General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[nomuse]

So what is antisemitic about six million Jews not being exterminated? I'm not understanding the logic behind this particular expression of hate. I understand why somebody who hated African Americans might try to keep Black folks from buying a house next door to them. Or how a bunch of drunk homophobes might get their jollies by vandalizing a known "gay" bar.

Transparent dodge. It isn't antisemitic to doubt the Holocaust. But it is unusual to find a Holocaust doubter who wasn't already an antisemite.

Funny how it works out that way.

And we don't call them antisemites because they doubt the killings. We call them that because through all of their writings are little bits of "But they asked for it," and "Normal people wouldn't act that way," and "But we only believe in the Holocaust in the first place because the Jews control the media."

But if somebody hates Jews, what does saying six million weren't murdered get that person? Wouldn't somebody who hates Jews want more of them to have been murdered and not less? If you're Jewish, why are you offended if six million people you probably never met anyway didn't suffer a horrible fate? If I wanted to make a Jewish family feel welcome in my home, would saying that it wasn't six but it was actually ten million of them were murdered and they were all tortured first be a way to it?

If it's true that six million weren't exterminated, is it still antisemitic to say so?

What does it get the denier? They get to cast the Holocaust as a grand lie by those despicable Jews, a ploy for sympathy by those grasping Jews, and a play for money and power by....well, you get the picture! And also a demonstration of "their" control over the media, over the sciences, over whatever grand conspiracy of taking-my-hard-earned-money-from-me the particular antisemite adheres to.

I offer for samples of this attitude....this very thread. Over and over.

 

[TSR]

So what is antisemitic about six million Jews not being exterminated?

The fact that they were, and so there must be a reason other than historical accuracy to make that claim, as we will see below...

I'm not understanding the logic behind this particular expression of hate.

Because hate is not logical.

I understand why somebody who hated African Americans might try to keep Black folks from buying a house next door to them. Or how a bunch of drunk homophobes might get their jollies by vandalizing a known "gay" bar.

Or how a bunch of Jew hater might want to rehabilitate the only political system to ever have enshrined the express of that hate as not only acceptable, but mandatory?

But if somebody hates Jews, what does saying six million weren't murdered get that person?

As above.

Wouldn't somebody who hates Jews want more of them to have been murdered and not less?

No, because fewer would mean a smaller "hoax" and therefore make them less disabolical.

If you're Jewish, why are you offended if six million people you probably never met anyway didn't suffer a horrible fate?

Except for the teeny tiny fact that they did...

If I wanted to make a Jewish family feel welcome in my home, would saying that it wasn't six but it was actually ten million of them were murdered and they were all tortured first be a way to it?

Your analogy fails in that haters don't *want* to make Jews welcome. They want the job to be finished this time.

If it's true that six million weren't exterminated, is it still antisemitic to say so?

There's the rub: "if".


*If* they weren't, perhaps not.

But they were, and so it is.

 

[A'isha]

So what is antisemitic about six million Jews not being exterminated?

The antisemitism inherent in that denial comes when you start asking deniers, "well, why does everyone think that six million Jews were exterminated, then?"

 

[Moss]

I'm quite certain Archduke Franz Ferdinand will be delighted that he wasn't murdered because there is no photo or video of said murder.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I doubt I've ever read a clearer expression of one purpose behind denial - disrespect for Jews by insulting their history and the memory of those murdered and otherwise attacked, wrapped up in a cloak of sanctimony. Baiting. Belittling. Mocking.

 

[Bell]

Why is denying 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis anti-Semitic? Even Moses was in denial.

 

[Moss]

My inner cynic wonders why deniers insist on exactly those kind of media as evidence which according to regular scholarship would be very unlikely to exist.
Because who would document their crimes if they otherwise take so much effort to keep them low key and mask them at every opportunity?

 

[Nick Terry]

Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?

I think we can take this as an admission that you haven't actually read, much less understood, the document in question; and yet you seemingly feel entitled to pontificate on its significance. Marvellous. Absolutely marvellous.

 

[Dogzilla]

It is not faulty reasoning at all. It is based on the 'no holes, no Holocaust' way of thinking by revisionist/deniers.

Then I guess you shouldn't assume that simplistic slogans represent the way everybody who questions the holocaust thinks. It is true that if there were never any holes in the roof of Krema II, then it was not possible for Krema II to have been used as a gas chamber the way it was described. But that means that Krema II wasn't a gas chamber, not that the holocaust didn't happen.

Further evidence of that way of thinking is their criticism of Zisblatt which shows one supposed witness has been lying or Clayton Moore's much linked to video on the way Krema II was operated. Then there is the latching onto how some Jews were not treated as badly as others. All you do is find small examples of where actions by the Nazis are contrary to the majority of actions against the Jews and then revert back to the suggestion of 'no holes, no Holocaust'.

