Best evidence that proves the Holocaust occurred

[Cornfed]

All that being said, the Holocaust was a real thing and millions were deported into Nazis hands en masse and were used for labor, and systematically killed off all because they were doing far better than Hitler thought they should be doing.

That's the calling card of the loser, killing off the people you cannot out compete.

So childlike.

[fschmidt]

Why are you so wedded to the holohoax narrative? The fact that some of my relatives died in the war doesn't cause me to think the war was a conspiracy to wipe out my family.

My parents witnessed what happened in Hungary where most of the jewish population disappeared. And this just confirms the evidence which seems plentiful including what was linked to in the initial post in this thread.

I don't see why anyone would want to argue about this. Genocide against various groups has been common in history. A sensible white nationalist would rightly argue that the jewish holocaust was nothing special and that there were plenty of other cases where large numbers of people died like the Holodomor and the Turkish extermination of Armenians. This is a much stronger argument against the sacred status of the Holocaust.

[Cornfed]

Why are you so wedded to the holohoax narrative? The fact that some of my relatives died in the war doesn't cause me to think the war was a conspiracy to wipe out my family.

My parents witnessed what happened in Hungary where most of the jewish population disappeared.

Of course they disappeared. They went to internment camps. Sure, at that late stage of the war with little food and medicine available, many of them died there.

I don't see why anyone would want to argue about this. Genocide against various groups has been common in history. A sensible white nationalist would rightly argue that the jewish holocaust was nothing special and that there were plenty of other cases where large numbers of people died like the Holodomor and the Turkish extermination of Armenians. This is a much stronger argument against the sacred status of the Holocaust.

If that were true, people would say that. It just so happens that it obviously isn’t.

[gsjackson]

You forgot some commas in your post fschmidt just letting you know.

If this is sarcasm about me putting on a grammar cop hat and chiding Contrarian Expatriate for mangling a metaphor, bear in mind that he consigned Kradmelder, an engineer who expressed himself competently, to permanent white trash ignoramus status for using an expression like "very unique."

It's an unusual twist for sarcasm to reflect back self-deprecatingly on the writer by illustrating the very deficiency it purports (presumably tongue-in-cheek) to critique, but I'm sure Winston welcomes adventurous forays into expression.

OK, no more grammar cop.

[Winston]

In case anyone's interested, I just uploaded the video footage of my trip to Auschwitz in 2005. It's almost 40 min long. I visited both camps, 1 and 2. It shows me flirting with two Polish girls at the beginning. lol

[Winston]

The article in the OP does make a good point. If the Holocaust didn't happen, then how come the Nazi officers on trial at Nuremberg didn't deny that it happened? Some of them were scheduled to be executed, such as Herman Goering, so they had nothing to lose by exposing it anyway, if it were a hoax. They could have made a melodramatic scene about it. So why didn't they? None of the Holocaust revisionists have explained this or addressed it.

When was the Holocaust an issue? Before the Nuremberg Trials or after them?

But on the other hand, the Holocaust defenders haven't explained why there are so many news articles between 1898 and 1940 that mention 6 million Jewish victims either. That seems to be a predestined number for some reason. Perhaps it's Kabbalistic. But none of the Holocaust defenders ever address it. They just ignore it.

I don't think most of the revisionists are deniers. They are just revisionists who claim that the Holocaust happened but that it was exaggerated.

But I still don't understand why the Holocaust gets the most attention though. What about the Bolshevik Holocaust that killed far more than 6 million people? Why doesn't the media focus on that?

[Winston]

Holocaust deniers have a tough row to hoe. Given the fact that it occurred relatively recently, there are photos, video footage, and eyewitness accounts from people of different countries and nationalities, including Germans and American soldiers.

You would have a better go of it trying to deny the French Revolution or the Spanish Inquisition.

There will always be debate of the estimates of victims, but the fact that it occurred is incontrovertible as a matter of historical record.

The real aim of the holocaust denier is to foment resentment and hate against Jews as "liars" so as to justify subjugating them yet again. Not a good look in my opinion.

