Me mum died in the holly

>>25235830
Didn’t he walk it back? I think he used to say it never happened but then started saying it did happen but not as you think and eventually he said it happened but it was slightly not the way it is in movies.

>>25235847
That's terrible. Did she at least get to delouse some Jews and gypsies first?

>>25235830
i dont know, was he stupid and ineffective? definitely.

>>25235890
That's the Hollytrap, you start by denying it as stated, then admit that mass death of jews did happen only not purposefully as told, then admit that deliberate killings did occur only not as widespread as claimed

Basically, a jewish ethnic cleansing obviously happened, it was just not the "death camps gas chambers"-narrative that we're told.

Debating this is obviously retarded unless you have a motive to debate it. Why does Irving care if the death camps/gas chambers narrative is true or false, when the overall narrative about ethnic cleansing is true?

As long as authors aren't honest about their motives and they're trying to play both sides they are bound to lose. Fundamentally, they must admit that their civilization has been duped and that they fought the wrong war. Doing this makes the job to preserve that civilization much harder.

Understand that it is only recently that people got hip to the Iraq War. Just three years ago, people still thought it was about "oil". Some people STILL think it was about oil.

This is why the debate about the holocaust becomes fruitless. People must defend having been fooled in order to make the case, and that undermines their credibility completely. The question becomes how you come to terms with that, before you can even begin to have this debate.

>>25235890
Even funnier, he accepted it uncritically in his earliest publications touching on it, then he made outlandish claims about it not happening, then he occupied an awkward middle position on the subject

>>25236217
>Basically, a jewish ethnic cleansing obviously happened, it was just not the "death camps gas chambers"-narrative that we're told.
The denialists are completely obsessed with the death camps, meanwhile half the killings happened by firing squads in the east.
>Why does Irving care if the death camps/gas chambers narrative is true or false, when the overall narrative about ethnic cleansing is true?
I always want to cut across this fake and gay "debate" by asking at what death toll the mass killing becomes irrelevant and they can never answer. It's the 'it didn't happen, and we should do it again' mystery of the /pollock/ brain. Weirdly the left has been much more successful in attacking Israel by ignoring this issue completely and just focusing on the transplantation of an ethnostate using colonialist displacement strategies itself. Of course the right wingers are afraid to mention that because it's what they ultimately want themselves.

>>25235830
>was he wrong?
No

>>25235890
Is it true, I thought he was always honest with Sobibor and Treblinka and the firing squads.

He quite literally just made shit up.

>>25236414
What relevancy does someone's feelings on when a desth toll becomes excessive/extremely morally repugnant have on documenting history?

You're arguing against "nazis are bad" not revisionist ideas

>>25236414
>at what death toll the mass killing becomes irrelevant
At any, because we're talking about dead jews (a good thing)

>>25236414
>The denialists are completely obsessed with the death camps, meanwhile half the killings happened by firing squads in the east.
It is precisely for the reasons I wrote that the chuds have that contradiction. They become so obsessed with denying the death camps that they lose the debate before it even begins.

What happened:
Nazis ethnically cleansed Europe of jews
Opponents won
Authors of history may or may not have exacerbated events <- this. does. not. matter.
The chuds are stuck in the last step because the generations that were zooming out died in the 60s and 70s. Even Irving is a chud by this measure.
Simply, if you want to win the debate about the Holocaust, you HAVE to argue that the west fought on the wrong side. But obviously, for existential reasons, they were perfectly justified in fighting against the Axis. So now you end up with a general WW2 debate. The jewish question becomes, and always was, a fucking footnote in that war.

This is why the chuds can't win the debate and debating it, like Irving does, by wanting to have your cake and eating it too is pointless.
> Weirdly the left has been much more successful in attacking Israel by ignoring this issue completely and just focusing on the transplantation of an ethnostate using colonialist displacement strategies itself
Unlike the right, which is living in the past, the left as the victor is living in the present so their arguments are definitely more effective. Ironically, their arguments are rooted in early zionist affection for the USSR so the current debate is backfiring in the zionists' face, but they're making sure the debate is rectified right now

I believe right wingers are pivoting to catholicism now

>>25236578
>What relevancy does someone's feelings on when a desth toll becomes excessive/extremely morally repugnant have on documenting history?
nta but this is usually the unspoken claim being argued in denalist screeds ("if there WERE 6 million murders, well obviously that would be very, very bad, but it's actually a much much lower number, which is not as bad and maybe actually excusable, so ultimately the nazis couldn't have been that bad") they just never come out and say it

>>25236601
Why does this bother you unless *you* yourself have an ulterior motive? Are you Jewish?

