The real difference between "deniers" and "believers" is emphasis on totality of evidence.
"Believers" view the entire historical record and come to a probable conclusion as to what happened.
"Deniers" use small segments of the historical record to support a previously formed opinion.
Stating that less than 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust doesn't make you a denier. I've posted it could be between 4 and 9 million, and that the exact number can never be known with certainty. I doubt anyone here calls me a denier.
All historical evidence should have to pass peer review before publication, and all evidence must be examined. This is what standard historians do on all historical subject matter.
Sometimes people disagree with the historical record and they argue against it by looking for small errors or possible errors and equating that with the destruction of the entire thesis.
For example, the whole Diesel Engine at Treblinka debate. It's hard to kill people via CO using a Diesel Engine. Some witnessed state that a Diesel Engine was used there to kill people. A true historian would look at this and compare all the other evidence and conclude that a) A diesel engine wasn't used, and the witness is mistaken, b) that the method of death wasn't CO, c) an inefficient method of death was used.
The denier claims that this is proof that much of the holocaust is a cruel propoganda trick. That eyewitness testimony is part of some conspiracy, along with all other evidence because it's simply impossible that a diesel engine was used.
That type of reasoning is laughable no matter what the subject matter.
Xanthro
Revisionists vs. Belivers
-
Roberto
- Member
- Posts: 4505
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
- Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Bravo, my friend. Calling your opponent a “Reptile” is more likely to expose the strange workings of your own mind than to attract a newcomer to your cause.Don't let Medi the Reptile pour poison in your ear, Cletus.
Which is reflected in the “Reptile”, isn’t it?Stay with the open attitude.
Considering what those fellows have got to show, “maybe” is something of an understatement.As you said earlier, there are three sides to every issue, yours, mine and the truth. And who knows, maybe it's the revisionists who got it all wrong from the beginning?
Relax, that won’t ever happen. Faith is stronger.(The day that happens I'm gonna feel mighty dumb, that's for sure).
Well, I still have to meet the one “Revisionist” who is interested in finding out “what really happened”. The pretension that there is room for reasonable doubt about the essential facts alone belies that contention.What I dislike about revisionism is that many who takes that stand actually seems more interested in grumbling about World Jewry than trying to find out what really happened.
Who has been abusing you, my poor friend?You'll partly find that at CODOH and a lot of sites it links to. But there's also another side of the issue. No fire no smoke - perhaps there is just that much abuse you can take before you get a lot of crazy ideas?
That’s what we do all the time, in case you haven’t noticed. Denying proven fact is the exact opposite of discussing the phenomenon as a historical problem, however.What I hope for is that someday people like Medijoergen and Hans will be willing to discuss the holocaust as an historical problem like any other.
Proven facts are not controversial. The “controversy” exists only in the minds of True Believers.Even if it's controversial today.
Agree. But if they are as stupid as the contentions of the “Revisionists”, you shouldn’t expect them to be accorded any merit either.I mean that for once they could say things like: "well that do seems odd, but...". That's what the issue actually deserves. There can be no questions in the field of historical science that are so stupid that you should not be allowed ask them.
Relax, my friend. The Reptile humbly recognizes suspicion, slander and abuse as a prerogative of his opponent.I now dislodge in order to let Medi and his friends heap suspicion, slander and abuse on my opinions and person.
-
Roberto
- Member
- Posts: 4505
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
- Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Why, that would make Hilberg a “Denier or worse”. As it would Reitlinger. As, incidentally, also myself, because the lower edge of the range considered by historians other than Reitlinger – 5 million – is more in accordance with my calculations than the higher one. Not to mention the fact that I reject the notion of “uniqueness” and keep pointing out that the Nazis murdered far more non-Jews than Jews.I say over and over again, ad nauseam, that I DON'T have all the answers. I don't quibble with the 5.1 million figure used by Hilberg because I am not interested in demographics or body-counts. But basically, anyone who contends that less than six-million were killed is a Denier or worse.
