6 million killed in holocaust? Maybe more?

[Charles Bunch]

I see, and we're supposed to ignore Belzec, Sobibor, and Maidanek?

No, geek, that's why I added tens of thousand of others. Join the human race!

Try hundreds of thousands!!!

And you pretend you want to discuss facts!!!

[Scott Smith]

Dan,

You wrote that the approximative numbers of death in concentration camps is about 2 millions by establish historians. I am really interested to know the names of those historians?

No, Dan said that mainstream historians claim that approximately 2 million (out of the 5-6 million Jews total who were killed or died) were killed by poison gas.

And Dan is wrong.

Perhaps. I only reiterated what he said. I think the mainstream gas-toll is about 2 million with Operation Reinhardt, plus 1 million at Auschwitz--when it isn't 3-4 million, that is. The 5-6 million total (Jews) is deaths from all causes.

No one said there were not complex issues. The issues Dan claimed were complex are not. You never raise complex issues.

Oh, they are complex all right, except in countries where it is illegal to dispute such complexities.

The simple facts of history are taught at every school. Even good students learn that interpreting history is something one does _after_ learning it!

No, the first rule is that historians disagree; they disagree on the facts and they disagree on the interpretations of fact. There may be canonical histories but they are proprietary fables, more moral-philosophies than real history. The deeper one goes into historical problems the more open to interpretation and conflicting the paradigms. Schoolboy-histories are going to be quite canned and straightforward, yes.

But when your goal is denial of history, I guess you can deliberately, or sadly, confuse interpretation with fact, or knowledge with fact, or just about anything with anything so long as it serves the goal of mindless denial.

Disagreeing with Chuck is "mindless Denial." That's a pretty-clear fact.

USSR-393, Chuck--you can't hide--Human Soap, fact or fable?

[Charles Bunch]

quote="Scott Smith"]

Dan,

You wrote that the approximative numbers of death in concentration camps is about 2 millions by establish historians. I am really interested to know the names of those historians?

No, Dan said that mainstream historians claim that approximately 2 million (out of the 5-6 million Jews total who were killed or died) were killed by poison gas.

And Dan is wrong.

Perhaps. I only reiterated what he meant.I think the mainstream gas-toll is 2 million with Operation Reinhardt, plus 1 million at Auschwitz--when it isn't 3-4 million, that is. The 5-6 million total (Jews) is deaths from all causes.

No one said there were not complex issues. The issues Dan claimed were complex are not. You never raise complex issues.

Oh, they are complex all right, except in countries where it is illegal to dispute such complexities.

The laws in certain countries has nothing to do with making issues complex.

The simple facts of history are taught at every school. Even good students learn that interpreting history is something one does _after_ learning it!

No, the first rule is that historians disagree; they disagree on the facts

No, there is little disagreement on the facts. This might serve your denial, but it is false.

and they disagree on the interpretations of fact.

Sometimes. But there is usually a strong concensus.

But when your goal is denial of history, I guess you can deliberately, or sadly, confuse interpretation with fact, or knowledge with fact, or just about anything with anything so long as it serves the goal of mindless denial.

Disagreeing with Chuck is "mindless Denial." That's a pretty-clear fact.

No, mindless denial is denying evidence for no other reason than wanting to deny. And you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the established facts of history.

USSR-393, Chuck--you can't hide--Human Soap fact or fable?

I don't know anything about this exhibit.

But no serious student of history would focus on one piece of evidence to the exclusion of all others.

On balance, the evidence for the making of soap at Danzig is strong. But I can see some claiming it is not conclusive.

That is one of the acceptable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Your claim, that it is a lie, is an ignorant assertion which flows from your apologists agenda.

[Scott Smith]

No, there is little disagreement on the facts. This might serve your denial, but it is false.

Of course not if disagreement beyond the pale is illegal. There is disagreement on facts, and the more detailed usually the more the disagreement; to say otherwise is tantamount to canonical history.

"Which is a better tank, the Panther or the T-34?" is one such disagreement, as are some of the facts by which those conclusions are made.

USSR-393, Chuck--you can't hide--Human Soap fact or fable?

I don't know anything about this exhibit.

You should if you want to Believe in Human Soap.

But no serious student of history would focus on one piece of evidence to the exclusion of all others.

