Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 09:27

Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial

#1

Post by GFM2000 » 20 Mar 2002, 08:58

I have listened long at the arguements by Roberto and Scott, and still find some difficulty at drawing the fine line between skeptism and holocaust denial.

I, for one, strongly believe in skeptism, if only because through the questioning of our "censored" version of history were we able to deduce some true facts about war crimes committed during WWII. For example, if we were to merely accept what we were taught, we would believe that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazis rather than the Russians. Conversely, there are many ultra-skeptics who believe that the holocaust never happened, simply because there is no physical evidence of the deaths and destruction of millions that remain today.

Does anyone have any input?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial

#2

Post by Roberto » 20 Mar 2002, 11:46

GFM2000 wrote:I have listened long at the arguements by Roberto and Scott, and still find some difficulty at drawing the fine line between skeptism and holocaust denial.

I, for one, strongly believe in skeptism, if only because through the questioning of our "censored" version of history were we able to deduce some true facts about war crimes committed during WWII. For example, if we were to merely accept what we were taught, we would believe that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazis rather than the Russians. Conversely, there are many ultra-skeptics who believe that the holocaust never happened, simply because there is no physical evidence of the deaths and destruction of millions that remain today.

Does anyone have any input?
GFM,

Who taught you that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazis rather than the Russians?

And who told you there is no physical evidence? There's quite a lot, as a matter of fact. You may read about some of it under the following links:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... linka.9605

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.py?camps/ausc ... rning-pits

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/akt ... l_Report//

My opinion is that skepticism ceases to deserve the name when it is not backed up by any evidence. "Skepticism" based on thin air and wishful thinking is not skepticism. It's ideology. A "skeptic" who cannot provide convincing answers to questions like those asked in my post # 1358 (1/25/02 10:36:23 pm) on the thread

Eyewitness Testimony
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =1&stop=20

is just a charlatan trying to sell ideologically motivated propaganda.


User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

A hat is a just a fish by another name...

#3

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Mar 2002, 16:01

...and other examples in logical inversion.
Medorjurgen wrote: My opinion is that skepticism ceases to deserve the name when it is not backed up by any evidence. "Skepticism" based on thin air and wishful thinking is not skepticism. It's ideology.
No, you've got it backwards. A skeptic does not try to prove a negative. At worst he tries to test or disprove someone else's hypothesis. Merely accepting a popular hypothesis as fact, is not critical-thinking or skepticism, which demands proof that works in the real world.

And attempting to muzzle debate is dogma. Thoughtcrime is Death.
A "skeptic" who cannot provide convincing answers to questions like those asked in my post # 1358 (1/25/02 10:36:23 pm) on the thread

Eyewitness Testimony
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =1&stop=20

is just a charlatan trying to sell ideologically motivated propaganda.
Sell what? For what? And to whom? It is not my job to prop-up an idol with feet of clay. Yours is the metaphysical position which would like to forget about exacting proof and embarassing details and focus on the moral of the story, a philosophy which I could care less about.

That's right. Nazis Baaad. We Goood.

Now children, after you've all played gas-your-neighbor, we'll go get ice cream. Pretty scary. Sort of like detergent in the brain.
:roll: :roll:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#4

Post by Roberto » 20 Mar 2002, 17:03

<<...and other examples in logical inversion.>>

Which Smith is great at, if somewhat unconvincing.

++My opinion is that skepticism ceases to deserve the name when it is not backed up by any evidence. "Skepticism" based on thin air and wishful thinking is not skepticism. It's ideology.++

<<No, you've got it backwards. A skeptic does not try to prove a negative. At worst he tries to test or disprove someone else's hypothesis.>>

By those standards, I’m a skeptic. Smith’s hypothesis is that the AR camps were not killing grounds, but work camps or transit camps where people were deloused and robbed of their valuables and clothes before being taken somewhere else. I test the first hypothesis by asking what construction projects could possibly have eaten up almost 1.3 million people within less than a year, a question that leaves him mute. I test the second hypothesis by asking Smith those good old questions to which he responds with beaten articles of faith or not at all:

1. Court experts and historians who have assessed the documentary evidence concluded that all pertinent documents – correspondence among officials as well as train schedules, timetables and other transportation documents – clearly point to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka as the final destinations. There is not a single document, however detailed, that even hints at the Jews taken to these camps going any further. Why would this be so if the camps were “transit camps” en route to the occupied territories of the Soviet Union?

