Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[tsig]

Of course Bauer's statement was wrong. Meuller's book is a collection of absurd lies, starting with the title 'Three Years in the Gas Chambers'. The holohoax liars have absolutely no regard for plausibility or consistency. If Meuller had taken the trouble to read Hoess's hoax 'confession' he would have known that the Nazis killed the Jews working in the gas chambers every two weeks or so.
So what? The fact that the director of Yad Vashem would endorse such an obvious pack of absurd lies tells you all you need to know about the holohoax.

Using evidence from the holocaust to disprove the holocaust?

 

[Gene Alley]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content

I have been reading this thread off and on for months before deciding to join the forum. I have also read several of the links provided by people from both sides of the topic at hand. Cogent points have been made on both sides of the debate in my opinion.

I am one, like most who had always accepted the basic 'gas chamber six million systematically murdered' narrative. After reading this thread and a great deal of the information provided here, I find that some of these revisionists have made several valid points which seem to be corraborated by historical fact.

At this point, it seems to me that there has been much hyperbole along with outright lies which have been continually advanced by respected members of the Jewish community either knowingly, or unwittingly regarding the holocaust. That along with the outrageous actions of those who would support arresting and imprisoning people for advancing and arguing different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust in civilized so called "western democracies" is a huge red flag. Especially since it has been brought to my attention that our government here in the US and Canada have cooperated with these book burners by extradicting people to Germany for violating these draconian, totalitarian laws.

Could you please answer a couple questions to clairify your position on this so called revisionist pheonomenon?


1)Do you consider CODOH a "nazi website"? Is it your contention that all or most of those who call themselves revisionists are really racist supremacist anti-Jewish Nazi types who are trying to disguise their motives?

2)Do you believe that these so called revisionists are aware of the facts as generally accepted regarding the holocaust, and are just making things up?

Thanks

 

[LemmyCaution]

I am not sure what the good points raised by the deniers are. You know you will be asked to spell these out.

You seem to have accepted at some point a point of view which no historian I know of accepts, namely

the basic 'gas chamber six million systematically murdered' narrative.

This is a strawman. Plain and simple, there is no such narrative. Scholars of the Holocaust by and large do not argue that six million Jews were murdered by the Third Reich, and none argues that six million Jews died in gas chambers. If you disagree, please point us to where in the literature we can find the narrative which you mistakenly accepted. To debunk or make valid points against a strawman is hardly an achievement, I am sure you will agree.

1)Do you consider CODOH a "nazi website"? Is it your contention that all or most of those who call themselves revisionists are really racist supremacist anti-Jewish Nazi types who are trying to disguise their motives?

I don't read Codoh, so I am not one who can answer this. On RODOH--I am not allowed to link to that site but have done so earlier to clarify this point--many of the revisionists harbor pro-Nazi views, and most are antisemitic. They do not make much, if any, effort to disguise their biases.

2)Do you believe that these so called revisionists are aware of the facts as generally accepted regarding the holocaust, and are just making things up?

If you have been reading this thread, you will have noticed that for the most part the revisionists posting here have little familiarity with the work done by historians on the Holocaust--they show few signs of knowing the literature, the basic arguments, nor even the basic facts. They certainly do not come across as knowing the major themes and debates, schools of thought, focus areas within the scholarly community. Many deniers, ignoring the basic research and literature on the Holocaust, pick up and recycle material from Websites like Rense or from other deniers. You don't seem to show much awareness of the historical work either, or how historians work, whatever the field of study (the methods used to study the Holocaust, for historians, do not differ from those used to construct the history of the American Civil War, whilst deniers regularly use special methods and double standards in treating the Holocaust). I notice that, instead of discussing the history--and how historians handle testimony and self interested viewpoints--you focus on interested parties and advocates as well as criminal legislation, calling the latter a "huge red flag" (for something, which you do not spell out).

I would have thought that someone curious about all this would ask rather about the work of social scientists and others who study the topic and have constructed the basic narratives.

Now, perhaps you will answer these questions:
(1) For what is legislation criminalizing Holocaust denial as a hate crime a "huge red flag"? Why was such legislation enacted in Germany, to take just one case of such legislation?
(2) What is the relationship of advocacy and commemorative activities by members of communities whose members were victimized by the Nazis to the work of social scientists working out the history of the Third Reich?
(3) What are the good points raised by deniers, and why are they good? To what problems, gaps, or weaknesses in the scholarly literature on the Holocaust do these points of deniers speak?

