General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Clayton Moore]

Please evidence that.

What aspect of totalitarian don't you understand?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You say "accepting" as if they had the choice. And as if, if they weren't killed at the same time, they would have known what had happened to their child.

 

[Clayton Moore]

And of all places and people, those "lies" are not denied by either Germans or Germany itself. Indeed, historical research conducted in Germany by Germans to this day continues to affirm the reality of the Holocaust.

Still can't square that circle, can you?

What would happen to a German historian or layman who vocalized otherwise?

Set. Match.

 

[Nessie]

Well, thanks to the dreaded Wikipedia (hopefully accurate!) I have found a list of those convicted of denial crimes in Germany. (If anyone can link to a more definitive list, please do)

2006, Germar Rudolf
2006, Robert Faurison
2007 Ernst Zundel
2008 Sylvia Stolz
2009 Horst Malher
2009 Dirk Zimmerman
2009 Richard Williamson (later overturned)

I think that Rudolf and Faurison have a claim to have been conducting historical research, the rest no.

 

[Nessie]

What aspect of totalitarian don't you understand?

It still needs evidencing, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union and with modern Russian historical work into the War.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Like what?

Good grief, my poor memory . . . having last visited these places years ago, Plimoth and OSV in the late 80s IIRC, Gettysburg even before that, and Chaco mid-90s . . . what I can recall now . . .

Chaco - that the structures remaining were akin to NYC tenements with large numbers of residents, making it the largest urban place in NA prior to 1800s or something along those lines - although I will say that Chaco made a good effort to keep up and the 2nd time I visited I didn't hear this line of thought

Plimoth - no awareness of the Thomas Granger situation, thus prettifying life amongst the religious freedom seekers - promoting a bit o' the cradle o' democracy line of thought

At OSV I recall something from a later decade being discussed. By the way, especially at Chaco, they made an effort to be current - still, the guides do canned tours, errors creep in, etc. A few years ago I was at a Holocaust museum and heard some silly statements being made - I forget these too - and whispered too loudly to my wife about the errors, drawing rather unpleasant stares. Strangely, the museum wouldn't allow note taking, let alone photography, so the actual flubs - they related to Birkenau - are lost in the mist . . .

 

[TSR]

Great! So you saw the painful stupidity of what you posted, then.

We may be getting somewhere.

Now, if we could just get you to make that realization *before* you post.

 

[TSR]

What would happen to a German historian or layman who vocalized otherwise?

Depends on how well they supported it.

Set. Match.

But not in the way you believe.

 

[TSR]

I think that Rudolf and Faurison have a claim to have been conducting historical research, the rest no.

And what research was that?

 

[Corsair 115]

This is CM, Nessie: the answer is pretty much always going to be da Jooos.

We haven't heard in awhile the idea that the Holocaust was cooked up to make Germany look bad and thus justify beating up on poor ol' Hitler and company during the war. Perhaps CM or one of the others can resurrect that argument...

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post

I think that Rudolf and Faurison have a claim to have been conducting historical research, the rest no.

And what research was that?

This is the nonsense question routine.

 

[TSR]

This is the nonsense question routine.

No, this is the "CM doesn't know the answer so tosses out a one liner to compensate for his fundamental impotence" routine.

What research *were* they doing?

 

[Wahrheitseeker]

We know these objects existed, because they were "proven" at Nuremberg by means of "official documents" and "sworn statements". But nobody knows where any of it is. Since most of the evidence is of Soviet origin, could it be in Moscow? Please advise. I should be most grateful for any assistance in this matter.

Because certain things were introduced or discussed by the prosecution during the trial, that makes them "proven"?

 

[TSR]

Because certain things were introduced or discussed by the prosecution during the trial, that makes them "proven"?

Drive-by denial, apparently.

 

[Wahrheitseeker]

Thanks for that Lemmy. All I find is loads of stuff about David Irvine, as opposed to German historians and any encounters they may have had with denial laws. But Irvine shows it is is possible to cross the line whilst at least attempting to be academic as opposed to hate sites like Bergs.

I very much side with revisionism/denial when it comes to Holocaust denial laws.

You don't consider Irving's website and speeches to contain any amount of hate?

Fritjof Meyer, who Irving uses like no other in order to justify his own position, was a mainstream German journalist who challenged the amount of people gassed in Birkenau. Meyer estimated some 350,000 people gassed, mostly in the "bunkers" (as opposed to the Krematoria). That number is substantially less than modern estimates for deaths caused by the complex's gas chambers, which stand around 900,000-1,000,000. The work was investigated by German authorities and found not to be politically motivated. Had he peppered it with discussions of a "hoax," "propaganda," "Zionism," and other buzzwords typically found in revisionism he probably would have been charged.

Do I still approve of such laws? Personally, no, but that doesn't mean works which challenge the historiography and modern conceptions of the Holocaust cannot be produced in those countries.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post






This is the nonsense question routine.

I see. You can't describe the historical research these men did. Thank you.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You don't consider Irving's website and speeches to contain any amount of hate?

