General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nessie]

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's a necessity of the premise. The only way to deny the holocaust is to posit a global conspiracy. The only way to do this is to implicate Jewish people in nefarious activities.

That and the fact that 100% of holocaust deniers have turned out to be antisemites.





2 minutes with Google.

I just see that as a neat trick to turn revisionism/denial into anti-semitism. To say that Krema II was not used to gas Jews does not need a global conspiracy.

I didn't say Irving had nothing to his name on anti-semitism. In any case back in his day such language in the UK was commonplace about many immigrants and minorities. Things have changed.

 

[uke2se]

I just see that as a neat trick to turn revisionism/denial into anti-semitism. To say that Krema II was not used to gas Jews does not need a global conspiracy.

Ok. Make the case that Krema II was not used to gas Jews without invoking any kind of conspiracy. You have to contend with witnesses, documents and physical evidence that has been well known and researched for 60+ years.

Go ahead. Remember, no conspiracy.

I didn't say Irving had nothing to his name on anti-semitism. In any case back in his day such language in the UK was commonplace about many immigrants and minorities. Things have changed.

Irving apparently disagrees. He saw nothing racist about it now either.

Let's ask a few other Brits: Was language like Irving's commonplace among academics - which is what Irving purports to be?

 

[Nessie]

Deniers don't *do* research. They look for something they can quote mine or distort into the service of their hate.

Historians take a look at the evidence -- all the evidence -- and say "what does this all tell us about these events.

Deniers *start* with the conclusion, and then look for ways to support it. It is this lack which always trips them up. No denier yet has offered a narrative which accounts for all of the evidence more elegantly than the normative view of these events.

Blogs and op-ed are research?

Didn't you claim to be an historian?

Ad hominems and appeals to authority.

 

[uke2se]

Ad hominems and appeals to authority.

WTF?

Are you for real?

 

[Nessie]

Ok. Make the case that Krema II was not used to gas Jews without invoking any kind of conspiracy. You have to contend with witnesses, documents and physical evidence that has been well known and researched for 60+ years.

Go ahead. Remember, no conspiracy.



Irving apparently disagrees. He saw nothing racist about it now either.

Let's ask a few other Brits: Was language like Irving's commonplace among academics - which is what Irving purports to be?

This is not my view, but how I think no conspiracy is needed as you claim.

Those who say they witnessed gassings at Krema II are either lying or mistaken or relying on second hand information. Rather than Jews or the SS if you look at reports of British POWs at Auschwitz, they only ever had second hand information or were lied to such as one being shown an alleged gas chamber by a guard for some cigarettes. It is known what he was shown was not a gas chamber.

It was known Zyklon B was used at the camp, many died there, the Kremas were used to dispose of the dead. There is dubiety about being able to use the Leichenkeller for gassing with Zyklon B.

So a terrible rumor went about the camp, partly perpetrated by the Nazis themselves, which needs no mass conspiracy. The story, so gross then got stuck in popular imagination and is now protected by law.

It could have been also caused by a few, limited amount of gassings taking place, so there was a truth there, but nothing like the lines of hundreds of thousands or millions going to their deaths, 2000 at a time.

No conspiracy their either.


I did admit Irving has said anti-semitic remarks. Is one needed to condemn someone for life?

 

[TSR]

The part where you skirted round my question. I wanted to press you further on the point and if want to I will continue.....

If I present a reasonably argued case that I do not believe anyone was gassed, it contained no hate language or rhetoric, it was clearly my genuinely held view based on my research with no agenda attached, will I get into trouble with German denial laws?

It is irrelevant whether you think I am right or wrong about such a view point, I just want to know if I can have such in German and talk or publish openly about it.

So, directly addressing is "skirting around" in Nessie world. Don't you feel it would be easier if you used the same definitions as everyone else?

Well, see -- now you have introduced a "reasonably argued" element that was absent prior to this. This brings it more into line with what I have been saying. But you are still missing the other key point -- here, I'll type it slowly for you:

T h a t i s a q u e s t i o n f o r G e r m a n c o u r t s t o
s o r t o u t .

I am not the German legal system, and so will not do more than I have: opine that I do not believe that you would.

