If prisoners in concentration camps in 1939 had smartphones and recorded the whole thing...

exterminating Muslims is based tho

Are you implying that 6 million Jews weren't killed, you know IQ moron? Or that the germans could have killed all of them if they wanted to? Because either way, the fact that there were survivors doesnt disprove the Holocaust.

they were more focused on destroyed the christian communites as well

no im saying out right that 6 million jews were not killed,
if you add up all the available non-debunked numbers you get a million at best,

It did not happen you "Low IQ moron" calling names and insisting it did doesn't prove this lie

>if you add up all the available non-debunked numbers you get a million at best,
This is simply not true. If you subtract the population of jews after ww2 from before ww2 you'll get around 5.7 million deaths.

>non-debunked

Hahaha. If the holocaust is fake then why isnt Germany suing holocaust survivor for defamation?

I'm on my phone, fucking autocorrect

they don't deny it, they know it happened and want a second one but for that to happen they gotta brainwash the ignorant masses and convince them it didn't. they call it double think.

>implying there are many left that will last even another 20 years
>implying us in the US aren't already forced to support them through israel aid

White, based, and exceedingly redpilled thread

Attached: Kirino gsg.png (1830x3212, 2.95M)

Because literal Communist Jews run the government? Because after the war the Jews got their own nation and started to genocide the local inhabitants legally because "muh 6 gorillian". Because of the absolute fuckton amounts of aid and reparations they get from the West?

Attached: 1551845886041.jpg (731x1024, 134K)

so between the start of ww2 and the end of ww2 5.7 million jews died?
and every single one was killed by a nazi, rather than the huge epedemics that were killing millions of people. or the war it self that kill 80 million people.
so you admit the the number is less than 6 million.
and we can generously say that half 5.7 died of illness and lack of food and supplies like happens in any siege.
and we can admit that some of those jews died because of the univesal violence of war and not executed by a nazi for being jewish

so now we are left with the number 1.4 million
that pretty close to what i said and very far from what you said.

Attached: Blank+_2ad49e80aaf217c71b1db81913c5acad.jpg (1130x678, 59K)

because its a crime in germany to question the holocaust

>so between the start of ww2 and the end of ww2 5.7 million jews died?
Around that figure, yes.

>and every single one was killed by a nazi, rather than the huge epedemics that were killing millions of people.
Most of them were killed by nazis. Given there are several eye witnesses and nazis who admitted to it, it wouldn't be a stretch.

>so you admit the the number is less than 6 million.
Sure.

>and we can generously say that half 5.7 died of illness
I don't know of any evidence that concludes that. We know that some Jews died of typhus. 2.85 million kikes dying of illness sounds like a stupid exaggeration.

>so now we are left with the number 1.4 million that pretty close to what i said and very far from what you said.
>The numbers that I made up say I'm right, and you're wrong.

Lol sure, kid

then they may have become actual "alphas" instead of whining about how women and dark skinned people are the reason they are toxic keyboard crybabies instead

Attached: 93IqBpa.jpg (1726x1354, 557K)

Of course, we'll always call out a Mossad false flag when we see em.

It did not happen. End of Discussion

>Given there are several eye witnesses and nazis who admitted to it,
please link to me an eye witness account that has not been debunked that can be extrapolated to an industrial extermination project rather than the violence of a few individuals in a time of universal violence.
> We know that some Jews died of typhus.
show me the numbers, this was not 1990s urban living, this was a time of seige, flooded with immigrants who were real peasants who would have fit in in the 12th century more than the 20th.
contagious diseases, malnutrition, war, siege, and being concentrated in "concentration camps" would lead one to think that the deaths from disease would have been far greater than 50%
under such circumstance it would be absurd to say it a minor factor.
and if you look at other historical sieges you could say its absurd to consider less than 80% of the deaths be disease related.

All dead jew footage would be used in propaganda calling for it to happen again, then the kikes would suppress it.

Attached: jew bulldozer.jpg (900x864, 154K)

>please link to me an eye witness account that has not been debunked

From Eichmann in his memoirs:

If we had killed 10.3 million Jews, then I would have been satisfied and would say, good, we annihilated an enemy. … I wasn't only issued orders, in this case I'd have been a moron, but I rather anticipated, I was an idealist.

