The Holocaust

no
no

Yes (but numbers might be inflated and there are a lot of fake stories)
Yes
And stop giving money to israel

youtube.com/watch?v=ZeU9QVh4MI8

Trying to stop people from doubting things is the best way to get them to doubt them.

Yes, the Holocaust happened. By the way, I have rarely if ever heard of Holocaust deniers who weren't politically-motivated activists rather than sincere historians.

Yes, you would be free to deny the Holocaust in a socialist society, just like you would be free to claim that vaccines cause autism. Just expect to be properly dismissed by people who know better and to receive an occasional punch to the face.

Not surprised tbqh

Yes
Yes

It's illegal in a few European countries because it's considered hate speech, you can publish as much drivel as you like in the U.S.

It's not overstated. Don't fall for Nazi propaganda.

Germany owes money to everybody. The Nazis emptied the gold reserves of all their neighbors during WWII. If they were to pay their actual debts Germany would go bankrupt.

You hate jews, you're always saying they're to blame for everything, so why aren't you proud of the achievements of the holocaust? Why are you always saying it didn't happened? It makes no sense.

1. Yes but overstated and definitely wrong in the narrative of being this magically horrifying singular event that deserves it's own term. It's retarded. What about the genocide of the Armenians? I call bullshit on that.

2. I'd have no problem with that since it's irrelevant and labeling it as hate speech was born out of liberal propaganda. Why can't I deny it? I can deny that the genocide of the Hereros happened. But not this? I call bullshit on that again.

Yes.
No.

Yes.
No

How come all the death camps were in the captured Soviet territories, while the others have all been downgraded to concentration camps? Soviet's never lie about their perpetual bogeyman that featutres throughout their propaganda would they?

The plan was to kill all the Jooz and they fell short.

that's a really good point
or are all the historians bought off by the nwo

Yet no one gives a shit about what Leopold did in the Congo. Somehow he's still got statues up in Belgium as recently as like 5 years ago that showed him with Congolese children in a positiive light before they were defaced. Hitler is Satan, infinitely evil. Leopold merits a collective shrug. Interesting, it's almost as if some Jews see themselves as somehow superior or worthy of supreme consideration over Africans?

...

Why do Nazis deny the Holocaust? I mean it's not like they try to present a kinder, gentler version of themselves, if anything they're more violent and genocidal than ever.

It supports their narrative about the Jewish world conspiracy to suppress the truth.

see
They're embarrassed they failed to kill the Jews

Why deny the holocaust if you want another one to happen anyway?

It probably has more to do with the fact that most westerners don't give a fuck about Africa or the horrors of colonialism.

Propaganda

Same reason they pretend the Holodomor was a deliberate attempts by the joooos and the NKVD to exterminate muh based white christians

Denial of prior historical circumstances usually precedes repeating the same historical circumstances. After word they will also say "There is no way we could have known this would happen." It's the cycle all people hoping to repeat terrible things go through.

if I'm being extremely kind to nazis, I'd say most of them just want to expel all undesirables to "africa or mexico or wherever" rather than kill them in death camps

wew lad

Considering how overstated Soviet grievances are, as well as Cuban or Chinese or anyone else the US doesn't like, excuse me if I take Hitlers millions with a pinch of salt too.

this 3 minute will change your perception of what happened during the "holocaust"

youtube.com/watch?v=_c9oIVwDM6Q

I never did
How come all the death camps were in the captured Soviet territories, while the others have all been downgraded to concentration camps?
I dunno you tell me.
Tankies do, I'm not for denialism at all.

Top kek

FIFY

However obstinate systematic commitment to an inaccurate, skewed official version of history, for purely ideological/realpolitik reasons doesn't destine us to repeat it?

I draw your attention to the number of smug liberal and left """intellectuals""" calling Trump a fascist and freaking out over it, meanwhile ignoring the banality of their own evil, the doublethink and cliches which permeated all discourse, which was a defining characteristic of Nazi society. But no, it doesn't suit the narrative, so let's just sweep under the rug how it was possible for almost all of society of the most advanced civilization in the world, the pinnacle of Enlightenment, to become complicit in the Nazi machine. Don't read Arendt, we want to avoid """False equivalences""" by casting the Communists as somehow not just as horrifying.

that isn't what I said

dumb greentexter

All Marxist vanguardists are just as bad. Non-tankies imply they won't somehow end up on the same road if only we trust them with all power concentrated into their hands over the entire world. Tankies at least have the decency to admit they're monsters.

