General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nessie]

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.

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.

Please list my ideas, I suspect you are wrong about them.

Read post 2677 for some examples of where I think there are errors.

If you think I am trolling ignore me!

 

[TSR]

There is a debate as to whether or not it is against Jewish law to exhume remains.

More ignorance.

No, there is no such debate.

It is.

What *is* under debate is whether that religious prohibition should be waived in the case of the camps to allow that specific avenue of investigation.

And I'm afraid that Roberto is in the minority who feel that that avenue will provide significant enough new information to warrant that waiver.

Not that anyone is *against* that avenue -- but is it worth it?

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.

No, it has been baldly asserted by you, without a shred of evidence offered that it is so. Do detail these digs in Rwanda and Bosnia?

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.

And you're entitled to that opinion. What you are *not* allowed (at least without pointing and laughing taking place) is to insist that what few minor details may be uncovered are worth the offence against the bodies of the dead, nor to read anything sinister into the fact that such digs have not taken place.

I don't know why there have not been such digs and have no hypothesis.

I've just given you one of several reasons, IMO the best reason. Shall we consider the matter closed?

But I would say I do not subscribe to any conspiratorial reason that it is to cover up the lack of remains.

Well, there is that...

 

[Nessie]

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



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

The US cemetery is not a genocidal crime site.

The numbers buried there. The buildings there. Or do you think that archaeology is a waste of time and we should not have unearthed Pompeii or Skara Brae?

 

[TSR]

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.

Really? THe Anne Frank House discusses gas chambers?

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.

So you corrected your ignorance from tainted sites. Why not, if you're really interested in what *history* has to say about the era, read some of those, you know, history books?

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.

Who has stated that they are not bothered by such?

 

[uke2se]

Please list my ideas, I suspect you are wrong about them.

Read post 2677 for some examples of where I think there are errors.

If you think I am trolling ignore me!

Most of your "errors" are just incredulity on your part. The rest are unsupported by you. Try harder next time, okay?

 

[LemmyCaution]

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.

This whole discussion is bizarre because 1) most non-deniers support archaeological, work and one, Caroline Sturdy Colls, has recently made headlines for her work (which didn't stop one online publication covering her work from using a photo of a ghetto murder operation as a shot of Treblinka), 2) deniers are not scoring points or gaining adherents; more evidence against the claims of deniers isn't needed and certainly not what motivates my support for doing history and archaeology of the Holocaust, and 3) it is flat out misleading to imply that there are no religious or cultural sensitivities involved in excavations of "ancestral" graves as shown here, for gravesites many years old, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act and here http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/cra/cra_mod06.html and here http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/native/debate.html.

We don't need excavations to pull any rugs - they've already been pulled - but simply to further knowledge and understanding of the sites and how events took place at them.

 

[uke2se]

The US cemetery is not a genocidal crime site.

So? It's a grave site as sacred to Americans as the concentration camps are to Jews.

The numbers buried there.

Will probably never be accurately shown as human bodies have a tendency to decay and the Nazis did their best to destroy as much as they could. Plus the fact that we can get a pretty good estimate from documentary sources. No need for excavations.

The buildings there.

Are known from documentary sources.

Or do you think that archaeology is a waste of time and we should not have unearthed Pompeii or Skara Brae?

If Pompeii or Skara Brae were grave sites were now living people had lost relatives, and there were substantial documentary sources that could answer questions as well as any dig could, I would think it was a waste of time, yes.

 

[Nessie]

..... What you are *not* allowed (at least without pointing and laughing taking place) is to insist that what few minor details may be uncovered are worth the offence against the bodies of the dead, nor to read anything sinister into the fact that such digs have not taken place.

.....

Which is why I have *not* done either and at least you acknowledge the latter at the end of your post.

If the consensus is not to dig I am not going to ignore it and turn up with a spade and start myself. But I am allowed to speak out about it with reasons why.

