Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier" Part II

Tyrian · Post by **Tyrian** » 09 Jan 2006 21:29

Exactly, and by truth I do mean numerical truth. That is why I defend the need to be able to discuss numbers without being immediately catalogued as a denier. We will never know the exact number, but we may be able to make better and better estimates, as long as people don't mix numbers and morals, which are obviously completely unrelated.

Larry D. · Post by **Larry D.** » 09 Jan 2006 22:31

Tyrian wrote:Exactly, and by truth I do mean numerical truth. That is why I defend the need to be able to discuss numbers without being immediately catalogued as a denier. We will never know the exact number, but we may be able to make better and better estimates, as long as people don't mix numbers and morals, which are obviously completely unrelated.

Where exactly have you been for the last 60 years, young man? I can think of no subject in my lifetime that has been more sliced, diced, chopped, disected and discussed than this one. What revellations do you have that will suddenly allow the world body to more clearly comprehend the magnitude of the Holocaust? So far, you haven't said anything that I haven't heard 100,000 times before and I haven't said anything that you haven't heard 33,333 times before (I'm at least three times older than you). So around and around and around it goes ad nauseam without any input of fresh material. I was hoping you might have discovered a previously unknown Geheime Reichssache letter from the Führer to Josef Göbbels, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann in which he expresses his deep and abiding love for the Jewish people and directs them to set up a Tarnprojekt to deceive the world into believing the Nazis were killing the Jews, and that all that ensued thereafter was just smoke and mirrors and arguably the most clever disinformation project ever created. Wait! I'm not through! And that while operating in total secrecy at your own expense, you had obtained certification of the absolute authenticity of this letter from the governments of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and, yes, Israel, and that all of these certificates were personally signed by the presidents/prime ministers of said countries. Sound ridiculous? Of course it is. But unless you can lay something of that historical significance on the table, then anything you have to say has been said a million times before. This, Sir, is why you encounter sarcasm and nastiness in the threads where the Holocaust is discussed. It's because it's the same-o same-o over and over again and everyone is tired of it. As for your desire to apply the scientific method to the subject, are you suggesting that this has not been done before? That you will be the very first scientist to examine the subject using the established methods of the trade? Please.

R.M. Schultz · Post by **R.M. Schultz** » 09 Jan 2006 22:43

Tyrian wrote:Everyone gets to hide what? People are free to think what they wish. Are you a priest? Is it morally wrong to debate numbers? What do numbers have to do with morals? Are you hunting someone? Opinions have their own worth, regardless of who presents them. And what about the final question I posed? Or is asking questions forbidden too? Respectfully

Goodness — so defensive! Just try to pin a few people down on the meaning of a few words and all the sudden you’re accused of being a “priest” — though I’m not really sure if that’s good or bad. At least you’re not quoting the “Hammer of Witches” to me ...

DXTR wrote:History is an interpretation and we will go on interpreting certain events just as the holocaust...

Fair enough, but let’s discuss what that really means. The inescapable fact is that certain interpretations of history are inseparably wedded to particular political view points! The view that the American Civil War was about “state’s rights” and not slavery is inseparable from a racist world-view. The idea that Germany was defeated in the field in WW1 is a distinctly western, bourgeois notion. The idea that the Crusades were “immoral” is, similarly, a secular bourgeois notion. And finally, persistent questioning of well established facts of Nazi genocide is a positive indicator for a crypto-fascist world-view.

As for myself, I have long since admitted to my biases. I am a Catholic and National Bolshevik. I hate cats and like dogs. I drink beer and believe wine drinkers to be effete. I have three kids and have no use for the “child free.” I like bland food and spicy stories. Any biases I haven’t covered here, just ask and I’ll tell you.

Tyrian wrote:Exactly, and by truth I do mean numerical truth.

So — what then is the numerical value of the human soul? Or is that just not worth talking about?

Tyrian wrote: We will never know the exact number, but we may be able to make better and better estimates, as long as people don't mix numbers and morals, which are obviously completely unrelated.

If we do not discuss the moral implications of history then we are just jacking off.

Tyrian · Post by **Tyrian** » 10 Jan 2006 00:46

Hello, mr. Larry

I can't see how your post relates to any of what I have written. Surely, what you write would have some justification if I had advocated any crime perpetrared by the nazis. But as I have already written, I'm a pacifist, and against all violence. You probably have some prejudice against all people who touch on this subject; maybe you are unable to understand that someone can look at the subject with a critical eye, and still be against all the crimes involved. I defend neither nazism nor stalinism, nor communism, nor any kind of dictatorship.

