General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Dcdrac]

David Irving not an anti semite thats a hoot

 

[Nessie]

A denier. You found that out from a denier, because you never bothered to read up on it. If you had bothered to look into what has been written on the subject, it would not have come as a surprise to you, nor would you have learned it from a denier.

Is your point that you should have learned about this in high school? Do you think a high school teacher should take time to explain how we know Hitler gave the order while there's no document? I hope you realize why this is a stupid proposition.



Denialism. Not revisionism. Revisionism is a legitimate process engaged in by proper historians. Deniers aren't proper historians.

Not to be flippant, but have you considered that this has to do with what you've read, or, more importantly, haven't read, and not with what deniers have written?

Guys, I have been saying from the very beginning that popular sources, the types that I and millions other use have faults in them. I think historians should make a bit of an effort to makes sure that is not the case. That has got to better than learning off revisionist/deniers.

 

[uke2se]

Guys, I have been saying from the very beginning that popular sources, the types that I and millions other use have faults in them. I think historians should make a bit of an effort to makes sure that is not the case. That has got to better than learning off revisionist/deniers.

What popular sources in particular have what particular faults in them? You need to be specific.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Guys, I have been saying from the very beginning that popular sources, the types that I and millions other use have faults in them. I think historians should make a bit of an effort to makes sure that is not the case. That has got to better than learning off revisionist/deniers.

Historians do so, as I've explained. But they don't control the outcomes.

The issue you raised just above was your knowledge, though, and where you get it from.

It is very difficult to understand precisely what does concern you, Nessie, given that historians do what you want in trying to educate the public, opponents of denial advocate and do what you want with regard to archaeology, many books and much material online is available to fill in the gaps you seem to think deniers have uncovered, and the general marketplace and media handling of the Holocaust is about as good/poor as its handling of other historical topics. It seems you are dealing in non-issues which for reasons of your own you've magnified into issues.

 

[Nessie]

Oh, I don't know... Possibly because they are burial sites where people still alive lost their closest relatives? Is this an impossible concept for you to grasp?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but historians are not archaeologists, nor trained in the techniques of archaeology. Their investigations take place in other venues, so to speak.

Do you have a hypothesis on why there haven't been as many digs as you'd like?

There is a debate as to whether or not it is against Jewish law to exhume remains. Then it has been pointed out that mass graves at genocide/murder sites are dug up from Katyn to Rwanada to Bosnia to establish war crimes. Furthermore archaeologists dig all sorts of sites for all sorts of investigative reasons to attract interest in a site or subject. I think that if the foundations of the buildings at Treblinka II were excavated and put on display there would be more interest and a better understanding of the site.

I don't know why there have not been such digs and have no hypothesis. But I would say I do not subscribe to any conspiratorial reason that it is to cover up the lack of remains.

 

[Nessie]

What popular sources in particular have what particular faults in them? You need to be specific.

I already have, but the list again is Wikipedia, The Imperial War Museum in London, Anne Franks House, The World At War documentary's episode on the Holocaust and some tours of sites from the USHMM and Auschwitz.

I have not been on the tours, the rest I have visited and from that I got my knowledge that I have subsequently found, from revisionist/deniers that that knowledge has errors.

That is not exactly an idea situation is it? I hark on about it because to my surprise there are people with way more knowledge than me who are not that bothered about such. I think that is wrong.

 

[Nessie]

David Irving not an anti semite thats a hoot

Has anyone been claiming David Irving is not an anti-semite?

 

[uke2se]

There is a debate as to whether or not it is against Jewish law to exhume remains. Then it has been pointed out that mass graves at genocide/murder sites are dug up from Katyn to Rwanada to Bosnia to establish war crimes. Furthermore archaeologists dig all sorts of sites for all sorts of investigative reasons to attract interest in a site or subject. I think that if the foundations of the buildings at Treblinka II were excavated and put on display there would be more interest and a better understanding of the site.

I don't know why there have not been such digs and have no hypothesis. But I would say I do not subscribe to any conspiratorial reason that it is to cover up the lack of remains.

Maybe this should be your quest then - get more archaeological digs at sites of mass murder.

Just for your information, this is a question you'll be faced with often, and you'd better be ready with a good response: What do you hope to learn from digging at these sites and desecrating the memories of our loved ones, that we don't already know?

 

[Nessie]

Historians do so, as I've explained. But they don't control the outcomes.

The issue you raised just above was your knowledge, though, and where you get it from.

It is very difficult to understand precisely what does concern you, Nessie, given that historians do what you want in trying to educate the public, opponents of denial advocate and do what you want with regard to archaeology, many books and much material online is available to fill in the gaps you seem to think deniers have uncovered, and the general marketplace and media handling of the Holocaust is about as good/poor as its handling of other historical topics. It seems you are dealing in non-issues which for reasons of your own you've magnified into issues.