However, you would have to account for *all* of the evidence extant for it to be "reasonably argued" and since no denier yet has even attempted that in 60+ years, I doubt any will.

 

[TSR]

Ad hominems and appeals to authority.

You should probably looks those terms up -- they are often misused as you have done here.

Ad hom is using insult instead of argument, e.g "You're wrong because you're ugly" is ad hom, while "You're wrong because of A, B, and C. And you're ugly" is not.

And appeals to *appropriate* authority are not fallacious. For example, "Nick Terry, noted historian, says this about history" is completely fair, while "Nick Terry, noted historian, says this about mechanical engineering" is fallacious.

Did they not teach logic in your school?

 

[uke2se]

This is not my view, but how I think no conspiracy is needed as you claim.

And I'm saying it is. Could you at least attempt to posit a reasonable scenario that takes into account all the witness testimonies, documents and physical evidence, and also the fact that the common narrative has gone unchallenged academically for so many years (even in countries with no denial laws)? If you cannot, it will be clear that you are wrong.

Those who say they witnessed gassings at Krema II are either lying or mistaken or relying on second hand information.

Lying and covering it up. For what reason?

Rather than Jews or the SS if you look at reports of British POWs at Auschwitz, they only ever had second hand information or were lied to such as one being shown an alleged gas chamber by a guard for some cigarettes. It is known what he was shown was not a gas chamber.

If there were no gas chambers, why did the soldier even ask to see a gas chamber? Who perpetrated this lie?

It was known Zyklon B was used at the camp, many died there, the Kremas were used to dispose of the dead. There is dubiety about being able to use the Leichenkeller for gassing with Zyklon B.

No, there isn't.

So a terrible rumor went about the camp, partly perpetrated by the Nazis themselves, which needs no mass conspiracy. The story, so gross then got stuck in popular imagination and is now protected by law.

What about all the academics that have done research? Were all the Nazi documents falsified? Did the Nazis have anything to gain by spreading rumors that they were doing even worse things than they were, given the fact that they tried hard to cover up the fact that they were doing anything at all?

It could have been also caused by a few, limited amount of gassings taking place, so there was a truth there, but nothing like the lines of hundreds of thousands or millions going to their deaths, 2000 at a time.

No conspiracy their either.

What about all the academics that have done research? What about the witnesses? What about the documents?

You have posited a nowhere near plausible theory of what might have happened. You have taken into account nothing that I asked you to. It would be obvious to a German court that if you used this rationale to spread the lie that Krema II wasn't used for gassing, your motivation wouldn't be history, but ideology.

I did admit Irving has said anti-semitic remarks. Is one needed to condemn someone for life?

Irving is condemned for life in the academic community for lying. That's common practice.

 

[TSR]

Those who say they witnessed gassings at Krema II are either lying or mistaken or relying on second hand information.

And the evidence supporting this is ... ?

Rather than Jews or the SS if you look at reports of British POWs at Auschwitz, they only ever had second hand information or were lied to such as one being shown an alleged gas chamber by a guard for some cigarettes. It is known what he was shown was not a gas chamber.

Who was this soldier, which of the camps in the complex was he assigned to, and how is it known?

It was known Zyklon B was used at the camp, many died there, the Kremas were used to dispose of the dead.

Yes, many more than were recorded as having been sent there.

There is dubiety about being able to use the Leichenkeller for gassing with Zyklon B.

No, there isn't. The only doubt comes from those who, for their own reasons, insist that the only possible configuration for a gas chamber is a western style gas chamber with all of its safeguards. This, for a product that was designed to be used in a tent, fercryinoutloud. And what do you think would happen to you should you wander into that tent while a fumigation was taking place?

So a terrible rumor went about the camp, partly perpetrated by the Nazis themselves, which needs no mass conspiracy. The story, so gross then got stuck in popular imagination and is now protected by law.

You've skipped quite a few steps in there.

It could have been also caused by a few, limited amount of gassings taking place, so there was a truth there, but nothing like the lines of hundreds of thousands or millions going to their deaths, 2000 at a time.

How many is "a few" and what evidence do you present that these were the only ones?

No conspiracy their either.


