Holocaust Denial Videos

[A W Smith]

Hi A.W. Smith

You broke Guideline #1.

too bad. You do not make the rules here. And you broke forum rules by not commenting but merely linking to a video and asking for us to comment on it. that's spamming. You play by our rules here.

you want to discuss videos? then discuss this one

NOW
http://www.holocaust-history.org/him...znan-large.mov

 

[Budly]

Hi Arus808: I'm familiar with all those sites. But only one of those 4 sites specifically discusses the videos. NIZKOR, for instance, doesn't discuss the videos. You wrote

YOU pick a video that you have a specific issue with (or you agree with) and then ask what our thoughts on that video is, or if a specific claim in the video is something you want an opposing view on, then point that out in a discussion thread.

I obliged but you're dodging what I picked and what I asked.

Edited by Tricky: 

Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

 

[Arus808]

Hi A.W. Smith

You broke Guideline #1.

Sorry, but no "rules" were established and agreed to. We dont play games here, especially with a subject like the Holocaust.

Instead of replying about who broke some unagreed set of rules, why haven't you bothered to read these sites:

http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.net/
http://www.adl.org/holocaust/introduction.asp



They will take YOU MONTHS to go through.

 

[Budly]

Hi FullFlavorMenthol:

The Guidelines are reasonable. If episode 2 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust" is titled "water well." And it's 3 minutes long and about a water well at Treblinka, then I think it's reasonable to discuss that, and not bring up Auschwitz, for instance.

 

[Budly]

Hi A.W. Smith

I broke forum rules by asking what you think about a video? And your response is to post a video about the Poznan speech which has nothing to do with any video at holocaust denial videos dot com? How hard is it to watch some of the videos there yourself and offer an opinion? I think Yankel Wiernik is a fraud. He's the subject of episode 1 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust." What do you think?

 

[A W Smith]

Hi A.W. Smith

I broke forum rules by asking what you think about a video? And your response is to post a video about the Poznan speech which has nothing to do with any video at holocaust denial videos dot com? How hard is it to watch some of the videos there yourself and offer an opinion? I think Yankel Wiernik is a fraud. He's the subject of episode 1 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust." What do you think?

i think you have been exposed Bud
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html

this is your page and this is your "manifesto" Bud

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/
Manifesto [/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I advocate kindness and good vibes toward all Jewish people. I like black people and people of all races, nationalities, religions; and I like gay people. It goes without saying but due to the stigma associated with holocaust denial, it needs to be said. I feel that it was Hitler's belief in military solutions that was primarily responsible for the European disaster that was World War II. I just believe the holocaust is a hoax. Today it is the holocaust myth that props up militarism. Here's why:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of the many terrible things about World War II, the single worst thing wasn't the holocaust, because that's a myth. The worst thing was German soldiers fighting Soviet soldiers because millions of young men on both sides died horrible deaths. That war was started by Hitler and, rather than the crude concept of "fighting communism," it galvanized Stalin's power and made void the internal workings within the USSR that might have deposed him. The young men put between Stalin and Hitler and being conscripted to fight, was the worst thing about WWII. And the lesson from that is militarism and military solutions are always a disaster. That lesson is obscured when the worst thing about World War II is considered to be the holocaust because then the opposite conclusion is drawn: militarism seems good. Righteous militarism to defeat Hitler. Fighting intolerance. Americans largely see World War II as the "good fight" against Evil. The holocaust myth props up that assertion and obscures the truth: World War II was a European disaster. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The holocaust myth gives a "fighting for tolerance" theme to World War II, and the "fighting for tolerance" theme continues to justify military aggression up to recent times: it was used to justify the US invasion of Serbia/Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The wrong conclusions about World War II based on the false information that is the holocaust, reverberate into militaristic solutions creating disasters today. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Because the holocaust myth was never exposed, the masses never lost their gullibility and are easily manipulated for pro-war purposes. Here's an example: before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not only did most Americans believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, many also believed he had killed millions of his own people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The good/evil narrative of WWII is a blur with the good/evil narrative of so many bad movies, t.v. shows, and reportage. Things become more and more like the movie Idiocracy, and fitting that the ending of that movie involves a dumbed-down explanation of World War II. In reality people aren't really "evil" --there's just the challenge of understanding why people do what they do. The holocaust myth holds up the conception of Evil itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Christianity is a proud and interesting cultural heritage. But as a present-day belief system it can hold people back intellectually and culturally. A fundamental of Christianity is it's dumb portrayal of evil. But consider the possibility that a modern dumb portrayal of evil is the holocaust. So like Christianity, could the holocaust also hold people back intellectually and culturally? A fundamental of both being a worldview of good and evil? And could this hold society back, ping pong-ing, or reinforced with, media capitalism? We see news reporting and television shows, movies promoting righteous violence to take on "evil people." On a global level the "evil people" are often resistant to capitalism like North Korea; or resistant to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (Iraq, Taliban, Al-Qaeda) Again the movie Idiocracy comes to mind when it had a stadium sports-like media spectacle of the USA using overwhelming force on it's enemies. The stadium spectators playing electric guitars while monster trucks ran over the enemies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Not to mention that the false postulate that is the holocaust is the cornerstone of European Jewish colonialism in Israel and all the problems which have come from it. Iran's Ahmadinejad is right about that. We have the horrible bookends of European Colonialism: European Christian colonialism (The Crusades) 850 years ago, and European Jewish colonialism (Zionism) from the early 1900's till today. These bookends of colonialism had European laws associated with them: Heresy then, and denying the holocaust today. The laws keep people from debunking the intellectual/emotional basis of the colonialism, of the militarism of the colonizers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Germany the myth has ridiculously warped the general personality of the people. But it's not just Germany: The longer European and American intellectual thought has in it's foundation this false postulate that is the holocaust, the weirder and dumber things are going to get.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It's time to move beyond the myth.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and this again is my answer to your "manifesto"[/FONT]

