Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Clayton Moore]

Just once I'd like them to be like Fonzie... Find some way to admit they were wrong even if they can't say the actual word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwkU8-d1gIk

Henry Franklin Winkler does what he does best, lies, when he tells a person he ridicules he will miss him.

Nicely fitting example.

 

[LSSBB]

Henry Franklin Winkler does what he does best, lies, when he tells a person he ridicules he will miss him.

Nicely fitting example.

Your reply is a nice example of a dodge, in my opinion. Have you ever admitted you were wrong regarding any point about the Holocaust or Jewish (Zionist, whatever) domination of the media and the economy?

 

[MG1962]

So Clayton whats your thoughts on the 3 million dead in death camps in North Korea?

 

[uke2se]

But there's no trace of all of them dying there, which there would be if they had all died there in the way we're told they did. So they either went somewhere else, were never sent there, or they disappeared without a trace.

Lie. There are traces.

 

[Dogzilla]

Actually, no. You made a handwaving comment about how the Holocaust was held to a different standard of evidence. That was actually in reply to Sword of Truth. You then received replies from TSR, Kevin Silbstedt, Sword of Truth and myself, only one of these replies asked you for an "example". The problem was that TSR asked you the following:



From the get go you were asked to demonstrate a double standard in relation to other genocides and mass murders in contemporary history. The best you came up with was a load of waffle about Michael Shermer vis-a-vis Biblical history, which eventually bored everyone to death over the course of what is now more than 50 days of discussion (since the 'standards of evidence' thing was triggered on 1st September).

True. TSR asked me to compare the holocaust to any other mass murder or genocide in history and show how it is held to a different standard. The problem here is that the challenge is stupid because the holocaust is unique except when it isn't and no other crime in history approaches the depth of depravity and evil that is represented by the holocaust. I asked for a comparable crime and no answer was forthcoming.

Fortunately, I had the perfect example--the same man and the same maxim-- of the holocaust being held to a different standard than another historical event. An historical event that, while not exactly genocide or mass murder, did involve persecution of the Jews. So I provided that instead. This ignited a firestorm of rebuttals explaining that the same maxim applied differently to the holocaust than to another historical event isn't an example of the same maxim being applied differently to the holocaust than to another historical event because the holocaust and the other historical event aren't the same.

But again, you said you don't do YouTube. So you don't know what we're talking about. Why are you even chiming in?

actually you have so far found zero examples of what you were requested to provide. That's after more than 50 days.

Technically that's true but only because the uniqueocity of the holocaust makes comparisons impossible. But I did show how the same standard is valid when we're talking about the holocaust but not valid when we're talking about another historical event that involve doing mean things to Jews.

No it didn't. Whatever abuse you received was entirely deserved, because you very demonstrably proceeded to misrepresent and misunderstand the request from TSR, wilfully refused to discuss the Holocaust in comparison with other mass murders and genocides in contemporary history, and then as your discussion partners became more and more bemused by your deliberate misunderstandings, you try to declare victory based on a blatant strawman and some kind of unspoken assumption whereby your refusal to engage in proper discussion and kicking issues into touch if they start to cramp your arms and prevent the handwaving from keeping you hovering = keeping a discussion going = therefore there must be something to your argument.

TSR's demand was stupid so I ignored the challenge. If you want to discuss the holocaust in comparison to another comparable genocide or mass murder, tell me what's comparable.

But first, answer me this. Lipstadt (or her non-historian drone) said that "Further, it is an accepted historical axiom that absence of proof is not proof of absence." Is that true? Is it an accepted historical axiom?

 

[Dogzilla]

His story, and the documentation of it, are not fiction. Vladek was a real person. You are attacking how he was represented.

According to Art Spiegelman: "I'm all too aware that ultimately what I'm creating is a realistic fiction. The experiences my father actually went through [are not exactly the same as] what he's able to remember and what he's able to articulate of these experiences. Then there's what I'm able to understand of what he articulated, and what I'm able to put down on paper. And then of course there's what the reader can make of that. (Oral History Journal, Spring 1987)"

Although I understand he also characterizes it as non-fiction at times. Consistency never was one of the holocaust's strengths.

