General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Duh it does say "Robert"! Thanks.

I had to register as Robert because something went wrong when I tried to register under my actual first name. I was baptized Roberto in Bogotá, Colombia.

 

[000063]

For example, cm keeps trotting out Churchill, Eisenhower and DeGaulle as proof that there were no gas chambers. Which originated with Smith. When it is pointed out that there are any number of other things which those three also didn't mention which none-the-less happened (the truth cm didn't know until correction) he simply waits a while, then trots it out again. The first time was simple falsehood, even time subsequent has been a lie.

I disagree. Bias so severe you can't even see it is not a lie in the traditional sense. He simply is unable to consciously accept or remember that he is wrong. See "Einstein's" definition of insanity.

In that the term antisemitism is unique in this world as no religion or racial group has an specific identity such as antisemitism, it would seem that those hated have caused themselves to be hated, would it not?

Stange. That sentence looks exactly like English, yet seem to have no meaning whatsoever.

No, wait, I see it, you're saying its the Jews' fault people hate them. Why didn't you just say it plain?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I had to register as Robert because something went wrong when I tried to register under my actual first name. I was baptized Roberto in Bogotá, Colombia.

I am guessing - and hoping - that it's okay to stick with Roberto!

 

[LemmyCaution]

Has any participant in this thread actually read Churchill's multi-volume history of WWII?

 

[Dcdrac]

Has any participant in this thread actually read Churchill's multi-volume history of WWII?

I have its a poorly written collection but its historical value as his own account is of interest

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

Maybe not satisfy, but I would love to see his face when presented with the evidence he cries out for.

I do think there is a valid point that mass graves are exhumed in many cases to investigate war crimes from Katyn to Rwanda. So why not the Action Reinhard camps?

He showed his face. That comment is the reaction from Holocaust deniers when human remains are found on the site of a former extermination camp.
Does that satisfy you? Was that the face of a scientist merely interested in uncovering the truth? Do you think his expression will change when more remains are shown?

You didn't ask me what the title of Robin O'Neil's article was nor the name of the publication in which it appeared. Had you perhaps already checked what else was published? Did you check with Dr. O'Neil to see if other photos were taken? Did you consider whether or not the "request" for additional photos is just another pretense from people who have an interest in distorting what is or "should be" available in order to continue denying?

Roberto showed you Berg's face. Did you not "see" that during the radio debate that sparked your comment?

Earlier you wrote:

I can tell you now that top of my list of where I think revisionism/deniers have done a better job that historians is in the call for full, detailed, forensic achaelogical examinations of the Action Reinhard sites. In the radio debate between Roberto and Berg, Berg called for Roberto to get a spade and start digging and on that I agree. I have been a to a couple of digs, Roman remains found near where I live and in York of the Viking settlement there. The detail that can be found is huge and I think it is lacking at the AR sites. Sturdy-Coils made mention of finding traces of building remains with ground radar at Treblinka II as well as ground disturbance from digging. Why not drill and dig and uncover the archaeology and soil samples and answer revisionist/denier claims as well as enhancing historian's claims about the site?

There is a ton of evidence out there, it should be uncovered and not left buried.

And what percentage of a ton would satisfy your own curiosity, Nessie? One pound of flesh in the mail? Was that too emotive? Too gerdesian?

The implication of your comment appears to be that Roberto needed encouragement or prompting from Berg before he would consider that digging is a good idea. Why didn't you include Roberto's response to Berg's "suggestion" here?

Now you write that you wouldn't go out with a spade yourself but it was ok for Berg to make the suggestion on the radio for Roberto to do just that. With such flip flopping comments -do you understand why people have a hard time figuring out what it is you want here?

Roberto once again mentioned Richard Wright's work in Serniki and Patrick Desbois' work in Busk. You didn't. Why not? In your reply to me you mentioned Katyn and Rwanda. Why not Busk and Serniki?
You've again mentioned Katyn and Rwanda and although Roberto has written a summary of the debate on SSF you once again make no mention of Serniki or Busk.

When you posted on codoh did you happen to check how Holocaust deniers on there reacted to published photos of the completely exhumed mass graves in Serniki? A Holocaust denier troll once suggested a single book as the standard work on the topic of forensic archaeology. How do you think the troll reacted when it was pointed out that the book contained images of opened mass graves in Serniki?
Do you think any change in posting behavior registered afterwards?

