Cletus wrote:I am new to this forum and I must admit I am quite intrigued by the recent discussions regarding the Holocaust.
I have noticed a few trends that appear time and again in posts.
Let's hear, then.
1. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line when it comes to the Holocaust is immediately attacked as a denier.
First thing, there is no such thing as a "party line" when it comes to the Holocaust. There is the historical record based on the assessment of evidence by criminal justice authorities and historians over the last five and a half decades. Second thing, I don't tend to call anyone who denies that record a "denier". Such a person is usually defending an ideologically motivated belief against inconvenient evidence, for which reason the term "Believer" is far more appropriate.
2. When everyone agrees that inforation is wrong, or is inacurate or was ammended years ago, the person who introduced it is still branded a denier.
I wonder if you can provide any examples. What usually happens is that the Believers who inappropriately call themselves "Revisionists" make a big bloody fuss about inaccuracies in regard to minor details, regardless of whether and how long ago they have been dismissed by historiography or were ever considered part of the historical record.
3. Deniers assume that if one document is innacurate/wrong/false/misleading, they assume ALL documents are.
That's actually the most hilarious showpiece of the utter imbecility of the Believers who call themselves "Revisionists". Or can you explain why you think there is any reason and logic behind this kind of thinking?
4. Believers assume that if a document is wrong, no others can be wrong, and the document in question is proof of nothing.
Well, reasonable observers of history - the Believers are the ones who call themselves "Revisionists" - are aware that every document is a case in itself and that the inaccuracy or lack of authenticity of a given document says nothing at all about the accuracy or authenticity of any other.
What disturbs me about these trends if that it seems no one is allowed to question anything.
On the contrary, everyone is allowed to question everything, on this forum at least. If your questions are based on evidence and reasonable arguments rather than thin air and wishful thinking - which unfortunately is not the case with "Revisionist" arguments -, they even stand a good chance of being taken seriously.
If I said the Holocaust happened, Millions of people died, it should never happen again, but how sure are historians on the number 6 million?
If you want to know, I suggest you do some reading of the seminal literature on the subject, where the documentary evidence and demographic calculations on which the estimates of 5 to 6 million Jewish victims are based are explained in detail. I suggest the study
Dimensionen des Völkermords, edited by German historian Wolfgang Benz, as a starting point.
I would likely be attacked as a denier.
As a Believer, as far as I'm concerned. Depends on the substantiation and reasonability of your objections, once again.
This bothers me because I was taught to question things, find multiple sources, and try to have a balance view. This topic borders on the, "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality.
The issue is that a challenge to an established historical record in regard to a certain event or phenomenon, be it the Holocaust or the Irish Potato Famine, should be based on evidence, reasonable arguments and sustainable hypotheses if it is to be recognized some merit and not dismissed as nonsense at best and ideologically motivated polemics at worst.
I don't feel anyone can seriously deny the Holocaust, that would be immoral and dangerous,
Whether it's imoral and dangerous is a matter of opinion. What is certain is that it's blatant nonsense.
but I find it equally dangerous to slap down any questioning of the details by discrediting the poster as a denier or worse.
I agree. To the extent that questioning of the details is relevant and reasonable, the suspicion that the poster is a "Revisionist" Believer and does not have a genuine interest in such details is not warranted.
There are three sides to every issue. Yours, mine, and the truth.
The assumption underlying the above is that both "sides" are pursuing an ideological agenda. From what I have seen on this forum, however, there usually is only one side - that of the "Revisionist" Believers - trying to push through a version of history that is at odds with the facts, whereas the other simply follows the evidence where it leads and exposes the attempted distortions of the proven record of events.
By the way, I remember having run across your posting name on the Codoh BBS. It was quite a while ago, so maybe I'm wrong. Still, your name sounds familiar to me.