>show me the numbers

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/09/europes-jewish-population/

jstor.org/stable/4464869?read-now=1&seq=12#page_scan_tab_contents
The previous link you need to make an account to access.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_Poland#Reports,_studies_and_assessments

Quote from Wilhem Hoettl

>Approximately 4,000,000 Jews had been killed in the various concentration camps, while an additional 2,000,000 met death in other ways, the major part of whom were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia.

Ny mother used today the expression "weights more than a dead jew" genuily, i felt quite aroused

ask for non-debunked accounts
>offers eichman's memoirs.
ask for actual statistics,
>offers two Jewish websites and Wikipedia
and and interesting not about that pew info, almost all of the loss of jews in those numbers are only in eastern europe, Germany actually increased significantly. i wonder what was going on in the eastern europe?
perhaps we should look at maybe something like the bolshevik party and its members?

The very idea of surviving an "extermination camp" is ridiculous.

> hans we need to kill these untermenschen, how should we go about it? quick bullet to the head? hanging them? just fucking leave them to starve?
> no, we'll build complicated gas chambers with wooden doors and also don't forget the plans for the masturbation machines we talked about

>Eichmann
has been debunked by the holocaust believers

forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=742

those are based on self-reported jewish ancestry

>Wilhem Hoettl

Hoettl was as a US spy through the latter period of the war, and during that period he never gave the slightest hint to the Americans of a policy to murder Jews, despite working directly under Heydrich & Eichmann.

Germar Rudolf:
>"Both Höttl and Wisliceny were originally held in the defendants’ wing of the Nuremberg prison because of their involvement in the mass deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. Their statements, however, allowed them to be moved to the witnesses’ wing – a life-saving switch in many cases. [...] On the basis of his pliability on behalf of the victors, Höttl, who was as deeply involved in the deportation of the Jews as Wisliceny, succeeded in ending up not as a defendant at Nuremberg, but rather as a privileged witness (Irving 1996, pp. 236f.; cf. Höttl 1997, pp. 83, 360-387). Wisliceny was convinced to cooperate with the Allies by threats that he would otherwise be extradited to communist eastern Europe. This caused Wisliceny to turn against his co-prisoners and even to offer to turn in hiding comrades. As an additional reward, the Allies promised him security for his family against possible revenge attacks by betrayed comrades (Servatius 1961, p. 64). While the Allies kept their promise to free Höttl for his services, they were not so cooperative with regards to Wisliceny. Despite his cooperation he was later extradited to communist Czechoslovakia anyway, where he was eventually sentenced to death and hanged (Arendt 1990, p. 257). Also worth mentioning are the circumstances, under which Höttl and Wisliceny as well as many other witnesses made their incriminating statements about Eichmann: They all thought that Eichmann, who had gone underground, was dead, and they hoped to exonerate themselves or to buy the benevolence of the Allies at the expense of Eichmann

Attached: gas-chamber-traffic-jam (1).jpg (1000x483, 191K)

ha!
>yes 5.7 million jews died.
>yes i admit disease killed some.
>i also believe that 4 million were murdered at the camps
>and 2 million were murdered on the way to the camps.

Nigger I have facial structure you could only dream of and I practically grew up on Vicky. Delet this at ONCE

Attached: 110B8A41-D75D-48C4-920F-24FE6B276FF9.jpg (943x960, 181K)

>Most of them were killed by nazis. Given there are several eye witnesses and nazis who admitted to it, it wouldn't be a stretch.

torture-induced confessions and those given under duress are pretty useless.

most jews died of disease, starvation, malnourishment. we have records of 300,000 deaths in the camps

we have 0 records of jews being gassed

forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12287
- Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946 (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368):
>On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called "final solution," and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders. They point out that the SS members were forbidden to undertake individual acts against Jews. As evidence, numerous members refer to the fact that many death or other severe sentences were passed because of crimes against Jewish persons or Jewish property.

From: avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-21-46.asp

>has been debunked by the holocaust believers
>gives me a link to codoh

The historian is making a statement about how eichmann lied during his trials. The quote that I gave he stated all the way in argentina. Far from the influence of the scary Jews and the eichmann trials

Gas chambers are far more efficient for a mass scale genocide.

>torture-induced confessions and those given under duress are pretty useless.
We have more confessions than those made at the nuremberg trials, and even then there's no proof that all of the defendants were tortured to extract confessions.

