Trying not to be a shitpost

>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

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Himmler_Posen_Speech_-_Extermination_of_the_Jews_excerpt,_Oct_4,_1943.ogg

Oy Vey Da shoah was at least six gorillion.

No they did not

>No they did not
Convincing argument is convincing

Attached: uLwU6f1553557134.jpg (360x480, 129K)

Dead thread is dead?

food and medicine because they needed slaves. the genocide is true, you dumbass. stop being like a chemical trails supporter

there were casualties in those concentration camps. But:
1) not as high a number as depicted in the propagandistic material. much of it was faked and inflated due to de-nazification efforts after the war, which required the radical demonization of the nazis.
2) not as a coordinated effort to exterminate a people. Most deaths were caused by a lack of supplies (food and medicine) during the last phase of the war.

It was way more, but they wasn't jews.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

New Holohoax flyer -- print and disseminate

PDF: drive.google.com/open?id=1ipWainshExGJPUfTmBwjLy9WVCWyZfAq

PDF (Grayscale): drive.google.com/open?id=1DyijBzaw9Tf9QXbyDFFvQX5c7HmUhXi_

Large, text-heavy front-back flyer: holocausthandbooks.com/dl/FlyerLetterSize.pdf

IMPORTANT LINKS

>Documentaries
codoh.com/library/categories/1167/
(note: also search for Eric Hunt's documentaries on the Holocaust)

>Intro to Holocaust revisionism:
vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html

>Dissecting the Holocaust
vho.org/GB/Books/dth/

>Holocaust Handbook series
holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?st=40&sort=voa&main_page=1#entries

>Holocaust debate forum
forum.codoh.com/

>"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Holocaust in Auschwitz-Birkenau] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove... it has become part of our inherited knowledge." (A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz, The Toronto Star, December 27, 2009)

>"The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence." (Judge Gray, Irving-Lipstadt trial, 2000)

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

- 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: "1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing" (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368)

- On 27 July 1945, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that: "A report from the place where major German war criminals are now confined discloses that all of them have denied that the Nazis had any plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe."

- According to archives director Shmuel Krakowski: "Over half of the 20,000 testimonies from Holocaust survivors on record at Yad Vashem are “unreliable” and have never been used as evidence in Nazi war crimes trials" (B. Amouyal, "Doubts over evidence of camp survivors," Jerusalem Post (Israel), August 17, 1986)

- "Survivor accounts of critical events are typical of all testimony, that is, they are full of discrepancies. About all matters both trivial and significant, the evidence is nearly always in dispute. In part the unreliability of these accounts derives from imperfect observation and flawed memory, but in larger part from the circumstance that they are not constructed exclusively on the basis of firsthand experience. In order to present a coherent narrative, the author has likely included a large measure of hearsay, gossip, rumor, assumption, speculation, and hypothesis." (Jewish holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, 1976)

- "There does not exist then, anything like a written order signed by [Hitler] for the extermination of the Jews in Europe." (Colin Cross, Adolf Hitler, (Milan, 1977), p. 313.)

The "Holocaust" is a racist, anti-White conspiracy theory

Indeed, it's interesting to see that those who accuse Revisionists of promoting a 'conspiracy theory' often promote truly bizarre conspiracy theories themselves, such as:

>"The Germans executed a secret plan to exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on, the results were such that 6M Jews and huge numbers of gypsies and homosexuals were murdered by gassing and by being shot into enormous pits."

Yet in short, there are no orders from Hitler, no authentic German documents, no records of funding, no massive graves of human remains as alleged which would necessarily be available, and a gassing method which defies science.

At the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT) it was alleged that the Holocaust had been perpetrated with the greatest level of secrecy, and very few know it was even happening. According to US Judge Leon Powers "not over 100 people in all were informed" about the attempted extermination. As with many other conspiracy theories, the lack of physical evidence and the scarcity of alleged eyewitness testimonies were seen as convincing proof that the Nazis had something to hide and that they had successfully managed to do it.

Pennsylvania judge Edward L. Van Roden:
>"This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants. Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators."

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

While researching history, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan & the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and Nazis. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating Nazis and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate Nazis historically, and by so doing, always also morally.

But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating Nazis historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives--though quite a few of them certainly are--but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

pic related should be for:

Attached: Holocaust-Nuremberg-trials-April-1949-Judge-Leon-W-Powers.jpg (1374x1110, 762K)

The typical canard used by Jews is to claim that Revisionists "deny" the existence of everything about the Jews' experience in WWII, the camps etc. But no one says what the Jews claim, it's a classic false, strawman argument.

