The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Bonesjones]

After WWII, the Nazi association became the death knell for Eugenics, and the practice is most closely connected to them, but what you are referring to was not limited to the Nazi party, nor were they the first.

They never dropped eugenics, just changed it to psychology and who the targets are.

 

[Imperial Citizen]

Germany was at war. Euthanasing the disabled who had no quality of life and who also run the risk of being abandoned and left to starve to death as the war worsened or abused and brutally murdered by the invading Red army was the lesser of two evils.

No other government during the war went out of their way to kill their own disabled population. The resources spent killing the disabled could have been used to support the war effort, but the Nazis chose to enact mass murder instead.

 

[Bonesjones]

No other government during the war went out of their way to kill their own disabled population. The resources spent killing the disabled could have been used to support the war effort, but the Nazis chose to enact mass murder instead.

Yeah they should have used them as dinner like in the Holomdor. Euthanasia is such an evil idea, it's only pushed and practiced openly in Canada, America, and pretty much every other modern country.

 

[cigint]

No other government during the war went out of their way to kill their own disabled population. The resources spent killing the disabled could have been used to support the war effort, but the Nazis chose to enact mass murder instead.

I didn't think it would be so hilarious to see the moral question of whether it is better to kill disabled people, or any group, via actively euthanizing them like Nazi Germany or just by deliberately starving them to death like the USSR and other communists, approached from the perspective of active euthanasia being particularly more deplorable due to the strain it puts on warfighting resources.

 

[Kiwi Sneed Snake]

How can someone explain away the horrors committed by Nazis and those aligned with them regarding the disabled? I am not talking about bumbling, incapable retards, I am talking those with birth defects and so on. How could you explain away such evil?

This old chestnut again :

Being a mongo/spaz in say Britain, America or most of Europe at the time meant being chained to a bed in your own piss and shit. Usually physically, mentally and sexually abused by the very people charged with looking after you. Not to mention the enlightning medical "treatments" such as frontal lobe lobotomy, electro shock "therapy" etc you'd be subjected to.

The state only had limited funds to deal with disabled people and if you where poor like 99% of disabled people that meant poorly ran state asylums. Which meant a lot of twisted shit could go on behind the scenes.

Funny thing is they where still doing all the above well into the late 1970's, 25/30 years after the evil nazis where defeated. They even used forced sterilization unwillingly on thousands of woman in the UK/USA during the 1970's who had learning difficulties etc. without there knowledge/consent.
Retard babies where literially just left to die, in some cases for certain conditions this continued into the 1990s in the west.

I think I would have prefered to be tipped in the furnace or shot in the head given the choice.
Muh evil Nazis (plus every other cunt at the time).

 

[Blue Flying Leaf]

The issue with retards and disabled people is that they are net negative on society unless you run medical experiments on them or use them for other purposes, like organ harvesting and so on. In the past, they maybe served as free fodder for wolves, so the rest of non-retards survived.
The only value they have is to their parents which cannot be externalized and even after a few years it's over and just becomes a burden.
In a society where goverment overlooks all aspects of family, for better of worse and seeks maximum wealth-labour extraction from people, of course it will be determined to remove the burden and maximize economic pointers.
The same reasoning is used for injured soldiers in military. The only reason they save those people is because it would otherwise hurt morale.
Goverment has no loyalty to the population and where every aspect is valued economically, horrible things happen.

Eugenics never went away. It just moved and hid itself. If you are stupid - don't do well in school - cannot get good jobs and have worse life expectancy for it. If you are poor and educated you are basically invisible and disposable to society.
Entire eugenics ideology is deeply ingrained in the system. Only the obedient have prospects in government, free thinkers get offed.
The very reason that that exists results in actual disgenics and a total degeneration of nation over time.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

I’m interested to know why any of you accept the term “Holocaust” as applicable to the allegation against Germany concerning their treatment of Jews during WWII

It was a word used from time to time before if you read old newspapers reffering to fires. I think it's applicable to the degree that the narrative depends on open air fire pits.