2. The rail line leading to Treblinka was a sidetrack of the line going from Warsaw to Bialystok in Northeast Poland. Bialystok was the closest point to the Soviet Union, anyone from Treblinka being resettled in the Soviet occupied territory had to pass through there. Yet a German railroad table for Bialystok shows Jews being taken from there to Treblinka, with the empty cars returning to Bialystok. In other words, they were being moved away from the Soviet territories by being sent to Treblinka. Why was this so?

3. The resettlement of ca. 1.5 million people in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union would have been a complex operation, requiring hundreds if not thousands of German officials to carry it out and at least as many people involved in building projects. Yet no one has ever come forward to testify about such a resettlement, even though this would have made an ideal defense at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and subsequent trials. Former high-ranking transportation specialists in Germany during the war did not offer Soviet resettlement as a defense in post-war trials, even though they denied having known the real purpose of the train transport. No war crimes defendant actually offered resettlement as a defense, even those who denied knowledge of the genocide. Why was this so?

4. As becomes apparent from a number of documents regarding the “economic aspects” of “Operation Reinhard” (alternatively spelled “Reinhardt” or “Reinhart”, I’ll use the “Reinhard” spelling for convenience in the following), the Jews taken to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka were stripped of all their belongings there, including their clothing. Why would that have been done if they were going to be resettled – unless “resettlement” was to be to a place where they would need no clothing anymore?

5. Why would the Nazis, concerned as they were about preserving their own resources and robbing the Jews of everything they had, have invested large sums of money – far more than the costs of the killing operation, which are exactly known from Globocnik’s correspondence with Himmler – into a resettlement project? Or are the Jews supposed to have been simply shoved across the border and left there to die of starvation, exposure and disease? If so, wouldn’t that be similar to the way Stalin got rid of the “kulaks” and no less a crime than the mass killing at the extermination camps?


See my post # 1358 (1/25/02 10:36:23 pm) on the thread
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =1&stop=20

<<Merely accepting a popular hypothesis as fact, is not critical-thinking or skepticism, which demands proof that works in the real world.>>

Exactly, Mr. Smith. Merely accepting that hundreds of thousands of people just vanished without a trace in the “Russian East” because it fits into your bubble is not critical thinking or skepticism, which demands the ample proof that such a large population movement would have left behind in the real world.

<<And attempting to muzzle debate is dogma.>>

Sure. That’s why Smith usually responds to arguments with hollow platitudes and articles of faith, like an Islamic scholar citing the Koran whenever he doesn’t know what to say.

<<Thoughtcrime is Death.>>

In Orwell’s 1984 it was, for sure. But to call extremist hate speech that will get you a stiff fine or a moderate prison sentence in some countries at worst “Thoughtcrime” is an insult to good old George and a royal display of paranoia, as I see it.

++A "skeptic" who cannot provide convincing answers to questions like those asked in my post # 1358 (1/25/02 10:36:23 pm) on the thread

Eyewitness Testimony
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =1&stop=20

is just a charlatan trying to sell ideologically motivated propaganda.++

<<Sell what?>>

Apology of the National Socialist regime, Holocaust denial.

<<For what?>>

To hurt them bloody Jews and to help bring back National Socialism as an acceptable political alternative to the despised “Democracy-Capitalism”.

<<And to whom?>>

To fellow True Believers and suckers along the way.

<<It is not my job to prop-up an idol with feet of clay.>>

Well, buddy, you sure keep trying like you were getting paid for it.

<<Yours is the metaphysical position which would like to forget about exacting proof and embarassing details and focus on the moral of the story, a philosophy which I could care less about.>>

Dead wrong, buddy. Mine is the position supported by documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence. Yours is the one that kicks up a row on account of details that are irrelevant rather than embarrassing in order to cover up its woeful inability to answer to relevant, inconvenient and embarrassing questions like those mentioned above.

