i've been lurking here for awhile now and i believed everything Zig Forums says about the holocaust, including that there was no documentational evidence of a genocide of any kind. however, i recently came across websites like the ones below that make me question whether it did happen.
as far as I can tell, everything else about what Zig Forums says about the holocaust is correct, but the documents are difficult for me to ignore. Is it possible that there's something wrong with the sources or something along those lines?
Documentation of the Holocaust
i've been lurking here for awhile now and i believed everything Zig Forums says about the holocaust, including that there was no documentational evidence of a genocide of any kind. however, i recently came across websites like the ones below that make me question whether it did happen.
Other urls found in this thread:
Archive you faggot.
1) Does the person making the accusation benefit from lying (financially or covering up for their own crimes)?
2) Is the testimony likely due to coercion (threats or torture)?
3) Is an documentation damning only if you assume the worst, rather than a more likely alternate explanation? (for example if were the victims of the Rumbula massacre were all terrorists as official documents claim and not murdered just for being jews)
4) Has the evidence been tampered with?
5) Were the investigators following the evidence to the most reasonable conclusion or were they starting from the conclusion and looking for evidence that supported it?
6) Are officials interfering with independent investigations or confirmation?
You can apply these filters to any accusation to know if it's a lie or not.
If after applying these filters to the evidence you linked there is any that's still in question why don't you come back and ask about that specific evidence.
can you prove any of those things (besides number 1) about any of the sources?
#1 and #6 are true of all sources related the the holohoax.
#2 can be proven by the admission that at Nuremberg the Germans were tortured.
#3 and #5 are always a judgement call
#4 it's widely known that there was tampering with auschwitz and anna frank's diary
And I forgot #7 Have any witnesses admitted lying?
Also I'd consider the fact that the rules of evidence were suspended at Nuremberg as confirmation of #4
i agree with the general idea of what you're saying but can you look at a specific source i linked and find something wrong with it?
You should document why the nazi's wasted so much slave labor and resources in the systematic extermination of a people that nobody knew about and nobody talked about.
You're missing the point. None of the information you linked is relevant because it can't be trusted.
If you are accused of robbing a bank and the cops are caught lying, you are tortured into confessing, evidence is fabricated against you, the cops were likely the perps and witnesses recant their testimony why would I ever consider a photo of you with what looks like a gun outside the bank?
If there was one bit of evidence that was a bit shaky that's one thing, but the fact that you were framed is irrefutable proof of your innocence.
i completely understand what you're saying, but there are a lot of infographics that go around Zig Forums claiming that there is no doocumentational evidence of the holocaust when, whether its fabricated or not, isnt true. i understand the skepticism of the sources and how they might not be credible, but i would need concrete evidence and not just a feeling in order to actually dismiss them. and all of the infographics in the world can point out inconsistencies in the story of the holocaust, but if there's credible documentational evidence, then that beyond a doubt proves that the holocaust happened, perhaps not to the extent that jews claim however.
poison the well.
Don't ever post here again.
The site provides no verification of the supposed evidence, supposed transcripts written in English are worthless as evidence, trace the supposed provenance, verify the authenticity of the document style and age and correlate with other known examples of the individuals writings as a bare minimum, a manufactured narrative is reliant upon manufactured evidence.
forgive my plural use of the word website. ill make sure to never post here again because of it
So you reject the rule of law?
Understand that in our country you are innocent until proven guilty in a FAIR trial. The Nazis are innocent by way of the fact that they were framed. Everyone knows there is fabricated evidence, that's part of how you frame someone.
I don't understand how the fact that there is fabricated evidence is somehow surprising to you?
I hope you never serve on a jury because you are an evil person who is willing to see innocent people convicted.
the fact that there is fabrcated evidence doesnt surprise me in the least. however, everything else about the holocaust can be disproven through other sources or basic logic. it seems that you're simply throwing up your hands and calling it fabricated without any actual evidence to support such a claim.