 

[uke2se]

True. TSR asked me to compare the holocaust to any other mass murder or genocide in history and show how it is held to a different standard. The problem here is that the challenge is stupid because the holocaust is unique except when it isn't and no other crime in history approaches the depth of depravity and evil that is represented by the holocaust. I asked for a comparable crime and no answer was forthcoming.

He asked you to compare the holocaust to other genocides from recent history. It is not a stupid challenge. While the holocaust has a considerably greater scope with the amount of deaths, it is certainly comparable to other genocides, and is done so by real historians. The reason you wont do it is that you know there is no double standard applied to the holocaust and you are trying to weasel out of having to admit that. You have failed.

 

[uke2se]

According to Art Spiegelman: "I'm all too aware that ultimately what I'm creating is a realistic fiction. The experiences my father actually went through [are not exactly the same as] what he's able to remember and what he's able to articulate of these experiences. Then there's what I'm able to understand of what he articulated, and what I'm able to put down on paper. And then of course there's what the reader can make of that. (Oral History Journal, Spring 1987)"

Although I understand he also characterizes it as non-fiction at times. Consistency never was one of the holocaust's strengths.

Why did you put [are not exactly the same as] in brackets? Quote mining again?

For your information, this is what Art Spiegelman actually said:

"I'm all too aware that ultimately what I'm creating is a realistic fiction. The experiences my father actually went through, there's what he's able to remember and what he's able to articulate of these experiences. Then there's what I'm able to understand of what he articulated, and what I'm able to put down on paper. And then of course there's what the reader can make of that."

My emphasis.

What Spiegelman is saying is that there's a disconnect between experiencing, retelling, writing down and reading about an event. That does not mean the events of Maus are fiction. It means it can never be the same as the real thing because only those that were there could really understand what it was like.

 

[Nick Terry]

True. TSR asked me to compare the holocaust to any other mass murder or genocide in history and show how it is held to a different standard. The problem here is that the challenge is stupid because the holocaust is unique except when it isn't and no other crime in history approaches the depth of depravity and evil that is represented by the holocaust. I asked for a comparable crime and no answer was forthcoming.

Stop lying. TSR nominated the Armenian genocide on numerous occasions.

Fortunately, I had the perfect example--the same man and the same maxim-- of the holocaust being held to a different standard than another historical event. An historical event that, while not exactly genocide or mass murder, did involve persecution of the Jews. So I provided that instead. This ignited a firestorm of rebuttals explaining that the same maxim applied differently to the holocaust than to another historical event isn't an example of the same maxim being applied differently to the holocaust than to another historical event because the holocaust and the other historical event aren't the same.

But again, you said you don't do YouTube. So you don't know what we're talking about. Why are you even chiming in?

Just shut up. You are being so hopelessly cretinous it's embarrassing to even reply to this drivel.

Technically that's true but only because the uniqueocity of the holocaust makes comparisons impossible. But I did show how the same standard is valid when we're talking about the holocaust but not valid when we're talking about another historical event that involve doing mean things to Jews.

Again: shut up, you simply don't know when to stop embarrassing yourself.

TSR's demand was stupid so I ignored the challenge.

And then proceeded to dance around the point for 50 days. Seriously, if you ever wonder why revisionists are so ridiculed, then I submit your behaviour since 1st September as Exhibit A.

If you want to discuss the holocaust in comparison to another comparable genocide or mass murder, tell me what's comparable.

Ummmm.....any other genocide or mass murder in contemporary history?

Jesus Christ, but you are beyond obtuse.

But first, answer me this. Lipstadt (or her non-historian drone) said that "Further, it is an accepted historical axiom that absence of proof is not proof of absence." Is that true? Is it an accepted historical axiom?

No, it's not an accepted axiom. That you have to ask only underlines your utter incompetence to pontificate on matters historical.

 

[TSR]

Fortunately, I had the perfect example--the same man and the same maxim-- of the holocaust being held to a different standard than another historical event.