Thank you, LemmyCaution

 

[Wroclaw]

I'd like to ask that our new friend answer these three points:

(1) In a letter written January 29, 1943, to SS Colonel Hans Kammler, Karl Bischoff, an SS captain and architect at Auschwitz-Birkenau, mentions a room in Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau that he refers to as a "Vergasungskeller." He is referring to the room that the blueprints for Krema II designate as a "Leichenkeller" (morgue). It has been suggested that the "Vergasungskeller" could have been a gas production cellar or a gas attack shelter for the Nazis. However, it would have been foolish to place a gas production cellar so close to the crematory ovens in Krema II, and certainly the word for a gas attack shelter would have the word "Schutz" in there somewhere. Complicating the matter is the fact that a letter from Erhard Wetzel, a Nazi adviser on Jewish Affairs, to Heinrich Lohse, Reichkommissar for Ostland, stationed at Riga, mentions the "Vergasungsapparate" that had been used in the T-4 Euthanasia program in Berlin. So clearly "Vergasung" can mean "to kill with gas."

How would you explain this document if the room being referred to in Bischoff's letter is not a gas chamber?

(2) During an "action" against Jews on the Eastern Front during the war, an SS man named Max Täubner was brought up on criminal charges for, as an officer, shooting Jews himself, as well as photographing the "action" and showing the photos to people back in Berlin. He was tried before an SS court in Munich, which rendered its verdict on May 24, 1943. The judge wrote, in part:

"The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself."

If there was no program to exterminate the Jews, then what was this judge in Munich talking about when he rendered his verdict?

(3) By the end of 1942, Nazi statistician Richard Korherr estimated that 2.5 million Jews had already been killed since the beginning of the war. The so-called Reinhard camps would continue to operate into the following year, Kulmhof would not close until 1944, and Auschwitz-Birkenau stopped killing prisoners in November 1944. Given the census that the Nazis themselves took for their conference at Wannsee, chaired by SS General Reinhard Heydrich, in January 1942 -- a census that concludes that there were, at that time, 11 million Jews in Europe and areas under Jewish control (primarily North Africa and the Middle East), is it ridiculous to suggest that the number of Jews killed could have been at least twice that many by May 8, 1945?

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

I am one, like most who had always accepted the basic 'gas chamber six million systematically murdered' narrative. After reading this thread and a great deal of the information provided here, I find that some of these revisionists have made several valid points which seem to be corraborated by historical fact.

I'm kind of sceptic about your supposed position. You are using the same idotic 6 millions died in gas chambers strawman as all Hitler huggers and you didn't point to single piece of evidence, but instead pointed to crap like the "evil bad laws against holocaust denial", which again is typical for deniers.

And the fact, that you think our deniers made even just one valid point makes me even more suspicious. They have not answered a single question or showed a single piece of evidence to be true or false.

But hey you are free to name just one valid point our Hitler huggers made.

It has been suggested that the "Vergasungskeller" could have been a gas production cellar or a gas attack shelter for the Nazis. However, it would have been foolish to place a gas production cellar so close to the crematory ovens in Krema II, and certainly the word for a gas attack shelter would have the word "Schutz" in there somewhere.

The "Vergasungskeller" document is simplest proof for the gas chambers in Krema II and III. Just to be clear for our Hitler fan boys. It can't be a simple gas shelter, that would be a Gasschutzbunker" or something similiar. Vergasung can mean just two things: gasification or gassing (=killing with gas).

But it can't be a gasification cellar since:
1) The ovens were fired by cole, not fuel. So gasification makes absolutly no sense.
2) There is no evidence for the presence of such a room, but on the other hand there are other documents, testimonies by prisoners and perpetrators, photos and physical evidence that all show the existence of a extermination gas chamber in Leichenkeller II of Krema II and III.

For the reality of mass extermination at Auschwitz in general there is also a simple proof in form of this document:

No denier was ever been able to explain why they would need to cremate 4756 bodies in 24 hours at Auschwitz.

 

[Pacal]

I have been reading this thread off and on for months before deciding to join the forum. I have also read several of the links provided by people from both sides of the topic at hand. Cogent points have been made on both sides of the debate in my opinion.