Revisionists do not "deny" that Jews were deported to labor camps and encouraged to leave Europe. There is no question that the National Socialists wanted the Jews out of Europe. The Zionists also wanted the Jews out of Europe.

What Revisionists do deny is:

- the unfounded and frankly, laughable '6,000,000'
- the ridiculous & irrational allegations of homicidal 'gas chambers'
- the unsubstantiated claim of a state planned genocide of Jews

The response to anyone who asks if you "deny" the so-called holocaust is to ask them to define what they mean by the 'holocaust'. If any of those 3 items are part of that definition, then say: 'yes, then I am a denier and you can't prove that any of those points are fact...next'.

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

Attached: 1550685810070.jpg (500x688, 159K)

Thread ended here.

Attached: 1551463420084.jpg (1014x840, 248K)

Pol broke your brain son. Wtf knows ways gonna happen to you now, next.

Just 1, they used mirrors to make it look like more so people would be scared

Attached: 2.jpg (720x694, 53K)

yeah to cover their own asses, they lied

>"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12287

or they were tortured

>the genocide is true, you dumbass
no it isn't you fucking moron

>stop being like a chemical trails supporter

how about you PROVE IT so i can take my $100,000 REWARD

nafcash.com/

I WANT THE MONEY. I WANT THERE TO BE ENORMOUS MASS GRAVES. I WANT IT TO BE TRUE SO I CAN MAKE $100,000

>yeah to cover their own asses, they lied
But what about all the times they bragged about killing and deporting Jews? Weren't these claims made before they lost ww2?

>or they were tortured
So just like that? Every nazi confession came from torture? That's why they're not reliable?

if your looking for evidence most of your eyewitnesses are dead and all the docs are in archives.

from this photo of random shoes it was probably three sisters trying to find some shit to wear.

Attached: Unknown-25.jpg (260x194, 15K)

>But what about all the times they bragged about killing and deporting Jews?
nobody ever said jews weren't deported. please read: the pics there

the "Final Solution" was absolutely real, it was a legitimate nazi policy... of resettlement/deportation

every document on the "final solution" supports this. see:
forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12296

no exceptions, literally 0

>Weren't these claims made before they lost ww2?
show me the alleged claim

there is a enormous man grave..its called poland guy.

Attached: v35ln2h1wprz.jpg (1994x1576, 442K)

>Every nazi confession came from torture?
of course not! that's why I said "or" as in, alternatively. as in, literally the opposite of "every" -- just some cases

are you even trying?

>That's why they're not reliable?
why are the nazis who said "no jew was gassed" not reliable?

who exactly do YOU think is reliable?

if it is consitent with documentary and, especially, physical evidence... it should be seen as reliable

if it is not, then it is unreliable, torture or not. we KNOW people lied without being tortured, there's no question about it, but torture does typically invalidate a "confession" this is basic logic

can you prove da j00s made that top image?

>the "Final Solution" was absolutely real, it was a legitimate nazi policy... of resettlement/deportation
But then why did Jews claim to have been killed by the nazis?

>show me the alleged claim
Ok, what about the reichstag speech that Hitler made? 1939 I think?

forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11811&start=15#p91301

there are photos of huge piles of shoes in a non-genocidal context

see the first pic: Shoes from the Front Line 1915, to be re-used

MASSIVe pile of shoes, nobody had to be gassed!

>of course not! that's why I said "or" as in, alternatively. as in, literally the opposite of "every" -- just some cases
Ok, so some nazis willingly admitted to gassing Jews... Got it!

>But then why did Jews claim to have been killed by the nazis?

interesting, what dead jew claimed he was killed by a nazi?

why did some jews claim there was no extermination?

- According to Yad Vashem archives director & Auschwitz survivor Shmuel Krakowski: "Over half of the 20,000 testimonies from Holocaust survivors on record at Yad Vashem are “unreliable” and have never been used as evidence in Nazi war crimes trials" (B. Amouyal, "Doubts over evidence of camp survivors," Jerusalem Post (Israel), August 17, 1986)

- "Survivor accounts of critical events are typical of all testimony, that is, they are full of discrepancies. About all matters both trivial and significant, the evidence is nearly always in dispute. In part the unreliability of these accounts derives from imperfect observation and flawed memory, but in larger part from the circumstance that they are not constructed exclusively on the basis of firsthand experience. In order to present a coherent narrative, the author has likely included a large measure of hearsay, gossip, rumor, assumption, speculation, and hypothesis." (Jewish holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, 1976)

>Ok, so some nazis willingly admitted to gassing Jews... Got it!

indeed, some "admitted" to things that didn't happen. we know this. we know we have "confessions" of things that NEVER OCCURRED

therefore, they are useless

ZERO JEWS WERE GASSED

>Ok, what about the reichstag speech that Hitler made? 1939 I think?

yeah, he's not bragging about killing jews there. there's nothing genocidal about it

hitler certainly hated jews, despised them. but he did not genocide them at all, that speech doesn't even imply that

>why are the nazis who said "no jew was gassed" not reliable?
Because most nazis said that they committed genocide. Literally, nobody is claiming that they weren't except for spergs and pol incels. Isn't that suspicious to you?