>most jews died of disease, starvation, malnourishment. we have records of 300,000 deaths in the camps
Do you have any proof of this?

>On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called "final solution," and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders
You mean that nazis lawyers...are saying that the nazis... dindunuffin?

Where have I heard that before?

>>gives me a link to codoh
so? it cited a holocaust believer

>The quote that I gave he stated all the way in argentina. Far from the influence of the scary Jews and the eichmann trials
and there's no evidence to substantiate it

Eichmann stated regarding this material that the intention was that he and Sassen would be co-authors in order to primarily produce a commercially marketable book, as distinct from a primarily historically accurate one, and that the book would use "poetic license" when Eichmann could not remember details. Eichmann was told to say something on every point, so that necessary quantity could be obtained.

there's no proof that millions of jews were killed by nazis, not a shred of evidence. hundreds of thousands died in the camps, but 0 were gassed

>We have more confessions than those made at the nuremberg trials, and even then there's no proof that all of the defendants were tortured to extract confessions.
you're right, not everyone was tortured. but at NMT "judicial notice" was taken of the allegation of nazis exterminating jews. so there was no reason for them to argue it didn't happen.

fact is: many people denied the "holocaust" who were there, many didn't (some were tortured). so you're just picking and choosing which is reliable if you're using it as proof

>Do you have any proof of this?
the "Bad arolsen" files have 300,000 deaths in the camps. they are incomplete. these are teh recorded deaths in the camps. 0 are from homicidal gassings

>You mean that nazis lawyers...are saying that the nazis... dindunuffin?
and many nazis themselves.

>Where have I heard that before?
from some people who were in the camps that were persecuted by nazis and said the "holocaust" as alleged didn't happen

>ask for non-debunked accounts
>>offers eichman's memoirs.
How are the eichmann memoirs debunked aside in your own delusions?

>offers two Jewish websites and Wikipedia
How is jstor a Jewish website? Let me guess, a Jewish janitor works for jstor and therefore the entire website, including the historians that use it are compromised. Lol

>so? it cited a holocaust believer
You missed the point. The quote I gave came from the Eichmann memoirs, and it was written in Argentina. You gave me a link of a historian that ostensibly was saying that the memoirs are not reliable. How do you know he wasn't referring to the trials and not the memoir?

>and there's no evidence to substantiate it
There is. Eichmann admitted to writing the memoirs.

>you're right, not everyone was tortured.
Shut up, faggot.

>many people denied the "holocaust" who were there, many didn't (some were tortured).
I wouldn't consider a small, fringe group of proto-historians and liars to be "many" people.

>so you're just picking and choosing which is reliable if you're using it as proof
If by "picking and choosing" you mean trying to discern when a defendant, who is charged with genocide, is telling the truth, or lying to save his life, then yes.

>the "Bad arolsen" files have 300,000 deaths in the camps. they are incomplete. these are teh recorded deaths in the camps. 0 are from homicidal gassings
Nazi's used euphemistic language in there logistics report. This is something of common knowledge.

>You missed the point.
no i didnt. you're saying he told the truth because you can't conceieve of a reason why he would lie. it doesn't work that way. there's no actual physical evidence for this and it's contradicted by other testimony. when there's contradicting testimony, you don't get to just cherry pick what you want to believe

>How do you know he wasn't referring to the trials and not the memoir?
why don't you read the source? what was the point of the "memoirs" he just wanted to incriminate himself? you're ridiculous. they wanted to make money, apparently

>There is. Eichmann admitted to writing the memoirs.
i didn't deny that he wrote them, i am saying the allegations are untrue. many people lied about hte "holocaust" nobody can deny this, simply logic will tell you that. simply because there is no "consensus" at all. people say vastly different things

you must substantiate the ridiculous claims with physical evidence.

Eichmann knew that he was being hunted and could soon face trial. His "memoirs" is therefore argued to be a preparation for this trial and to contain various false statements, which would strengthen his defense, such as being a passive receiver of orders, a bureaucrat who took no initiatives and made no decisions, but simply obeyed the orders. Also some non-revisionists have stated that the "memoirs" are consciously calculated attempts at legal defense in court and contains lies.

