Can we have a proper Holocaust thread where we provide and discuss the primary evidence?
Keep it polite and make serious points please.
Eichmann's confession.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK4nVaFvK10
Original documentary used in the Nuremberg trial.
https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Nuremberg-Trial-Film-Nazi-Concentration-Camps
Eyewitness testimony from a German engineer
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-engineer.htm
Eyewitness testimonies for Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor.
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/argaschambers.html
Secondary source rather than primary but this databse of victims has been worked on for decades.
http://db.yadvashem.org/names/search.html?language=en
Excerpts from Goebbel's diary.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goebbels-joseph/goebbels-1948-excerpts-01.html
Information about Jan Karski an important Polish witness.
http://www.jankarski.net/en/about-jan-karski/jan-karski-life.html
The Wanssee protocol - a discussion between high ranking Nazi officials on "the Jewish question".
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/wannsee.asp
>>509405
Thank you for a proper thread.
Heinrich Himmler makes a speech about the extermination of the Jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_cmbi3iIg
>>509447
Thank you, anon.
Testimony of Oskar Groening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVfFHJE0e1g
Treblinka's ashes are mixed with sand and spread 237,000 square feet around the monuments. Human bones have been found in shallow excavations of the soil containing the sand/ash mixture.
Official Nazi SS records indicate exactly 750,000 were transported to Treblinka. As far as these records are concerned, Treblinka I and II are the same camp.
The camp was designed to kill starting with dehydration, sickness, starvation, injury, and hypothermia occuring on the train rides. Diabetics, small children, infants, and elderly were particularly susceptible to these methods.
Workers preformed janitorial work, cooking, laundry, digging, stoved fires, and logging (to keep the building warm). Those who worked with corpses extracted gold teeth and valubles while later on mashing bones. They worked while fed a starvation diet designed to kill. The sick were denied medical care. These workers were often replaced daily by necessity.
Those who fought or ran were shot and a selection of men, women, and children that were too young to work were gassed to incite fear.
Only late in Treblinka's run did large gassing operations and mass burning take place.
Someone did ask about Treblinka. Do they need sources?
>>509468
Yes, please
>>509468
Yes I would like sources, anon.
>>509405
No we cannot, because nobody is intersted in the scholarly merits of the event. People are instead interested in pushing their narrative, regardless of facts.
All holocaust threads inevitably turn into shitflinging.
In 1946 the British government set up an inquiry with the specific intent of discrediting Jewish immigration to Palestine and downplaying the Holocaust. It was headed by centre-right, non-Jewish, senior judges, civil servants and diplomats from America and the UK.
Its reluctant findings estimated the number of Jewish victims from the Holocaust at 5.7 million...
Germany - 195,000
Austria - 53,000
Czechoslovakia - 255,000
Denmark - 1,500
France - 140,000
Belgium - 57,000
Luxemburg - 3,000
Norway - 1,000
Holland - 120,000
Italy - 20,000
Yugoslavia - 64,000
Greece - 64,000
Bulgaria - 5,000
Romania - 530,000
Hungary - 200,000
Poland - 3,271,000
USSR - 1,050,000
Total Number Jews Killed - 5,721,500
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angcov.asp
This source refutes the claim that is made by some Holocaust deniers that Red Cross documents support them.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/international/red-cross/ftp.py?orgs/international/red-cross//300000-victims.response
Raul Hilberg and Encyclopaedia Judaica, he consulted official Nazi documents in 1947 which indicated 750,000 by train. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p133_Allen.html
Bones and the sand/ash mixture. http://m.livescience.com/44443-treblinka-archaeological-excavation.html
Let me get the others, stand by.
The Stroop Report details the 'liquidation' of the Warsaw ghetto.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nowarsaw.html
http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/zabecki.html This is accounts of those who lived in the town which regularly saw the trains along with brutal occurrances.
Most of what I know is from books and older publications that detail those who had access to Nazi records after the war.
How do you source books on 4chan because much of their techniques are from books as far as extermination methods.
The Jäger Report is a tally sheet of actions by Einsatzkommando 3
The original.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110724012630/http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/jagerimages.html
The English translation.
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJager.htm
>>509605
Thanks, based anon
>>509577
>How do you source books on 4chan because much of their techniques are from books as far as extermination methods.
With great diffculty, unfortunately. Unless you can persuade people to go to a library and read the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_H%C3%B6ss
>>509608
You're welcome, anon.
Read The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boon, a 1971 publication, she survived a concentration camp. Her family hid the Jewish but got caught, most her family died. The book is very detailed about the lives of a concentration camp worker and the environment that spread death.
Do not confuse her with Misha Defonseca, a women who wrote a faked biography about being a holocaust survivor.
This isn't the greatest source ever because I am not sure this guy's book is available online (except to purchase as an actual book).
It is useful as you will notice many Holocaust deniers like to make a big deal about there being a football team at Auschwitz, happily content to ignore the fact the football team was made up from the small allied POW camp at Auschwitz and ignore the fact the people from the football team arethemselves independent eyewitnesses to what happened there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443817/Former-prisoner-war-96-remembers-playing-Auschwitz-football-league-return-Nazi-death-camp.html
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Bahr
The International Tracing Service holds hundreds of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to the Holocaust.
https://www.its-arolsen.org/en/archives/collections/index.html
this shit is irrefutable, how do people still believe this didn't happen
>this thread
>>509468
>The camp was designed to kill starting with dehydration, sickness, starvation, injury, and hypothermia occuring on the train rides. Diabetics, small children, infants, and elderly were particularly susceptible to these methods.
This was not in the design. This was Irmfried Eberl just trying to stuff as many transports as he could into Treblinka regardless of actual capacity, and of course they died as a result.
>>510043
people like to feel edgy
>>509544
Eh, the document from 38? I think? I can't remeber what it used to say.
The one they use now is dumb, but the older one that I used to have went againts a major part of the holocaust narrative.
>>510043
>>510797
Because they catch wind of some inconsistencies that can be pointed out and get a little upset that they were not taught in school or they were never brought up without doing a little digging.
I used to be that way, and then I learned against the functionalism vs. Intentionalism debate.
I still think Hitler was a magnificent politian and had some viable complaints about jews in Germany.
>>510804
>had some viable complaints about jews in Germany.
such as?
>>510814
The average jew was middle class and above the average German.
They ran bars and smut shows in Germany and pried on the poorest citizens (they did this in America aswell with the blacks). They also were blamed for a series of mini crashes in the German economy that left people to off themselves.
And so on.
Well, here is a good interview with Ursula Haverbek, she brings up many factual and interesting points from the documentary book she is reading from. Unfortunately it's only available in German, but describes in great detail the German camps.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WPa_QeV9KDM
>>510820
whether or not these accusations are true you really think they can justify institutionalized racism? If people are breaking the law then they should be arrested tried and imprisoned, regardless of race. If they aren't then what's the problem?
>>510833
>Says a whole bunch of anti-semitic shit
>Gaiz! I'm not an anti-semite.
>>510833
>they don't belong in a German nation
and why's that exactly? Because as far as I can tell they were german citizens.
>>510844
nice, another trip for my filter
>>510833
What if I told you that they fought for Germany in WWI at a higher rate than any other ethnic group?
>>510838
How am I anti-Semitic?
I enjoy my jewish neighbors, as they are religious and devout people. But I don't hate them in any way.
I just don't think jews belong in a German nation.
>>510839
They intentionally seperated themselves from the German people, and have a poor history upon the people's of Europe.
I'm a state that is in Germany, sure they can be citizens. But in a German state, they cannot.
It would be in the interest of many people's for them to have their own nation.
>>510852
Jews? Doubtful.
If you try and source the "200,000 jews!" Thing, it's half jews and quarter jews.
Regardles, jews do not belong in a German nation.
>>510854
>They intentionally seperated themselves from the German people
actually German jews in the interwar period were the most assimilated of all the european jewish communities.
Ironically all those who had intermarried and converted were still sent to the deathcamps
>>510861
Well, there was quite a lot of incentive to do so isn't there?