I dissected your belief in Human Soap and we have found you can't sustain it in the messy details. Instructive.

On balance, the evidence for the making of soap at Danzig is strong. But I can see some claiming it is not conclusive.

No, it is not strong unless you can somehow verify USSR-393 as being both Human Soap and being German, or you can at the very least corroborate Mazur's affidavit with Neely's and Witton's on specific details (assuming that the affidavits should be considered at all as more than show-trial hearsay). The stronger the evidence the greater the probability of a particular fact.

That is one of the acceptable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Your claim, that it is a lie, is an ignorant assertion which flows from your apologists agenda.

USSR-393 is either real or it is a LIE. It is no accident. And Smirnov would have had to have been inhumanly stupid not to know this, so either he was a liar or a dupe.

Anybody who believes it at face-value is a dupe or dishonest. But it was good enough Greuelpropaganda for the court.

[Roberto]

No, there is little disagreement on the facts. This might serve your denial, but it is false.

Of course not if disagreement beyond the pale is illegal.

What "pale"?

The pale of evidence, perhaps?

It takes more than uttering nonsense at odds with the evidence to get in trouble with the law, however. You have to do it publicly and in such a way that it is likely to bring about a disturbance of the public order. Like preaching such crap to an audience of skinheads, for instance.

USSR-393 is either real or it is a LIE.

If so, we have two possibilities:

1. The howler demonstrates that someone - quite unnecessarily - forged evidence regarding a minor detail as unimportant as the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute;

2. The howler shuts up and keeps himself from plunging further into ridicule.

Anybody who believes it at face-value is a dupe or dishonest.

I'd say it is simply a pragmatic approach to accept the physical evidence unless and until it is proven to have been fabricated, especially as there are three corroborating affidavits, provided by witnesses independent of each other and not refuted so far.

Squealing "lie", "greuelpropaganda", and similar handy but unsupported phrases, on the other hand, betrays either an inveterate liar or an incurable true believer.

[Roberto]

You always hear the number 6 million but is that for everyone or just jews or just the people killed near the end in the gas chambers? What is the official number of total people killed, like political aponents and gays and all the other people the nazis picked on? Also would they all be put in the same places to live and work before being executed? I have heard 11 million, I have heard 13 million but who knows? Maybe my sources arn't that great ;p

There's no "official" figure for anything. There are estimates by historians based on demographics and documentary evidence.

Have a look at this thread:

Holocaust Question http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... hp?t=11327

A country-by-country breakdown of the Jewish victims, after Wolfgang Benz et al, Dimensionen des Völkermords:

German Reich: 160,000 to 165,000

Austria: 65,459

Luxembourg: 1,200

France ("including foreign nationals"): 76,134

Belgium ("including foreign nationals"): 28, 518

Netherlands: 102,000

Denmark: 116

Norway: 758

Italy: 6,513

Albania: 591 ("deportees")

Greece: 59,185

Bulgaria (deported from Bulgarian-occupied areas): 11,393

Yugoslavia: 60,000 to 65,000

Hungary: 550,000

Chechoslovakia ("Reich Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia" plus Slovakia): 143,000

Romania: 211,214

Poland: 2,700,000

Soviet Union: 2,100,000

Total: 6,276,081 to 6,286,081

[Charles Bunch]

No, there is little disagreement on the facts. This might serve your denial, but it is false.

Of course not if disagreement beyond the pale is illegal. There is disagreement on facts, and the more detailed usually the more the disagreement; to say otherwise is tantamount to canonical history.

There is no disagreement among historians about the facts of the Holocaust. The fact that a few antisemites or Nazi apologists deny these facts doesn't constitute a disagreement any more than the existence of the Flat Earth Society causes scientists a stir.

"Which is a better tank, the Panther or the T-34?" is one such disagreement, as are some of the facts by which those conclusions are made.

No, that would be an interpretation. Whether Panther tanks or T-34 tanks existed is a matter of fact, the denial of which is akin to your denial of the Holocaust.

USSR-393, Chuck--you can't hide--Human Soap fact or fable?

I don't know anything about this exhibit.

You should if you want to Believe in Human Soap.

No, this exhibit has no bearing on the other pieces of evidence. It could augment that evidence.

But no serious student of history would focus on one piece of evidence to the exclusion of all others.