>I wouldn't consider a small, fringe group of proto-historians and liars to be "many" people.
not what i was saying, i meant people who were there. but you're right, if a small fringe group says something the majority disagrees with, be skeptical. however, if this "small fringe" is literally committing a crime in 14+ countries by stating this position, you should be skeptical of the "official story" even moreso.
you're using a fallacy

>Nazi's used euphemistic language in there logistics report. This is something of common knowledge.
wrong

>If by "picking and choosing" you mean trying to discern when a defendant, who is charged with genocide, is telling the truth, or lying to save his life, then yes.
and yet some people who were persecuted by nazis and in the camps denied the "Holocaust" as alleged.

your entire argument is bullshit. you just cherry pick the testimony you want to believe in. over 95% of auschwitz testimonies didn't mention any 'homicidal gas chambers' and it's total nonsense that they would use a postage-stamp elevator as shown above. the design is retarded, the nazis weren't that stupid

Attached: debating-holocaust-info.png (2402x1300, 152K)

>Nazi's used euphemistic language in there logistics report. This is something of common knowledge.

every single document on the "final solution" defines it as deportation/resettlement

you're grasping at straws

forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12296

>no i didnt. you're saying he told the truth because you can't conceieve of a reason why he would lie. it doesn't work that way.
No, it does work that way. Eichmann regularly visited these camps, and he made a confession away from his future captors. So not only is this primary evidence, these memoirs have no proof of duress or something else that would otherwise invalidate them.

>why don't you read the source? what was the point of the "memoirs" he just wanted to incriminate himself? you're ridiculous.
You said it youself. To sell the book and make money off of it.

>i didn't deny that he wrote them, i am saying the allegations are untrue.
So then the memoirs are mostly valid?

>many people lied about hte "holocaust" nobody can deny this, simply logic will tell you that. simply because there is no "consensus" at all. people say vastly different things
Ok, so now you are making the argument that because there were many dubious testimonies made through the war there's also, somehow, a chance that the memoirs are one of them?

>you must substantiate the ridiculous claims with physical evidence.
They have been. Several times. In every court session involving the holocaust.

>however, if this "small fringe" is literally committing a crime in 14+ countries by stating this position, you should be skeptical of the "official story" even moreso.
I disagree. Just because Europe has laws against denying the holocaust doesn't mean it has any bearing on the historicity of something, although you are right in the small sense that you should question everything, the holocaust including. The fact that these kind of laws exist doesn't mean it didn't happen.

>wrong
lol No, other type of argumentation. Just wrong. Ouch.
How am I wrong, faggot?

>your entire argument is bullshit. you just cherry pick the testimony you want to believe in.
Not necessarily "cherry picking." If someone makes a statement that we currently have no theory or other type of circumstantial evidence to back up, then we reject it, or at least seriously doubt them. If that same witness makes another statement that is proven by circumstantial evidence, then we don't do that.
Simple as that.

redpill me about the holocaust pls

I still wouldn't care about it, would be nice to be sure it happened though for some good feelings.

>No, it does work that way
wrong, because the fact that you can't conceive of a reason does not mean there isn't a reason.

he used the most basic and common defense of nazis: claiming the "holocaust" as alleged happened, but he wasn't an orchestrator.

of course, there's 0 documentary and physical evidence to support the allegations. eyewitness testimony is not more valid than those. also, plenty of other nazis who would have first-hand knowledge denied it

>You said it youself. To sell the book and make money off of it.
and there you go, a good reason for him to lie

>So then the memoirs are mostly valid?
"valid" as in, he wrote them himself, sure. but i don't think we should believe everything he wrote and necessarily take it as fact, especially when he had multiple reasons to lie, and it's not supported by documentary/physical evidence plus contradicted by other testimony

>Ok, so now you are making the argument that because there were many dubious testimonies made through the war there's also, somehow, a chance that the memoirs are one of them?
no, i am saying that if claims in his memoirs contradict physical/documentary evidence, they should just be added to the extraordinarily long list of "testimonies which are not true" which even holocaust believers claim exists en masse

>They have been. Several times. In every court session involving the holocaust.
untrue, in the NMT they didn't even prove it, they took "judicial notice" of the alleged extermination

Article 19 of the Nuremberg Charter:
>The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

Article 21 of the Nuremberg Charter:
>The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.