 

[uke2se]

Which is why I have *not* done either and at least you acknowledge the latter at the end of your post.

If the consensus is not to dig I am not going to ignore it and turn up with a spade and start myself. But I am allowed to speak out about it with reasons why.

And we're allowed to laugh at your idiotic reasons and suspect you of being a holocaust denier.

 

[TSR]

Which is why I have *not* done either and at least you acknowledge the latter at the end of your post.

If the consensus is not to dig I am not going to ignore it and turn up with a spade and start myself. But I am allowed to speak out about it with reasons why.

Pardon, but you absolutely have been arguing that what few minor details may be uncovered are worth the offence against the bodies of the dead.

Not only worth it, but necessary.

 

[LemmyCaution]

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

Especially when people in affected groups have expressed the viewpoint that even Nessie's "recognised," "vital investigatory tool" is by its very use "desecration." And legislation and professional discussion around the issue of desecration are well known.

 

[LemmyCaution]

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.

you are being one sided and wrong and not paying attention to the totality of points of view, legislation, and debate about the ethics of excavation of ancestral sites. that is obvious. what isn't obvious is why you think there is urgency - enough to trample the cultural and religious concerns of some people - for archaeological digs.

there has to be something unexpressed here - a view of the state of the scholarship? - driving your sense of urgency for archaeological investigations - which is odd, to some extent, in that a non-invasive study of the treblinka site has been underway for some time . . . keeping in mind that we can always learn more, and generally "liking" more study, i still fail to see the urgency - and the case you are trying to make for it. you have to, imho, be much more specific about what is "missing" to support your point of view.

 

[Nessie]

Fine, you guys win the debate.

I am wrong to speak out for forensic archaeology at the Action Reinhard sites.

Public ignorance of the Holocaust with minor details being presented wrongly does not really matter that much.

 

[uke2se]

Fine, you guys win the debate.

I am wrong to speak out for forensic archaeology at the Action Reinhard sites.

Public ignorance of the Holocaust with minor details being presented wrongly does not really matter that much.

It's good that we have you - the champion of public understanding of the holocaust - to boldly venture onto the streets and shout from the rooftops that Wikipedia got a minor detail wrong.

Get the truth out, brave warrior!

 

[LemmyCaution]

Fine, you guys win the debate.

I am wrong to speak out for forensic archaeology at the Action Reinhard sites.

Public ignorance of the Holocaust with minor details being presented wrongly does not really matter that much.

Or you could try to explain cogently what your real concern is. Instead of repeating vague allusions and fears and fuzziness.

You could also try to connect public ignorance to specialized work at these sites, work which, despite the headlines, is not necessarily for immediate public consumption nor even targeted to the gaps in public knowledge that concern you.

Or not.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Public ignorance of the Holocaust with minor details being presented wrongly does not really matter that much.

Quick question, Nessie: are there significant gaps in specialist/scholar knowledge of the Holocaust and/or significant gaps in specialist/scholar basic understanding of the Holocaust?

 

[Moss]

Fine, you guys win the debate.

I am wrong to speak out for forensic archaeology at the Action Reinhard sites.

Public ignorance of the Holocaust with minor details being presented wrongly does not really matter that much.

Which minor details would those archeological digs correct in your opinion?
Do the benefits outweigh the emotional anguish of the relatives of the victims?
Do you believe the relatives of a murder victim whose killer has already been convicted would look favorable upon a request for an exhumation to correct some minor details as you formulated it?

Uke2se, I'm sorry to say it but I believe you are a bit too aggressive and dismissive at this point.

 

[000063]

I don't think that you "won". First, "minimal" or not, Irving clearly is anti-semitic. That little ditty of his demonstrates a pretty unpleasant level of anti-semitism, however rarely he let it show. Second, just scanning through the front page of Smith's blog, I get the feeling that he is anti-semitic, probably because of the way that he feels obliged to identify particular groups (about which he is complaining) as Jewish, or as the "Jewish lobby" a pattern which continues through earlier pages of his blog. That might not be a very scientific or comprehensive survey of Bradley's views, but there is something there that sits ill with me.