I dissected your belief in Human Soap and we have found you can't sustain it in the messy details. Instructive.

You couldn't dissect a frog!

You merely deny the evidence. Now you may be proud of such a mindless approach to history, but you shouldn't be.

On balance, the evidence for the making of soap at Danzig is strong. But I can see some claiming it is not conclusive.

No, it is not strong unless you can somehow verify USSR-393 as being both Human Soap and being German, or you can at the very least corroborate Mazur's affidavit with Neely's and Witton's on specific details (assuming that the affidavits should be considered at all as more than show-trial hearsay). The stronger the evidence the greater the probability of a particular fact.

The evidence is strong without the Russian exhibit. Mazur's, Neely's and Witton's affidavits corroborate each other. THey are sufficient for a strong probability.

That is one of the acceptable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Your claim, that it is a lie, is an ignorant assertion which flows from your apologists agenda.

USSR-393 is either real or it is a LIE.

And you don't know which is the case, so you can draw no conclusion about it if you're being honest.

Anybody who believes it at face-value is a dupe or dishonest. But it was good enough Greuelpropaganda for the court.

And anyone who declares it a lie without knowing whether it is human soap is being just as dishonest. So between the two of us, only you are being dishonest about this exhibit!

[Scott Smith]

Squealing "lie", "greuelpropaganda", and similar handy but unsupported phrases, on the other hand, betrays either an inveterate liar or an incurable true believer.

Human Soap is Greuelpropaganda, Roberto, like it or not.

And USSR-393 is proof of the deliberate nature of this fraud unless someone can show us either that it is really a sample of Human Soap that came from the Germans, or some evidence that gives us at least a probability leading to this direction. So far, no show.

It shows that they were willing to lie at Nuremberg. And liars are likely to lie more than once.

[Scott Smith]

No, there is little disagreement on the facts. This might serve your denial, but it is false.

Of course not if disagreement beyond the pale is illegal. There is disagreement on facts, and the more detailed usually the more the disagreement; to say otherwise is tantamount to canonical history.

There is no disagreement among historians about the facts of the Holocaust.

Yes, there is. Hilberg and Goldhagen have very different views on what they think the Holocaust was.

The fact that a few antisemites or Nazi apologists deny these facts doesn't constitute a disagreement any more than the existence of the Flat Earth Society causes scientists a stir.

You keep saying "these facts," yet you are curiously reticent about where one can find the canon that contain "the facts."

Basically, he who disagrees with Chuckoo is a "Denier of the Holocaust" enchilada--a dishonest approach worthy of a Lipstadt.

"Which is a better tank, the Panther or the T-34?" is one such disagreement, as are some of the facts by which those conclusions are made.

No, that would be an interpretation. Whether Panther tanks or T-34 tanks existed is a matter of fact, the denial of which is akin to your denial of the Holocaust.

Exactly. And the Holocaust is not a tank--that either existed or it didn't. As Dan says, it is a very COMPLEX subject.

USSR-393, Chuck--you can't hide--Human Soap fact or fable?

I don't know anything about this exhibit.

You should if you want to Believe in Human Soap.

No, this exhibit has no bearing on the other pieces of evidence. It could augment that evidence.

It shows an obvious willingness to lie and to generate atrocity propaganda on the part of the Allies after the war. And a "willingness to lie" or to any kind of past behavior is a good investigative tool to find more correlation. Furthermore, that this is so obvious betrays a mythomaniacal bias on your part, because you desperately want to believe in Human Soap and diesel-murder. You make Roberto look like a skeptic.

But no serious student of history would focus on one piece of evidence to the exclusion of all others.

I dissected your belief in Human Soap and we have found you can't sustain it in the messy details. Instructive.

You couldn't dissect a frog!

This is merely one object of instruction. I can certainly dissect a Chuckoo! By harping on it I force you either to embrace it openly or to discard it into the realm of other Holo-uncertainties without compelling evidence.

You merely deny the evidence. Now you may be proud of such a mindless approach to history, but you shouldn't be.

You are invited to present your evidence for Human Soap if you can. So far there is nothing but hearsay and innuendo.

On balance, the evidence for the making of soap at Danzig is strong. But I can see some claiming it is not conclusive.