>who exactly do YOU think is reliable?
Anything that agrees with the evidence we currently have, of course.

>if it is consitent with documentary and, especially, physical evidence... it should be seen as reliable
Agreed.

>if it is not, then it is unreliable, torture or not. we KNOW people lied without being tortured, there's no question about it, but torture does typically invalidate a "confession" this is basic logic
Ok, so then do you have any proof that it didn't happen?

>Ok, so some nazis willingly admitted to gassing Jews... Got it!

SS-Hauptsturmführer Josef Kramer:
>"I have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end."

I must point out, that Kramer later claimed that
>"The gas chamber existed, there is no doubt about it"
once he realized what the nature of the trial was. This is a perfect example of the standard strategy for the defense: the defendant "knew" but was not "responsible" for the gassing of Jews. Another famous example of this strategy is Adolf Eichmann.

Because of his mistreatment, Hoess admitted to crimes he had no knowledge of:
>"Since I was Commandant of the extermination camp Auschwitz I was totally responsible for everything that happened there, whether I knew about it or not. Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place there I learned only during this investigation and during the trial itself. I cannot describe how I was deceived, how my directives were twisted, and all the things they had carried out supposedly under my orders."

Oswald Pohl had similar remarks:
>"As result of the brutal physical mistreatment in Nenndorf and my treatment in Nuremberg, I was emotionally a completely broken man. I was 54 years old. For 33 years I had served by country without dishonor, and I was unconscious of any crime."

Also:
- 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)

So to believe anything a nazi says is utterly retarded. Which "confession" do you believe is legitimate? be specific please

These are gold, got more?

Attached: 1546903308490.jpg (348x348, 53K)

>interesting, what dead jew claimed he was killed by a nazi?
Lol that's true.

>why did some jews claim there was no extermination?
It's in human nature to lie. Why did some Jews claim they saw holocausters?

>Because most nazis said that they committed genocide
incorrect, i just quoted various sources saying most denied it

>Literally, nobody is claiming that they weren't except for spergs and pol incels
wrong, most of them denied it.

- 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: "1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing" (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368)

- On 27 July 1945, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that: "A report from the place where major German war criminals are now confined discloses that all of them have denied that the Nazis had any plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe."

LOADS of examples here: forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12287

> Isn't that suspicious to you?
it's wrong, so your question is loaded

>Anything that agrees with the evidence we currently have, of course.
there is no evidence that a single jew was gassed. provide 1 name with proof, please

>Agreed.
there is no document proving jews were gassed

>Ok, so then do you have any proof that it didn't happen?
yep, please re-read my posts in this thread

$100,000 reward for proving the holocaust:
nafcash.com/

I BEG YOU, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE prove that the holocaust happened.
I REALLY WANT 6 MILLION DEAD JEWS SO I CAN WIN $100,000

i BEG YOU, please, prove it

>yeah, he's not bragging about killing jews there. there's nothing genocidal about it
He literally said that if jewry kept on continuing he would destroy them. That sounds like a confession to me

>Why did some Jews claim they saw holocausters?
because:
>It's in human nature to lie

now explain why some jews denied that there were gas chambers

we know many jews testified to gas chambers that didn't exist. every single historian agrees that certain camps had 0 gassings: buchenwald, bergen belsen for example. they say "yes nazis gassed MILLIONS of auschwitz, treblinka, belzec, sobibor... but no, the nazis DID NOT gas anyone at bergen belsen OR buchenwald, even though some jews claimed that there were gassings. also nazis didn't make jew soap and lamp shades, those testimonies are WRONG"

yes, even jews admit over 1/2 of testimonies are "unreliable" see: please don't be foolish and just cherry pick testimony. over 95% of Auschwitz birkenau jew survivors make no mention of "homicidal gas chambers" in their testimony

AWESOME I LOVE IT NOW GET THE FUCK OUT

pic related

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

>incorrect, i just quoted various sources saying most denied it
So? If a psychopath was charged with first degree murder its in his best interest to lie or plea sanity. This is hardly evidence

>it's wrong, so your question is loaded
Well, it is a loaded question, but it's still fair. Why don't more historians believe in Holocaust denial if that were the case? Why aren't there more dissenters? More believers?