While they assimilated, they never shed their identity I would presume.
They still seperated themselves from European** I mistyped, peoples intentionally and have a poor and abusive history.
Jews, Africans, Russians, do not belong in a German nation.
>>510855
>Thing, it's half jews and quarter jews.
That's a distinction without a difference. They thought of themselves as Jews and so did Hitler's government for that matter.
>>510870
I very much doubt that many of the people executed for having one jewish great grand parent thought of themselves as jews.
>>510868
Nope! German Christians who had converted from Judaism were still treated as Jewish by the regime because they thought that these differences were more than a matter of faith.
Just like you.
>>510870
The source is dubious at best and usually discarded during discussions.
They did not consider themselves jewish.
>>510875
There is quite more of a difference than matter of faith regarding a jew.
They themselves believe it friend, I don't think they are a race, but certainly some ethnicity.
They even do genetic tests in Israel for admission.
>Oh noes a government doesn't want me in my somewhat harmful position
>let me hop skip jump and convert real quick
>but what to do about this curly hair
I have nothing to add, but I'm enjoying this thread and feel like I've learned a bunch. Thanks OP!
>>509499
I dont believe the entire kosher narrative but shit... Real non shit flinging discussions are good.
not BASED OP, but I have read several decent books on the topic of Holocaust denial. Here are two that I recommend:
Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? by multiple authors
http://www.amazon.com/Denying-History-Holocaust-Never-Happened/dp/0520260988/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451979524&sr=1-1&keywords=denying+history
>Book is basically your Holocaust Denial 101 course.
>Tells how the holocaust denial movement started, who the key players and organizations are in the game.
>Tells what methods Holocaust deniers use to spin their web of lies and lure in the average /pol/tard
>Has a nice rebuttal section that explains why Holocaust deniers are wrong
Lying About Hitler by Richard Evans
http://www.amazon.com/Lying-About-Hitler-Richard-Evans/dp/0465021530
>Book is about one of the most known Holocaust deniers, David Irving and his lawsuit against an author who called bullshit on Irving's research.
>the book is written by the Historical expert on the topic appointed by the court.
>follows the trial of David Irving's lawsuit, along with showing how Irving and his fellow Holocaust denial "historians" arrive at their conclusions (i.e. purposeful mistranslated, cherrypicking outlying statistical numbers, using a single witness who claims x, and ignoring 15 other witnesses who claim y happened, and outright making shit up)
Both are excellent reads
Only problem I have with holocaust revisionists is that they only focus on the Jew part. Nobody addresses homosexuals, gypsies, and the other undesirables that are said to have been killed.
>>511139
They don't really have a bone to pick with those groups so why would they care about them?
Pretty good video by a Jewish revisionist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmYFpiCo1-g
>>510876
So the Nuremberg laws enacted immediately as the nazis came to power are dubious?
Because that's the primary source for that. Now you're just getting lazy.
>>511235
Your claim about
>Jews fought more out of any other group
Is not valid.
>>509405
Does Action T4 count as part of the holocaust?
>>511126
I was wondering where David Irving was going to show up
glad it wasn't a recommendation, there's hope for this board
>>512391
He is actually a relatively good historian.
>>512408
Are you talking about Irving or Rosen as a good historian?
There should really be something in the sticky like this.
Not to stifle discussion of the Holocaust, but given the frequency with which poorly-sourced threads are posted "just asking questions" about the official narrative, it would be nice to have a readily available pile of sources to point then to without even leaving the board.
If, after that, they still have questions, then by all means they can make their threads.
>this thread
Is everything /pol/ told me a lie, lads? They said it was the redpill of objective non-ideological undiscovered truth
>>512456
>undiscovered
Undistorted*
>>512456
Yes. Everything /pol/ told you was a lie, mate.
Mostly because holocaust denial on 4chan started out as a joke until retards caught wind and started taking it seriously.
>>512451
This
>>512443
Irving.
Despite his whole holocaust tantrum.
>>512492
I'm not so sure. I had to read "The Destruction of Dresden" as part of something I once wrote up about the air war in general, and it's just bad. "Making shit up and then trying to ignore the letters of eyewitnesses who write you to say they never said what you quoted them in your book" level of bad.
I haven't comprehensively read through all of his stuff, but what I have hasn't exactly led me to conclude he's a good historian at all. At best, I'd say he's a good researcher, and even then, his obvious biases make me look at everything he "uncovers" with a lot of skepticism.
>>511139
People also conveniently forget that "gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, blacks" were a relatively insignificant fraction of the victims of the Holocaust while suspiciously leaving out the millions of Polish Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christian Slavs of various nationality, which comprised together only slightly less than the total amount of Jews killed.
Mods please sticky this thread, I'm tired of the bait threads.
Otherwise, someone make a .txt of all this and mediafire it please. I would do it but I'm on a tablet.
>>512636
There is this at least
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/509405/
>>512708
Holocaust means the burning of something.
Those people are clearly not burned. It is
this historical naivety which has let the propaganda of the Holocaust to permeate unchecked.
>>512724
So there was no holocaust because the semantics don't match up?
You realize that the Jews call it the Shoah, which means Catastrophe, right?
>>512746
I don't suppose you have any evidence besides broad generalizations, do you?
>>510882
please go back to /pol/
>>512751
Bolshevik Revolution and the main financial instigators of WWII.
>>512786
The Bolshevik Revolution was caused by German authorities that paid to ship and arm a sizable Russian Socialist minority that resided in exile in Germany, that, at the time, had the largest Socialist populace in Europe.
And, with WW2's "financial instigation," I think that the main financial motivation may have been Hitler's very short-sighted policy of taking out massive loans, and then forcing the exchange rates on his currency by invading countries and controlling the value of their currency.
>>512786
>Bolshevik Revolution and the main financial instigators of WWII.
here we go again
Here's a photo of generals Eisenhower and Patton at Ohrdruf. Patton wrote in his diary:
"When we began to approach with our troops, the Germans thought it expedient to remove the evidence of their crime. Therefore, they had some of the slaves exhume the bodies and place them on a mammoth griddle composed of 60-centimeter railway tracks laid on brick foundations. They poured pitch on the bodies and then built a fire of pinewood and coal under them. They were not very successful in their operations because there was a pile of human bones, skulls, charred torsos on or under the griddle which must have accounted for many hundreds. "
The attached photo is of the scene he described.
Of his visit, Eisenhower wrote to the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.”"
>>512817
The allies bombed the German infrastructure night and day.
There was nothing inherently wrong with detaining the Jews who had declared war against the Germans.
America likewise detained Japs, Germans, and Italians.
Disease spread through camps in WWII, that is were most deaths occurred.
>>510820
>They ran bars and smut shows
Those monsters. running their own businesses and not coercing people to come into them.
>>512834
>The allies bombed the German infrastructure night and day.
Yes, they sent their bombers all the way to Poland where they didn't have fighter cover to blow up the farms and roads when they could have been attacking industrial targets in western Germany.
>There was nothing inherently wrong with detaining the Jews who had declared war against the Germans.
Ha!
>America likewise detained Japs, Germans, and Italians.
And let them out for things like going to college and even joining the army. Clearly, they were comparable institutions.
>Disease spread through camps in WWII, that is were most deaths occurred.
Which is why the Germans needed crematoria for their camps that could incinerate the entire population in a week to a month! Disease was just that bad!
By the way, I'm being sarcastic in my responses. I would expect ordinary people to get that, but you don't seem so bright.
>>512834
>There was nothing inherently wrong with detaining the Jews who had declared war against the Germans.
>implying a whole people can declare war on someone
Collectivism is a mental illness.
>America did it too!
The same people that denounce the holocaust denounce that too, you fucking retard.
>>512838
The Germans would never stoop so low as serving and imbibing beer on their own!
>>510820
>The average jew was middle class and above the average German.
Unthinkable. An ethnic group with wealth disparity obviously deserves genocide!