No, it is not strong unless you can somehow verify USSR-393 as being both Human Soap and being German, or you can at the very least corroborate Mazur's affidavit with Neely's and Witton's on specific details (assuming that the affidavits should be considered at all as more than show-trial hearsay). The stronger the evidence the greater the probability of a particular fact.

The evidence is strong without the Russian exhibit. Mazur's, Neely's and Witton's affidavits corroborate each other. THey are sufficient for a strong probability.

No, it isn't strong evidence. An honest lawyer would rip you a new one on this using your own rules. If it can't be proved then it must be tossed into the scrap-heap because the burden-of-proof is on the accusers.

That is one of the acceptable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Your claim, that it is a lie, is an ignorant assertion which flows from your apologists agenda.

USSR-393 is either real or it is a LIE.

And you don't know which is the case, so you can draw no conclusion about it if you're being honest.

I don't know what USSR-393 is; it just looks like homemade soap to me. The burden-of-proof was on Smirnov and Nuremberg and they didn't even establish where it really came from. In any case, one cannot disprove P.T. Barnum's exhibits either if the "evidence" cannot be independently examined. Maybe someday the Believers of the world will find USSR-393 along with Indiana Jones' Ark of the Covenant. Until that day Human Soap is an atrocity-propaganda LIE, that is still sometimes used today because it is printed in the Nuremberg tomes.

Anybody who believes it at face-value is a dupe or dishonest. But it was good enough Greuelpropaganda for the court.

And anyone who declares it a lie without knowing whether it is human soap is being just as dishonest. So between the two of us, only you are being dishonest about this exhibit!

Yes, maybe they honestly thought that it really was Human Soap and did what they could to make it LOOK like it was. (And I have a bridge at Manhattan to sell you.)

However, you do have a point. In medieval witchcraft trials most of the Inquisitors truly believed in witches and the devil, and that heretics were very, very bad.

[neugierig]

[quote=Charles Bunch] There is no disagreement among historians about the facts of the Holocaust...[/quote]

If this is so, it speaks volumes. I've found that most of the learned folk, exept the real intelligent ones, have huge egos. (we have a few on this board) Therefore, to get them all to agree is bordering on a miracle, religious believe? As well, scientists, and that includes historians, should do all they can to falsify 'established facts', to proove there veracity, instead of agreeing among themselves.

Wilf

[Charles Bunch]

No, there is little disagreement on the facts. This might serve your denial, but it is false.

Of course not if disagreement beyond the pale is illegal. There is disagreement on facts, and the more detailed usually the more the disagreement; to say otherwise is tantamount to canonical history.

There is no disagreement among historians about the facts of the Holocaust.

Yes, there is. Hilberg and Goldhagen have very different views on what they think the Holocaust was.

About what caused it, about the extent of the participation by Germans and others, but not about the facts of the Holocaust.

Are you really so intellectually challenged you don't know the difference between simple facts, and interpretations of history?

The fact that a few antisemites or Nazi apologists deny these facts doesn't constitute a disagreement any more than the existence of the Flat Earth Society causes scientists a stir.

You keep saying "these facts," yet you are curiously reticent about where one can find the canon that contain "the facts."

You mean you don't know that facts of history are found in the writings of history? I guess that's why you prefer to get your lies from denier websites.

Basically, he who disagrees with Chuckoo is a "Denier of the Holocaust" enchilada--a dishonest approach worthy of a Lipstadt.

No, he who denies the Holocaust is a denier. You are not merely disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with established historical fact. Your lack of courage in admitting that denial openly has no bearing on what your own words reveal.

"Which is a better tank, the Panther or the T-34?" is one such disagreement, as are some of the facts by which those conclusions are made.

No, that would be an interpretation. Whether Panther tanks or T-34 tanks existed is a matter of fact, the denial of which is akin to your denial of the Holocaust.

Exactly. And the Holocaust is not a tank--that either existed or it didn't

.

It is a well defined event which either occurred, or did not occur, just as with WWII, and other events of history. Your example comparing the benefits of two tanks was, frankly, juvenile.

USSR-393, Chuck--you can't hide--Human Soap fact or fable?

I don't know anything about this exhibit.

You should if you want to Believe in Human Soap.

No, this exhibit has no bearing on the other pieces of evidence. It could augment that evidence.

It shows an obvious willingness to lie and to generate atrocity propaganda on the part of the Allies after the war.