---

At this point, it seems to me that there has been much hyperbole along with outright lies which have been continually advanced by respected members of the Jewish community either knowingly, or unwittingly regarding the holocaust. That along with the outrageous actions of those who would support arresting and imprisoning people for advancing and arguing different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust in civilized so called "western democracies" is a huge red flag. Especially since it has been brought to my attention that our government here in the US and Canada have cooperated with these book burners by extradicting people to Germany for violating these draconian, totalitarian laws.

---

Thanks

It is very easy to demonstrate that that Holocaust revisionists are the great majority of time anti-semitic loons. If you have ben reading this thread you would have seen that. However your comments indicate quite clearly wherre you are coming from. Your comment about "outright lies" from members of the "Jewish community", indicate your biases with abundant clarity. it appears that the fact that in this thread it has been shown over and over again, that Holoacaoust revisionists lie, distort and cherry pick over and over again with predictable regularity is ignored by you. Instead you claim to speak from a neutral position. I've seen this sort of stunt before it is a familar tactic of deniers.

Your last set of comments about a "huge red flag", and "totalitarian" measures is also a dead give away. The fact that so many Holocaust revisionists are not simply people who have different thoughts about history, but anti-semitic fruit cakes passes you by. As for "totalitarian", well it is very easy to get in Canada Holocaust revisionist crap. The same in Germany. The "Totalitarian" suppression is not very effective. Neo-Nazi groups spread this stuff with great ease. Even in Germany such cases are exactly frequent and such groups spread such stuff with ease. AS "Totalitarian" supression goes this is stunningly mild.

I note you forget that Zundel was not just a Holocaust revisionist but a Neo-Nazi, who while he lived in Canada openly sold Nazi and Anti-Semitic propaganda through his company Samizdat press. I note you forget that Zundel's conviction was overturned on appeal in Canada and that pratically no body has been tried for in Canada. Zundel went voluntarily to the USA, and was deported after many years back to Canada, for imigration violations. In Canada he had let his landed immigration status lapse so guess what he was deported back to Germany. Not surprisingly he was considered an undesirable. Zundel and his cult-like followers whined endlessly about his suffering and how unfair it all was. Well if Zundel haddn't gone to the USA via dubious means he would still be safe in Canada sewing his fanatical hatred.

Your characterization of this episode is most illuminating.

Oh and I emphatically do not support laws criminalizing Holcaust denial. I just don't have much sympathy for Zundel who was in my opinion to a large extent the author of his own misfortune.

I note that you also forget that so many of Holcaust revisionists are utterly obssessed with Jews and can't seem to stop fantasizing about the ZOG and believing in a vast Jewish comnspiracy to decieve and trick and of course fabricate the Holcaust "myth". It is standard anti-semitic swill.

Your pose is not fooling anyone.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It is standard anti-semitic swill.

Your pose is not fooling anyone.

Bingo.

 

[uke2se]

1)Do you consider CODOH a "nazi website"?

It's a website founded and run by outspoken antisemites with strong links to neo-Nazi groups.

Is it your contention that all or most of those who call themselves revisionists are really racist supremacist anti-Jewish Nazi types who are trying to disguise their motives?

Definitely.

2)Do you believe that these so called revisionists are aware of the facts as generally accepted regarding the holocaust, and are just making things up?

Some are making it up. Others are swallowing wholesale the lies made up by the "some" because it fits their preconceived bias. You seem to be of the latter category.

Now, please point out the "valid points" made by the deniers in this thread.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Now, please point out the "valid points" made by the deniers in this thread.

And while you are at it, point us to someone other than a denier, antisemite, or neo-nazi who argues what you call

the basic 'gas chamber six million systematically murdered' narrative.

 

[Gene Alley]

I am not sure what the good points raised by the deniers are. You know you will be asked to spell these out.

You seem to have accepted at some point a point of view which no historian I know of accepts, namely This is a strawman. Plain and simple, there is no such narrative. Scholars of the Holocaust by and large do not argue that six million Jews were murdered by the Third Reich, and none argues that six million Jews died in gas chambers.

I was not trying to create a "strawman" in this case by any means. I am not an historian, holocaust or otherwise and do not claim to be. I was honestly conveying what my understanding of the so called holocaust was before I ever heard of revisionist history. That six million Jews were murdered systematically, (many in gas chambers disguised as showers) was taught to me in public school history classes, as well as TV and movie productions, and pop culture. (Bob Dylan, With God On Our Side, etc.)

