Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[MG1962]

incorrect, mobilisation began in 1939 and the most marked falls in consumer production, loss of manpower to the services etc, came in 1939-41. The Blitzkrieg economy argument is a myth promoted by Speer and his associates after the war to make themselves look better compared to Goering..

I think we will agree to disagree

 

[Clayton Moore]

Please try following along. Did you even read Dr Neander's piece?

And, no, people who falsely pass themselves off as survivors who aren't do not "get a pass." When dealing with witnesses and memoirists, "real historians, as many of us have tried to tell you, weed out imposters, liars, people whose testimonies are suspect. Sad but true, big events, like the war in Vietnam, attract many dubious people--some of them using the events for their own purposes, some of them having personal issues they deal with by attaching themselves to such events. This is really pretty pedestrian stuff.

I myself have many difficulties with Elie Wiesel, having read short bits by him, being turned off by them enough not to make time for his books. On the other hand, I very rarely see his work cited by historians.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/irene-zisblatt-diamond-girl-fact-or.html

She never talked to anybody about her wartime experience until 1994, when she attended a screening of Schindler's List. Since that time, she has been traveling across the U.S., sharing her experience with high school and college students, always receiving broad coverage in the local media. According to The Press of Atlantic City NJ from April 28, 2009, she "is booked twice a day between two and five times a week," and until the end of 2009 she "will have shared her story of surviving the Holocaust with about as many people as Jewish lives were claimed during World War II," i.e. "six million" listeners and viewers.[7] In addition, since 1994 she has been a regular participant in the March of the Living in Poland. In October 1995, she was interviewed for Steven Spielberg's Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation.[8] She was one of the five Holocaust survivors that were chosen to tell their story in the award-winning documentary movie The Last Days,[9] released in 1998. Finally, in 2008 her memoir The Fifth Diamond appeared in print.

Final conclusion

My research clearly shows that Irene Weisberg Zisblatt is not only a survivor of Auschwitz and the Holocaust, but that she, indeed, has an interesting and instructive story to tell. A story of endless humiliations and extreme suffering, but also of survival against all odds. It would be similar to those that hundreds of survivors can tell or have already told. It certainly would be less adventurous than that which she tells. But it would be in accordance with the historically established facts. Irene Weisberg Zisblatt should tell her story about survival at Auschwitz without exaggerations and implausibilities. It then would be a really true story, worth to be told and retold and to be listened to.

If that's not a freaking pass what is?

These are the types of lies that are disputed by people who end up in prison for disputing them.

 

[MG1962]

These are the types of lies that are disputed by people who end up in prison for disputing them.

You need to read the laws of the country you are complaining about

 

[Wroclaw]

These are the types of lies that are disputed by people who end up in prison for disputing them.

Really? Well then, surely you'll be able to name a single example of someone going to jail for disputing such a story.

 

[BaaBaa]

"Irene Weisberg Zisblatt should tell her story about survival at Auschwitz without exaggerations and implausibilities. It then would be a really true story, worth to be told and retold and to be listened to."


Doesn't sound like a pass.

 

[TSR]

Sounds like a guy on the playground calling me a CHICKEN.

.
Nope. A BS artist, who makes claims and then runs from backing them up.
.

But again, I'll pass and just play it my way, thanks. And no, it wouldn't be useful and would be a real pain in the @.

.
Sure, it'd be useful. It'd show that you weren't just projecting when you made that claim, along with all the others.
.

 

[Gene Alley]

"Irene Weisberg Zisblatt should tell her story about survival at Auschwitz without exaggerations and implausibilities. It then would be a really true story, worth to be told and retold and to be listened to."


Doesn't sound like a pass.

But that hasn't stopped officianados of the holocaust industry from parading her in front of classrooms full of young children and spewing here ridiculous yarns. It also didn't stop "Shoah" hero Spielberg from featuring her prominantly in his award winning film which was seen by millions. This is the type of crap that makes people wonder what else is being misrepresented.

 

[Gene Alley]

Really? Well then, surely you'll be able to name a single example of someone going to jail for disputing such a story.

The fact that anyone has been arrested and imprisoned for disputing any part of recent history is a travesty.

 

[TSR]

This is the type of crap that makes people wonder what else is being misrepresented.

.
Misrepresented like inventing people, giving them fake degrees, using those fake degrees to lend an air of authority their endorsement of ones own work -- and then quoting them doing so as if they were not you?

Or did you have in mind more of the Nazi-UFOs-hidden-in-a-hole-to-the-inside-of-the-Earth-in-Antarctica and then selling tickets to go see them type of misrepresentation?

