He’s not daft. But speaking with Palumbo he’s going on about conspiracies and stuff like the Leuchter report, which is clearly nonsensical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuchter_report

I'm not familiar enough with that specific case, but I don't blame Dorian for questioning the whole 6 million story. I mean a quick google search will show roughly 500,000 Jews living in Germany and bordering countries in 1933. So after the population that fled and or were never killed we are expected to believe 500,000 turned into 6 million? That 6 million is based off of a newspaper article. A lot of questions that havent been answered to completion about those camps...wouldn't label him crazy for questioning things. ...where did 6 million people come from and go in 5 years???


https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/conte...lation-in-1933

Because he's name if Dorian, why else?

You see, I can’t see how anyone can possibly get confused on this sort of thing. From the website you’ve just quoted, 300,000 Jews were in France, 60,000 in Italy, 500,000 in Hungary, 3 MILLION in Poland etc etc

No one has ever claimed 6 million were in Germany. You’re aware that Auschwitz is in Poland aren’t you? That the Natzweiler-Struthorf camp was on the borders of France and Germany?

These are simple matters really.

Because he is pretty based.

I doubt the numbers because it would be logistically nearly impossible and why wouldn't they fight back if they were going to be killed any way? It's also the ultimate oppression bounty.

Vhy do zhey hate us pahpuh?

ya tbh i think the 6mil figure seem fishy to say the least.

that being said, i dont deny that concentration camps in which jews were imprisoned (and many killed) actually existed.

How do you think wartime deaths are calculated brah? Do you think they line up all the bodies and go, 'oh here's another Jew!' and add tally to the box? Of phucking course not. A huge degree of it is interpolation based on pre-war popualtion figures and aggregating wartime refugee figures across many different countries (some of whom were immediately at war right afterwards, in the case of the West and the Soviet Union during WWII). i.e., it's not a trivial task, and there's likely to be a pretty significant margin of error.

Lest we forget all of this calculating was going on in the phuckin' forties, aka before really reliable censuses could even take place, or population records were digitalized.

I'm always confused when people think "the six million dead Jews figure is suspicious" but then when I ask them what they think about the 30+ million casualities Russia claims died during the Great Patriotic War (their name for WWII) they shrug as if it had never occurred to them to think about it. Both figures are probably inflated, maybe even significantly so. That doesn't mean the underlying events didn't happen (as you said).

I also agree though that it's phucked up that you can't even make a statement like that without being considered anti-semitic or a Holocaust denier.

The gas chamber story is so bogus its a wonder anybody even still falls for it. A bunch of jews died, some intentionally and some unintentionally, but there's no way anybody was stupid enough to try to kill them by shoving them all in a room and filling it with gas. That has to be the least efficient way of doing it I've ever heard. The corpse disposal alone would have taken hours as they'd have to wait for the gas to fully clear the room and make sure there's none on their bodies before dragging them out into pits/cremation ovens, which also take a long fooking time per body.

When they wanted to kill them they did it the old fashioned way, they lined them all up along a ditch and shot them.

ya id say that probably true. although with military causalities its a bit more accurate of an estimate because you can generally put a range of what percentage of soldiers are likely to die/be injured during any given battle. if the russian side claimed a 70% casualty rate during stalingrad for example, we can obviously point for that as complete BS.

Oh for sure-- the military has detailed rolls of enlisted, casuality reports, etc. but the vast majority of the USSR's casualities were civilian (something like >60%). Anyway I'm not trying to split hairs, my point is just that I don't understand the logical jump from "the number of deaths reported during the Holocaust are inaccurate and/or intentionally inflated" to "therefore the Holocaust didn't happen and/or Hitler and the Nazis didn't want to exterminate the Jews/Slavs/Gypsies/mentally-ill/etc. and/or the Holocaust was unintentional." Which I'm not suggesting you're making, it's just usually how people sell the "Holohoax" narrative.

u can fit probably 50+ people in a large chamber. tell them it's a shower and they go willingly. 5min, and it's done. force some prisoners with gas masks to go in and get the bodies.

do it ur way and it'll take much longer, waste ammo, risk people fighting or fleeing, alarm others when all the shots go off.

i can't believe i'm having to explain this. lmao.

And yet plenty of surviving witnesses like Dario Gabbai say it’s true, and their stories are consistent with the physical evidence.

The only problem with this theory, which revisionists rightfully point out, is that the Nazis were totally willing to use plenty of other scarce resources such as SS soldiers, railway trains, etc. to get on with killing (or at least imprisoning) Jews when those things were needed at the front, where they were having their chit pushed in by the Russians and to a lesser extent, the Allies.

Anyway, they've done chemical testing on the walls of the gas chambers that directly contradict the Leuchter Report and show massive concentrations of cyanide residuals and we have the blueprints the Nazis used to build the "delousing chambers". We know they were there.

