/lit/ - Literature

>>16540404
https://www.unz.com/topic/holocaust/feature/?ItemSorts=lastcomment_gmt

ive never researched this topic because I don't care but there is a bunch of stuff about it including books

>>16540404
FUCKKKK YOUUU NAZI!!!! IT IS TRUE AHHHHHHHH STOP BEING NAZI FUCK YOU!!! YOU MAKE ME SAD

>>16540436
This is perfect, thank you

>>16540404
The question has always been how many of the actually died and how many were really gassed. If Hitler wasn't prepared to kill the jews, then he was talking a lot of shit in mein kampf.

David Cole outlines the revisionist (not denier) viewpoint in an appendix of his memoirs, he's thinks Ron Unz of Unz.com is an absolute moron, see:
>https://web.archive.org/web/20180920012411/http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5908

>>16540489
Even the "official" narrative doesn't have gassing making up more than a tiny portion of the total deaths. A lot of what people attack as the "Holohoax" is just crap spouted by middle school teachers, pop culture, and opportunists who write fake Holocaust memoirs. Not what you actually find in history books. /pol/ is pretty bad for this in that it constantly quotes ridiculous shit from obscure self-published crap as evidence that the Holocaust is fabricated.

>>16540518
Every official death count can be lessened upon evidence, but the jews are sticking to the six million number and never lowering it. If people really want to believe Hitler was able to fight world war 2 and still had enough men left over to send them around to kill 6 million jews, then I would really have to see some compelling data besides some alleged Jewish pop differences pre and post war. The japanese had hundreds of thousands killed in a couple of days with thr nukes and you don't hear them bitching and mosninh.

>>16540404
The reason why there aren't really any credible books that question the "official" narrative is because the Holocaust is the most well-researched, well-documented genocide in history with literally hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses and testimonies, many of whom are still alive today. It's sort of like asking for a book that questions the "official narrative" of the Moon landing: you can spend a lifetime poking holes in the tiniest of discrepencies and making mountains out of molehills in order to accrue clout with your tiny circle of far-right lunatic buddies, but at

the end of the day, what happened happened. And in any case, the /pol/tard's obsession with disproving the Holocaust speaks more about the latent psychological insecurities of the /pol/tard than anything else (i.e. that the /pol/tard secretly knows he follows an evil ideology and is deeply ashamed of the only thing that gives him a semblance of personal identity, and desperately tries to disprove the Holocaust in order to delude himself of the real implications of his worldview).

The sheer enormous mass of historians who have studied the Holocausts has led to the "official" version of things being extraordinarily definitive, more so than any other "official" version of anything in the history of history academia.

The most interesting aspect of the Holocaust where you can find dissenting opinions and real discussion is not whether or not it happened (which, at this point, is sort of like discussing whether or not the Earth orbits the sun) but why it happened and how it reached such enormous proportions. In this area, there are a lot of competing theories, and some of the interesting "dissenting" theories postulate ideas such as that the Holocaust was less of a planned, methodical extermination and more of a chaotic, murderous free-for-all in which camp commandants were desperately trying to rachet up their kill scores to impress the higher-ups. Anyway, I leave it to you to do some digging.

>>16540580
is that why they outlawed questioning it, because it's just so obviously true

>>16540580
Can you prove six million, kike? You expect me to believe tiny little Auschwitz burned through 1 million jew bodies like they claim?
>>16540591
Also this right here. Why is this banned in goy countries? Hmm?

>>16540404
You shouldn't start by taking something as an axiom, the "official narrative", then trying to disprove it. You won't get a real narrative but an autistic rejection of it based on odd grounds almost as a rule. You should instead start w a narrative you believe is true and then see how your narrative is more applicably and universally consistent than another narrative.
For instance, start w they killed nobody see where the contradiction comes. Don't start w "they weren't so bad as them". It's referential to their narrative and it's not well-defined.

>>16540591
Stop trying to victimise yourself, you pathetic smoothbrain. They didn't disallow questioning it, idiots like David Irving are still in print. They're just so demonstrably wrong that at this point, it's like pleading Lysenkoism before the USDA. Go back to /pol/ if you want to masturbate over your shitty infographics and "bUt HoW DiD tHeY FiGhT a wAr aT tHe SaMe tImE aS KiLLinG Le JOOS" memery.

>>16540580
This, I think you can do a better exposition of the "goods of nazism" by starting w something a bit more fundamental. This being said, many narratives of people will be contradictory. If this happens it's because the position or statement is not perfectly bound or defined. So you can't rely simply on narrative, anyone's. You have to work it out yourself.