Or perhaps, simply claiming that some one has made good points and then a few days later misrepresenting your correspondents in a lame attempt to justify not backing those misrepresented points and lies about your correspondents?

*That* kind of misrepresentation?
.

 

[TSR]

The fact that anyone has been arrested and imprisoned for disputing any part of recent history is a travesty.

.
Agreed. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that anyone has ever been so imprisoned simply for disputing recent history.

Free hint: bone up on the functionalist vs. intentionalist debates before you go any further digging you hole to the middle of the Earth.
.

 

[Wroclaw]

The fact that anyone has been arrested and imprisoned for disputing any part of recent history is a travesty.

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question, now, does it?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Final conclusion


If that's not a freaking pass what is?

This post of Clayton's is really a gross distortion of Dr Neander's work. Without summarizing Dr Neander's findings, let me share with you some of the conclusions he drew and set out preceding the part of his article which Clayton quoted--without Clayton's saying a single word about this context or Dr Neadners disbelief in Mrs Zisblatt's story:

This narration contains several inconsistencies. . . .This is historically false.. . . the narration contains three major implausibilities. . . .All the signs are that Mrs. Zisblatt's near-lampshade experience is nothing but the fruit of a prolific imagination. . . . Mrs. Zisblatt's description is rife with exaggerations and inaccuracies. . . . The rain of hot ashes, however, belongs to the realm of fantasy. . . .Though doubtlessly most of the reported atrocities did happen sometime at Auschwitz, it is improbable that a single, child prisoner experienced or witnessed all of them in a relatively short period of time. What is more, some of them are obviously exaggerated, for example having to stand with stretched arms and a heavy stone for twelve hours near the camp fence. What is more, Chana would have been shot without warning by one of the guards in the watch-towers if she had approached the electrified wire so closely. . . . Other events she simply could not have witnessed. . . . This narration, however, also contains implausibilities. . . . Another problem arises (again) with chronology, which does not seem to be Mrs. Zisblatt's strong point at all. . . . The tale of the removal of the prisoner numbers, however, is so full of implausibilities that it must be regarded as pure fantasy, and regretfully not as a good one. . . . This is the most implausible episode in Mrs. Zisblatt's story. . . . Again we find inconsistencies and non-trivial inaccuracies.

How this litany of criticisms and exposures can be termed a free pass Clayton will have to explain.

In addition to his detailed critique of the specifics of Mrs Zisblatt's story, Dr Neander summarizes his conclusion about the work. His remarks on his conclusions begin,

It was shown that Mrs. Zisblatt's Holocaust memoir does not stand scholarly scrutiny. As a whole, the story she tells about her camp experience leaves the impression that it was spiced up with ubiquitous Holocaust legends and enriched with fragments from other survivors' memoirs. It is so full of implausibilities that one can understand some of those who - in a "worst case scenario" - begin to doubt everything she tells. Since the only fellow prisoner whose name she remembers, Sabka, died at the very end of the war, it is also nearly impossible to cross-check her memoir with those of individuals who could be identified as having shared camp life with her.

There can be no doubt that most of the crimes and atrocities reported in The Fifth Diamond did happen sometime, at Auschwitz or another site of the Final Solution. It is utmost improbable, however, that a single prisoner, a child, too, experienced or witnessed all of them at the same place and within a short period of time. Mrs. Zisblatt certainly has survived the Holocaust, but her real life-story must be a different one. Which one, only she knows.

Dr Neander's writing style, no matter the topic, is exceedingly balanced, patient, and unemotional. This style, which is really more his approach, is one of his hallmarks: when Dr Neander describes someone's claims as "improbable" and at variance with "her real life story," these are strong statements. Clayton may think that because Dr Neander does not write LIES, this LIAR, she's a FREAKING LIAR, etc., he has not made a strong statement. Clayton is mistaken; coming from the judicious and always cautious Dr Neander, the words chosen are very strong.

The final paragraph which Clayton quotes essentially says that Mrs Zisblatt has told a fabricated story of her life, borrowing from various reports and experiences of others--and that by making up a false life story she did not tell her true story, which, "without exaggerations and implausibilities," would be worth hearing. The obvious implication being that her false story is not one to be retold.

Dr Neander's research, in card files, archives, and ITS sources, tells him what to conclude. He wrote,

My research clearly shows . . .

and, like the good historian he is, shared his sources and reasoning with readers. Two good questions for Clayton are: What has his research shown about the facts of Mrs Zisblatt's life? What evidence has his research unearthed that shows Dr Neander incorrect in his reconstruction of Ms Zisblatt's life?