>>512834
>detaining the jews was okay because detaining the japs was okay
what if neither was okay? also the "jews declaring war on germans" meme is my favourite
>>512834
>America likewise detained Japs, Germans, and Italians.
Yes, and we don't have constant threads denying that either.
NO NAZI. Ever. Ever. Was a Holocaust denier.
This one, simple fact shows that everything the modern deniers try to claim is a silly contrivance. From 1945 onwards, thousands of Nazis were captured and hundreds tried for their part in the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. They tried to pretend they were someone else, they tried to pretend they didn't know what was happening, they tried to pretend they didn't have as much to do with it as others, they tried to claim they were just following orders and they tried to justify it as "the kind of thing that happens in war." But what NOT ONE of them EVER did was DENY it happened.
Even men on trial for their lives, in the full knowledge they would be hanged if convicted, never stood up in the courtroom and shouted "This is all a lie! This is a fabrication! There were no gas chambers and no crematoria! I'M BEING FRAMED!!!!" On the contrary, they gave great detail as to precisely how they had helped build and helped run the mechanics of mass murder, some of them even seeming proud of how they had achieved something so complex and on such a vast scale.
>>511139
As a Jew myself it's fucking ridiculous how often we forget about the other 5 million people who where killed along with us. And it's not just ignorance, some of the people in my community get outright offended when you mention the gyspy or Slav deaths because they say it minimizes the Jewish suffering. I mean I love my people and all but this form of victim complex just gets too extreme and only brings hate down on and frankly on matters like this I can see where they're coming from
>>512456
Generally, yeah. The whole red pill thing is just teenagers trying to feel special and enlightened by having contrarian views and frankly I would take anything they say with a grain of salt
>>515818
How are Jews an inferior race? Frankly they've been nothing but successful in the modern era
Also, while the Weimar Republic made a bunch of dumb decisions, it wasn't as bad as you're making it out to be. Its rulers lead it into economic trouble but it's nowhere near close the destruction the Nazi regime brought onto itself. Even if the Jews did somehow cause all the problems the WR had I don't think mustering millions of Jewish and Slavic peasants is an appropriate response. "An eye for an eye" is a fucking retarted school of thought anyway, even if the Jews were that bad at least put the specific ones on trial and punish them appropriately
>>512456
Yes. /pol/ wants to feel special by having some sort of special 'counter knowledge' that gives you the feeling of expertise, without actually putting in the work.
Putting in the work, btw, is one of the easiest ways to tell holocaust denial is bullshit.
The holocaust provoke profound and considered reactions in the fields of theology, philosophy, international law, historiography, etc. etc.
I myself have used Christopher Browning's work on detailed study of the implementation of the holocaust, for statistical insight into other atrocities. He provided an overview of how people would conduct mass murder, statistically, based on a supposedly fictitious event, that then proved useful for studying actual events.
Meanwhile, the only bigger story than the Holocaust would be the Holocaust being a lie. It would be, without a doubt, the largest and most complex scheme in human history.
But Holocaust deniers have produced no great works of philosophy discussing the implications of this, the vast power of organization previously unimaginable, or the nature of evil in light of this. There's been no debates or research among them about how this conspiracy happened, or who was responsible for it. It's literally the biggest story in modern history, and they don't feel it's worth actually studying.
There's been no works of art exploring it, no autobiography about how they've been effected by it.
They have produced nothing. They tell the most astonishing tale in human history, and then they shrug and move on and don't care about it in the least, beyond braying like a jackass about 'muh holohoax.'
Have /pol/ been dealt with the most severe of blows? Well they finally leave this board forever?
>>516895
No. They'll just scream JIDF shilling.
Why is freely discussing holocaust punished by law in many countries? What's the problem with discussing history and asking questions? Are there other historical events you can be punished for talking about?
It's actually the only thing that bothers me in the whole story.
I can tell "gravity doesn't exist" and spouting bullshit and be considered and idiot and go free.
I can tell "we were created by god 4000 years ago and this evolution bullshit is stupid" and be considered an idiot and go free.
Why if I tell "holocaust didn't happen" I'd be fined and have jail time?
>>517195
>Why is freely discussing holocaust punished by law in many countries? What's the problem with discussing history and asking questions?
Because many countries don't have the same American (I'm assuming you're American, anyway) enshrining of free speech values. Causing offense, disturbing the public order are considered ills that suppression and censorship are perfectly valid tools to use.
>Are there other historical events you can be punished for talking about?
Sure there are, although which events varies by where you live.
Why did allies lie at nuremberg trial with the lampshade, shrunken head and soap bars? Why was it shown as proof while it's been proved all of this was bullshit? Why did they need to invent proofs for a trial that happened a couple of years after the facts, with I'm sure a shitload of proofs, papers, orders, lists etc... from the camps.
>>510043
The questing isn't whether it's happened, it's whether the narrative is entirely correct. Not even /pol/ denies that lots of Jewish people died as a direct result of the actions of the German government. They're holocaust revisionists, not "deniers".
>>517223
I've seen people in /pol/ in all apparent seriousness, claim, among other things (Please note that not all claims were from the same posts or posters)
>Fewer than 100,000 people died in the holocaust.
>The deaths were for factors that were completely outside of the control of Nazi Germany, and were not intentional
>Most of the deaths were caused by Allied strategic bombing
>The Jewish population decline in Europe was due to immigration to Israel and the U.S.
>Hitler really intended to relocate the Jews away and it was only Britain's fault that he didn't.
>There were no gassings
>There were no cremations
>Most camp deaths were caused by fighting between the Jews and Slavs kept in the camps.
>>517195
>Why is freely discussing holocaust punished by law in many countries?
It is not.
>>517245
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
>>517240
oh and lets not forget that they say these things while at the same time claiming that the holocaust was completely justified
>>517261
Out of those countries, show me those "many" where freely discussing the holocaust is punished by law.
>>517270
Did you even read it? All of theme except for about 5 explicitly punish people for "denial, minimalisation ,or trivialization" of the Holocaust, and the rest punish people for denying anything considered to be a war crime.
>>517293
Oh I thought when you said you cannot have a free discussion you meant an actual discussion, which you certainly can, not retarded memespouting holocaust denial.
>>517317
bamp
>>512456
/pol/ is pretty much the stormfront containment board
>>517337
No, you got rused son.
>>518731
The only people who claim the holocaust happened on /pol/ ARE stormfags.
>H-H-Hitler killed all teh joos
The best way to disprove the tinfoilocaust is to tear into the claims themselves so I hope to make an autistic post cross referencing all the evidence you had to post to "BTFO you guys"
>>509527
>In 1946
In 1946 the estimated death-toll of Majdanek was 1.5-1.7m people. Todays estimation is 78k. Just to show how much they were willing to inflate the numbers.
Serious question: Just how big is a pile of three million dead people?
>>517221
>Why did allies lie at nuremberg trial with the lampshade, shrunken head and soap bars?
As far as I am aware the soap bars and shrunken heads were shown at Nuremberg by one prosecutor, Thomas Dodd, as a minor point. This whole "The Allies" did it as though it was a collective decision by all the allied nations is silly. And so is the idea that this somehow refutes the entire Nuremberg trial, which had mountains of evidence behind the prosecution, or indeed the entire historical study of the Holocaust.
As far as I know (and I will be happily proved wrong by a source without the above point being incorrect) human lampshades were never shown in the Nuremberg trials at all and where a specific allegation made against one person, Isla Koch, in a separate trial.
The existence of soap made from Holocaust victims, or lampshades or a couple of shrunken heads from Buchanwald is still a matter of historical debate by the way is has not "been proven wrong" and even if they had been did this does not suddenly, by magic, overwhelm all of the other evidence and prove it wrong.
>>519603
The estimates made in the post you replied to were from population figures. They did not come from adding together the death count from individual camps.
>>509527
The number still stands and is slightly higher but the per country totals have been adjusted. For example, the new total for Denmark is 108 Jewish casualties.
This is due to the fact that the Danish Jewish community was exceptionally well integrated and they were evacuated to Sweden before the Nazis could get them.