.
But instead, you offered another historical event for which (unlike the Holocaust) the sum total of the supporting evidence is a single document by an unknown author written decades if not centuries after the events described and whose other events demonstrate a singular unreliability. Same standard -- different amounts and quality of evidence.

If you had this other historical event held to a different standard (as opposed to the same standard leading to a different conclusion because of the differences in available evidence), why have you TO DATE not offered it?

Here, let me make it brain-numbingly easy for you:

You have a maths exam with a single question, offered on a pass fail basis.

Student A answers the question correctly and passes.
Student B answers the question incorrectly and fails.

Query: were A and B both held to the same standard?
Answer: why yes, yes they were.

Query: how to account for the different outcomes?
Answer: one student had the answer and the other did not.


Now you have two series of historical events, which are either accpted or not by historians.

Query: is one series of events, let's say the Holocaust held to the same historical standards as other series of historical events, let's say the Exodus?
Answer: why yes, yes it is.

Query: how to account for the differences in the outcomes of the application of this standard, vis à vis their overall acceptance by historians?
Answer: one series of events has mountains of reliable supporting evidence of a variety of types, and the other does not.


One standard, applied in the same way to two very different sets of evidence in both cases.


Your "perfect example" only works if one assumes that those sets of evidence are the same.

They are not, which leads to different levels of acceptance.




See how that works now?
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It's too bad the CD-ROM edition of Maus isn't in print any more. It actually contained audio and transcripts from the recordings Spiegelman made when he asked his father to describe what he went through.

I bought the book Metamaus, with CD-ROM including v1&2 plus audio recordings with Spiegelman's father, at Quimby's on North Avenue in Chicago tonight; there were half a dozen copies there. $35US.

 

[MG1962]

So Dogzilla whats your opinion of the death camps in North Korea

 

[Dogzilla]

What do you mean, "like what," you're the genius denying the Holocaust, through Blobel or what ever else you choose to misrepresent the Holocaust with. There is a large amount of evidence. Eye witness testimony, perpetrator testimony, archaeological evidence, contemporary reports of the sites where killings occurred. Diary evidence, documentary evidence, absence of Jews evidence, statistical evidence. Everything that allows the Historian to put a full picture together.

Like what? Saying there is a large amount of evidence is not the same as presenting it. This is a skeptic's forum. We question things. Personal gullibility might work for some people here but others of us need evidence.

Oh now it's the scale, DZ, higher, lower, you mean more Jews should have been bumped off? Less? None? Lets see now, how many bullets can you fit in an average crate? That was a revelation. So that's already 2 million shot.

No. It's always been the scale. And WTF are you talking about with bullets in an average crate being a revelation?

It's certainly not up to me to dish it all of that up again for you, is it? That would be Very Boring. As boring as your tedious attempt to boil it all down to Paul Blobel was now. You haven't read Spector's article have you? If you haven't read that Dogzilla, what is the point in embarking upon further discussion of Nazi attempts to efface the physical traces of mass murder?

Who's Spector? What article?

So be it. As for this peculiar obtuse BS about Maus. These guys hate it because it's very popular. They have their warped A. Wyatt Mann, crap. Nowhere near as talented a draftsman.

We have a cartoonist?

Art Spiegelman recorded his father's life story upon tape and supplemented it using hand written notes. He transcribed the conversations he had with his father and began to sketch them out into a comic book format, which is after all just another form of media. And it's not so strange really as the Norman French depicted the victory of Duke William in 1066 through continuous strip cartoon woven tapestry. Granted, without the main characters being animals. However, as for "mice and cats," he is a comic book artist first and foremost and that was his particular medium and he chose to represent people as certain animals. All that is is a merged cartoon with autobiography.

It's not an autobiography. It's a work of fiction based on a biography.

As an aside, I don't know if you guys noticed it and all but comic-books grew up some time ago? Some of them have very complex plot structures adult themes and characterisations.

So?

Art needed also psychologically to get to grips with his father's peculiar survivor behaviour where he was living in the "Catskills" in NY State. Whilst at points the metaphor does break down, Art acknowledges this was this case. Nevertheless it was still an extremely effective way to portray the narrative which Spiegelman had collected.

