The erroneous strategy of contemporary National Socialists

[Critical]

Nowadays it's not uncommon to come across ridiculous exaggerations or outlandish lies about Hitler's regime (my favorite, that Hitler wanted to kill everyone who wasn't blond and blue-eyed), however I also notice that when someone enters into a debate this nonsense normally also usually mentions that the Holocaust did not exist, then the "normie" is frightened and considers the opponent a "crazy" and does not accept a rectification of his preconceived and absurd ideas about the Nazi regime.

Where I want to go, to debate about the existence of the Holocaust is to start the house from the roof, it would be much better to explain, for example, that Hitler never wanted a great world war or to conquer the world or that he did not want to kill all the races of the planet . If he really knew that the repression of the Hitler regime was only directed towards the Jews, then "it wouldn't be so bad".

There is also another issue that is attributed to Hitler, which is the total destruction of the Slavs, supported only by figures of gigantic civilian deaths in Poland and the USSR. I suspect that these figures are false as there are no known major shootings of non-Jews in these territories.

And finally I would like to add that it is important to make small modifications to wikipedia (backed up with data and sources), it is incredible the amount of nonsense that is read, especially regarding things like the Generalplan Ost and the "Hungerplan". People normally inform themselves through this source, if you want to change people's views you should start by making changes to the aforementioned debates and not insisting on the existence or not of the Holocaust, which is generally a closed debate.

Ultimately, sometimes you have to lose your arm to save your body.

Thank you for reading.

[hermod]

Not their fault that contemporary normies can't talk about politics or history without bringing up the 'Holocaust' after only 2 or 3 sentences.

[Critical]

Not their fault that contemporary normies can't talk about politics or history without bringing up the 'Holocaust' after only 2 or 3 sentences.

The problem is that the West is overpopulated by normies whose only knowledge of the subject is based on documentaries from the history channel, so I suppose that we will have to start dismantling things that are less "scandalous" and common sense.

[Lamprecht]

See: viewtopic.php?t=12923

It's not a good idea to tell someone unfamiliar with revisionist arguments that it didn't happen. They will misunderstand you. It's better to explain that Jew were indeed put into camps and ghettos as part of the Final Solution, but this was not a policy of genocide. The documents describing the policy are accurate, it was a forced resettlement program.

Also, good luck editing Wikipedia. The major Holocaust articles are protected so every change is going to have to be approved by a devoted exterminationist.

[Hektor]

Welcome to Codoh. This forum isn't about "contemporary NS strategy", but about what historical NS did or didn't do. So it's about ontology not about teleology.

But yes, the idea people have about historical NS is actually an embarrassment of the worst kind. And to be clear, it is embarrassing themselves. They got of course away with it, since media and education system are full with already silly statements and narratives relating to it. However it seems that in the public mind the idiocy multiplies exponentially.

I heard the blue-eyed/blonde story decades ago already. How people arrived at this is beyond me... Probably watched to many Nazi exploitation Movies. Now if somebody really believes this kind of BS, how dares he thinking that people with a sober outlook on things are somehow "crazy"? If they really believe this, I think such a persons issues are more seriously than only believing some fairy tale even Holocaust Historians would be embarrassed to tell. So why waste time with them?

Disputing the "Hitler wanted to conquer the world narrative" is still legal in most countries. It however is a social taboo as well. People also get nervous, when you bring that up. Especially, when they are themselves from an Allied Country or one that was occupied. One persistent Myth for example is the one of the "Neutrality of the Netherlands" during World War Two. In the light of documents and actions, this can be debunked quite easily:
https://gerard1945.wordpress.com/2015/1 ... -neutraal/
And, if it would be researched, it can be expected that more evidence of Allied mingling in the Low Countries would be found.

The "Destruction of the Slavs" is contradict by the fact that several Slavic countries were allied with Germany during World War Two (e.g. Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria). There support stems mostly from Communist propaganda for which no evidence of substance is given.

As for changing supposedly public sources, consider that they are not. The key articles with politically loaded content are hawkishly guarded by editors. They won't allow what tramples their pet narratives... The science is settled. Where you could leave a mark is on the discussion page, it's read by less people, but by people of the kind that would actually matter in the long run.

As for Holocaust debate, one can point them to the more outlandish claims and then ask, whether they believe this as well. Also pointing out the actors in promoting the Holocaust narrative should be an eye opener among the brighter parts of the audience.