 

[Gene Alley]

.
Agreed. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that anyone has ever been so imprisoned simply for disputing recent history.

Free hint: bone up on the functionalist vs. intentionalist debates before you go any further digging you hole to the middle of the Earth.
.

What's your take on this? These evil people didn't just "simply dispute" holo-history, they actually shared their opinions with others, and of course those opinions were horribly wrong.

Has anyone ever been locked up for suggesting that Stalin didn't systematically murder millions in Russia? Just wondering.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Prosecutions and convictions Laws against Holocaust denial have been enforced in most jurisdictions that have them. Notable convictions and sentencings to November 2009 include:

Date Name Country Sentence
(various) Jean-Marie Le Pen France, Germany fines[52]
Feb. 27, 1998 Roger Garaudy France imprisonment (suspended), ₣240,000 fine[53]
Jul. 21, 1998 Jürgen Graf Switzerland 15 months imprisonment (fled Switzerland to avoid sentence)[54]
Jul. 21, 1998 Gerhard Förster Switzerland 12 months imprisonment, disgorgement[55]
May 27, 1999 Jean Plantin France 6 months imprisonment (suspended), fine, damages[56]
Apr. 11, 2000 Gaston-Armand Amaudruz Switzerland 1 year imprisonment, damages[57]
Feb. 20, 2006 David Irving Austria 1 year imprisonment[58]
Mar. 15, 2006 Germar Rudolf Germany 2½ years imprisonment[59]
Oct. 3, 2006 Robert Faurisson France €7,500 fine, 3 months probation[60]
Feb. 15, 2007 Ernst Zündel Germany 5 years imprisonment[61]
Jan. 14, 2008 Wolfgang Fröhlich Austria 6½ years imprisonment[62]
Jan. 15, 2008 Sylvia Stolz Germany 3½ years imprisonment[63]
Mar. 11, 2009 Horst Mahler Germany 5 years imprisonment[64]
Oct. 23, 2009 Dirk Zimmerman Germany 9 months imprisonment[65]
Oct. 27, 2009 Richard Williamson Germany €12,000 fine[66]
[edit] See also

 

[LemmyCaution]

But that hasn't stopped officianados of the holocaust industry from parading her in front of classrooms full of young children and spewing here ridiculous yarns. It also didn't stop "Shoah" hero Spielberg from featuring her prominantly in his award winning film which was seen by millions. This is the type of crap that makes people wonder what else is being misrepresented.

All of which relates to the history how? That credulous and well meaning people, who are not as careful and lack the skills of a historian like Dr Neander, err is not exactly news. But that's another topic: the question for you is what does popular promotion of some errors, mixed in with accurate material, have to do with whether not 5.1 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis and their allies during WWII? Your point mystifies me. Dr Neander has critiqued the book--and spent a good deal of effort doing so--Spielberg neglected to do so. So what does this mean for the history? What is Dr Neander misrepresenting and why does the gullibility of non-historians raise doubt about the work of historians who sort through this sort of stuff as an occupational hazard?

 

[Gene Alley]

.
Misrepresented like inventing people, giving them fake degrees, using those fake degrees to lend an air of authority their endorsement of ones own work -- and then quoting them doing so as if they were not you?

Or did you have in mind more of the Nazi-UFOs-hidden-in-a-hole-to-the-inside-of-the-Earth-in-Antarctica and then selling tickets to go see them type of misrepresentation?

Or perhaps, simply claiming that some one has made good points and then a few days later misrepresenting your correspondents in a lame attempt to justify not backing those misrepresented points and lies about your correspondents?

*That* kind of misrepresentation?
.

That's wild stuff, thanks.

 

[Gene Alley]

All of which relates to the history how? That credulous and well meaning people, who are not as careful and lack the skills of a historian like Dr Neander, err is not exactly news. But that's another topic: the question for you is what does popular promotion of some errors, mixed in with accurate material, have to do with whether not 5.1 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis and their allies during WWII? Your point mystifies me. Dr Neander has critiqued the book--and spent a good deal of effort doing so--Spielberg neglected to do so. So what does this mean for the history? What is Dr Neander misrepresenting and why does the gullibility of non-historians raise doubt about the work of historians who sort through this sort of stuff as an occupational hazard?

The history is in dispute as usual, regarding several points. What do you think that debate was all about?