<<That's right. Nazis Baaad. We Goood.>>

The issue is not good or bad. The issue is evidence on the one hand and “Revisionist” Faith on the other.

<<Now children, after you've all played gas-your-neighbor, we'll go get ice cream. Pretty scary. Sort of like detergent in the brain.>>

Detergent is what Smith’s brain seems to be full of. Detergent to wash the many bloody stains off the Führer’s uniform.

User avatar
Rob S.
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 18 Mar 2002, 03:02
Location: USA
Contact:

#5

Post by Rob S. » 20 Mar 2002, 17:56

Sorry about interupting your argument but both are forms of revisionism. Marcus has made it clear that holocaust revisionism is not allowed.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#6

Post by Dan » 20 Mar 2002, 18:03

Marcus has allowed these debates to go on for months, and he doesn't need a nosey little fellow like you to run his forum.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#7

Post by Roberto » 20 Mar 2002, 18:03

Wehr2 wrote:Sorry about interupting your argument but both are forms of revisionism. Marcus has made it clear that holocaust revisionism is not allowed.
What do you mean by "both"?

User avatar
Rob S.
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 18 Mar 2002, 03:02
Location: USA
Contact:

#8

Post by Rob S. » 21 Mar 2002, 04:33

Both skepticism and denial are forms of Holocaust revisionism. Personally I don't really care either way, so long as it doesn't become a battle of emotions and finger pointing, but in Germany skepticism can leave you in prison :cry:

User avatar
MrFurious
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 03:15

#9

Post by MrFurious » 21 Mar 2002, 04:48

Wehr2 wrote:...in Germany skepticism can leave you in prison :cry:
Yeah they removed the swastika, but that was it. Still the same old story.

Holocaust denial is pretty idiotic, but too many things are already illegal in Germany. Freedom of speech should be available there, even for :evil: like Holocaust deniers.

User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 09:27

#10

Post by GFM2000 » 21 Mar 2002, 10:36

Hi Roberto,

"Who taught you that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazis rather than the Russians?"

I'd read a few books discussing the history of the Katyn massacre, where it stressed that the Russians tried to blame the deaths of the Polish soldiers on the Nazis, rather than admitting to committing the crimes themselves.

"And who told you there is no physical evidence?"

I am (with some reluctance) willing to listen to arguements that the Holocaust never happened. Some of these arguements included false testimonies (I think David Irving showed a testimony about the use of Zyklon B at Belsen), and some problems with the recovery of Zyklon B residues from Auschwitz (articles of which have already been presented at holocaust-history.org).

I think it is important to realise that some of these arguements may contain some "partial-truths". For example, we should all know that some of the gas chambers that we can see today at Auschwitz are indeed post-war constructions, but that doesn't mean the Holocaust did not happen! On a similar note, although gas chambers at Dachau cannot operate at the high efficiency as the AR camps, this is simply not indicative that the holocaust did not happen.

Once again, I am merely asking where we can draw the line between questioning our past without invoking hatred and anger.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#11

Post by Roberto » 21 Mar 2002, 13:15

GFM,

++Who taught you that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazis rather than the Russians?++

<<I'd read a few books discussing the history of the Katyn massacre, where it stressed that the Russians tried to blame the deaths of the Polish soldiers on the Nazis, rather than admitting to committing the crimes themselves.>>

So did I. But from none of those books does it become apparent that the Soviets ever managed to discharge the blame for Katyn on the Nazis.

++And who told you there is no physical evidence?++

<<I am (with some reluctance) willing to listen to arguments that the Holocaust never happened.>>

Why, you didn’t seem that gullible when I first met you.

<<Some of these arguements included false testimonies (I think David Irving showed a testimony about the use of Zyklon B at Belsen),>>

False testimonies exist in regard to any historical event. But you don’t believe that one eventual false testimony about gassings at Belsen speaks against there having been gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau and other extermination camps, do you?

<<and some problems with the recovery of Zyklon B residues from Auschwitz (articles of which have already been presented at holocaust-history.org).>>

What problems do you see? To call Rudolf’s pseudo-science problematic is a compliment to the fellow, in my opinion.

<<I think it is important to realise that some of these arguements may contain some "partial-truths".>>

Sure. Half the truth is also a lie, as a Swiss saying goes.