Originally Posted by kageki
- Not exclusive to Jews. Final Solution seems to be about deportation.
- No extermination camps. They were labor camps.

Not much labor going on here, Are they waiting for the deportation bus?

- Mass killings did occur, but again no Nazi death factories.
- No gas chambers. No ovens.

Sure looks like a death factory to me, Why such huge chimneys for such a small factory building? Whatever they "made' sure didn't take up much floor space but sure produced an awful lot of smoke. The rear of this building is where they had to "shower up" before starting production for the day

No burning pits.

Must have been the morning fog then, wake up. wake up Juden. Time to go to work.

- Not 6 million.

Well then where did they vanish to then? lemme guess. Miami?

To summaries. I don't even think hell has a place for such cretins as holocaust deniers. Even that is too good for them. Thankfully nature and the human species through selection discards such freaks and they are forced to live a life of ignorance. Ostracized by society, they hide in their caverns of blatent stupidity to die off with a whimper. Blaming their failure and shortcomings in life on those who are more adept to compete in society.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Hi FullFlavorMenthol:

The Guidelines are reasonable. If episode 2 of the video "One Third of the Holocaust" is titled "water well." And it's 3 minutes long and about a water well at Treblinka, then I think it's reasonable to discuss that, and not bring up Auschwitz, for instance.

Oh...so basically you want to use a bias video alone to argue against the reality of the Holocaust and forbid any contradictory evidence?

Also you violated my completely legitimate rules as to arguing with my point.

This is like me going into the Science forum and demanding a debate on creationism, and only allowing a discussion on the first chapter of genesis without allowing any other sources to be used.

Why don't you present an argument, in your own words here, and allow people to debate it? What are you afraid of?

 

[Budly]

Hi Arus808,

This isn't a general discussion of "holocaust denial." I think my initial post made it pretty clear that I'd like people here to watch some short episodes of a video and offer an opinion. You can't seem to do that, and instead offer a bunch of links, most of which don't mention the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Edited by Tricky: 

Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Hi Arus808,

This isn't a general discussion of "holocaust denial." I think my initial post made it pretty clear that I'd like people here to watch some short episodes of a video and offer an opinion. You can't seem to do that, and instead offer a bunch of links, most of which don't mention the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Okay, submit a link to them and I will watch them; but I will present my opinions of them with no regard to your little rules. In fact that is what you will get from this forum.