As a matter of fact, I probably would not have ever even heard of revisionism except for the fact of this curious term "holocaust denier" becoming so prevalent in political circles of late. I would bet that if a poll were taken regarding the holocaust, most Americans would answer that it was the systematic murder of six million Jews by the Nazis in Germany during WWII. If there were a multiple choice about how most of these Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazis, I'd bet that gassing would be the number one answer by far. You are getting a little presumptuous at this early stage, not to mention the barrage of nasty little insinuations and outright accusations hurled by some of the other members after my first post here.

If you disagree, please point us to where in the literature we can find the narrative which you mistakenly accepted. To debunk or make valid points against a strawman is hardly an achievement, I am sure you will agree.
I don't read Codoh, so I am not one who can answer this. On RODOH--I am not allowed to link to that site but have done so earlier to clarify this point--many of the revisionists harbor pro-Nazi views, and most are antisemitic. They do not make much, if any, effort to disguise their biases.

I'm not familiar with RODOH, but I'll look into it, thanks. I have read quite a bit of material from CODOH and I believe that there are some interesting points raised there by credible people. At this point, I don't believe I am allowed to link to any certain areas that would support my opinion, however once I am allowed to do so, I'll ind them and pass them on. In general, I did not find any of the material hateful or full of any kind of white supremicist anti-semitic jargon.

If you have been reading this thread, you will have noticed that for the most part the revisionists posting here have little familiarity with the work done by historians on the Holocaust--they show few signs of knowing the literature, the basic arguments, nor even the basic facts. They certainly do not come across as knowing the major themes and debates, schools of thought, focus areas within the scholarly community. Many deniers, ignoring the basic research and literature on the Holocaust, pick up and recycle material from Websites like Rense or from other deniers.

With all due respect, that is your very biased opinion. There are many on your side of the debate who do nothing but hurl silly epithets and insults also.

You don't seem to show much awareness of the historical work either, or how historians work, whatever the field of study (the methods used to study the Holocaust, for historians, do not differ from those used to construct the history of the American Civil War, whilst deniers regularly use special methods and double standards in treating the Holocaust). I notice that, instead of discussing the history--and how historians handle testimony and self interested viewpoints--you focus on interested parties and advocates as well as criminal legislation, calling the latter a "huge red flag" (for something, which you do not spell out).

I'm not overly impressed with the whole "scholarly" process in general or many the methods that have been used in their field. History, unlike math is a very inexact science. There is also a lot of truth to the old saying about history being written by the victors, for the victors.

I would have thought that someone curious about all this would ask rather about the work of social scientists and others who study the topic and have constructed the basic narratives.

Again, many of the "basic narratives" that were once accepted as historical fact are being challenged continually. For example, when Howard Zinn wrote "A Peoples History Of The United States Of America" many of U.S. history's "basic narratives" were severely challenged. What he wrote certainly wasn't what I was taught back in the '60s in my history classes.

Now, perhaps you will answer these questions:
(1) For what is legislation criminalizing Holocaust denial as a hate crime a "huge red flag"? Why was such legislation enacted in Germany, to take just one case of such legislation?

I am not comfortable with supporting the prosecution of anyone for thought crimes. Also, having read some of the transcripts o trials on such matters I get a feeling that the methods used by the prosecutors is tantamount to the old USSR courts of "justice". In one case as I remember, an attorney was jailed for trying to introduce evidence in defense of his/her client. The red flag is: What the hell are these tyrants so afraid of by the free dissimination of information whether they agree with it or not. They prosecute these "crimes" under the auspecies of public safety saying that those who disagree with the generally accepted narrartive are inciting others to commit hate crime, which is a bunch of crap, and could be said of any inflammitory political speech which those currently in power disapprove of.

(2) What is the relationship of advocacy and commemorative activities by members of communities whose members were victimized by the Nazis to the work of social scientists working out the history of the Third Reich?

I have no idea, never gave it much thought as o yet

(3) What are the good points raised by deniers, and why are they good? To what problems, gaps, or weaknesses in the scholarly literature on the Holocaust do these points of deniers speak?

Thank you, LemmyCaution

I'll go back and read some of the material again and pick out some of the strongest points in the near future.

Thanks for your respectful and timely response.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

I'll go back and read some of the material again and pick out some of the strongest points in the near future.

Thanks for your respectful and timely response.