 

[LemmyCaution]

What's your take on this? These evil people didn't just "simply dispute" holo-history, they actually shared their opinions with others, and of course those opinions were horribly wrong.

Has anyone ever been locked up for suggesting that Stalin didn't systematically murder millions in Russia? Just wondering.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Prosecutions and convictions Laws against Holocaust denial have been enforced in most jurisdictions that have them. Notable convictions and sentencings to November 2009 include:

Date Name Country Sentence
(various) Jean-Marie Le Pen France, Germany fines[52]
Feb. 27, 1998 Roger Garaudy France imprisonment (suspended), ₣240,000 fine[53]
Jul. 21, 1998 Jürgen Graf Switzerland 15 months imprisonment (fled Switzerland to avoid sentence)[54]
Jul. 21, 1998 Gerhard Förster Switzerland 12 months imprisonment, disgorgement[55]
May 27, 1999 Jean Plantin France 6 months imprisonment (suspended), fine, damages[56]
Apr. 11, 2000 Gaston-Armand Amaudruz Switzerland 1 year imprisonment, damages[57]
Feb. 20, 2006 David Irving Austria 1 year imprisonment[58]
Mar. 15, 2006 Germar Rudolf Germany 2½ years imprisonment[59]
Oct. 3, 2006 Robert Faurisson France €7,500 fine, 3 months probation[60]
Feb. 15, 2007 Ernst Zündel Germany 5 years imprisonment[61]
Jan. 14, 2008 Wolfgang Fröhlich Austria 6½ years imprisonment[62]
Jan. 15, 2008 Sylvia Stolz Germany 3½ years imprisonment[63]
Mar. 11, 2009 Horst Mahler Germany 5 years imprisonment[64]
Oct. 23, 2009 Dirk Zimmerman Germany 9 months imprisonment[65]
Oct. 27, 2009 Richard Williamson Germany €12,000 fine[66]
[edit] See also

Again, so what? I am aware of most of these cases, as I imagine most others on this forum are. I've written a number of times since you've begun posting here that I am against laws like the ones these people were convicted under. I've also asked you to explain how and why these laws were enacted, what their intent was, and what their existence has to do with the history. You've decided not to, just as you've decided not to share your "good points."

Your posting a familiar list but not answering direct questions about what it all means doesn't help advance this discussion one iota: all it does is repeat the repetition.

 

[Gene Alley]

Again, so what? I am aware of most of these cases, as I imagine most others on this forum are. I've written a number of times since you've begun posting here that I am against laws like the ones these people were convicted under. I've also asked you to explain how and why these laws were enacted, what their intent was, and what their existence has to do with the history. You've decided not to, just as you've decided not to share your "good points."

Your posting a familiar list but not answering direct questions about what it all means doesn't help advance this discussion one iota: all it does is repeat the repetition.

In my opinion it looks as if these laws were enacted at the behest of people who were afraid that open discussion regarding their sacred cow series of events would possibly expose a lot of lies and exagerations that were politically motivated. Especially when you look at the dates when these laws were instituted. (Most were enacted from the 1970s through the 1990s.)

What do you think the intent was in passing these idiotic laws? I'd love to hear it.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The history is in dispute as usual, regarding several points. What do you think that debate was all about?

First, you are ignoring my point, which was that there is at best weak linkage between misguided publicity and popular commemoration and the work of historians. You posted about Spielberg, for example, in response to discussion of the work historians have done and specifically an article showing that serious historians do not "give a pass" to those who lack credibility. Spielberg is non-responsive to the point you replied to--whether Dr Neander gave Mrs Zisblatt a free pass of some sort.

Second, what history is in dispute? You keep talking about good points and points of dispute and this and that. What points are in dispute is a valid question you should answer, as well as a corollary: Which points are in dispute among historians? I ask the corollary because one could say that evolution is in dispute because a few state school board members in this or that state, who have not studied evolution, say so. So I ask the corollary to clarify what you mean by in dispute.

 

[LemmyCaution]

In my opinion it looks as if these laws were enacted by people who were afraid that open discussion regarding their sacred cow series of events would possibly expose a lot of lies and exagerations that were politically motivated. Especially when you look at the dates when these laws were instituted. (Most were enacted from the 1970s through the 1990s.)

What do you think the intent was in passing these idiotic laws? I'd love to hear it.

I didn't ask your opinion or what it feels like to you. I asked you about the history of this legislation, what it says about the laws' intent. If you don't know, that's fine. Is that what you are saying? That you don't know but that you have an opinion anyway?