[hermod]

Not their fault that contemporary normies can't talk about politics or history without bringing up the 'Holocaust' after only 2 or 3 sentences.

The problem is that the West is overpopulated by normies whose only knowledge of the subject is based on documentaries from the history channel, so I suppose that we will have to start dismantling things that are less "scandalous" and common sense.

Debate is a two-sided game. If the other side goes with the Big H from the very beginning, you can't reply: "Let's first talk about who started WWII and how many civilians were killed by Allied bombers for no military reasons, and let's move to the Holocaust next month." That would be ridiculous and that would make you look like a coward with a fragile argumentation. At best, you can require a proper burden of proof on the Holocaust (Holohoaxers are the accusers; so the burden of proof rests on them) and use the best arguments of the revisionist arsenal to debunk their usual hocus-pocus fallacies. If memory serves me right, Lamprecht made a good thread about that some time ago. Perhaps he can post a link to that thread here.

[Lamprecht]

At best, you can require a proper burden of proof on the Holocaust (Holohoaxers are the accusers; so the burden of proof rests on them) and use the best arguments of the revisionist arsenal to debunk their usual hocus-pocus fallacies. If memory serves me right, Lamprecht made a good thread about that some time ago. Perhaps he can post a link to that thread here.

I think you mean this:
Best and worst / least successful arguments
viewtopic.php?t=12430

It's just my opinion from experience, and you have to keep in mind some people will never change their mind, no matter what.
But yeah, I am interested in other people's debate strategies and what they found worked well and what didn't.

[TheAllseeingeye620]

See: viewtopic.php?t=12923

It's not a good idea to tell someone unfamiliar with revisionist arguments that it didn't happen. They will misunderstand you. It's better to explain that Jew were indeed put into camps and ghettos as part of the Final Solution, but this was not a policy of genocide. The documents describing the policy are accurate, it was a forced resettlement program.

Also, good luck editing Wikipedia. The major Holocaust articles are protected so every change is going to have to be approved by a devoted exterminationist.

Wikipedia is a circus

[hermod]

At best, you can require a proper burden of proof on the Holocaust (Holohoaxers are the accusers; so the burden of proof rests on them) and use the best arguments of the revisionist arsenal to debunk their usual hocus-pocus fallacies. If memory serves me right, Lamprecht made a good thread about that some time ago. Perhaps he can post a link to that thread here.

I think you mean this:
Best and worst / least successful arguments
viewtopic.php?t=12430

It's just my opinion from experience, and you have to keep in mind some people will never change their mind, no matter what.
But yeah, I am interested in other people's debate strategies and what they found worked well and what didn't.

Yes, this is what I meant. Thanks for posting it.

I share your opinion on that topic from my own experience. Some arguments are true but inefficient as primers.

[Critical]

Not their fault that contemporary normies can't talk about politics or history without bringing up the 'Holocaust' after only 2 or 3 sentences.

The problem is that the West is overpopulated by normies whose only knowledge of the subject is based on documentaries from the history channel, so I suppose that we will have to start dismantling things that are less "scandalous" and common sense.

Debate is a two-sided game. If the other side goes with the Big H from the very beginning, you can't reply: "Let's first talk about who started WWII and how many civilians were killed by Allied bombers for no military reasons, and let's move to the Holocaust next month." That would be ridiculous and that would make you look like a coward with a fragile argumentation. At best, you can require a proper burden of proof on the Holocaust (Holohoaxers are the accusers; so the burden of proof rests on them) and use the best arguments of the revisionist arsenal to debunk their usual hocus-pocus fallacies. If memory serves me right, Lamprecht made a good thread about that some time ago. Perhaps he can post a link to that thread here.

Yes, but the point is that the Holocaust existed, so rather than debate that point, the idea is to accept it and deal with other issues surrounding Nazism such as the ones I have mentioned. Even with the Holocaust you can say that the Jewish solution until late 1941-early 1942 was a question of expulsion/deportation and not a question of extermination.

[hermod]

Yes, but the point is that the Holocaust existed, so rather than debate that point, the idea is to accept it and deal with other issues surrounding Nazism such as the ones I have mentioned. Even with the Holocaust you can say that the Jewish solution until late 1941-early 1942 was a question of expulsion/deportation and not a question of extermination.

So the point is erroneous since Encyclopedia Britannica defines the Holocaust as "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II "
( https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust ) and that didn't happen.