Which have either been long dismissed by historiography or are proven facts rather than “atrocity tales”.I do doubt many of the atrocity tales
On the basis of nothing other than some questionable considerations about the toxicity of diesel exhaust (which, if accurate, would only mean that the engines in question were gasoline engines and not diesel engines – a mistake understandable under the circumstances rather than “outright lies” of the kind that the Reverend and his ilk try to sell), wishful thinking and a stubborn ostrich-like disregard for inconvenient evidence.and in particular I think the diesel gaschamber and murder-van claims are outright lies.
A lack of “confidence” based on nothing other than the inconvenience of the findings of those trials, which in fact were conducted with a high degree of professionalism and also remarkably fair and impartial.I have almost zero confidence in the Nuremberg trials, held by the victorious Allies after the war, in getting at the truth.
Also in Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Australia and Canada. This shouldn’t be so, but illegal nonsense is still nonsense.In Germany and France today is is illegal to doubt the Holocaust.
Wrong, buddy. To be a “Revisionist” True Believer, you have to unreasonably question essential aspects of the phenomenon in support of an ideological agenda – to utter propaganda lies, in other words. It’s not so easy to be a “Denier or worse”. It takes a lot of Faith, as a matter of fact.If you don't swallow it whole you are a Denier or worse.
-
Cletus
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 11 Apr 2002 01:52
- Location: Alberta, Canada
I don't think Medorjurgen is poisoning my ear. In fact he can't do it. I respect what he has to say, and make my own judgements about it. I originally started this post because I felt that the way people on both sides react to the issue doesn't promote openness and learning.
While I agree with Medorjurgen that proven facts are irrefutable, I disagree that we cannot question how they were proven. Proove the proof so to speak. I don't think anyone made anything up, but why not continue to research, to discover even more irrefutable proof and take all the wind out of revisionist sales? It just seemed to me, as a rookie on the board, that neither side was willing to look at other possiblities. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, I means it may have happened in a different way. Just has horrible, but different.
We should always question history, it doesn't mean that things we have been taught are wrong, it just means that we may come to a better understanding. If we treat the Holocaust like it is some kind of faith, we will always leave room for doubters and skeptics. If we continue to educate, reevaluate and reaffirm what we know took place, there will be less ammunition for the revisionists.
I will use an argument of theirs against them. When people learned the earth was round, others still believed it was flat. Did the round earth people stop exploration, science, and research and then resort to name calling with flat earth people? No, they continued to find proof and debunk the claims of the flat earthers. They didn't make it illegal to think the earth was flat. Now we live in an age where no one doubts the earth is round. (Although I'm sure the web has a discussion board on it!)
I realize Medorjurgen will say we need to prove nothing, and he is right. We need to educate people so that we only leave behind the true crackpots and sickos. They can be isolated. To my newbie eye, however, it looks suspicious when we make denial illegal, call names and retreat back to the original evidence they are attacking. This gives them the sense that there is a cover up or a lie. We shouldn't give them this. We should accept new evidence with an unbiased eye and continue to promote what we not to be absolute, always keeping in mind that millions of people died. The who, the how and the where seem less important than those lost lives.
Cletus
While I agree with Medorjurgen that proven facts are irrefutable, I disagree that we cannot question how they were proven. Proove the proof so to speak. I don't think anyone made anything up, but why not continue to research, to discover even more irrefutable proof and take all the wind out of revisionist sales? It just seemed to me, as a rookie on the board, that neither side was willing to look at other possiblities. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, I means it may have happened in a different way. Just has horrible, but different.
We should always question history, it doesn't mean that things we have been taught are wrong, it just means that we may come to a better understanding. If we treat the Holocaust like it is some kind of faith, we will always leave room for doubters and skeptics. If we continue to educate, reevaluate and reaffirm what we know took place, there will be less ammunition for the revisionists.
I will use an argument of theirs against them. When people learned the earth was round, others still believed it was flat. Did the round earth people stop exploration, science, and research and then resort to name calling with flat earth people? No, they continued to find proof and debunk the claims of the flat earthers. They didn't make it illegal to think the earth was flat. Now we live in an age where no one doubts the earth is round. (Although I'm sure the web has a discussion board on it!)