Fun Fact: Physicist Nils Bohr was among them.
>>519626
>by the way is has not "been proven wrong"
No offense, I dont give a rats ass if youre a history student or a historian but this is not how the legal system works. People are innocent until proven guilty. People dont have to prove that someone was wrongfully accused. Its the other way round. And considering the farce the allies pulled with Majdanek I have a hard time believing any of the so called evidence.
If youre willing to overestimate the amount of victims by 2000% and present that figure as evidence in front of a fucking court, then that should damage your credibility beyond recognition. It doesnt matter if the Nazis killed 50k or 50m, the act it self is what mattered. It was a despicable thing to do and they could have lead the investigation by simply pointing out the nature of the crimes.
But if a group of people is willing to blatantly lie then their evidence becomes worth less than dirt. And thats what the allies did: they lied. Because claiming that 1.5-1.7m people were killed (in Majdanek), while lacking any evidence to support this claim, is nothing but exactly that. A blatant lie.
>>519679
In case you didn't notice, this came immediately on the heels of WWII. People were still picking up the pieces that your spiritual liege broke.
>>519626
>which had mountains of evidence behind the prosecution
Care to give a few, please ?
>>517195
>Why is freely discussing holocaust punished by law in many countries?
I don't think it is a good idea that any country interferes with freedom of speech, however since you are asking for the reason, the reason is that most of those countries have links with the Holocaust and are concerned that Holcaust denial is a tool of Neo-Nazis.
By the way, the two biggest English speaking Western countries, the UK and the US have no laws against Holcaust denial.
>It's actually the only thing that bothers me in the whole story.
This sort of thinking has no place in historical discussion at all. If France decided claiming 2+2=5 was silly and banned it, then it would not make 2+2=5.
The decisions of individual countries in reagrd to their laws has no relevance to the historical evidence.
>>519692
What's with the attitude? He raises a good point. Why not just point at the crimes instead of inventing shit like shrunken heads and jew lampshades?
>>519679
It is you who doesn't grasp how trials work or how the study of history works.
If someone is convicted of murder based on overwhelming evidence one piece of evidence being insubstantial does not negate all the other evidence.
>>519692
What exactly is it youre saying? That blatantly lying is a stressful situation is justified? That knowingly publishing propaganda figures is justified?
You dont fucking say that X were killed when the actual amount was X/20. Because if the figures are this different, then you sure as hell cant claim that you missed a handful of clues. We arent talking about an overestimation of 50-100%. We are talking about an overestimation of TWO THOUSAND PERCENT.
Providing something like that as evidence is goddamn outrageous. If you provide something as evidence then you better make fucking sure that it sticks/is true.
>>519728
>one piece of evidence being insubstantial does not negate all the other evidence
Outstanding reading comprehension skills.
>>519702
I suggest you look at the first dozen or so posts in the thread and start from there.
>>519728
Fake evidence can be a reason for a trial to be lost on a technicality in most countries. If there were such overwhelming evidence, why the soap and lampshade?
>>519737
>Outstanding reading comprehension skills.
?
Are you referring to you ranting and raving about lying with no evidence? Like I say neither the soap or the heads have been proven wrong. Nor is one prosectuor offering them as one minor piece of evidence something theat disproves the rest of the evidence.
>>519752
>I say neither the soap or the heads have been proven wrong
They dont need to be proven wrong. They need to be proven to have actually existed.
>Nor is one prosectuor offering them as one minor piece of evidence something theat disproves the rest of the evidence
It still shows that a) evidence might have been faked b) evidence might have been created out of thin air (see Majdanek) c) there is a chance that this applies to all evidence.
I get that you dont have the slightest clue how legal investigations work but making forging evidence can kill your trial in almost any civilized nation. Which is just further proof that the Nuremberg trials werent actual trials. They were a circus show that were not handled like a legal process would.
>>519763
>Testimonies aren't evidence,
Where did you get that idea from?
>I mean actual documents, orders, registers and all
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=doc_anal
https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Nuremberg-Trial-Film-Nazi-Concentration-Camps
>>519774
>They dont need to be proven wrong.
Actually if you are making an accusation of lying rather than merely making a claim that one piece of evidence not being substantial enough proves all of the other evidence wrong then the burden of proof falls on you.
>It still shows that a) evidence might have been faked b) evidence might have been created out of thin air (see Majdanek) c) there is a chance that this applies to all evidence.
No it doesn't. And you simply asserting that to be the case does not make that the case.
>>519814
>Actually if you are making an accusation of lying
Another example of your outstanding reading comprehension skills. You keep spouting that the "soap or the heads have been proven wrong". In reality they have to be proven to exist to be used as evidence in a trial.
I simply implied that lying about one thing drastically increases the probability of them lying about many other things. A liar cant be trusted. Because if he lied once then its pretty clear that there is an agenda that is supposed to be pushed.
If there wasnt then you wouldnt have an incentive to lie or present assumptions and half-truths as facts.
>No it doesn't
From a legal standpoint it does. But as I already pointed out, you dont have the slightest clue how a legal process usually works. Neither do you understand that a perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty. The point is that the Nuremberg trials might have been clattered with lies, as can be seen when looking at the outrageous overestimation of the victims. And dont you dare to say that an estimation of 1.7m dead people is 'a minor piece of a evidence'. The death count was the selling point of the entire trials.
Pointing out the Nazis crimes would have been sufficient. But no, they had to present fake evidence and made up figures. Knowing all of this I am not even surprised that there are nut jobs out there who deny the Holocausts existence and arent questioning the legitimacy of evidence like I am.
>>519814
>Where did you get that idea from?
Because witnesses are unreliable, can lie, and have interests. If testimonies were evidence, I could just go to a court and testify that you're a rapist and have you jailed.
Also, I don't see any proof of the holocaust, gaz chamber and all in the links you gave. It's about castration by x-ray experimentations. The movie shows people who are very slim, it could be due to poor treatments of course, but it could be due to camps being less provided for because of war being lost and bombings, and typhus as often claimed by revisionists.
There got to be registers of prisoners sent to gaz chambers. How did they do to keep track of prisoners still alive? There got to be a real, tangible evidence other than an x ray experimentation and a movie that could be out of context.
Also, I don't see a evidence file group for camps/gaz chambers in the list on your list. Why is it?
>>519870
>I simply implied that lying about one thing drastically increases the probability of them lying about many other things.
There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills.
You have not shown anyone to have lied and the burden of proof falls on you if you want to make a claim anyone has lied.
>>519897
>Because witnesses are unreliable, can lie, and have interests. If testimonies were evidence, I could just go to a court and testify that you're a rapist and have you jailed.
Oh dear. Witness testimonies are the backbone of pretty much every criminal case.
>>519623
Can someone answer this please?
>>519907
>>You have not shown anyone to have lied and the burden of proof falls on you if you want to make a claim anyone has lied.
And what exactly is it when you claim for 1.7m people to have died in a single death camp (at Majdanek) without any evidence to back it up? What is it if not a blatant lie?
If the actual death-count was 5% of that, then there is no way in hell that they had any evidence to back up their claim. They either rolled a pair of dice or threw a dart. But that estimation sure as hell wasnt based on real world evidence. So I ask you again: what is this if not a blatant lie to further your agenda?
>>519928
Could you show me all the sources you are using for this so I can discuss them properly?
>>512851
Only if they're non-white!
(Better watch out Asians)
>>519907
>Witness testimonies are the backbone of pretty much every criminal case.
No they arent. They are what opens an investigation but not what makes it a case. A testimony is worthless unless you have actual evidence to back up your claim because its easier to fake than anything else.
>>519934
If you dont even know about the death camp of Majdanek then what the hell are you even arguing with me? Hell, the figures are even metioned on a website as liberal as Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majdanek_concentration_camp#Death_toll
>The Soviets initially overestimated the number of deaths, claiming at the Nuremberg Trials in July 1944 that there were no fewer than 400,000 Jewish victims, and the official Soviet count was of 1.5 million victims of different nationalities,[24]
Youre a waste of my goddamn time.