Edited by Tricky: 

Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

 

[A W Smith]

Hi Arus808,

This isn't a general discussion of "holocaust denial." I think my initial post made it pretty clear that I'd like people here to watch some short episodes of a video and offer an opinion. You can't seem to do that, and instead offer a bunch of links, most of which don't mention the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com.

this blog here discusses the videos you made
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/historiography-as-seen-by-ignorant_03.html
and I agree with him.

Edited by Tricky: 

Name edited to correct spelling of member name.

 

[lionking]

Covered adequately here.

Incidentally, Budly, are you the creator of this film, One Third of the Holocaust?

Why don't you answer this question bud(ly)? Being honest with members would be a good start.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode.

The onus is on you to refute historical consensus.

You have the Shermer's appearance on Donahue. That's a fine place to start. Read his book Denying History and explain how his refutations, in your opinion, fail. He specifically addresses that appearance.

If you don't like that then read Robert Jan van Pelt's book The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, which helped refute Irving and was a major blow to the falsifers of history.

As Holocaust deniers use the same discredited arguments, until we see something new you can read the books that deal with the subject.

 

[Budly]

Hi Questioninggeller: You broke guideline #1. But were you to watch that Donahue episode and comment on Michael Schermer, you'd actually be the first person here to do what I reasonably requested.

By the way does anyone know why this topic isn't showing up in "recent threads"? Posts here are more recent than the threads listed.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why do you hate jews, Budly?

What about them invokes your ire?

What, if anything, did a jew ever do to you?

Is it just the jews or are there any other ethnic, racial or religious groups you feel compelled to unload on?

Guideline #1: Reponses to my questions must use my proper honorific title.

 

[Budly]

Hi Sword Of Truth,

You broke Guideline #2, as put forth in my initial post.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Hi Questioninggeller: You broke guideline #1. But were you to watch that Donahue episode and comment on Michael Schermer, you'd actually be the first person here to do what I reasonably requested.

I think you should answer the questions already presented via that blog, which raises serious points. But, I'll play along...

Let's start with the Donahue clip right when Shermer first appears on the show, Shermer talking and your video cuts Shermer's sentence mid-way to show a Cole clip.

Video here:
http://holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_b.html

Cole, who has never published any works nor has any degrees, makes many claims in there about Zyklon B. Let's pick one:

Jean-Claude Pressac, a former Holocaust denier, is cited by Cole as an authority on figures and claims 95% of Zyklon B was not used in gas chambers. His book Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, which Cole cites, was published by the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation.

As you might know, the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation is not an academic press. It is ran by Serge Klarsfeld for "collecting and publishing of personal data of the Holocaust," which seems to lack academic rigor/peer review. While this foundation has a passion for making Holocaust material available, I have serious skepticism about the quality of work produced.

More to the point, there is one copy of this book for $900 on Amazon and I couldn't even find it in google scholar to see who has cited it. (I couldn't even find an ISBN number for it even though it was published in 1989!)

So my questions to discuss:
1) Why should we take the word of Jean-Claude Pressac as an authority on these figures? He's not a historian. Where'd he get his degrees? Did he teach? Was he peer-reviewed in his own field?
2) How does he come up with such numbers (I ask because I'm not paying $900 for the book)? Methodology? His sources?
3) What proof do you have that these numbers are used by historians (I point you to the fact that he is not a historian and has no credentials in history)? Basically, here I want to see some peer-review. Do Holocaust scholars accept these numbers? Do they reject them? What have Holocaust scholars said about such figures? What numbers have Holocaust scholars given?


This is the problem in general for the Holocaust deniers: sourcing. All too often deniers take little bits of something that isn't a real issue and move the goal post. Your video completely avoided Shermer's point by citing a denier who cited a former denier with dubious historical qualifications and was published by a non-academic publisher with questionable, if any, peer-review.

In sum, please answer those questions above and I'll move on to my second point based on your response.

 

[Budly]

Hi Questioninggeller,

Thank you for finally doing what I had requested: watching an episode and commenting. It took 36 posts before someone could do that, which is astonishing to me.

