What kind of argument is this?

[David Thompson]

The following is a parody argument taken from the website at:

http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems? Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

The Mad Revisionist
EXPOSING THE DRESDEN DECEPTION

An Open Response to Ernst Zundel's"Z-Gram" of February 13, 1999
by
THE MAD REVISIONIST

> February 13, 1999
>
> Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
>
> Today is "Dresden Day."

Apparently Mr. Zundel is unaware that recent research conducted by the courageous and politically incorrect truth-seekers of THE MAD REVISIONIST has revealed startling evidence that the bombing of Dresden and other German cities during the conflict known as World War II is in fact an elaborate German propaganda hoax.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result. But revisionists are scorned, and even laughed at, when we ask difficult questions about what really caused the tragedy, and how many people were really killed. Meanwhile, so many establishment lies about this alleged event have been exposed by revisionist research that its hard to take the normatively accepted version seriously.

Take the fact that there are numerous memorial sites in Germany that supposedly mark "mass graves" of civilians alleged to have been killed in these so-called "bombings". Yet not one of these sites have ever been excavated and subjected to impartial forensic examination to confirm that they contain what they are alleged to contain. Appalling, is it not? These Dresden hoaxers obviously have something to hide.

> Fifty-four years ago today, the city of Dresden, which had no strategic
> military significance at all and which had become a huge refugee city for
> civilians fleeing the Red Terror, became a huge fireball in the fiercest
> Allied terror bombing ever.

Indeed, the city of Dresden had no military or strategic significance. Is it therefore not the least bit fishy that the Dresden hoaxers expect you to believe the ridiculous notion that the Allies, while fighting a war that they intended to win, would waste valuable military resources on it?

> David Irving has written about the Dresden Holocaust, and it is a book well
> worth reading - and one you will never forget.
>
> It is estimated by some that as many as 350,000 - 600,000 victims were
> incinerated beyond being identifiable or even recognizable as human remains
> in that Holocaust. Only 35,000 could be identified.

Ah, so only 35,000 victims could be identified, and yet Zundel expects us to believe that another 350,000-600,000 people (why does the number vary so widely, hmmm?) were killed as well, simply because they are unaccounted for. How gullible does he think we are? Does he offer any proof to support this absurd number?

> Many of the pictures that people were served up as "pyres of gassed Jews"
> from Auschwitz and elsewhere in early Allied "atrocity flicks" are, in
> fact, photographs the Wehrmacht took of German victims of the Allied war
> crime of Dresden.

But every revisionist knows that it is physically impossible to burn bodies in open pits. That's why the photos and eyewitness testimonies of Jews being burned outside the kremas at Auschwitz must be fakes, right? So it serves as proof, as well, that the Dresden bombing is a hoax.

> The War Department, describing another city, Hamburg, described how people
> died in such a firestorm:
>
> "Literally hundreds of people were seen leaving shelters after the heat
> became intense. They ran across the street and were seen to collapse very
> slowly like people who were utterly exhausted. They could not get up."
>
> A reporter, Melitta Maschman, wrote of what happened in the City of Darmstadt:

Well, I suppose it is accurate to refer to Melita Maschmann (correct spelling) as a reporter at the time of the bombing. Though it would, perhaps, be more accurate to say that she was a reporter for the Bund Deutscher Madel. In fact, it would be more accurate still to say that she was the head of the BDM Press and Propaganda division in Berlin from 1943 until the end of the war. Interesting how Mr. Zundel is willing to, er, prune information that might cast doubt on the reliability and objectivity of his sources. Particulary when the source in question, in her memoir (Account Rendered: a Dossier on my Former Self) written after the war, was quite open in describing how the Nazis used to brainwash German youth.

> "There was not a house anywhere in the street which had not turned into a
> blazing firebrand. Above the sea of flames, a glowing cyclone raged over
> the town, and whenever it caught the bodies of people in flight, it
> shriveled them in a second to the size of a child, and the next day they
> lay all over the streets, hardly burnt, but like mummified children."