I realize Medorjurgen will say we need to prove nothing, and he is right. We need to educate people so that we only leave behind the true crackpots and sickos. They can be isolated. To my newbie eye, however, it looks suspicious when we make denial illegal, call names and retreat back to the original evidence they are attacking. This gives them the sense that there is a cover up or a lie. We shouldn't give them this. We should accept new evidence with an unbiased eye and continue to promote what we not to be absolute, always keeping in mind that millions of people died. The who, the how and the where seem less important than those lost lives.
Cletus
-
Roberto
- Member
- Posts: 4505
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
- Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Cletus,
The approach you just described is that of revisionism in the proper sense of the word, an approach that I favor myself and that is the hallmark of a number of modern German historians, such as Christian Gerlach with his highly interesting and very well substantiated theories about the connections between Nazi occupation and food supply policies and their killing progams. Historiography is not a stagnant science, after all.
This approach, however, has nothing to do with the "Revisionism" of the propagandists who distort, misrepresent or unreasonably dismiss evidence in order to deny or play down facts that don't fit into their ideological agenda. While revisionists in the proper sense of the word follow the evidence where it leads and keep discovering new evidence, the "Revisionists" try to twist the existing evidence so as to fit their pre-conceived notions, working from a desired version of history towards the "arguments" that support that version. If you stay on this forum and observe carefully, you will notice the ever-recurring argumentation patterns and articles of faith that these people try to hammer into the heads of their readers, however often and thoroughly they are shown to be nonsense.
Regards,
Roberto
The approach you just described is that of revisionism in the proper sense of the word, an approach that I favor myself and that is the hallmark of a number of modern German historians, such as Christian Gerlach with his highly interesting and very well substantiated theories about the connections between Nazi occupation and food supply policies and their killing progams. Historiography is not a stagnant science, after all.
This approach, however, has nothing to do with the "Revisionism" of the propagandists who distort, misrepresent or unreasonably dismiss evidence in order to deny or play down facts that don't fit into their ideological agenda. While revisionists in the proper sense of the word follow the evidence where it leads and keep discovering new evidence, the "Revisionists" try to twist the existing evidence so as to fit their pre-conceived notions, working from a desired version of history towards the "arguments" that support that version. If you stay on this forum and observe carefully, you will notice the ever-recurring argumentation patterns and articles of faith that these people try to hammer into the heads of their readers, however often and thoroughly they are shown to be nonsense.
Regards,
Roberto
-
Xanthro
- Member
- Posts: 2803
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 00:11
- Location: Pasadena, CA
Cletus,
This forum is a replacement of an older forum. Many of the people here are carrying forth knowledge of positions and arguments from that old forum that you may be unaware of.
I haven't had the opportunity to post on the new forum much, because my computer, with the email allowing me to register here, was down. It took a long time before I could get it working. I was a frequent poster on the old forum.
I haven't seen anyone on the side that believes the holocaust occurred who does so out of some type of faith. In fact, most are exceedindly open to questions about the Holocaust itself.
Let's take one issue, "Jewishness of the Holocaust." Roberto doesn't believe that the Holocaust is unique to Jews, because many others were killed also. It's possible that a greater number of non-Jews were killed that were Jews. I think the Jewishness of the Holocaust is real, because I don't believe the others would have been killed if the apparatus for killing the Jews wasn't in place. While some people may try to claim Roberto is a denier for "dening" the unique Jewish aspect of the Holocaust, on this board Roberto is considered the foremost person who argues against Deniers.
There is a wide range of opinion held by those who acknowledge the Holocaust happened.
Xanthro
This forum is a replacement of an older forum. Many of the people here are carrying forth knowledge of positions and arguments from that old forum that you may be unaware of.
I haven't had the opportunity to post on the new forum much, because my computer, with the email allowing me to register here, was down. It took a long time before I could get it working. I was a frequent poster on the old forum.
I haven't seen anyone on the side that believes the holocaust occurred who does so out of some type of faith. In fact, most are exceedindly open to questions about the Holocaust itself.