But isn't the problem that the photos and videos only show very skinny bodies, and not victims in gas chambers? Where are the videos of people being gassed? If they were starved to death, then they couldn't have been gassed first. I don't get it. Why would the Nazis take the time to starve them? Especially if they wanted to make them work in the camps to help supply the Nazi military. The Holocaust videos never explain this properly.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Holocaust deniers have a tough row to hoe. Given the fact that it occurred relatively recently, there are photos, video footage, and eyewitness accounts from people of different countries and nationalities, including Germans and American soldiers.

You would have a better go of it trying to deny the French Revolution or the Spanish Inquisition.

There will always be debate of the estimates of victims, but the fact that it occurred is incontrovertible as a matter of historical record.

The real aim of the holocaust denier is to foment resentment and hate against Jews as "liars" so as to justify subjugating them yet again. Not a good look in my opinion.

But isn't the problem that the photos and videos only show very skinny bodies, and not victims in gas chambers? Where are the videos of people being gassed? If they were starved to death, then they couldn't have been gassed first. I don't get it. Why would the Nazis take the time to starve them? Especially if they wanted to make them work in the camps to help supply the Nazi military. The Holocaust videos never explain this properly.

I've met people, both in Israel and in America, who have had family members killed so I give them far more credibility than some idiotic deniers who can only mindlessly say, "It didn't happen."

The evidence based reasoning on which I rely tells me that accounts from liberating soldiers, survivors, and eyewitness accounts, validate the photo and video footage.

In giving credence to an argument, I always first consider the source. The sources of the Holocaust denials are simply not of the caliber I would tend to pay attention to, nor can their agitating agendas be ignored. These people deny the Holocaust to provoke discord, backlash, and distress to a traumatized people whom are the Jews.

Granted, there are countless examples of genocide and ethnic slaughter in the world, Armenians, Assyrians, Albanians, Native Americans, all have ugly histories of slaughter. But the combination of proximity in time and severity of impact make the Holocaust a bit of a special case.

Every group tends to believe their people tend to shoulder the biggest woes, whites included. But Jews have faced extermination attempts for generations and the Holocaust was the closest to succeeding.

I'm not particularly interested in the subject, but if you are, I would encourage you to review the evidence of the Nuremberg Trials, Holocaust museums, and scholarly books on the subject.

The deniers have the luxury of only having to deny, but people of intellect and virtue seek out credible resources and the historical record to support their conclusions. I trust that if you do that, you will have ample evidence to support the claim.

[Cornfed]

I've met people, both in Israel and in America, who have had family members killed so I give them far more credibility than some idiotic deniers who can only mindlessly say, "It didn't happen."

The evidence based reasoning on which I rely tells me that accounts from liberating soldiers, survivors, and eyewitness accounts, validate the photo and video footage.

I had relatives who were killed in WWII as well. Does that mean if I said X million people of British Isles descent were murdered in a deliberate attempt to exterminate all of us and we should therefore have financial compensation and political power lavished on us for all time, do you have to just accept it? Just because of the provable fact that some people died?

As to eyewitnesses, if these are all believable then naturally we would have to believe all the #metoo bullshit, that the British royal family are shapeshifting reptiles etc. It is not like any testimony could be bribed or coerced. What compelling eyewitness evidence are you aware of?

[gsjackson]

I've met people, both in Israel and in America, who have had family members killed so I give them far more credibility than some idiotic deniers who can only mindlessly say, "It didn't happen."

The evidence based reasoning on which I rely tells me that accounts from liberating soldiers, survivors, and eyewitness accounts, validate the photo and video footage.

I had relatives who were killed in WWII as well. Does that mean if I said X million people of British Isles descent were murdered in a deliberate attempt to exterminate all of us and we should therefore have financial compensation and political power lavished on us for all time, do you have to just accept it? Just because of the provable fact that some people died?

