Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[FluffyPersian]

And the subtitle of Sereny's biography of Speer: "His Battle with Truth."

Sure, Speer lied about a lot of things. Also, Sereny talks about how he begged her not to address the topic of the Jews (ie what she knew) with his wife, so he probably went so far as to tell her (his wife) about what was going on. I'm just curious about why Goldhagen didn't think to ask Schirach (or other attendants) whether Speer had been there after Speer gave his alibi.

Since that time, other stuff has come out--including the letter to the resistance leader's wife that TSR linked to and the Auschwitz expansion plans with Speer's name on them.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,355376,00.html

 

[LSSBB]

And the subtitle of Sereny's biography of Speer: "His Battle with Truth."

I remember reading Speer's autobiography in Middle School. I spoke with a relative about it, saying Speer wasn't all that bad, and her response was "You believe that?" Someone believed him, since he was eventually freed, and last year after reading that letter where he admitted being present at Himmler's speech, I learned that the autobiography just shows how good a liar he was.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I suppose dogzilla , Clayton Moore etc are familiar with the works of eminent Historians Laurence Rees, Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Alan Bullock and Christopher Browning of whom the historicity of the Holocaust is unquestioned.?
And I can reassure them that as far as am aware all are, "Juden Frei"!

Thanks. I never knew Einstein was a racist and a plagiarist

Jewish Racism: In Rejoinder to "Judenfrei"

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/07/in-rejoinder-to-judenfrei.html

 

[BaaBaa]

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/07/in-rejoinder-to-judenfrei.html

Anybody using the term 'khazar' is busy in the baking of porky pies.

 

[TSR]

I never knew Einstein was a racist and a plagiarist

.
He wasn't.

And what does this have to do with the post you quoted?

When are you going to address your "Nazis never admitted to gas chambers" and related lies?
.

 

[Dogzilla]

I suppose dogzilla , Clayton Moore etc are familiar with the works of eminent Historians Laurence Rees, Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Alan Bullock and Christopher Browning of whom the historicity of the Holocaust is unquestioned.?
And I can reassure them that as far as am aware all are, "Juden Frei"!

These historians are all free of Jews? Do you mean they're not Jewish? Is that relevant?

 

[FluffyPersian]

" Someone believed him, since he was eventually freed, and last year after reading that letter where he admitted being present at Himmler's speech, I learned that the autobiography just shows how good a liar he was.

Speer received a 20 year sentence and was released on schedule. From what I've read in Sereny, as well as in Eugene Davidson's Trial of the Germans, Speer beat the death sentence because (i) his educated, middle class demeanor impressed the judges (along with various contemporary historians, like Trevor-Roper), (ii) he managed to pin the blame for the slave labor program on his less articulate subordinate, Sauckel, and (iii) his refusal to obey the scorched earth orders and the fact that he had considered assassinating Hitler impressed the tribunal. More generally, his strategy of taking responsibility for the crimes of the regime while claiming he didn't know about them worked.

The prosecution was not aware that he or von Schirach had been present at the Posen meeting. If this had been known, both would likely have been hanged. (As it was, von Schirach was not convicted on count 4 at all!)

 

[Mynott]

These historians are all free of Jews? Do you mean they're not Jewish? Is that relevant?

I t was away of drawing attention to the fact that they are Non Jewish. It can be relevant as far as deniers like you are concerned. It might aid in their vericity and relevancy as far as you and your fellow deniers might feel.
Now if I had included say Historians like Raul Hilberg and Daniel Golhagen I wonder if you would regard that as relevent.?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I t was away of drawing attention to the fact that they are Non Jewish. It can be relevant as far as deniers like you are concerned. It might aid in their vericity and relevancy as far as you and your fellow deniers might feel.

Any historian or academic who would dare disagree with team Holocaust would be ostracized and out of a job. They're nothing more than goyim servants to their masters.

 

[Mynott]

Any historian or academic who would dare disagree with team Holocaust would be ostracized and out of a job. They're nothing more than goyim servants to their masters.

I would appreciate if you you would focus on the issue I raised. If I quoted Richard Overy rather than say Raul Hilberg it would have, in my view, considerable bearing on its relevancy with a great. many holohoaxers.
Jews are liars in their estimation. Gentiles, well um.... er..

 

[TSR]

Any historian or academic who would dare disagree with team Holocaust would be ostracized and out of a job. They're nothing more than goyim servants to their masters.

.
If this were true, what does it say about your whine regarding "not stepping over the line" by mentioning the gas chambers, which is all part of the supposed hoax you pretend exists? Were Ike, Winnie, Charles, Rod out of their jobs?

You can't have it both ways, hater.

And how about documenting those people on the list I gave you who lost use of their testicles, hmmmn?
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Sure, Speer lied about a lot of things. Also, Sereny talks about how he begged her not to address the topic of the Jews (ie what she knew) with his wife, so he probably went so far as to tell her (his wife) about what was going on. I'm just curious about why Goldhagen didn't think to ask Schirach (or other attendants) whether Speer had been there after Speer gave his alibi.