Let's take one issue, "Jewishness of the Holocaust." Roberto doesn't believe that the Holocaust is unique to Jews, because many others were killed also. It's possible that a greater number of non-Jews were killed that were Jews. I think the Jewishness of the Holocaust is real, because I don't believe the others would have been killed if the apparatus for killing the Jews wasn't in place. While some people may try to claim Roberto is a denier for "dening" the unique Jewish aspect of the Holocaust, on this board Roberto is considered the foremost person who argues against Deniers.
There is a wide range of opinion held by those who acknowledge the Holocaust happened.
Xanthro
-
Tarpon27
- Member
- Posts: 338
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
- Location: FL, USA
Hilberg the Denier
Scott Smith Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2002 9:33 pm Post subject: SKEPTICS...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say over and over again, ad nauseam, that I DON'T have all the answers. I don't quibble with the 5.1 million figure used by Hilberg because I am not interested in demographics or body-counts. But basically, anyone who contends that less than six-million were killed is a Denier or worse.
So, if I read the above correctly...
...Raul Hilberg is a Holcaust Denier his figure of 5.1 million dead (that excludes from his calculations Russian Jews)?
You go with that one Scott.
ROFL!
Regards,
Mark
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
- Location: Arizona
Re: Hilberg the Denier
No Tarp, he is not a Denier because he is a Believer. Therefore he supplicates to the canon. Even Reitlinger can deviate with his four million but he is an exception. If I were to say, and I do, that 5.1 million seems reasonable to me but that the diesel gaschambers at Treblinka or the gas-vans, many of which I have shown to be incontrovertibly diesels, are bogus atrocity propaganda, then I am a Denier by the standard terminology. Why? Because I do not have faith in the Holocaust canon. See, I am a skeptic who doubts anything these people say because it is all part of their Victimology, i.e., their Groupthink. And the Holocaust Faith is not one practiced only by Jews, not by any means. Evangelicals and generation-gap Germans who see their place in the world through the lens of Armageddon or Genocide are also part of the flock.Tarpon27 wrote:So, if I read the above correctly...Scott Smith Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2002 9:33 pm Post subject: SKEPTICS...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say over and over again, ad nauseam, that I DON'T have all the answers. I don't quibble with the 5.1 million figure used by Hilberg because I am not interested in demographics or body-counts. But basically, anyone who contends that less than six-million were killed is a Denier or worse.
...Raul Hilberg is a Holcaust Denier his figure of 5.1 million dead (that excludes from his calculations Russian Jews)?
You go with that one Scott.
ROFL!
Regards,
Mark
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
- Location: Arizona
FAITH
Cletus,
I strongly disagree with those who say there is no Faith involved here. If you look at our diesel debates of over a year ago, Roberto did not know anything about Treblinka. Not one thing. He refused to believe, for example, that there was a labor camp there, a gravel quarry. He refused to believe that the orginal claim was murder-by-steaming and not diesel exhaust.
He just knew that I must be wrong. And he has used his skills as a lawyer who has a lot of time on his hands to defend his Faith.
I am a skeptic and I have never said that the Holocaust never happened. That is absurd. The Holocaust is not ONE monolithic event but consists of millions of experiences and points-of-view.
If we want to discuss details that's fine. There are lots of exagerrations, atrocity propganda, and outright lies. However, this is just a hobby for me and I don't have unlimited time. My major proposition is that all matters, including what Le Pen calls a "detail" of history, the gaschambers themselves, can and should be debated. Nobody OWNS History. Most of the Believers got themselves kicked off the Codoh forum for misbehavior. They are about as interested in exploring history and different views therein as the Medieval Inquisition in determining the historicity of Jesus. Any who doubt the miracles must be of the Devil, you know.
Best Regards,
Scott
I strongly disagree with those who say there is no Faith involved here. If you look at our diesel debates of over a year ago, Roberto did not know anything about Treblinka. Not one thing. He refused to believe, for example, that there was a labor camp there, a gravel quarry. He refused to believe that the orginal claim was murder-by-steaming and not diesel exhaust.
He just knew that I must be wrong. And he has used his skills as a lawyer who has a lot of time on his hands to defend his Faith.
