[Valentine]

There's been two other (closed) threads on this from years ago (1, 2) with one even resulting in a week-long ban but I think the culture here has changed.

At least in my opinion the forum has evolved sufficiently in the interim that we're able to calmly and logically analyse the evidence here and come to some kind of consensus, especially as there's been a number of recent posts denying the official narrative lately. But of course as always Roosh it's your forum.

Starting off with a few cross-posts:

scorpion Wrote:  

There are a lot of problems with the official Holocaust story, from the logical (why would the Germans murder millions of prison laborers in the middle of a war for survival when they had a manpower shortage?) to the logistical (how were six million people murdered and cremated in facilities that mathematically could not support anything close to this number and which were clearly not well-designed for extermination purposes?). Another huge red flag is the fact that questioning the Holocaust is literally a crime in many European countries. There is no other historical event in human history that requires this sort of legal protection, including dozens of past genocides. What is it about this specific "Holocaust" that warrants locking up people who question it as modern day heretics? Why does the truth need to be protected from investigation?

A thought experiment: Regardless of your opinion toward the "9/11 Truth" movement, imagine if suddenly the U.S. government passed a law that made questioning the official story of 9/11 a crime. Would that make you more or less suspicious of what actually happened on 9/11? Personally, this would make me much more suspicious. I have the same reaction to the Holocaust narrative simply due to the fact that questioning it is illegal in so many countries. If something is true it does not need the protection of the government to make it so.

Is it criminal to deny the moon landing? No.
Is it criminal to deny the official story of 9/11? No.
Is it criminal to deny that Oswald acted alone? No.
Is it criminal to deny the occurrence of any other historic genocide? No.
Is it criminal to deny the Holocaust? Yes.

Why is that?

MikeCF Wrote:  

LOL. You wanna say Jews milk their holocaust when others (gypsies, communists, poles, Turks) were slaughtered and act like there was only THE Holocaust?

Sure.

But denying that shit? GTFO with that bullshit.

(11-28-2016 07:09 PM)Meister Eckhart Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 06:56 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 06:48 PM)Meister Eckhart Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 06:38 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 06:26 PM)Meister Eckhart Wrote:  

My biggest problem with the 1488 crowd is they're a tiny, vocal minority that historically has ridden on the backs on Reactionaries and Conservatives and then stabs them in the back. I don't care if they get thrown under the bus, because Fascists do that as soon as they can to the rest of their so call "allies".

Case in point being Hitler himself. Hitler and the Nazis never had the majority, but they did have a power-base and managed to rope in a bunch of Reactionaries who were pissed off about the Weimar Republic and "Conservatives" scared about Communism. Most "pro-Nazis" weren't really convinced Nazis, but they did think the Weimar state was a massive screw up and wanted to return to the better days of the Zweites Reich. The German officer corps is a major example, these guys wanted a restored Germany, and often being Junkers wanted the Kaiser back. Boulanger is another great example being the Proto-Fascist, his whole rise to power was him promising to return France to the Bourbon monarchy but in the end really only cared about his own dictatorial power (which he failed to achieve).

So the Nazis then push a lot of stuff that nobody wanted, like the Holocaust. The Holocaust was completely unnecessary and doomed the invasion of the Soviet Union from the start. If Hitler was really the "Anti-communist warlord" the 1488 crowd likes to pretend and revise to make themselves palatable, then he wouldn't have been interested in genocide for millions of Slavs that would have risen up and helped them topple Stalin. There was simply no reason, other than a bunch of sociopaths didn't like them. Germany could have simply made Eastern Europe a bunch of client-states (like they planned at Brest-Litovsk) and nobody would have probably cared now that Communism was dead.

In the end anything remotely resembling them was tarred for almost a century. Hitler is the go-to for "Far-right", not Bismarck, Metternich or any sane reputable figure. I don't have anything to do with them for the same reason the CIA stopped trying to take on Fascists as assets during the Cold War, they have their own agenda and will screw you over the very first moment they can.

Sorry, but that is a lot of feelings based garbage.

The holocaust doomed Barbarossa?

Yes, Hitler was anti-Communist, most historians agree that there was an ideological battle taking place between Fascism and Communism in the inter-war period and during WW2.

The German officers/generals were mutinous at 2 significant junctures, after the Battle of Britain, and after Barbarossa. I think we can deduce why, it's because they were both costly military ventures.

The Holocaust is wider than people make it out to be because it has become obsessive over the Jews, and minimal attention on the genocidal policy in general towards Slavs and other groups.