HBO should have saved this lie for its "Tales from the Crypt" program.

Preposterous nonsense! So called "eyewitness" testimonies of these alleged bombings of German cities contain so many impossibilities and discrepancies as to make the whole story unbelievable. Sure, all of the survivors pretty much agree on the point that the city was bombed by the Allies, but how reliable are survivors who also testify to "puddles of melted human flesh" and people "glowing blue (or orange) and disintegrating" - and this, in sealed bunkers which were protected from the fire. There have been so many lies told by so-called "Dresden survivors" that all of these testimonies are wide open to reasonable doubt. After all, how much can you trust people testifying against their hated enemies?

And is there a single witness who actually saw a bomb dropped from an American plane land on the city and explode? No. Not one such witness. Who could have survived to have described such a thing? All we have are rumors. I don't want to hear what people thought they heard from inside the bomb shelter, or what they figured might be going on above. I want to know what they saw.

No, the Dresden myth relies almost entirely on hostile eyewitness testimony and questionable "confessions" by those alleged to have done the dirty deed. There is not a single survivor account of the Dresden bombing that has ever stood up to hostile cross-examination, and I challenge you to find one.

> These German victims' wartimes stories are not known. They left no diaries.
>
> They perished in the flames of the devastating inferno of March 16, 1945 -
> among the thousands of victims of this Allied atrocity the following women
> and children named "Anna":
<snip: list of names>
> I would like you to honor and remember these German victims of a deliberate
> Allied policy with genocidal overtones in a few moments' worth of silence.

While I'm sure that Mr. Zundel considers it good history to tug at the heart strings in the hopes of disabling our ability to think rationally and critically, this tactic will not work any better than the diary of Anne Frank.

It stands that he has yet to show us one proof... one single proof... that any one of these persons died as a result of Allied bombs. In light of the fact that I have shown that the Dresden story has no non-biased eyewitnesses and no conclusive physical evidence, it appears that alternative explanations for the destruction are entirely plausible. It could have been caused by someone smoking in bed (smoking is more common in continental Europe than it is in, say, North America). Also, it is entirely plausible that the German Air Force bombed the city themselves by accident (as they did to Freiburg), and then tried to cover up their heinous error by blaming the disaster on their hated enemies.

Its not looking good for the Dresden hoaxers now. Where is the proof that this city was bombed by the Allies? Considering the gravity of the charges, is it really so much to ask?

Feedback:
"... about 35000 people were identified as killed. How many others were killed... is unknown." (a challenge to (Dr.) David E Michael)
"... nothing occurred at Dresden during the war for the simple reason that there *is* no Dresden."
"Being the relative of fire-bombed victims at Dresden, I fully agree with the
need for a full public investigation"
New Groundbreaking Research from Germany

Back to THE MAD REVISIONIST

THE MAD REVISIONIST: We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion. We invite your support and submissions.

DISCLAIMER: All editorial content on this website is strictly not the writer’s/author’s opinion. THE MAD REVISIONIST, located on the moon, is owned and operated by accident. The content of this page is the copyrighted property of THE MAD REVISIONIST. Any illegal copying or circulating of this page, in whole or in part, without the expressed permission of THE MAD REVISIONIST will be taken as a compliment.

[Rob S.]

It's a very good arguement. Not in literal facts, obviously, but in pointing out the non-sensical methods Holocaust Revisionists go about denying the Holocaust took place.

Believe you me, you can find an arguement against any textbook in the entire world if you actually tried hard enough. The only thing that keeps holocaust revisionism alive is inscentive: Without it National Socialism could hardly be viewed as a liable alternative to Democracy in this day and age.

[Roberto]

It's a very good arguement.

I think David was referring not to the parody argument used by THE MAD REVISIONIST, but to the "Revisionist" arguments parodied thereby.

This being my understanding, I consider the parody very good, though not above improvement. The arguments parodied, needless to say, I consider as poor as the parody shows them to be.