As to eyewitnesses, if these are all believable then naturally we would have to believe all the #metoo bullshit, that the British royal family are shapeshifting reptiles etc. It is not like any testimony could be bribed or coerced. What compelling eyewitness evidence are you aware of?

The "liberating soldiers" would be mostly in the Red Army, since they were the ones who ran the Germans out of a large majority the camps. These were the same guys who savagely ravaged Germany once they'd gained control, under the direction of a government renowned for taking propaganda to new heights, which saw itself in a battle to the death -- including propaganda -- with Nazi Germany. The credibility quotient of these soldiers?

What Americans saw at Buchenwald was almost certainly the results of a cholera epidemic that wiped out far more than the camp inmate population. And a typhus epidemic at Dachau

[Winston]

Did anyone see my video of my trip to Auschwitz above? If so what did you guys think?

Does typhus still exist? How come you never hear of anyone getting it anymore? Is there a cure for it now? Was it wiped out through vaccines or antibiotics?

CE, where are the photos of people dying in gas chambers? We only see photos of people who are all skin and bones, which suggests starvation. What does that mean or prove exactly?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I've met people, both in Israel and in America, who have had family members killed so I give them far more credibility than some idiotic deniers who can only mindlessly say, "It didn't happen."

The evidence based reasoning on which I rely tells me that accounts from liberating soldiers, survivors, and eyewitness accounts, validate the photo and video footage.

I had relatives who were killed in WWII as well. Does that mean if I said X million people of British Isles descent were murdered in a deliberate attempt to exterminate all of us and we should therefore have financial compensation and political power lavished on us for all time, do you have to just accept it? Just because of the provable fact that some people died?

As to eyewitnesses, if these are all believable then naturally we would have to believe all the #metoo bullshit, that the British royal family are shapeshifting reptiles etc. It is not like any testimony could be bribed or coerced. What compelling eyewitness evidence are you aware of?

The "liberating soldiers" would be mostly in the Red Army, since they were the ones who ran the Germans out of a large majority the camps. These were the same guys who savagely ravaged Germany once they'd gained control, under the direction of a government renowned for taking propaganda to new heights, which saw itself in a battle to the death -- including propaganda -- with Nazi Germany. The credibility quotient of these soldiers?

What Americans saw at Buchenwald was almost certainly the results of a cholera epidemic that wiped out far more than the camp inmate population. And a typhus epidemic at Dachau

The fact that the Red Army's accounts matched those of American Soldiers and British soldiers at Bergen Bergen, lends great credibility to their claims.

But the soldiers know only so much, the SURVIVORS had accounts of the systematic treatment and tactics the Nazis used, including gas chambers.

Finally, while we're well aware of your negative views on Jews in general (not sure what that's about), what is to say that cholera and typhus were not employed to exterminate prisoners? How many German soldiers died from cholera and typhus?

Wiping out a population is wiping out a population, regardless of the means.....

[Cornfed]

The fact that the Red Army's accounts matched those of American Soldiers and British soldiers at Bergen Bergen, lends great credibility to their claims.

Agreement about what exactly? That the inmates were starving and suffering from lack of medical supplies? That described much of Europe and indeed the world at the time. And everyone agrees that Bergen-Belsen was not an extermination camp. In fact it was a model camp that the Nazis kept in good condition for as long as they could. The horrible conditions only occurred when they physically could not supply it.

Take the case of famous inmate Anne Frank. Conditions deteriorated due to lack of supplies, so she got typhus. She was given medicine and was cured. Conditions deteriorated further and she got typhus again. There was no medicine left, so she died. Sad, but hardly genocide.

You would have to provide specific evidence.

[MrMan]

Agreement about what exactly? That the inmates were starving and suffering from lack of medical supplies? That described much of Europe and indeed the world at the time. And everyone agrees that Bergen-Belsen was not an extermination camp. In fact it was a model camp that the Nazis kept in good condition for as long as they could. The horrible conditions only occurred when they physically could not supply it.

If that is the case, are you angry at the Nazis for keeping it in good shape?

[Winston]

Polish Professor woman explains why holocaust denial is wrong.