General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[EtienneSC]

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0429.shtml

http://archive.org/details/BelzecSobiborTreblinka.HolocaustDenialAndOperationReinhard.ACritique

Thanks for these references. Pressac's Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers and its "criminal traces" theory was replied to by Faurisson in 1995 and in more detail by Carlo Mattogno's Auschwitz, the Case for Sanity (Washington: Barnes Review, 2010). Pressac made so many concessions to the revisionists, including a statement in Valerie Igounet's book on Negationnisme (2000) that the history of Auschwitz was "destined for the dustbin of history" that his death in 2003 went unremarked in the French press - only the revisionists remembered him.

Nick Terry's work is currently being replied to by Mattogno, though his work is still in draft and has not yet been translated from Italian into English. It's an interesting debate to listen in to.

 

[EtienneSC]

Well this seems less than honest.

Further controversy was sparked when one of Faurisson's revisionist works was published with an introduction by Noam Chomsky. It turned out that the Chomsky piece was not written to be used as an introduction, although Chomsky had authorized its use to defend Faurisson in a different context. Chomsky's piece was a general defense of freedom of speech, including Faurisson's. Chomsky stated that he had "no evidence to support [the] conclusion" that Faurisson was antisemitic, while he considered Faurisson as a "relatively apolitical liberal of some sort".[8] Chomsky was accused of supporting Faurisson's views, rather than merely defending his right to speech, which Chomsky denied. Noting that he had described the Holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history", Chomsky argued that his views were "diametrically opposed" to those of Faurisson on the subject.[2][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson

I agree with your interpretation of Chomsky's position. In Faurisson's book, Chomsky's piece is described as a "preface" and an "opinion" and published at the start under the title "some elementary comments on the right of free expression". I don't think there is any suggestion in the book that Chomsky agreed with the contents.

Faurisson wrote to Serge Thion - someone connected with the publisher, la Vieille Taupe - on 30 September 1979 stating that Chomsky's support was only on grounds of the right to free expression and that he [Chomsky] had not seen the book itself. Chomsky stated in 1981 that he had written the piece at the request of Thion: "Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil libertarian aspects of this affair. I did so, telling him to use it as he wished."
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm
I see no dishonesty on Faurisson's part on the basis of the above.

 

[Clayton Moore]

And here is an article on Wiesenthal.

Your conclusion?

 

[EtienneSC]

Your conclusion?

I cited the article on Wiesenthal as evidence of his dishonesty. Many of the allegations do not amount to this, as he may be simply repeating things he has heard in good faith, albeit creating a misleading impression through the confidence with which he speaks.

When Wiesenthal wrote on the “human soap” legend in 1946:
“The [.....] factory was in Galicia, in Belzec. From April 1942 until May 1943, 900,000 Jews were used as raw material in this factory.” After the corpses were turned into various raw materials, Wiesenthal wrote, “The rest, the residual fat stuff, was used for soap production.”

I would say he is embellishing things and failing to check facts to the point where dishonesty is involved. If he were being honest, he would have identified the story as something he had heard. Similarly for his claims about "electrocution showers".

There is a pattern of behavior summed up by the Israeli investigator on the Eichmann case: "“All the information supplied by Wiesenthal before and in anticipation of the [Eichmann] operation was utterly worthless, and sometimes even misleading and of negative value.”

For the purposes of holocaust history/revision, I would say that Wiesenthal's testimony is of little value where uncorroborated or at odds with common sense. I gather that a posthumous biography of him comes to a similar conclusion.

 

[EtienneSC]

Your conclusion?

Another more general conclusion worth drawing is the strength of a biographical approach to history in comparison with attempting to construct general narratives using sources that often prove deceptive in nature. A biographical approach involves a more in-depth study of motives and personal agendas which can uncover motives to present facts or supposed facts from a partial point of view.

 

[Belz...]

Skepticism is great until when it comes to Holohoaxery.

Also great until it comes to denial.

Survivors can tell the wildest tales without being called a liar.

Denialists can also tell the wildest lies without ever realising they are tales.

 

[Natan]

Robert Kempner, jewish prosecutor at Nuremberg, had sticky fingers:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/nazi-diary/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

 

[Dcdrac]

Robert Kempner, jewish prosecutor at Nuremberg, had sticky fingers:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/nazi-diary/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

And this some how means the Holocaust did not happen?

 

[Natan]

And this some how means the Holocaust did not happen?

Sorry, yeah, I forgot to add it. So here it goes:

Ergo, the Holocaust didn't happen.

 

[Dcdrac]

Still no sign in that report as to how smuggling that diary out somehow means the Holocaust did not take place seems some very fuzzy logic is being deployed here Simon.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Still no sign in that report as to how smuggling that diary out somehow means the Holocaust did not take place seems some very fuzzy logic is being deployed here Simon.

Anne Frank wrote a diary.

Ergo it happened.

This is an easy game when you make logic that fuzzy.

 

[EtienneSC]

Skepticism is great until when it comes to Holohoaxery. Survivors can tell the wildest tales without being called a liar.
More nonsense here or some better perspective here.

According to your second link:

"On April 11, 1945, the day that American troops arrived to liberate the Buchenwald camp, the Communist political prisoners had already taken control of the camp and forced the SS guards to flee for their lives. When the American liberators arrived, they observed that some of the prisoners had left the camp and were hunting down the SS men in the surrounding forest. The SS soldiers were brought back to the camp and shot, hanged or beaten to death by the inmates while the American soldiers looked on and sometimes joined in."