Where will you read some of the material again, at codoh? Will you then come back to say codoh a few more times here? Shall we say codoh together a few times upon your return to this thread? By golly you may even have racked up enough posts to link to codoh by then.
Is that where the strongest points are to be found, at codoh? You'd have me all curious to go have a look myself. You did say codoh, right?

 

[Gene Alley]

Where will you read some of the material again, at codoh? Will you then come back to say codoh a few more times here? Shall we say codoh together a few times upon your return to this thread? By golly you may even have racked up enough posts to link to codoh by then.
Is that where the strongest points are to be found, at codoh? You'd have me all curious to go have a look myself. You did say codoh, right?

Inside joke?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content

The incoherent testimonies at the Nuremberg trials birthed the Holocaust hoax. The verdicts were heat of the moment. Even then many of the sentences were not stern enough for participation in genocide. Additionally many of the "sentences"
were commuted or lessened.

That means the authorities, the people of the "day," with no brouhaha from the Jewish community of the 1950s, realized that there was no genocide(no gas chambers). As did, as I have stated previously, Charles, Ike, and Winston.

Check and mate.

The buck stopped there.

No amount of regurgitation can make the Holocaust an attempted genocide of the Jewish people of Europe.


What knowledge is necessary about a Holocaust genocide that never happened?

The Holocaust myth is double jeopardy against the German people and many others accused of complicity or of looking the other way.

 

[Pacal]

You are getting a little presumptuous at this early stage, not to mention the barrage of nasty little insinuations and outright accusations hurled by some of the other members after my first post here.

Awww poor boy. You are rather obviously employing a tactic that I and others here have seen employed by Holacoust deniers. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck; it is a duck.

In general, I did not find any of the material hateful or full of any kind of white supremicist anti-semitic jargon.

CODOH is the "respectful" face of Holocaust denial designed to trap the unwary by appearing "reasonable". Of course many of the deniers on it are when they let their hair down rabid anti-semites. But of course being candid would destroy the effectiveness of CODOH. Of course in regards to the Holcaust they believe in a massive conspiracy to decieve.

With all due respect, that is your very biased opinion. There are many on your side of the debate who do nothing but hurl silly epithets and insults also.

Yes the false equivalency. The fact is most Holocaust deniers are anti-semitic and frequently quite rabid about it. Calling racists nitwits racist nitwits is merely accurate. Of course the "otherside" considers us nothing but agents of the ZOG.

I'm not overly impressed with the whole "scholarly" process in general or many the methods that have been used in their field. History, unlike math is a very inexact science. There is also a lot of truth to the old saying about history being written by the victors, for the victors.

Yep that tired old truism. Do you have any idea about how history is done ot how it is researched? Well it seems you do not. Yet you dismiss it.

Again, many of the "basic narratives" that were once accepted as historical fact are being challenged continually. For example, when Howard Zinn wrote "A Peoples History Of The United States Of America" many of U.S. history's "basic narratives" were severely challenged. What he wrote certainly wasn't what I was taught back in the '60s in my history classes.

So? Holcaust denial is not revision of old information or "new" information rediscovered it is a denial that something happenned. Real historians have been revising the Holcaust since day one. For starter you could start with the debate between the functionalists and intentialists. Did Howard Zinn for example deny that the declaration of independence was in fact signed and existed? The Holcaust is like that a real event that happenned. Interpretations may vary but the event did happen. Just like Columbus did sail in 1492. I note a bit of post modernism in your statement. Well post-modernism is passe.

I am not comfortable with supporting the prosecution of anyone for thought crimes. Also, having read some of the transcripts o trials on such matters I get a feeling that the methods used by the prosecutors is tantamount to the old USSR courts of "justice". In one case as I remember, an attorney was jailed for trying to introduce evidence in defense of his/her client. The red flag is: What the hell are these tyrants so afraid of by the free dissimination of information whether they agree with it or not. They prosecute these "crimes" under the auspecies of public safety saying that those who disagree with the generally accepted narrartive are inciting others to commit hate crime, which is a bunch of crap, and could be said of any inflammitory political speech which those currently in power disapprove of.

Your reference to tyrant is another give away. As for thought crimes I guess you forgot the crime was spreading propaganda not thinking bad thoughts. As for inciting hatred being a bunch of "bull", tell that to people harrassed by neo-Nazis. Thank you for again ignoring the easy to ascertain fact that Holcaust deniers are all too often anti-semitic fanatics, others have a severe case of epater le bourgoise. Your comparison to show trials in the USSR is also telling. Zundel in Canada was such a victim of such a show trial. Yeah right! Thank you for again showing you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

Hell I think laws against Holcaust denial are stupid turning rabid aidiots into martyrs. AS for free exchange iof information. What information! What they spread is bigotry and lies which of course they should be free to spread and I'm free to say it is bigorty and lies.