I don't think there's even much of a point in debating it if someone wants to insist they weren't there. So what? Does that mean the Holocaust didn't happen?I actually tend to sympathize with the revisionist position here as well too. First of all, legions of "holocaust survivors" have come up with absolutely absurd fictions which were later disproven, thus (in the mind of revisionists) discrediting the larger 'first hand witnesses' narrative and second of all there are numerous records of Nazi soldiers being tortured (some having their scrotums crushed to the point of being destroyed for example) who were key witnesses for the prosecution at Nuremberg and the other trials-- which rightfully tarnishes their credibility.

Again, I happily dismiss 100% of witness testimony as they demand and then ask, so what? Does that mean the Holocaust didn't happen?

There's a lot that doesn't add up. I'm not delving in too deep as there's a ton of things I'd rather read about, however when I was assigned Viktor Frankel'sMan's Search For Meaningto read I did some research on the guy and the Holocaust, and surprisingly there's a lot of mainstream information out there that casts serious questions on the extent of the Holocaust. If you want a quick red pill on it all, just read about John Demjanjuk, his multiple trials. The lengths the Israeli prosecutors went to nail this guy included witnesses who were found to be lying and forged documents.

On Viktor Frankl, one of the most famous Holocaust survivors:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-viktor-franklAsking questions, is unfortunately discouraged by many. I never even meant to go down this path, but seriously question a lot of it now. The question one has to ask is why? What is the purpose of keeping people in the dark of some of the realities? For sure there are some bad actors denying the Holocaust due to antisemitism, but it seems believing anything other than 6 million dead Jews opens a person up to being labeled a denier. But why?

just to play devils advocate here: dont you think by the 3rd or 4th time they gassed a bunch of people in these showers, the rest of the prisoners would take notice to their mates not coming back from the shower lol? i dont think many of them would be willing to take a nice steam after the day of work after that tbh...


i dont know **** about this topic outside of what i learned in middle school but i think its totally plausible that the main objective of the concentration camps was just to imprison the jews until the war was settled at which point they would then have time to figure out how to kill them or "remove" them more effectively. again though, im sure a great deal of jews in these camps did die from terrible living conditions or were just straight up killed.

You're 100% right, that's exactly what the camps were for brah.

Hitler had a lot plans for what he was going to do with the Jews. He was going to just drive them all out of the country. Something like 75% of them left voluntarily. The ones that were left he was planning to deport to Madagascar (srs lmao). Then he blundered himself into a war against England so he had to do something with them right then. So he made the ghettoes and penned them up there. Then he needed a workforce because he conscripted almost every available German man so he sent them to the work camps. Then he blundered himself into an even bigger war against the Soviet Union. Then he blundered himself into an even bigger war against the USA. Then he started to get bottomed out, and the Allies demanded unconditional surrender-- aka, he and his entire staff were going to be hung. No surrender, no terms, last man standing. That's around the time he made the decision to turn the "work camps" into extermination camps (the typhoid, overcrowding, starvation rations, etc. certainly helped get this started naturally of course).

The problem is, the impetus for this entire macabre chain of events was written down in a book that came out in the 20s called Mein Kampf, and so anyone paying attention started sounding the alarm as soon as the Nuremberg Laws came out in the 30s. Unfortunately, that was only people like Winston Churchill, who were called war mongers and imperialists.

Dorian just seems to question everything and isn't sure what is true.

...as you link to a Wiki page, lol. Surely nothing on that page was scrubbed, r-r-right OP?

One thing I always wondered that no one ever seemed to bring up or ask (and it was certainly discouraged to ask such questions) was why all death camps were in soviet controlled territory post ww2?

Because the Nazi regime had sent the Einsatzgruppen into Soviet territory on day 1 of Operation Barbarossa with the orders to machine gun Jews, Communist Party members, and any resistant civilians to death on sight. That means, as I said earlier, that something like 20 million Soviet civilians were killed during the German occupation (aka 10 to 20 times the number of casualties the Germans took for the entire war-- military and civilian).

Surrendering to the Americans or the British was something that happened. LMAO if you think the Asiatic hoards were taking prisoners once they reached Germany and/or German-occupied Poland. Marching prisoners 2000 miles west to surrender to the democracies was completely unrealistic, so they just had them dig their own graves and machine gunned them to death.

Not following your point…. I’ve read his article, Frankl wasn’t a propogandist or denier, he was on the scene, so what? Oh and there’s no mention of how he researched Auschwitz train records from America which don’t seem to have been published.

But not one death camp in what the allies ended up liberating? Not a single solitary one? The odds of that seem too unlikely to not be suspicious. This wasn't soviet territory initially. It became soviet territory later once they pushed germany back.

