Did Germany use gas chambers for legal executions?

[Eye of Zyclone]

That's threadworthy

Yes, it is. And it's also a good refutation of the pseudo argument that Holocaust revisionism is merely a form of disguised antisemitism because a number of non-Jews lied about Nazi homicidal gas chambers and the likes too.

Now what defines Anti-semitism...? Is it enough to notice patterns with Jewish organizations or must I get foam from the mouth, if I see someone with a kippah?

Nowadays, it's even much less than that.

Formerly, an antisemite was someone who hated Jews.
Now, an antisemite is just someone whom some Jews hate (most often, only because he said something that damages Jewish interests, including the bloody continuation of their infamous colonialist enterprise in the Middle East).

For the question whether the Holocaust key assertion (Millions of Jews killed in gas chambers as part of a common plan to exterminate all Jews by NS-Germany and other Axis governments) it's actually pretty irrelevant how somebody feels about Jews or not.

It's even 100% irrelevant, but it's a very convenient way to censor that person without demolishing the illusion of free speech on which the whole democratic scam rests.

Can you imagine calling someone a Belgophobe for not believing in the atrocity story of children whose hands were allegedly amputated by the Germans during the First World War?!?

[Hektor]

...

Now what defines Anti-semitism...? Is it enough to notice patterns with Jewish organizations or must I get foam from the mouth, if I see someone with a kippah?

Nowadays, it's even much less than that.

Formerly, an antisemite was someone who hated Jews.
Now, an antisemite is just someone whom some Jews hate (most often, only because he said something that damages Jewish interests, including the bloody continuation of their infamous colonialist enterprise in the Middle East).

For the question whether the Holocaust key assertion (Millions of Jews killed in gas chambers as part of a common plan to exterminate all Jews by NS-Germany and other Axis governments) it's actually pretty irrelevant how somebody feels about Jews or not.

It's even 100% irrelevant, but it's a very convenient way to censor that person without demolishing the illusion of free speech on which the whole democratic scam rests.

Can you imagine calling someone a Belgophobe for not believing in the atrocity story of children whose hands were allegedly amputated by the Germans during the First World War?!?

You never hear that. Also not being called a serbopobe, if you disbelieve that the central powers gassed Serb civilians. The same papers that broke that story later broke the Jewish gassing narrative.

When you said belgophobe, I first thought of somebody that hates French Fries.

Now don't think they give up so quickly on this. They will simply claim that chopped off baby hands were never proven in court. And that this story has been retracted.

For the Holocaust narrative, they will immediately insist that "the Holocaust is the best documented genocide in human history"... Even when the overall documentation demonstrates the opposite, while it's pretty obvious that the documentation does demonstrate deportation, internment as well as occasional execution. There the evidence is indeed convergent. Now to get their story through, they will insist that the evidence was destroyed, they used code language and that the testimony is sufficient for the claim. So to prove their point, they strongly rely on extrapolation and innuendo. Now Joe Average

[Eye of Zyclone]

...

Now what defines Anti-semitism...? Is it enough to notice patterns with Jewish organizations or must I get foam from the mouth, if I see someone with a kippah?

Nowadays, it's even much less than that.

Formerly, an antisemite was someone who hated Jews.
Now, an antisemite is just someone whom some Jews hate (most often, only because he said something that damages Jewish interests, including the bloody continuation of their infamous colonialist enterprise in the Middle East).

For the question whether the Holocaust key assertion (Millions of Jews killed in gas chambers as part of a common plan to exterminate all Jews by NS-Germany and other Axis governments) it's actually pretty irrelevant how somebody feels about Jews or not.

It's even 100% irrelevant, but it's a very convenient way to censor that person without demolishing the illusion of free speech on which the whole democratic scam rests.

Can you imagine calling someone a Belgophobe for not believing in the atrocity story of children whose hands were allegedly amputated by the Germans during the First World War?!?

You never hear that. Also not being called a serbopobe, if you disbelieve that the central powers gassed Serb civilians. The same papers that broke that story later broke the Jewish gassing narrative.

Yes, I know. That's the dirty little secret of Holohoaxers. They never mention the real origins of the gas-chamber atrocity story and The Telegraph (formerly The London Daily Telegraph, the original source of that story) even removed it from its website (thus showing how significant & incriminating it is)!! As far as I know, Walter Laqueur was the only orthodox/antirevisionist historian to speak about it, but it was in the early 1980s and only to explain why almost everyone disbelieved the Holocaust story until the world was deceived by horrific pictures of typhus victims in the last operational concentration camps of the collapsing 3rd Reich (Buchenwald, Belsen & Dachau) misportrayed by Allied propagandists as undeniable graphic evidence of mass murder in German camps.




https://postimg.cc/f3DF6XwJ

Now don't think they give up so quickly on this. They will simply claim that chopped off baby hands were never proven in court. And that this story has been retracted.

For the Holocaust narrative, they will immediately insist that "the Holocaust is the best documented genocide in human history"... Even when the overall documentation demonstrates the opposite, while it's pretty obvious that the documentation does demonstrate deportation, internment as well as occasional execution. There the evidence is indeed convergent. Now to get their story through, they will insist that the evidence was destroyed, they used code language and that the testimony is sufficient for the claim. So to prove their point, they strongly rely on extrapolation and innuendo. Now Joe Average

The Jewish ritual murders were also proven in courts, but any normie would call you a moron and a hater for mentioning that "antisemitic canard" (sic) as a proven fact rather than untrue & unfair accusations.




https://postimg.cc/D4FGV0Dv