I am a skeptic and I have never said that the Holocaust never happened. That is absurd. The Holocaust is not ONE monolithic event but consists of millions of experiences and points-of-view.
If we want to discuss details that's fine. There are lots of exagerrations, atrocity propganda, and outright lies. However, this is just a hobby for me and I don't have unlimited time. My major proposition is that all matters, including what Le Pen calls a "detail" of history, the gaschambers themselves, can and should be debated. Nobody OWNS History. Most of the Believers got themselves kicked off the Codoh forum for misbehavior. They are about as interested in exploring history and different views therein as the Medieval Inquisition in determining the historicity of Jesus. Any who doubt the miracles must be of the Devil, you know.
Best Regards,
Scott
Last edited by Scott Smith on 02 May 2002 09:00, edited 2 times in total.
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
- Location: Arizona
XANTHRO
Xanthro, you can sign-up for a free e-mail account through Yahoo or some other carrier. You don't even have to use genuine information.Xanthro wrote:I haven't had the opportunity to post on the new forum much, because my computer, with the email allowing me to register here, was down. It took a long time before I could get it working. I was a frequent poster on the old forum.
Yes, those who question things usually call themselves Revisionists. I, however, do not claim to be a Revisionist, just an interested amateur and skeptic.I haven't seen anyone on the side that believes the holocaust occurred who does so out of some type of faith. In fact, most are exceedindly open to questions about the Holocaust itself.
That's true. I know Roberto from the Fall of 2000 when he was trying to promote his "ecumenical" Holocaust and irritating the hell out of conservative Germans. I mentioned that his stance could make him susceptible to charges of anti-Semitism because the Holocaust is a Jewish cultural thing and that they don't appreciate anyone else using it beyond mere lip-service. The Jews don't want the Armenian Holocaust undermining the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust, for example. German historians with a Genocide-theory-of-history have tended to focus less on Jews. For them the gospel is NS-Verbrechen. It carries all torches. So much so that if anyone doubts a particular NS atrocity story he must be trying to rehabilitate National Socialism to enslave those poor German people again. Hark, I hear Hitler's Mercedes even now.Let's take one issue, "Jewishness of the Holocaust." Roberto doesn't believe that the Holocaust is unique to Jews, because many others were killed also. It's possible that a greater number of non-Jews were killed that were Jews. I think the Jewishness of the Holocaust is real, because I don't believe the others would have been killed if the apparatus for killing the Jews wasn't in place. While some people may try to claim Roberto is a denier for "dening" the unique Jewish aspect of the Holocaust, on this board Roberto is considered the foremost person who argues against Deniers.
The Holocaust is not ONE monolithic event to be acknowledged or Denied.There is a wide range of opinion held by those who acknowledge the Holocaust happened.
Btw, nice to have you back.
Scott
-
Xanthro
- Member
- Posts: 2803
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 00:11
- Location: Pasadena, CA
Xanthro wrote:
I haven't had the opportunity to post on the new forum much, because my computer, with the email allowing me to register here, was down. It took a long time before I could get it working. I was a frequent poster on the old forum.
Xanthro, you can sign-up for a free e-mail account through Yahoo or some other carrier. You don't even have to use genuine information.
--------------------------------
Scott,
While this is true, it wasn't possible for me. I registered for the forum at work, and used my at home email address. The confirmation email was already sent. As my computer was on, the email was downloaded, before I could read the email and respond, my RAID lost it's stripe and I had to go to a lot of trouble simply to get the email.
I thought about registering with another email address, but I'd have to use a different name, and that just wouldn't be any fun now would it?
Xanthro
I haven't had the opportunity to post on the new forum much, because my computer, with the email allowing me to register here, was down. It took a long time before I could get it working. I was a frequent poster on the old forum.
Xanthro, you can sign-up for a free e-mail account through Yahoo or some other carrier. You don't even have to use genuine information.
--------------------------------
Scott,
While this is true, it wasn't possible for me. I registered for the forum at work, and used my at home email address. The confirmation email was already sent. As my computer was on, the email was downloaded, before I could read the email and respond, my RAID lost it's stripe and I had to go to a lot of trouble simply to get the email.