>>25236601
>Authors of history may or may not have exacerbated events <- this. does. not. matter.
>this. does. not. matter.
Nigga, what?

>>25236617
What bothers me is that they debate ineffectively, it should bother everyone to watch someone do something fruitless. It bothers me that someone like Irving doesn't make better use of his time because he is obviously well researched.

>>25236617
the chud can only conceive of allegiance to skin tone and skull shape, allegiance to truth is literally incomprehensible to him

>>25236620
Granularity in history is debated academically, nobody gives a fuck if Julius Caesar genocided one million celts or three hundred thousands. Likewise the details about WW2 do not matter in the broader sense of history. Debating the validity of death camps doesn't achieve anything and I've explained why very clearly.

>>25236648
>Allegiance to truth
Keep telling yourself that, chud, because that allegiance seems to only manifest in the question about death camps.
Exhibit A on why you'll never win. You're simply refusing the necessary axioms to make the debate. Everyone can see the attempt at playing both sides, it is why you're bound to lose.
>"allegiance to truth"
Best cuckery yet

>>25235830
If i was him i would kill myself.
>write thousands and thousands of pages denying the most documented happening in all of human history.
What a waste of time and energy

>>25235830
Brooooo Himmler totally secretly killed those 6 million jews but it was only half of the death camps cause uhhhh auschwitz was totally just an internment camp.
Bro trust me i totally am not a revisionist with preset goals to prove to you.

>/lit/s weekly antisemitism thread

>>25236713
>>25236722
shalom

>>25236713
The holocaust as told did not happen.
He wrote thousands and thousands of pages explaining what happened and correcting misrepresentations of what happened.
For anybody that cares about the truth, his work is important. Problem is that the truth is not better than the fiction, which compels the question what motivates someone to write all of this? Obviously resentment.
He should've written books about the things he is resentful of, rather than coping with the purveyor of his resentment like a chud.

>>25236666
What?

>>25236647
Its not even really about debate honestly, its just character assassination to a certain point.

>>25235847
Justified, next.

>>25236648
I'm just curious as to why those sciences are discredited, has the paradigm shifted towards emotivism or something?

>>25235847
I don't like Nick Fuentes and I don't deny the Holocaust but that shit was funny.

>>25236217
>Understand that it is only recently that people got hip to the Iraq War. Just three years ago, people still thought it was about "oil". Some people STILL think it was about oil.
What was it about, pray tell?

File: 1709b1bfdf6ad021d656e8e1b(...).jpg (30 KB, 474x712)

30 KB JPG

>>25236835
>pray tell

>>25236847
I am 77 years old. It is a normal phrase for my generation.

>>25236898
No it isn't.

>>25236729
*hourly

>>25236835
Destabilising the middle east so Israel can become Greater Israel

>>25236414
>at what death toll the mass killing becomes irrelevant
What exposing the death camps lie does is expose people to the propaganda and motives on which their societies run.
The death toll was never relevant, Germany did nothing wrong by doing ethnic cleansing of jews because they had no ethical obligation to jews in the first place. People who think sheer numbers matter and all killing is wrong bla bla bla are not serious about ethics, they're operating on the same liberal framework that the society that harms them is running on.

>>25236601
>But obviously, for existential reasons, they were perfectly justified in fighting against the Axis
This is fucking retarded and in context with your earlier point looks like you literally equate the Allies with jewish nation-states. It was entirely against Britain's interests to fight ww2, and ww1 for that matter, and doing so is what led to the destruction of its empire. It was also against their interests to prop up the USSR and make it a major power when it would otherwise have been destroyed by Germany.