>there is no evidence that a single jew was gassed. provide 1 name with proof, please
I don't know of any. I'm here to learn from this thread. So far, the only thing I got was schizo-tier evidence.

that's wrong. hitler certianly said some very unkind things about jews. he certainly wanted them out of europe

but he didn't say "we will physically exterminate you, jews!" never once.

It isn't even claimed that the nazis began exterminating jews in 1939. you make 0 sense

Hitler said:
>".. if international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

There is no question that Hitler hated jews and communism, which he called "Jewish Bolshevism" -- however, the fact that Hitler did not like Jews does not prove at all that he attempted to exterminate them. In fact, in this very speech, he was not referring to actual genocide against Jews. The word "annihilation" is a translation of "Vernichtung"

Arthur Butz explains:
>"Very often the Jews were referred to via the German word das Judentum, one of whose correct translation is 'Jewry,' but which can also mean 'Judaism,' or even 'Jewishness' or 'idea of Jewishness.' Thus, a Hitler reference to 'die Vernichtung des Judentums,' if lifted out of context and interpreted in a purely literal way, can be interpreted as meaning the killing of all Jews, but it can also be interpreted as meaning the destruction of Jewish influence and power, which is what the politician Hitler actually meant by such a remark, although it is true that he could have used his words more carefully. Alfred Rosenberg made specific reference to this ambiguity in his IMT testimony, where he argued that 'die Ausrottung des Judentums,' a term he had used on occasion, was not a reference to killing in the context in which Rosenberg had used it."

In the Irving trial, the Judge Charles Gray, after hearing testimony from both sides, pointed out that the word "Vernichten" can be used in a non-genocidal sense. In his final judgment, he said:

>"Much time was spent in evidence and argument on discussing the meaning and true significance of a number of German words to be found in the speeches of Hitler and others in contemporaneous documents generally. There was a prolonged cross-examination of Longerich [one of Penguin Books's and Lipstadt's expert witnesses] by Irving as to the meaning of certain German words which he listed in a glossary prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. Those words include ausrotten, vernichten, liquidieren, evakuieren, umsiedeln and abschieben. A considerable number of documents were scrutinized in an attempt to ascertain whether the words in question were being used or understood in a genocidal sense. Irving contended that most of these words are properly to be understood in a non-genocidal sense. Longerich agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example, ausrotten can bear such anodyne meanings as 'get rid of' or 'wipe out' without connoting physical extermination. But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is 'exterminate' or 'kill off,' especially when applied to people or to a group of people as opposed to, for example, a religion. He contended that all depends on the context in which the words are used."

Jews have very uniform finger diameters.

there never has been, nor is there evidence of 6 million dead user. If you need to ask for evidence then that is why, because there is none ya dingus.

Hitler wanted them out of europe and didn't care where they went it wasn't till later he wanted to go back to the madagascar plan because kikes were causing trouble.
>h he said he wanted to destroy them.
That is if they continued their ways and besides hitler was dying by the 40's it wasn't gonna be him who would put an end to their shenanigans it would've been someone else much more brutal and that if they won ww2.

Attached: 48870c485364c5f5d8044fce276544fc9bd7246e92d9c8c4dd50bd400905f943.jpg (900x671, 138K)

>So? If a psychopath was charged with first degree murder its in his best interest to lie or plea sanity. This is hardly evidence

OK here's a common misconception: it was not proven at the nuremburg trials that the nazis exterminated jews. that wasn't even the point. in fact, they took "judicial notice" of it. saying "we didn't exterminate jews! we didn't gas jews!" wasn't a defense. the best defense was, obviously "yes of course that happened [even if it didn't] b-b-b-ut i didn't do it myself!!!!"

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.

>Why don't more historians believe in Holocaust denial if that were the case?
pic related. because they don't want to be targeted by evil, hateful people OR thrown in prison. goofy argument, even if they believed it they would keep it a secret

>I don't know of any. I'm here to learn from this thread. So far, the only thing I got was schizo-tier evidence.

did you read my posts: start with: vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html

read these pics very carefully:

Attached: flyer-updated-map-questioning-2 (1).png (1626x2129, 452K)

>but he didn't say "we will physically exterminate you, jews!" never once.
Lol but the quote LITERALLY says

>the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

And your only argument is that he meant that metaphorically? How? We found dead Jews at camps! Several more nazis confessed to it! There no historian that agrees with you!

It must be noted that many camps were labour camps. The Nazis needed slave labour. So you'd have some facilities and some effort to support life. British soldiers were in pow camps around the Auschwitz complex and they witnessed executions and deliberate starvation. These events happened before the German military collapse.

I understand bombing caused many deaths, inadvertently but the mechanism was already working to exterminate the Jews.

