Holocaust Denial Videos

[Questioninggeller]

Nizkor seems to suggest that this was the case as they mention that there were such lamps presented at the prosecution.

In Shermer's book Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? he talks about that and how deniers use such myths to undermine actual historical work.

 

[gtc]

In Shermer's book Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? he talks about that and how deniers use such myths to undermine actual historical work.

I would like to know whether there were any actual examples of this happening. I realise it would not have been official policy but it doesn't mean that there wasn't one psychopath among the nazis who did it.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I would like to know whether there were any actual examples of this happening. I realise it would not have been official policy but it doesn't mean that there wasn't one psychopath among the nazis who did it.

Shermer cites one example. You can read about it starting on page 114, he specifically begins with the Donahue episode and discusses the evidence. Basically the key part is: "There is some evidence that at a site near the camp at Stutthof (about twenty-two miles east of Gdansk [Danzig]) the Nazis may have manufactured soap from human remains."

You can find Denying History at http://books.google.com then browse starting on page 114 to read.

 

[gtc]

Shermer cites one example. You can read about it starting on page 114, he specifically begins with the Donahue episode and discusses the evidence. Basically the key part is: "There is some evidence that at a site near the camp at Stuffhof (about twenty-two miles east of Gdansk [Danzig]) the Nazis may have manufactured soap from human remains."

You can find Denying History at http://books.google.com then browse starting on page 114 to read.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Questioninggeller]

If anyone is interested Budly started a new thread in skepticism and the paranormal about Shermer's appearance on Donahue discussing the Holocaust.

 

[Nick Terry]

You can't understand the holocaust myth without understanding Zionism. The idea of Jews moving to Israel was too farfetched even for many Jews at the turn of the century, because people already lived there: Palestinian Arabs.

Let's stop you right there and take this slooowly. You say, 'you can't understand the holocaust myth without understanding Zionism'. Firstly, talk about reversing conclusion and premise. Secondly, what does budly actually understand about Zionism?

Here's a really, really simple point that I have yet to see answered coherently by any Holocaust denier. In 1942, the Zionist movement met at the Biltmore Hotel in NY, and obviously commented on the ongoing crisis in Europe, which had seen Polish Jewry stripped of their property, expelled from professions and jobs, confined in ghettos, starved, and shunted around - all during 1939-41 and all costing 10s of 1000s of lives already in that phase.

Now, we're told none of this is actually denied by revisionists - leastaways, it would be a novelty to see one of them deny that people starved to death in the Warsaw ghetto or that 'some Jews' actually died in the war.

The conference was really significant because it marked the moment when US Jews began to be more predominantly Zionist than not. The reason for that was because of what had happend from 1933-1941, which was a pretty all round nasty crisis for any people to have to deal with, and certainly changed a lot of minds. So the attendees drew up the Biltmore Program, and asked for the repeal of the 1939 White Paper restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine - a consistent Zionist aim and one they never actually succeeded in bringing about, due to British intransigence.

At Biltmore, several major leaders in the Zionist movement, such as Chaim Weizmann, predicted that the war would bring losses of about 25%. One guy, Nahum Goldman, was more pessimistic and predicted greater losses, 'no more than two or three million' survivors out of 8 million. But the consensus was more in favour of a lower death toll than a higher one. They expected losses, but they did NOT expect the Holocaust as we now understand it.

This conference happened in May 1942, before a single piece of news about death camps emerged from Poland.

Here's the question: why would the Zionist movement deprive itself of willing emigrants to Israel by falsely claiming mass extermination? What was really in it for them to exaggerate the numbers? Wouldn't it, you know, be better to have more settlers to build up Israel?

 

[Nick Terry]

I got about two minutes into the video before this incredibly ugly drawl of a voice over started droning about something crazy (the person who did that voice over sounds like they have something wrong with them). I skipped forward and there was a diagram that linked the crusades with fighter jets via the holocaust. At which point I gave up.

LOL. When people first heard the denierbud videos, they got very quickly nicknamed Ugly Voice Productions.