I reply to archetypes, not individuals. You say as much by omission as you do by commission.

Only tankies deny this, calm your self.

Show me where soc-dems and anarchists say this.

non-tankie vanguardist Marxists*

why would they? How is it in their interests to do so?

inb4 emotional shit

Pffft.

But seriously, no there is definitely a much more positive, apologetic light shone on Communists. You can openly be a Communist and no one bats an eyelid, especially in academia, but it's absolutely culturally forbidden to idnetify with Nazism or any form of National-Socialism.

That's only because the mainstream interpretation of Socialism was hijacked by social liberal/neoliberal puppets after the USSR fell. You go back to the 50s and 60s when communism was an actual threat and you'd certainly feel the other way arround.

I know not everybody here is a tankie but you can not deny that the Soviet Union was moving the overton window extremely far left and created a possible reality of a socialist coup in the west.

How would it not be in their interests to do so?
So we can be despooked
All I can say is ignorance is bliss

NO

most deaths are the result of allied bombing and food shortages.
goal was to ship jews to madagascar or palestine.
the best allies of the jews were the zionists because they wanted the jews to move out of germany but most jews refused as they were lawyer and doctors.
the zionists betrayed the nazis after the war and invented the holocaust to get an ultimate victim card so israel is unquestionable.
banker capitalist jews and nationalist jews still abuse that victim card.

you are not a nazi for not knowing this. you should remove your icon and call yourself something like "dumby-dumb pony fuck"

Well there is everything this user already said:

but there is also the fact that Communism originated out of academic texts or at the very least it's intellectual movement was concurrent with it's initial social development and it's theory was ingrained in the very fabric of dozens of subjects of inquiry. Nazism sometimes had an academic backing in Germany during it's existence but it didn't originate in academic texts nor was it important other than in the negative in developing further subjects of inquiry. There is a kind of home team advantage for communism in academia that there isn't for nazism.

Certain groups close off to you over certain ideas, left wing ideas flourish in academia but I don't think big business wants to hear what I have to say or the majority of religious institutions. It's easy to see the persecution and shunning game as being one sided when you never consider your own advantages and home turfs.

Strasserism is a joke

It's alright, user. I agree with you. There are so many other reasons why Hitler and National "Socialism" is evil, saying that you think human lampshades are probably bullshit doesn't mean you are excusing either.

*are evil

Unfortunately, socialism can't fix mental retardation, so you can continue to deny the holocaust all you want after the revolution. ;)

I got suckered into questioning The Holocaust by spending a little too much time online and paying a little too much attention to all the discrepancies with the official claims. I started freaking out that such a huge falsehood could be perpetuated by so many experts, but then my psychiatrist put me on a low dose of Holocaust medication and now I'm normal again.

The only things I don't believe about it are the story of the bear and the eagle, the roller coaster carts dumping people directly into ovens, the lampshades made of Jewish skin, the mattresses made from Jewish hair, the soap made from Jewish fat, the head crushing machines, the masturbation torture machines, and the Jewish shrunken heads.

There was no "Holocaust". And not a single shred of evidence to support it.

No "gas chambers" except the one the Soviet built AFTER the war.

Not one autopsy of a Jew being "gassed" by Zyklon B.

Fantastic tales of utter bullshit by "survivors" that have be debunked.

Bad science parading as truth claiming one can cremate a body on one hour in a low tech pizza oven. Even modern cremation facilities require hours for a proper cremation.

Piles of victims that died from starvation and typhus are "proof" that "it happened"

Never any mention of the 100 million the Jewish led Communist killed during the same era.

And the fact that it's illegal to question any of the historical events of that time period.

You've gotta be pretty spooked to deny the holocaust… but still believe in the holodomor.

