Formal Auschwitz gas chambers debate

[gumboot]

Well, you're using, in your posts the EXACT SAME half-truths, insinuations, logical fallacies, and outright lies holocaust deniers use (see above for proof). If it quacks like a duck...

Let me recap my posts...

My first was an expression of my opinions on the matter of dealing with holocaust deniers (do not confuse these with my opinions on the holocaust itself).

I think holocaust deniers do cause a major problem...

As long as these groups of people deny its existence, a sort of "hallowed ground" attitude exists surrounding the holocaust. You're not allowed to question it or investigate it, because it's some "special" historic event. I think this is very bad.

I mentioned a case in my own country as an example of academic research (that being the thesis of a student at Canterburry University) being attacked by those whose opinion has been clouded by the existence of anti-sematic politicalist holocaust denial and revisionism (in this case the specific people being the Jewish Council of New Zealand).

In response to my example you offered harsh accusations and condemnation, with lack of research or the least scrap of understanding of the example given (had you been familiar with the example given you would no doubt appreciate the irony of your response).

The man in question, Joel Hayward, had "only" questioned the "holocaust myth" that the gas chambers ever existed or were used to exterminate jews. Hey, that's OK--only a million or two of the holocaust victims died in those chambers, so he's only denying the deaths of a 1-2 million worthless jews.

And, surprise surprise, it turns out that, yes, he DID ignore (as he had to) mountains of evidence about the gas chambers--including, of course, virtually all eyewitness' testimony, both jewish and Nazi--in favor of holding in higher esteem and accuracy Nazi documents speaking in veiled language about "resettlement" and so on, as "inconsistent" with the gas chamber claims.

I then corrected your accusations and pointed out the apparant lack of knowledge you had of the specific example. I concluded this from a number of things, including very specific false statements:

1) That Joel Hayward questioned that the gas chambers ever existed
2) That Joel Hayward is denying the death of 1-2 million Jews
3) That Joel Hayward ignored evidence about the gas chambers
4) That Joel Hayward favoured Nazi documents speaking in veiled language

The above four statements are all categorically false. I am not aware of a single person who has ever read Hayward's thesis making the above claims. I consider my reading comprehension to be extremely good, and I cannot find evidence for any of the above claims in his thesis.

You responded to my correction of your false accusations by accusing me of being a holocaust denier.

Do you consider the following statements to be true?

2) That no one carrying out legitimate research into the holocaust, free of agenda, has ever been accused of being a holocaust denier
1) That everyone accused of being a holocaust denier is in fact a holocaust denier
3) That anyone who claims someone has wrongly been accused of being a holocaust denier is, infact, a holocaust denier themself

Please answer the above. In addition, please quote the expressions of personal opinion in my posts that identify me as a holocaust denier. If you are unable to do so I expect you to retract your accusation and apologise.

To guide you, the following is the only comment I have made that I believe expresses any part of my personal opinions on the holocaust itself:

It was a very real event, carried out by very real human beings in charge of a modern, sophisticated country, with the silent consent of an entire society.

Please clarify how this equates to "holocaust denial".

-Andrew

P.S. Upon reflection I consider my statement "silent consent of an entire society" to be hyperbole. While I do not believe the entire German population were completely ignorant of what was happening to the Jews, I believe *some* would have been, thus "entire society" is a generalisation. Or if you like "The German People knew" but "not all german people knew" (note capitalisation)

 

[Chaos]

Good luck trying to contest "Skeptic"´s claims. I am still waiting for him to present evidence for similarly outrageous claims against me and my family.


Face it, gumboot, you have committed the unforgiveable crime of disagreeing with "Skeptic". There is nothing you can do to change his mind, short of taking back everything you said and completely agreeing with his demagoguery.

 

[gumboot]

There is nothing you can do to change his mind, short of taking back everything you said and completely agreeing with his demagoguery.

And I guess in return for my "honest confession" I will be given a swift and painless death?



-Andrew

 

[Jono]

I wouldn't know for sure too what length a persons conclusions on the Holocaust, or intentional/unintentional errors can be brought before it is punishable by court.

In general, we do not punish people for irrational research or conclusions on history, however the Holocaust is perhaps the most sensitive subject of contemporary times, rightly so of course.

Though I think Baumann said it best.

Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261

 

[Skeptic]

You responded to my correction of your false accusations by accusing me of being a holocaust denier.

Let us start from here:

s you can see, there is PLENTY of justification for wanting to research the holocaust and find out the "truth".

This is your view about the NZ researcher's "justification". But what IS his "justification"?