 

[Scritti Politti]

I find Holocaust denial to be pointless, because it was ultimately Nazism-as-system taken to its logical conclusion i.e. overlapping spheres of Nazi racial policy, Nazi legal policy, Nazi foreign policy, Nazi economic policy, Nazi health policy, Nazi military policy, and Nazi theology. That is, to deny the Holocaust is to deny the existence of the Nazi state.

In that, I'm more of a functionalist than an intentionalist.

 

[Sheriff of CWCville]

I personally remain unconvinced of the traditional Holocaust narrative. I believe Jews were persecuted socially and economically, but that a German mass extermination plan is simply wartime and post-war propaganda perpetuated by Jews and Soviets (not that there is much distinction there). I don’t consider myself a neo-Nazi, and would likely identify as apolitical if forced to. My main sources have come from the Institute for Historical Review, with one of the most helpful introductory texts being “The Hoax of the 20th Century” by Arthur Butz. After reading through a good bit of Revisionist literature, my next move was to find texts by traditional Holocaust historians that combat the central points raised by Revisionists. To my surprise, there didn’t seem to be much that was authored in good faith (at least that I could access on my own).

One of the few direct responses I could find was penned by Deborah Lepstadt, which I found totally lacking in scholarly merit and ripe with ad hominem attacks and straw-manning. It was essentially a short essay attempting to frame the nature of all Holocaust Revisionists as rabid antisemites divorced from reality without confronting any of the most central claims of Revisionists on the whole. I am also aware of the circumstances behind the Lepstadt-Irving trial, which does little to indicate that Lepstadt is a good-faith actor.

The other direct responses I found were regarding the findings of the Leuchter Report, which admittedly is a little beyond my pay grade to interpret as a layman. I remained unconvinced of the arguments raised by the traditionalist camp after examining the back-and-fourth, however, but am willing to admit I may not be capable of accurately interpreting the arguments on that specific issue. I will also say that it was perhaps the most civil argument surrounding both camps that I have yet to find, as it was almost totally scientific in nature.

To those who fall into the camp of traditional Holocaust believers, can you point me towards any texts that directly combat Revisionist arguments in a way that holds scholastic merit and is done in good faith? After browsing this thread for a little I still remain unconvinced of the traditional narrative for the same logistical issues raised by those on the side of Revisionism, but I am legitimately interested in seeing the arguments confronted to weed out the good from the bad.

 

[Black Man Underwear]

Free food, pools, hookers, sounds like a fun vacation spot.

 

[John.Doe]

I find Holocaust denial to be pointless, because it was ultimately Nazism-as-system taken to its logical conclusion

Really? If the Nazis thought Jews were disgusting vermin they why would they want soap made from them, or lampshades of their skin? Is is logical to engineer roller coasters to dump them into ovens, and train wild animals like bears and eagles to maul them, or masturbation machines to kill them - and of course, gas chambers so faulty you can survive by holding your breath? I don't see how you go logically from point A to point B here.

 

[Scritti Politti]

Really? If the Nazis thought Jews were disgusting vermin they why would they want soap made from them, or lampshades of their skin? Is is logical to engineer roller coasters to dump them into ovens, and train wild animals like bears and eagles to maul them, or masturbation machines to kill them - and of course, gas chambers so faulty you can survive by holding your breath? I don't see how you go logically from point A to point B here.

The human soap and human lampshade anecdotes are an amusing bit of trivia, but trivia nonetheless.

Your view of the Nazi perception of the Jew lacks nuance. The Jew filled many roles in Nazi Germany, depending who you were talking to: partisan, useful boogeyman, useless eaters, guinea pigs, existential menace, exploitable resource, sex slave, vermin, and so on.

 

[John.Doe]

Your view of the Nazi perception of the Jew lacks nuance.

Okay, then explain to me in simple terms that I can understand, how "Nazi racial policy, Nazi legal policy, Nazi foreign policy, Nazi economic policy, Nazi health policy, Nazi military policy, and Nazi theology" leads to the use of Jew fat for soap, Jew skin for lamps, roller coasters that dump them into ovens, trained bear/eagle executioners, electrified floors, death by masturbation machine, faulty gas chambers etc.