I surely will trust this guy

Problem with that is that the Holodomor is actually backed up by population data, there is no motivation for Ukrainians to lie about it, and there is well-reasoned motivation for it to have happened. I doubt you even know why it happened.

Didn't know pic related was based on you

Oh you mean the same data Holla Forumsyps claim to be fake because it shows that Stalin didn't kill anywhere near 20-60 million people?

Who the hell claims that Stalin killed 60 million people? Do you inflate the numbers yourself?
What I find funny is that you faggots will simultaneously claim the Holocaust totes happened, despite there being a contradiction in motives, a lack of personnel, the methods being unorthodox and unusual, and there being better explanations for actual loss of life, whereas the Soviets did it on a decentralized actually genocidal basis, had motivation, the witnesses have no motivation to lie, and you claim it's all fake and nobody died. I've heard people on here even claim that it's all made up by capitalists. It's the difference, to me, that makes me believe in Holla Forums's ideas more than the ones on here: They point to individuals that are a part of the accused group, you point to the accused group and stop there. Of course, this isn't even delving into the numerous differences between soviet genocide (Which was, by and large, not some mass extermination program but the side effects of a shit system, and was seen to have similar patterns wherever Communism/Socialism was seen). But hey, the soviets never killed anybody. B-but they aren't real communists.

kulaks a good boys
dey din­­du n­uffin

Liberals and fencewalkers are a cancer on this board but we cannot deny the Holodomor you fucking tankies.

Congratulations, you failed to make an argument, managed to contradict yourself, and you subsequently failed to address even anything I said. Not even a pathetic strawman this time around. The debate skills of this board are low-energy and lacking, it's no wonder you got wrecked by even the cancer on 4chan. Shape up a bit, lad. But then again, if you did that, you probably wouldn't be a commie.

I am not even that person you're replying to.
>hoarding food so that people starve is not grounds to kill them for violating the NAP :v)
Fuck off liberal cuck.

This is not even mentioning the fact that the kulak did not work to harvest this food. He is profiting off the backs of others while hoping to starve them.

I'm not a liberal nor an anarchist anything. You still chose to reply to my post and failed to address anything, that doesn't excuse your shit-tier ability to articulate. Honestly, I've seen better rebuttals on reddit.

Yes, evil they for having money and land. Of course, rather than seize either, or force them to work, lets just murder them and rape their families. B-but remember guys soviet russia wasn't real communism it was state capitalism so it doesn't count except when we want it to.

Likewise. At least I stayed on topic rather than spewing some random shit about board-culture and how much you love to take it up the ass from Holla Forums.
Then go back to reddit you fucking cancerous cretin.
What was that again about not having an argument? Please, tell me how this addresses the fact that nonworking people get food, while the people who worked for the food get none?

Also
No one pretends the USSR was communist. Not Stalin. Not even the tankies. And yes, there is much to be learned when distinguishing the difference between communism and socialism, especially if you're going around accusing things of propagating it.

Except not likewise. I've addressed your posts entirely, you barely even addressed mine. Rather, you went off onto your own subject which you feel more comfortable with; IE, Kulaks or some other boogeyman you created so you feel the famines were justified.
The only cancer here is you, bud.
Now, why would the ones working for the food get none? How exactly is that going to work out there buddy, did you think that through at all? Mere deductive logic will tell one that, if the workers are not atleast living at a minimum standard, they'll die and there will not be any workers.

Your butthurt is delicious, faggot.

Yes please tell me how:

addresses the nature of this post:

which is the only one I've made ITT

Don't you remember? Conflicts of interest apparently means that it never happened! You said so yourself about the holocaust. I guess that means there's no such thing as the bourgeoisie nor the prole because they have conflicts of interest.

Yes! Oh, tell me how the capitalist won't hold the whip of hunger to get those dirty workers back in line! Oh, tell me how the agents of conscription won't hold a gun to your face to get you to hold guns!

Your post, if you do recall, while responding to mine and addressing practically nothing in it whatsoever (A recurring theme here, It seems), only serves to claim that people fled from russia because they had hoarded grain, and that murdering them and subsequently raping their families is a punishment fit for anyone who dares to hide a single morsel for themselves. How does this not address the entirety of your post?