Unless, God was pleased by a burnt sacrificial offering in the 40's, their "Holocaust" never happened.
Why would Germans build camps and go through all the security and trouble to starve the Jews, only to wait, until their done building elaborate gas chambers?
Logic is the only evidence needed.
No, I'm making the correct argument. If the evidence is legitimate we can consider it and decide if they are guilty or not, but it's fabricated so you're retarded for considering it.
This isn't about throwing up my arms and not doing the work, this is about being ethical. If the police frame an antia for some crime, then he's innocent. If the police frame my brother for a crime, then he's innocent. It doesn't matter who it is they are innocent.
If the police torture you and frame you for a crime you're guilty because you've accepted fabricated evidence, torture and kangaroo courts as legitimate.
thats circular thinking. youre proving that the sources are wrong by saying the germans are innocent. instead, prove that the germans are innocent by proving that the sources are wrong. and im not assuming guilt until innocence, these documents prove that the germans did in fact conduct a genocide UNLESS you can prove that the documents are fabricated
as i said, everything else Zig Forums says makes sense. but if documents exist which prove the existence of genocide, unless you can prove that the documents are wrong in some way, one is logically required to accept that the holocaust happened
This alone proves their innocence. From fucking kikepedia of all things.
It's not circular logic when they admit that it was a frame job.
yes ive seen that infographic, but dispute the documents i linked. you're dancing around addressing them
The burden of proof is always on the accuser, it would help if they could supply evidence of one supposed victim that had been gassed but there is not one let alone 6,000,000, so given the lack of evidence of a single victim what is there to discuss?
There is not only no victim to provide evidence of being gassed there is no credible gas chamber, so no victim and no scene of crime, the accusation is entirely dependent on having faith in the accusers, start with considering their character and motives.
Are you retarded or just pretending to be?
You linked a bunch of irrelevant and likely forged documents. I'm explaining that there is no reason to verify that they all are because we already know that some if them are, and we know that the people who compiled them did so we the express job of framing innocent people.
Instead of verifying them for yourself you expect us to do it? Then you ignore the explanation of why it's unnecessary to debunk all 100 pages of a document when you know the first 10 are fraudulent.
Concern trolls gonna concern troll I guess.
I don’t know about all’y’all bogus truthophobes, but personally I’m celebrating a new 600MW linkup between Latvia and Estonia. As we connect nations to each other, balancing and stabilizing electrical grids will become easier. While each link between national economies represents a line of international influence, such influence are often favorable, and where they are hazardous the hazards can be defrayed by making more connections. Electrical connections are especially auspicious as they provide easier energy technology transitions going forward. We should seek redundant connections between all nations save China, which needs to prove it is willing to use its economy’s power in defense of ordinary citizens and global ecology.
Someday I hope humanity can dwell in many settlements in space and upon many worlds. That would segment weather impacts so that different regions would affect each other less. Alas that we are still upon only one world, and must care greviously for all the coal burned in any place.
Posen Speech (excerpt)
In electricity as in many things, I look to the divine for guidance. Go in peace, serve the load!
The Holocaust never happened but it should have.
No source needed. Your links lack direct citations. They're a compilation of tertiary sources at best run through multiple layers of interpretation and translation. First demonstrate that the original documents actually exist, then demonstrate that the translations are sound and accurate. Then we can talk about the nitty gritty. But until then you're just begging the question and moving goalposts you hook nosed sophist
the sources are at the top of every letter and journal entry. and im not a jew, but i am a skeptic.
Don't be a faggot carbon will regreen the earth.
Pollution is terrible and china is certainly the king of that.
You see how he addresses the weakest segment of a counterargument specifically divorced from its supporting statement, then proceeds to ignore that supporting statement entirely? This is pilpul in action.