>>25237116
>you literally equate the Allies with jewish nation-states
Funny, chuds do the same

>>25236821
Just write
>kek
Next time you liberal faggot

>>25235830
He did expose the firebombing of civilian Dresden which apparently the Brits had tried to sweep under the rug and intimidate anyone who spoke out about it.
Which is pretty wild.
Basically exposed hiroshima and nagaski and made it a point of discussion again. God bless him for that.
But his anti-semitic obsessions are hard to excuse.

>>25237480
Honestly, Nick should just have sex so that when he does interviews the fact he's a virgin isn't the only thing going viral outside of his incel echochamber.

>>25237484
semites are hard to excuse too

He changed positions constantly so you'd have to think that he was wrong often. Depending on the audience he would say the holocaust was basically a hoax and it was all typhus then to another audience that the Reinhardt camps were extermination centres where Jews were gassed and that combined with mass shooting put the number of Jews exterminated at around 5-6 million but Hitler just didn't know about it. He contradicted himself constantly so he was certainly wrong a lot of the time. He was also pretty incapable as an apologist which he clearly wanted to be, he didn't have the ability to write the kind of contextual revisionism of Ernst nolte so instead just did a lot of low-brow innuendo and "woah isn't this factoid interesting, they don't want you to know about that". A shame his Hitler fanboyism, attention seeking and ego derailed his career so much. He had a lot of important historical work to still be done. Nice job retard

>>25237506
Only insecure virgins and women care about a guy being virgin.
Plus it being part of his religion makes it easily excusable.

>>25237808
I used to get women talking out of their ass at me for a being a virgin decades ago (i no longer am, albeit) but I always thought it was bizarre and wondered why such a creature would hate me for it but I'm glad to know this is not an experience i alone had.

>>25237670
if the west wasn't so completely obsessed with the holocaust, his revisionism maybe would have been a small episode in his career as historian. Instead he got court cases thrown at him, got imprisoned, and he and his family got harassed and threatened by holocaust truthers. A shame it had to turn out this way indeed

Lets be real, the biggest problems with the Holocaust narrative are:

>Overwhelming majority of the evidence for the Shoah by gas is from witness testimonies (survivors and guards)
>2+ million jews were killed in the extermination camps, buried, then dug up again months later, burned on massive funeral pyres made out of railroad tracks stacked on top of each other, and any other remains pulverized with industrial bone smashers
>none of these funeral pyres was ever found or photographed
>no mass grave of jews specifically exterminated in the gas chambers has ever been found
>most of the gas chambers in the extermination camps were so thoroughly dismantled and destroyed everything we know about how they supposedly functioned comes from witness testimony
>the logistical effort involved not only for the initial extermination effort but for the clean up and cover up effort would've been immense

thats not to say some effort to kill jews didnt happen but there are certainly things to quesiton

>>25238687
>the logistical effort involved not only for the initial extermination effort but for the clean up and cover up effort would've been immense
You first complain that the coverup wasn’t documented and then that the operation that was so big it should have left witnesses, who you seem to dismiss earlier? What the fuck do you want exactly?
Watch the Shoah documentary if you want the hours and hours of witness testimony from guards, from people who drove the trains, random village yahoos who lived nearby and so on.
You whine about no mass graves but half the dead are in death pits in the east. You act like it’s strange they tried to cover up the killings when it’s obvious from testimony and the Wansee documents they knew what they were doing was wrong and wouldn’t even be accepted by the average Germcuck until it was fait accompli.
>there are things to question
Sure. You’re never satisfied with answers or actually learning jack shit you just go back to some /pol/ infographic immediately for your next talking point. It’s like flat earthers “just asking questions” about NASA. How long can you keep this shit up with a straight face? You make the skinheads look thoughtful and sincere because they can at least just be honest. It didn’t happen and they should have killed them all, grr I hate jews.

File: 1726081362345786.png (352 KB, 677x1988)

352 KB PNG

>>25236170
in historical centuries he would be regarded as a saint, but in this century fag theologians debate fag atheists in front of pizza faced undergrads

File: 1634323451812.jpg (10 KB, 225x225)

10 KB JPG

>>25237808
>it being part of his religion makes it easily excusable
if nick was a papist he would go to church, and treat his servants with respect instead of cum hunting, and seek a marriage or not but not say hes going to get married when hes 30. if he was papist he would quote humanae vitae instead of just repeating the /pol/ meme your body my choice
that, or 'live the gift of love' with destiny, his holiness the pope infalliably validated that lifestyle too

>>25235830
David Irving's entire project is to make Adolf Hitler more competent and benevolent than any other writer would dare to.

