And do you believe 9/11 happened exactly as the official narrative claims? Most 9/11 skeptics believe planes actually hit the towers, only the very fringe do not.

Most that question the official holocaust narrative believe people died and people were rounded up for deportation. Only the very fringe do not.

Just like 9/11, you have to compare the evidence to the official narrative.

Ahhh. So the holocaust 'happened' but it isn't the way we're taught. Is that what you're saying?

That's right. The term is "holocaust denier" but no serious holocaust revisionist makes the claim that nothing happened at all. Rather, it's a debate about the details and motivations.

Stop assuming every corpse you see is a Jewish one. Stop assuming that every emaciated person you see is a Jew who is emaciated from starvation. Stop assuming that everything you hear from Zionists is the truth. Begin there.

You saw a guy with a tattoo...which only proves he went to a concentration camp and lived.

The Holocaust most certainly happened, but nothing like you think.

The Jews that were sent to camps were treated very well. The Jews that "went missing" were deported to Palestine. All those pictures of skinny people and skinny bodies were due to typhus. Not starvation. Not torture.

The Jews were treated very well.

The Holocaust, the true Holocaust, was the millions of Germans, Russians, Americans, English, African, Polish, French, and all others that actually died.

You saw a guy with a tattoo...which only proves he went to a concentration camp and lived.

Strictly speaking, no it doesn't. It proves he has a tattoo.

It proves he has a tattoo.

Strictly speaking, no it doesn't. It proves your brain thought there was something akin to a tattoo on his arm.

Combined Military and Civilian Deaths WWII All Theaters: (wiki)

Germany - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,630,000 to 8,680,000

Soviet Union - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23,400,000

United States Europe - - - - 213,407

United States Pacific - - - - 162,525

United Kingdom - - - - - - - - - - - - 450,900

Africa - - - - - - - - - - - - 111,900

China - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,000,000 to 20,000,000

Poland - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,620,000 to 5,820,000

France - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 567,600

Dutch East Indies - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,000,000 to 4,000,000

Japan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,620,000 to 3,120,000

India - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,587,000 to 2,587,000

French Indochina - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1,000,000 to 1,500,000

Philippines - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 557,000 to 1,057,000

Yugoslavia - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,027,000

Romania - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 800,000

Hungary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 580,000

Italy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 457,000

Iran - - - - - - - - - - 200

Iraq - - - - - - - - - - 500

Ethiopia - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -100,000

South Africa - - - - - - - - 11,900

Any links to discussions on this? Or are these your ideas?

If you've the interest and time, here's a good start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMYAjyW1OFU

It's odd you post Irving. He's a baldfaced liar. He willfully uses outdated translations when he pleases (using the correct ones when it suits him and the incorrect ones when it doesn't), selectively quotes only parts of primary sources, and hazily attributes most of it. For a comprehensive breakdown of the charlatan that Irving is, and a well-reasearched, very informed breakdown of many, many cases where he has lied, willfully omitted, or is simply wrong, check out a wonderful book by Richard J. Evans called Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial.

Thank you in your kind reply, especially regarding such a sensitive topic, but thank you most especially in your wanting to share information.

I'll look for that book and will hopefully read it soon.

Yawn -- a few cherry-picked errors in the enormous output of a giant like Irving? (Like Evans has never made any errors?)

Everybody knows Irving was vilified because, after his unparalleled original research and discovery of primary source material, he couldn't go along with the establishment Holocaust narrative.

Calling the book "a few cherry-picked" errors is absurd. Irving has not just made errors, he has intentionally distorted. It's clear despite your attempted august tone that you have not read the book.

Well, let me put it this way -- what proportion of Irving's work would you say is erroneous? 0.01% 0.05%? 0.5%? [More? What figure would you suggest?]

Given the way that people (especially powerful people) feel about the sacrosanctity of the Holocaust narrative, and Irving's position on it (especially in the 90's), would it even possible that there wouldn't be establishment figures attacking his scholarship in this way?

Edit: For your interest, here is an article critiquing the errors and distortions of Richard Evans (and part 2).