I'm no lover of the Jews. As the very same ones who had British soldiers to thank for saving them, then started killing those same British soldiers in Palestine a few years later.

Ok, but then why were there dead Jews at the concentration camps if the nazis sole intention was to transport them?

(((Allies))) bombed supply lines both jews and german guards that were in the camps were starving.
youtu.be/cWWmXrbJAYw

Attached: 1552048083382m.jpg (1024x736, 231K)

that's actually a TRANSLATION from GERMAN. he didn't "LITERALLY" say that at all!

>We found dead Jews at camps!
you're right. NOBODY denies that people died en masse. we have 300,000 recorded deaths, the "holocaust deniers" say that 1/2 to 1 million died in the camps. you're mistaken

>There no historian that agrees with you!
LIAR! Some Revisionists are professors (Prof. Robert Faurisson, Prof. Arthur R. Butz, Prof. Christian Lindtner, Prof. Costas Zaverdinos) and some have Ph.D degrees (Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Dr. Robert Countess, Dr. Stephen Hayward, Dr. Herbert Tiedemann). Some are Diploma Chemists, Physicists and Engineers (Michael Gärtner, Germar Rudolf, Arnulf Neumaier, Friedrich Berg), Historians (Mark Weber, Robert Countess, Carlo Mattogno), as well as teachers in other fields, such as Jürgen Graf.
The late Dr. David Hoggan, a specialist in WWII diplomatic history, interpreted Hitler's words in this manner:

>"[Hitler] urged the Jewish people to form a balanced community of their own, or to face an unprecedented crisis. He predicted that a new world war would not lead to the Bolshevization of the world and to the victory of the Jews, but that it would produce the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe. He based this prediction on the belief that the period of propaganda helplessness before Jewish influence over the non-Jewish peoples of Europe was at an end. He predicted that in a new World War, the same things would happen to them in other European countries that had already happened to them in Germany."

you're simply mistranslating his statements. please read what was posted totally demolishing that stupid, pathetic, and dishonest & deceptive mistranslation. hitler did not call to exterminate jews, nor do any holocaust historians seriously claim that's what he meant in that instance. you lose

>now explain why some jews denied that there were gas chambers
Lol the same reason why Jews said there were holocoasters and lamps?

You're not very bright. Are you?

>Ok, but then why were there dead Jews at the concentration camps if the nazis sole intention was to transport them?

typhus, starvation, etc

300,000 + recorded deaths in the camps. ZERO from gassing

NO "holocaust denier" denies that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS died in the camps. ZERO of them

please, for the love of god, read this: vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html
read this pic very carefully: you're asking goofy questons.

also, read this like 5 times over:

>Lol the same reason why Jews said there were holocoasters and lamps?
why do you think the small, cherry-picked minority of jews who said "i saw nazis gas jews" (but not the ones who said they saw it at bergen belsen, dachau, or buchenwald) were telling the truth?

please, be very specific. if you can (you can't!) name ONE (01) of the alleged MILLIONS of jews killed in a nazi gas chamebr

>You're not very bright. Are you?
at least i don't believe goofy jewish fairy tales

please i REALLY REALLY want the holocaust to be true.

nafcash.com/

^^^ $100,000 reward for proving it

so yeah, i pray EVERY NIGHT that it's true, i just see no reason to believe it. now, please, show the HUGE MASS GRAVES at the camps which are allegedly in EXACTLY KNOWN LOCATIONS so i can take my $100,000 reward

Ok, well let's recap what you two said so far. Essentially, the nazis, this group with a history of apartheid and antisemitism, have in the past seemingly "instigated" genocide but not really because they meant this metaphorically, and then sometimes nazis were coerced later into confessions as well, which is why the deaths at the camps are not really proof?

>sometimes nazis were coerced later into confessions as well,
But only sometimes, because you said sometimes nazis admitted fault willingly. But these admissions don't count for whatever reason.

Hitler is a good man who wanted the best for his people and defeating the international jew even in failure the man has my respects.
Look what is happening to our world after his lost so many lies about our history and belief's and smearing the man for 70 fucking years! Do you ask your self why they continue to do this?

>Essentially, the nazis, this group with a history of apartheid and antisemitism
yes, hitler HATED jews with a passion

>have in the past seemingly "instigated" genocide
nope, not at all. that literally didn't happen

> they meant this metaphorically
you're seriously mistranslating him. that's not what he said and not what any german person at the time understood it to mean

>sometimes nazis were coerced later into confessions as well
well this is simply not up to debate. how else do you explain nazis "confessing" to things that most certainly did not happen, according to 100% of historians?
many jews in the camps denied the alleged extermination, as did the vast majority of nazis after the war

>which is why the deaths at the camps are not really proof?
yeah ,the deaths at the camps (over 300,000) actually disprove the 'holocaust' as alleged. we have 300,000+ recorded deaths (see "bad arolsen" files) and literally *ZERO* are from homicidal gas chambers

nobody denies that jews died in camps, nobody. literally ZERO of them were killed in homicidal gas chambers

the "holocaust" conspiracy theory claims millions were...

millions allegedy gassed, but you can't name ONE (01) with proof!

