Evidence that the Holocaust DIDN'T happen?

So you have no evidence, just lame appeals to authority.

We might as well ask the AAA board whether race is a valid concept or the US government whether Iraq has WMDs.

 

Good answer!

Is this...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html
your "bible"?

Anyway, here is something you can read:

Wiesenthal Re-Confirms: 'No Extermination Camps on German Soil'

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n3p-9_Staff.html

 

I've already eliminated you as a worthy adversary, mike. But if you have anything new to say, preferably related to the thread topic, then by all means say it. Thus far, you've been presented with rather a lot of evidence, all of which you've either conveniently ignored or waved away without offering any plausible alternative as to what the accumulated evidence might mean. That's why it's called 'denial', after all.

I don't have a 'Bible', but I've been butting heads with denier types since the dark days of DOS-based Fidonet overnight messaging. There may indeed be a denier canard or two I haven't yet encountered, but the time lag between them has been measured in years for some time now.. All I have on my side is the evidence amassed by thousands of researchers and academic historians and the conclusions they've derived from it.

If you have an alternative explanation of events that differs significantly from the generally accepted Holocaust narrative, one that's internally consistent and takes all the assembled evidence into account, whip it out.

Ah yes, the IHR's oft-repeated 'revelations' of Wiesenthal's and Brozat's words. It's a half-truth canard that has certainly stood the test of time. Despite the fact that many tens of thousands of innocent people were systematically murdered by the Nazis (by gas) at dedicated killing centers well within the Altreich in the context of the T-4 euthanasia program, it's hardly a secret that the murder of innocent Jews, Soviet POWs, Slavs and Romany people, among others, took place in facilities created primarily for the purpose of mass murder, in Poland. Was there supposed to be something new somewhere in that article? This is stuff that academic historians have known and documented for several decades.

I'd prefer it if you could state your case using your own words and back up your assertions with evidence when it's requested of you. The onus isn't on me to do your homework for you. No Youtube videos, no links to Holocaust denial website articles. Just facts. Think you can do that?

I'd suggest you read the thread before proceeding. The preceding closed thread as well, if you have time. I dislike having to repeat myself.

 

Huh? this guy is lying thru his teeth about jews and communists. This is pure nazi propaganda. You should read up on it as this "interview" certainly follows the theme.

OTOH, there is no doubt that there was anti-semitism in russia and the ukraine etc.

But his "we germans didn't hate the jews" is such disgusting garbage only somebody that did not know the history of the nazi's rise to power and their actions would consider this accurate. (Not every german hated jews, but the majority sure as hell did)

 

a bunch of amateur clowns if ever there were.

totally debunked unscientific crap, misdirection, and lies.

Irving was convicted of libel and lying.
Faurisson has been exposed for the lying scumbag he was.
Butz was one of the first denialists. He was also a nazi apologist and vehement jew hater.
Weber has since disappeared after losing the fight over the IHR.
Cole is truly an idiot especially since his "doors" video laughably demonstrates some of his lies.

A list of scumbag, psuedo intellectual, nazi apologists and jew haters (self hating jew in cole's case)

 

This is completely false. I have addressed all of your 'evidence', which consisted of train schedules demonstrating nothing and a 'forensic scientist' 'thinking they can see bones in wet weather', and you are resorting to lame authority based arguments. You can shout 'I am the winner' if you want but personally I think that's embarassing.

 

What should be embarrassing, to you, is that anyone can read the thread from the beginning and see that you're plainly lying. If you have anything new to say, fine, but try to stick to the truth for a change. I can somewhat sympathize with your chagrin at my using the evidence accumulated by bona fide academic historians to make my case. It's more than obvious your side has nothing to rely on, apart from the same ahistorical, agenda-driven speculations endlessly repeated by professional anti-Semites, none of whom are actual historians.

 

next he'll be extolling the virtues of Leuchter and Krege!

they are all the same, wot?

 

Ironic.

 

truth can sometimes be ironic, especially when dealing with psuedo history written by jew haters.

 

Or from the Jew infested pro Semite White hating establishment.

 

Excuse me but the majority of jews are white.
And regrettably for many white nationalists, approximately 30% of all white people in america have more than a "drop of black blood" in them.

Quite the dirty little secret in the fantasy world of white power, jew hating, goosestepping, anti american, racist absurdists.

 

Both statements are false. Ashkenazi Jews cluster between Europeans and Turks and 95% of White Americans have zero detectable Black ancestry, with the remainder averaging at about 1-2%.

 

more evidence of anti-Semitism from Holocaust-deniers.

 

You are a pro-Semite I am neutral.

 

on the contrary, many of your posts on this forum are filled with extreme hate for Jews.

 

All of your posts just show a mindless fanatic support of Jews in all cases with total disregard for any kind of factual discussion.

 

lol!!

I am frequently highly critical of Israel.

 

That's not nearly enough, I'm afraid. You have to also concede that there's some nebulous thing particular to the practice of Judaism, or inherent to have been descended from Jews, that makes them the bane to all mankind, in particular, all 'white' people. You can be as critical of Israeli policies as you like, and you can be as Gentile as the Pope, but if you believe Israel has the right to exist and to defend herself, you're a Zionist-- and therefore as damned as any Jew to shouldering the responsibility for everything that's wrong in the world.

And of course Holocaust denial is an exclusively anti-Semitic pursuit. I've been looking for one kind of site since Windows95 first came out: a historical site dedicated to 'Holocaust revisionism' that deals with that subject exclusively, one that isn't tainted by random anti-Semitica that has nothing to do with the history of European Jews 1933-45. Haven't found a single one yet. Not one.

 

That is simply not true. Roughly 30% of american whites have a drop of black blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

In 2002, Mark D. Shriver, a molecular anthropologist at Penn State University, published results of a study regarding the racial admixture of Americans who identified as white or black:[19] Shriver surveyed a 3,000-person sample from 25 locations in the United States and tested subjects for genetic make-up:

Among those who self-identified as white:

• The average was 0.7% black ancestry, which is the equivalent of having 1 black and 127 white ancestors among one's 128 5×great-grandparents
• Shriver estimates that 70% of white Americans have no African ancestors (in part because of the greatly increased immigration from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
• Among the 30% who do have African ancestry, Shriver estimates their black racial admixture is 2.3%; the equivalent of having had 3 black ancestors among their 128 5×great-grandparents.[

Turks are caucasian as well.Jews are white as are all other semites.

Dailystormer readers must be beside themselves with this little realization.

 

charlimit

 

You could call Turks and Jews White if you want. You could call Negroes White. You could call goldfish White. However Daily Stormer Readers do not call anything other than the distinctive European genotype White, so you are merely missing the point by defining your opponent's terms. That isn't how it works. In fact communication would be impossible if disingenuous clowns said 'you mean this' when they said they mean that. Like for example if you defined cars as having four wheels and motorbikes as having two wheels and I said 'you mean that cars have four wheels or two wheels?'. It's just childish stupidity and not clever at all.

Caucasoid means the West Eurasian cluster. White means the European cluster.

Feel free to use your own definitions but then you are not engaging your opponent, just ignoring him.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Relation_to_whiteness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people

Yes I can see why you would use a 19th century definition that has been demolilshed by genetics.

 

Actually you mean phenotype. Genotype is the actual genes. Phenotype is just appearance, which is all "white" is.

The fact is that "white" may appear to be a superficial genetic marker, but it's mostly a WASP classist construct. Ask an anyone Irish.

 

Lets not forgot how many Jews were slaughtered by the Soviet Union too.