The articles you linked posted by the VHO provides no coherent rebuttal to Evans' work, they merely regurgitate Irving's points then claim victory. There is no cogent discussion of Irving's distortion and lies, merely one sentence responses that essentially say Evans is wrong. And following the great Irving tactic, they do not quote the full sections of the documents they are discussing. Evans points this out on multiple occasions and shows how this distorts and turns on its head what the documents are saying.

I find it very telling that instead of reading the book you immediately searched out an article you thought could buttress your viewpoint. Evans' work raises plenty of shocking practices Irving used and uses, and is damning. You chose to ignore this. Remember, Truth does not fear investigation.

There is no cogent discussion of Irving's distortion and lies, merely one sentence responses that essentially say Evans is wrong

I never said this was a rebuttal to Evans' attack on Irving, but a general critique of his errors and distortions when it comes to the Holocaust.

My point is that everyone makes errors, but in Irving's case, they are exaggerated [by] activists and used as part of a fallacious argument to completely dismiss everything he has ever written, all sources he has discovered (etc). I posed this question, which you ignored:

What proportion of Irving's work would you say is erroneous? 0.01% 0.05%? 0.5%?

I never said this was a rebuttal to Evans' attack on Irving

That is true, you didn't. However, the articles you posted are attempted rebuttals to Evans' work, and me saying they do not succeed is not something I am wrong about, as you are manipulatively trying to portray. In addition, that you characterize Lying About Hitler as an "attack" on Irving beggars belief. The book came out of Evans' 740 page expert testimony for the defense in a 2000 libel case brought by Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. Evans' work is the very opposite of an attack, it is a defense against a lawsuit filed by David Irving. You are using manipulative and distorting language to, in fact, lead an attack on Evans!

My point is that everyone makes errors

That is fine for you to say, but that is not Evans' point, nor my point, as I have stated multiple times in my posts. Errors are one thing, they are unintentional, they are mistakes. As Evans proves, Irving does not just make errors, he intentionally, willfully, manipulates the historical record by falsifying and misrepresenting it either through mistranslation, very selective inclusion of only certain parts of documents, or simply making it up. By reducing what Evans has written down to just "Irving has made errors," you are either lying or you have not read his book.

As to your question of what proportion of Irving's work is erroneous, I have no answer as I have not analyzed every piece of it. It's an irrelevant game to play and a petty way for you to win some "points," in saying I ignored it. I understand some of his earlier work is held in high regard (though his work on Dresden has been largely discredited), and he has, as you have mentioned, a knack for research. This is admirable, but what is not admirable is when he uses documents he finds to lie, hoping that no one will check them to see he is not representing them fairly.

0.01% 0.05%? 0.5%?

You choose to end with a manipulative question by only offering very low amounts. You remind me of a police investigator asking over and over "When did you stop hitting your wife?" "But Officer, I never hit my wife!" "Answer the question!"

Also, as you seem set against reading Evans' book, here is an excerpt. I defy you to call Irving's behavior in the example below an "error."

Irving had always seemed particularly sensitive to the charge that Hitler was anti-semitic. “Hitler,” he claimed at one point, “used his anti-semitism as a political platform from which to seize power in 1933, but that after that he lost interest in it except for occasional flights of public oratory; while Dr.Goebbels and other lesser Nazis continued to ride that horse to the hounds, to the mounting irritation of their Fuhrer Adolf Hitler who no longer needed antisemitism.” Even before 1933, Irving argued, Hitler’s anti-semitism was only tactical, and in practice he was not personally ill-disposed toward the Jews. In a discussion on BBC1 television in 1977, he said that once Hitler had become Reich chancellor, “he became a statesman and then a soldier . . . And the Jewish problem was a nuisance to him, an embarrassment.”’ Irving summed up his views on Hitler and the Jews when he said in 1983 that “probably the biggest friend the Jews had in the ‘Third Reich,’ certainly when the war broke out, was Adolf Hitler. He was the one who was doing everything he could to prevent things nasty happening to them.”

