/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


BUT MUH HOLOHOAX Comrade 12/12/2020 (Sat) 22:54:20 No. 6404
Let's debunk muh holocaust revishunism with FACTS & LOGIC. Articles, books, infographs everythings is welcomed.
(39.59 KB 426x450 david-cole-stein.jpg)
Does anyone here know this guy? https://www.youtube.com/user/WeAreTheRPA His name is David Cole and he is known as "the jewish holocaust revisionist". He was one of the prominent figures in the holocaust revisionism movement in the 90s, Cole collaborated with IHR, David Irving or Ernst Zundel. In his video he claims that there is a difference between denialism and revisionism. Denialists deny that there were any genocidal policies in Nazi Germany and that the jews were sent to labor in the east whereas revisionist usually lower the number of victims or deny that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz but they don't deny the genocidal policies of nazi germany.
>>6404 Question: how can the number of victims in Auschwitz change from 4 million to 1.5 million, but the total number of victims remains the same? The section in OP's pic that addresses this question is remarkably silly. If everyone thought the 4 million number why did it take 40 years to actually change the memorial.
>>6430 *If everyone thought the 4 million number why not real then why did it take 40 years to actually change the memorial.
>>6430 *was not Sorry :(
>>6430 >Question: how can the number of victims in Auschwitz change from 4 million to 1.5 million, but the total number of victims remains the same? the OP pic actually answers that tho it literally says that historians who came with the 6 million figure did not work with the 4 million figure >If everyone thought the 4 million number was not real then why did it take 40 years to actually change the memorial. idk, probably the political situation in the former communist block is here at fault. the pic says that western historians disagreed with the number, but maybe the situation was differnent in Poland, idk. also notice how the original plaque with 4 million number doesn't mention the jews. that was probably because in the historiography they never talked about "holocaust" of the jews but about "the victims of fascism" in general.
>>6433 >the OP pic actually answers that tho But the answers it provides are retarded. I am supposed to believe that a memorial was falsely created within months after the liberation, but not revisited thereafter for four decades. That it took two decades for historians to figure out the number was wrong in the first place. That the researchers who updated the number of victims from victims have more credibility than Rudolf Höss. And that the 4 million number was accepted for around 20 years, but no one included it in the number of total deaths. How does that make any sense? >idk, probably the political situation in the former communist block is here at fault. That's a non-answer.
>>6437 >That's a non-answer. why? >hurr durr, it took two decades, i can't believe that that's not an argument. just because you don't believe something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen
>>6438 >why? Because it is nothing but your guesswork. >that's not an argument. just because you don't believe something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen So that's the only point you're going to reply to? What about the rest?
>>6439 >Because it is nothing but your guesswork. yes, it is. because I am not sure why it take them so long to change the plaque. My guess is that it was "politically incorrect" to revise the findings of the soviet commission in that time. So that's why they weren't taking western historians points into account and why they didn't make a new plaque. what's yours theory? elders of zion were blackmailing the government of poland? >So that's the only point you're going to reply to? What about the rest? your whole argument is based on your disbelief that it took historians two decades to revise the number. the only other "point" you make is this >the 4 million number was accepted for around 20 years, but no one included it in the number of total deaths. How does that make any sense? but it was already answered. in the communist countries they never talked about the Holocaust specifically and never used the 6 million number. In their historiography there were just "victims of fascism" in general. they never made the special cathegory for the jews. (that's why they are often accused of holocaust denial by people like Deborah Lipstadt) And the communist countries were the only place where the 4 million figure mattered. Outside them it didn't.
>>6440 >So that's why they weren't taking western historians points into account They did accept the 4 million number within the first few months, but then ignored everything else for 40 years thereafter? Makes sense. >your whole argument is based on your disbelief that it took historians two decades to revise the number. That was one of 4 points, retard. It also calls into question the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials. You completely ignore that <I am supposed to believe that a memorial was falsely created within months after the liberation, but not revisited thereafter for four decades. <That the researchers who updated the number of victims from victims have more credibility than Rudolf Höss. I take your lack of respond as an admission of defeat.
>>6440 Also saging in a holocaust because someone argues against the holocaust betrays your confidence.