 

[Mr. Frank Einstein Ràtheo]

I made some videos I think yall would appreciate @MasterRaceFrankensteinRadio or Good Joujoux on YouTube. There is a series in a playlist called The Imperial Faggot, which teaches about magic and community organizing from jewishencyclopedia.com, and cross-references those articles with a book I got from 1770 about the magical slavery of the Russians at that time.

I also published a video called Good books for bad goys that has been viewed over 50k times in the past week, which leads with an intro to the Talmud. Check it out. Come join the conversation.

Mike and his gang and the nature of American Naziism will be covered pretty in-depth soon.

 

[Scritti Politti]

Okay, then explain to me in simple terms that I can understand, how "Nazi racial policy, Nazi legal policy, Nazi foreign policy, Nazi economic policy, Nazi health policy, Nazi military policy, and Nazi theology" leads to the use of Jew fat for soap, Jew skin for lamps, roller coasters that dump them into ovens, trained bear/eagle executioners, electrified floors, death by masturbation machine, faulty gas chambers etc.

The factors I listed were all individual segments contributing to a systematic whole: the dehumanization of Jews for the ultimate purposes of extermination. Neither the process (dehumanization) nor the outcome (extermination) are in dispute.

Everything else, as I said, is an assortment of amusing trivia combined with a smattering of anti-Nazi canards. Every war has its legends and half-truths; even wars of annihilation. The existence of said legends and half-truths do not negate the existence of the war in question.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

People treated differently because of their ethnic backgrounds, rounded up and put into camps. No group of people should be forced to go through that experience.

Well yes and no. I've always believed the holocaust happened as exhibited in various Holocaust museums across the US. The question that's rarely asked and in fact punished isn't the denial of the holocaust but whether it was justified. from a nontheistic pov, I doubt you would make the case that gypos should exist and offer positive benefits to societies. From there you can start chipping away the altar of "victims" and realize that it was an acceptable response to a real problem. And certainly there were real grievences against jews and queers just like there is today.
To prevent another holocaust the jews of today need to police their own and their greed so the goyim aren't angered.

 

[John.Doe]

The factors I listed were all individual segments contributing to a systematic whole: the dehumanization of Jews for the ultimate purposes of extermination. Neither the process (dehumanization) nor the outcome (extermination) are in dispute.

So again, you link an abstract concept (dehumanization) to another abstract goal (extermination) which may or may not track. Regardless of if it does or not, a link in abstracts does not prove that real world events occurred. I might really want to fuck a celebrity for a number of reasons, but that does not mean that I clapped the cheeks of an Oscar winning actor, since the abstract idea of my raging homosexual man-lust is not related 1:1 with my success in banging Hollywood's hottest men.

Furthermore, the outcome is in dispute, I dispute it, and so you must actually produce evidence to prove your conclusion. So far, all you have said is, "I think they wanted it to happen, so it happened, deadly masturbation machines and trained bear and eagle combos and all." Which is not sufficient.

You can't even explain how the philosophy you claim exists could have logically led to the amusement parks of death you say 'aren't in dispute.' So what is your fucking point?

 

[Scritti Politti]

So far, all you have said is, "I think they wanted it to happen, so it happened, deadly masturbation machines and trained bear and eagle combos and all." Which is not sufficient.

It's easy to say something is "not sufficient" when I never made the quoted argument. You're the one who keeps bringing up anti-Nazi canards!

You can't even explain how the philosophy you claim exists could have logically led to the amusement parks of death you say 'aren't in dispute.' So what is your fucking point?

We've been over this. My point was and is: the Holocaust occurred, and it was "Nazism-as-system taken to its logical conclusion i.e. overlapping spheres of Nazi racial policy, Nazi legal policy, Nazi foreign policy, Nazi economic policy, Nazi health policy, Nazi military policy, and Nazi theology." I was perfectly clear on this, and it would be more intellectually honest if you were to engage on this particular point rather than throw red herrings in my path and put words in my mouth.