I thought about registering with another email address, but I'd have to use a different name, and that just wouldn't be any fun now would it?
Xanthro
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
- Location: Arizona
EVIDENCE...
And the "totality" did not even consider such details as the technical operation of gaschambers and whether diesel exhaust could kill until Revisionists started to challenge their stories. No, the Believers are not interested in any totality. Not by a long shot. Some of the Revisionists aren't either but that is not the point.Xanthro wrote:The real difference between "deniers" and "believers" is emphasis on totality of evidence.
Funny, few of the Revisionists say the Holocaust never happened. They doubt things like gaschambers and atrocity propaganda and most think the six-million figure is an irresponsible exaggeration. Not long ago it was Holocaust Denial to doubt that four-million were gassed at Auschwitz. Now that is widely recognized to have been a mistake. It was more like a million."Believers" view the entire historical record and come to a probable conclusion as to what happened.
Yes, I think the gassing stories at Treblinka and the gas-vans are nothing more than atrocity propaganda, which is not to say that nothing bad ever happened to the Jews."Deniers" use small segments of the historical record to support a previously formed opinion.
It doesn't make you a Denier unless you cross the pale in some other way that marks you as a H-skeptic. Start doubting diesel gaschambers, or better yet Zyklon-B, while affirming the six-million... But technically, anything less than 6M is enough.Stating that less than 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust doesn't make you a denier. I've posted it could be between 4 and 9 million, and that the exact number can never be known with certainty. I doubt anyone here calls me a denier.
This is just another way of saying that historical research and science cannot be conducted by amateurs but only by bona fide and vested elites. Nonsense. There should be free access to archives to anyone who wants to look. I know that is not the European tradition where one must be vouched-for by the establishment and "Holocaust Denial," whatever that is, is illegal.All historical evidence should have to pass peer review before publication, and all evidence must be examined. This is what standard historians do on all historical subject matter.
At the very least that should lead to a reexamination of operating hypotheses.Sometimes people disagree with the historical record and they argue against it by looking for small errors or possible errors and equating that with the destruction of the entire thesis.
Well, we've been through this and I've explained that rather than an apriori belief in gassings, which renders all investigation moot and redundant from the Believer's point of view, we should instead employ forensic archaeology at the Treblinka site to determine if the physical human remains are consistent with hundreds of thousands of deaths/murders.For example, the whole Diesel Engine at Treblinka debate. It's hard to kill people via CO using a Diesel Engine. Some witnessed state that a Diesel Engine was used there to kill people. A true historian would look at this and compare all the other evidence and conclude that a) A diesel engine wasn't used, and the witness is mistaken, b) that the method of death wasn't CO, c) an inefficient method of death was used.
The denier claims that this is proof that much of the holocaust is a cruel propoganda trick. That eyewitness testimony is part of some conspiracy, along with all other evidence because it's simply impossible that a diesel engine was used.
I said at the start that I was willing to concede that 700 thousand (Hilberg) died or were murdered there but not by diesel exhaust. This took us through reams of Denier/Believer rodomontade.
Yes, the Holocaust is a religion; make no mistake about that. It is no different fundamentally than any other religion or belief-system that this Atheist has had the honor to debate.
It is laughable that some could believe so fervently in fairy tales. Groupthink is a fascinating subject for the psychologist. All I have ever required is an agreement-to-disagree. How else do you suppose that I get along with Dan, a fervent Calvinist? We agree-to-disagree, emphasizing our similarities, not our differences. And thus we respect each other.That type of reasoning is laughable no matter what the subject matter.
Best Regards,
Scott
-
tonyh
- Member
- Posts: 2911
- Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
re
>>I said at the start that I was willing to concede that 700 thousand (Hilberg) died or were murdered there but not by diesel exhaust.<<
You see Scott, I don't understand the problem that some people have with this. Ok, so in your opinion it most probably wasn't diesel that did the deed.
But perhaps 700.000 people met their end through whatever means. And you concede this. Wheres the problem? Why must it have to be diesel? It is quite possible that a petrol engine was involved and was confused by the layperson as a diesel. Whatever, I really don't care, to be honest. I don't know and I reserve the right not to know and have my conclusion suspended on the matter.