Barbarossa failed in part because of the genocidal mentality the Nazis had. If Hitler was this Anticommunist generic reactionary warlord revisionists say, then an invasion of the Soviet Union could have gone a lot better. If say, the Imperial German government was in control, then it'd be highly likely that the average Soviet would be inclined to see this as a genuine chance to topple Stalin who had been oppressing them. Some did historically, there was the Russian Liberation army and other collaborators. However, this failed for that exact reason, most people aren't going to collaborate with an occupying power whose clear intentions is the extermination of your people.

That's not emotional, that's hard facts. The people playing fast and loose with them are the 1488 crowd who want to whitewash themselves.

LOL! Barbarossa failed because it was an enormous front, and because Hitler made stupid decisions and wouldn't let a single German retreat. And because America was giving the Soviet Union a colossal amount of assistance, but lets not tarnish a good holocaust myth with facts.

"Genocidal mentality", what have you been reading? Can you dial up the "Evil Nazi" narrative a bit more.

All this WW2 debate is unrelated to Israel having a racially pure ethno-state while Europe is flooded with Third World people. When are you going to address that hypocrisy?

OK, you clearly aren't familiar with Generalplan Ost. I hate to break it to you, but the Nazis policy was to exterminate primarily, and expel/assimilate secondarily all Slavic peoples from Poland to the Urals. This is what the whole Lebensraum concept was about. This isn't revisionism, it was a core Nazi policy which is why they're called genocidal maniacs, because they were. Which is why the hardcore 1488 crowd still likes to say Slavic people aren't White, even though they have some of the fairest features out of all Europeans.

Compare Generalplan Ost to the Kaiserreich's "Mitteleuropa" plan with Brest-Litovsk. They planned on having the Baltic states, Finland, Ukraine all become independent states, but economically linked to Germany and with German nobles as monarchs primarily. It's something actually sane, and a normal German nationalist would probably have been proud of.

I'm sorry, I was at one point being deluded by the revisionist crowd myself, but the Nazis were as bad as their reputation.

(09-22-2015 12:22 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  

As soon as we talk about "the holocaust" as this thing that happened or not, or that "holocaust deniers" believe the holocaust did not happen, is a really hoodwinked way of looking at this issue as an "either/or" situation, which is grossly simplistic. This perspective is designed to make the presumed holocaust deniers look stupid.

Because "the holocaust" in the public mind is the deliberate extermination of millions of jews. Holocaust revisionists do not dispute the fact that there were a very large amount of concentration camps where jews and others worked during WWII for the German war effort. They say that the majority of Jews died due to Typhus and hunger at the end of the war due to wartime deprivation and that there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise that the Nazi's used gas chambers to kill Jews.

This is from a revisionist forum about this man Oskar Groening and his history.

"Back to the 21st century and the latest Jack-in-the-Holocaust-box, Oskar
Groening.

So they simply edited the words into poor Groening's mouth in the
official distributed text, as Rees now seems to be confessing in his
correspondence with your blog here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.c...right.html

That same text, of course, was the one used for the foreign dubbings,
and that's that. Anything goes in the happy-go-free world of serious
"Holocaust" publishing & broadcasting...

Unfortunately for Rees, in the original English version both the
superposed English comment and the German words that can be heard
beneath it (if you rewind and pay close attention) give the game away:
the "gas chambers" words are definitely not there.

Now, Rees didn't get away with it, and therefore, neither did Groening
for long. He probably is singing the right tune now and will do all that
is required of him, but the question remains: since both Groening's
voice and the superposed English comment agree in the soundtrack and
leave the gas chambers out, what do you call the transcript deemed to
have miraculously created those words backwards in time?...

Don't be afraid of the words: it's called a FALSIFICATION."

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3197

(09-23-2015 10:30 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  

We are supposed to believe that the Nazi's killed all those unsuitable for work. But if you watch this video deconstructing the implausible anecdotal evidence of those who claim to have witnessed "gas chambers", you will see that the conditions in the camps were often not too bad for many in the early part of the war.

And "the holocaust" is typically used as an example of how barbaric man can be; German's being the vanquished enemy, were demonised and German national pride conveniently crushed.

As David Irving points out, there is no order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews, and there is no documentation to the effect this event ever occurred. And no plausible physical evidence which makes any sense.

In that case, I think it is perfectly reasonable to doubt the version of history we are presented with.

It is not implausible that the Germans did kill Jews en masse in gas chambers, which the Eisatzgruppen certain did through shooting, but they kept meticulous records.

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

The issue that revisionists have, is that there is no evidence of gas chambers, which represent the brutal, systematic genocide and for most people represent the horror of "the holocaust"

A little bit of digging reveals that much of what we call "the holocaust" was manufactured by the allies, including the soviets.

http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2...enial.html