And indeed if they are so apparently lacking in grey matter that I had to explain it to them to that length so that they can finally grasp a comic artist's choice of metaphor to portray Germans as "cats" and Jews as "mice," which making some sort of jabbing @whine-level fuss, is there any real point in discussing things like grown-ups with them?

I wonder if the Jews were the cats and the Germans were the mice would it be anti-semitic? And isn't it Nazis, not Germans, anyway? Everybody knows Nazis and Germans are completely unrelated and nobody ever conflates the two. That's why the holocaust isn't anti-German hate speech.

As an additional piece of information, in a school book upon the History of Jamaica, from 1973 students are asked to depict the every day life of black slaves in the C 18th through the medium of a strip cartoon. Does that mean because that medium of expression was suggested to demonstrate learning and understanding, that there was no black slavery in Jamaica? Of course not. Once again deniers have problems sorting out fact from fiction. Poor dears.

...says the man who insists a cartoon in which people are portrayed as animals is non-fiction.

I'll be looking for a copy of this new Spiegelman book as I am an admirer of well crafted comic books.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I bought the book Metamaus, with CD-ROM including v1&2 plus audio recordings with Spiegelman's father, at Quimby's on North Avenue in Chicago tonight; there were half a dozen copies there. $35US.

You people never listen. You paid at least $10 too much.

 

[LSSBB]

...says the man who insists a cartoon in which people are portrayed as animals is non-fiction.

Whatever floats your boat.

I see you dodged uke2se calling you out on your bracket substitution. In any case, was Vladek a real person or not? Does his son Art have documentation of what his father experienced, in the form of first person interviews, or not? I see you keep attacking Maus and not Vladek's actual story.

 

[Dogzilla]

Stop lying. TSR nominated the Armenian genocide on numerous occasions.

Not comparable. There isn't overwhelming evidence that the Ottoman government had a plan developed at the highest levels of government to exterminate all the Armenians everywhere. There isn't overwhelming evidence that the German government had that policy toward the Jews either but we accept the idea that the Nazis embarked on a "Final Solution" to cleanse the world of the Jews anyway but the Ottoman Empire was only interested in a Turkish solution to it's Armenians Question.

Also, the Armenian genocide didn't involve impossible technology or magic.

And our knowledge of the Armenian genocide doesn't come exclusively from thousands of Armenians eyewitnesses who told us about it and thousands of Turks who confessed to their role in the genocide only after their nation had been completely obliterated and the Turks were completely dependent upon the mercy of their sworn enemy who was hell-bent on assigning guilt to a newly minted highly nebulous class of persons known as "war criminals."

So, sorry, no comparison.

Just shut up. You are being so hopelessly cretinous it's embarrassing to even reply to this drivel.

Then why do you keep it up? You said right from the get-go that you don't know what we're talking about and you're not going to watch YouTube to find out. If you're too sophisticated to click on a link I'll see if I can find the same material in a comic book form for you. Until then, you shut up.

Again: shut up, you simply don't know when to stop embarrassing yourself.

Why don't you just ignore me?

And then proceeded to dance around the point for 50 days. Seriously, if you ever wonder why revisionists are so ridiculed, then I submit your behaviour since 1st September as Exhibit A.

My behavior of proving the holocaust is held to a different standard? I don't think that's why we're ridiculed.

Ummmm.....any other genocide or mass murder in contemporary history?

Uh, no. The comparison was suppose to be between the holocaust and a COMPARABLE genocide or mass murder in contemporary history. Are you changing the rules now?

No, it's not an accepted axiom. That you have to ask only underlines your utter incompetence to pontificate on matters historical.

I know perfectly well it's not. I wanted to hear you say it. So why do you think Michael Shermer and Deborah Lipstadt's web content provider say it is?

 

[uke2se]

Not comparable. There isn't overwhelming evidence that the Ottoman government had a plan developed at the highest levels of government to exterminate all the Armenians everywhere.

There is't as much evidence for that as there is for the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews.

There isn't overwhelming evidence that the German government had that policy toward the Jews either but we accept the idea that the Nazis embarked on a "Final Solution" to cleanse the world of the Jews anyway but the Ottoman Empire was only interested in a Turkish solution to it's Armenians Question.