>I disagree. Just because Europe has laws against denying the holocaust doesn't mean it has any bearing on the historicity of something, although you are right in the small sense that you should question everything, the holocaust including. The fact that these kind of laws exist doesn't mean it didn't happen.
you're absolutely correct. just because it's illegal to say "hitler didn't gas jews" doesn't mean it didn't happen. it means that looking for a "consensus" as any sort of proof is meaningless, because one position is persecuted against and thus people, even if they believe it, have every reason to avoid publicly admitting it. people fear for their lives, and many simply keep their mouths shut so they don't get thrown in jail. for that reason, you can't argue "barely anyone denies the holocaust because that's not a supportable position!" they avoid that because it's a crime and they don't think it's worth ruining their lives over

>do you think stormturds would still deny the holocaust?
They wouldn't have to. The video would show Jews having a good time. Oh wait... that footage actually exists.

>redpill me about the holocaust pls
your language:

archive.is/A624R

longer: archive.is/8XvkY

german language forum: forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=8

holocaust handbooks:
holocausthandbuecher.com/

i assume you prefer german over english, right?

The holocaust started in 1941, furthermore those star niggers wouldn’t record shit because it didn’t fucking happen, fuck I wish it would though.

Attached: 10D63EF5-7478-4721-849F-79781BA9C4FC.gif (500x331, 85K)

>Simple as that.
indeed.

and his claims of exterminations of jews is not supported by any physical or documentary evidence, plus it is contradicted by many other testimonies

>Simple as that.
you claim 100s of thousands of people were exterminated in 1 place and buried in exactly known spots. then show 1% of the millions of pounds of remains, simple as that

heck, you cold make $100,000 dollars by proving it:

nafcash.com/

don't you want $100,000?

They obviously would, yes.

They're calling the NZ shooting CG and trying to point out sock changes on dead bodies.

Schizophrenics gonna schizo.

>wrong, because the fact that you can't conceive of a reason does not mean there isn't a reason.
Ok, so do you have any proof that suggests that eichmann saying "if i had only kill 10 million jews i'd be content" quote is untrue outside of "DUHYYY HE DIDN SAY HE WUSNT LIEING! CHECKM8"

>of course, there's 0 documentary and physical evidence to support the allegations
Really? The mass graves, gas canisters littered all throughout the camp, the camp itself, the universal agreement by historians itself isn't proof?
Geez, imagining the cognitive dissonance it takes to believe this

>no, i am saying that if claims in his memoirs contradict physical/documentary evidence, they should just be added to the extraordinarily long list of "testimonies which are not true"
Not necessarily, Eichmann lied throughout his trial and in his book for several reasons, but that doesn't mean you can't figure out what he said was true and what was fantasy.

SLOPPY
L
O
P
P
Y

>you can't argue "barely anyone denies the holocaust because that's not a supportable position!" they avoid that because it's a crime and they don't think it's worth ruining their lives over
And it because holocaust deniers are liars, and they're not real historians. They don't genuinely care about history. They're main concern is just to disprove the holocaust. Many of them don't offer alternative explanations.

If only there was any evidence master chief

Can we stop talking about the hall-o-cost for one damn day?

Their*

I honestly don't think it happened to the extent that (((they))) say it did.

Why did so many Jews survive?

>you claim 100s of thousands of people were exterminated in 1 place and buried in exactly known spots. then show 1% of the millions of pounds of remains, simple as that
I didn't know deniers were this stupid/dishonest. Again, what's wrong with the objections I mentioned? Why were there mass graves and dead bodies throughout the camps if the holocaust didn't happen?

>Many of them don't offer alternative explanations.
Typhus

>Ok, so do you have any proof that suggests that eichmann saying "if i had only kill 10 million jews i'd be content" quote is untrue outside of "DUHYYY HE DIDN SAY HE WUSNT LIEING! CHECKM8"

he might have said that, i don't know or care. it doesn't support your position at all.

do you have any proof that even one single jew was killed in a nazi gas chamber? name them, and provide the proof

>Really? The mass graves
show me the alleged "mass grave" excavated at a concentration camp. prove it is consistent with the 6 million number rather than the 300,000 number provided by "deniers" and supported by documents (Nobody claims people didn't die at camps)

>gas canisters littered all throughout the camp
zyclon B was used for delousing. even van pelt claims 97% of zyclon-b at auscwhitz was used for delousing (actually it was 100%)