>>519943
> They are what opens an investigation but not what makes it a case
Are you seriously claiming no one has ever been convicted on the weight of eyewitness testimony alone?
>>519943
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majdanek_concentration_camp#Death_toll
There is nothing in this source that proves anyone lied or the Holcaust did not happen.
>>519943
>No they arent. They are what opens an investigation but not what makes it a case
Sorry lad but you have no idea what you are talking about in the slightest.
>>519968
>Are you seriously claiming no one has ever been convicted on the weight of eyewitness testimony alone?
I highly doubt that any judge from a civilized country has ever convicted someone because a group of people claimed for someone else to have done something without them being able to provide evidence for him to have committed said crime.
Why? Because a testimony doesnt become valuable just because 10 people claim for it to be true. Its still worthless because all of them could be lying. But I welcome you to prove me wrong and show me a few trials that convicted a person because of nothing but testimonies.
No evidence, no weapon, no motive etc. Just the testimonies.
>>519976
>There is nothing in this source that proves anyone lied
Refer to >>519928
If I claim that X people died, while in reality it has only been X/20, then what is it if not a lie? Because apparently I just presented evidence and an estimation without anything to back up either.
>or the Holcaust did not happen.
Jesus Christ you have some severe mental disorder.
>>519987
See above. Youre welcome to prove me wrong and provide examples of legal cases.
The true causes of the holocaust made it completely justified: saving the germany economy. Its why jews were allowed to lave the country with no money.
>>519999
>>>519976 (You)
>>There is nothing in this source that proves anyone lied
>Refer to >>519928
That is your own post. It is not a piece of evidence anyone lied it doesn't even have a citation.
Okay, let's rehash a bit here. The study of hisotry is based on looking at primary evidence and then assessing that primary evidence to come to a conclusion about what happened in the past.
It does not involve specualtion piled on argumentation piled on accusation piled on a claim if one piece of evidence is not solid enough every other piece of evidence is wrong.
It does not involve claiming thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses are liars based on not understanding how criminal trials work.
It does not involve claiming because the Soviets made an overestimation of the death count at any given death camp every population study done, ever, ever, ever are all wrong.
Here is a small fraction of the primary evidence.
>>509405
>>509411
>>509417
>>509424
>>509437
>>509443
>>509454
>>509464
>>509527
>>509544
>>509605
>>509690
>>509704
>>519570
I'm sure we'll be waiting forever.
So serious question here, what are the numbers for jews deliberately killed by nazis for ideological purposes.
What's the story behind the 4 million number, and what's the story behind the 6 million number?
Just curious about the bias and research behind all of it, because obviously very few people research this stuff without an already clear image in their minds.
>>520039
>I'm sure you're aware of the events transpiring in Oregon.
I am not since I am not American.
>solely on the 11 year later testimony of a family member who was thirteen years old at the time if the events in question
Which seems highly unlikely. This rather sounds like there was already evidence, or at least heavy indications that linked them to the crimes, and that his testimony ended up sealing the deal. In which case the testimony was a part of the investigation, not its backbone. Could you provide the transcript for further information regarding the trial because I am pretty sure that youre blatantly lying to support your claim.
A testimony alone is worthless for a very simple reason: human nature. If a testimony alone would be enough to send someone to jail, then there would be a lot more convicts. A testimony isnt evidence, it just adds to it and paints a bigger and more comprehensive picture.
>>520052
>That is your own post. It is not a piece of evidence anyone lied it doesn't even have a citation.
In 1945 the Allies claimed that 1.5m people died at Majdanek
In 2005 the estimated amount of victims is adjusted to 78k
How did they come up with the figure of 1.5m if todays estimation is 78k? And after you answered that question: How is presenting this figure at a trial not blatantly lying about evidence (the figure of 1.5m) since (apparently) they lacked anything to back it up. Unless the 1.422m remains suddenly vanished over the years.
I wont even bother to with the rest of your post because you keep evading the central point and even accused me of denying the Holocausts existence after me (specifically) pointing out that I all I do is question the legitimacy of the evidence and not the existence of the event itself. Get your shit together. English isnt a foreign language to you so you shouldnt have that much trouble comprehending simple English sentences.
>>520089
Not anyone you've responded to, but the general Soviet M.O. for calculating camp deaths was to look at the capacity of the crematoria, figure out how long the camp was in operation, work out the math for how many bodies could be incinerated, and then present that as the number killed.
It's the same way they came up with "Around 4 million" for Auschwitz.
>>509527
Again, evading the central point.
This is the last time I will respond to you since you seem to suffer from some severe mental disability. WHERE did the EVIDENCE for 1.5 MILLION VICTIMS come from, when 60 years later said figure is ADJUST to 78 THOUSAND?
WHERE did the EVIDENCE for the REMAINING 1.422 MILLION VICTIMS come from? Because standing in front of a judge/court, claiming that 1.5m people died when I have NOTHING to back up that claim, is nothing but a lie to further an agenda. Its not proven to be correct. Its not a fact that you can backup with evidence. Its an estimation that might as well have been made up yet you present it like a fact at a trial.
>>520113
Thanks. So it was an estimation based on assumptions which then was presented in trial. If thats not blatantly lying to further an agenda then I dont know what is.
>>520089
> This rather sounds like there was already evidence, or at least heavy indications that linked them to the crimes,
No more so than there is linking the Nazis to the Holocaust.
>There was undeniably a fire.
>The family never denied setting the fire only that the fire was set with malicious intent
>malicious intent was proven with the testimony of said family member
>The Jews were undeniably sent to camps where they died
>The Nazis never denied sending Jews to camps where they died
>malicious intent was proven through eyewitness testimony from countless inmates, and Nazi witnesses
>>520126
I asked you to provide the transcript, not to green text. But I guess your inability to do so also proves me right.
>>520132
Look it up yourself, you're the one claiming I'm misrepresenting the facts of the case.
>>520121
>This is the last time I will respond to you since you seem to suffer from some severe mental disability. WHERE did the EVIDENCE for 1.5 MILLION VICTIMS come from, when 60 years later said figure is ADJUST to 78 THOUSAND?
Okay well let me put it another way.
I am not an expert on the Majdenek death camp. Neither are you at my guess.
Could you possibly provide some primary evidence and the secondary literature you have looked at that in order for me to properly assess the claims you are making that all of the sources given here....
>>509405
>>509411
>>509417
>>509424
>>509437
>>509443
>>509454
>>509464
>>509527
>>509544
>>509605
>>509690
>>509704
... are inaccurate based on squeaking and shrieking and squealing "why, why why, why why, why why".
I would be delighted if you could provide me some serious citations about the estimates made of the death count at Madjenek so we could have a good look at them and actually discuss them.
My great grandfather died in Auschwitz so there is that.
>>520160
Those guard towers will kill yah.
>>520148
You are talking about two people whos 'crimes' have caused major damage to federal property. Even if they claim for it to have been an accident, thats potential evidence that can be used against them. It physically exists and it can be proven that the fire started on their land and made its way from there.
How the fuck is that case based on a testimony? Its based on physically existing evidence and the only thing the testimony does is paint a bigger picture and helps with the motive.
>>520243
>did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
Did you miss that part of the sentence?
>The Hammonds later found out a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires.
>No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property.
Actually take the time to READ the facts don't just go off half-cocked.
>>509411
>.The stoves were 1.10m high, 55cm wide and 55cm long
> The stove opening was oval, with a diameter of about 25cm
Fucking how?
Also, nice eywitnesses.
>>520266
>Did you miss that part of the sentence?
No I didnt. Just because something doesnt warrent prosecution it doesnt mean that no evidence existed. You claimed that the entire process and conviction were based on a testimony. I have already proven you wrong in an earlier post so this is just adding to it.
>(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail which would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for six days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds.
>He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony
>>520272
Are you kidding me?
>Just because something doesnt warrent prosecution it doesnt mean that no evidence existed.