I did admit Irving has said anti-semitic remarks. Is one needed to condemn someone for life?

When one is spreading the kind of putrid bile as is spewed by Irving, then yes he needs to be opposed at every opportunity.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So if you deny the Holocaust you are an anti-semite. That is a dreadful threat to freedom of speech and research.

No, it is a statement of fact. Nearly every person who denies the Holocaust is an anti-Semite. I say this based on my experience with deniers on the Web and from reading what deniers have to say.

What should be done about this - e.g., restrict speech, ignore the idjits, rebut denial vigorously, etc. - is then a matter of choice and discretion.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The part where you skirted round my question. I wanted to press you further on the point and if want to I will continue.....

If I present a reasonably argued case that I do not believe anyone was gassed, it contained no hate language or rhetoric, it was clearly my genuinely held view based on my research with no agenda attached, will I get into trouble with German denial laws?

It is irrelevant whether you think I am right or wrong about such a view point, I just want to know if I can have such in German and talk or publish openly about it.

Here is your problem - how do you present a reasoned case for an insane position?

Leaving aside what should be done or not about your insane case - that the genocide of Europe's Jews didn't occur - is another issue, but separate to your premise. Have you read a reasoned case for denial? Can you imagine one, knowing what is known? That is, a case not dependent on unreasonable, certifiable conspiracy theories, such as 100s of witnesses and survivors were coordinated in a Hoax and 1000s of documents were trumped up by Moscow Forgery Factories? And so on?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I found very little of David Irving being anti-semitic as well. Nothing like as much abuse as he has had to take.

you need to get out more. perhaps check out the audience he attracts - and caters to, without disassociating himself from his supporters.

 

[LemmyCaution]

This is not my view, but how I think no conspiracy is needed as you claim.

Those who say they witnessed gassings at Krema II are either lying or mistaken or relying on second hand information. Rather than Jews or the SS if you look at reports of British POWs at Auschwitz, they only ever had second hand information or were lied to such as one being shown an alleged gas chamber by a guard for some cigarettes. It is known what he was shown was not a gas chamber.

Forgive me but this is gibberish -it ignores what is known, which is a typical denier gambit, to cherrypick some evidence and leave out everything inconvenient. Tell us about SK testimonies. All lying? All mistaken? All hearsay? Get real, Nessie.

 

[TSR]

I found very little of David Irving being anti-semitic as well. Nothing like as much abuse as he has had to take.

I missed this first go 'round.

WTH do you think he means by "those nice people next door" that he keeps referring to in sneers and innuendo?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Part of the problem you're encountering, Nessie, is, in addition to your lack of familiarity with the basic literature on the Holocaust (it would save you a lot of mental gymnastics to study some of this before wading into these discussions), your refusal to learn from and see patterns in how deniers operate - how they use sources, their inability to use all the evidence, their approach to discussion and argument, their intentional distortions and game playing with information and material, and so on.

You've seen consistent and typical denier BS from Chester and his friends - yet you act as though the denier slate is a clean slate, a kind of tabula rasa.

To get a really good, thorough picture of how deniers "do history," you should read this work several times: http://archive.org/details/BelzecSobiborTreblinka.HolocaustDenialAndOperationReinhard.ACritique

In the meantime, consider the following:

1) Keeping in mind how our friend Chester has time and again played games with references to quoted material - two recent examples are Gitta Sereny and Filip Mueller - here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202147&page=212 you can read about a similar game of hide and seek, concerning The Black Book of Polish Jewry - start with post #8475 and continue for a few pages for a sorry, sorry saga.

2) Here is another typical denier stunt, to take a second example from something contributed to this forum, showing how deniers quote and use material, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202147&page=207, starting with post #8252 and continuing for a bit. Remind you of anyone?

Reviewing how deniers operate, the games they play, and the agenda one sees at work, there is something less than zero chance that they are operating in the good faith you credit them with.

 

[Dogzilla]

Which has what relevance, specifically, to Lemmy's post? I note that you don't actually answer the question.