[RACPISA]

I thought that was a pretty good parody. I like how it uses sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning to try and prove something completely ridiculous like the moon is just a hologram, Dunkin' Donuts doughnuts don't really have holes in them, or the real reason the Holocaust didn't happen is because Jews don't even exist!

I wonder what David Irving would think of this site...

[Erik]

Mr. Thompson wrote:

This form of argument is frequently employed in arguing the sort of controversies we discuss in this section of the forum. In my opinion, the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric.

How convincing or effective is this approach to a discussion of historical problems? Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

Mr. Wendel rules against it in his reason number one:

1. Holocaust denial is an insult to those that suffered and die

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 3352#93352

Mr. Thompson thinks that “the use of this form of argument has been more frequent since public schools stopped teaching logic and rhetoric”.

Rob S. thinks, too:

Believe you me, you can find an arguement against any textbook in the entire world if you actually tried hard enough. The only thing that keeps holocaust revisionism alive is inscentive: Without it National Socialism could hardly be viewed as a liable alternative to Democracy in this day and age.

Rapisca, who apparently is not “inscentive” to “sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning”, still likes “the use of this form of argument”:

I like how it uses sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning to try and prove something completely ridiculous like the moon is just a hologram, Dunkin' Donuts doughnuts don't really have holes in them, or the real reason the Holocaust didn't happen is because Jews don't even exist!

“Needless to say”, Roberto has an other understanding, so he thinks:

I think David was referring not to the parody argument used by THE MAD REVISIONIST, but to the "Revisionist" arguments parodied thereby.
This being my understanding, I consider the parody very good, though not above improvement. The arguments parodied, needless to say, I consider as poor as the parody shows them to be.

But parody has been called “a homage gone sour”. Those who think it is sweet may have missed the real flavor, it they think that it is logic and argument using “sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning” that is the target.

Back to THE MAD REVISIONIST

THE MAD REVISIONIST: We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion. We invite your support and submissions.

Can Roberto improve on this parody? Or is he “above improvement”?

[David Thompson]

Erik -- You didn't tell the readers what you thought of the argument. How convincing or effective do you think this approach is to a discussion of historical problems? Do you think this type of argument should be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste? Don't you think that the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." takes the argument out of the denial category?

[POW]

Don't you think that the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." takes the argument out of the denial category?

That passage reminds me of the statement of Prof. Dr. Arthur L. Smith Jr. :"In April and May the Allies called on the Germans to camp along the Rhine and to use their own rations until additional rations arrive."

Camping along the Rhine is romantic, isn't it?

[RACPISA]

Rapisca, who apparently is not “inscentive” to “sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning”, still likes “the use of this form of argument”:

When I said I liked it, I meant that I found the parody kind of funny, not that I believed it or I liked revisionism. Don't misquote me.

What's your point, anyway, besides critisizing everything everyone says?

[Roberto]

Rapisca, who apparently is not “inscentive” to “sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning”, still likes “the use of this form of argument”:

When I said I liked it, I meant that I found the parody kind of funny, not that I believed it or I liked revisionism. Don't misquote me.

What's your point, anyway, besides critisizing everything everyone says?

Don't bother. There are people badly in need to vent some deep frustration, and the philosopher is one of them.

[David Thompson]

I invite the readers to take this form of argument apart.

What specifically is wrong with it?

Should or shouldn't this form of argument be taken seriously?

How convincing or effective is this approach is to a discussion of historical problems?

Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

Does the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." take the argument out of the denial category?

(POW -- That quote from Prof. Dr. Arthur L. Smith Jr. about German POWs was a masterpiece of understated and bone-dry irony -- well worth remembering, in my opinion.)

[Erik]

Mr. Thompson wrote:

I invite the readers to take this form of argument apart.

What specifically is wrong with it?

Should or shouldn't this form of argument be taken seriously?

How convincing or effective is this approach is to a discussion of historical problems?

Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

Do you mean parody as a form of argument? Or the argument apart from the parody?