I'll say again, those sources are tertiary at best referring to books written about documents presented as evidence in a translated form at the Nuremberg trials. Trials which as a previous user pointed out were not convened to reach truth or even a semblance to it by way of fixed methodology, but rather to bring a conclusive end to the war and the capacity for the enemy faction, in leadership, people and ideology to resist by any means necessary. Demonstrate the chain of custody of those documents is sound and that the documents reflect reality as claimed, then and only then can we move on to discussing the specific subjectmatter therein and what the possible implications are.
i understand that you are skeptical as well, but swear that i am on your side. i am questioning something that i am not sure about. i am not jewish but i am trying to answer all of these replies to the best of my ability. and that isnt pilpul retard, im addressing his main argument which was that there werent sources. all of the sources are from reputable sources, which addresses his second argument. i know your go to response is "what a jew" but actually try to respond to a serious inquiry here.
now about your comment. the original documents are named above the book or article source. and who cares if the nuremburg trials were not designed to find truth if there is documentational evidence proving that the holocaust happened. nuremburg was a disaster, but thats not what this conversation is about so idk why you brought it up. classic jewish misdirection. and why does the chain of custody matter to those documents? would you like to know the pen ink which was used to write it too? and you are the one trying to debunk this, its your job to find whether the documents reflect reality or not and how so. and i like how you still havent actually addressed the contents of the documents. ive looked up to Zig Forums of a long time, but honestly, this is a poor fucking showing.
No original documents with actual evidence of a direct chain of custody, then you haven't any sources.
All legal, military, and civilian documents from that era are kept and maintained by the German government. They are all still kept in the same Reichstag building they were during the war.
This is useful, OP, ignore naysayers.
I found this:
I'm absolutely on the fence on rather or not the Holocaust happened. Frankly, I think the truth is in the grey in that some Jews died due to mismanagement but not extermination, at least no deliberate. I think Hitler had every intention to expel them, I just don't have the evidence to fully convince me yet or ones I can use in an argument.
What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened?
Over the past 20 years I have read - with a very open mind - roughly countless books on the Holocaust. So just what exactly was the Holocaust? What happened during that period?
During World War II, Germany rounded up millions of civilians (both Jews and non-Jews) who could be potential saboteurs, belligerents, spies, informants, messengers of the enemy, subversives, etc. Germany put them in camps whilst the war was going on. At the end of the war, Germany planned to move them elsewhere (assuming Germany had won WWII). With regard to the Jews, Hitler had considered moving them to Madagascar (yes, you read that correctly, Madagascar). With that said, and despite what Jewish dominated Hollywood has been peddling for the past several decades, there was never, I repeat never, a plan to kill the Jews of Europe. Hitler's "Final Solution" was a plan to relocate Jews out of Europe - it was not a plan to exterminate them. This distinction cannot be emphasized enough.
There was not a single order even once by Hitler himself to kill the Jews and would explain why he dealt with Brown Shirts.
As it turned out, the vast majority of such potential subversives were, in fact, Jews. Why? Because Jews were overwhelmingly leftist, communist, Marxist, etc and thus many were naturally sympathetic to the USSR (which was of course communist and at war with Germany). For these reasons, Jews couldn't be trusted. Hence they were put in secured camps along with anyone, of any religion/creed/ethnicity/race/nationality, who may potentially engage in subversive activities. Homosexuals were put in not because they were homosexual but rather because homosexuals are almost universally, politically speaking, leftist. Thus homosexuals were put in the camps because of their subversive politics, not because of their sexuality.
Incidentally, the USA did the exact same thing with the Japanese (en.wikipedia.org
Nazi support and creation of Israel
So what about all these Jews who allegedly died in and around the camps? Well, the majority who died did so in the final months of the war (perhaps 600,000 at most). In late 1944 and early 1945, the Allies were bombing Germany into the stone age. Roads, bridges, rail lines, etc were destroyed and hence Germany could no longer supply the various internment camps with food and medicine. The result? A lot of people died of disease and starvation both in the camps and all throughout Germany, including huge numbers of German civilians.