When I looked through his writings and speeches, I could not help but conclude that Irving certainly had a strongly held bias in favor of Hitler. But did this amount to a distortion of the historical record? Wasn’t it just a point of view like any other, even if it was a repulsive one? Irving did not seem to think so. He claimed that he was doing no more than reflecting accurately what was in the documentary evidence. In the introduction to the 1991 edition of Hitler’s War, Irving declared: “Every document actually linking Hitler with the treatment of the Jews invariably takes the form of an embargo.” In 1983, Irving said: “There is a whole chain of evidence from 1938 right through to October 1943, possibly even later, indicating that Hitler was completely in the dark about anything that may have been going on” with respect to mass killings of Jews. “So far,” he boasted triumphantly, “I haven’t been disproved.” Similarly, in his written submission to the High Court, Irving argued that when the documents were subjected to rigid historical criteria as to their authenticity, the reasons for their existence, and the vantage point of their author, “a relatively slim dossier of evidence resulted which portrayed Hitler intervening in every instance to mitigate or lessen wrongdoing against the Jews.... There were few, if any, documents of comparable quality--documents which met the same criteria--giving the opposite sense.”

What did these documents look like, then? Did Irving give an accurate account of their contents? Or did he knowingly and wilfully distort them? The first link in Irving's much-vaunted chain of documents related to an incident early in Hitler’s political career. In 1924, Hitler stood trial before a Bavarian court for his leadership of a failed attempt the previous year to seize power in Munich as a prelude to a march on Berlin--the infamous ‘beer hall putsch’ of 9 November 1923. During the putsch, according to Irving, Hitler disciplined a Nazi squad for having looted a Jewish delicatessen:

Meanwhile, Hitler acted to maintain order. Learning that one Nazi squad had ransacked a kosher grocery store during the night, he sent for the ex-army lieutenant who had led the raid. ‘We took off our Nazi insignia first!” expostulated the officer to no avail, as Hitler dismissed him from the party on the spot. “I shall see that no other nationalist unit allows you to join either!” Goring goggled at this exchange, as did a police sergeant who testified to it at the Hitler trial a few weeks later.

Irving cited this incident again in his 1991 edition of Hitler's War, and also in his written submission to the court.

Where did Irving get this information? It was far from easy to find out. In his Goring, he only told the reader that his narrative “is knitted together from the eyewitness evidence at the trial.” The only way for me to examine Irving’s account was to read through the entire record of the Hitler trial, searching for the original source of his depiction of the events in question. Fortunately, the complete trial transcript of 1924 was available in a scholarly edition. The evidence to which he referred was in the court record for 4 March 1924, when a former police officer, Oberwachtmeister Hofmann, said:

Apart from this, I want to mention a previous incident because acts of violence which individuals have committed have always been ascribed to him. I once went along to Hitler when I was still in the force and said to him: this and that have happened again. Some elements had attacked the Israelite delicatessen. “That gives a bad impression of the party, and it’s rather embarrassing for us in the police that such a thing should have to happen.” By chance the leader of the group, a young, wartime army lieutenant, was there. Called on to speak, this man said: “I took off the party badge.” Hitler said: “By doing this you admitted that you did not belong to the party at the moment when you committed that act. You are expelled with immediate effect from the party with your whole team and I will take care that you don’t get admitted to any nationalist fighting squad again.” Hitler always condemned these acts of violence and the individual excesses which occurred.

When I checked this testimony against the account given by Irving and quoted above, a number of discrepancies emerged.

To begin with, Irving had simply invented the assertion that “Goring goggled at this exchange” between Hitler and the Nazi activist. Goring was not mentioned in Hofmann’s testimony as having been present at all. Irving was also wrong to say that the police officer “goggled" at the exchange. Irving invented this passage to give the impression that Hitler must have expressed his views in an exceptionally forceful way. I could find no warrant in the document for such a description. Moreover, the brownshirt leader was not summoned by Hitler, he was present “by chance” when Hitler was told about the incident. Irving cast Hitler in a more favorable light than the document actually allowed. He was also wrong to claim that the incident took place on the night of the failed putsch. It was clear from Hofmann’s testimony that the incident had taken place at some unspecified time earlier than the putsch, about which Hofmann had been giving evidence up to that point.

