Formal Auschwitz gas chambers debate

[Sergey_Romanov]

What a load of donkey dung.

[...]

NASA scientists aren't "more critical of the evidence" because of the Flat-Earthers.

Apples and oranges :]
Before opening your virtual mouth, you should learn something about the topic.

Let's take Jean-Claude Pressac. He was a "revisionist", Faurisson's buddy, but he also was an honest researcher. So he decided to take a look at the archives in Auschwitz Museum. The result? His book about the techique and operation of the gas chambers, which, incidentally, is the first synthetic history of Auschwitz, as van Pelt called it.
It can be found at http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0.htm

So here it is - a very important book in the field of Holocaust studies which was the direct reaction to the denial.

BTW, if you will read it, you'll see Pressac's frustration with some "normative" historians, who relied mostly on eyewitness testimonies when it came to Auschwitz, cutting off parts that they considered embarassing:

The historical methodology that consists of relying on raw testimony, considered to be "sacrosanct", such as the accounts of Bendel and Nyiszli lopping off the parts that seem “dubious” or that “don’t fit” is a faulty methodology that necessarily leads to imprecision [for example, in “Les chambres Ã_ gaz ont existé” by G Welters, p. 113, Bendel’s account is cut without any indication that this has been done (lines 9 and 10) and in “Les chambres Ã_ gaz Secret d'Etat”, p. 205, the phrase concerning the presence of Himmler, considered unlikely, disappears]. Not authenticated by original documents, these early, precious, indispensible testimonies are full of imprecisions, errors and non sequiturs, even though on some points they correspond. They can be used only after historical verification and with explanations. This is how the historians of the Oswiecim Museum proceeded in producing their book “Auschwitz vu par les SS”. Those who use raw testimony without taking such precautions cause the careful and logical reader to spontaneously reject the material. The “shaky” parts of the accounts, of low or zero credibility, often systematically "forgotten" are put forward BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE by the revisionist authors.

Again, we see concern for "revisionist" misuse of some historians' faulty methodology. The use of such methodology is less probable today, because historians know that any mistake will be exploited by the deniers.

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

Oh, for the love of cheez-wiz....

Look, all of these things were investigated by REAL historians doing REAL investigation. It had nothing to do with the Nutjob Brigade "keeping historians on their toes."

Oh yeah? Somehow, it took them decades to publicly denounce this rumor.

When Berenbaum began putting the USHMM exhibit together, even he believed "it was obviously the case" that the Nazis produced soap from fat. "There was a question as to whether we would use soap in the exhibition," he says. But after a thorough search, he adds, "I didn't find any evidence of it. I found evidence for everything else that ... the Nazis did and worse."

And that's already the 1990s!

And here again we see the repetition of the warning voiced by Pressac:

Breitbart explains why it is that the scholars have to be so careful. "The importance is not to give the Holocaust deniers any opportunity," he says. "The view of the Holocaust revisionists is, if you can prove something is wrong, then everything is wrong. It gives them an opportunity to cast doubt on the general historical veracity of the Holocaust."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/soap.html

No influence by the nutjobs? Har har har!

 

[Cleon]

Oh yeah? Somehow, it took them decades to publicly denounce this rumor.



And that's already the 1990s!

Er, yeah, they're historians.

And here again we see the repetition of the warning voiced by Pressac:


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/soap.html

No influence by the nutjobs? Har har har!

Actually, yeah, no influence by the nutjobs. You quote a guy from the Wiesenthal center--their main job IS paying attention to the deniers (and other anti-Semites, both real and imagined).

Tell you what--can you draw a direct link from the research over the soap to the Holocaust deniers? I bet you can't--because there isn't one, from your own links.

The "soap story" was investigated because, when setting up a musem display, they realized that the information was lacking. Why was the information lacking? No evidence to support the story. Legitimate study, legitimate results, Holocaust deniers had nothing to do with it.

 

[Cleon]

Apples and oranges :]

Not at all.

Flat-earthers: Lunatics who think, against all evidence, that the world is flat.
Holocaust deniers: Lunatics who think, against all evidence, that the Holocaust never happened.

Why should NASA pay the Flat-earthers any attention?
Why should historians pay the deniers any attention?

Let's take Jean-Claude Pressac. He was a "revisionist", Faurisson's buddy, but he also was an honest researcher. So he decided to take a look at the archives in Auschwitz Museum. The result? His book about the techique and operation of the gas chambers, which, incidentally, is the first synthetic history of Auschwitz, as van Pelt called it.
It can be found at http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0.htm

So here it is - a very important book in the field of Holocaust studies which was the direct reaction to the denial.