Actually, I just find it completely absurd to state that a given number of people died, and stick to that number fanatically, despite the fact that you yourself, and everyone else, acknowledges that no one knows for sure how many died. That is the crucial point. But my postings are about establishing common ground, where people can talk about it without being catalogued. I'm just a scientist. I do not pretend to have any new revelations.

And the definition of denier is quite important, because on it hinges the ability of people to have a normal, quiet conversation about it. As I have said, I do not mind not discussing this, I understand that people are very sensitive about it,( and so am I, so much so that I am unable to see any of those ghastly photos people sometimes link to), so I'm just as human as you are.
I do think forensic science can help history, but this is also nothing new. But a lot of historians and scientists of all branches have a tendency to resist change. I think discussing history is always healthy, but you seem to disagree when it comes to the specific topic which is the holocaust. But there is no problem, really. I absolutely respect you and all the participants of the forum. Would we be having this discussion if I put in question the number of Christians that the romans threw to the lions? I think not.

And still, no-one has answered my final question. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.

Tyrian · Post by **Tyrian** » 10 Jan 2006 01:18

How do you do, Mr. Schultz?

I am not accusing you of being a priest, (which I'm sure is not a bad thing) but I'm basing myself on your moral interpretation of historical fact. Usually, morals are the domain of the clergy, not historians, and that explains my question.
If history is interpretation (I admit that I did not know that), then I am not discussing history, as you understand it. I wish to discuss facts. And facts are indisputable, whatever the interpretation given to them. And if you want to discuss moral implications of facts ( which I don't think should be the role of historians anyway, but it's up to you ), at least you should get your facts right, before interpreting them( I'm not sayng they are wrong, because I don't know them). Interpreting fantasies is not really that productive.
It is a question of honesty, really. If no-one knows how many died for sure, why use the 6 number? It's not very useful. And why stifle dialogue about it? There should not be a problem with that. But you are honest when you say that you are biased; however, doesn't it become a little contradictory at times? I ask without irony of any sort. I also think the human soul has no numeric value, it is invaluable. Mixing morals and science always taints scientific conclusions.
The issue remains, why are people insulted by numbers?
I'm also not a downy-cheeked teenager, that needs patronizing (which I am also not accusing you of). I have always respected my elders. Sincerely

R.M. Schultz · Post by **R.M. Schultz** » 10 Jan 2006 02:53

Tyrian wrote: If history is interpretation (I admit that I did not know that), then I am not discussing history, as you understand it. I wish to discuss facts. And facts are indisputable, whatever the interpretation given to them.

This thread is called "Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier" and it follows is the wake a quite a number of attempts at either trying to define “Holocaust Denier” or to quantify denial at a specific number of Jewish dead.

Definition of “Holocaust Denier”
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27365

Holocaust denial revisited
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=73285

How many deaths does a Denier discount?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=44835

Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier."
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=36004

The "myths" about the Holocaust
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 90&start=0

Most of these threads were poisoned by people who either wanted to quibble about “facts” or to undermine the whole idea that such a thing as “Holocaust Denier” could be defined. If you are merely interested in what scholars estimate the current acceptable numbers of Jewish dead were in the Nazi genocide, then I suggest you find another thread. If, on the other hand, you wish to help us in defining “Holocaust Denier” in a way that will find wide acceptance and use on the Axis History Forum, then by all means give us your criterion for “Holocaust Denier.”

Tyrian · Post by **Tyrian** » 10 Jan 2006 03:16

I already did. In case you were distracted, Here it is:

Believer: 6 million jews and non-jews died in concentration camps, by gassing, starvation, abuse, hard-labour,etc...for political reasons.

Skeptic: Many jews and non jews died in german copcentration camps, by a variety of means. Not sure about the total number of dead( who is?) or the details of some means of execution.

Denier: no jews died in german concentration camps, but if any did, there was no political reason.

What do you mean by poisononing? Do facts poison the way you look at history? Are facts just quibbles? Would you like facts to be different (so that they would fit your views a little better?). Can't help you there. I deal with numbers, and according to the definition of denier presented in the FAQ, there is one number that is extremely important, hence the justification for my postings. But no problem. A denier today (in your definition) may become accepted tomorrow. Just a little scientific analysys of the figures may do it. What will you say then? We'll wait and see. Best regards

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 10 Jan 2006 04:08

Tyrian -- You said:

I deal with numbers, and according to the definition of denier presented in the FAQ, there is one number that is extremely important, hence the justification for my postings.

What are you talking about?

Tyrian · Post by **Tyrian** » 10 Jan 2006 04:25

Number 6 of course. Doesn't it appear on the FAQ?

