General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[Dash80]

What else do you expect from someone who cites Carlos Porter?

Anti-semism, usually.

 

[EtienneSC]

As a matter of fact Garaudy has never been considered as a "major French philosopher". And he was also not an historian.

I will not argue the adjective "major". Garaudy describes his own reputation here in the context of support for a German revisionist:
http://germarrudolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ListPos37_e.pdf
He was author of numerous works of intellectual history, which requires considerable historical knowledge, A Short History of the Soviet Union (1994), Orators of the French Revolution (1991) and Islam in the West (2000). I can think of few holocaust scholars who have such a wide range of publications.

When he was a communst he was denying the existence of the goulag and when he became a muslim (after having been christian in between) he started to deny the holocaust. A men of great intellectual and moral probity...

I think he was naive about Islam - indeed, apparently he was condemned as a "hypocrite" in a fatwa. If he had seen the progress of the Muslim Brotherhood he would perhaps have revised his view of the problems of Israel. Knowledge of the gulags emerged slowly. In fact, some scholars still dispute their scale. However, in contrast to the holocaust, they are allowed to pursue their research without it affecting their careers in western academia.

 

[EtienneSC]

[...]

The main point in terms of historical method is that eye-witness testimony on its own is not a reliable source of knowledge, for the simple reason that people can choose to lie and be made to lie. The inference from "So and so confessed to X" to "X happened" contains a possibility of error, which needs to be evaluated. Hence, history that privileges eye-witness accounts can amount to little more than retailing gossip. I have no answer to hand on the role of the euthanasia program. It should certainly be considered, particularly as it suggests that staff records exist for the AR camps.

 

[Dash80]

The main point in terms of historical method is that eye-witness testimony on its own is not a reliable source of knowledge, for the simple reason that people can choose to lie and be made to lie. The inference from "So and so confessed to X" to "X happened" contains a possibility of error, which needs to be evaluated. Hence, history that privileges eye-witness accounts can amount to little more than retailing gossip. I have no answer to hand on the role of the euthanasia program. It should certainly be considered, particularly as it suggests that staff records exist for the AR camps.

All four of the men I named agreed there were gas chambers. Were they all mistaken? Lying? Three of them were part of the SS staff of Treblinka and directly involved in its operation. Pardon me if I take their word for it, rather than silly revisionists bleatings. They were there, you weren't.

All available evidence agrees with them too. Why should these men be doubted, given that there's nothing to even suggest they were not telling the truth?

 

[Hans]

All four of the men I named agreed there were gas chambers. Were they all mistaken? Lying? Three of them were part of the SS staff of Treblinka and directly involved in its operation. Pardon me if I take their word for it, rather than silly revisionists bleatings. They were there, you weren't.

All available evidence agrees with them too. Why should these men be doubted, given that there's nothing to even suggest they were not telling the truth?

er, ah, could it, would it be because a certain fellow here on this thread doesn't want to believe in something those German guys were involved in? Maybe?

 

[EtienneSC]

Anti-semism, usually.

The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists. As it has some justification, it has hindered the reception of revisionist work. One way out of this impasse has been to focus on the Polish museum authorities' role as enablers of the holocaust mythos. This is the standpoint of Carlo Mattogno's book Curated Lies - The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (Holocaust Handbooks, 2016). As far as I know, the Auschwitz museum has yet to respond to this criticism. It may be that in due course the Auschwitz authorities will make the same decision as those at Maijdanek and downgrade the death toll to accord more closely with the German records held in Moscow.

 

[Dash80]

The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists. As it has some justification, it has hindered the reception of revisionist work. One way out of this impasse has been to focus on the Polish museum authorities' role as enablers of the holocaust mythos. This is the standpoint of Carlo Mattogno's book Curated Lies - The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (Holocaust Handbooks, 2016). As far as I know, the Auschwitz museum has yet to respond to this criticism. It may be that in due course the Auschwitz authorities will make the same decision as those at Maijdanek and downgrade the death toll to accord more closely with the German records held in Moscow.

Downgrade it to what exactly? The revisionist idiocy that only counts REGISTERED deaths?

 

[EtienneSC]

Downgrade it to what exactly? The revisionist idiocy that only counts REGISTERED deaths?