What I don't get is how this, for some people, constitutes "holocaust denial".
I think however that the slander of "holocaust denier" is a nonsense of the lowest form anyway. As far as I have seen, NOBODY has ever said that the "holocaust (per se) never happened"
And even if there is, at most, 10 crackpots out there that state this, then SO WHAT? Whats the fuss? Its a donkey-like opinion held by godshites.
The fact the "believers" (for want of a better word) are so vehement in labeling these people with stupid terms and making certain opinions on the "holocaust" illegal does more to make these counter opinions manifest than the so called "deniers" ever could.
People should be allowed question anything they want. Full stop. Whether its gas chambers in Auschwitz or the number of dead in Afghanistan.
Tony
You see Scott, I don't understand the problem that some people have with this. Ok, so in your opinion it most probably wasn't diesel that did the deed.
But perhaps 700.000 people met their end through whatever means. And you concede this. Wheres the problem? Why must it have to be diesel? It is quite possible that a petrol engine was involved and was confused by the layperson as a diesel. Whatever, I really don't care, to be honest. I don't know and I reserve the right not to know and have my conclusion suspended on the matter.
What I don't get is how this, for some people, constitutes "holocaust denial".
I think however that the slander of "holocaust denier" is a nonsense of the lowest form anyway. As far as I have seen, NOBODY has ever said that the "holocaust (per se) never happened"
And even if there is, at most, 10 crackpots out there that state this, then SO WHAT? Whats the fuss? Its a donkey-like opinion held by godshites.
The fact the "believers" (for want of a better word) are so vehement in labeling these people with stupid terms and making certain opinions on the "holocaust" illegal does more to make these counter opinions manifest than the so called "deniers" ever could.
People should be allowed question anything they want. Full stop. Whether its gas chambers in Auschwitz or the number of dead in Afghanistan.
Tony
-
Laurent
- Member
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 16 Apr 2002 11:04
- Location: Lyon, France
Just my two cents...
Questionning the fact that diesel engines were used in gaschambers is fine to me, if you find it's impossible, so you want to prove that something else was used, it's only historian work.
But if you do that to prove that use of diesel engine, as reported in 1945 documents, is impossible, so that proves that gaschambers were impossible, that is holocaust denial.
And in most cases, things finish like this, so most "believers" will react if you ask the question.
Proofs of the holocaust are tens of thousands of documents, testimonies and other legal documents issued just after the war but also on every tribunal from 1945 to the last years, many of the in Germany in the 60s-70s.
Most of revisionists studies are based on a very small of documents, usually written just after 1945 and given estimates that were almost always surevalued for propaganda purposes.
Many of the contested numbers are errors, not propaganda (many are Soviet and after 1945 it wasn't good to be Jew in Soviet Union). And historians have changed/revised them since.
A good example, here in France, first number of Jew killed were 200 000 after the war, then during a long time 100-120 000, a long research by the son of a deportee has lowered the number to 83 000 dead, and some thousand of survivors returning from the camps after the war. But this study examinated hundreds or thousands of document (French police reports, German archives, railway archives, convoy lists, evasion reports, survivors testimonies, SS testimonies,....) and is historically correct.
Most 'denial' works I have seen on the Net follow the following logical :
1) this and this and this document were used to prove the Holocaust, but they are false or number are false, so they are bullshit.
2) so all holocaust proofs are bullshit.
3) so Holocaust is an invention.
In most of the cases I have seen, the 'false' documents are also considered false by 'believers' and in any case they are only a drop in an ocean of proofs and documents.
If anybody here is able to explain how any serious historian can justifiate the transition from 1 to 2.....
That said, i'm interested in your diesel exhaust study. I don't know more about lethality of it, what I know from numerous sources is that Jews were packed in gaschambers as much as possible and in any circonstances like that people will begin to die even if there is nothing lethal in the air, just because oxygen will lack very soon. Saturating the air with any exhaust will certainly hasten the processus but I'm not specialist.