 

[Tricky]

Merging a very similar thread from the General Skepticism subforum into this one.

Posted By: Tricky

 

[woolfe99]

Hi Pure Argent,

Buchenwald wasn't a deathcamp. Did you know that the majority of Buchenwald inmates were non-Jewish Germans? Buchenwald was a scene of a psyche warfare operation at the end of the war, where Americans convinced the world that human skin lampshades were made there.

But your knowledge about what you think the holocaust was (hint: it didn't happen in the West) shows how hard it is to convince someone the holocaust is a myth.

Steps to holocaust denial:
1) Know what historians believe in contrast to what the general public believes.
2) Realize the historians are wrong.

Budly is not 100% incorrect for a change. Buchenwald was not an extermination camp. It was a labor camp where lots of people died.

He is also correct to point out that there are numerous misconceptions about the Holocaust, and that people should first familiarize themselves with what historians have to say about it. However, I would reformulate his "Steps to holocaust denial" as "steps to rational inquiry about the Holocaust" thusly:

1. Educate yourself by reading a fair sampling of the available historiography.
2. Read and evaluate holocaust denial materials. Esp. compare and contrast the methodologies between the two.
3. Make a logical determination as to what you believe based on the aforementioned comparison/contrast.

Unfortunately, Budly's process not only skips step #2, but it isn't even an accurate description of the process that most deniers go through. It seems that the average internet denier has read maybe 1-2 books on the Holocaust, and in most cases read them after they convinced themselves of denial, not before. It also transpires that some haven't read a single book on the subject, except a denial book or two, and oddly enough, some haven't even read those! Rather, their entire universe of reading on the Holocaust consists of some online denialist materials. As a lot, they tend to be lazy and rather uninterested in history. And this includes many deniers who actively post to discussion boards.

The misconceptions that ordinary people have about the Holocaust are often repeated by deniers in an attempt to knock down straw men, and worse, deniers are actually the principle espousers of the some of these misconceptions. For example, try googling the phrase "6 million gassed." Now, we all know that 6 million people were not gassed. Historiography tells us that 5-6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, and that about 2.5-3 million were gassed (that means both gas vans and stationary gassing facilities.) Yet google will tell you that the phrase "6 million gassed" is, curiously, all over the internet, and it's deniers who are responsible for 80%+ of it. Imagine that, HDers account for maybe 3% of the population of western civilization, and they are at least 80% responsible for this misconception. Why is that? Because mistating historiography is a key modus operundi of HDers.

While "Budly" may be telling you to familiarize yourself with the historiography, a word to the wise: do not ever trust what an HDer tells you about what historians have written. Even when they quote directly from a book, make sure you have read the book or at least the surrounding passages for context.

- woolfe

 

[Budly]

I created that Michael Shermer new topic thread because discussing 9 hours of video from holocaust denial videos dot com seemed too broad to me. Plus before it was moved someone changed the title? I wanted to discuss the world's leading skeptic being gullible, regarding a phone caller's testimony.

I just noticed the 40? separate threads on Uri Geller, that were not merged into one thread on Uri Geller. Meanwhile I guess I have to discuss 9 hours of video on one thread.

 

[uk_dave]

Nazis do whine alot.

 

[Budly]

NIZKOR believes in lampshades.

Nizkor seems to suggest that this was the case as they mention that there were such lamps presented at the prosecution.

I don't know why NIZKOR has such a rock solid reputation of credibility. Because here is what they say. It begins with a denier assertion put in quotes:

"No lamp shades made of human skin?" False -- lampshades and other human-skin "ornaments" were introduced as evidence in both trials of Ilse Koch, and were shown to a U.S. Senate investigation committee in the late 40s. We know they were made of human skin because they bore tattoos, and because a microscopic forensic analysis of the items was performed. (A detailed page on this is being prepared.)

That is so wrong. And that's from NIZKOR. Amherst professor Lawrence Douglas has made fun of that US senate investigation committee. A guy, Kurt Sitte, came to the USA with a shrunken head to show congressmen in hopes they would advocate prosecuting Ilse Koch and be against Lucius Clay's commutation of her sentence. Sitte, was many years later arrested by the Israeli secret police for spying...nevermind, that's off topic.