>the camp itself
obviously existed, and disprove your claims because they're clearly absurd for mass murder. see also: >universal agreement by historians itself isn't proof?
i already explained: it's illegal in many countries to oppose this "agreement" so you can't really use that as an argument at all. further, no, that is not proof. it's called "appeal to authority"

>Geez, imagining the cognitive dissonance it takes to believe this
imagine the cognitive dissonance if you think there's proof but refuse to take $100,000: > Eichmann lied throughout his trial and in his book for several reasons, but that doesn't mean you can't figure out what he said was true and what was fantasy.
claiming millions of jews were exterminated is obviously fantasy

if it wasn't, you'd be able to make $100,000 proving something so easily. see: there is NO SUCH THING as an UNDETECTABLE "huge mass grave"

you: MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF DEAD PEOPLE EXIST RIGHT HERE. YOU MUST BELIEVE IT BECAUSE: (1) some liar said so and (2) it's illegal to say otherwise

Attached: what-holocaust-deniers-believe.png (565x616, 67K)

Where are they?

Attached: 1552550007859.jpg (400x364, 31K)

>masturbation machines
get out of Jow Forums kike

Attached: spoiler-s4s8.gif (100x100, 8K)

>And it because holocaust deniers are liars, and they're not real historians. They don't genuinely care about history. They're main concern is just to disprove the holocaust.
nonsense
why resort to personal attacks anyway? why not make $100,000 if it's supposedly proven: >Many of them don't offer alternative explanations.
wrong. prove it

>Again, what's wrong with the objections I mentioned?
nothing is wrong with it. physical evidence ALWAYS trumps "testimony" many years after the fact, always

>Why were there mass graves and dead bodies throughout the camps if the holocaust didn't happen?
first:
1 - i pointed out, at least 300,000 people died in the camps .so obviously there are huge mass graves, despite nobody being gassed. bergen belsen had huge mass graves at the end of the war because of disease ravaging the camps

2 - the number of people excavated actually supports the 300,000 number, not the 6 million (or 3-4 million, with 2-3 million allegedly killed outside of camps) number alleged by the exterminationists

please prove that there is even something close to 870,000 jews buried at treblinka

you claim there are "huge mass graves" at the camps. provide the proof so i can claim $100,000 please:

nafcash.com/

^^^ he's offering $100,000 if you prove these graves exist. if you don't want to take the money, i will. just prove it, please

WHERE IS THE PROOF

They wouldn't be allowed to post the video on the Internet as it violates holocaust denial law. Stormfags would never see it

Random question, since you seem knowledgeable about history: what percentage of holocaust victims were cremated?

Why don't they exhume these 'mass' graves and return the remains to Israel?

Wouldn't this be an epic archeological and forensic project? Why is Germany so callous?

Remove my flag from your profile you larping parasite POS

at treblinka, allegedly 870,000 jews were buried, dug up, burned in open air pyres, and then tossed back into the same pits they were originally buried in

THREE separate excavations of treblinka failed to find even 1% of the alleged number

youtube.com/watch?v=YuAAjrbbBiM

all the alleged "Death camps" are in poland
but really, they know they're not going to find the alleged 'huge mass graves'

that's why nobody has claimed the $100,000 reward:

nafcash.com/

I WANT SOMEONE TO PROVE THE HOLOCAUST SO I CAN GET $100,000

>he might have said that, i don't know or care. it doesn't support your position at all.
He more than likely did say that. You are yet to give me any proof that the eichamnn quote is unreliable.

Again, you don't care about history or having a fair discussion. All you do is deny perfectly valid evidence.

> it doesn't support your position at all.
Having a nazi admit to genocide isn't proof that he committed genocide!!1!

lol

>show me the alleged "mass grave" excavated at a concentration camp.
A simple google search will find what you need. Not here to hold your hand.

>zyclon B was used for delousing.
So?

>i already explained: it's illegal in many countries to oppose this "agreement"
Except that's not really an argument. There exists even more countries where it's legal to deny the holocaust, with even more historians in them too. Guess what? They say the holocaust did happen.

>imagine the cognitive dissonance if you think there's proof but refuse to take $100,000
Not really an argument.