>>16540610
Irving went to prison

>>16540617
That's a rejection not a narrative. Your rejection can be easily dismissed by having no narrative for your rejection.

>>16540626
lol

>>16540630
Just trying to help. I assume your narrative would be one level deeper in that he got imprisoned because he was racist.
The issue is that your narrative doesn't account for law which prevents inciting hatred so you have to go one level deeper which can account for that better. If you're just rejecting shit out of hand with no better narrative you won't get anywhere.

>>16540640
Here is a narrative for you. Do you think this whole legal and cultural apparatus that ostracizes and persecutes people for questioning a historical event just may have impacted the academic consensus on it?

>>16540404
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/HolocaustSkepticism.pdf
https://archive.org/details/ThomasDaltonDebatingTheHolocaust

>>16540640
And now, you're probably starting to realise the intellectual vacuity of your nazi comrades. I salute you, based narrative developer, for trying. But you won't get anywhere with friends like this.

>>16540640
There are holocaust denial laws on the books where he went to prison and that is why he went to prison after returning to the country. Don't weasel your way around it. Why are there laws that are specifically against holocaust denial?

My 40 year old father was turned into a lampshade after being killed on a death rollercoaster and how dare you question this.

>>16540630
I could help you with a narrative but you're going to have to build it up. Keep in mind I am Christian so I'm well-certain truth leads to God and thus away from genocide or any hate. That being said if there is a truth that you bring up it will be an anti hate or genocide of any participant, as a structure again. With that I consider myself being Christian.

>>16540643
Sure but that's not a structure. That's a question which would hopefully lead to a structure but it's not necessarily proven and people being biased doesn't mean they're right or wrong.

>>16540404
This >>16540648 is what you want OP (and anyone else who wants to challenge their beliefs).

>>16540649
I'm a Christian please read >>16540658

>>16540660
If you get thrown in prison, and certainly kicked out of academia for questioning the narrative, well then look at that the narrative will emerge in academia as consensus. Do you have autism?

>>16540651
Because it incites hate and violence historically at the very least. You can assume it didn't incite violence in any way but hate is well-defined by law and there is easy recordings of this. So in that it's still law-breaking for that country. You have to prove that they didn't incite hate and that nazism necessarily leads to anti genocide or violence to argue that law away and that they were just mistaken.

>>16540665
It doesn't matter. They can be wrong but you have to prove >>16540675

>>16540675
>the evidence that the holocaust happened is that arguing that the holocaust didn't happen can lead to the holocaust happening again
You have fun in here anon.

>>16540675
>but hate is well-defined by law
Is it? It seems rather inconsistent to me. You can question whether the Armenians were genocide, hell, you can even question 9/11 no problem. Do something the Jews don't want you to do to, now that's a problem.

>>16540665
> practices Lysenkoism
> gets kicked out of the faculty of biology
> cries about it
This is not a false equivilance, either.

I'm being earnest when I say that the fact that the Holocaust happened is, in fact, a fact. People who haven't studied history love to prance about and say that there's no objectivity, everything is open to interpretation, etc., and this isn't true. You aren't smart for trying to handwave the decades and decades of empirical work done on this subject. Trying to constantly try and disprove the most well-documented genocide to have ever occurred is just dancing around the gravesite of your own intellectual corrosion. There are very reasonable juridical arguments for the anti-denial laws in Austria and Germany, which I invite you to look up (but I know that you won't in good faith), but the logic is sound given the type of society that Germany and Austria are trying to construct (i.e. not a Nazi society).

>>16540675
I'll even add you can assert that hate is okay based on something the laws cite, a constitution for instance, and is more developing of the constitution than the anti-hate laws. If you'd like to question the constitution you must rely on natural laws and asserting hate, as a "beneficial natural law", contradicts the statements of the constitution. Usually it helps to ontologize hate and be able to make a math or logic off this ontologized hate.

>>16540693
>look at my empirical work done in a non-scientific environment in which only one answer was accepted on pain of social disgrace
>this is totally like rigorous science lol
based jew

>>16540686
I didn't say that, I just used hate which isn't necessarily entwined with violence or the holocaust. He was imprisoned for inciting racial hatred which is a tenet of nazism.

>>16540687
Read >>16540695

>>16540695
define hate in a consistent way, ie. it applies to native europeans too

>convincing people the holocaust is real
>some retard comes and starts defending indefensible holocaust denial laws
every time

>>16540703
No that's your job not mine.

>>16540703
I believe hate is just the absence of love, I don't think it exists, and similar to my arguments against yours, I don't think you should have a law based off it.

>>16540404
Better question yet: are there existing editions of Goebbels novel Michael, I know German well enough, but I've got no clue where to read the book, german Wikipedia doesn't help.
Any german-anons got a link?

