General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[LemmyCaution]

I have not conflated popular perception with scholarly work. Show me where I have criticised any scholarly work. I have only been referring to popular sources designed for general public consumption.

Please direct me to a source which shows a Krema could physically have held 2000 in its gas chamber.

Well, you have listed a number of misunderstandings you had that could easily have been rectified by reading current or even not so current scholarship instead of getting your understanding from popular accounts or back and forth with deniers at SSF . . .

 

[Nessie]

You come here and don't expect to be challenged?

That's not how it works.

If that makes you "unhappy" or "angry" -- there's the door.

But given that many do, why do you single out the Holocaust for a higher than normal standard?

And this is the first time you have acknowledged that the Holocaust is not special in this regard.


So why should it be special in the other?

Your "reasons" have so far been shown to be concocted from a profound ignorance and lack of comprehension of the information you have been given.

And once again: no one cares if you are unhappy.

No, you took a known liar at his word, cited a blog, distorted what could possibly be known about a photo and exposed a profound ingnorance of the layout of Birkenau, and then sneered at a reference to a source of which you hadn't even bother to get the name.

Of course, that "fact" is incorrect, and deals only with a peripheral issue to begin with, so I'm afraid you're going to have to try again...

A strawman attack and rant.

Shall we agree that I am more concerned than you about general public ignorance of the Holocaust?

 

[Nessie]

Well, you have listed a number of misunderstandings you had that could easily have been rectified by reading current or even not so current scholarship instead of getting your understanding from popular accounts or back and forth with deniers at SSF . . .

Again, this is about the general public's ignorance. Shall we agree that I am more bothered about that than you as you are criticising my criticism of it?

 

[TSR]

Not true. This is a thread about the Holocaust and so I have only mentioned the Holocaust, which is perfectly reasonable. You are making a false assumption I have singled out the Holocaust and held it to a different standard.

Then why, back in post 2692 -- a response to a post that very clearly asks that you clarify your position on the question -- did you choose *not* to do so?

How many gears does that bicycle have when you shift into backpedal?

 

[TSR]

A strawman attack and rant.

No, a possible if unlikely misunderstanding about your position and some questions you are apparently so uncomfortable with you choose to pretend weren't asked.

Shall we agree that I am more concerned than you about general public ignorance of the Holocaust?

No, we shan't.

General public ignorance of history, period, is appalling.

But short of forced re-education, I see little that can be done about it.

How about you start at the *start* of the questions you're hoping no one noticed you are avoiding, and make a post responding to all of them? You said you hadn't the time before, but you evidently did since you have had plenty of time to beat this dead horse. There were several repeats, so it shouldn't be too onerous a task...

 

[Nessie]

Then why, back in post 2692 -- a response to a post that very clearly asks that you clarify your position on the question -- did you choose *not* to do so?

How many gears does that bicycle have when you shift into backpedal?

Sorry, I missed that part of your post. So again, no I am not singling out the Holocaust for special treatment.

Why did you think I was?

I have no need to back pedal as my position has not changed.

 

[Nessie]

No, a possible if unlikely misunderstanding about your position and some questions you are apparently so uncomfortable with you choose to pretend weren't asked.

No, we shan't.

General public ignorance of history, period, is appalling.

But short of forced re-education, I see little that can be done about it.

How about you start at the *start* of the questions you're hoping no one noticed you are avoiding, and make a post responding to all of them? You said you hadn't the time before, but you evidently did since you have had plenty of time to beat this dead horse. There were several repeats, so it shouldn't be too onerous a task...

No a mistake by you where you failed to spot I was not talking about scholarly works or text books but instead the likes of Holocaust museum and site trips for tourists and popular sources such as Wikipedia and The World At War documentary.

Then you caught me out by assuming for no good reason that I was applying a special treatment to the Holocaust that I did not apply to any other part of history. That was completely out of the blue and it took me a while to figure out you were being serious and it needed responding to.

At least I see we now agree that public ignorance is appalling. So why did you start your arguments in the first place?