Since that time, other stuff has come out--including the letter to the resistance leader's wife that TSR linked to and the Auschwitz expansion plans with Speer's name on them.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,355376,00.html

Thanks for this article link, hadn't seen it. A book that does a good job demolishing the Speer self-myth, as you describe in your post #8907, is Kershaw's recent history of the end of the Reich, The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1944-1945, where Speer is represented as as an ambitious true believer and one of a quartet helping Germany hold out until doing so was insane self-destruction; Kershaw, to take one example, shows that, in addition to what Speer cited to exonerate himself, in March '45 he submitted a memorandum advocating continuing the fight at the Rhine, which he never mentioned in his self-exculpatory memoir. (The focus being '44-'45, after the attempt on the Fuhrer's life, I don't recall Posen's being mentioned and doubt it was.)

 

[LemmyCaution]

Any historian or academic who would dare disagree with team Holocaust would be ostracized and out of a job. They're nothing more than goyim servants to their masters.

If his or her field were history, and he or she made arguments like those of Dogzilla, Saggy, Clayton, or LGR on this thread, almost certainly. Just as would be a member of a medical faculty who built an orgone accumulator and peddled it as a cancer cure. And rightly so, by the way.

 

[Nick Terry]

Elsewhere we had a 300-post discussion provoked by the following question

It is an empirical fact that Holocaust revisionism is not taken seriously by any Western university history department, the books and articles are not assigned as teaching materials unless the course is focused specifically on something like the far right, or pseudohistory. Revisionism is utterly excluded from this environment.

Question for both sides but especially for revisionists: why? Logically, this can either be to do with university historians or to do with revisionism, or both in some combination. The predictable partisan response is to heap all the "blame" onto the other side, for example deniers furiously attacking historians and fulminating about laws that don't affect American history departments. This absolves the deniers of admitting any failings, of course.

So, what do the deniers and non-deniers say? Is revisionism 95% to blame for its failure to convince anyone in university history departments because it is crap, or are historians 90% to blame for failing to appreciate the genius of the gurus?

Regular readers of this thread may find it enlightening to see the denier responses to this question, since (a) some of them are marginally more literate than some of the deniers on this thread and (b) the answers are no better than the ones we're going to get on here.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Elsewhere we had a 300-post discussion provoked by the following question

Quote:

It is an empirical fact that Holocaust revisionism is not taken seriously by any Western university history department, the books and articles are not assigned as teaching materials unless the course is focused specifically on something like the far right, or pseudohistory. Revisionism is utterly excluded from this environment.

Question for both sides but especially for revisionists: why? Logically, this can either be to do with university historians or to do with revisionism, or both in some combination. The predictable partisan response is to heap all the "blame" onto the other side, for example deniers furiously attacking historians and fulminating about laws that don't affect American history departments. This absolves the deniers of admitting any failings, of course.

So, what do the deniers and non-deniers say? Is revisionism 95% to blame for its failure to convince anyone in university history departments because it is crap, or are historians 90% to blame for failing to appreciate the genius of the gurus?

Regular readers of this thread may find it enlightening to see the denier responses to this question, since (a) some of them are marginally more literate than some of the deniers on this thread and (b) the answers are no better than the ones we're going to get on here.

You've got it backwards. The furious response of team Holocaust to protect something with such empirical evidence is akin to a small powerful town group crying wolf. Wave after wave of team Holocaust fledglings appear to cry wolf with the regulars in support of empirical evidence.

Since when does empirical evidence of an alleged event, 70 years past, need avid support?

So why team Holocaust?

To fan the flames. And to defend the lies by SHOUTING down the truth.

If the Holocaust team's version was the truth they wouldn't be here 24/7 defending it.

 

[TSR]

So why team Holocaust?

.
Yes, why do you need to pretend there is a "team Holocaust" as opposed to a bunch of people simply pointing out the lies you continuously post?

Most recently, that anyone on the list of perpetrators I gave had lost use of their testicles, which lie you posted in support of the post where you lied about no Nazis having mentioned the gas chambers, which was posted in support of your delusion that the Holocaust never happened, which then is twisted to justify your visceral hatred which compels you to feel the Jews deserved it anyway.

And you whine about anyone else lying?

When was the last time a denier published anything that wasn't poorly writen, shoddily researched, and just plain wrong?

When was the last time you gave a straightforward answer to any question which was put to you that didn't end up being quote mined, manufactured from fantasy or supported by anything other than your hate?
.

 

[Nick Terry]

Quote:

You've got it backwards. The furious response of team Holocaust to protect something with such empirical evidence is akin to a small powerful town group crying wolf. Wave after wave of team Holocaust fledglings appear to cry wolf with the regulars in support of empirical evidence.

Since when does empirical evidence of an alleged event, 70 years past, need avid support?

So why team Holocaust?

To fan the flames. And to defend the lies by SHOUTING down the truth.

If the Holocaust team's version was the truth they wouldn't be here 24/7 defending it.