>evidence doesn't warrant prosecution
>this some how means in your mind that the evidence was used to justify prosecution
>You claimed that the entire process and conviction were based on a testimony.
Wrong I claimed the CONVICTION was based on testimony.
There was never any doubt that the family set a fire and there was never any doubt that said fire spread to government land . What needed to be proven was INTENT. Intent was proven on the back of the eye-witness testimony not on physical evidence.
>>520268
nice infographic disproving that entire website anon
you're such a redpilled freethinker :^)
>>520268
That appears to be an "infographic" rather than refutation of eyewitness sources.
>>520287
>evidence doesn't warrant prosecution
Most evidence requires interpretation. Stop talking about the legal process when you dont have the slightest clue what the fuck youre talking about. Not every piece of evidence is an arrow pointing to the defendant. Whether or not the evidence is enough for a sentence depends on the interpretation of the judge (or in case of your third world legal system a mentally handicapped jury).
>Wrong I claimed the CONVICTION was based on testimony.
Which is wrong again. It wasnt. It was based on evidence and the testimony added to it. Besides, I literally asked you to
>But I welcome you to prove me wrong and show me a few trials that convicted a person because of nothing but testimonies.
After you claimed
>Are you seriously claiming no one has ever been convicted on the weight of eyewitness testimony alone?
And that isnt the case here. The person was convicted because a testimony added to the evidence in the hands of the state. Without physical evidence you DONT HAVE A CASE, which means that its impossible to base a conviction on testimony alone you fucking mongrel.
>>520306
>written by typewriter, not by hand
Is there some rule I'm unaware of that demands a diary be written by hand?
>>520306
Oh I see.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption Goebbel's diary has been disproven as being a solid source based on a bit of greentexting.
>>520317
Ok, the guy who posted the Soviet M.O. for calculation again: Please stop drawing a line between "Testimony" on one hand and "Evidence" on the other.
Evidence:
>n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.
Testimony is a form of evidence. You might not think it's particularly trustworthy or weighty evidence, but it is in fact evidence if it's about information relevant to the case at hand.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671
I don't know where you're from, but look up your country's rules of evidence. Bet you anything that most of it deals with how people testify at trials.
>>520268
>no sources
>muh eyewitnesses
How about these ones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlPlZGvgY0
>>520346
>Testimony is a form of evidence. You might not think it's particularly trustworthy or weighty evidence, but
And in the trial they SPECIFICALLY presented EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONIES.
Not even gonna start on the fact that the destroyed land PHYSICALLY EXISTS, which means that the conviction wasnt solely based on TESTIMONIES. Why do you feel the need to tell me about the definition of English terms when you yourself lack the ability to comprehend basic English sentences?
He claimed that there are people who got convicted based on TESTIMONIES ALONE. I even quote that part in my last post. As a result I presented plenty of evidence that the case he chose as example does not fulfill this criterion. So unless he is able to provide legal evidence that there have been people who got convicted based on nothing but testimonies I stand to be corrected.
But I hardly doubt that such a case exists simply because testimonies alone are worthless.
>>520317
You disingenuous faggot.
>A testimony is worthless unless you have actual evidence to back up your claim because its easier to fake than anything else.
This was your original claim.
What evidence was there in this case other than the testimony of the eyewitness in question to support the claim that the Hammond family set a fire with the aim of maliciously burning down government property?
Let's not get distracted though from the ACTUAL topic of discussion. Since you now seem to acknowledge the validity of eyewitness testimony to buttress state evidence that does not directly support prosecution, do you still claim that the eyewitness testimony which led to convictions at Nuremberg was invalid and should not be considered evidence?
>>520360
Just like the holocaust ',;^)
>>520370
>Not even gonna start on the fact that the destroyed land PHYSICALLY EXISTS, which means that the conviction wasnt solely based on TESTIMONIES
So sort of like how the concentration camps PHYSICALLY EXIST and Nuremberg convictions weren't solely based on TESTIMONIES?
>>520330
>tortured Germans and paid Slavs
Cite your citations for "tortured" and "paid" please.
Note your citations have to relate to specific witnesses and how they were "tortured" and "paid" rather than some bit of /pol/ tomfoolery.
>>520382
>not knowing that the Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court
When you read some of this shit it gets really apparent the true nature of that thing.
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 1
Article 19
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art19
>The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 1
Article 21
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art21
>The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.
>>520370
No, they present evidence Testimony is a form of evidence. They are not separate things.
>Why do you feel the need to tell me about the definition of English terms when you yourself lack the ability to comprehend basic English sentences?
You misused a term of art, and especially when you're decrying people for not understanding how the legal process works, you should really get your verbiage right. Don't throw stones in that glass house of yours, or people might throw back.
> So unless he is able to provide legal evidence that there have been people who got convicted based on nothing but testimonies I stand to be corrected.
Wrong. I am not defending his claim that people have been convincted solely on eyewitness testimony. I am attacking your claim that "testimony" is not "evidence".
Please learn to read.
>>520343
>It's difficult to attest its authenticity.
Not at all.
If the entries coincide with events from the subjects life then odds are it is authentic.
Especially when the diary in question is 29 volumes long.
>>520407
It was printed in glass plates, not the original testable paper.
Tell me what proves it's authentic.
>>520381
>Nuremberg convictions weren't solely based on TESTIMONIES?
Did you just claim that the prosecution case at the Nuremberg trials was purely based on eyewitness testimony using nothing more than your own anger that you got destroyed in the argument that eyewtness testimonies are evidence accepted in every land in the world?
They had entire rooms of paperwork evidence as well.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007271
>>520381
What are you even aiming at? I neither doubted the existence of concentration camps, death camps or the Holocaust. I simply doubted the legitimacy of the evidence. And that claim has already been proven right by them claiming that 1.5m people died at Majdanek.
Also: I wasnt the guy who started the debate regarding testimonies, I simply added to it. But I guess its too hard to you to tell different posters apart. Which is funny since I even multi quoted on my post.
Point still stands, though. Testimonies alone are worthless. If physical evidence didnt exist people could have claimed to have been gassed an no one would have been convicted. Why? Because they wouldnt have been able to prove it. Since physical evidence existed they had a case, though. Again, the testimony wouldnt be the backbone of the conviction because it alone would mean nothing. Its the physical evidence that decides whether youre convicted or not. The physical evidence is what turns it into a trial, not someone accusing someone of having done something.
>>520397
>No, they present evidence Testimony is a form of evidence. They are not separate things.
Yet transcripts mention them as separate things which implies that there were a) testimonies and b) physically existing evidence or else there wouldnt be a point writing out both terms.
> I am attacking your claim that "testimony" is not "evidence".
Hilarious because you know exactly what I mean, yet still need me to type out 'physically existing evidence' or 'physical evidence' instead of simply saying evidence.
>>520396
None of this is evidence relating to specific witnesses being "tortured" and "paid".
Try again please.
>>520418
I'm sorry but didn't you originally claim that it was not even written on the kind of paper used at the time?
Now the diary was printed on glass plates?
Which is it?
Or is it both?
>>520409
There's actually another image disproving a lot of these articles had no source of ever existing and that they were made by a bunch of neo nazis. Of course I seen it from lefty pol.
>>520421
>Did you just claim that the prosecution case at the Nuremberg trials was purely based on eyewitness testimony
No I did not.
>>520433
Post it, please.
>>520426
>I neither doubted the existence of concentration camps, death camps or the Holocaust.
>I simply doubted the legitimacy of the evidence.
So you believe the Holocaust happened despite the fact that you by your own words doubt the legitimacy of the evidence?
>Testimonies alone are worthless
http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/qa/is-eyewitness-testimony-sufficient-for-conviction/
What now?
>>520426
>Hilarious because you know exactly what I mean, yet still need me to type out 'physically existing evidence' or 'physical evidence' instead of simply saying evidence.
So, I'm apparently supposed to read your mind and figure out what you meant on something other than what you typed? Especially when dealing with a matter of law, which can include such finely hair-splitting differences such as something being a "hearsay exception" vs "not being hearsay" (even though it's an out of court statement being offered to prove the veracity of something mentioned in the statement)
At the very least, get off your damn high horse with the lecturing of "how trials work".