 

[TSR]

Sorry, I missed that part of your post. So again, no I am not singling out the Holocaust for special treatment.

Why did you think I was?

Well given that the question had been implied before and similarly ducked, it seem a reasonable inference

I have no need to back pedal as my position has not changed.

I acknowledge that this is your current assertion.

Now, about all of those questions you've been avoiding?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Again, this is about the general public's ignorance. Shall we agree that I am more bothered about that than you as you are criticising my criticism of it?

How is your statement that you are confused about the number of Jewish victims in the Holocaust, the existence of a written Hitler order for the Final Solution, the names of individuals forced into gas chambers and what constitutes proof thereof, what the various concentration camps were for, and the purpose of the Wannsee conference -- all topics dealt with in depth in any number of history books to which you seem allergic -- anything to do with the general public's ignorance.

Your lack of understanding of these very basic issues and your inability to think through them are to do with your ignorance.

Your touting the questions and aims of denial -- which pretends that historians haven't wrestled with issues like the number of victims or the Hitler order to try and make rhetorical points -- while not even acknowledging the work done by historians is to do with your ignorance.

I read this silliness and halfway want to scream at my monitor, "Well, then, pick up and read a bloody book!"

No, you are ziggzagging back and forth, as BSO wrote, between public perception and your own parlous understanding, based on your ignorance of the fact that your questions have been addressed, and, when pinned down, you attribute your own confusion to the state of something (public perception, education, Wikipedia . . . ) instead of acknowledging the massive gaps in your knowledge.

 

[TSR]

No a mistake by you where you failed to spot I was not talking about scholarly works or text books but instead the likes of Holocaust museum and site trips for tourists and popular sources such as Wikipedia and The World At War documentary.

No, a failure on your part to understand that "education" necessarily implies "scholarly work" when the context is history.

Had you meant "popular perception" then you should have said "popular perception"

Then you caught me out by assuming for no good reason that I was applying a special treatment to the Holocaust that I did not apply to any other part of history. That was completely out of the blue and it took me a while to figure out you were being serious and it needed responding to.

... and again the story changes.

At least I see we now agree that public ignorance is appalling. So why did you start your arguments in the first place?

Because you started, back in post 2666 ( your, what? Second post in this thread?) asserting failure on the part of "orthodox history".

Not "poor public perception", "orthodox history". Which is necessarily a scholarly pursuit, since the average member of the public ***just doesn't care***.

And no, we do not "now" agree -- you appear (based on reasons I have already highlighted) to have adjusted your position when you found you weren't going to be able to support what you first said, so you ... revised your posting history. And then revised it again. And then again.

 

[tsig]

Well given that the question had been implied before and similarly ducked, it seem a reasonable inference

I acknowledge that this is your current assertion.

Now, about all of those questions you've been avoiding?

I'm sensing an agenda here and I don't think it's concern for the ignorant masses.

 

[tsig]

names of victims

How is your statement that you are confused about the number of Jewish victims in the Holocaust, the existence of a written Hitler order for the Final Solution, the names of individuals forced into gas chambers and what constitutes proof thereof, what the various concentration camps were for, and the purpose of the Wannsee conference -- all topics dealt with in depth in any number of history books to which you seem allergic -- anything to do with the general public's ignorance.

Your lack of understanding of these very basic issues and your inability to think through them are to do with your ignorance.

Your touting the questions and aims of denial -- which pretends that historians haven't wrestled with issues like the number of victims or the Hitler order to try and make rhetorical points -- while not even acknowledging the work done by historians is to do with your ignorance.

I read this silliness and halfway want to scream at my monitor, "Well, then, pick up and read a bloody book!"

No, you are ziggzagging back and forth, as BSO wrote, between public perception and your own parlous understanding, based on your ignorance of the fact that your questions have been addressed, and, when pinned down, you attribute your own confusion to the state of something (public perception, education, Wikipedia . . . ) instead of acknowledging the massive gaps in your knowledge.