>>16540714
not german but try abebooks. swear i saw it on there

>>16540675
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/HolocaustSkepticism.pdf
>https://archive.org/details/ThomasDaltonDebatingTheHolocaust

>>16540714
https://b-ok.lat/book/3718560/86c3c4

>>16540716
I'm not reading it and finangling a narrative for you. You have to define hate in a way in which it's better than what the spirit of the law, or of how reality works, says. That's a huge tenet of naziism.

>>16540727
I'm not the guy you were arguing with retard, just read it because even if you disagree you'll have broadened your horizon

>>16540737
I don't need to. For a few reasons, the main being I've read a lot already and they fall into using social narratives vs material or even universally-consistent narratives. It's not something you can build off of. The metaphysics of naziism, or any of these books, isn't universally consistent enough to develop a math.

>>16540744
Jesus christ stop assuming and being a disingenuous fuck and just read at least the leaflet. The links I posted are by people why condemn nazis ffs.

>>16540747
*people who who condemn nazis

>>16540744
Jesus christ you're fucking retarded, just be quiet about your 'narratives' and your 'hate', you're not saying fucking anything

>>16540737
I've read some ones that attempt a universally-consistent structure and they don't work. I've read nazi textbooks on biology. "Survival of the fittest" is not a good narrative just like Might makes Right isn't for similar reasons. It only captures an extremely small subset of right, or truth, and a still small subset of social truths. We do more than compete when we talk to neighbors etc. Even still it's a bad strategy. Win-lose agreements is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of goals. To go to the other side of the spectrum, the labor unions caused the bankruptcy of Hostess, I believe, by trying to get a higher paycheck which caused the closure of the facilities and the eradication of their jobs.

>>16540761
STOP ASSUMING
You think that what I posted is something it's not. Just read it before you attempt any more of your big brained takes that are based on nothing but false assumptions.

>>16540747
I'm not interested in anyone's social narrative, pro or against. Reality is defined by God, not these men and it's a bad start anyways.

>>16540760
I would recommend you start with logic to keep this positive. I have a reading list which gets to models and structures and how to prove them consistent and complete. https://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/

>>16540768
It doesn't matter. Read >>16540769
If you can't have a consistent structure based on your narrative then it's false. You can cite thousands of anti holocaust denials, they might be good, I'm not interested in them unless you can develop a consistent structure from it and I'm not doing it for you.

>>16540769
>>16540771
why are you such a disingenuous fuck?
>If you can't have a consistent structure based on your narrative then it's false.
You keep assuming things while you haven't even read it. You are an absolute retard.

>>16540781
I rest on my last two points. Have a good day.

>>16540787
Fuck off, bad faith actor. You're dismissing anything out of hand that might challenge your worldview. What a sad life you must have/

>>16540787
>>16540771
>I'm not interested in them unless you can develop a consistent structure from it
How can you know if that's the case if you refuse to read it?

>>16540797
Because you can't tell me it.

I'm confused, who's side are you supposed to be on? You say you're questioning it but also you believe it could have happened and you don't trust /pol/? Nigger pick a side or fuck off

>>16540808
nah, skeptics are based.

>>16540806
That's just dumb. I won't if you even refuse to read a leaflet and keep assuming. You think it's something it's not, and you're just proving to be someone who's afraid of being challenged.

>>16540808
"Hello, retard department? I have a customer who needs to talk to you, transferring him over now"

>>16540814
I think you are uncomfortable with it being understood if you can't use it to bring out a narrative for hate that you can tell me.

>>16540823
What are you even talking about? You're only willing to accept something you already agree with and that's just intellectual laziness.
The narrative is that every story has more than one side. The authors aren't pro-nazi, they're not justifying hate or violence. It's an overview of the argument both sides make. You keep assuming it's hate without any argumentation of why an overview of a debate is hateful.

>>16540823
>questioning a historical event is 'bringing out a narrative for hate'
you tremendous retard

>>16540823
Alright goyim, here are the reasons why the events of the holocaust and the 6 garillion are of unquestionable authenticity: You're a racist, you're a bigot, and you're a nazi.

Who gives a fucking shit about the Holocaust these days other than jews and stormfags.

Even normies have been basically treating the Holocaust as yet another bad thing that happened during WW2.

>>16540855
Anyone who wants to know why the world today is the way it is

>>16540859
Read Marx then

>>16540859
>why the world today is the way it is

That's much more 1917 (and to a rough extent, 1789) than the Holocaust.

>>16540863
Marx would have questioned the holocaust narrative, even though he's a retard who got history entirely wrong

>>16540866
Ok, read Marx still