"Truth"

J: Nazis genocided 6,000,000!
G: Why?
J: Hitler is evil!
G: Why?
J: Göring is evil!
G: Why?
J: Goebbels is evil!
G: Why?
J: A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!

>>41
my reading comprehension is fine
If you say so.

you're being vague
How?
I've been rephrasing my arguments all over the threads that address the subject, because people keep misreading them. In ways that keep coming off as «didn't actually read the post», no less.
(And for the record, I'm not OP of any of these posts, it's just that there's a limit to how much bull I'll put up with.)
OK, let's try again;


It's not "straw-man arguing"
I was referring to how whenever someone fails to Believe, it's suddenly explicitly –not to say pigheadedly– forbidden to be anything else than some rabidly fanboi Neo-Nazi wanting his dearly beloved Hitler to be squeaky clean and innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. And then the more this «Neo-Nazi» in question keeps having to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-iterate that he actually has other motives (or worse, isn't a Neo-Nazi after all), the more pigheadedly he gets to be dictated that he «does not» have other motives, and that he «really is» a Neo-Nazi, totally regardless of whether he ever really was or not.

And then, after he's been successfully sentenced to being a Neo-Nazi, he's then sentenced for being a Neo-Nazi. Again, totally regardless of whether he ever really was or not.
In reality, this fits the description of a thought-crime. Which is one of several things we were supposed to've thrown out when the 3rd Reich fell.


Paul Rassinier, ironically a camp internee himself
The existence of concentration camps proves that there were concentration camps in existence. There's still a distance from there to any of them being specific (much less purpose-built) mass-extermination camps.

Even in the unlikely possibility that the Holocaust is a complete hoax, Neo-Nazis would still have a lot to answer for National Socialism's other many documented atrocities.
Which is also just about what I've been saying. (Proof-reading error or something?)
- The 3rd Reich has indeed got plenty to answer for. With or without the Holocaust.
- So do Neo-Nazis, if to a lesser extent; they've not had the system-wide power that the NSDAP had, but they've still committed crimes.

anyone saying that all these other things you mentioned are irrelevant or of absolutely no importance
Which is not what I was saying.
What I was saying, is that rhetoric can get really dumb really fast, if we don't pay attention.

So again: If «only Neo-Nazis can fail to Believe», especially with the implicit «only Hitler-loving fanboi Neo-Nazis can possibly Unbelieve», then we're effectively saying that «the Holocaust was the only evil thing the Nazis ever did».
Which, realistically, can only possibly mean that «not one of the other things they did, was evil». Like, say, those cosy little items on that list.


The Holocaust wasn't just "one crime"
The part of the 3rd Reich's track record that actually fits the name, is the part where all those «undesirables» were mass-exterminated in those infamous camps.
That part is what those pesky revisionists have been Unbelieving all along.

It is indeed the most monstrously horrid one of their crimes; but as such, it still really was just one of several.

>>42
Hitler is often the whipping boy in the game of totalitarian personality cults, but there's well documented atrocities committed by others.
Precisely.
Hence the comment that «it's not as if Hitler was the only-ever brutal dictator in human history or something».


Hitler became the strongest, most well-known and most successful cult of personality […] You really can't "demote" or diminish that
Which is also not what I'm doing.
I'm pointing out how the Official History bunch, is effectively doing that by not paying attention to its own rhetoric.
Hitler is often the whipping boy in the game of totalitarian personality cults, but there's well documented atrocities committed by others.
Precisely.

You're really getting pretty emotional about this
If so, then the emotion is «Holy fkin shit, don't you bloody retards realise what you're doing!?!"


Those deniers are either too chickenshit to openly state their intentions
Far too many of them have indeed been actual Nazis, or other anti-Semites. Two problems with this;

1: The aforementioned «rhetoric gone real dumb real fast»; «only fanbois can Unbelieve» becomes «Nazis need Holocaust to be evil», becomes «Holocaust was the only evil committed by the Nazis», becomes «none of the other things were really crimes, much less evil».
As one example, I checked the Last Man's Version Of The Truth (aka Wikipedia), and to my rather non-existent surprise, those particular useful idiots were given all the air-time.

2: It gives Unbelievers a bad name. This is a problem because it gives the oh-so-not Thought Police an(other) off-switch for people's brains.


If there's a "revisionist" that has some well-meaning intentions, I've yet to hear of such a person.
You could start by looking up a documentary called «One third of the Holocaust».


Tl;dr: I support repealing laws against Holocaust denial, but I am at the same time against Holocaust denial.
Me too, only I'm also against meeting them with bullshit dogma. Because that's doing us all a monstrous disservice.