>>509443
They didn't talk about jewish extermination, though.
>>520409
Last time I checked the scholarly estimate for Jewish deaths in the Holocaust was 5-6 million and and including non-Jews it is 10-11 million.
Are you sure you are suffering from aphophenia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
>>520456
>So you believe the Holocaust happened despite the fact that you by your own words doubt the legitimacy of the evidence?
How stupid do you have to be to not tell these two apart?
>Doubting legitimacy
Allies claim that 1.5m people died at Majdanek
-> I doubt the legitimacy of this evidence.
-> Do I therefore doubt that no one died?
-> No I dont because I acknowledge that 78k died
Wow, that was easy. So now I doubted the legitimacy of the evidence yet still miraculously acknowledge the existence of the Holocaust and the war crimes committed by the Nazis.
>What now?
I dont know. I see a forum post. Doesnt look like evidence to me. Shall I create an account and post 'No'? Besides, most of these posts claim that
>Lots of convictions are based on eyewitness testimony.
Thats not the same as a conviction that is SOLELY based on testimony.
>>520461
>So, I'm apparently supposed to read your mind
No, youre supposed to add up two numbers and come to the conclusion that a person who split evidence and testimony means that evidence in this case stands for physically existing evidence. But it seems to be a common problem among Americans. Most of you are also too stupid to decipher simple on letter typos.
>>520454
I'm not aware this testimony has been cited at any point in this thread. Could you point me to where it has been please rather than making the obvious fallacy that highlighting a small section of a newspaper article you have cherrypicked magically, by some piece of sorcery, means that thousands and thousands of eyewitness testimonies are wrong.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division
>>520487
>http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/qa/is-eyewitness-testimony-sufficient-for-conviction/
> Now, all that they are left with is eyewitness testimony.
>Yes, it is often enough for a conviction.
>Yes, the same as IF someone stole your purse, and you IDed him, but they/police did not find your purse.
>A conviction can enter against your husband based on eyewitness testimony. The prosecutor still has to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and his lawyer should attack the credibility of the witnesses by vigorous cross examination, and certainly make a motion to exclude witnesses, by having each testify outside the presence of the other witnesses.
>No, youre supposed to add up two numbers and come to the conclusion that a person who split evidence and testimony means that evidence in this case stands for physically existing evidence. But it seems to be a common problem among Americans. Most of you are also too stupid to decipher simple on letter typos.
The conclusion that you're a boorish, ignorant demagogue, intent on displaying a sense of superiority seems far more likely.
>>520409
The majority of these refer to the roughly six million jews that lived in the Russian Empire, which is an objective number that just so happens to coincide roughly with the number of jews that died in the holocaust. Are you one of those retards who thinks the number 6 million was picked because it had mystical qualities? Go back to >>>/pol/ regardless.
>>520498
I am still waiting for legal precedence. Not some crook forum posts made by a bunch of drop out attorneys who want to make money. Whats next? Youre going to advice me to get a diagnosis from an online doctor?
>>520487
>I dont know. I see a forum post. Doesnt look like evidence to me. Shall I create an account and post 'No'?
you didn't actually LOOK at the link I provided did you?
That's not a forum. You can't create an account and say "no".
That is a website where people ask for legal advice from defense attorneys.
The woman asked
>Is eyewitness testimony sufficient for a conviction?
>The prosecution attempted to use DNA evidence to convict my husband but the results came back as inconclusive. Now, all that they are left with is eyewitness testimony.
All they have left is eyewitness testimony.
The attorneys on this website seem to believe that this is potentially sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to attain a conviction.
You on the other hand disagree.
Who should we believe, you or the attorneys?
>>520512
Exactly what it says that the concentration camps exist as physical evidence and that the Nuremberg convictions weren't based solely on eyewitness testimonies.
>>520515
>Those numbers fluctuate a lot
No they don't stormtard.
Kill yourself.
>>520509
>>520498
>The states case is weaker without something else tying him to the crime but yes eye witness testimony in the past has been enough to convict someone depending on the jury. Get an experienced attorney. If this is an Eastern WA state case contact me. I travel throughout Eastern WA for all types of criminal offenses.
Top yey. Call me please
>Eyewitness testimony can convict someone, even though there are many scientific studies that show how unreliable and mistaken most eyewitness testimony actually is. You need a lawyer.
>Without knowing more facts one can not predict a specific outcome with any certainty. However, DNA evidence is not required to secure a conviction. People were convicted without any forensic evidence at all for many, many years. The prosecution must convince the fact finder, be it a jury or a judge in a bench proceeding, that there is relevant evidence which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charged crime exist and that the crime was committed by the accused.One way of doing so is with an eye witness to the event(s), provided the eye witness is deemed credible by the finder of fact.
Hey, at least I specified that the person should be convicted by a judge. So I can backpedal and ignore any decision made by a jury since its effectively them who would come up with the conclusion and not the properly educated legal worker.
>>520514
>Who should we believe, you or the attorneys?
Neither party since the attorneys have a conflict of interest see to quote above. They are literally trying to win over customers.
I admit that I mistook the website for a forum, my bad. Good for me that I asked for a) legal precedence and b) a person convicted by a judge (and not a jury).
>>520515
>What about the Red Cross?
See here >>509544
There is not a shred of evidence the Red Cross as an organisation has ever backed Holocaust denial or ever claimed to have published evidence supporting Holocaust denial or has ever been an organisation that compiles stats on war crimes.
This is pure fantasy.
>>520528
>They are literally trying to win over customers.
By providing poor legal advice?
That doesn't seem like sound business practices to me.
>>520520
I suggest you read the post you replied to again.
There are thousands and thousands of eyewitnesses. Trying to imply all of them are liars based on a small number of didgy accounts is obvious idiocy.
I'm surprised you were so easily persuaded by this argument in the first place. Surely you are a bit too smart and cynical for that.
>>520535
>nizkor
Really, m8?
>>520536
>That doesn't seem like sound business practices to me.
And why is that? They are being paid either way. As long as they arent claiming that its a safe bet, the plaintiff cant even accuse them of lying. Where do you think all the prejudices regarding lawyers come from? Hell, its especially bad in the US because of how gigantic your country and how worthless a law degree from a non-Ivy league school is.
>>520546
Really.
(*´∇｀)┌θ(ﾉ>_<)ﾉ
>>520546
I'm sorry mate. They are a reasonable source. That sort of thing doesn't work on /his/
>>520560
>an extremely biased source is a reasonable one
Nice to see what are /his/' standards.
>>520548
>They are being paid either way
Except they don't actually being paid if the person they give faulty legal advice to does their own research and comes to an opposite conclusion, because they never get hired in the first place.
>>520556
>Those testimonies conflict with other testimonies.
By reading them and looking at the weight of historical evidence rather than cherry picking them based on ideology and suggesting a small number refute the rest.
I mean, that should be fairly obvious, right?
>>520509
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1521417.html
>Moreover, the prejudice in this case is worsened because the only evidence of Rosario's guilt was the testimony of two stranger eyewitnesses. There is no question, in my opinion, that had the additional alibi witnesses who were presented in connection with Rosario's post-conviction motion testified at trial, there is a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict would have been different, satisfying the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis
Don't forget, you claimed upthread that you did indeed know that there was no substantive difference between physical evidence and testimony, that they're both "evidence". If so, and the trier of fact is satisfied to its veracity, what possible theoretical basis could there be for not convicting solely based on testimony that either the judge or the jury believes is correct? Those are issues of weight, not admissibility; and a trier of fact has almost unlimited latitude to determine the value of any evidence legally presented before him.
>>520567
I apologise for posting neo-Nazi websites. Would you care to post a single citation from the Red Cross or a netral historian that backs the claim the Red Cross is an orgnanisation that collects data about war crimes and backs Holocaust denial.
>>520585
You seriously want to scratch every single piece of eyewitness testimony from the study of history?