If it is not idiotic at Maijdanek, why does it become idiotic at Auschwitz? There have also been median figures. Fritjof Meyer suggested "at most" 365,000 in Osteuropa (May 2002), Jean Claude Pressac suggested around 600,000-800,000, both on the basis of gassings.

 

[Dash80]

If it is not idiotic at Maijdanek, why does it become idiotic at Auschwitz? There have also been median figures. Fritjof Meyer suggested "at most" 365,000 in Osteuropa (May 2002), Jean Claude Pressac suggested around 600,000-800,000, both on the basis of gassings.

Out of curiosity, how many people do YOU believe died at Auschwitz?

 

[A'isha]

The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists.

Only because it's true.

As it has some justification, it has hindered the reception of revisionist work. One way out of this impasse has been to focus on the Polish museum authorities' role as enablers of the holocaust mythos. This is the standpoint of Carlo Mattogno's book Curated Lies - The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (Holocaust Handbooks, 2016).

I don't think going from "the Jews made it all up" to "the Poles made it all up at the behest of the Jews" is really going to do all that much to restore the revisonists' nonexistent reputation.

 

[trustbutverify]

The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists. As it has some justification...

It has complete justification. There is no Holocaust "revisionism" without racism. The former is a subset of the latter.

 

[Degeneve]

Knowledge of the gulags emerged slowly. In fact, some scholars still dispute their scale. However, in contrast to the holocaust, they are allowed to pursue their research without it affecting their careers in western academia.

As a matter of fact ther are no scholars who have been prevented to pursue their research...

You are obviously confusing real scholars with a bunch of cranks who did never manage to provide serious work and conclusions...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Perhaps if holocaust deniers wish to avoid the stigma of antisemitism they could offer a reason for the proposed hoax other than Semitic peoples being untrustworthy sorts?

 

[EtienneSC]

As a matter of fact ther are no scholars who have been prevented to pursue their research...

You are obviously confusing real scholars with a bunch of cranks who did never manage to provide serious work and conclusions...

This is either uninformed, or virtually tautological. Germar Rudolf served three years in prison in Germany for the Rudolf Gutachten, based on his degree level knowledge of chemistry. Professor Faurisson in France has been dragged through the courts for years and a law passed (the loi Gayssot) that makes it illegal to advertise or distribute commercially his writings. We have already mentioned the Garaudy affair. In France, Vincent Reynouard was imprisoned for 12 months and is currently in exile following another sentence. In Germany the history teacher Udo Walendy and many others have served and many continue to serve time in prison for revisionism. In the last few weeks, holocaust revisionism has been outlawed in Italy and the blog of Carlo Mattogno disabled as a result. This level of political interference makes holocaust studies stand out like a sore thumb from other academic disciplines.

 

[EtienneSC]

Out of curiosity, how many people do YOU believe died at Auschwitz?

I am not an authority as this is not my primary interest. However, based on my current understanding of the facts and method of study, I would record upwards of 72,000 fatalities as confirmed by the Sterbenbücher (upwards, as they are incomplete). In addition, the history of the camp needs to record reports and separate accusations of mass killings. To the extent that they can be confirmed by camp records or forensic evidence, they would be added to the confirmed total. This is what has happened at Maijdanek and the western camps (Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, etc).

 

[Nick Terry]

Knowledge of the gulags emerged slowly. In fact, some scholars still dispute their scale. However, in contrast to the holocaust, they are allowed to pursue their research without it affecting their careers in western academia.

There are no scholars working in appropriate departments who dispute the scale of the Gulag or the Terror of 1937-8. The figures have been known for 25 years; there were some like Robert Conquest who had believed the numbers were higher, but Conquest is dead.

The only academic currently actively whitewashing Stalin's crimes in a western university is Grover Furr, who is a professor of medieval English literature. There are in fact more tenured academics in North American universities who deny the Holocaust than there are to my knowledge tenured academics contesting Stalin's crimes - albeit that number rises to a mere two names: Arthur Butz and Mohammed Kaukab Siddique, like Furr neither of these professors are in a history department.

 

[Dash80]

I am not an authority as this is not my primary interest. However, based on my current understanding of the facts and method of study, I would record upwards of 72,000 fatalities as confirmed by the Sterbenbücher (upwards, as they are incomplete). In addition, the history of the camp needs to record reports and separate accusations of mass killings. To the extent that they can be confirmed by camp records or forensic evidence, they would be added to the confirmed total. This is what has happened at Maijdanek and the western camps (Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, etc).

