many Russians left. There are only a few us of left, we need a country."

If that were NOT true, then there would not only be a Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, there would also be a German-American museum there as well. Because German-Americans were ethnically cleansed, not exterminated or genocided, but ethnically cleansed out of America in the 19-teens, due to anti-German sentiment in WWI. And this was completed by WWII.

And look at the Armenian Genocide. Or the genocide of Levant and Turkish Greeks. The only reason the Armenian Genocide has come to the fore is because Alexis Ohanian is one of the two guys who started reddit, and the Kardashians.

But this is sometimes beneficial, and it is the American genius to make bank off of it. But that's another post.
 
i'm not sure we covered china at all except that they developed paper and gun powder. china prior to 1800? sure. Post 1800? only to mention they slaved on the railroads

Sun Yat-sen, Chang Kai Sheck, and Mao Tse-tung were the three leaders I was taught about in the 1980s. Also, Confuscism and Taoism. That's really about it.

Nobody was really taught about the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, and in fact it's only really post-1990s that it's been widely accepted that these were two different things. Yes we had stories from Chinese defectors, but the Soviet archives opening up in the 1990s really cemented what happened.
 
As for the "reported post" from an individual, it will stand... if the depictions of dead Jewish victims is to much for you to stomach, steer clear of this thread and possibly the subject of history altogether. I won't make a decision to participate in the recent cries to delete history so your ass can feel better (you know who you are).

Apparently it didn't stand.

If we can't look at history objectively, then I am out of this thread.
 
Clearly you are an Asshole if you can make such a claim to someone that just does not GAF about something that happened and had nor has no control of said events in history.

Clearly you are one of the most ignorant mother fuckers on Earth if you don't see your idiocy in "not giving a fuck" about the answers to the questions that your ignorant ass took the time to ask :homer:

If you don't give a fuck about the answers, don't ask the questions , you sovereign douchebag nutsack :rolleyes:


EDIT: in the immortal words of Ron White - the next time you think you have a thought . . . just let it go :flipoff2:
 
The US was also a huge supplier for Japan during that time, basically right up until we had to fight them. The embargos only came after Japan invaded allied held territory. It's interesting how French held land (Vietnam region) was a kicking off point for what resulted of US involvement in two wars.

The US embargoes started in 1938, with the embargo of airplane engine parts as retaliation for Japan bombing civilians in Gangzhou.

Beginning in 1938, the U.S. adopted a succession of increasingly restrictive trade restrictions with Japan. This included terminating its 1911 commercial treaty with Japan in 1939, further tightened by the Export Control Act of 1940.​

By September 1940, that included all iron and steel, all airplane parts, and aviation gasoline.

This culminated in the seizure of Japanese assets on July 1941, and the Embargo Act of August, 1941.

So the embargo act happened as late as August, but by that time, trade with Japan had effectively ceased.
 
I also think this is the time to post this, as an example of how the Holocaust is handled. Look at the comments:


Pinned by Neil
Neil Halloran3 years ago (edited)
My long overdue response to all the comments about the film's use of the phrase "Nazi soldiers." It was a mistake, and I regret it. When we recorded the narration for the other languages (available on the Vimeo account), I corrected it so that it states "German soldiers." I need to go into the recording studio and make the correction to the english version too (along with a handful of other corrections), but I have regrettably not yet done so. While it was certainly an error, I do not think it fits the comparisons many are making, i.e. that it is like calling American soldiers "Republican soldiers." I want to point out that in the case of Nazi Germany, it is correct to say Nazi invasions, led my Nazi commanders, which became Nazi occupations as part of a Nazi war effort. Calling soldiers of a Nazi war effort Nazi soldiers was a mistake, for sure, but a more complicated mistake than such analogies. As a personal note, I will say that I have close family members in Germany, and I feel that the transformation of the country after the war is a beautiful and inspiring story that we often take for granted. The word Nazi is often used to show separation between the German people today and a political movement of their past. In this case I screwed up and got it backwards.

So that was 3 years ago, and the video still says 'Nazi soldiers'. This is another example of the broad paintbrush used to obscure relevant details about WWII and the Holocaust. On with the (excellent) film:

 
There are countless eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust... it's not really open to debate as to whether or not it happened. History is there for the learning, unfortunately most of the accuracy in history wasn't derived from school. It's a common theme in today's classrooms especially...

As for the "reported post" from an individual, it will stand... if the depictions of dead Jewish victims is to much for you to stomach, steer clear of this thread and possibly the subject of history altogether. I won't make a decision to participate in the recent cries to delete history so your ass can feel better (you know who you are).

35% has been the same rule for literally 20 years, FNG :flipoff2:


All you have to do is link it, and say it's 35%.
 
...

The idea of the NSDAP being a 'socialist' movement is only of interest to edgy people arguing on the internet. That's not a serious argument, and nobody serious thinks the Nazis were 'socialist'.

Fascism in it's 30's form was about Nationalism as a collective. Socialism is about class conflict and class as a collective, across national boundaries. So the part about putting people to work on highways is not socialist, in the same way that FDR putting people to work digging holes and filling in swamps is not socialism.

Germany already had a tradition of paternalistic welfare, led by Industrialists. Under the German and Italian fascist model, it is the responsibility of citizens to work for the Industrialists, and it is the responsibility of the Elite to care for their workers and people. Germany pioneered this long, long before Ford built factory houses in Detroit and Dearborn. It actually pre-dates the Industrial Revolution.

So, to be clear, the way that the Nazis were 'socialist' is very specifically not the way Socialism is socialist. Mussolini actually took some of the plays out of the Krupp and Thyssen playbook for his form of Fascism, which, to remind everyone, actually worked. It was military adventurism that did Fascism in.

Wait, are you saying the national socialists just had a small clerical problem with the international socialists, a misunderstanding of sorts?
 
Hence that whole cold war kerfuffle.

Socialism, national or international, is the gateway drug to communism.

That is specifically not true. It was Marxism which started in Germany first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...8%E2%80%931919
The communist revolution of 1918-1919 which led to the employment of the:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps
Freikorps, the non-organized militia of German veterans, which Hitler was most definitely a part of.

That led directly to the formation of the Brown Shirts and other paramilitary organizations in Germany.

Italian, Spanish, and German Fascism are reactionary movements started as a reaction to Communism and Socialism.

And again, National Socialism is not socialist as that word is understood. The NSDAP is not an organization which promoted the idea of the Welfare State.

It is commonly understood that the sole reason Hitler invaded the USSR was ideology. National Socialism and Socialism are assuredly, in no way, related, at all, in any feature of their makeup other than Authoritarianism.

Maybe this will help:

The term National Socialism arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization,[SUP][9][/SUP] which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.​

The 'Socialist' part of National Socialism means that everybody in the nation is part of a society that submits to the State for the common good. There is no welfare. You go to work for Krupp and keep your mouth shut because it's bad for the country.
 
Last edited:
I scrolled through all this shit. fuck all your words.:flipoff2: Have a nice day.

way to Boss up an otherwise evernooby thread

ciao :flipoff2:

You are exactly like teenage girls that have to prove how little they care by telling you repeatedly how little they care.

If you didn't care.... you wouldn't have bothered posting. :D
 
Top Back Refresh