I have no idea, never gave it much thought as o yet

That is obvious.

 

[uke2se]

The incoherent testimonies at the Nuremberg trials birthed the Holocaust hoax.

Which incoherent testimonies, specifically? List them so we can tell you where you went wrong.

The verdicts were heat of the moment.

What does Nuremberg verdicts have to do with what happened during the holocaust? Which verdicts do you feel were wrong and why?

Even then many of the sentences were not stern enough for participation in genocide.

I agree fully.

Additionally many of the "sentences"
were commuted or lessened.

Which ones where commuted and lessened? List them together with the documented reasons for their lessening or commuting.

That means the authorities, the people of the "day," with no brouhaha from the Jewish community of the 1950s, realized that there was no genocide(no gas chambers).

No it doesn't. This jump to conclusion is about the dumbest leap of faith I've ever seen.

As did, as I have stated previously, Charles, Ike, and Winston.

Has any of them ever said there was no holocaust? Cite please.

Check and mate.

I don't think you understand what this expression means. Normally when someone says "check and mate" it means they have won an argument. You haven't even put forth a real argument, other than an argument from personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.

The buck stopped there.

No amount of regurgitation can make the Holocaust an attempted genocide of the Jewish people of Europe.

What made the holocaust an genocide of the Jewish (and other) people of Europe was the systematic killing that took place. The killing which is well documented and evidenced, probably more so than any single event in human history.

What knowledge is necessary about a Holocaust genocide that never happened?

The knowledge that it actually did happen. I know that you're trying to explain your supreme ignorance, but you don't have to.

The Holocaust myth is double jeopardy against the German people and many others accused of complicity or of looking the other way.

The holocaust has changed the German society. They know it happened.

Have you ever read a book in your life? The Bible doesn't count.

Now, please answer the questions I've posed in this post, or I shall take your lack of answer as an admittance that you are completely ignorant of the history you are so desperate to deny.

 

[uke2se]

Pacal, that one is another lost cause. Let's just focus on debunking his forthcoming lies and excuses for the benefit of people who are simply ignorant, rather than willfully so.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

Inside joke?

I call it the merry-go-round. To me you look like a new name for the same crap. You say you've read the thread but -although you may have- what you really appear to want is to start over - and refer to the cesspit.

Want to tell me something I don't know?
Why did Kues put Nico Henny Lindeman on his short list of Dutch names? Can you tell me that? Go ask - and come back to explain it to me. Why does Kues mention a man who was never deported as supposed evidence for the presence of deported people?
Inside joke?

You think Kues ever saw one of these?

"Thank you for contacting us
As you can imagine, at the moment we are inundated by messages from our visitors, and cannot promise a speedy reply. However, it is our full intention to personally respond to each and every one of you, even though it may take many weeks to do so.
Kindly note that the registration number of your message is xxxxx

That's the automated response sent by Yad Vashem when you inform them of an error in their online database. It takes them a while but they do update the info on their site. If there is a mistake transcribing hand written notes on testimony pages, for example. It undoubtedly says Utrecht and that's what the rest of the records of Nico Henny Lindeman's life and death will confirm for them. They'll know where to look when the double checking starts.

Holocaust deniers have nothing of value to contribute to the record of history.

Now start responding to the ongoing topics in this thread and stop pretending that you're special enough to have the whole ride start over again - just for you.
Codoh. ha!

 

[Gene Alley]

Awww poor boy. You are rather obviously employing a tactic that I and others here have seen employed by Holacoust deniers. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck; it is a duck.

Don't worry, I'll be OK. You are the wary one. Good for you!!

CODOH is the "respectful" face of Holocaust denial designed to trap the unwary by appearing "reasonable".

Those feinds!!

Of course many of the deniers on it are when they let their hair down rabid anti-semites. But of course being candid would destroy the effectiveness of CODOH. Of course in regards to the Holcaust they believe in a massive conspiracy to decieve.

They say the same things about the obcessed holocaust groupies like you. Go figger.