I think I know the 4chan meme you're getting this information from, and it's inaccurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohrdru...entration_camp

4chan meme? I posted links to historical maps. How are they inaccurate? From the link you posted the death toll is very low to contribute much to the overall numbers. The high estimate is 7k (out of 6 million.) The low is 3k. If that was an execution camp it was incredibly inefficient. Stalin did much more with simple open pits.

This is the map I was referring to. It makes the rounds on 4chan anytime this topic comes up. I cruise those forums as well, so I guess I just assume everyone does too, my apologies.



Anyway, I wasn't trying to belittle your argument, I was trying to say, this is a common claim made by revisionists. Your map wasn't inaccurate at all, but if you'd read the link I sent earlier more thoroughly you'd have seen that Ohrdruf was thefirstcamp liberated by the Allies rather than theonlyone. The Buchenwald complex (of which Ohrdruf was one part) was responsible for 50-60k casualties (of about 200k total prisoners who passed through the camps aka somewhere on the order of 25%).

As I've said a couple time ITT already, I'm not here to defend "muh six million" or say that the Holocaust was even the most severe or effective genocide of all time, frankly, it wasn't. I'm simply here to say, even if the number is inaccurate, inflated, or misused in modern geopolitics-- that doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen and/or it wasn't explicitly planned by the leadership of the Third Reich.

In fact, if you'd really like to get down to what my opinion on the Holocaust is, one which I think is supported by quite a lot of documentary evidence and addresses your point quite directly, the reason that every single one of the "death camps" discovered after the end of the Second World War was found in Soviet-occupied territory is because the leadership of the Soviet Union saw what was happening (as described in my earlier posts) and wanted to drum up support for their war effort, so they inflated the numbers-- having nothing to do with killing Jews, as Stalin himself was pretty anti-semitic (see: the Doctor's Plot)-- in order to show that the Nazis were running death camps for Slavs and Communists (which they were, alongside Jews) and Russian Jews (as well as Jews in general) have used this drummed up evidence to elevate the genocide their people suffered to the forefront of the public imagination and claim victimhood at every possible opportunity.

That doesn't mean the Holocaust didn't happen though.

What exactly is your point? I didn't call Frankl a denier or propagandist. My point is Frankl at worst misrepresented his stay and his involvement, at best was simply inconsistent. There are quite a few stories that unravel when you go further into the rabbit hole. What do you mean your question- "so what"? Like Tom Wanks, I don't subscribe to any denial theories, it's just I feel the complete picture is being obscured. I believe people are inherently against any open discussion on the topic, specifically against doubting portions of the accepted story because it is felt questioning small facets will lead to Holocaust denial. One can doubt portions of the accounts without denying atrocities happened, however this route seems to be discouraged, as the writer of the article details.

Interesting thread.

Spreading some reps

Okay great logic, lets keep going. Tell me, how many countries do we have to assume were 100% eradicated of the jewish population to equal 6 million deaths. Heres a hint....you are going to run out of countries they even touched let alone seized citizens from.

Why do 6 million Jews need to have been killed for the Holocaust to have been real in your mind?

What if I come to you and say, the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is likely (or even definitely) inflated, perhaps even wildly so, and yet, Hitler had a plan to exterminate them which is supported by documentary evidence (from the Reich Chancellery as well as his subordinates' personal writing).

If you want to come back to me and tell me, well because the Holocaust has been used by Jewish imperialists to justify their own nationalism, I will first of all laugh at you for thinking "imperialism" is a dirty word but second of all, I will agree with you 100% and then ask you this: don't you think a people who have been driven out of nearly every single country they have lived in ought to just start their own one? Is exterminating an entire people really a viable solution (excited to respond if you think the answer is yes)? Israel are the only country in the Middle East with no oil and yet they are the second most successful nation (by GDP) in the region. Can't you concede that they are doing something right?

Again, I just fail to make the leap from "the number of Holocaust victims is inaccurate" to "the Holocaust didn't happen" to "Jews rule the world".

people who get caught up in this stuff are missing the forest for the trees.

This is the problem with this emotionally driven generation where every decision and every viewpoint emotions have to be taken into account.

Who the **** cares if it was 500,000 or 6 million, the main takeaway was dont let your government become Nazi's and brainwash you into thinking genocide is okay. But we have people arguing over nonsense rather than the real important stuff of how did a country convince people it was okay to kill even 500,000 jewish people.

Thats the mess we are in now, too many people are worried about the conspiracy theories from within covid and not caring enough about the government abusing its power and brainwashing society. We still have not learned.

To me this sounds more like a commie regime, but I see your point. Never forget how many people the commies killed m8. People love to hate on Nazis which I can understand but never seem to want to bring up any of the commie countries. I know this is thread on Nazi so I get it but still.