>there is NO SUCH THING as an UNDETECTABLE "huge mass grave"
What? Nobody said they're undetectable. Go ahead and google them, you'll find evidence of the mass graves.

Again, you're just simply making fallacies and denying shit. That's no way to argue.

Why can't you provide any evidence?

Why don't history books provide evidence?

>He more than likely did say that. You are yet to give me any proof that the eichamnn quote is unreliable.
i am not arguing that he didn't say it. please read again

i am arguing that there was no policy of extermination of jews, that 6 million jews didn't die (good news!) and that no jew was ever gassed in a nazi camp

>Again, you don't care about history or having a fair discussion. All you do is deny perfectly valid evidence.
that's not "perfectly valid evidence" of anything except that he claimed it. please, show the alleged "huge mass graves" you claim exist

>Having a nazi admit to genocide isn't proof that he committed genocide!!1!
having nazis deny genocide isn't proof against it? it goes both ways, unless you just cherry-pick testimony

>A simple google search will find what you need. Not here to hold your hand.
i am aware of EVERY SINGLE excavation at these camps. yeah, there is not a shred of evidence that even 1% of the people alleged to be buried there even exist

>So?
so zyclon-b canisters don't prove a "holocaust" of jews at all

>Except that's not really an argument. There exists even more countries where it's legal to deny the holocaust, with even more historians in them too. Guess what? They say the holocaust did happen.

Michael Crichton: "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

in the countries it allegedly occurred in, it is illegal to tell the truth. in america, it's only career suicide. that's why a "consensus" is not a reasonable argument, on top of it being a fallacy

>Not really an argument.
your inability to prove that these graves exist is the argument

>Nobody said they're undetectable
yes, you admit it

>Go ahead and google them, you'll find evidence of the mass graves.
wrong, i've been googling it for 10 years and i haven't found the evidence. if i did, i'd have $100,000

Treblinka Archaeology hoax
youtube.com/watch?v=YuAAjrbbBiM

>why resort to personal attacks anyway?
Because I dislike you.

>nothing is wrong with it. physical evidence ALWAYS trumps "testimony" many years after the fact, always
I know, and I gave you examples of it. You just ignored it.

>despite nobody being gassed. bergen belsen had huge mass graves at the end of the war because of disease ravaging the camps
Ok, how does this disprove the death camps at say Auschwitz?

> the number of people excavated actually supports the 300,000 number
But muh 6 million corpses? Another, ridiculous task. Many of the bodies were also cremated or disfigured or destroyed beyond recognition. Just because you want 6 million corpses exhumed, uncremated, and embalmed in a crystal case. Doesn't mean anything.

>WHERE IS THE PROOF
I posed to pre and post ww2 census stats. There somewhere in this thread. Go look for them. Fucking liar.

Those who believe they can refute any statement of fact articulated on this web page are invited to accept

THE HOLOCAUST ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX CHALLENGE
$100,000.00
REWARD

For proving - just 1 / 1,000 of 1% - of the criminally fraudulent buried remains allegations

$1,000.00 - will be remitted for each one of the 100 fraudulently alleged / insinuated - mass graves / cremation pits - of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II - which have been scientifically proven to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of at least 21 people - ($500.00 for at least 7).

nafcash.com/
>nafcash.com/
nafcash.com/
>nafcash.com/
nafcash.com/

UNCLAIMED MONEY

(((LOCATED)))

So basically you don't have any forensic or archeological evidence to support your claim.

>Many of the bodies were also cremated or disfigured or destroyed beyond recognition.

>Because I dislike you.
why? i did nothing against you

>I know, and I gave you examples of it. You just ignored it.
wrong. you're basing a strawman. i admit people died in the camps. i admit jews died

just like 10% of what is claimed, and nobody was gassed

sorry, some guy saying "this happened" isn't proof that it did, especially when other nazis deny that it happened.