 

[Oligarca Caballero]

The issue with retards and disabled people is that they are net negative on society unless you run medical experiments on them or use them for other purposes, like organ harvesting and so on. In the past, they maybe served as free fodder for wolves, so the rest of non-retards survived.
The only value they have is to their parents which cannot be externalized and even after a few years it's over and just becomes a burden.
In a society where goverment overlooks all aspects of family, for better of worse and seeks maximum wealth-labour extraction from people, of course it will be determined to remove the burden and maximize economic pointers.
The same reasoning is used for injured soldiers in military. The only reason they save those people is because it would otherwise hurt morale.
Goverment has no loyalty to the population and where every aspect is valued economically, horrible things happen.

Eugenics never went away. It just moved and hid itself. If you are stupid - don't do well in school - cannot get good jobs and have worse life expectancy for it. If you are poor and educated you are basically invisible and disposable to society.
Entire eugenics ideology is deeply ingrained in the system. Only the obedient have prospects in government, free thinkers get offed.
The very reason that that exists results in actual disgenics and a total degeneration of nation over time.

That's a subproduct of the mercantilization of human life implicit in liberal ideology (which in itself is a product of modernity, the same modernity responsible for reducing human beings to cogs in the machine). It doesn't make eugenics any less abhorrent, specially the one that the national socialist government intended on practicing. It does however put into perspective how national socialism was just one of the many evils that modernist ideologies brought forward and not le big bad jews want to present it as, because it affects them as a political class.

I find Holocaust denial to be pointless, because it was ultimately Nazism-as-system taken to its logical conclusion i.e. overlapping spheres of Nazi racial policy, Nazi legal policy, Nazi foreign policy, Nazi economic policy, Nazi health policy, Nazi military policy, and Nazi theology. That is, to deny the Holocaust is to deny the existence of the Nazi state.

In that, I'm more of a functionalist than an intentionalist.

It's not pointless if you want to legitimize counter hegemonic narratives. After World War II national socialism and fascism got delegitimized as political alternatives and their ideas and actions demonized so the respective liberal and marxist elites couldn't be defied with these particularly powerful political platforms. Thus the holocaust as a myth was born.

The holocaust is a myth not because it didn't happen but because it has serves the purpose of upholding an almost religious narrative beneficial to a very powerful sociopolitical class, jewry. By presenting the holocaust as the ultimate evil they can get scott free with a lot of awful shit, including of course getting their ethnostate in the middle east. The neomarxist (in other words, liberal) austrian school made a lot of emphasis on thinking about jewry from the lens of the holocaust, thinking about jews as anything other than victims is literally a second shoah and deserves punishment in the free and tolerant open society.

What is important is not if it happened, I am sure most of the people engaging in this ultimately pointless conversation don't even give a shit about that (as if anyone gave a shit about the truth in the postmodern world), but the uses the narrative has in the sustainment of a modern myth. Naturally knocking down the holocaust as a myth would allow exposing jews as the as the vermin they are for society, the very same reason they have been expelled from so many places troughout history, which naturally is undesirable for them.

 

[John.Doe]

It's easy to say something is "not sufficient" when I never made the quoted argument.

You said that it isn't in dispute, without qualifiers, which means you believe that your extremely abstract musings somehow prove that deadly masturbation machines existed and were used. I just don't understand how you get from Point A to Point B, and you refuse to explain. Instead you just call any criticism of your incredibly weak argument a matter of 'trivia'.

You're not even making an argument, really. You just claim that 'Nazism as a system would lead to genocide' and somehow handwave that what you surmise is the philosophical endpoint of a political ideology somehow proves that a genocide (complete with trained bears/eagles, death rollercoasters, etc) actually, factually happened. When asked how - in detail - your stated premises support the conclusion you say is not in dispute you refuse to even engage or try.

Essentially all you've posted is "I think the Holocaust is real because Nazis were mean!" which is far from compelling.