Hitler has no intentions of exterminating them every jew from low to high tier got persecuted. That's it, all the guy wanted is them out of europe he didn't give a shit where they went or gone.

Attached: 1551400461944.png (813x835, 772K)

>you said sometimes nazis admitted fault willingly
yes they did because it was the most logical defense.

>But these admissions don't count for whatever reason
which one specifically? name names, please.

because some nazis "confessed" things that DID NOT HAPPEN. so they "don't count" because the confessions are fraudulent

remeber: the vast majority of nazis said there was no holocaust as alleged

>nazis admitted fault

i'd like to say NO THEY DID NOT

they AGREED with waht the NMT took "judicial notice" of (because denying it was NO DEFENSE) they simply said "i had nothing to do with it!!!!"

i'd give examples but you have provided 0

please read:

forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12287

literally exact quotes!

YES or NO -- do you believe a testimony is "reliable" if the person admitted to something that didn't happen because it's impossible? YES or NO?

One more thing nazi is a slur word for nsdap or national socialist.
Just incase you didn't know yet.

>Hitler is a good man who wanted the best for his people and defeating the international jew even in failure the man has my respects.
He dindunuffin!

>you're seriously mistranslating him. that's not what he said and not what any german person at the time understood it to mean
He said he was going to annihilate them! To his congress, and then recorded it. In any court of law this is seen as premeditation, which is likely why many of the nazis allegedly said they were unaware of the Holocaust.

>how else do you explain nazis "confessing" to things that most certainly did not happen, according to 100% of historians?
Why would a psychopath say he didn't murder those Jews then later plead insanity? It's simple, it's because he's trying to defend himself. He's lying for his life.

>yes they did because it was the most logical defense.
But then what about the reichstag speech? Hitler wasn't at the nuremberg trials when he said that. He had no reason to lie then.

It doesn't matter. Youre still yet to prove that Hitler was being metaphorical.

>He said he was going to annihilate them!
no he didn't. quote the EXACT GERMAN WORDS he used. he didn't say "exterminate" at all. quit mistranslating him, it's so dishonest and pathetic that your only "proof" is a mistranslation. post the original german so you can get shredded

>Why would a psychopath say he didn't murder those Jews then later plead insanity? It's simple, it's because he's trying to defend himself. He's lying for his life.
so you admit people "confessed" to things they didn't do because they were lying

no, tell me which "confession" to gassing jews you believe is not a lie?

BE
VERY
SPECIFIC

>But then what about the reichstag speech?
it doesn't say what you're saying he said.

this is a better translation, more accurate:

>"We are clear that the war can come to an end only either with the extermination of the Aryan peoples or with disappearance of the Jews from Europe."

it also fits better with actual documents

>Youre still yet to prove that Hitler was being metaphorical.
no need to. it's simply a mistranslation. i've quoted many experts who agree with this

all the documents on the "Final solution" agree 100% with this. EVERY
SINGLE
DOCUMENT

>One more thing nazi is a slur word for nsdap or national socialist.
He's sad because someone on the internet was mean to him. Why do you care? People say worse things on here. Nazi seems like one of the less egregious words to use.

here's a larger excerpt rather than simply taking 1 sentence out of context:

JANUARY 30 1939:
>Once again I will be a prophet: should the international Jewry of finance (Finanzjudentum) succeed, both within and beyond Europe, in plunging mankind into yet another world war, then the result will not be a Bolshevization of the earth and the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation/disappearance (Vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe. Thus, the days of propagandist impotence of the non-Jewish peoples are over. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy possess institutions which, if necessary, permit opening the eyes of the world to the true nature of this problem.

>Many a people is instinctively aware of this, albeit not scientifically versed in it.

>At this moment, the Jews are still propagating their campaign of hatred in certain states under the cover of press, film, radio, theater, and literature, which are all in their hands. Should indeed this one Volk attain its goal of prodding masses of millions from other peoples to enter into a war devoid of all sense for them, and serving the interests of the Jews exclusively, then the effectiveness of an enlightenment will once more display its might. Within Germany, this enlightenment conquered Jewry utterly in the span of a few years.

Hitler's own words utterly debunk your mistranslation hoax

Later references to that prophecy...