IIRC the Nazis kept good records and I read a book were the author said there were records of thousands of Jews killed in the camps. Seem to remember photostats in the book where names were listed but that was 40 years ago.

 

[TSR]

I'm sensing an agenda here and I don't think it's concern for the ignorant masses.

Well, the ignorant mass of deniers, maybe.

Seriously *Berg*?

For the benefit of our lurkers, deniers have yet to address this regarding the diesel issue.

 

[Nessie]

I disagree I have been avoiding the questions as I have answer one already and then been sidetracked by unfounded accusations.

Regarding revisionism raising some important issues I would say the lack of a Hitler Order, use of diesel to gas people, the presentation of gas chambers which are either reconstructions or more likely to have been used for the fumigation of clothes as definitely used for homicidal purposes and doubts about Elie Weisel's testimony are examples.

I commented that I do not think that orthodox history does not have good enough answers, to which you replied "With all due respect -- no one ever has all the answers to all of the details of *any* historical event." I took that as read for reasons I have already explained that I do not hold the Holocaust any differently from any other historical event and was only looking for better and not perfect information for the general public.

I then commented "I do not think that revisionism/denial will ever provide reliable answers to their own questions as they are biased and some of their techniques are frankly appalling." to which you replied "Only some? Which of their techniques are not? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier?"
I do not see how my comment has given you reason to ask those questions. Only some what? Which of their techniques are not what? I have already provided you with an answer to relevant questions posed by a denier above.

Next is this exchange

Nessie - I think banning revisionism/denial is wrong as that makes the orthodox side lazy as it can hide behind the law
TSR - Can you define "the orthodox side" and offer us examples of any individual fitting that definition who has "hidden behind the law"?

The orthodox side is the believer/exterminationists side as defined by revisionism/deniers, or those who are not revisionists/deniers or the standard recognised history of the Holocaust as presented in recognised scholarly works on the subject.

You have me on an individual hiding behind the law. But I was not talking about scholarly work, but public perceptions. I agree with Sir Leon Brittain who said when campainging not to make denial a crime when he said ""Any attempt to stifle their work, however, will always lay one open to the suspicion that one has something to hide. And nothing such people can say is quite as damaging as the suppression of their right to say it."

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//nyms/chuck/1996/chuck.0696

Then you asked about which historian or researcher has endorsed this idea, referring to the perception all camps had homicidal gas chambers. But I was never talking about historians or scholars, I was talking about the general ignorant public. That also applies to your next point about the numbers who died at Auschwitz.

Finally the reason why I would like to use modern forensic technology to examine the T4 gas chambers, Action Reinhard camps and Krema II is because we can and we have nothing to hide and the potential for more proof to refute the revisionist/deniers.

 

[LemmyCaution]

My attitude towards the Holocaust is that revisionism/denial have raised some important issues and that orthodox history does not have good enough answers.

This statement which you offered might explain some of the responses you are getting, Nessie.

Especially when I replied that

I would find it interesting to see what you think was rethought and improved in Holocaust historiography as a result of revisionist/denier arguments - and to look at that against the rethinking and improvement done by scholars as part of what they do. And I mean laying it out, point by point, looking at what historians have written when and how that has developed - and not conflating scholarship with popular misunderstanding.

After which you said you would work on a reply but haven't - instead going off on a tangent about public perception.

It is terribly confusing, reading back through your posts, to grasp what you are trying to get at.

 

[Nessie]

How is your statement that you are confused about the number of Jewish victims in the Holocaust, the existence of a written Hitler order for the Final Solution, the names of individuals forced into gas chambers and what constitutes proof thereof, what the various concentration camps were for, and the purpose of the Wannsee conference -- all topics dealt with in depth in any number of history books to which you seem allergic -- anything to do with the general public's ignorance.

Your lack of understanding of these very basic issues and your inability to think through them are to do with your ignorance.

Your touting the questions and aims of denial -- which pretends that historians haven't wrestled with issues like the number of victims or the Hitler order to try and make rhetorical points -- while not even acknowledging the work done by historians is to do with your ignorance.