Even Holocaust Believers here are saying "no lampshades" but that is at odds with what NIZKOR says. LOL. And Ilse Koch? She would be the one crazy person who made lampshades supposedly, but as the video Buchenwald shows, she wasn't even present at the camp for the last two years. And the lampshade supposedly came from the camp when it was liberated.

Then there's the human soap which Shermer mentioned in his book: A man affiliated with with the HolocaustControversies blogspot named Joachim Neander thoroughly debunked that historical myth.

If you don't watch the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com, you are going to go around and around, being bamboozled with *credible* people like Shermer, or NIZKOR vouching for soap and lampshades.

And Nick Terry: What's the connection between the holocaust myth and zionism? See the episode of One Third of the Holocaust called Reader's Digest. I think you're being disingenuous if you claim you can't see a connection. Surely you know about Jabotinsky; an that the biggest movement in 1930's Jewish Europe was Zionism, and that in the 1930's there were Zionist high schools in Europe. Rather, you present Zionism almost as a 1942 sea change in the USA Jewish community. The life of Golda Meir would show a different view: she went to high school in Milwaukee before becoming president or Israel, and had gone to Israel well before 1942.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I created that Michael Shermer new topic thread because discussing 9 hours of video from holocaust denial videos dot com seemed too broad to me. Plus before it was moved someone changed the title? I wanted to discuss the world's leading skeptic being gullible, regarding a phone caller's testimony.

I just noticed the 40? separate threads on Uri Geller, that were not merged into one thread on Uri Geller. Meanwhile I guess I have to discuss 9 hours of video on one thread.

The thread was merged because you had two threads on the same topic (your videos). Earlier in this thread I wanted to discuss the Shermer video, but you stopped when you refused to explain why you dimissed a source you called "valid." Whereas, different threads on Geller are about different aspects of Geller (different tricks, performances, media and so on) started by different people.

 

[elbe]

If you don't watch the videos at holocaust denial videos dot com, you are going to go around and around, being bamboozled with *credible* people like Shermer, or NIZKOR vouching for soap and lampshades.

Either that's definitive proof that the holocaust never happened, or it's spam for that site. If only I could figure out which is most likely...

 

[gtc]

discussing 9 hours of video from holocaust denial videos dot com seemed too broad to me.

It obviously didn't seem too broad to you when you started this thread to discuss those 9 hours of video.

 

[tuc0]

Then why don't you respond in that thread instead of spamming yet another subforum?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Was this the Paranormal branch of the Schutzstaffel, or are we in the wrong forum?

 

[Nick Terry]

And Nick Terry: What's the connection between the holocaust myth and zionism? See the episode of One Third of the Holocaust called Reader's Digest. I think you're being disingenuous if you claim you can't see a connection.

Oooh, is that the episode where denierbud quote-mines an article by Ben Hecht from 1943 in which the following is stated:

There will be no representatives of the 3,000,000 Jews who once lived in Poland, or of the 900,000 who once lived in Rumania, or of the 900,000 who once lived in Germany, or of the 750,000 who once lived in Hungary, or of the 150,000 who once lived in Czechoslovakia, or of the 400,000 who once lived in France, Holland and Belgium.

Of these 6,000,000 Jews almost a third have already been massacred by Germans, Rumanians and Hungarians, and the most conservative of the scorekeepers estimate that before the war ends at least another third will have been done to death.

These totals will not include Jews who died in the brief battles of the German blitzes; nor those who figure in the casualty lists of the Russians. Of the 3,000,000 Jews in Russia, more than 700,000 have entered the Soviet armies and fought and bled on all the valorous battlefields of the Muscovites. These are the lucky Jews of Europe and are not to be counted in the tale of their nightmare.

and denierbud fails basic maths, geography and literacy tests?