Fritjof Meyer, who Irving uses like no other in order to justify his own position, was a mainstream German journalist who challenged the amount of people gassed in Birkenau. Meyer estimated some 350,000 people gassed, mostly in the "bunkers" (as opposed to the Krematoria). That number is substantially less than modern estimates for deaths caused by the complex's gas chambers, which stand around 900,000-1,000,000. The work was investigated by German authorities and found not to be politically motivated. Had he peppered it with discussions of a "hoax," "propaganda," "Zionism," and other buzzwords typically found in revisionism he probably would have been charged.

Do I still approve of such laws? Personally, no, but that doesn't mean works which challenge the historiography and modern conceptions of the Holocaust cannot be produced in those countries.

Thank you, this was precisely what I was wondering about - and what I wrote about upthread. The laws are not ones I support, either, but they do not seem to be directed at research - rather at what the lawmakers viewed to be incitement and what in the US we'd call hate speech.

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

You've explained your position and they understand. They just don't like it. They're not bothered by the lack of consistency and the fuzzy numbers of the holocaust but they don't like it when it's pointed out. They don't deny these problems. They simply deny that it is a problem. I've discussed the disconnect between the popular understanding of the holocaust and the scholarly understanding of the holocaust. They will plead that this disconnect exists in all disciplines and/or there's nothing they can do about it and/or it doesn't matter because as long as the scholars know the truth it doesn't matter what the general population believes.

By their logic, it would be OK if everybody thought homicidal gas chambers were nothing more than ordinary delousing facilities and that stories of an extermination program were the product of an overactive imagination of a few delusion survivors as long as all the professional historians knew that the holocaust was unique unmitigated evil. But if that were the situation, I'm sure they would find a way to do something about it.

Don't be discouraged because you feel that you're not explaining your point. The problem of ignorance is self-evident to most people. It may be frustrating for you to try and explain this to people who pretend it isn't a problem. But it's good to bring up this issue every once in a while because it gives lurkers the opportunity to see somebody being attacked from all sides by expressing a concern about the prevalence of popular misunderstanding about the subject.

It shows them how unimportant facts and truth are to those who defend the holocaust.

 

[uke2se]

How can that be? If it is unlawful for the historian to say there was no homicidal gas chamber at Krema II and they then come across and archive which casts real doubt on it being used as a gas chamber, how can they then publish that or write about it?

Most important word in that post is highlighted for your future contemplation.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You've explained your position and they understand. They just don't like it. They're not bothered by the lack of consistency and the fuzzy numbers of the holocaust but they don't like it when it's pointed out. They don't deny these problems. They simply deny that it is a problem. I've discussed the disconnect between the popular understanding of the holocaust and the scholarly understanding of the holocaust. They will plead that this disconnect exists in all disciplines and/or there's nothing they can do about it and/or it doesn't matter because as long as the scholars know the truth it doesn't matter what the general population believes.

By their logic, it would be OK if everybody thought homicidal gas chambers were nothing more than ordinary delousing facilities and that stories of an extermination program were the product of an overactive imagination of a few delusion survivors as long as all the professional historians knew that the holocaust was unique unmitigated evil. But if that were the situation, I'm sure they would find a way to do something about it.

Don't be discouraged because you feel that you're not explaining your point. The problem of ignorance is self-evident to most people. It may be frustrating for you to try and explain this to people who pretend it isn't a problem. But it's good to bring up this issue every once in a while because it gives lurkers the opportunity to see somebody being attacked from all sides by expressing a concern about the prevalence of popular misunderstanding about the subject.

It shows them how unimportant facts and truth are to those who defend the holocaust.

This post is woefully in error, except in recognizing the disagreement with Nessie's position. I have already explained that many historians are professors, who teach students and who make their best effort to teach students to think critically about the discipline - that is, they work in a profession which focuses on understanding and thinking and doing so is how they spend their time and effort, as their life's work; I've also named examples of historians who work with popular institutions and with the media, consulting and advising; one would have to be unfathomably stupid not to recognize that scholars communicate regularly - through papers, conferences, full works - and most are scrupulous about getting things right in these communications, all of which are intended to form the foundation for thought about their fields - whether academic or popular; scholars consult with educational agencies and involve themselves in teachers' organizations, promoting their field and its current state to a broad public by doing so. I also cited a case, that of Martin Broszat, correcting in 1960 erroneous information in a popular publications - which he did just because; this sort of thing occurs regularly.

That said, scholars are not responsible for and cannot control for, even as they make good efforts, what uninformed people pick up and disseminate. They cannot police Wikipedia. They cannot make sure every 10th grade world history teacher is current with the scholarship. They don't control educational and popular publishing. But the fact is they do make efforts to work with popular outlets and engage with the broader public - rarely, of course, as their sole engagement or point of focus.

That you and I have a different view of both bottoms up and media-driven popular culture, that we understand the relationship of scholarship to that culture in different ways, and that we focus on different interests and concerns - my focus not obsessed with your conflation of two linked but independent structures - doesn't mean I am pretending popular mythologies laden with error and misunderstanding are fine and dandy, nor that scholars are either.