I read this silliness and halfway want to scream at my monitor, "Well, then, pick up and read a bloody book!"

No, you are ziggzagging back and forth, as BSO wrote, between public perception and your own parlous understanding, based on your ignorance of the fact that your questions have been addressed, and, when pinned down, you attribute your own confusion to the state of something (public perception, education, Wikipedia . . . ) instead of acknowledging the massive gaps in your knowledge.

I have tried and tried again to explain my position, but each time I seem to make it worse not better.

Public ignorance of the Holocaust concerns me. I was one of that group. End of. Sorry that raising this issue is wrong here on this thread.

My book reading on the subject is going fine thanks.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Finally the reason why I would like to use modern forensic technology to examine the T4 gas chambers, Action Reinhard camps and Krema II is because we can and we have nothing to hide and the potential for more proof to refute the revisionist/deniers.

Modern forensic technology is being used to examine at least one AR camp, as we know.

Do you think that there are problems with the evidence for the killing operations in any of the programs you mention - or is this suggestion more in the way of slamming the door shut on a favorite denier pet peeve?

 

[SnakeTongue]

What about J. C. Pressac books, which does not have more than a dozen footnotes indicating the source of his statements?

Please do cite, by edition and page number, any citation with which you have an issue?

Put up or STFU.

Please, find a footnote on the AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.

TSR thinks that I have issues with footnotes which do not exist.

 

[Nessie]

No, a failure on your part to understand that "education" necessarily implies "scholarly work" when the context is history.

Had you meant "popular perception" then you should have said "popular perception"

... and again the story changes.

Because you started, back in post 2666 ( your, what? Second post in this thread?) asserting failure on the part of "orthodox history".

Not "poor public perception", "orthodox history". Which is necessarily a scholarly pursuit, since the average member of the public ***just doesn't care***.

And no, we do not "now" agree -- you appear (based on reasons I have already highlighted) to have adjusted your position when you found you weren't going to be able to support what you first said, so you ... revised your posting history. And then revised it again. And then again.

I have looked at my opening two posts 2647


"Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The Holocaust is a giant scam. Follow the money.
A giant scam needs giant proof.

I am pretty new to this topic of revisionism.denial of the Holocaust, but so far I have found nothing approaching a giant proof. Just some nibbling away at the edges."

and 2666

"That is nothing like giant proof, it is only nibbling away at the edges.

My attitude towards the Holocaust is that revisionism/denial have raised some important issues and that orthodox history does not have good enough answers. I do not think that revisionism/denial will ever provide reliable answers to their own questions as they are biased and some of their techniques are frankly appalling. I think banning revisionism/denial is wrong as that makes the orthodox side lazy as it can hide behind the law and it has not gone with the times making it clear to the public that many claims about the Holocaust were grossly exaggerated ones from immediately after the war, now found to be wrong. Examples of that are the view that all camps had homicidal gas chambers and the numbers who dies at Auschwitz.

I think that independent, full, detailed modern forensic examinations are needed of the T4 gas chambers, Action Reinhard camps and Krema II. I also think that public education now about the Holocaust needs to be more accurate about gas chambers and numbers killed."

and would like you to explain how you reached the above conclusions form them.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I have tried and tried again to explain my position, but each time I seem to make it worse not better.

Public ignorance of the Holocaust concerns me. I was one of that group. End of. Sorry that raising this issue is wrong here on this thread.

My book reading on the subject is going fine thanks.

Frankly, Nessie, that is not what you said at the outset. You said "orthodox" historians don't have answers and implied that that bothered you - and haven't explained what the gaps are in "orthodox history" in your many posts since. You cited rather public misperceptions when asked about actual gaps in what you call orthodox history, one of your starting premises. Do you see the confusion here is your own - and that you've dug your own hole?

You want to have it both ways. You can't.

I don't think your "book learning" is coming along quite fast enough . . . sorry to say.