In the wacky world we live in there are now more people than ever prepared to believe in conspiracies and nonsense. So a better challenge to revisionism/denial is needed than at present. Hence I think there should be a full forensic archaeological analysis of Krema II and the Action Reinhard sites.

 

[uke2se]

I already have, but the list again is Wikipedia, The Imperial War Museum in London, Anne Franks House, The World At War documentary's episode on the Holocaust and some tours of sites from the USHMM and Auschwitz.

I have not been on the tours, the rest I have visited and from that I got my knowledge that I have subsequently found, from revisionist/deniers that that knowledge has errors.

What parts of Wikipedia, the IWM, Anne Frank's House and The World At War documentary have errors, what are these errors, and how important for the public well being is it that historians take any more time to correct these errors than they already do?

That is not exactly an idea situation is it? I hark on about it because to my surprise there are people with way more knowledge than me who are not that bothered about such. I think that is wrong.

Perhaps you should write your own history of the world with no errors? Historians can point out errors in popular media's portrayal of history, and they often do. Why do you think errors in the understanding of the holocaust should take precedence over errors found in any other portrayal of history?

 

[uke2se]

Has anyone been claiming David Irving is not an anti-semite?

You've been claiming that he's not antisemitic enough for how you perceive he is being treated.

 

[uke2se]

In the wacky world we live in there are now more people than ever prepared to believe in conspiracies and nonsense. So a better challenge to revisionism/denial is needed than at present. Hence I think there should be a full forensic archaeological analysis of Krema II and the Action Reinhard sites.

So we should desecrate graves to appease a minority of absolute nut jobs? I disagree.

 

[Nessie]

Maybe this should be your quest then - get more archaeological digs at sites of mass murder.

Just for your information, this is a question you'll be faced with often, and you'd better be ready with a good response: What do you hope to learn from digging at these sites and desecrating the memories of our loved ones, that we don't already know?

The exhumation of human remains to discover cause of death and numbers killed is recognised as a vital investigatory tool. It is not desecration.

The uncovering and study of historical remains (buildings etc) is a means to get better, detailed understanding for historians and getting an increased interest and understanding from the general public.

It will also pull the rug from under part of revisionist/denier claims.

 

[Nessie]

So we should desecrate graves to appease a minority of absolute nut jobs? I disagree.

Your attack mode needs to back off a bit. Whilst you build strawmen I have posted above two other reasons for archaeology and how such is not desecration.

 

[Nessie]

You've been claiming that he's not antisemitic enough for how you perceive he is being treated.

You read through what I really say and add agenda to it.

 

[uke2se]

The exhumation of human remains to discover cause of death and numbers killed is recognised as a vital investigatory tool. It is not desecration.

It is when the area has been designated a grave site and when loved ones are still alive.

The uncovering and study of historical remains (buildings etc) is a means to get better, detailed understanding for historians and getting an increased interest and understanding from the general public.

But if we can get that understanding and interest without desecrating graves, should we still do it?

It will also pull the rug from under part of revisionist/denier claims.

Like all conspiratards, deniers don't care about evidence. We could reanimate Hitler himself and have him tell them he did it, and it still wouldn't be enough. As the saying goes, you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[uke2se]

Your attack mode needs to back off a bit. Whilst you build strawmen I have posted above two other reasons for archaeology and how such is not desecration.

And you were wrong on both counts. My "attack mode" seems to be exactly what you need to get these stupid ideas out of your head.

 

[uke2se]

You read through what I really say and add agenda to it.

No, I read your words. That was your exact claim.

By the way, you never answered which parts of Wikipedia, the IWM, Anne Frank's House and The World At War documentary have errors, what are these errors, and how important for the public well being is it that historians take any more time to correct these errors than they already do. Would you care to answer?

I'm getting the feeling you're actually just trolling us.

 

[Nessie]

It is when the area has been designated a grave site and when loved ones are still alive.



But if we can get that understanding and interest without desecrating graves, should we still do it?



Like all conspiratards, deniers don't care about evidence. We could reanimate Hitler himself and have him tell them he did it, and it still wouldn't be enough. As the saying goes, you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

There are many occasions where loved ones ask for exhumations. Exhumations and archaeology are not desecrations. You are being emotive. I am sure some deniers will still stick to their views, but I am not just interested in them. I am more interested in better general knowledge.

 

[uke2se]

There are many occasions where loved ones ask for exhumations. Exhumations and archaeology are not desecrations. You are being emotive.

Try to picture a Chinese archaeological team wanting to dig at the US memorial cemetery in Normandy. Do you think there would be protests?

I am sure some deniers will still stick to their views, but I am not just interested in them. I am more interested in better general knowledge.

We already have good general knowledge without desecrating a gravesite. What knowledge do you think can be gained by doing this?