The same could be said for every contentious idea that is advocated on here. By your logic, we must embrace every single conspiracy theory and fringe belief because there are people on JREF who disagree with nutters. The nutters are right because people oppose them 24/7.

Accordingly, the earth is flat, nuclear power is a hoax, homeopathy works, JFK was assassinated by 47 gunmen from 22 different angles, the moon landings were faked and the earth is only 7,000 years old. QED.

Every single fringe idea is greeted skeptically here. Holocaust revisionism is no exception. You have failed completely to demonstrate why that particular belief is any different to any of the other nutty beliefs we see on here.

You also failed to address the post to which you were supposedly responding. I stated on another forum that it is a simple fact that in university history departments, Holocaust revisionism is utterly rejected. Those departments are not JREF. University historians don't care what goes on here, except if they are researching fringe beliefs (like me).

Your opposition here consists of a few people who enjoy debunking nutters. The rest of the forum thinks you're insanely stupid, and ignores you. The wider world thinks you're insanely stupid, and ignores you. The overwhelming majority of people who accept the Holocaust as a historical fact are not to be found on this thread.

There are in fact very few people on the internet who will give deniers so much as the time of day to tell them they have got it wrong. Everyone else just tells you to eff off.

That's the reality you're ignoring so desperately.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The same could be said for every contentious idea that is advocated on here. By your logic, we must embrace every single conspiracy theory and fringe belief because there are people on JREF who disagree with nutters. The nutters are right because people oppose them 24/7.

Accordingly, the earth is flat, nuclear power is a hoax, homeopathy works, JFK was assassinated by 47 gunmen from 22 different angles, the moon landings were faked and the earth is only 7,000 years old. QED.

Every single fringe idea is greeted skeptically here. Holocaust revisionism is no exception. You have failed completely to demonstrate why that particular belief is any different to any of the other nutty beliefs we see on here.

You also failed to address the post to which you were supposedly responding. I stated on another forum that it is a simple fact that in university history departments, Holocaust revisionism is utterly rejected. Those departments are not JREF. University historians don't care what goes on here, except if they are researching fringe beliefs (like me).

Your opposition here consists of a few people who enjoy debunking nutters. The rest of the forum thinks you're insanely stupid, and ignores you. The wider world thinks you're insanely stupid, and ignores you. The overwhelming majority of people who accept the Holocaust as a historical fact are not to be found on this thread.

There are in fact very few people on the internet who will give deniers so much as the time of day to tell them they have got it wrong. Everyone else just tells you to eff off.

That's the reality you're ignoring so desperately.

Yeah sure.

If Holocaust revisionism was nonsense you wouldn't be spending hour after hour on this site and RODOH and possibly other sites.

I'm guessing the posting ratio here is about 25 to 1. Almost 10,000 posts on this thread.

As for the mistaken multitude of believers, they are victims of planned ignorance to keep the Holocaust lies afloat.

I liken the overwhelming Holocaust ignorance on a general lack of information about the meat and potatoes of what happened in Germany and Europe before during and after WW2. Most people understand that time frame from headlines and Hitler's speeches in a foreign language and pictures of sick, starving people and unburied corpses of people who perished from disease and starvation.



Snapshots are rarely the big picture.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Speaking of Posen . . . and "what supposedly became of" the Jews of a "small village outside a town named Szekesfehervar" . . . About two or three months after his notorious speech at Posen, and five or six months before the deportation of Jews from Szekesfehervar and the area surrounding to Auschwitz, Himmler addressed the 13th SS Mountain Division, a division composed mostly of Bosnian Muslims to fight partisans in Yugoslavia, with these words:

Why should anything come between Muslims in Europe and in the whole world and us Germans? We have the same aims. There can be no more solid a basis for living together than common aims and common ideals. For 200 years Germany has not had the slightest cause for friction with Islam [ . . . ] Now we Germans and you in this division, you Muslims, share a common feeling of gratitude that God—you call him Allah, but it’s the same—has sent our tormented European nations the Führer, the Führer who will rid first Europe and then the whole world of the Jews, these enemies of our Reich, who robbed us of victory in 1918 so that the sacrifice of two million dead was in vain. They are also your enemies, for the Jew has been your enemy from time immemorial.

So, if Jews, as deniers allege, were being removed from Europe and resettled somewhere (we have yet to learn where) in the East, what was Himmler's meaning here when he told the soldiers of the 13th SS Mountain Division that the Fuhrer's aim was to rid not only Europe but "the whole world of the Jews"? To where were the Jews of the whole world, including the nebulous East, to be evacuated and resettled?

Himmler speech, BAB, NS 19/4013, 11 January 1944

 

[LemmyCaution]

Yeah sure.

If Holocaust revisionism was nonsense you wouldn't be spending hour after hour on this site and RODOH and possibly other sites.

I'm guessing the posting ratio here is about 25 to 1. Almost 10,000 posts on this thread.

Consider that some people, not very many, just don't want to see you guys get away with what you're trying to pull.