January 30, 1941:
> Finally this year will help to assure the basis for understanding between the peoples, and thereby, for their reconciliation. I do not want to miss pointing out what I pointed out on 3rd of September [1940] (in fact, on January 30, 1939) in the German Reichstag, that IF JEWRY WERE TO PLUNGE THE WORLD INTO WAR, THE ROLE OF JEWRY WOULD BE FINISHED IN EUROPE. They may laugh about it today, as they laughed before about my prophecies. The coming months and years will prove that I prophesied rightly in this case too. But we can see already how our racial peoples which are today still hostile to us will one day recognise the greater inner enemy, and that they too will then enter with us into a great common front: the front of Aryan mankind against Jewish-International exploitation and destruction of nations.

more statements by Hitler utterly debunking your hoax mistranslation

Hitler, July 24, 1942; H. Picker, Hitlers Tischgesprche im Fuehrerhaupt quartier (Stuttgart: 1976), p. 456:
>The Jews are interested in Europe for economic reasons, but Europe must reject them, if only out of self-interest, because the Jews are racially tougher. After this war is over, I will rigorously hold to the view ... that the Jews will have to leave and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state.

>no he didn't. quote the EXACT GERMAN WORDS he used. he didn't say "exterminate" at all. quit mistranslating him, it's so dishonest and pathetic that your only "proof" is a mistranslation. post the original german so you can get shredded
Ok.

>Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa!

Plug it in to your preferred translator, screen shot it, then post it on the thread.

words change meaning over time, but in this case, it didn't even change meaning, really. you're ignoring all the counter-evidence, not even addressing it

once again, see Hoggan's quote:
Butz's quote: Judge Charles Gray: Hitler's own statements: Further, let's just break it down. he is in no way saying he wants to physically exterminate jews. that's not part of the quote. he's only making a "prophecy"

In his speech at the Berlin Sportpalast of January 30, 1942:
>“We realize that this war can only end like this: either the Aryan peoples will be exterminated (ausgerottet werden) or Judaism will vanish from Europe (das Judentum aus Europa verschwindet). On September 1, 1939 [actually, on 30 January 1939], I have told the German Reichstag once before – and I shy away from risky prophecies – that this war will not end the way the Jews think, that is with the Aryan peoples of Europe being exterminated (ausgerottet werden), but that the result of this war will be the annihilation of Judaism (die Vernichtung des Judentums). […] And the day will come when the worst enemy of mankind will have finished his role, perhaps at least for a thousand years.”

you're REALLY grasping at straws here LOL!

More tirades against the Jews which somehow "proves" that Hitler wasn't reffering to genocide.

I think you're in denial

>Hitler wasn't reffering to genocide.
he obviously wasn't, his own statements prove that

>you're in denial
it was a "prophecy" anyway.

If I said:
>If WW3 happens, jews will be annihilated

does that mean i plan to personally exterminate them? nah

he wasn't referring to genocide, and he certainly wasn't referring to any nazi policy

>words change meaning over time, but in this case, it didn't even change meaning, really. you're ignoring all the counter-evidence, not even addressing it
Ok, so you're not going to do what I asked you. The past 10 minutes you were crying about me mistranslating the German. Now is your chance to vindicate yourself. Why won't you plug the passage into a translator and post the result so you can "shred" me? Lol

>you're ignoring all the counter-evidence, not even addressing it
Dindu's are not arguments. They're typically lies. You even admitted it yourself.

According to the narrative, Jews extermination was supposed to be kept secret. This example shows that they can't keep their lies straight. See: Here are Hitler's following words (30 January 1939 speech) that debunk the alleged "annihilation". The source come from a french journal (La documentation catholique, April 1939) quoted by french revisionist Vincent Reynouard.

>Indeed, the time is no longer when non-Jewish people were defenseless in the field of propaganda. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy now have institutions which enable them, if needed, to enlighten the world on the nature of an issue of which many peoples have an instinctive notion, but which seems obscure to them, from the scientific point of view. For the moment, Jewry can, in some States, carry out its campaign with the help of a press that is in its hands, cinema, radio, theater, literature, etc. However, in the event that the Jews succeed again in inciting millions of human beings to a senseless struggle with regard to them, and whose sole object is the defense of Jewish interests, we will see the effectiveness of a educative propaganda which, in Germany itself, succeeded in a few years in defeating Jewry.

As we can see, it was not a question of a physical annihilation by a systematic assassination, but of a social annihilation (expulsion of the economic life).

There's nothing to "refute"

It is a mistranslation. The modern "translator" is irrelevant in context of 1930s speeches

The whole thing is meaningless. even if he said
"I PROHPECIZE THE JEWS WILL BE PHYSICALLY MURDERED ONE BY ONE"

that doesn't mean he intended to do it.