You should take your own advice. Learn what you're talking about. Pressac's research came from being an honest researcher, not from being a Holocaust denier. In fact, it was due to his being an honest researcher that he broke with revisionism. (The site you link to has a good introduction on Pressac, why he did the investigation, etc.)

Honest research = honest results. He was not motivated by a desire to prove the deniers right or wrong, merely an interest in the subject and a desire to write a historical fiction novel set in a period where Germany won WWII.

You ought to see what the deniers say about him. You'd think he was an agent of the USSR.

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

Er, yeah, they're historians.

Er, did you have a point? I pointed out that they got off their asses too late. Berenbaum says:

"But those of us working in this area have not used it as an example [of Nazi atrocity] in the last 10 to 15 years. We don't have any evidence that the Nazis actually manufactured soap with human bodies."

10-15 years? Did they use it before, then? Didn't it occur to them that there was no evidence for this story _before_ this period, which "coincided" with the rise of the denial?

Actually, yeah, no influence by the nutjobs.[/qupte]

Sure, neither was Pressac's ground-breaking study a direct response to denial. Blah blah blah :]

You quote a guy from the Wiesenthal center--their main job IS paying attention to the deniers (and other anti-Semites, both real and imagined).

So what? OK, if you don't like this researcher from SWC, here's one not connected to it:

To claim, on the basis of Polish antisemitic slogans, or on the basis of rumors current in the camps -- in Auschwitz this was an accepted rumor -- that soap was produced of Jewish bodies, simply plays into the hands of the deniers of the Holocaust, who can easily prove that nothing of the kind ever happened.

http://www.vex.net/~nizkor/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-7-02.html

The Holocaust deniers waiting in the wings are eager to pick up any inaccuracies we may inadvertently commit, and we should not ease their "work."

http://www.vex.net/~nizkor/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-7-01.html

Where have I seen this before, huh? :]

And here's more:

The necessity for exactitude when dealing with the horrors of the war becomes even more pressing today when there are those groups that would haveus believe that the Holocaust is a "hoax." The Torrance-based Institute of Historical Review (IHR) emerged as the American front for this argument. Similar groups exist in Europe. These groups contend that while many Jews may have died as a result of "normal" wartime privations, no one ever died in a gas chamber or as a result of systematic murder. The basis for their argument is that the only ones to benefit from the myth of the Holocaust are the Zionists.

The IHR would have you believe that Zionists propagated the story of the Holocaust and use the sympathy of the world to foster their own ends. In reaching this conclusion they ignore reams of detailed eyewitness accounts by both the victims and perpetrators of this crime.

Faculty and students at the University of California have become particularly sensitive to the dangerous antics of the IHR. In November 1981 the IHR will hold a conference on the "hoax of the Holocaust" at the University of California retreat center in Lake Arrowhead. They have leased the retreat center under the guise of being an educational entity. It should be noted that since the Arrowhead center is subsidized, the residents of the state of California whose tax dollars support the University of California are for all intents and purposes supporting the IHR and its attempt to make a mockery of all that is truth.

In the face of such frightening endeavors it is imperative that all those who write and speak of the annihilation of European Jewry do so with the greatest of care and precision. It is equally imperative that all those who value truth and honesty fight the attempts of the IHR to propagate their mendacious views.

http://www.vex.net/~nizkor/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-5-02.html

Tell you what--can you draw a direct link from the research over the soap to the Holocaust deniers? I bet you can't--because there isn't one, from your own links.

Most historians (with exception of Feig, and maybe others) didn't propagate the story, at least not in their scholarly works (see Berenbaum's quote above). But neither did they resist its propagation, some of them even believed it, as was shown. Since the public rejections of the soap story are relatively late and coincide with the rise of Holocaust denial, and since in all instances I cited it there was a warning of not giving deniers fodder, it is only logical to conclude that historians WERE and ARE paying attention.

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

You should take your own advice. Learn what you're talking about.

Unlike you, I do, thankya :]

Pressac's research came from being an honest researcher, not from being a Holocaust denier. In fact, it was due to his being an honest researcher that he broke with revisionism. (The site you link to has a good introduction on Pressac, why he did the investigation, etc.)

Sure, but what's your point?

Honest research = honest results. He was not motivated by a desire to prove the deniers right or wrong, merely an interest in the subject and a desire to write a historical fiction novel set in a period where Germany won WWII.