Tyrian · Post by **Tyrian** » 10 Jan 2006 04:31

You are right, it doesn't appear in the section rules, but is implicit, I guess, since it is the established number (of deaths). It is important for the denier definition I have proposed, so the postings are completely on-topic, in my opinion. Cheers

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 10 Jan 2006 04:55

You are right, it doesn't appear in the section rules, but is implicit, I guess, since it is the established number (of deaths).

The 6 million figure is neither explicit nor implicit in the forum or section rules. If you have a different figure in mind, you can discuss it on one of the pre-existing threads listed in the German and European Axis war crimes FAQs at: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52292

Year-Wise details of holocaust victims
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=2584
Countrywide details of holocaust victims
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=2583
6 million
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1402
Holocaust question
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=11327
6 million killed in holocaust? maybe more?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=12680
6 million?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3084
13 million died in death camps?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=35150
How many Jews were killed for real?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=33429
Official number of kills at concentration camps
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43317

R.M. Schultz · Post by **R.M. Schultz** » 10 Jan 2006 05:50

Tyrian wrote:I already did. In case you were distracted, Here it is:

Believer: 6 million Jews and non-jews died in concentration camps, by gassing, starvation, abuse, hard-labour,etc...for political reasons.

Skeptic: Many jews and non jews died in german copcentration camps, by a variety of means. Not sure about the total number of dead( who is?) or the details of some means of execution.

Denier: no jews died in german concentration camps, but if any did, there was no political reason.

What we need here is a useful definition. This is about as useful as a pregnancy test that yielded results of 0% pregnant, 10% not pregnant, and 90% ”don’t know.” There is simply no Denier so rabid (now that Scott Smith and Poison Dwarf are gone) who is actually going to admit that he thinks that the only Jews who died in the camps were criminals or typhus victims. Just like witches, these crypto-fascists (and for your information, “crypto” means “secret”) try to obscure the issues rather than just come out and admit that they favor Devil worship and/or genocide.

Tyrian wrote: What do you mean by poisononing? Do facts poison the way you look at history? Are facts just quibbles? Would you like facts to be different (so that they would fit your views a little better?). Can't help you there. I deal with numbers, and according to the definition of denier presented in the FAQ, there is one number that is extremely important, hence the justification for my postings. But no problem. A denier today (in your definition) may become accepted tomorrow. Just a little scientific analysys of the figures may do it. What will you say then? We'll wait and see. Best regards

What “facts” do you count as so solidly established that denial of their truth would amount to Holocaust Denial? Do you have trouble with my criterion? If so, how? Remember — this is not binding, we are not drawing up rules for the Forum, this is just a way of having a term we can use with some precision.

tonyh · Post by **tonyh** » 10 Jan 2006 13:26

>>>There is simply no Denier so rabid (now that Scott Smith and Poison Dwarf are gone) who is actually going to admit that he thinks that the only Jews who died in the camps were criminals or typhus victims.<<<

Now, now........Scott Smith did NOT say this and you know that.

Tony

Tero · Post by **Tero** » 10 Jan 2006 14:00

By DXTR

History is an interpretation and we will go on interpreting certain events just as the holocaust...

The problem is when a single word becomes the denominator of a conglomerate of different parts and subevents which in and of themselves are not fully explored and researched.

Over time any attempt to do independent research or exploration to the individual aspects will (and in the case of the Holocaust has) become unacceptable because as the personal feelings and moral outrage die down a more dispassionate look at the evidence will render the "facts" open to an interpretation which is not compliant with the established and accepted interpretation. Or the new look at the evidence may even render the established "facts" suspect.

This is IMO the niche the holocaust deniers are aiming their wedge at. I fear the day a legitimate research produced undeniable proof that even a single "established truth" which is a part of the Holocaust tradition is not valid. That will open the Pandoras box.

This is why IMO denying the Holocaust denial is very dangerous. You can not discredit the misguided if they do their work in chambers in the dark.

Larry D. · Post by **Larry D.** » 10 Jan 2006 14:56

Right on the mark, Tero. Your comments, along with some very sage observations made by R.M. Schultz, have opened my eyes and I no longer see our friend Tyrian as the young undergrad physics student as he initially claimed to be. In fact, he has admitted to as much: "I'm also not a downy-cheeked teenager, that needs patronizing....", as he put it. I think we have a wolf in sheep's clothing here, a wedge-driving (a tip of the hat to Tero for a nice analogy) revisionist who cruises the web Holocaust discussion sites sowing doubt and confusion wherever he can. We just had a Mr. Stapel, allegedly from Sweden, attempt the same thing on another thread here, that is until he was unmasked and disappeared. Tyrian's well disguised patois now reminds me of the style and methods used by the police to ferret out ill-intentioned adults who penetrate teen internet chat rooms hoping to make a "score". Nice try, Tyrian, but I think we've got your number now.