Yes the false equivalency. The fact is most Holocaust deniers are anti-semitic and frequently quite rabid about it. Calling racists nitwits racist nitwits is merely accurate. Of course the "otherside" considers us nothing but agents of the ZOG.

Let me see if I got this right. When you call people names it's OK because you are right and they are "racist nitwits". Now that's profound. Thanks.

Yep that tired old truism. Do you have any idea about how history is done ot how it is researched? Well it seems you do not. Yet you dismiss it.

If you say so.

So? Holcaust denial is not revision of old information or "new" information rediscovered it is a denial that something happenned. Real historians have been revising the Holcaust since day one. For starter you could start with the debate between the functionalists and intentialists. Did Howard Zinn for example deny that the declaration of independence was in fact signed and existed? The Holcaust is like that a real event that happenned. Interpretations may vary but the event did happen. Just like Columbus did sail in 1492. I note a bit of post modernism in your statement. Well post-modernism is passe.

Well, I guess the devil's in the details, right?

Your reference to tyrant is another give away. As for thought crimes I guess you forgot the crime was spreading propaganda not thinking bad thoughts. As for inciting hatred being a bunch of "bull", tell that to people harrassed by neo-Nazis. Thank you for again ignoring the easy to ascertain fact that Holcaust deniers are all too often anti-semitic fanatics, others have a severe case of epater le bourgoise. Your comparison to show trials in the USSR is also telling. Zundel in Canada was such a victim of such a show trial. Yeah right! Thank you for again showing you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

Another "give away"....DRAT!!

Hell I think laws against Holcaust denial are stupid

We agree on that one!

turning rabid aidiots into martyrs.

Very possible

AS for free exchange iof information. What information! What they spread is bigotry and lies which of course they should be free to spread and I'm free to say it is bigorty and lies.

You are free to say it but it is just an opinion.

That is obvious.

Now that was not very nice. You are not a very freindly guy, are you?

 

[Gene Alley]

Pacal, that one is another lost cause.

One who will actually listen to both sides of an issue. Very dangerous!!

 

[LemmyCaution]

Gene Alley,

I was not trying to create a "strawman" in this case by any means.

That is fine. But you were repeating a strawman promoted by others.

I am not an historian, holocaust or otherwise and do not claim to be.

Still, if you are concerned about how the Holocaust is understood, the proper place to start is with research and writing about the events, not with TV, movies, and pop culture. I am not saying that pop culture is uninteresting—just that it does not represent what serious inquiry has to say about historical events. The images of historical events in pop culture often have to do with how interest groups and opinion makers see things, reflecting contemporary debates and politics more than digging into the past.

I was honestly conveying what my understanding of the so called holocaust was before I ever heard of revisionist history. That six million Jews were murdered systematically, (many in gas chambers disguised as showers) was taught to me in public school history classes, as well as TV and movie productions, and pop culture. (Bob Dylan, With God On Our Side, etc.). . . . I would bet that if a poll were taken regarding the holocaust, most Americans would answer that it was the systematic murder of six million Jews by the Nazis in Germany during WWII. If there were a multiple choice about how most of these Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazis, I'd bet that gassing would be the number one answer by far. . . .

And I would bet that most Americans would give goofy answers to questions about the war in Vietnam or even American military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan--and that most Americans believe that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. So what? As I said, revising popular misunderstandings--which exist about all historical events--is hardly an intellectual breakthrough.

All you need do is pick up a few history books to find out that six million Jews killed in gas chambers is not what historians think about the Holocaust. The popular misconception has been long dealt with. Do you know the rough number of Jews murdered in gas chambers, according to contemporary research? It is this estimate which revisionism needs to deal with, not what TV shows or politicians say.

By the way, you didn’t reply to my request to show us where in the historical literature we can find the popular caricature which you once believed in. I didn’t ask about what most people believe; I asked about what informed researchers maintain.

I'm not familiar with RODOH, but I'll look into it, thanks. I have read quite a bit of material from CODOH and I believe that there are some interesting points raised there by credible people. At this point, I don't believe I am allowed to link to any certain areas that would support my opinion, however once I am allowed to do so, I'll ind them and pass them on. In general, I did not find any of the material hateful or full of any kind of white supremicist anti-semitic jargon.

Well, here is a link to a post quoting from some deniers at RODOH. Feel free to explain how free of hateful, white supremacist, and anti-Semitic jargon these posts are. But also be aware that the test of anti-Semitic views is not the use of jargon but rather the nature of the biases and assumptions a person has. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7317067&postcount=3291




With all due respect, that is your very biased opinion. There are many on your side of the debate who do nothing but hurl silly epithets and insults also.