What I know is that most trains arriving in camp contain a good proportion of dead people, only by lack of fresh air/space, and there was more air in wagons than in any sealed gaschambers. The worst case I know being a train of political/Resistance/hostages/penal deportees from Paris to Dachau, one cart contains 98 dead and 2 survivors at arrival.
Regarding gasvans, why would have German soldiers said before court that they used them ? This was not in Nuremberg, but in the 60s, before German courts.
And many of these testimonies said that gasvans not really work and that during dischargement living Jews were found.
Laurent
Questionning the fact that diesel engines were used in gaschambers is fine to me, if you find it's impossible, so you want to prove that something else was used, it's only historian work.
But if you do that to prove that use of diesel engine, as reported in 1945 documents, is impossible, so that proves that gaschambers were impossible, that is holocaust denial.
And in most cases, things finish like this, so most "believers" will react if you ask the question.
Proofs of the holocaust are tens of thousands of documents, testimonies and other legal documents issued just after the war but also on every tribunal from 1945 to the last years, many of the in Germany in the 60s-70s.
Most of revisionists studies are based on a very small of documents, usually written just after 1945 and given estimates that were almost always surevalued for propaganda purposes.
Many of the contested numbers are errors, not propaganda (many are Soviet and after 1945 it wasn't good to be Jew in Soviet Union). And historians have changed/revised them since.
A good example, here in France, first number of Jew killed were 200 000 after the war, then during a long time 100-120 000, a long research by the son of a deportee has lowered the number to 83 000 dead, and some thousand of survivors returning from the camps after the war. But this study examinated hundreds or thousands of document (French police reports, German archives, railway archives, convoy lists, evasion reports, survivors testimonies, SS testimonies,....) and is historically correct.
Most 'denial' works I have seen on the Net follow the following logical :
1) this and this and this document were used to prove the Holocaust, but they are false or number are false, so they are bullshit.
2) so all holocaust proofs are bullshit.
3) so Holocaust is an invention.
In most of the cases I have seen, the 'false' documents are also considered false by 'believers' and in any case they are only a drop in an ocean of proofs and documents.
If anybody here is able to explain how any serious historian can justifiate the transition from 1 to 2.....
That said, i'm interested in your diesel exhaust study. I don't know more about lethality of it, what I know from numerous sources is that Jews were packed in gaschambers as much as possible and in any circonstances like that people will begin to die even if there is nothing lethal in the air, just because oxygen will lack very soon. Saturating the air with any exhaust will certainly hasten the processus but I'm not specialist.
What I know is that most trains arriving in camp contain a good proportion of dead people, only by lack of fresh air/space, and there was more air in wagons than in any sealed gaschambers. The worst case I know being a train of political/Resistance/hostages/penal deportees from Paris to Dachau, one cart contains 98 dead and 2 survivors at arrival.
Regarding gasvans, why would have German soldiers said before court that they used them ? This was not in Nuremberg, but in the 60s, before German courts.
And many of these testimonies said that gasvans not really work and that during dischargement living Jews were found.
Laurent
-
tonyh
- Member
- Posts: 2911
- Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
re
>>But if you do that to prove that use of diesel engine, as reported in 1945 documents, is impossible, so that proves that gaschambers were impossible<<
But this isn't even a point Laurent, 'cos nobody is trying to suggest this.
>>Proofs of the holocaust are tens of thousands of documents, testimonies and other legal documents...<<
Testimony at best is allegation, not proof. Documents can be forged or arrived at by coercion. Note, that I am not saying that this is per se for holocaust docs and testomonies. But it has been done in the past and could be true of some docs and testomonies from holocaust related material. I, for one, cannot and will not rule that out.
Tony
But this isn't even a point Laurent, 'cos nobody is trying to suggest this.
>>Proofs of the holocaust are tens of thousands of documents, testimonies and other legal documents...<<
Testimony at best is allegation, not proof. Documents can be forged or arrived at by coercion. Note, that I am not saying that this is per se for holocaust docs and testomonies. But it has been done in the past and could be true of some docs and testomonies from holocaust related material. I, for one, cannot and will not rule that out.
Tony