He mentioned something about six million, I believe. Perhaps you'd care to share this startling insight with the forum, now that they have the original text in front of them and can see whether denierbud was representing the text correctly.

Surely you know about Jabotinsky;

Surely you realise that Revisionist Zionism was not the mainstream of Zionism and indeed, that its political descendants didn't even get power until the 1970s in Israel.

an that the biggest movement in 1930's Jewish Europe was Zionism, and that in the 1930's there were Zionist high schools in Europe.

OH RLY?

Well, in Central and Western Europe Zionism wasn't much of a big deal compared to assimilationist liberalism, and only grew a little in the 1930s due to... Hitler. Lots of German Jews emigrated to Palestine and hated it there; they were known as yekkes by the existing community. Many re-emigrated after the war.

In Poland, Zionism had a greater appeal, but was still generally outpolled in communal elections by the Bund. Heard of the Bund, budly? That's quite aside from the sway of Orthodox, non-Zionist religious parties.

Indeed, when the Warsaw ghetto action started, representatives from no fewer than 22 political factions met inside the ghetto to discuss it.

Clearly, this was a community in utter lockstep.

Rather, you present Zionism almost as a 1942 sea change in the USA Jewish community.

In terms of the US Jewish community, 1942 was the start of a sea change because Zionism finally achieved majority status in what was an extremely divided Jewish community. Indeed, US Zionists spent more time in 1942-44 securing their command of the US Jewish community than they did in worrying about what was going on in Europe; in the much smaller British Jewish community, factional disputes also took up a lot of energy.

The one group to pay especial attention in the US to what was going on in Europe, the Bergsonites, who were Revisionist Zionists, emphasised rescue. But even the Bergsonites didn't claim anything different regarding what was happening to other Zionist factions, or indeed anyone else.

If you'd read fairly standard accounts of this era by David Wyman (The Abandonment of the Jews), or Richard Bolchover (British Jewry and the Holocaust), you'd know this.

But this is all by the by.

Here is the question you dodged, restated: why would Zionists deprive themselves of much-needed manpower by claiming a grossly exaggerated death toll?

Every extra emigrant after 1945 could mean a potential soldier to create Israel in the obviously coming conflict with the Arabs. I'm sure even denierbud and his earthly representative have seen the maps of Israel's borders in 1948....

And it's not like claiming a certain figure necessarily had any impact on the great powers.

There does not seem to be any magic threshold past which the world went, 'oh, poor Jews, let's give them the homeland that the British already promised in 1917 and which was the subject of so many commissions, Royal and international. In fact, oh look, the poor Jews claim they lost 5.7 million people in the war so we'll refuse them partition in the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946'

The British, who are fairly crucial to denial's risible thesis because of their alleged torture of Hoess, an alleged torture so effective it carried on working even after he was transferred to American and then communist Polish captivity, remained resolutely unmoved on the issue of Palestine immigration quotas from 1939 through to 1948. Not one claim of mass slaughter made the slightest difference to the Foreign Office or Colonial Office in this era when it came to their Palestine policy.

The life of Golda Meir would show a different view: she went to high school in Milwaukee before becoming president or Israel, and had gone to Israel well before 1942.

You know, it would really help convince other people if you didn't resort to obvious fallacies of hasty generalisation and, frankly, say such obviously decontextualised, stupid things.

The statistics for the number of American Jews emigrating to Palestine in the interwar period are...? And as a proportion of the US Jewish population...? And compared to the votes secured in communal elections in the 1930s versus the 1940s...?

I'll guarantee you that Zionists attracted a larger share of the US Jewish communal electoral votes than they inspired American Jews to emigrate to Palestine. So your fact is entirely devoid of relevance or context.


But please, carry on digging. This has all been most marvellously entertaining for connoisseurs of wrongness like me.

 

[Tricky]

The decision to merge the "Aryan Studs" thread with this one has been reversed. That thread is now in the History subforum here.

Posted By: Tricky

 

[abenja1]

I still would like to know how far Budly's free speech spectrum stretches and whether he thinks the Holocaust should be allowed to be talked about.