Technically there aren't either, in the class-defined way, but that's irrelevant, I've already had some fun twisting the contradictions of commie thought on itself. You're also failing to make an argument: The Kulaks, supposedly, owned land and hired people to work the land and produce food, right? So, these people they hired, were they not payed? Were they not given adequate means to live? If they were not, why would they take the job? Or, how did the Kulaks not die themselves from having no means of generating income? Explain to me, in what world and how exactly do the workers go without the basic requirements of life without everything falling apart. I'm not being condescending, lad, I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at, and instead your getting upset for no reason.

I never said that, try again.

Except communists use conscription too, and that's rather non-sequitur. Do you plan to say anything of worth anytime soon, or is reason and logic beyond you?

Because 1) you're skirting around the fact that the definition of kulak has among it absentee land-ownership, which means they did not work for this 2) it is historically inaccurate all this downplaying the size of the harvests, the way much food was destroyed by the owners in order to revolt against collectivization.

Perhaps "starving" does not have the correct connotation for retarded Anglos. Does one always die when they starve, though? How is it that something without agency, as a corpse, can starve? Still, you are neglecting the precise part about how the dynamic of motivations works here. If they do not work they will starve all the more, to the point of death, finally. They are forced into selling their labour power. How then, you ask that someone can depress wages? How is it that you can ignore how the capitalist holds the whip of hunger to get the workers back in line, when this is precisely the crux that your counter-argument works upon?

the holocaust (ie persecution of jews) happened, but it was absolutely nowhere near the purported number of 6 million that died.

and out of all the people that died at the hands of le german administration, there were plenty more non jews.

How can they own the land without having worked for it? Do try and explain this time, as you're doing a horrible job of it so far.

So they dissented against collectivization? Do you have any sources, any facts to back that up? Additionally, you think dissent is reason to rape and murder families?

I'm not an Anglo. Races are a spook anyways.

No. It leads to a high rate of mortality, however. A lack of nutrition leads to impeded body functions, which means less ability to work, and greater susceptibility to disease. Not exactly a good thing unless you want your workers to revolt and kill you, or leave entirely.

Yes, that's life. I have never heard a cow complain about how if it does not chew grass, then it will die, and therefore nature is evil.

They are forced? With the threat of starvation? Did they have no alternatives? Did they never try and fight back? How exactly did things get to such a state without any sort of intervention to begin with? And why, exactly, did they become that way in the first place?

Is this your attempt to make an argument? To strawman and make completely non-sequitur claims that are less readable than 'John from Microsofts' english is comprehensible? Try and articulate better in your next post. Explain. Why were the 'Oh so perfect communist soviets' Justified in killing and raping Kulaks? Mind you, they murdered, starved, and terrorized far more than just a few land owners, but you still fail to justify this single genocide.

...

Someone has never heard of an estate before.

Oh, I should have realised I was arguing with someone who doesn't know any history and resorts to emotional appeals about rape and non-arguments.

Yet 3 million children alone die to starvation every year and not a thing has changed.

You are a funny man asking others to explain genocides when you cannot justify the systematic starvation yourself (merely because you don't believe it exists; typical of most first world ideology).

Stalin had the right ideas when it came to dealing with jews

Not an argument, nor an answer.

Not an argument. It's a fact that they did that, and it is inhuman. When you treat your own population like dirt and government employees are sadistic and/or insane on a regular basis, your society will turn to shit, for obvious reasons.

Throughout the entire world? Yeah, lots of people do starve. Most of it is natural selection. Very few people under the employ of someone else are starving -because- of their employer. From the way you're making it sound, it seems as if those 'starving' under the Kulaks had no other employers. What's funny is that there isn't even evidence of such a thing, now that I've done some research. Despite Holla Forums's obsession with 'spooks' and other basic but meaningless concepts, they literally just invented 'Kulak' out of nowhere to justify murdering anyone they could and taking their shit. So you, I, or anyone could have been a 'Kulak' if we had something the state wanted, or dissented against them.

I'm just waiting for you to say 'TYPICAL OF A W-WHITE MALE!', because at this point your argumentative skills and reading comprehension would make a room of rump ruffled tumblrinas look like a professional debate team.