Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[A'isha]

So, you think revisionists' lies are actually not lies, because knowledgeable people are taking the time to actually point out just where and how their lies really are lies?

And when people don't contradict what revisionists claim (like the "nonexistent gas chamber" thing you were recently schooled on), it's because they know revisionists are really right...but when people do contradict what revisionists claim, it's also because they know revisionists are really right?

Kind of convenient for you, isn't it?

 

[twinstead]

So, you think revisionists' lies are actually not lies, because knowledgeable people are taking the time to actually point out just where and how their lies really are lies?

And when people don't contradict what revisionists claim (like the "nonexistent gas chamber" thing you were recently schooled on), it's because they know revisionists are really right...but when people do contradict what revisionists claim, it's also because they know revisionists are really right?

Kind of convenient for you, isn't it?

With debate mojo like that, he is guaranteed never to lose an argument!

 

[LemmyCaution]

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.

You aren't doing very well comprehending Nick Terry's main point, which he actually restated to help you after you went off on a tangent from his first post on this.

So here it is in boldface:

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 . . .

And university professors are not like those whom you characterize as

Most people [who] understand that time frame from headlines and Hitler's speeches in a foreign language and pictures . . .

The question isn't about people who don't know their history. It's about the people who do know their history, because the study of history is not only their profession but their special skill, their passion, and what they do. So please don't answer with your presumptions about the "average person" who doesn't study the Holocaust when Nick Terry was asking precisely about the complete isolation of denial among academics and professionals in the relevant fields.

Ok?

People who know history, empirically, utterly reject HD - people who know history think HD is a form of crankery. How come? Carry on.

 

[LemmyCaution]

With debate mojo like that, he is guaranteed never to lose an argument!

And yet somehow he manages to, over and over . . .

 

[Nick Terry]

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

It's precisely because Holocaust revisionism is nonsense that I while away the odd spare moment ridiculing deniers on JREF. It's true, I have in the past argued with deniers elsewhere, but haven't bothered with that for quite some time.

I joined JREF a good two years before you, but you have made twice the number of posts here than I have, and started more threads than me. I appreciate that you divide your limited mental energies between trolling about the Holocaust, 9/11 and anti-vaxxer nonsense, but if I were you, I'd be careful about making statements like 'you wouldn't be spending hour after hour on this site'. If any of your pet crankeries were true you wouldn't be here.

 

[Clayton Moore]

There are no points made by team Holocaust. They're just shills for Shoah Business.

It's precisely because Holocaust revisionism is nonsense that I while away the odd spare moment ridiculing deniers on JREF. It's true, I have in the past argued with deniers elsewhere, but haven't bothered with that for quite some time.

I joined JREF a good two years before you, but you have made twice the number of posts here than I have, and started more threads than me. I appreciate that you divide your limited mental energies between trolling about the Holocaust, 9/11 and anti-vaxxer nonsense, but if I were you, I'd be careful about making statements like 'you wouldn't be spending hour after hour on this site'. If any of your pet crankeries were true you wouldn't be here.

So that's what you're doing? And you accuse others of trolling?

 

[TSR]

.
Keep runnning, little boy.
.

 

[carlitos]

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

Much like the 9/11 truthers, merely engaging them gives them illusions of legitimacy. I bet that if the historians here just ignored these guys, they would go get their jollies by offending decent folk elsewhere. Just my 2¢.

 

[Moss]

There are no points made by team Holocaust. They're just shills for Shoah Business.



So that's what you're doing? And you accuse others of trolling?

Whereas the Holocaust Denial Industry seems to be handling the public relations for A. Hitler, H. Himmler and related criminals.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Their delusions of competency are fine with me so long as they make the kind of headway we see them making here and in other forums.

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

I don't know how not being Jewish would be beneficial to the study of history. Anybody who accepts faith as a legitimate epistemological tool is suspect in my book. But that would be the problem, not the particular faith the person follows. As long as the historian has sound arguments based upon solid evidence and at least appear as though they are objective, who cares?

A historian who is going to have a problem with putting aside the religion when wearing the scholar's hat is probably going to come across as very polemical or dogmatic or somehow reveal his bias. Laurence Rees, IIRC, has problems in that area which is why his stuff is better suited for pop-history.