>>6441 >They did accept the 4 million number within the first few months, but then ignored everything else for 40 years thereafter? Makes sense. disbelief isn't an argument, faggot >It also calls into question the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials. >You completely ignore that you didn't say anything about Nurnberg trials, retard, in any of your posts >I am supposed to believe that a memorial was falsely created within months after the liberation, but not revisited thereafter for four decades. again, disbelief isn't an argument. Auschwitz museum is in Poland which was under the rule of the communist party. They didn't allow many foreign experts to take part in creating the exhibition. especially the israeli ones. so I don't really see why are you doubting that. What is your theory ? why they didn't change the plaque for 40 years? >That the researchers who updated the number of victims from victims have more credibility than Rudolf Höss. what? how is Hoss related to the death toll? >>6442 >Also saging in a holocaust because someone argues against the holocaust betrays your confidence. whining is not an argument, fag
>>6443 >just believe it goy >in a self-proclaimed debunk thread weak >why they didn't change the plaque for 40 years? I don't care about their intent. >whining is not an argument, fag >he said after losing the argument and saging weak
>>6444 >no arguments weak
>>6445 <They didn't change the memorial for 40 years despite knowing it was false for at least 20 <The Nuremberg trials got the actual number of deaths wrong <Random "researchers" have more authority than the nazi witnesses during Nuremberg <Everyone knew the 4 million number was wrong, except when they didn't, but that doesn't matter because they never included them to begin with So far you haven't debunked shit my dude.
>>6446 <They didn't change the memorial for 40 years despite knowing it was false for at least 20 I said, that the western historians knew the number was false, not the poles learn to read, retard <The Nuremberg trials got the actual number of deaths wrong I wasn't talking about Nurnberg at all, but yeah <Random "researchers" have more authority than the nazi witnesses during Nuremberg If you knew anything about historiography and how it works, little retard, then you would know that the expertises always matter more then witnesses <Everyone knew the 4 million number was wrong, except when they didn't, but that doesn't matter because they never included them to begin with that isn't what I said, you dishonest faggot, learn to read, you illiterate cripple i said that western historian revealed that numbers were false but Poland ignored for political reasons
>>6447 >I said, that the western historians knew the number was false Why did Poland adopt the original numbers, but not the updated ones? >then you would know that the expertises always matter more then witnesses You can't trump the authority of Hitlers advisors saying 2.5 million Hews were killed at Auschwitz with some random "expertise". Why would they lie? >that isn't what I said, you dishonest faggot That's what is being said in OP's pic.
>>6448 >Why did Poland adopt the original numbers, but not the updated ones? I've already said it Poland was under the rule of communist party and in the Warsaw Pact. Maybe it was "politicaly incorrect" to criticize the the soviet commission expertise or maybe their historians didn't even know that numbers were already revised. there was a hard censorship in poland. >You can't trump the authority of Hitlers advisors saying 2.5 million Hews were killed at Auschwitz with some random "expertise". Why would they lie? If the Hitlers advisors have no evidence for that then obviously the expertise has more value than their testimonies. >That's what is being said in OP's pic. I am not the author of the OP pic.
>>6449 >Maybe it was "politicaly incorrect" to criticize [the holocaust] certified bruh moment >If the Hitlers advisors have no evidence for that then obviously the expertise has more value than their testimonies. They were practically second in command of nazi-germany. What they say can't be taken seriously, but some random "expert" schmuck can? And also if you point this out you can be put in jail for "denial". Totally legit.
>>6450 >Maybe it was "politicaly incorrect" to criticize the the soviet commission <Maybe it was "politicaly incorrect" to criticize [the holocaust] are you retard or illiterate? >They were practically second in command of nazi-germany. >What they say can't be taken seriously, but some random "expert" schmuck can? appeal to authority if you say something and you don't have evidence for that, then expect not to be taken seriously, lmao. experts have evidence, nazi bonzes didn't. easy as that.
>>6451 >appeal to authority That's just projection. The second in command of nazi germany has objectively more authority on the matters of Germany than a random "expert". What qualifies the "expert" to begin with? Credentials, public opinion, interest groups? Who assures he isn't lying? >experts have evidence, nazi bonzes didn't. easy as that. Experts are liars.
>>6452 <Who assures he isn't lying? >if you say something and you don't have evidence for that, then expect not to be taken seriously, lmao. >experts have evidence, nazi bonzes didn't. easy as that. seriously, are you illiterate?
>>6453 >experts have evidence It's all a farce. What is "evidence" on one day is "debunked" in the next.
>>6454 yeah, ok so what? proofs by experts are debunked by another experts. that's how science works, lmao.
>>6455 >the holocaust is sciene >but if you try to refute is you go to jail You sound like someone that has never once in his life argued against the status quo.
>>6456 >the holocaust is science being dishonest again, retard? I didn't say anything like that. >but if you try to refute is you go to jail i don't support Holocaust denial laws
I'll never get over the moment someone on USApol pointed out that the reasons Nazis deny the Holocaust so much is because it puts a massive hole in their ideology. >Oh fuck, we killed almost all the Jews but everything is still going to shit! >QUICK EXTERMINATE THEM EVEN FASTER >still loses the war

Delete
Report

no cookies?
__divBanCaptcha_location__