Sounds a lot like certain parties claims about "Team Holocaust", come to think.

I don't think you have even read the debate, if so please link to it. David Irving was listed as an anti-semitic revisionist/denier.

Is it that unreasonable to describe Jews who campaigned for denial laws as a lobby? Or did all the countries who introduce denier laws do so off their own backs with no input or influence from Jewish people at all?

False binary. Input or influence is not necessarily the same as campaigning for denial laws.

Good cop bad cop.

Confuse or ignore the issue. Which is what Holocaustics do best.

Good-cop bad cop actually isn't very effective. These days, it's all about good cop. The officer tries to present scenarios and see how the subject responds.

Not that you are actually answering the question; if Jews Team Holocaust has a vested interest in suppressing all holocaust revisionism, why would they try to push laws that have the opposite effect?

Notice how the video from holocaustdenialvideos hasn't been discussed.

Yet you ignore contrary evidence all the time. You still haven't explained why Jewish POWs wouldn't be gripped by the same murderous rage that apparently all other Jews would've been in thrall to upon learning about or witnessing atrocities.

 

[000063]

Clayton saves lots of time by making up his mind and then refusing to acknowledge any contradictory facts.

In the case of this thread, he decided that it is really too bad that those poor Nazis were blamed for the deaths of 5.1 or so million Jews and a similar number of non-Jews when really they were just misunderstood guys wearingHugo Boss. And those deaths, therefore never happened or were a lot less than what is reported, because the (insert derogatory name here) always lies and is somehow making lots of money on the story;

In the USS Liberty thread, the preconception is that the Israelis launched a premeditated attack on a US ship, for an as yet unknown reason and the US government colluded in the coverup. The facts that make the whole thing look like a friendly fire incident are ignored, as is the Israeli admission made within hours and the compensation paid;

In the various 9/11 threads the whole thing was a way for a certain Middle Eastern nation to get the US to attack Iraq. Oh and so Mr Silverstein can make lots of money from insurance, forgetting the evidence that says otherwise;

In the anti-vaccination threads he believes that the medical establishment is suppressing information that would lead you know that vaccines cause autism (ignore ALL studies not from the US or that don't support his POV, because, well they aren't American are they?), apparently if you follow the money you'll figure it out; and

If you or an ancestor have a family name that sounds Jewish and you work in government, you are a dual citizen whose real allegiance is to Israel vice your actual country of citizenship.

I think that about covers it.

Ahem; "neoconsneoconsneoconsneoconsneocons-".

 

[Dogzilla]

Correct.

Correct.


Whomever made it up first certainly did. And after correction the rest did.

In most cases, yes. Because the falsehoods are repeated after correction.

For example, cm keeps trotting out Churchill, Eisenhower and DeGaulle as proof that there were no gas chambers. Which originated with Smith. When it is pointed out that there are any number of other things which those three also didn't mention which none-the-less happened (the truth cm didn't know until correction) he simply waits a while, then trots it out again. The first time was simple falsehood, even time subsequent has been a lie.

IF Churchill, Eisenhower, and DeGaulle did not mention gas chambers in their WWII memoirs (and I don't know if that is true or not. I don't recall Eisenhower mentioning gas chambers but I wouldn't swear they weren't mentioned. Churchill mentioned 'advanced scientific machinery' or some such choice of words. I never read DeGaulle.) But IF they did not say the words "gas chambers" the fact that they didn't mention many other things doesn't mean that they did say "gas chambers." If you want to say it's irrelevant that they didn't mention gas chambers because they didn't mention many other things, you can make that argument. But you can't say that it's a lie to say they didn't mention gas chambers if they didn't mention gas chambers. A lie is an untruth intentionally communicated in some way with the intent to deceive. A lie isn't a fact you think isn't important or that you don't agree with.