Have you looked at the images? The photos published show no military insignia nor uniform buttons. Now that you've been alerted to the existence of that info will you contact Berg and inform the general public about the fallacious arguments and dubious rationalization attempts of deniers or does your encouragement not to "mislead" the general public only concern orthodox historians.

Aside from opening the mass graves how different were the archaeological surveys of the Viking settlement from the excavations done in Belzec?
Photos published with the summary report of the work done by Professor Kola et al showing artifacts recovered during excavation and core drilling in Belzec are routinely mocked by deniers. There aren't any military insignia or uniform buttons among them, though. Do you think Berg already knew that but forgot to tell the audience during the recent radio debate with Roberto? Do you think Holocaust deniers will put on a different face when you tell them about it? You will tell them, won't you?

Do you perhaps share Holocaust denier's "suspicion" that "The Jews" hide such images because they would expose "the hoax" if they printed "The real footage"?
Is that question too emotive? How about their suggestion? Strictly a form of scientific peer review? A view expressed by a few vocal thugs rapidly corrected by more restrained voices among the "Revisionists"?

I asked you: "Is he [Hargis] one of those you thought was better at requesting additional information than the historians who actually worked in these places? If he isn't, who is? Which denier(s) inspired you to write your comment quoted above? The comment which prompted Lemmy Caution to suggest to you that you should have a look at Roberto's articles on HC Blog?

 

[Nessie]

Or you could try to explain cogently what your real concern is. Instead of repeating vague allusions and fears and fuzziness.

You could also try to connect public ignorance to specialized work at these sites, work which, despite the headlines, is not necessarily for immediate public consumption nor even targeted to the gaps in public knowledge that concern you.

Or not.

Or I had genuine concerns (which did not mean much to you but meant a lot to me) and after a robust debate with your guys, I am not so concerned about anymore.

 

[TSR]

If you want to say it's irrelevant that they didn't mention gas chambers because they didn't mention many other things, you can make that argument.

And have. To great effect.

But you can't say that it's a lie to say they didn't mention gas chambers if they didn't mention gas chambers.

Nor have I.

Read for comprehenxion.

 

[Nessie]

Quick question, Nessie: are there significant gaps in specialist/scholar knowledge of the Holocaust and/or significant gaps in specialist/scholar basic understanding of the Holocaust?

I am not sure what you mean by that. Sorry.

 

[000063]

Has any participant in this thread actually read Churchill's multi-volume history of WWII?

I haven't.

 

[TSR]

I am not sure what you mean by that. Sorry.

These "gaps" you speak of: are the in the knowledge itself, or in the understanding of that knowledge, taken in the context of specialists in and scholars of the Holocaust?

Or is it both knowledge and understanding that are lacking?

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

I am not sure what you mean by that. Sorry.

One of the main recurring points Lemmy Caution was making -as I understood it- is that you raised but don't seem to want to defend anymore your claim that deniers are better at "requesting" certain things - like archaeological research. The suggestion is of course completely bogus. Lemmy Caution pointed out your ignorance of surveys which had already been conducted and wondered why you nevertheless expressed admiration for the impact deniers have on driving research forward. Their so-called important questions. Which in reality are neither questions nor in the vast majority of cases incentive to do research that would otherwise not have been done.

 

[Nessie]

Which minor details would those archeological digs correct in your opinion?
Do the benefits outweigh the emotional anguish of the relatives of the victims?
Do you believe the relatives of a murder victim whose killer has already been convicted would look favorable upon a request for an exhumation to correct some minor details as you formulated it?

Uke2se, I'm sorry to say it but I believe you are a bit too aggressive and dismissive at this point.

The archaeological digs and correction of minor details to improve general knowledge of the Holocaust are two separate issues.

I accept the arguments about exhumation of remains to establish better how many dead are at the site is not necessary.

What about archaeology of the buildings?

 

[Nessie]

......

Now you write that you wouldn't go out with a spade yourself but it was ok for Berg to make the suggestion on the radio for Roberto to do just that. With such flip flopping comments -do you understand why people have a hard time figuring out what it is you want here?

......

I do not see how saying I would not go out with a spade and dig myself, but would support calls for such to be done is flip flopping.

But it is a moot point anyway as I have accepted I was wrong in what I was arguing for.