That was not all, however. For Irving failed to make the obvious inference from what Hofmann claimed Hitler did on this occasion: that Hitler disciplined the brownshirts because they had taken off their party insignia and therefore laid themselves open to the charge that they were engaging in a criminal rather than political act. This could have caused serious damage to the party’s reputation by associating it with common thieves. Had the brownshirts kept their party badges on, Hitler might well have had no objection to their action. Nowhere did Hofmann imply that Hitler’s primary motive was to protect the Jews. Nowhere did Irving imply that Hitler’s primary motive was to protect the party’s name.

More important still, Irving failed to mention the fact that Hofmann’s evidence in any case was highly suspect. Hofmann was a fully paid-up member of the Nazi Party, which, it seemed, he had joined in 1921. As a Nazi supporter in the police service until he left the force on 1 January 1924, he had organized a fast-track system for issuing visas to foreign Nazi sympathizers. Hitler made him head of the political section of the NSDAP’s intelligence unit. Hofmann actually participated in the putsch of 8 and 9 November 1923. According to his own testimony, he accompanied Hitler much of that night. Hofmann also seemed to have visited Hitler in prison while he was awaiting trial. I had no difficulty in discovering this from readily available published documentation, including the stenographic record of the trial itself. All these facts cast serious doubts on the reliability of Hofmann’s testimony at Hitler’s trial. Hofmann was a long-standing Nazi supporter and party official who tried hard to present Hitler in a favorable light as a law-abiding citizen. This tactic was even recognized by the lenient court in 1924, which did not take his evidence on oath because it regarded him as biased. At the end of his evidence, the presiding judge complimented the ex-policeman on the fact “that you are speaking out on behalf of your leader.”

pgs 45-49

I believe the Holocaust happened, just not the way we're told. I think many fewer Jews died than we're told. I think we were lied to by Jewish "survivors" as well as Russian Communists about the state of things.

Hell, do you believe in MK ULTRA? What's to stop "survivors" from being, instead, brainwashing victims of the Soviet Union?

"We" don't deny anything. I don't know you and you don't know me. There is no "We".

Furthermore, there's clearly a select subsection of people in this sub who come here specifically to derail conversations by making insensitive comments to make this "We" (that only people like you believe exists) look bad. Then, their friends come in hot on their heels and proceed to chide those who have nothing to do with the fuckery for their participation.

They then collectively fuck off and report their handiwork across reddit, false flagging it to be just another day at r/conspiracy.

So now that it's clear your agenda is known, why don't you skip ahead to the part where you fuck off.

After listening to a holocaust survivor and seeing his tattoo with my own eyes, what do we call him? A crisis actor?

Tattoos and prisoners are not denied -- what people deny are the technically and historically unprecedented, and forensically unproven "gas chambers".

Check out what revisionists are actually saying, rather than dismissing what you imagine their arguments to be.

Some videos to start with:

• Holocaust? What They Hide From You
• David Cole in Auschwitz
• Buchenwald, a Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil
• Auschwitz: The Surprising Hidden Truth
• One Third of the Holocaust
• Treblinka Archeology Hoax
• Holocaust, Hate Speech, and Were the Germans So Stupid?
• Last Days of the Big Lie
• [More videos]

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

It's simple to understand: People hate Jews and will bend over backwards to make them look bad. The Deniers' new ploy is to claim that they're being called anti-Semitic because they're asking questions (ie Playing the Victim Card), when in reality, they're attacking the victim. Just look at their "sources" (anonymous blogs), if they even provide a source at all, and what they do to anyone who calls them out (ad hominem and downvote brigades).

Luckily, it's only half a dozen or so users on this sub, but they DOMINATE Holocaust threads and make sure only Denialist posts and comments hit the top.

Just watch what happens to my comment (and what happened to your legitimate post) ;)

Death on such large scales are inevitable when your supply lines and your food lines are being destroyed and most of the public don't have their own gardens. Those in camps are first hit when a bomber destroys a food shipment.

just say it never happened. There, I just did it. Show me ANY proof I say it was doctored, no big deal. You ask a stupid question, especially on Reddit, you get a stupid, but legitimate, answer.