However, the idea he proposes that Hitler's failings were due to at times this supposed benevolence, and at others the misappropriate actions of his personnel, both undermine this very notion he tries to persuade the reader with of Hitler being competent.

It's a Sisyphean task not merely of trying to rehabilitate the reputation of someone who failed catasrophically, but somehow even further attempting to rhetorically imbue him with the traits which would have made such failure rationally impossible.

Take Napoleon for example. His own failure precludes any historiography which attempts to claim that he was brilliant. Rather, one is logically forced to simply conclude that he was cunningly opportunistic and convincingly charismatic.

Likewise, one is confronted with facts about Hitler's life which would force even supporters to temper their assessment.

While I do not doubt that David Irving was harrassed by the deep state and unfairly sabotaged, I also believe that, much like "Nigga Heil Hitler", his work was nowhere near legitimately threatening enough to warrant such attacks, and ended up proving their points in and of themselves.

I think the Hitler worship is cringe not because I claim that he is evil, but because I claim that he was clearly incapable. You are apotheosizing a loser with obvious unignorable faults.

>>25236898
You are posting on a forum for uneducated zoomers.

>>25236713
>the most documented happening in all of human history
The Palestinian genocide?

>>25237670
>He was also pretty incapable as an apologist which he clearly wanted to be
There is simply no way to intelligently spin the Nazis as elite. You could put the best history writers in the world up to the task, and they could not accomplish anything except through voluminous omission of facts.

>>25235830
Yes, he was absolutely correct and every person on earth explicitly knows that the myth of the holocaust is a foundational myth for the post-WWII "rules based order".

File: 1670819770311859m.jpg (136 KB, 885x1024)

136 KB JPG

>>25239047
>Nigga Heil Hitler
this is the hymn of the century, no one else has ever made an upbeat song against divorce. naturally, 0% of so-called Christians understand it, not even brother nathaniel who apparently has never been married and doesnt know about fatherhood from lived experience

>>25238155
True and his holocaust revisionism should have just been treated as eccentric preoccupations of a fairly strange but interesting military historian but a lot of this is his own fault. The libel case that ruined him financially was brought by him against his friends' advice and just reading the court transcripts (where he acts for himself rather than using a lawyer) and his recollections after you can tell his ego is fully driving him and he loves feeling smarter than everyone else. He was obviously going to lose and he took the case anyway and constantly made deliberately inflammatory remarks for press attention about Auschwitz etc or made insane claims he was surely corrected on ("4 million claimed dead in Auschwitz, but then 1 million. Why come?" or Anne Franks diary being a hoax written by an American playwright or naming the Jew all the time and telling stories of when he was racist).

I cant feel too bad for him when he brought so many of his problems on himself semi-deliberately. The hysterical reactions seemed part of the fun to him. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If he did just do his holocaust revisionism in his books for a few pages like he was already doing in the 70s with his "hitler didnt know" angle he would have been a lot better off.

>>25239061
Idk about elite but plenty of historians have written decent books presenting national socialism as a revolutionary and coherent ideology, analyzing how they could have won the war, doing some revisionism on the causes of the outbreak of the war to reduce nazi culpability or presenting it as a rational reaction to the threat of communism post-ww1.

What's impossible is to do the apologism in the way Irving tries to where he tries to wholesome chungus Hitler. "Hitler constantly sought to protect jews", "he was the best friend the jews had in the reich" and even claiming hitler wasnt an antisemite post-1933. Its all just fucking bizarre. The idea that Nero Decree, social darwinist, slave labour, lebensraum, generalplan ost would be squeamish about mistreating and killing innocent people based on their race is so ridiculous. I can never understand why he tries to do this and why he doesnt mind claiming every Nazi except Hitler was evil but he was a decent fucking guy who would never do anything bad like Himmler did. The weird childish infatuation he has with Hitler is just bizarre