Revisionist/deniers produce their doubts as evidence, which it is not. The attempt to discredit all evidence with a small amount of evidence is a see through fail.

Nobody says that destroying one piece of evidence destroys anything except that one piece of evidence. The holocaust is like a crime. The prosecutor presents the evidence to prove the crime and the defense pokes holes in that evidence. The defense doesn't present it's own evidence to prove that something didn't happen or to prove what really did happen. The defense addresses the prosecution's evidence. With the holocaust, the defense destroys the evidence of somebody like Irene Zisblatt. So she can't be used as evidence. The defense moves on to the next witness. And then the next one. And then the next one. That's how you deal with the evidence as a whole. You eliminate all the bad evidence and go from there. Having lots and lots of weak evidence doesn't add up to strong evidence.

I also asked the question as a lead onto the question you have dodged which is about what would you call the Holocaust? What did happen to the Jews during WWII? Is it not best described as a genocide?

I told you my definition of the holocaust. Your question about what did happen to the Jews during WWII is what holocaust "denial" is all about. If you want to call it a genocide you'll need to go to the Genocide definitions on wikipedia and choose one.

 

[Dogzilla]

You would know the answer to this question if you read either the report or summaries of it posted in this thread, wouldn't you?

I can google "Jaeger Report" as easily as anybody. I know the answer. I want you to tell us what it is. Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?

 

[Dogzilla]

So where are those 6 million Jews, Dogzilla ?

So the only possible fates for the Jews of Europe was 1) survive the war and maintain contact with everybody they knew before the war or 2) be murdered by the Nazis as part of their program to exterminate the Jews? Yes or No?

 

[A'isha]

I can google "Jaeger Report" as easily as anybody. I know the answer. I want you to tell us what it is. Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?

If you know the answer, and the answer is apparently so important to you, then go ahead and post the answer and make your argument about it.

 

[A'isha]

So the only possible fates for the Jews of Europe was 1) survive the war and maintain contact with everybody they knew before the war or 2) be murdered by the Nazis as part of their program to exterminate the Jews? Yes or No?

If you want to propose another fate for them, then propose it and justify it with documentation and other supporting evidence.

 

[Dogzilla]

I wonder if he will be able to find an estimate of Jews in Europe at the time of the Wannsee conference according to Nazi accounting. I wonder where such an estimate is hidden.

If you studied the holocaust you would be able to tell us where a Nazi estimate might be found. How about a non-Nazi estimate? That one's a little trickier. Do you know where an estimate that doesn't rely on Nazi numbers can be found?

 

[Nick Terry]

I can google "Jaeger Report" as easily as anybody. I know the answer. I want you to tell us what it is. Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?

If you know the answer then please build a sensible point around that answer. I'm afraid you've got such a rap sheet for dishonesty on this thread that people aren't going to play along with rhetorical or trick questions.

 

[Dogzilla]

The fact that they were, and so there must be a reason other than historical accuracy to make that claim, as we will see below...

Because hate is not logical.

Or how a bunch of Jew hater might want to rehabilitate the only political system to ever have enshrined the express of that hate as not only acceptable, but mandatory?

As above.

No, because fewer would mean a smaller "hoax" and therefore make them less disabolical.

Except for the teeny tiny fact that they did...

Your analogy fails in that haters don't *want* to make Jews welcome. They want the job to be finished this time.

There's the rub: "if".


*If* they weren't, perhaps not.

But they were, and so it is.

If they weren't, perhaps not? So truth can be antisemitic?

 

[Nick Terry]

If you studied the holocaust you would be able to tell us where a Nazi estimate might be found. How about a non-Nazi estimate? That one's a little trickier. Do you know where an estimate that doesn't rely on Nazi numbers can be found?

The JAQ-off routine is tiresome, Dogzilla. Please, make your points and defend them yourself instead of trying to get everyone else to dance to your tune.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I can google "Jaeger Report" as easily as anybody. I know the answer. I want you to tell us what it is. Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?

I've already summarized this for you. Twice. Stop trolling.

 

[Nick Terry]

With the holocaust, the defense destroys the evidence of somebody like Irene Zisblatt. So she can't be used as evidence. The defense moves on to the next witness. And then the next one. And then the next one. That's how you deal with the evidence as a whole. You eliminate all the bad evidence and go from there. Having lots and lots of weak evidence doesn't add up to strong evidence.

The problem is, you guys never get past destroying Zisblatt. Who hasn't been used in evidence in any court case or history book, so the value of destroying her account is rather doubtful to begin with.

 

[LemmyCaution]

If you studied the holocaust you would be able to tell us where a Nazi estimate might be found. How about a non-Nazi estimate? That one's a little trickier. Do you know where an estimate that doesn't rely on Nazi numbers can be found?

I guess irony isn't your strong suit.

Stop trolling. As others have said, if you have a point to make, make it. No games. Try to say what's on your mind. In a manner understandable to others who do not share your delusions.