Regarding the gas chambers… yes, there were indeed gas chambers but they were used to disinfect the prisoners (and their clothes) as a measure to prevent typhus from spreading. Zyklon-B was the chemical used for this purpose; it was the standard disinfectant chemical used in Europe at that time. Jews have manipulated this and claim, "the Nazis gassed 6 million Jews to death." Absolute nonsense. There is no evidence of this, none. What tourists are shown at Auschwitz is easily refuted. For example, the lone "gas chamber" at Auschwitz I (i.e., Auschwitz Camp 1; there is also an Auschwitz II, called Auschwitz-Birkenau, 3 km away) was built/modified by the Soviets after the war for propaganda purposes; the Polish government has acknowledged this (Auschwitz is in Poland, not Germany). Regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau's (i.e., Auschwitz II's) so-called "homicidal gas chambers," I refer you to this excellent critical analysis: youtube.com
So what was life in the camps really like? In short, the camps were run in an orderly and humane manner. They met all International Red Cross standards for POW camps (they were regularly inspected by the Red Cross). The German-run camps were very similar to the American camps for Japanese-Americans en.wikipedia.org
Are there Holocaust survivors who speak honestly about their experience? Yes. In 1994 Steven Spielberg created the Shoah Foundation (en.wikipedia.org
One may wonder how is it that most Americans don't know about this? Easy. Americans are incredibly ignorant and gullible with regard to historical subjects. Americans are too busy watching sitcoms and sports to be bothered with studying history. Any "history" they do "learn" generally comes from TV and Hollywood movies. And these mediums are fully Jewish controlled (more on this below)… i.e., Jews make sure the truth about the Holocaust doesn't get out. Some may watch The History Channel and/or The Military Channel and think they're getting the truth about WWII, Hitler, and the Holocaust. But both of these cable channels are Jewish edited and provide extremely misleading and outright false accounts of such subjects. Hence, ignorant and misled Americans are easily manipulated into believing almost anything. To give you an example of just how ignorant Americans are: UCLA recently conducted a nationwide survey of 25 - 40 year old Americans. A staggering 56% could not name even a single Allied nation of World War II.
Anyway, let's move onto another aspect of the Holocaust. Regarding the Eastern Front, it is indeed true that many Jews were killed there. After Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941, they encountered, in addition to the Soviet troops, tens of thousands of partisan fighters, mostly Jewish. In response to this, Germany expanded the Einsatzgruppen which was then tasked with finding these partisans and capturing or killing them. Thus, these were not "innocent Jews" in the context of war, they were Soviet supporters (i.e., partisans) engaging in guerrilla warfare against the German troops.
That's what happened. That's the truth about the Holocaust.
Got any info on how Jews screwed over Germany prior to, during and after WW1?
I'm a bit thin on that area of history.
Would not reply again.
There's all the usual business about being generally subversive, employing usury, being overrepresented and clannish in the professional fields, etc. before WWI, Wagner's complaints of mimicry and subversion of music in Das Judenthum en der Musik, but relations between Germans and Jews were actually remarkably good prior to WWI. Nowhere else on the planets did the Jews thrive such.
Their ire, at that point, was much more pointed toward the Russian czar. Zionism began to change this by the end of 1916. After Verdun and the Somme, both sides' armies had completely lost enthusiasm for the war, and at least a remote possibility of an armistice was there. In the US, Woodrow Wilson (like FDR in 1940) ran on the promise of staying neutral, which meant neither side could see the U.S. joining and making a swifter conclusion than seemed possible at the time.
Enter Nahum Sokolow and Chaim Weizmann (famous "British" chemist and later 1st President of Israel). The Landman Document, from Samuel Landman, who was present, made inroads with British officials on the idea that if they would set aside portions of the Levant for a reborn state of Israel after the war, they could use their contacts in the U.S. media to drum up support for a war that erstwhile had none, mainly by focusing on German atrocity propaganda, "Hun" bashing, and so forth. The British promptly sent Allenby to root out the Ottomans, the U.S. media barked at Germany as ordered, the bizarre Zimmerman telegram incident happened, Zimmerman bizarrely admitted to it, and before you know it the doughboys were lining up to smash the Hun. Wilson got to play "arbitrator," insisting that he was somehow neutrally joining one side to beat the other as some unmotivated interlocutor, so that he could get his moribund-upon-its-creation League of Nations, which the American people and Congress instantly nixed. The fact that the British started dragging their feet on their Israel promise is what prompted the Balfour Declaration, which was not itself a Declaration but an affirmation of what had already been decided.
The Jews' plans and massive overrepresentation at the Paris Peace Conference, Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht's attempted communist coup, Kurt Eisner and the Socialist Bavarian Republic, the specter of what the Jew Kun in Hungary and the Jews in the "Russian" civil war, and so much more that ensued afterward is too much to tell in a place like this.
For more on the Landman Document: thebirdman.org
The First Holocaust : The Surprising Origin of the Six-Million Figure
The greatest bit of evidence that the holocaust never happened is the fact that it is illegal to minimize but not exaggerate in 17 countries across europe. How do you explain the jailing of fred leuchter an expert gas chamber engineer who built several for the us prison system or the jailing of Ursula haverbeck. It's a fraud and I dont understand why it's so hard for you to connect the dots given how slimey jews act to this day and throughout history.
Welp user, you officially convinced me in a reasonable and provable manner that the Holocaust didn't happen.
>there was so little proof of mass killings taking place that the (((allies))) blamed it all on the camps on the (((commie))) side of Germany, then blamed the lack of proof to incompetent (((commies))) trampling all over it
>questioning the holohoax is made illegal by (((people))) who benefit from it's suposed existance
what else is there to ask at this point?
I used to believe that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz until I read a report that debunked all of the claims made by revisionists:
I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of this by revisionists. In fact, revisionism has been dead since the Irving v Lipstadt trial when revisionism was totally discredited, including on the other issue you mention of coke consumption and cremation. Check out the judgement on Irving's own website:
Most anons believe that because there's no smoking gun the whole thing must be a lie but the truth is there's a convergence of evidence which supports the mainstream narrative.
We need to just move on from revisionism because it doesn't help our cause at all.
Feel free to respond to any of the points in the report. If all you can do is call people Jew it shows how credible you are.
On the subject of who the Jew is, who really benefits from revisionism? It's been around for 70 years and what God has it done? Just given the Jews ammunition to keep brainwashing the goyim.
Feel free to post specific excerpts from your "report" that debunk the points made ITT, jew.
You obviously haven't read it and have no interest in finding out the truth. Read it and respond or fuck off.
As I just said, feel free to post specific excerpts from your "report" that debunk the points made ITT, jew.
Most Jews were shot to death by the SS in Poland (ostensibly to prevent partisan actions against Germany). Some were gassed to death in crude make-shift contraptions fed by diesel engine exhaust a technique the SS learned from the (((Soviets))), but most were shot to death in dug out pits. Executing Jews was mainly Himmler's decision he kept Hitler in the dark with vague reports that didn't mention the killings; Hitler just wanted the Jews gone, preferably, fucking off to Palestine, and Hitler and the Zionists were actually allies in this regard, working together until the outbreak of war.
The vast majority of people killed in WW2 were Aryans killing each other. Of course, this always gets glossed over in favor of muh holocaust. Jews and other non-Aryans were merely collateral damage to Aryan peoples self-destructing their own nations.
The real holocaust was Holodomor, when millions of Aryans starved to death at the hands of the (((Soviets))).
If you are to remember WW2, let it be a reminder of what happens when Aryan peoples turn against each other. Europe needs to be cleansed of its multicultural cancer, but only if we stop fighting between ourselves and work tirelessly to raise racial consciousness and racial pride among the NPCs of Europe who are being programmed by Jews to hate themselves. Our efforts are marginalized and vilified on this site. There needs to be a mainstream breakout of information that (((they))) don't control and can't silence. We need to build and promote our own platforms. This board is wholly inadequate and is too often used as a place to shitpost, commiserate and avoid action in the real world outside. Shooting up synagogues and mosques isn't going to solve our problems. We need to educate our own people, so that people turn away from the multiculturalism cancer and racemixing voluntarily.