Well, its the same old, same old holocaust-denying stories: the lies about Krakowski, the lie about Simon Wiesethal "inventing" the figure of the victims or it being "not allowed" to question that number, the "no order from Hitler so he didn't know about it" nonsense made most famous by David Irving, the "revelation"--known to all historians for the last 50 years--that the death camps and the concentration camps were not the same and the death camps were in the east, and so on.

See my post above for more evidence as to why these claims are simply denier's lies and misrepresentations..

This means he and you ARE holocaust deniers, since the ONLY people who either make these shopworn denialist "arguments", or take them seriously as "justification" that the agreed-upon story about the holocaust is fundamentally a "myth", are holocaust deniers.

But wait, don't tell me: when you said his standard set of denialist lies and misrepresnetations is "PLENTY of justification", that does not, God forbid, mean you agree his standard holocaust-denial arguments are true--you were just fooling around...

I suppose that, logically speaking, it's remotely possible that you aren't a denier, but simply incredibly naive about the subject, so you fell hook, line, and sinker for the NZ researcher's "poor innocent me" schtick. Buuuut, with your revealing statement of how the Jewish community of NZ is "nastier" than others, I highly doubt it...

 

[Zep]

*SIGH*

We have a thread about the Slag Fairy already, Skep, in which Dr Adequate adequately describes this method of deliberately mis-stating others' opinions, and ignoring facts and evidence, to position them better to be used as straw targets. So much so that this "slanting process" is often a downright inversion of the other person's position entirely.

In short, there seems to be no opinion that you can't somehow deliberately and maliciously misconstrue into being a grievous insult against whatever it is you believe in today, facts and evidence far to the contrary. Then you feel free to take out your spiteful vitriol on it.

Perhaps, in some cases and for some people, this can be put down to forgiveable personal foibles. But you...well... Any wonder why newcomers are warned off you?

 

[gumboot]

This is your view about the NZ researcher's "justification". But what IS his "justification"?

His justification for WHAT, exactly?

Let me ask one simple question... do you know what Joel Hayward's Masters thesis is about?

But wait, don't tell me: when you said his standard set of denialist lies and misrepresnetations is "PLENTY of justification", that does not, God forbid, mean you agree his standard holocaust-denial arguments are true--you were just fooling around...

This just further advances my argument.

Holocaust deniers take certain aspects of the holocaust - such as revised interpretations about what happened - and force them into their own sick agendas to try and disprove the entire event.

As a result of this tainting, anyone else who even remotely looks into aspects of the holocaust that have been revised ends up tarred with the denialist brush. As I sad at the beginning... denialists need to be dealt with because they impede historical research into the holocaust.

I suppose that, logically speaking, it's remotely possible that you aren't a denier, but simply incredibly naive about the subject, so you fell hook, line, and sinker for the NZ researcher's "poor innocent me" schtick. Buuuut, with your revealing statement of how the Jewish community of NZ is "nastier" than others, I highly doubt it...

Well... someone has poor reading comprehension skills. I didn't think the Jewish Community of NZ was nastier, hence my assumption that research is prevented all around the world. You yourself claimed other research isn't prevented, therefore the only logical conclusion is there is something wrong with the particular individuals in NZ who destroyed this research here. It must be ONLY the Jews in New Zealand who send death threats to a persons house and threaten to kill his children because they don't like his research. It must be ONLY New Zealand Jews that mail LIVE BULLETS to people they don't like (and FYI New Zealand has VERY strict gun laws so here that is a BIG crime). In that case, yeah, New Zealand Jews must be uniquely nasty. I don't believe so, I think it's the normal behaivour of any group fanatically protecting their religion. But I will have to trust your opinion on those outside NZ, won't I?

I haven't fallen hook line and sinker for Hayward's "poor innocent me" schtick. I have looked at both sides, I have done my research, and made a conclusion.

Yourself, on the other hand, demonstrating incredible levels of arrogance and bigotry, have fallen for the Anti-Hayward schtick hook line and sinker.

So I ask again. Have you read his thesis and do you know ANY details surrounding the matter? Have you read the article in "History Now" that defended Hayward (and criticised the unversity) and resulted in ALL 500 copies being RECALLED AND DESTROYED? Are you aware of the professors who protested at the university's behaivour? Are you aware of the laws in New Zealand pertaining to academic freedom? Have you read any of the many "Listener" articles on the subject? Have you talked with any of the groups involved? Do you even know the wording of the NZ Jewish Council's letter of complaint to Canterbury University? God. Can you even FIND New Zealand on a map??? If not, I politely suggest you hold your tongue until you have done all of the above.

-Andrew

 

[Skeptic]

As a result of this tainting, anyone else who even remotely looks into aspects of the holocaust that have been revised ends up tarred with the denialist brush.

Utter nonsense. As is amply demonstrated in this thread, MANY people revised MANY beliefs about the holocaust, including very significant ones, and continue to do so--without anybody saying they are holocaust deniers.

What makes holocaust deniers, deniers, is not that they "revise the holocaust". It is that they use the same discredited, disproved, and dishonest psuedo-arguments all the time--e.g., the "no written order" canard, or the lies about Krakowski and Elie Weisel, etc.

(It's the same thing as with creationists. They, too, claim that you "cannot criticize evolution" and that there is a conspiracy to portect the "myth of Darwinism". In reality, of course, people criticize evolution all the time; what people will not take seriously, of course, is those who make the same creationist "arguments" that were disproven a million times before, of the "thermodynamics makes evolution impossible" or "no transitional fossils" type.)

ou yourself claimed other research isn't prevented, therefore the only logical conclusion is there is something wrong with the particular individuals in NZ who destroyed this research here.

Well, not exactly; the point is that the New Zealander's "research" was no research at all, but the same old, same old holocaust denial lies and insinuations, so there's nothing to "destroy", any more than the biological "research" the creationist "Discovery Institute" does is real biology.

 

[Darat]

To all participants: As most of us are aware this can be a very emotive subject to discuss, as always keep in mind that challenging the argument is fine, attacking the Member making the argument is not. If you can't challenge the argument and can only attack the Member then do no post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Skeptic]

Well, Darat, I edited my post to reflect this.

 

[gumboot]

Well, not exactly; the point is that the New Zealander's "research" was no research at all, but the same old, same old holocaust denial lies and insinuations, so there's nothing to "destroy", any more than the biological "research" the creationist "Discovery Institute" does is real biology.

I'll ask again.

Have you read Hayward's thesis? Do you know what it is about?

-Andrew

P.S. My apologies if I made any personal attacks.

 

[Dcdrac]

What makes holocaust deniers, deniers, is not that they "revise the holocaust". It is that they use the same discredited, disproved, and dishonest psuedo-arguments all the time--e.g., the "no written order" canard, or the lies about Krakowski and Elie Weisel, etc.

In total agreement here, and all those wesals that point to the protocal of zion rubbish too.

 

[gumboot]

I appreciate that holocaust deniers use the same tired points to stupidly wedge in their little agendas, and will twist the slightest discrepency into "evidence" that the event never happened...

As I pointed out myself - Hitler's written order or lack thereof (as an example) is actually irrelevant because his guilt (in law) is the same regardless (something idiots like Irving conveniently ignored in their "research").

My concern is that a New Zealand historian (any myself by proxy) has been accused of being holocaust denier because of the contents of a thesis he wrote while a student, yet the accussor has demonstrated a lack of knowledge of said thesis, suggesting he has not actually read it.

I ask again, Skeptic...

Have you read Joel Hayward's thesis? Do you know what it is about?

-Andrew

 

[Zep]

What makes holocaust deniers, deniers, is not that they "revise the holocaust". It is that they use the same discredited, disproved, and dishonest psuedo-arguments all the time--e.g., the "no written order" canard, or the lies about Krakowski and Elie Weisel, etc.

In total agreement here, and all those wesals that point to the protocal of zion rubbish too.

Sure.

Now could you please show where Joel Hayward's thesis has those attributes that make it a "holocaust denial" apologia. Remember: A discussion and examination of the subject matter, including examination of other "holocaust denial" claims, does not therefore make it one automatically itself.

I have a copy of The Thoughts Of Chairman Mao, but does that automatically make me a Commie?

 

[Jono]

I know I've got both the Bible, Talmud and The Satanic Bible, does that make me a democrat?

On the "written Hitler order" note, was there ever a written declaration of war against Vietnam by the President, when it started?

 

[little grey rabbit]

I am sorry, I read the first part of this thread relating to Sergey Romanov and I just about fell off my chair laughing.

carri on.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Holy zombie thread Batman!

 

[DC]

wrong subforum, wrong year? 2006.....

 

[Morrigan]

I hate when I start reading a thread, then realize it's SIX goddamn years old and I'm wasting my time because some asshat performed necrophilia on the poor thread. (And for no reason too, the bumping post was nothing more than "lol".)

Can we please have some sort of auto-locking mechanism on threads that are too old (say, two years to be really generous)? Pretty please?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hate when I start reading a thread, then realize it's SIX goddamn years old and I'm wasting my time because some asshat performed necrophilia on the poor thread. (And for no reason too, the bumping post was nothing more than "lol".)

Can we please have some sort of auto-locking mechanism on threads that are too old (say, two years to be really generous)? Pretty please?

As long as we can still bring back Claus's classic Air Marshall thread every year.