>Ok, how does this disprove the death camps at say Auschwitz?
no excavation of auschwitz mass graves ever occurred

yeah, the death books show 80,000 people died at auschwitz

Germar Rudolf disproved the "Homicidal gas chambers" of Auschwitz

vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

>But muh 6 million corpses? Another, ridiculous task. Many of the bodies were also cremated or disfigured or destroyed beyond recognition. Just because you want 6 million corpses exhumed, uncremated, and embalmed in a crystal case. Doesn't mean anything.
i do not want that.. see: you could simply show 1% of the alleged. millions of pounds of burnt remains are alleged to exist in exact known locations

>I posed to pre and post ww2 census stats. There somewhere in this thread. Go look for them. Fucking liar.
sorry, census data is not proof of genocide. it's based on self reported ancestry, and would count jews who denied being jewish. it's not a reliable way to estimate murdered jews that are alleged to be buried in exact known locations

>JTA: Uzbekistan Soviet Republic Becomes New Home for Hundreds of Thousands of Evacuated Jews
>February 19, 1942
>The number of Soviet and Polish Jews now concentrated in Uzbekistan is estimated to be about one million. There were about 40,000 Jews living in the whole of Uzbekistan prior to the outbreak of the present war, the majority of them residing in Tashkent and Samarkand.
archive.is/9yN5D

They didn't. What's your point?

How do millions of people survive death camps? And why would someone plotting to gas millions of people make the rooms they were going to use the size of small bedrooms?

Attached: BCA07528-4FC4-4D7B-837D-29351243EA92.jpg (711x399, 66K)

According to this calculator: mainelyurns.com/urn-size-chart.html

For every pound a person is, that is 1 cubic inch of ashes. Therefore, a 130 lb (59kg) person would be cremated into 130 cubic inches (2,130 cubic cm) of ashes.

It has been asserted that over 1 million people were murdered by Nazis at Auschwitz in homicidal gas chambers, then cremated. If the average weight was 130 lbs (59kg) this would result in 75,231 cubic feet (2,130 cubic meters) for the burnt remains of 1 million people (assuming 1 cubic inch per pound of body weight). In order to make excuses for the utter lack of massive piles of human remains (cremated or otherwise) it has been alleged by some that these cremated remains were deposited en masse into a few "ash ponds" at Auschwitz.

I estimate that the remains of 400-500 people could fit within 1 cubic meter.

Assuming every single body was cremated, this would result in millions of pounds of remains

there would be the equivalent of a US football field covered in burnt human remains over 1 foot high, that's how much "burnt remains" would exist buried at auschwitz, if the alleged death toll is correct

Attached: cubic-metre-diagram.png (464x398, 48K)

>i am arguing that there was no policy of extermination of jews

Nope, wrong again.

>I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."

-Himmler at Poznan

>please, show the alleged "huge mass graves" you claim exist
>Please google for me! I'm too stupid to do research myself!

>i am aware of EVERY SINGLE excavation at these camps. yeah, there is not a shred of evidence that even 1% of the people alleged to be buried there even exist
lol. So you were aware of the graves this entire time. You were just playing, dumb, for whatever reason. How are these graves not proof?

>so zyclon-b canisters don't prove a "holocaust" of jews at all
It does. The jews told us they were being gassed. We went to the camps, and we found gas canisters.

>wrong, i've been googling it for 10 years and i haven't found the evidence. if i did, i'd have $100,000
A similar event to this already happened. IHR was willing to give $500,000 to whomever could prove the holocaust.

They eventually ended up paying that money. lol

>Reply
They'd deny it even more as there'd be even more evidence against it.

it happened it really did i swear. hanz burn dee
bookz.

Attached: 1551632849389.png (600x606, 172K)

I expect they'd get as much coverage as the boers and japs in that case.

Wooden door

>IHR was willing to give $500,000 to whomever could prove the holocaust.
>They eventually ended up paying that money

Was that the one where the Judge basically ruled that it was common knowledge and therefore the money could be claimed without needing evidence?

>IHR was willing to give $500,000 to whomever could prove the holocaust.
>They eventually ended up paying that money
no that's totally wrong, actually

they eventually won too:

ihr.org/news/oct1991mermelstein.html

>why? i did nothing against you
Because you're denying one of the most atrocious genocides in recent history so that makes you a liar, and because you're possibly a nazi.

>i admit people died in the camps. i admit jews died

>just like 10% of what is claimed, and nobody was gassed
Ok, do you have any proof that they weren't gas?

>Germar Rudolf disproved the "Homicidal gas chambers" of Auschwitz
I'm somewhat aware of the rudolf report? How did he disprove the death camps?

>sorry, census data is not proof of genocide
Sorry, this proof isn't proof at all.

lol How? It's an example of an impartial group posting a finding that is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. How is it invalid?