His book was a direct reaction to denial, and that's, in fact, why it was ground-breaking. Pressac decided not to merely rely on testimonies, as most researches of this topic before him. He analyzed documents, always keeping deniers' arguments in mind. That's why he says that "After reading this book, some will no doubt think that I still am one".
Why didn't "normative" historians write anything comparable to his book before him? Why everyone had to wait until 1980s, when some pharmacist, influenced by the deniers, and a former denier himself,would publish such a definitive study? And why is this study in itself is one big polemic against deniers?

You ought to see what the deniers say about him. You'd think he was an agent of the USSR.

Deniers like him. You ought to see the obituaries they wrote after he died last year.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I came to this thread waaay too late, unfortunately, but I have to say it never fails to amuse me how one of the most well-documented atrocities in history is always being challenged. Especially when the documentation was written by the frickin' perpetrators!!!

Sorry about the triple exclamation marks. Won't happen again.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sergey_Romanov,

You may want to sign up for TAM3. You'll have the opportunity to talk with Michael Shermer, who has written about holocaust deniers.

 

[Cleon]

Congratulations. You've proved that people and organizations (like nizkor.org and the SWC) dedicated to combating the claims of Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites will pay attention to Holocaust deniers. My hat's off to you.

Most historians (with exception of Feig, and maybe others) didn't propagate the story, at least not in their scholarly works (see Berenbaum's quote above). But neither did they resist its propagation, some of them even believed it, as was shown. Since the public rejections of the soap story are relatively late and coincide with the rise of Holocaust denial, and since in all instances I cited it there was a warning of not giving deniers fodder, it is only logical to conclude that historians WERE and ARE paying attention.

No, it's NOT logical to assume that. In fact, your facts are wrong; the rise of organized Holocaust denial was in the 1960s, reaching its peak strength in the 1970s (See <a hrev="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial</a>). Since the soap story was investigated and debunked in the early-mid 1990s, that's a good 15-20 years' difference.

Second of all, every bit of evidence seems to indicate that the soap story was investigated when certain historians discovered little to no evidence for the story; not when fruitcakes like Irving brought it up.

Yes, the soap story had been going on for a long time. A lot of stories about the Holocaust have been going on a long time, and not every one of them under investigation constantly. I encourage you to read Shermer's book; it describes these processes in detail.

As it happens, most historians never believed the soap story due to lack of evidence. Just as most paleontologists don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster. But when it comes to stories like that, a full investigation is only going to come around when there's a need to do so. And wacky claims from people who want to believe the Holocaust never happened don't constitute a "need."

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

I came to this thread waaay too late, unfortunately, but I have to say it never fails to amuse me how one of the most well-documented atrocities in history is always being challenged. Especially when the documentation was written by the frickin' perpetrators!!!

Well, that's certainly true for Einsatzgruppen killings, but not for the stationary gas chambers. They're certainly not "most well-documented". The evidence is mostly indirect, akin to Pressac's criminal traces. But see the link I gave at the beginning. Look at the Veritas Opening Statement. You'll get the impression of the evidentiary basis of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

 

[CFLarsen]

I came to this thread waaay too late, unfortunately, but I have to say it never fails to amuse me how one of the most well-documented atrocities in history is always being challenged. Especially when the documentation was written by the frickin' perpetrators!!!

Not just written, we can still talk to those who were there. We can combine physical evidence with testimonials, and - by golly - they confirm each other.

How many times do we get to do that, when it comes to historical events?

I strongly suspect that there are long-term goals for the holocaust deniers. Sow doubt now, and in later times, perhaps it will be a matter of "Equal Time" for holocaust deniers? After all, in the future, "who witnessed the Holocaust?", the same way we hear "Who witnessed evolution?" today?

Pattern recognition.

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

Congratulations. You've proved that people and organizations (like nizkor.org and the SWC) dedicated to combating the claims of Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites will pay attention to Holocaust deniers.

No, I have proven that historians like Bauer and Lipstadt are paying attention and beg others to be "on toes" because deniers are around.

No, it's NOT logical to assume that. In fact, your facts are wrong; the rise of organized Holocaust denial was in the 1960s, reaching its peak strength in the 1970s (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial). Since the soap story was investigated and debunked in the early-mid 1990s, that's a good 15-20 years' difference.

My facts are correct, even your link points out that "The Holocaust revisionist movement grew into full strength in the 1970s with the publication of Arthur Butz' The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry in 1976". That's exactly what I was talking about. Now look at the date of Lipstadt's letter.