Ergo, even if your translation is TOTALLY ACCURATE, it doesn't support the claim that hitler INTENDED to exterminate jews physically, at all

His own statements after that refute the claim!

Hitler's own statements: FACTS:
- Hitler never once stated any policy to exterminate jews
- There is no nazi document ordering extermination of jews
- Every "Final Solution" document defines the policy as deportation/resettlement
- A "Prophecy" is not a claim of intent to enact any certain policy. It's simply a PREDICTION

>does that mean i plan to personally exterminate them? nah
Well, I'll give you credit because I feel bad for you. You are correct in that sense. Threats are empty until you can actually act on them. In the case of Hitler and the nazis, those actions were death camps, the gas in them, and the several nazis admitting to them.

Seems like a straightforward case.

>he wasn't referring to genocide, and he certainly wasn't referring to any nazi policy
Lol but you haven't given proof of this at all.

>Dindu's are not arguments. They're typically lies. You even admitted it yourself.

So basically you're just ignoring all the counter arguments, and fraudulently conflating a "prophecy" with "i will personally do this myself!"

laughable

that's all you have? it's pathetic. it also refutes the standard holocaust story, see: According to US Judge Leon Powers "not over 100 people in all were informed" about the attempted extermination. As with many other conspiracy theories, the lack of physical evidence and the scarcity of alleged eyewitness testimonies were seen as convincing proof that the Nazis had something to hide and that they had successfully managed to do it.

ONCE AGAIN:
>"not over 100 people in all were informed" about the attempted extermination

how is that possible if hitler allegedly explained his desire to exterminate jews in a PUBLIC AND RECORDED SPEECH????

(he didn't, even if your mistranslation is taken as accurate, when it isn't)

>Well, I'll give you credit because I feel bad for you.
LOL! it's a fact. he simply "predicted" it was nothing more

>. In the case of Hitler and the nazis, those actions were death camps, the gas in them,

no jew was ever killed by poison gas

>and the several nazis admitting to them.
name ONE (01) nazi "confession" of gassing that is legitimate. most denied it. the ones who "confessed" were either tortured or lying, prove me wrong

>Seems like a straightforward case.
it's not though. there is no proof any jew was gassed. it's just a small number of cherry-picked "testimony" (ignoring the fact that many "i saw gas chambers" testimony is universally dismissed as lies) and a few "confessions" that are either from torture or just to save their ass

>Lol but you haven't given proof of this at all.
it's self-evident. nothing in the quote suggests either, not sure why you think it does? he's simply saying it's a "prophecy" and in later allusions he specifically mentions it's not physical extermination, but removal

Hitler, July 24, 1942; H. Picker, Hitlers Tischgesprche im Fuehrerhaupt quartier (Stuttgart: 1976), p. 456:
>The Jews are interested in Europe for economic reasons, but Europe must reject them, if only out of self-interest, because the Jews are racially tougher. After this war is over, I will rigorously hold to the view ... that the Jews will have to leave and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state.

>There's nothing to "refute"
An excellent critique of your half-brained, nazi arguments

Stop replying to me. I'm done talking to you

Let's assume "Vernichtung" literally only means physical extermination (something refuted above). Let's just play with that assumption.

That was a threat Hitler issued in 1939, in order to avert the allies from engaging in war with Germany, even though Hitler does not specify that the Jews will be exterminated by Germany. He only says that the extermination would be the result of a war. In other places he mentions that a second world war would cause a rise of antisemitism in every nation that got dragged into the war, so we might interpret that both ways.

It could easily be construed as a prediction that the European people will just go around killing every single jew they could get their hands on!

Please explain exactly what I said that was wrong. BE SPECIFIC

>Stop replying to me. I'm done talking to you
stupid little incel realized he obsessed over a speech which absolutely in no way whatsoever suggests Hitler had a policy of exterminating jews LOL! it doesn't support your stupid "holocaust" story AT ALL

You're new here, aren't you?

yeah and the whole quote in context utterly refutes the stupid assertion: read: >That was a threat Hitler issued in 1939, in order to avert the allies from engaging in war with Germany, even though Hitler does not specify that the Jews will be exterminated by Germany. He only says that the extermination would be the result of a war. In other places he mentions that a second world war would cause a rise of antisemitism in every nation that got dragged into the war, so we might interpret that both ways.

FACT:

you can't name ONE (01) jew that was gassed by nazis! you can't!

you can't even name ONE (01) legitimate "testimony" that says nazis gassed jews

Just make a note that everyone who tells you the Holocaust did not happen will also tell you to gas the kikes.

Lol, the fucking shadows on the guy proves the top pic was faked.