Roberto probably doesn’t need a parody to help his understanding:

The arguments parodied, needless to say, I consider as poor as the parody shows them to be.

He already knows what the parody wanted to show. The parody doesn’t make any difference.

Racpisa didn’t “believe” the parody, just because it was funny:

When I said I liked it, I meant that I found the parody kind of funny, not that I believed it or I liked revisionism. Don't misquote me.

Regrettably, I happened to mistype Racpisa’s nick, but otherwise the quote was correct, wasn’t it?

Quote: I like how it uses sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning to try and prove something completely ridiculous like the moon is just a hologram, Dunkin' Donuts doughnuts don't really have holes in them, or the real reason the Holocaust didn't happen is because Jews don't even exist!

Can this be misunderstood?

Can’t the Holocaust be proven by using “sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning”? Will such reasoning only find ridicule among those who believe?

Does the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." take the argument out of the denial category?

Why does such a category exist?

Quote: 1. Holocaust denial is an insult to those that suffered and died.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 3352#93352


To ALL that suffered and died? Or only to those who died for the “right” reason?

[David Thompson]

Erik -- I asked you a number of questions. You didn't answer them (perhaps you didn't see them), but posed some more of your own.

Those questions were:

(1) How convincing or effective do you think this approach is to a discussion of historical problems?

(2) Do you think this type of argument should be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

(3) Don't you think that the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." takes the argument out of the denial category?

You asked: "Do you mean parody as a form of argument? Or the argument apart from the parody?"

Don't you think that the form of argument is the same in both the parody and the inspiration for the parody?

And now that I've pointed the questions out again, won't you answer them?

[witness]

Mr. Thompson wrote:

I invite the readers to take this form of argument apart.

What specifically is wrong with it?

Should or shouldn't this form of argument be taken seriously?

How convincing or effective is this approach is to a discussion of historical problems?

Should this type of argument be censored on the grounds that it is insulting or in bad taste?

Do you mean parody as a form of argument? Or the argument apart from the parody?

Yes.
An argument of the kind " show me more evidence that Edith Stein was gassed in Auschwitz . The eyewitness accounts are not enough for me .I am Skeptic " could not be answered by anything else but parody.
If you believe a priori that all eyewitness accounts were lies with the same success you would declare any attesting evidence to be lies.
Just recollect what R "skeptics" try to prove about the photographs of the Eisanztgruppen executions.( "Fakes. ..This is not an Eisanztgruppen .. Those are not the Jews .. The pictures were meddled with " etc ) . Nothing would do Erik.
And guess what Erik. This kind of "sophisticated languge" etc can not find nothing else but ridicule.
So just "deal with it ".

[RACPISA]

Regrettably, I happened to mistype Racpisa’s nick, but otherwise the quote was correct, wasn’t it?

Quote: I like how it uses sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning to try and prove something completely ridiculous like the moon is just a hologram, Dunkin' Donuts doughnuts don't really have holes in them, or the real reason the Holocaust didn't happen is because Jews don't even exist!

Can this be misunderstood?

What I was talking about was this:

Rapisca, who apparently is not “inscentive” to “sophisticated language and scientific-method-style reasoning”, still likes “the use of this form of argument”:

I still have to deep-think about all of David Thompson's questions before I have a concrete opinion. But all I was trying to say was that I liked the parody. It showed that you can make someone consider the most ridiculous things if you use big words and make it sound like a true scientific endeavor, whether it's trying to prove that the moon isn't real or that the gas chambers aren't real. And I found the parody funny. THAT WAS IT.

[Dan]

Does the passage "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a few buildings might not have burned down, and that maybe a few people weren't singed or even killed as a result." take the argument out of the denial category?

It would seem designed to create anger and frustration in the population group it was aimed at. It mocks and demeans this target group, and an even handed antiFreespeech law who treat it the same way as someone who writes that the Jews had it good at Auschwitz.

So, I would say it a valuable debating tool.