Formal Auschwitz gas chambers debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
It always amazes me that people actively seek to deny a fairly recent event that was wittnessed by thousands (many still alive) along with tons of film footage and real evidence.

Lets get to some real hoaxes. That whole "War of 1812" comes to mind. Any proof that happened?
 
The only evidence I have of the Holocaust is that provided by my Grandfather when he described finding a concentration camp in Germany during the closing months of WWII.
Click to expand...

- Not to pry, but I wonder if you would recount that story for us? I'd like to hear it.
 
Sergey, visit the Nizkov Project web site.

http://www.nizkor.org/

The link does not seem to be working at the moment, but I have visited there in the past when debating WN's on Stormfront. It's a great site.
 
Maybe it's just me, but having had family at Auschwitz, the very idea of "formally debating" whether they were in fact killed there makes me sick to my stomach.

People--and I use the term loosely--who have decided the Holocaust was a hoax won't listen to evidence, no matter how conclusive.
 
AtheistArchon said:
- Not to pry, but I wonder if you would recount that story for us? I'd like to hear it.
Click to expand...
It's quite straightforward, and sadly has to be from memory......

Grandad was one of the founding members of the SAS and served extensively in North Africa and Scandinavia before being parachuted into Germany in the last few weeks of WWII. He was operating in what was East Germany to try and undermine the Germans in preparation for the arrival of the Soviets (back when they were our mates).

On patrol they came across one of the smaller camps (if he told me the name, I didn't remember it) which was full of Jews and Soviet prisoners. He was shocked and appauled by the conditions in which they were kept and the condition of the inmates (his cannibalism stories about the Soviets were particularly graphic).

He led his platoon into the neighbouring village and rounded up the local able bodied men and the local doctor and took them out to the camp. After a brief pistol whipping incident, they got the idea and were prepared to look after the inmates for the few days until the Soviets came through. This left my Grandad with:

- An utter disbelief in the story that the ordinary German hadn't been persuaded to hate Jews
- A hatred of the German leadership of the time (though he took individuals at face value)
- A grudging respect of the Soviets for their individual and national willingness to endure

His real hatred was left to the MPs in Calais who refused to let him bring back the fire engine he and his men had "liberated" in Berlin.
 
Mycroft said:
Deborah E. Lipstadt wrote a book called "Denying the Holocaust" that does a pretty good job of debunking the revisionist arguments and the personalities that advance them.

I used to spend a lot of time debating these types until I figured out their goal was the debate and the attention it created and not actually learning anything about this period of history.
Click to expand...

Good point. There is a line that must be drawn with these types. There is a danger of giving a sense of legitimacy to their bogus claims if they are granted a forum through debate.

However, just closing one's eyes and pretending they don't exist is dangerous too.

It's a tough call to decide when a response is warranted and when it just grants them the attention they so desperately crave.
 
MYCROFT

Deborah E. Lipstadt wrote a book called "Denying the Holocaust" that does a pretty good job of debunking the revisionist arguments and the personalities that advance them.
Click to expand...

Describing personalities, yes, but hardly debunking. I'd recommend van Pelt's "The Case for Auschwitz", though he doesn't address Mattogno's arguments. Mattogno is the "best" denier nowadays.

DAVEFOC
Right now it looks like the holocaust revisionists are nothing more than routine conspiracy theory wackos whose arguments and discussions have little value if one is attempting to determine the truth of the situation.

Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

In essence, I agree, though I think that denial can be also helpful because it keep the Holocaust historians "on toes" and makes them more critical of the evidence.

LUKE T.

Sergey, visit the Nizkov Project web site.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Of course, I knew about this for years. :] At the link I gave you can read more advanced stuff.

Also http://www.mazal.org and http://www.thhp.org are available, which offer some good material.
 
Mycroft said:
Deborah E. Lipstadt wrote a book called "Denying the Holocaust" that does a pretty good job of debunking the revisionist arguments and the personalities that advance them.

I used to spend a lot of time debating these types until I figured out their goal was the debate and the attention it created and not actually learning anything about this period of history.
Click to expand...

I wasn't real impressed with it, actually. It spent far more time attacking people and pointing fingers than investigating why people were denying the Holocaust. To me, anyway. YMMV, though. (There was also that bit about Chomsky being a "defender" of Holocaust deniers--misleading at best, slanderous at worst. That really rubbed me the wrong way.)