The story wasn't debunked in "the early-mid 1990s". It turns out that USHMM was quite slow in this regard.

Second of all, every bit of evidence seems to indicate that the soap story was investigated when certain historians discovered little to no evidence for the story; not when fruitcakes like Irving brought it up.

Re-read your own words. Aren't they funny? :] According to you, they did nothing for 30-40 years, and then - voila! - "discovered little to no evidence for the story". Specifically at the time when denial was rising. What a "coincidence"!

And wacky claims from people who want to believe the Holocaust never happened don't constitute a "need."

I wonder if there would be such public rejections if there were no deniers around to worry about.

 

[Cleon]

His book was a direct reaction to denial, and that's, in fact, why it was ground-breaking.

Keep repeating that. It will remain false. He did the investigation as a result of trying to write an alternate history novel. Not a "direct reaction to denial." He may have been a denier up until doing his research, but the research was a result of his desire to write a novel.

Why didn't "normative" historians write anything comparable to his book before him? Why everyone had to wait until 1980s, when some pharmacist, influenced by the deniers, and a former denier himself,would publish such a definitive study?

This is really bizarre. You can ask the same question about every study that's done in every field.

"Why did it take so long for them to write this? Why wasn't this study conducted decades ago?"

Well, because science and historical analysis happens when it happens. It's not made in response to demands by fringe elements.

You think every time Alan Walker publishes he spends a lot of time explaining why Turkana Man isn't a chimpanzee?

And why is this study in itself is one big polemic against deniers?

Erm, because in the course of his research he realized they--who he'd previously associated with--were full of crap.

Deniers like him. You ought to see the obituaries they wrote after he died last year.

Not a google fan, eh?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p23_Faurisson.html
http://www.zundelsite.org/faurisson/articles/the_crematories_of_auschwitz_review.html
http://www.solargeneral.com/library/auschwitzplainfacts.pdf

Yeah, they seem positively enamoured with him...

 

[gnome]

I think the overall pattern that emerges will be simple: keep denying it until all the witnesses are dead, then say that the documents have no personal corroboration.

About ten years ago I was discussing this possibility with my Jewish roommate at the time. We were discussing a revisionist's arguments in a grocery store, and it wasn't three minutes later we were addressed by a gentleman who had served in WWII and had personally helped liberate one of the concentration camps.

Needless to say, we listened to him and gave him some very heart-felt thanks.

I read a "Skeptic" magazine article about holocaust revisionism to debate a local nut who had taken to debating it on a BBS. This in fact led me to my interest in things skeptical (though I had already heard of and admired James Randi)... and is why I have been here.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, that's certainly true for Einsatzgruppen killings, but not for the stationary gas chambers. They're certainly not "most well-documented". The evidence is mostly indirect, akin to Pressac's criminal traces. But see the link I gave at the beginning. Look at the Veritas Opening Statement. You'll get the impression of the evidentiary basis of the Auschwitz gas chambers.

Read, "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Jay Lifton. Until you do, don't waste my time with any of your "Veritas" crap.

 

[Cleon]

No, I have proven that historians like Bauer and Lipstadt are paying attention and beg others to be "on toes" because deniers are around.

Again--individuals and organizations committed to fighting holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism. Not historians as a whole.

My facts are correct, even your link points out that "The Holocaust revisionist movement grew into full strength in the 1970s with the publication of Arthur Butz' The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry in 1976". That's exactly what I was talking about. Now look at the date of Lipstadt's letter.

The story wasn't debunked in "the early-mid 1990s". It turns out that USHMM was quite slow in this regard.

Alright, fine. Tell me exactly when the soap story was officially debunked.

Re-read your own words. Aren't they funny? :] According to you, they did nothing for 30-40 years, and then - voila! - "discovered little to no evidence for the story". Specifically at the time when denial was rising. What a "coincidence"!

This is ridiculous.

No, you haven't established that this was done "specifically at the time when denial was rising." I don't know why you keep repeating that. Even then, correlation is not causation.

These things are revealed when investigations are done. Investigations are done for many reasons--money, personal interest, writing a book, or, in this case, setting up a museum display where said story--if accurate--would provide some context.

Not when Mark Weber says so.

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

Keep repeating that. It will remain false. He did the investigation as a result of trying to write an alternate history novel. Not a "direct reaction to denial." He may have been a denier up until doing his research, but the research was a result of his desire to write a novel.

I didn't write about research, did I? I wrote about his book. Using your "logic", though, I can claim his research was a result of his ... birth. Well, after all, without it he couldn't have researched anything, did he? :]]]
Here's what he himself says:

Before being able to realize that the force of his argument rested purely and simply on the lead he held in the knowledge of the facts, I had to catch up with him, Only then was I able to judge impartially the value of his arguments.

He talks about a certain denier.
Here's, then, the _main_ cause, his birth, his desire to write a novel, etc. being secondary necessary causes.
This is further corroborated by the fact that his book is a polemic against deniers and by his frequent criticism of the "mainstream" historians. E.g.:

Faurisson is a literary man, not a scientist. What is so sad about this story is the correspondence exchanged between him and the authorities of the Dachau Museum and the Dachau International Committee in Bruxelles, in which he forces them to admit that they have failed in their historical duty by not being able to counter his arguments. Without a true technical analysis, going as far as partial demolition of the walls, no version is acceptable at present.

What had I had heard and discovered in the crematorium [Photo 39]? That the shower room [Photo 40] was regularly presented in publications as a homicidal gas chamber, which did not prevent the guide from declaring that they were real showers, reserved for the SS who washed SS who washed themselves with water heated by the incineration by the prisoners. That the urns had been transported to the room occupied by the prisoners [internees] responsible for the running of the crematorium. The urn room had become that where human that were shut up waiting for “vivisection” in the dissecting room [!] The door of their “prison” had been fitted with two heavy bolts and the window in the upper part had been replaced by a wooden panel after the war. The prisoners’ room had a wash basin, which is normal. The urn room did not. It is now the other way round, and one wonders why the urns need a wash basin, and why the room where thee prisoners lived did not have one. Proof of this “switch” is to be found on the plan of the premises drawn on 29th May 1945 by the French commandant of the camp for the French Military Justice. [The camp, which was intact at the time of the Liberation, was repopulated with imprisoned or condemned collaborators.]

As for the gas chamber, the 86 unfortunate Jews and Jewesses gassed there to satisfy The impulse of a collector of skeletons, Professor Hirt, had multiplied to the point of reaching 10,000 to 20,000 victims.

etc.

This is really bizarre. You can ask the same question about every study that's done in every field.

"Why did it take so long for them to write this? Why wasn't this study conducted decades ago?"

Well, because science and historical analysis happens when it happens. It's not made in response to demands by fringe elements.

"Happens when it happens", of course, is not an answer. What was the main cause of Pressac writing his book? Deniers' arguments and desire to find the truth, which Pressac described thus:

In the case of Auschwitz, this means listening to both parties (there are only two), judging the validity of their arguments and where necessary going further into their theses, while maintaining one’s own liberty.

You think every time Alan Walker publishes he spends a lot of time explaining why Turkana Man isn't a chimpanzee?

Er, who is Alan Walker and how is he relevant?

Erm, because in the course of his research he realized they--who he'd previously associated with--were full of crap.

Exactly. And this polemic is considered an important work of history, not a _mere_ polemic with deniers. Here you go - another historian (though an amateur), who keeped attention.

Not a google fan, eh?

You? Surely not. Here are obits by two leading deniers Mattogno and Rudolf, and other two by Graf and Countess:

http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/4/Mattogno432-435.html
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/4/Graf426-432.html

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

I think the overall pattern that emerges will be simple: keep denying it until all the witnesses are dead, then say that the documents have no personal corroboration.

Nope, that's not their pattern at all. And it doesn't matter to them whether the witness is alive or not. And, come to think of it, why should it?

 

[Sergey_Romanov]

Again--individuals and organizations committed to fighting holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism. Not historians as a whole.

When Lipstadt wrote her letter in 1981 she wasn't "committed...[etc.]", at least no more than a general historian of the Holocaust. Same goes for Bauer, who, in addition, is not known for writing anti-denial books.
But keep those ignorant "arguments" of yours coming. They're funny.

No, you haven't established that this was done "specifically at the time when denial was rising." I don't know why you keep repeating that. Even then, correlation is not causation.

Ever heard of "convergence of evidence" concept? I think not.

Not when Mark Weber says so.

Why not? Because you SAY SO? Huh.

 

[Cleon]

Oh Sergey, when was the soap story officially debunked? Don't dance, answer the question.

Since we know that the rise of the revisionist movement was in the 60s and 70s, culminating in the publishing of Irving's book, establishing a causual relationship should be easy.