Now if I had included say Historians like Raul Hilberg and Daniel Golhagen I wonder if you would regard that as relevent.?

Still wouldn't be relevant. Although if you said Hilberg wasn't Jewish I'd say you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Robrob]

There are no points made by team Holocaust. They're just shills for Shoah Business.

I find it interesting that the "not anti-Semite just anti-Zionist" crowd seems to view any rebuttal of their absurd POV as a shill for "Teh Joos."

 

[Mynott]

I don't know how not being Jewish would be beneficial to the study of history. Anybody who accepts faith as a legitimate epistemological tool is suspect in my book. But that would be the problem, not the particular faith the person follows. As long as the historian has sound arguments based upon solid evidence and at least appear as though they are objective, who cares?

A historian who is going to have a problem with putting aside the religion when wearing the scholar's hat is probably going to come across as very polemical or dogmatic or somehow reveal his bias. Laurence Rees, IIRC, has problems in that area which is why his stuff is better suited for pop-history.

He is graduate of of Oxford university and awarded an Honoury Doctorate from both Sheffield University and the London based Open University for his writings and Film documentaries on the Nazis and the Holocaust.Problems in that area? Pop History?. Has the Holohoax Indsustry produced any one of that stature? I take comfort from the fact that there is an enormous number of Gentile historians who support the veracity of the historical record relating to the Holocaust.




Still wouldn't be relevant. Although if you said Hilberg wasn't Jewish I'd say you don't know what you're talking about.

Never said he wasn't. Your confused.He is Jewish and that fact is a real problem to deniers I believe.They've ,of course ,gone out of their way to discredit and smear him.

 

[TSR]

.
I am asking that you either support your lie that "Every few years starting in early 1900's there would be some press report (often at the behest of the WJC) about millions of Jews suffering in Europe" or retract it. You then introduced the NYT archives as supporting this crap, but refuse to actually give a link.

Mostly because you haven't got one.

Instead. you offer instructions for a series of searches only slightly better than "Google it" in an attempt to shift the burden of proof (despite your whine that *my* answers should stand alone).

The other details necessarily follow from what you *did* say, and so we have 25 articles in the archive you referred to, found using the instructions you gave, and *still* you're running from a reasonable attempt to support the lie you posted.

It's something to do while you consider where you're going to move the goalposts about Klee...
.

.
Hey, DZ -- still waiting for those articles...
.

 

[Horatius]

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?

Nazi Moon, duh!

 

[Dogzilla]

Never said he wasn't. Your confused.He is Jewish and that fact is a real problem to deniers I believe.They've ,of course ,gone out of their way to discredit and smear him.

The fact that Hilburg is Jewish isn't a problem for anybody. Nobody goes out of their way to discredit him either. It's easy to discredit him. That's because he writes bad history, not because he's Jewish.

 

[TSR]

The fact that Hilburg is Jewish isn't a problem for anybody. Nobody goes out of their way to discredit him either. It's easy to discredit him. That's because he writes bad history, not because he's Jewish.

.
In what is "Destruction" bad history, since it's so easy?

Is it, say, as easy as claiming that every few years in the early 1900's the NYT published articles at the behest of an organization which didn't even exist yet?
.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Hey, DZ -- still waiting for those articles...
.

Keep waiting. When are you going to tell us when the good folks at Auschwitz admitted that their "gas chamber" isn't the way it looked in January 1945?

 

[TSR]

Keep waiting.

.
Nope. I'll just keep pointing out your inability to support the lie you posted.
.

When are you going to tell us when the good folks at Auschwitz admitted that their "gas chamber" isn't the way it looked in January 1945?

.
There was nothing to "admit".

Unlike you coming clean on the lie you posted about the NYT.
.

 

[Mynott]

The fact that Hilburg is Jewish isn't a problem for anybody. Nobody goes out of their way to discredit him either. It's easy to discredit him. That's because he writes bad history, not because he's Jewish.

I believe it is a problem to a great many Holohoaxers that Hilberg is Jewish. In what way precisely does he write bad history.? Do Richard Overy,Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw and may I add Martin Gilbert write bad history. ?