It is worth noting former Buchenwald inmate Paul Rassinier's comment on this situation in his book Lies of Ulysses. He says that the Communists had in effect long taken over the camp having replaced the criminal elements as "Kapos" under the SS. To do this required both ruthlessness and organisation. The Kapos are often regarded as the bad guys in modern holocaust narratives, but in fact they were also at the origin of a lot of the atrocity propaganda put out on the camp system. For example, Eugen Kogon worked with the Americans on an early but influential report on the camps.

The extrajudicial killings of camp guards referred to are not untypical of behavior towards a range of political opponents during this period. The propaganda produced by Kogon and others played a role in justifying this. Rassinier was a radical socialist, but not a member of the French Communist Party. Hence he gives a relatively dispassionate account of what happened.

 

[Lenbrazil]

Robert Kempner, jewish prosecutor at Nuremberg, had sticky fingers:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/nazi-diary/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Uuuh you need to pay better attention:

According to a memo the Holocaust Museum found among Kempner's documents, Kempner received permission from the Office of the Chief of Counsel of War Crimes to keep unclassified documents "for purposes of writing, lecturing and study" as the trials drew to an end and he returned home with an unknown number of documents in his possession that were kept out of reach of other scholars.

The press release from Oberly's office stated the documents were removed "contrary to law and proper procedure." David L. Hall, an assistant U.S. attorney who investigated the case, said Kempner was not given title to the documents.​

 

[Natan]

The press release from Oberly's office stated the documents were removed "contrary to law and proper procedure." David L. Hall, an assistant U.S. attorney who investigated the case, said Kempner was not given title to the documents.[/I][/INDENT]

From your same link. Was Rosenberg's diary unclassified? So, anyway, did he use it for writing and lecturing?

 

[Natan]

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.be/2012/01/thomas-kues-on-recent-archaeological.html

Well, as I previously remarked, we're 2013 now and Caroline Sturdy Colls has published just what?

 

[Lenbrazil]

From your same link. Was Rosenberg's diary unclassified? So, anyway, did he use it for writing and lecturing?

MY link?? YOU 1st posted that link.

I've seen no indication it ever was classified nor is there any reason to believe it was. The quote was "for purposes of writing, lecturing AND STUDY".

 

[Natan]

MY link?? YOU 1st posted that link.

I've seen no indication it ever was classified nor is there any reason to believe it was. The quote was "for purposes of writing, lecturing AND STUDY".

Sorry, from the excerpt you chose to use, not the link indeed. I notice you avoided the answer on writing and lecturing. He got the chance to read it while at Nuremberg. I doubt he did years of "study" of this document until his death, but feel free to believe whatever ridiculous stuff you wish to believe.

 

[EtienneSC]

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.be/2012/01/thomas-kues-on-recent-archaeological.html

Well, as I previously remarked, we're 2013 now and Caroline Sturdy Colls has published just what?

She lists the following publications on her website:

Books

Sturdy Colls, C. (In Prep.) Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions. New York: Springer.

Hunter, J. Simpson, B. and Sturdy Colls, C. (In press). Forensic Approaches to Buried Remains. Wiley, London. (Due to be published in November 2013)

Sturdy Colls, C. (In Prep.) Holocaust Archaeology. [Expected to be published in 2013]

Sturdy Colls, C. (In Prep.) Finding Treblinka. Archaeological Investigations at Treblinka Extermination and Labour Camps [Expected to be published in 2014. In English and Polish]

If I were her though, I'd concentrate on one book at a time. Then she might get one of them finished.

 

[EtienneSC]

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.be/2012/01/thomas-kues-on-recent-archaeological.html

Well, as I previously remarked, we're 2013 now and Caroline Sturdy Colls has published just what?

She has published one article, though it is in an obscure journal. The six sentence summary of her thesis makes no mention of any actual findings. The sentences are:

1. The landscapes and material remains of the Holocaust survive in various forms as physical reminders of the suffering and persecution of this period in European history.
2. However, whilst clearly defined historical narratives exist, many of the archaeological remnants of these sites remain ill-defined, unrecorded and even, in some cases, unlocated.
3. Such a situation has arisen as a result of a number of political, social, ethical and religious factors which, coupled with the scale of the crimes, has often inhibited systematic search.
4. This thesis will outline how a non-invasive archaeological methodology has been implemented at two case study sites, with such issues at its core, thus allowing them to be addressed in terms of their scientific and historical value, whilst acknowledging their commemorative and religious significance. 5. In doing so, this thesis also demonstrates how a study of the physical remains of the Holocaust can reveal as much about the ever-changing cultural memory of these events as it can the surviving remnants of camps, execution sites and other features associated with this period.
6. By demonstrating the diversity and complexity of Holocaust landscapes, a case is presented for a sub-discipline of Holocaust Archaeology.

Only point four where she mentions "historical value" seems of much relevance to revisionism. Her discoveries may indeed reveal much about "ever-changing cultural memory", but she doesn't make any claims about what actually happened, beyond bald assertion.

 

[EtienneSC]

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.be/2012/01/thomas-kues-on-recent-archaeological.html

Well, as I previously remarked, we're 2013 now and Caroline Sturdy Colls has published just what?

Further to my last remarks, I find on further inquiry that Ms Sturdy Colls has now published an article that is available online.
Recent PhD Caroline Sturdy Colls has published the first article based on her archaeological research at Treblinka. The article, Holocaust Archaeology: Archaeological Approaches to Landscapes of Nazi Genocide and Persecution, is in the Journal of Conflict Archaeology (Vol 7, No. 2, 2012, 70-104) and is currently available free from the publisher here.

You may have to skip back and forth to get to the right download page.
I have commented on the content on CODOH and won't repeat my comments here unless requested to.