Utter BS. The evidence is indeed overwhelming.

Also, the Armenian genocide didn't involve impossible technology or magic.

Nor did the holocaust. You'll remember you've been schooled on this before. Your incredulity means absolutely nothing.

And our knowledge of the Armenian genocide doesn't come exclusively from thousands of Armenians eyewitnesses who told us about it and thousands of Turks who confessed to their role in the genocide only after their nation had been completely obliterated and the Turks were completely dependent upon the mercy of their sworn enemy who was hell-bent on assigning guilt to a newly minted highly nebulous class of persons known as "war criminals."

Nor is our knowledge about the holocaust based on such things. As you've no doubt learned reading through this thread, evidence for the holocaust comes in many forms. That you ignore it all shows how dishonest you are.

So, sorry, no comparison.

How characteristically cowardly.

Why don't you just ignore me?

Indeed. This is a question we should seriously consider.

My behavior of proving the holocaust is held to a different standard? I don't think that's why we're ridiculed.

It's two of the things that makes you ridiculed. Your inability to research history, and your blatant dishonesty.

Uh, no. The comparison was suppose to be between the holocaust and a COMPARABLE genocide or mass murder in contemporary history. Are you changing the rules now?

No, but it seems you are trying to. Nowhere in the original challenge was the word "comparable" mentioned. It is of course expected of you to compare two separate events, but nobody asked you to find another holocaust to compare the Jewish holocaust to. Just another contemporary genocide.

I wonder how you got the idea that stories from the bible were comparable to the holocaust, though. Methinks you're being dishonest again.

I know perfectly well it's not. I wanted to hear you say it. So why do you think Michael Shermer and Deborah Lipstadt's web content provider say it is?

Email them and ask.

 

[uke2se]

This is a skeptic's forum.

Then why on Earth are you here? You're about as far flung from being a skeptic as anyone I've ever had the misfortune of interacting with.

 

[Nick Terry]

Not comparable. There isn't overwhelming evidence that the Ottoman government had a plan developed at the highest levels of government to exterminate all the Armenians everywhere. There isn't overwhelming evidence that the German government had that policy toward the Jews either but we accept the idea that the Nazis embarked on a "Final Solution" to cleanse the world of the Jews anyway but the Ottoman Empire was only interested in a Turkish solution to it's Armenians Question.

Also, the Armenian genocide didn't involve impossible technology or magic.

And our knowledge of the Armenian genocide doesn't come exclusively from thousands of Armenians eyewitnesses who told us about it and thousands of Turks who confessed to their role in the genocide only after their nation had been completely obliterated and the Turks were completely dependent upon the mercy of their sworn enemy who was hell-bent on assigning guilt to a newly minted highly nebulous class of persons known as "war criminals."

So, sorry, no comparison.

Your original claim was that the Holocaust is held to a different standard of evidence to other events, implying that it is held to a lesser standard. The above drivel doesn't even begin to make a comparison between the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide regarding the amount of evidence or the approaches taken to that evidence by historians. That's the only relevant criterium here.

Not only do you not even bother to identify whether there are differences regarding evidence or approach, you actually get numerous facts about the Armenian genocide wrong, while repeating numerous falsehoods about the Holocaust.

1. There is perfectly good evidence of intent and planning on the part of the CUP including captured telegrams from the central government to the provinces. This evidence is extremely similar to the evidence for intent and planning which we have for the Holocaust. The provenance of this evidence is also similar - it was gathered for trials of Ottoman leaders which were conducted by the postwar Turkish government. Copies of this material were made available before the trials were suspended and the Turkish government proceeded to cover up and deny the Armenian genocide.

Further access to Ottoman records is rather restricted, and there are good grounds for suspecting that most of the relevant records have now been destroyed after so many decades, which results in a rather similar situation to the Holocaust, where we know for a fact that the majority of records were destroyed. But despite similar cover-up efforts, enough has survived for it to be consensus in both cases that genocide was intended (and then acted upon).