Lemmy believes that the prodigious output of German scholars in support of the traditional holocaust historiography is in no way a function of Germany's anti-hD laws. I explained what is obvious to everybody: the "unless it is forbidden, it is allowed" nature of how laws are written means that laws don't force people to do what they don't want to do. It prevents them from doing what they do want to do. So I'm agreeing with Lemmy. German law doesn't force scholars to research, write, and publish material in support of the holocaust. That is such a no-brainer, that the fact Lemmy even says it implies that he believes the German anti-hD laws have no influence on German scholars whatsoever. Insisting that the dearth of holocaust denial material from German scholars is not a function of the fact that such material is illegal is certifiable.

What was the original question anyway?

No, I think it's laughable you think Wikipedia is a good source of information. Most colleges specifically ban its use as a primary reference. As they should. Of course, this is easily dodged by just citing the source WP uses instead of WP itself and hoping your marker never checks.

I really want to believe you're right about that. I know Jr. High School and High School students who are able to cite directly from wikipedia, a practice I find appalling.

There's a difference between "outright denial" and "revision of facts".

But if the fact is that there were no gas chambers, then a "revision of fact" would constitute "outright denial."

This would still be illegal in Germany because protecting historical truth isn't the reason holocaust denial is illegal in Germany. It's illegal because a very important part of Jewish identity is the need to be perceived as victims. Because of the historical relationship between Germans and Jews it is incumbent upon Germans to support this self-perception. Anything that might challenge or diminish their victim-hood is an attack on their Jewish identity and self-worth. I don't know if hurting Jews feelings is at the crux of other countries anti-denial legislation. I'm sure it is but I doubt other countries are quite so open about it..

 

[LemmyCaution]

That is such a no-brainer, that the fact Lemmy even says it implies that he believes the German anti-hD laws have no influence on German scholars whatsoever.

Sort of. The fact that I mentioned this was more of a segue from claptrap about the laws to an important point, that much first-rate work on the Holocaust comes from Germany, this being a development independent of and not influenced by the legislation.

Insisting that the dearth of holocaust denial material from German scholars is not a function of the fact that such material is illegal is certifiable.

I didn't mention a supposed dearth of HD material from German scholars. However, if there were no anti-HD laws, I would assume that there would be no noticeable difference in the production of HD material by German scholars. By analogy, I would not expect German scholars to produce HD material, with laws like those in the US, in greater proportion than US scholars produce such material. In short, again, I don't think anti-HD laws influence German scholarship of the Holocaust. That is because I don't know of any evidence showing that German scholars want to produce HD works.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There seems to be something rotten in the state of Denier.

If you were a German scholar in a German university and were aware of HDenier laws, why does it then follow that you would publish "pro holocaust" papers? The laws prevent (as it happens factually incorrect) statements of denial. It does not insist that pro holocaust papers are published.

Now this leads to a number of questions:
1) where are the peer reviews around the world showing factual innacuracies in the research?
2) why do so many scholars knowingly risk exposure and ridicule for these "lies"?
3) why would they not just take the safer bet of avoiding the subject of the holocaust? It would be a suicidaly limited department if the holocaust were the ONLY viable research topic. Especially if all that evidence is meant to be hoaxed.
4) to what end, if not the "motives" suggested by good old fashioned bigots, is this alleged multi-national hoax continued?

 

[LemmyCaution]

This would still be illegal in Germany because protecting historical truth isn't the reason holocaust denial is illegal in Germany. It's illegal because a very important part of Jewish identity is the need to be perceived as victims. Because of the historical relationship between Germans and Jews it is incumbent upon Germans to support this self-perception. Anything that might challenge or diminish their victim-hood is an attack on their Jewish identity and self-worth. I don't know if hurting Jews feelings is at the crux of other countries anti-denial legislation. I'm sure it is but I doubt other countries are quite so open about it..

Except that the German laws mention the crimes of the Third Reich, refer to "the victims" in general, and outlaw as well display of the Swastika and runes of the SS. Making it sound like those who passed the laws were concerned with neo-Nazi activity in Germany . . .

 

[uke2se]

As I note from the Dogzilla post Lemmy quoted, Dogzilla gives us a great example of the fact that all holocaust deniers are antisemites.

It's illegal because a very important part of Jewish identity is the need to be perceived as victims.