Holocaust denial

I have been reading a lot of stuff recently, some of which has disturbed me.  There are a lot of people out there who say the Holocaust, that horrible time in history they taught us about in school never really happened the way they say it did. 

They cite how there's no way camps like auschewits(sp?) had the capacity to eliminate as many people as they said were held there.  They talk about how zyklon-b wasn't really powerful enough to kill anyone, and those showers apparently outfitted with this chemical were actually used for a delousing procedure.  They talk about how it doesn't make any sense to trick people into going to their death when you've already got them in your custody.

I don't know man; holocaust deniers seem to have information to back them up, all kinds of evidence, to which the holocaust sympathizers only have name calling and questioning the motives of those who deny it.  I am someone who really would like to believe that the holocaust happened, if only so that I can believe there isn't a vast conspiracy behind it.  So, any holocaust sympathizers with a good rebuttal to what they're saying?

>>56

WW2 and WW1 were both physically possible, and evidence backs them up. WW1 and WW2 are not fantastic and ridiculous claims made more for comic books and cartoon series like the holocaust is. Satire is not the same thing as reason.

According to your satire, we don't need any proof to substantiate claims and contradictory evidence is to be ignored, if somebody says something happened it happened. Everybody here thought that the holocaust was true at some point, the burden of proof was therefore on disproving it as a reasonable claim. The burden of proof for disproving the systematic extermination of Jews in the number of six million by National Socialist Germany has been met; in addition to the realization that there was unsatisfactory proof to make that claim in the first place.