Since you haven't shown any lie, you only reveal yourself to be the liar!

But Nazi apologists and Holocaust deniers need no evidence for their claims, which are not based on a pursuit of the truth, but on an agenda to deny history.

You are always so obliging in demonstrating such tactics!

But no serious student of history would focus on one piece of evidence to the exclusion of all others.

I dissected your belief in Human Soap and we have found you can't sustain it in the messy details. Instructive.

You couldn't dissect a frog!

This is merely one object of instruction. I can certainly dissect a Chuckoo!

Which is why, I suppose, you are so routinely embarrassed in your efforts, and soon run away from discussions, such as your little "historiography" lecture!

The fact of the matter is you have a tiny inventory of idiotic responses to the historiography of the Holocaust. You might as well assign them letters and post a key to these cliches and merely post the letter. It would save you lots of time.

You merely deny the evidence. Now you may be proud of such a mindless approach to history, but you shouldn't be.

You are invited to present your evidence for Human Soap if you can. So far there is nothing but hearsay and innuendo.

The evidence has been presented numerous times. You have been invited numerous times to do more than simply deny it. Your abilities, it seems, don't extend beyond that approach.

On balance, the evidence for the making of soap at Danzig is strong. But I can see some claiming it is not conclusive.

No, it is not strong unless you can somehow verify USSR-393 as being both Human Soap and being German, or you can at the very least corroborate Mazur's affidavit with Neely's and Witton's on specific details (assuming that the affidavits should be considered at all as more than show-trial hearsay). The stronger the evidence the greater the probability of a particular fact.

The evidence is strong without the Russian exhibit. Mazur's, Neely's and Witton's affidavits corroborate each other. THey are sufficient for a strong probability.

No, it isn't strong evidence. An honest lawyer would rip you a new one on this using your own rules.

Oh it is strong evidence. And here Smith inserts cliche L , which pretends that history is written by lawyers!!

Notice that Smith can't show how an honest lawyer could do such a thing in a court, let alone why histiorians should pay any attention to it anyway. Just another from Smith's scant colletion of canned responses.

That is one of the acceptable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Your claim, that it is a lie, is an ignorant assertion which flows from your apologists agenda.

USSR-393 is either real or it is a LIE.

And you don't know which is the case, so you can draw no conclusion about it if you're being honest.

I don't know what USSR-393 is; it just looks like homemade soap to me.

Exactly!!! And since you don't know, the conclusions you have drawn are dishonest. Par for the course for you.

The burden-of-proof was on Smirnov and Nuremberg and they didn't even establish where it really came from.

And the burden of proof is on you to support your statement that the exhibit is a lie. And yet you admit you don't even know. You apparently have no scruples whatsoever!

Anybody who believes it at face-value is a dupe or dishonest. But it was good enough Greuelpropaganda for the court.

And anyone who declares it a lie without knowing whether it is human soap is being just as dishonest. So between the two of us, only you are being dishonest about this exhibit!

Yes, maybe they honestly thought that it really was Human Soap and did what they could to make it LOOK like it was. And I have a bridge at Manhattan to sell you.

We're not discussing what they thought, but what you think. You've admitted making a factual claim about a piece of evidence you know nothing about. You are a charlatan who will say anything to exculpate Nazis.

However, you do have a point. In medieval witchcraft trials most of the Inquisitors truly believed in witches and the devil, and that heretics were very, very bad.

Another embarrassment of logic!

We'll assign that cliche the letter W!

[Charles Bunch]

There is no disagreement among historians about the facts of the Holocaust...

If this is so, it speaks volumes. I've found that most of the learned folk, exept the real intelligent ones, have huge egos. (we have a few on this board) Therefore, to get them all to agree is bordering on a miracle, religious believe? As well, scientists, and that includes historians, should do all they can to falsify 'established facts', to proove there veracity, instead of agreeing among themselves.

Wilf

We're talking about the facts which define the event.

Just as no historian denies the facts which define WWII as an event.

The discussion among historians about these events involve interpretions, causes, implications, and occasionally subsidiary issues.

But it is completely false to claim, as deniers do, that the Holocaust is a matter of opinion, or of interpretation, rather than fact.

[Scott Smith]

But it is completely false to claim, as deniers do, that the Holocaust is a matter of opinion, or of interpretation, rather than fact.