<<For example, we should all know that some of the gas chambers that we can see today at Auschwitz are indeed post-war constructions, but that doesn't mean the Holocaust did not happen!>>

Of course not. But “Revisionist” propagandists would like us to believe just that.

<<On a similar note, although gas chambers at Dachau cannot operate at the high efficiency as the AR camps, this is simply not indicative that the holocaust did not happen.>>

As above, with the addition that the Dachau gas chamber has not been proven to ever have been actually used to kill people.

<<Once again, I am merely asking where we can draw the line between questioning our past without invoking hatred and anger.>>

Of course we can. All it takes is to follow the evidence where it leads instead of trying to twist it so as to fit ideologically motivated pre-conceived notions. The former is what revisionists in the proper sense of the term do. The latter is the hallmark of the True Believers who falsely call themselves “Revisionists”.

Cheers,

Roberto

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

I WANT TO BELIEVE...

#12

Post by Scott Smith » 21 Mar 2002, 16:48

Medorjurgen wrote:Of course we can. All it takes is to follow the evidence where it leads instead of trying to twist it so as to fit ideologically motivated pre-conceived notions.
Exactly! Roberto is learning.
The former is what revisionists in the proper sense of the term do. The latter is the hallmark of the True Believers who falsely call themselves “Revisionists”.
Hoo boy! That is called DOUBLESPEAK. Roberto's INFIDELS are simultaneously True Believers and Deniers. Go figure.
:roll: :roll:

CLICK! Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: I WANT TO BELIEVE...

#13

Post by Roberto » 21 Mar 2002, 18:40

Of course we can. All it takes is to follow the evidence where it leads instead of trying to twist it so as to fit ideologically motivated pre-conceived notions.
<<Exactly! Roberto is learning.>>

Following the evidence where it leads has always been Roberto's approach. It is also something Smith takes care not to learn.
The former is what revisionists in the proper sense of the term do. The latter is the hallmark of the True Believers who falsely call themselves “Revisionists”.
<<Hoo boy! That is called DOUBLESPEAK. Roberto's INFIDELS are simultaneously True Believers and Deniers. Go figure.
:roll: :roll:>>

True Believers in the Führer, National Socialism and Jewish wickedness.
Hence deniers of proven facts that don't fit into their ideological bubble.
The only thing I wouldn't call them is "infidels", because they are the exact opposite of that. After all, Uncle Freddy tells them to:
[/I]“Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.”[/I]
“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10




CLICK! Image[/quote]

User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 09:27

#14

Post by GFM2000 » 28 Mar 2002, 13:08

Hello again,

(About Katyn)
"So did I. But from none of those books does it become apparent that the Soviets ever managed to discharge the blame for Katyn on the Nazis."

No, you're right. But during the war, there was a lot of propaganda and counter-propaganda. The Germans would have you know that the Russians eat babies for lunch, and vice-versa. Had no one asked any questions, the Katyn massacre would have been committed by Nazis.

<<I am (with some reluctance) willing to listen to arguments that the Holocaust never happened.>>

Why, you didn’t seem that gullible when I first met you.

Er.... I don't think I'm too gullible. Do you not think it is important to listen to what people have to say, rather than dismissing them outright? You have, of course, every right to disagree with them later on.

"False testimonies exist in regard to any historical event. But you don’t believe that one eventual false testimony about gassings at Belsen speaks against there having been gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau and other extermination camps, do you?"

No, of course not. But it annoys me that people would advertise something like that as a global representation of what really happened in Nazi Germany.

"Sure. Half the truth is also a lie, as a Swiss saying goes."

Exactly my point. I think it is important to learn everything, and that comes about by listening to as many perspectives as possible, do you not think? It is important to report the full truth, rather than a half-truth, for students of history, such as myself.

"Of course not. But “Revisionist” propagandists would like us to believe just that."

And only by knowing more can we debunk their proposals. But you cannot debunk them without listening to what they're claiming first, no???

Thanks for your time!

User avatar
MadJim
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:00
Location: The Old Line State USA

final solution

#15

Post by MadJim » 28 Mar 2002, 14:34

I beleive it happened, but I just don't care! :D

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”