I didn’t say that deniers hurl silly epithets and insults. What I said is that deniers haven’t done their homework and that they have not undertaken the first responsibility of those who wish to revise the conclusions of historians, that is, read and understand what those historians maintain. That was my direct answer to a question you asked; your question had nothing to do with deportment by deniers or historians or anti-revisionists or anyone. You must realize that it is possible to have done deep reading on these matters--and be dismissive, to the point of insulting, towards those who haven't but pretend to offer insights.



I'm not overly impressed with the whole "scholarly" process in general or many the methods that have been used in their field. History, unlike math is a very inexact science. There is also a lot of truth to the old saying about history being written by the victors, for the victors. . . . Again, many of the "basic narratives" that were once accepted as historical fact are being challenged continually. For example, when Howard Zinn wrote "A Peoples History Of The United States Of America" many of U.S. history's "basic narratives" were severely challenged. What he wrote certainly wasn't what I was taught back in the '60s in my history classes.

The study of people and culture, by its very nature, will never be like math or physics. But throwing overboard all the work done by historians, without a specific statement of the problems with their methods, is rather odd. Are you saying that the past is utterly unknowable? Howard Zinn’s famous book was, in fact, a popularization of much work done in the ‘60s. These perspectives weren’t taught in public schools because they clashed with the popular views, not with scholarly work.

But scholarly work about history or society isn’t monolithic (and guess what, scientific work isn’t either, but that’s another story); there are perspectives and interpretations that challenge one another about every historical topic. Eugene Genovese wrote reinterpretations of American slavery during the ‘60s, and, from another vantage point, so did Fogel and Engerman. That many interpretations of slavery clashed does not challenge the reality of slavery. If a historian were so loopy as deniers and began to argue that slavery did not exist in the United States, and a few fairly ignorant souls began carping that history is bunk and not overly impressive because slavery denial isn’t taken seriously, well, this wouldn’t say a thing about the institution of slavery unless the deniers could 1) contend successfully against the burden of the evidence in the sources, 2) explain the problems in the historical study of slavery and its uses of the source material, and 3) construct an alternative narrative of what was going on. These three points, indeed, are the very ones which denial of the Holocaust fails on.

Nor in the case of American slavery can it be said that debates 60, 70, 100 years on are cases in which victors are imposing their views of history on the vanquished. I know that in the popular culture, the American Civil War and slavery were "re-fought" for decades, but that is not how historians approached these issues. We are in something of a similar position in the case of the Holocaust--and much of the most interesting historical discussion and debate about the Third Reich in fact takes place in the "vanquished" country of Germany.

I am not comfortable with supporting the prosecution of anyone for thought crimes.

Nor am I. But the question I asked wasn't about the desirability of such laws, was it? The rest of your answer, following on this initial leap, I am sorry to say, sounds pretty much like blah blah blah and apple pie and motherhood. My post certainly didn’t express support for criminalization of Holocaust denial or even inquire as to opinions about these sorts of laws: rather, it asked
1) what the red flag you mentioned is all about
2) what prompted this legislation
On the first point, you say that “tyrants” who enacted these laws are afraid of free discussion. This presumed fear on the part of supposed tyrants has nothing whatsoever to do with the historical reality of the Holocaust; it is a point about political reality in countries that have such legislation. In fact, governments are “afraid” of many things, and enact laws against them: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7352795&postcount=3682 Nor, to my second question, have you addressed, with any specifics, when and why the laws on hate speech and denial were enacted, even in the one case, Germany, which I asked you about.

I have no idea, never gave it much thought as o yet

But you are the one citing “good points” which revisionists have supposedly made about the Holocaust as it is represented in popular culture (all your examples are drawn from this arena, none from the work of scholars)—in the form of remembrance and advocacy. Why are you doing that if you haven’t thought about this topic? If you haven’t yet considered the relationship of such representations to scholarship and to the history? I don’t understand this, unless you are coming to this with an as-yet unarticulated point of view.

I'll go back and read some of the material again and pick out some of the strongest points in the near future.



I am as eager to read what you think these “good points” are as I am doubtful that you will come up with anything substantive; I am also eager as well as to read your reply to Wroclaw’s very pertinent questions.

Regards, LemmyCaution