2. The differences in extent or global reach are irrelevant from an evidentiary perspective. The only question that matters here is whether the evidence establishing difference varies. Which it doesn't.

3. The differences in technology are also irrelevant from the perspective of standards of evidence. The Ottoman state used railways, deportations, death marches, starvation, concentration camps and shootings (all like the Nazis). All these things can be proven in both cases using similar types of evidence, namely a mix of government documents, reports from foreign/occupied observers, survivor accounts, and perpetrator testimonies. There are photos of deportations in both cases. There are photos of dead bodies in both cases. There are photos of mutilations in both cases.

The Nazis used other methods not used in the Armenian genocide, including gas vans and gas chambers using internal combustion engines as well as gas chambers using Zyklon B. None of these methods were magic or impossible (any more than the use of wood, petrol, coke and other fuels to cremate the bodies can be considered magic or impossible). Those things have also been proven using the same types of evidence, namely a mix of government documents, reports from foreign/occupied observers, survivor accounts, and perpetrator testimonies.

Scale doesn't matter here. The Armenian genocide was a seven figure mass murder, and has been written up using the same combination of sources as the Holocaust.

4. There is however a major difference in one type of evidence, namely physical evidence. The Holocaust was extensively investigated forensically and has been investigated archaeologically. The Armenian genocide was never investigated forensically and has not been reinvestigated since, due to political pressures. Moreover, the literature on the Armenian genocide doesn't discuss physical evidence, almost to the point of complete silence. We are therefore on shakier ground with the Armenian genocide if we follow the mong-like approach of deniers.

5. The Armenian genocide and the Holocaust are bracketed together in numerous overviews on genocide and the history of genocide, eg in Michael Mann, Dark Side of Democracy; Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil; Michael Midlarsky, The Killing Trap, and their historiographies are compared in Dan Stone (ed), The Historiography of Genocide. Several historians such as Donald Bloxham and Christian Gerlach have written on both genocides. There is no fundamental difference in how these authors approach the two genocides, and the concepts applied to each are similar, which is to be expected, since they have been considered together so often that historians and social scientists are well aware of the similarities as well as the differences, and almost instinctively borrow ideas from the study of one to consider the other.

Your claim, to remind you for the umpteenth time, was that the Holocaust is held to a different standard of evidence to other events in history. This is clearly not the case with academics writing about the two genocides, which is the only test that matters.

So please spare us tedious arguments about the man on the street's general knowledge of the two events and please spare us your own personal incredulity. To sustain your claim on the 52nd day of this discussion, you must prove that academics treat the Holocaust entirely differently to other historical events.

As was stated from the outset, other mass murders and genocides in contemporary history are the immediate logical points of comparison. That means, the Armenian genocide and Stalinism, since they are the two major events in the first half of the 20th Century which most closely resemble the Holocaust, since they were the two other major cases of mass murder and genocide in that era. You can add the expulsion of ethnic Germans to those major cases, since it actually comes closest to your fantasy view of the Holocaust ('only based on witnesses', 'magic disappearences').

It also means, other Nazi crimes against non-Jews. Somehow those have been forgotten in this discussion, even though they're surely the obvious first point of comparison. Add up euthanasia, the KZs in Germany, the Commissar Order and the mass starvation of Soviet POWs, the conduct of the war against the Soviet Union, SS terror across Europe, and the persecution of other minorities and you're talking a larger number of victims than died in the Holocaust, in Holocaust-like situations involving identical methods, perpetrators and facilities. It would be amusing to see you try and claim that historians have treated these crimes differently to the Holocaust.

 

[Nick Terry]

Who's Spector? What article?

Spector, Shmuel, ‘Aktion 1005 – Effacing the Murder of Millions’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies 5/2, 1990, pp.157-173

since then supplemented by sections of numerous regional studies as well as

Hoffmann, Jens, ‘Das kann man nicht erzählen’: ‘Aktion 1005’ – Wie die Nazis die Spuren ihrer Massenmorde in Osteuropa beseitigten. Hamburg: Konkret Verlag, 2008

and shortly to be joined by another full-length monograph on 1005 from Andrej Angrick.