You are asking about the credibility of using Jean Claude Pressac and his book Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. I think it's a valid source because, as the video shows, it's listed under "Further Reading" on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In other words, the USHMM thinks it's a valid source. My guess is the USHMM would review it before recommending it.

I once read some of this book on google books, but noticed that it's no longer there, which is weird.

This episode of "Phil Donahue Analysis" uses a clip from "The David Cole Video" which is also on holocaust denial videos dot com, if you're wondering where that came from.

I can't answer your questions about who Pressac is, but thanks for asking and you have me interested also. Pressac claims that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing, and I would also like to know his source for that.

Look forward to hearing your comments on other episodes.

 

[lionking]

Hi Questioninggeller,

Thank you for finally doing what I had requested: watching an episode and commenting. It took 36 posts before someone could do that, which is astonishing to me.

I find it astonishing that anyone responded to someone who comes here with repeatedly debunked material and sets guidelines like he owned the forum.

Your lack of response to Brainster and my earlier questions leads me to conclude you are responsible for the videos. Why are you afraid to admit it?

 

[Questioninggeller]

Hi Questioninggeller,

Thank you for finally doing what I had requested: watching an episode and commenting. It took 36 posts before someone could do that.

You are asking about the credibility of using Jean Claude Pressac and his book Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. I think it's a valid source because, as the video shows, it's listed under "Further Reading" on the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In other words, the USHMM thinks it's a valid source.

Sorry, but my point was on a particular claim Cole made about the book, which you felt the need to repeat. (As you know books can get recommended despite specific errors, mistakes, or incorrect points.) In particular, this denialist claim I would like either supported or withdrawn from your video:

Pressac claims that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing

Do you stand by that figure? If you stand by that figure because the Holocaust Memorial Museum recommends the reading why don't you accept everything else in the book? Why do you believe that figure is correct and not everything else?

I can't answer your questions about who Pressac is, but thanks for asking and you have me interested also.

Look forward to hearing your comments on other episodes.

You don't know his qualifications/status/standing in the academic community and yet you cite an obscure book.

You are going to ignore all my questions about the source you inserted in between Shermer's comments? I'll repost my questions for the sake of making my point about the figures/sourcing in your videos:

So my questions to discuss:
1) Why should we take the word of Jean-Claude Pressac as an authority on these figures? He's not a historian. Where'd he get his degrees? Did he teach? Was he peer-reviewed in his own field?
2) How does he come up with such numbers (I ask because I'm not paying $900 for the book)? Methodology? His sources?
3) What proof do you have that these numbers are used by historians (I point you to the fact that he is not a historian and has no credentials in history)? Basically, here I want to see some peer-review. Do Holocaust scholars accept these numbers? Do they reject them? What have Holocaust scholars said about such figures? What numbers have Holocaust scholars given?

If you want to cite a fringe source to use a figure that the scholars don't accept to refute scholars, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Maybe in the future you will answer the questions or choose to be skeptical of repeating a claim from a non-historian to criticize work done by historians.


Edit to add Bud's addition:

My guess is the USHMM would review it before recommending it.

Maybe, maybe not. By a scholar? By an intern compling a bibliography? I bet I (and other members of this forum) can send email linked to this thread (and the points I made) and get it removed from there soon. If I do will you remove that from your video as well?

I really want to know why the Holocaust Museum is a valid source that book (and you believe that figure), but you ignore everything else on that website...

 

[Budly]

Hi QuestioningGeller:

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum website has a "Holocaust Encyclopedia." If you look up "gas chamber" you get an article called "Gassing Operations." After the article, there are 4 sources listed for further reading. Pressac's book is listed as number three, and no I don't think you're going to be able to get that removed by sending them an email with a link to this thread. Do I stand by the books allegation that 95 percent of Zyklon B was used for delousing? Answer: No, since I believe that 100% of the Zyklon B was used for delousing. But the point in the video is that a recognized source (as in recognized by the USHMM) states essentially that a pile of Zyklon B cannisters is not evidence for the holocaust. At least 95 out of 100 cannisters anyway.

Hi Lionking: As I've already mentioned, I don't want to divulge my identity which is an option for users of forums like this. Also, it would draw away from the subject of the thread.