Even if the supposed documents are true from the link, in what way do they support a holocaust or a genocide? Some of these are taken from a book literally called 'The Final Solution', a term heavily discussed and often found to be an afterthought. If we take the number reported by the Red Cross somewhere around 350k jews died, numbers go as high in this thread to 600k jews dead. Still a drop in the bucket in a global world war with casualities in the millions. The memetic power of the last 70 years of propaganda makes every act that mentions jews and dead somehow feel worse than a lot of other numbers of people dying all the time. How often do you see a news report about tens of thousands of people dying all the time without everyone screaming GENOCIDE or HOLOCAUST at every turn. The words used in the link are executed, killed, liquidated, eliminated etc. Not 'genocided' nor 'holocausted'. It is a fact that some jews died. Don't really see how that fact is supportive of the holohoax EVEN IF some of the quoted documents exist or are true.
I love that kikes try to use that as proof. The Holocaust would have been the most ambitious thing ever attempted by an nation, and then the best proof they can come up with is flamboyant speech by Himmler where he uses a phrase that means "uproot". And then they pretend that David Irving was the first person to ever argue that it means something other than "turn 6 million jews into soap and lampshades using death showers", even though Alfred Rosenberg made the same argument at the Nuremberg show trials.
Ya no they were far from allies, only an agreement so jews can fuck off to where ever they want.
I get your point, but being allies does not necessarily mean being "friends." Germany and the USSR were "allies" at some point. Yes, the Zionists were double-dealing shit stains, but Hitler already knew what he was dealing with going in. He was not naive. But there were no other Jews to try to cut a deal at that time, and it says a lot that Hitler even bothered with trying to find a humane solution when the Jews were pointedly and openly out to destroy Germany as a nation. Needless to say, all bets were off once the war started.
Jews are masters of sabotaging their own interests over the long run. That's why I'm confident that although they have acquired vast power and wealth, eventually, they will be the primary cause of their own downfall. All we need to do with rekindle our racial awareness and pride and steadily rebuild our own self-segregated communities. Jews are a rootless people and Aryans aren't. That's our primary strength.
No they weren't, they had a NAP and agreed upon spheres of influence.
We can argue semantics all day long. How do you define "ally"?
This is Oxford Dictionary's definition:
By those definitions, Germany and USSR were once allies.
You know, it never occured to me that the real reason that the nasty parasite kikes hunted down all the guards of concentration camps was so that they could eliminate the evidence that nothing happened.
Somehow never heard of it so I looked it up. I figured I might aswell write down my findings for anyone curious. I will provide some excerpts I directly translated from the original version as I'm german myself. I didn't look up an english version because I wanted to translate these things myself - without outside influence. Why? For fun. If you want to read the whole thing in english you have to look it up yourself and risk having a jew translate it for you, butchering context and meaning, however, it might be a better, more fluent read than what I can provide.
What the fuck is this?
So hard to tell anymore…
Look at you trying to turn things around now.
do you really think it's that time in the argument already? A bit impatient today, huh? Is it your time of the month?
To try to say that it is now
You are the stipid faggot who came here with a fucking link with information that you have spent about five minutes reading. And now its OUR responsibility to authenticate the sources???
What a fucking joke you are.
Uber-faggot. You like it in the sphincter, don't you, you filthy whore?
I guess a fat-ass has to have something to offer….
They will never address this fact, fren. Watch the slimy rat slink away and refuse to answer.
about the non spergiest normie friendly redpill
You brain-dead faggot, you've succeeded in wasting everyone's time, which was most likely your goal all along.
It's the obsession with niggers that makes you really stand out.