>>520593
>that hyperbole
Just when it's something as controversial as the holocaust.
>>520548
Under the rules of the ABA, an attorney giving demonstrably incorrect advice has failed to meet their duty of competence and can be sanctioned, up to and including having their license to practice stripped from them.
>>520588
This is direct from the horse's mouth.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/redcross.html
>>520543
>Trying to imply all of them are liars based on a small number of didgy accounts is obvious idiocy
Uhem, not him but why exactly couldnt all of them lie to push an agenda? I think youre underestimating human nature.
Before you go there: I dont say that they are lying, I am simply asking you why youre so sure that they couldnt possibly do so. Truth always depends on where youre looking from. Racists for example hardly ever are racist because they chose to be. They were raised this way and for them its the normal way of thinking. The same way you believe in equality even though there being nothing that actually backs it up as being the optimal choice.
After all, its nothing but a mindset and we as society decide whats right or wrong. Nature dictates one law, and one law alone: survival of the fittest.
>>520569
Sounds like an assumption to me. And I am still waiting for legal precedence.
>>520576
>what possible theoretical basis could there be for not convicting solely based on testimony that either the judge or the jury believes is correct?
Human nature and the fact that a testimony can be faked on a whim. Thats why it shouldnt be reliable and just add to the trail, not be its basis and the reason for conviction.
>or the jury believes is correct
A bunch of normal people who arent even capable of objectively judging a situation and are specifically picked because they have certain prejudices. Hell, the entire picking process is a fucking farce. But that just my opinion.
>unlimited latitude to determine the value
Then he should also be aware of reality.
You example seems conclusive and I stand corrected. However, I still find it funny that the However, I think its funny that this is the follow up paragraph to your quote
>I come to this conclusion, as I must, because there exists too much alibi evidence that was not presented to the jury, and too little evidence of guilt, to now have any confidence in the jury's verdict.
>>520600
The Holcaust happening is about as controversial as the Vietnam War happening matey.
>>520600
If the Holocaust is controversial then all historical events are controversial.
>>520611
If it was as you say we wouldn't have this conversation.
>>520610
>Sounds like an assumption to me.
That's because you're an idiot.
> And I am still waiting for legal precedence.
and your intellectually dishonest ass shall continue to wait.
>>520617
Do you honestly think your views are some sort of a mainstream opinion?
>we have to discount hundreds of thousands of eyewitness testimonies for a proven historical event because me and my buddies on /pol/ claim it is controversial.
>this is the criteria for which historical evidence no longer is valid.
Kek.
>>520503
>6 millions on Russia
>6 millions on Eastern Europe
>6 millions on Central Europe
Could you give me a source at least?
>>520617
Just because some idiot somewhere holds a contrary opinion on something doesn't mean there's a controversy surrounding the topic in question.
There is no controversy that the world is round for instance yet that hasn't stopped people on the internet from making the claim that it is actually flat.
>>520606
That doesn't say a damn thing about them collating data and you know it.
>>509405
Absolutely based thread OP.
>>520664
Lad, I'm only one person.
I was trying to disprove each one of them but it's quite bothersome.
Won't do it this time because I don't have the patience necessary. But I already responded to some of them.
>>520617
>this is what Stormfags actually believe
You're an embarrassment to civilized society.
>>512525
>blacks
calling bullshit
Leucther report /thread
>>520872
How efficient are you being about placement? Are you trying to minimize the amount of empty space, or are you just throwing them in a hole?
>>520898
I was thinking it would have to be simplistic, as I don't have any figures for dead body pile density. It's easier if the bodies were considered rectangles, but that might be too simplistic. I could also use an estimated volume of the average person in order to get a rough sum.
>>520872
I'm shit at maths, so in case there is a mistake, my working was (found a site saying a human is 2ft x 2ft x 6ft, so 24 cubic ft) which is 0.679604 cubic metres, X 3000,000 = 2038812. so 0.002038812 of a cubic kilometre. and this is assuming everyone is 6ft.
![ten_bill_A[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/h6kwBU1.jpg "ten_bill_A[1].jpg")
>>520872
It depends
When you burn a body a lot of mass is lost. I can't estimate how much but extremely generally speaking when a body is completely burned to ashes you're left with about 5 pounds of ash, and it takes 10 well-burned humans to create, again roughly speaking, a cubic foot of ash.
3,000,000 burned to a crisp humans would make up about 300,000 cubic feet of ash AT THE LEAST.
pic related is an from an infographic about what 10 billion US pennies would look like. The cubic volume of the stacks of pennies shown is about 200,000 cubic feet. add half again to the image and that's what you can estimate 3 million (completely cremated) adults would look like.
[1/3]
>>520872
>>520898
>>520918
It also depends on how we're storing them. Are we just piling them up like sand on a sand dune? Or do we have a certain container we're trying to fill? Depending on how small the footprint is, you may have to take into account the compression of those on the bottom of the pile.
![two_hundred_bill_A[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xY6t53S.jpg "two_hundred_bill_A[1].jpg")
>>520940
Of course, if they weren't burned down to dust, the adult human body in it's natural form is about two and a half cubic feet, roughly speaking.
Which changes our 300,000 feet^3 to 7,500,000 feet^3
this image which happens to show every penny currently in circulation, measures in at just over 4,000,000 cubic feet, just so you can visualize what kind of mass we're talking about here
again i must say, gross generalization, but this image TWICE is just about what you'd expect 3000000 humans to look like if you could remove all of the empty space caused by clothes, spaces between limbs, etc.
[2/3]
>>520937
You'd have to be pretty fat in order to be 2' x 2'. I'd say it's more like 1.5' x 1' x 6' area. That would mean you could fit three million bodies in an approximate 1500' x 3000' x 6' area, which is about 1/6th of a square mile. If they were all laid next to eachother, that would mean that you could cover an entire square mile with dead bodies!
>>520940
>>520960
That's a lot of pennies.
>>520983
>You'd have to be pretty fat in order to be 2' x 2'
I figured having a comfy overestimation was ok, so that you could be confident that the real area would be smaller.
>>520444
>>520433
Okay, phew i'm the guy from a few hours ago.
I finally found it.
>>521911
You seem to have forgotten where you are.
Simply declaring posts to be "shill" posts is only taken as a serious point on /pol/.
>>521911
Yea yea yea.
>>510820
>The average jew was middle class and above the average German.
This is bait or retardation, can't tell exactly.
They where jew elites but most of the population lived in pretty bad conditions.
>>522180
Not him, but half the shit on that image is researchable. It took me 3 minutes on google.
Not only that, but you didn't even properly address the image itself.
>>522230
I don't have to.
I'm not a holocaust denier (^:
As I said, it's no worse than what /pol/ does.
Even reading through a few of the portions it resorts to dastardly tier
>IT'S ALL NEO-NAZI STUFF
>>522263
You may not have noticed but there is a heck of a lot more in this thread than one image macro.
>>522267
And you might notice how I am talking specifically about the image macro.
>>522273
Actually I noticed that you turned up in the thread to shitpost a bit and pointed it out.
Nice shitposting friend.
>>520520
>"I did not know about the gas chambers."
>"I must truthfully state that in no camp have I ever seen anything that might have resembled gas chambers"
>telling us this means a positive claim "had no gas chambers...while there[sic] remained in Auschwitz."
Wow. Simply amazing.
I'm pretty impressed with /his/. I avoided it because i thought it was going to be another /pol/ but this thread is pretty good.
I'm from argentina, a country full of nazi and jewish descendants living next to each other. I've read them debate a lot over this. It's pretty obvious negationists/revisionists are full of shit. Still fun to read them.
>>520454
>>520515
>>520520
>>520556
>>520585
>>520661
FEED ME YOUR DELICIOUS INFOGRAPHICS /pol/
Only by posting them all can you once and for all disprove the holocaust
Did gypsies deserve it?
>>525690
It's hard to say
On the one hand, I'm really against genocide.
On the other hand, Gypsies weren't doing themselves any favors by being nomadic bands of petty criminals.