 

[Nessie]

One of the main recurring points Lemmy Caution was making -as I understood it- is that you raised but don't seem to want to defend anymore your claim that deniers are better at "requesting" certain things - like archaeological research. The suggestion is of course completely bogus. Lemmy Caution pointed out your ignorance of surveys which had already been conducted and wondered why you nevertheless expressed admiration for the impact deniers have on driving research forward. Their so-called important questions. Which in reality are neither questions nor in the vast majority of cases incentive to do research that would otherwise not have been done.

That happened because I was initially far more impressed with revisionism/denial claims then than I am now.

I came here with the view that revisionism/denial had something worthwhile to say and contribute to the study of the Holocaust, especially as I had decided to ignore their language regarding hate and anti-semitism. That came about after my experience on the Sceptic Forum, especially with a revisionist/denier who called himself Bob.

So I did end up on the fence as it has been described here, an unusual place to be in Holocaust debates. Now after a good debate I am no longer on the fence and am looking forward to laying into revisionist/deniers with the rest of you.

(And maybe a few arguments between us or else it will be a bit dull )

 

[Moss]

The archaeological digs and correction of minor details to improve general knowledge of the Holocaust are two separate issues.

I accept the arguments about exhumation of remains to establish better how many dead are at the site is not necessary.

What about archaeology of the buildings?

I see no reason why the buildings shouldn't be analyzed and documented again, but I'm not sure if that will add new knowledge. But until it is done we won't know.
I quite frankly see no particular argument for or against it.

 

[Nessie]

These "gaps" you speak of: are the in the knowledge itself, or in the understanding of that knowledge, taken in the context of specialists in and scholars of the Holocaust?

Or is it both knowledge and understanding that are lacking?

No the gap I have referred to has always been between the basic story of the Holocaust that the public has and the knowledge of the scholars.

I think that is best represented by the Auschwitz plaque, which historians replaced with new more accurate figures of numbers killed, but the public is not be aware of that. This from Wikipedia's entry on Auschwitz about the original plaque

"and the Auschwitz State Museum itself displayed a figure of 4 million killed, but "[f]ew (if any) historians ever believed the Museum's four million figure".

So the public were given wrong information and historians knew about that.

But I accept that that is not a major issue.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I am not sure what you mean by that. Sorry.

Sorry for being obscure. In addition to the comments from TSR and Bluespaceoddity, I meant that you've mentioned concerns about non-specialist, popular information about the Holocaust and some errors in this material. I was trying to ask you if this is the extent of your concern with gaps and inaccuracies - or does your concern extend to scholarly treatment of the Holocaust? In other words, thinking of the body of work which scholars have done, as it has been revised and updated, do you have concerns about issues like "one name, with proof," Hitler's order, and others? Concerns that historians are inaccurate?

 

[Tomtomkent]

No the gap I have referred to has always been between the basic story of the Holocaust that the public has and the knowledge of the scholars.

I think that is best represented by the Auschwitz plaque, which historians replaced with new more accurate figures of numbers killed, but the public is not be aware of that. This from Wikipedia's entry on Auschwitz about the original plaque

"and the Auschwitz State Museum itself displayed a figure of 4 million killed, but "[f]ew (if any) historians ever believed the Museum's four million figure".

So the public were given wrong information and historians knew about that.

But I accept that that is not a major issue.

Sorry, but somebody who presumably works for a herritage site commissions a plaque with a reasonable estimate selected, for reasons we are unaware of, from a work who chooses a lower estimate than many scholars agree on, then corrects to a more accurate plaque when they discover the issue, is meant to be evidence of what?

That somebody working for a herritage site was misinformed? That the general public (most of whom can quote the six million figure) are misinformed? That there is in fact more than one opinion on interpretations of the evidence?

What point is it you are trying to make? That not everybody in the public has an indepth knowledge of this particular fragment of history? Then it is a good job we understand the word "layman", and that there are numerous books, papers, and media that are happy to offer the research, evidence and scholarly debates in lay-terms. How is this any different from any other subject?

 

[Nessie]

I see no reason why the buildings shouldn't be analyzed and documented again, but I'm not sure if that will add new knowledge. But until it is done we won't know.
I quite frankly see no particular argument for or against it.

As a means of educating the public, interest would grow in visiting the sites if there was more to look at.

Just as an aside, the England football team went to Auschwitz last week before they were knocked out of the Euros. Its about the only camp many know about, since it is so big and there is so much to see.