I got way more mileage out of Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman's "Denying History: Why Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say it?" Great book. Not only does it take apart the deniers' claims, but it also discusses a great deal of how historical investigation is done. It focuses less on personalities, and more on methodology, historical science, and--to a lesser extent--psychology.
 
Sergey_Romanov said:
In essence, I agree, though I think that denial can be also helpful because it keep the Holocaust historians "on toes" and makes them more critical of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but why is it important to keep them on their toes? Or why do "Holocaust historians" need to be kept on their toes more than civil war historians or any other historians?
 
Sergey_Romanov said:

In essence, I agree, though I think that denial can be also helpful because it keep the Holocaust historians "on toes" and makes them more critical of the evidence.
Click to expand...

What a load of donkey dung.

Do you really think any serious historian pays attention to the claims of these fruitcakes?

I can tell you for a fact that paleoanthropologists like Alan Walker or Richard Leakey don't adjust their work habits because of creationist whackjobs like Duane Gish or Kent Hovind.

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

North American archaeologists aren't "more critical of the evidence" because the Mormons think Indians are the lost tribes of Israel.

Serious scientists--and historians--have serious work to do, and they're not going to adjust said work just because ideology-driven nuts come out of the woodwork trying to invalidate it.
 
Cleon said:
Serious scientists--and historians--have serious work to do, and they're not going to adjust said work just because ideology-driven nuts come out of the woodwork trying to invalidate it.
Click to expand...

Wow, we agree on something. :)

Well said, btw.
 
Yeah, but why is it important to keep them on their toes?
Click to expand...

Because otherwise we get the repetation of the Jewish soap story, 4,000,000 dead in Auschwitz, etc.
Or take the uncritical acceptance of the fake Holocaust "memoirs" of "Wilkomirski" or, recently, of "Holstein". There is always a reason for self-criticism :]

Or why do "Holocaust historians" need to be kept on their toes more than civil war historians or any other historians?
Click to expand...

Everybody should :) And for Civil war historians there are their own "revisionists".
 
Cleon said:
Do you really think any serious historian pays attention to the claims of these fruitcakes?

I can tell you for a fact that paleoanthropologists like Alan Walker or Richard Leakey don't adjust their work habits because of creationist whackjobs like Duane Gish or Kent Hovind.

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

North American archaeologists aren't "more critical of the evidence" because the Mormons think Indians are the lost tribes of Israel.

Serious scientists--and historians--have serious work to do, and they're not going to adjust said work just because ideology-driven nuts come out of the woodwork trying to invalidate it.
Click to expand...

That is very true, and I can understand why they don't want to waste their time. However, it must be done, and I don't mind that the task is left to the skeptics. But it would be nice to have the support of scientists in the appropriate field to support us.

I think that far too many scientists live in the fabled ivory tower, and have far too little to do with the non-academic world.

Skeptics may be right, but it takes known scientific faces to get the message through in the media.
 
Sergey_Romanov said:
Because otherwise we get the repetation of the Jewish soap story, 4,000,000 dead in Auschwitz, etc.
Or take the uncritical acceptance of the fake Holocaust "memoirs" of "Wilkomirski" or, recently, of "Holstein". There is always a reason for self-criticism :]
Click to expand...

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."
 
Cleon said:
What a load of donkey dung.

Do you really think any serious historian pays attention to the claims of these fruitcakes?

I can tell you for a fact that paleoanthropologists like Alan Walker or Richard Leakey don't adjust their work habits because of creationist whackjobs like Duane Gish or Kent Hovind.

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

North American archaeologists aren't "more critical of the evidence" because the Mormons think Indians are the lost tribes of Israel.

Serious scientists--and historians--have serious work to do, and they're not going to adjust said work just because ideology-driven nuts come out of the woodwork trying to invalidate it.
Click to expand...

What you say is true, but that doesn't stop some school districts from applying warning labels to science textbooks reminding students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and subject to much debate." (I'm paraphrasing here.)

Perhaps holocaust deniers have a similar agenda. I'm sure most aren't worried about changing the mind of historians. They are focused on the general public. I'm sure they would be quite happy to see a warning sticker on history textbooks: "The holocaust is a theory, not a fact, and subject to much debate."

Oddly enough, battlegrounds for these kind of issues are waged outside of the scientic or historical realm. It's much easier to convince a naive, and perhaps well meaning, school board that a science textbook should get a warning sticker than to take your case to the scientific community. (where you'll be laughed out of the room).

The saving grace here is that the number of people who "prefer" that the holocaust never happened (or was highly exageratted) are in a huge minority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom