> Holocaust denial is inconsistent with critical thinking. Wow, if I don't believe in the 'Holocaust', I'm not just an antisemitic, I'm also stupid. > If the

> Holocaust denial is inconsistent with critical thinking. Wow, if I don't believe in the 'Holocaust', I'm not just an antisemitic, I'm also stupid. > If the mountains of evidence (records, photos, films, testimony, artifacts) which converge to support the currently accepted interpretation are not sufficient grounds for belief in its reality, then what would be sufficient? Since people who dare say that they have doubts about the 'Holocaust' are instantly labelled as antisemitic, I doubt that we will ever see evidence that does not support the 'Holocaust'. What baffles me about this 'Holocaust' story is that it defies logic: The Germans rounded up hundred thousands of Jewish people and killed them, while fighting both the Russians and the USA, just because they were evil. You can conjure up mountains of evidence, but it still has plotholes. Also in order to even begin understanding such a complex thing we require continuity. Why would the Germans do such a thing? Example: A killed B. We should convict A. But wait: A killed B, because B wanted to murder A's wife C. It's not the same. You may have evidence that A killed B, but that's still not the full story. So my conclusion is: the 'Holocaust' is not something you can easily prove or disprove of, it's too complex, we will never know what really happened because it's impossible to question the 'Holocaust', without being labelled as an antisemitic.