So you accept 72,000 deaths of REGISTERED prisoners, where did the rest go? Camp records are incomplete, many were undoubtedly destroyed.

Between the end of 1941 until late 1944, hundreds of transports of Jews arrived in Auschwitz... from all over occupied Europe. All of the evidence suggests the vast majority either died (of disease for example) or were directly murdered there.

72,000 does not add up, considering the numbers sent to the camp. For example, some 400,000 Hungarian Jews, with over 300,000 of them not being registered into the camp, can you explain where all of them went (if they were not murdered immediately)?

 

[Nick Terry]

This is either uninformed, or virtually tautological. Germar Rudolf served three years in prison in Germany for the Rudolf Gutachten, based on his degree level knowledge of chemistry. Professor Faurisson in France has been dragged through the courts for years and a law passed (the loi Gayssot) that makes it illegal to advertise or distribute commercially his writings. We have already mentioned the Garaudy affair. In France, Vincent Reynouard was imprisoned for 12 months and is currently in exile following another sentence. In Germany the history teacher Udo Walendy and many others have served and many continue to serve time in prison for revisionism. In the last few weeks, holocaust revisionism has been outlawed in Italy and the blog of Carlo Mattogno disabled as a result. This level of political interference makes holocaust studies stand out like a sore thumb from other academic disciplines.

As Degeneve said: you are obviously confusing real scholars with a bunch of cranks who did never manage to provide serious work and conclusions.

None of the people you mentioned ever worked in a university history department. Only two of the names you mentioned even had university posts. Most are mere authors - Udo Walendy was no longer a school teacher by the time he was publishing revisionist tracts, Roger Garaudy was long retired and in his 80s when he caused a controversy in the mid-1990s.

Holocaust revisionism doesn't have any academic respectability whatsoever, as determined internationally by academics in their own disciplines, not because of laws against incitement to racial hatred in some European countries.

 

[Degeneve]

This is either uninformed, or virtually tautological. Germar Rudolf served three years in prison in Germany for the Rudolf Gutachten, based on his degree level knowledge of chemistry. Professor Faurisson in France has been dragged through the courts for years and a law passed (the loi Gayssot) that makes it illegal to advertise or distribute commercially his writings. We have already mentioned the Garaudy affair. In France, Vincent Reynouard was imprisoned for 12 months and is currently in exile following another sentence. In Germany the history teacher Udo Walendy and many others have served and many continue to serve time in prison for revisionism. In the last few weeks, holocaust revisionism has been outlawed in Italy and the blog of Carlo Mattogno disabled as a result. This level of political interference makes holocaust studies stand out like a sore thumb from other academic disciplines.

Among these names the only one who approaches the definition of a scholar is Faurisson. However Faurisson is not an historian but a professor of French litterature and even in his field of "expertise" he has been critisized by his peers.

 

[EtienneSC]

Among these names the only one who approaches the definition of a scholar is Faurisson. However Faurisson is not an historian but a professor of French litterature and even in his field of "expertise" he has been critisized by his peers.

Whose definition of a scholar are you following? If we turn to J G Fichte's The Vocation of the Scholar (1794) for guidance, we read:

[The scholar] "must be thoroughly conversant with the labors of those who have gone before him in his own department. [...] Experience must be questioned, the events of the past must be examined, but with an eye purified by philosophy; we must look around us, and consider our contemporaries. [...] it is the duty of the scholar, as of every man who has chosen a particular condition of life, to strive for the advancement of knowledge, and chiefly of his own peculiar department of knowledge; [...] It is for him to watch over and promote the advancement of other departments" The scholar should "endeavor to preserve himself from a growing insensibility to foreign opinions and modes of thought, which is so common even among the most independent thinkers; for no one is so well informed but he may still continue to learn, and may have something very necessary yet to learn; and it is seldom that any one is so ignorant that he cannot teach something to the most learned, which the latter did not know before. [...] The scholar will never be tempted to bring men to the adoption of his convictions by coercion or the use of physical force".

Fichte does not specify occupation of an academic chair as a condition of scholarship. Indeed, he was himself dismissed from such a post in 1800 in a dispute over atheism. A good deal of revisionist work passes these tests: it has considered its contemporaries and identified the holocaust as a significant cultural issue. It has engaged with previous work through published criticisms, in which respect, academics in this field have only rarely reciprocated.