Nobody is saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. That is a dishonest reductio ad absurdum. There is considerable disagreement over what the Holocaust was, just as there is over World War II or any other complex historical event.


Generally Holocaust Revisionists quarrel with the notion that:

1) You must say that six-million were murdered.

2) you must say that millions were murdered by poison gas.

3) You must say that this was a coherent Nazi mass-murder plan, preferably premeditated by Hitler.

4) You must say that this was an attempt to kill every last Jew by Gentiles.

All of the above, if dogmatic, puts History into the realm of theology, atrocity-propaganda and proprietary-mythology.

And I strongly disagree with that monolithic point-of-view.

History is complex--you can't wrap it all up into one or a few Facts. That requires going beyond the facts into quasi-religious interpretation.

[Erik]

Sometimes it is unwise for an outsider to interfere in quarrels, for example between married couples, since you are likely to misinterpret the “subject” of the quarrel for the “cause”. If you try to settle the “cause”, you have disturbed a “game”, that perhaps is a foreplay for a “settlement” in the bedroom “in the end”; and I don’t mean falling asleep, necessarily.

What is the game played here, between a “mindless denier”(sic), and a “True Believer”(sic)? Can we be instructed by the “subject” of it?

A “debuncher” (Angelo) of the poor philosopher (that’s Erik!) wrote on a closed thread (Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 7:58 pm) :

Well, why lose so much time, saying one nonsense after the other to
simply repropose your DECREPIT LULLABY about your right to question
everything instead of just giving anything for granted.
I did it before you even started, maybe. And all of those who came before
me did it, probably much better than I could ever do, so nobody is depriving you to do it yourself. But try to stick to the thread and not open
up strategically designed "what if's" which are not simply needed in our case.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... 530#110530


Is it a lullaby, to put the thread “to sleep”, by the Moderator as the “sandman”?

What/who will gain/lose from such proceedings?

The “status quo” or the “revision”?

The “True Belief” or the “mindless denial”?

Can any conclusion be drawn from the “style” of the quarrel?

Who seems to be enjoying himself? Mr Smith or Mr Bunch?

“Sense of duty” or “iconoclasm”(that’s Mr Kaschner’s characterization of Mr Smith’s contributions, but Mr Bunch maybe likes to describe himself as a “breaker of image”, too?)?

Who is a “soldier”(i.e., “hired”) for a Cause, or an “amateur” (i.e., “lover”) of Truth?

[Charles Bunch]

But it is completely false to claim, as deniers do, that the Holocaust is a matter of opinion, or of interpretation, rather than fact.

Nobody is saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. That is a dishonest reductio ad absurdum.

Nonsense. You deny the Nazis intention to exterminate Europe's Jews. You deny the gas chambers which accounted for half the 6 million murdered. You even attempt to minimize the death toll.

You are a denier of the Holocaust. There is no disagreement among historians about these features which define the Holocaust.

Generally Holocaust Revisionists quarrel with the notion that:

1) You must say that six-million were murdered.

There is no such notion. Deniers deny the 6 million and offer totals which are ridiculously low and with which no historian agrees. They have no evidence for their totals. There attempt is only to minimize.

2) you must say that millions were murdered by poison gas.

Unless you want to deny historical fact! Smith admits he is a denier.

3) You must say that this was a coherent Nazi mass-murder plan, preferably premeditated by Hitler

.

Premeditation is not required, nor is the adjective "coherent". This is just more denier tap dancing. The Final Solution was the intent to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Deny that and you are denying the Holocaust.

) 4. You must say that this was an attempt to kill every last Jew by Gentiles

.

Another typical distortion, used by Mr. Smith to suggest that the accusation against Nazis is as bigotted as the Nazi attempt at Genocide of the Jews!!!

No one claims the Holocaust was an attempt by Gentiles. It was an attempt by Nazis. But this facile declaration of moral equivalency betrays the rank prejudice which informs the very basis of thinking of deniers, who see Nazis as Gentiles, in some kind of war with Jews.

All of the above, if dogmatic, puts History into the realm of theology, atrocity-propaganda and proprietary-mythology.

More mindless babble from Mr. Smith.

All of the above, corrected for Smith's deliberate distortions, are what the Holocaust is.

Mr. Smith shows himself to be a denier of the Holocaust.

Big surprise!