Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier" Part II

[DXTR]

Just for the record, my ranting about the definition of truth and why it is a mistake as a historian to seek it as a deterministic end result, was to point out the flaws in the idea that there is an objective truth. You will have to see aspects of the holocaust as an interpretation, hence this is the way historians work, but this however was not in any way to question the basic existence of the holocaust or its many aspects. I am fully aware that debatting the implication of truth in regards to the holocaust, you open up a gateway where would-be historians, as described by larry d, use bits of inconsistancy as solid proof that the holocaust did not exist or was not as murderous and so on. I found it to be a flaw in Tyrians claim, that he was looking for the truth, since a trained historian would never claim that the truth existed as some sort of information that did not need interpretation either by the one who originally created this information or the one who discovered it. Therefore there can never be a "numerical truth"

Regards

David

[Vulkan]

Why don't we start again with the definition in “Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened And Why Do They Say It?” by Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2000). This book proposes the following definition:

A Holocaust Denier is anyone who asserts that fewer than six million Jews perished during WW2, and that gas chambers were never used to execute prisoners, and that there was no intention of genocide.

Good as this is, I would refine it thusly:

A Holocaust Denier is anyone who asserts at least three of the following propositions:
— That fewer than six million Jews perished during WW2
— That gas chambers were never used to execute prisoners
— That gas vans were never used to execute prisoners
— That there was no intention of genocide
— That the massive die-off of Jews was due to "wartime conditions"
— That Germany was "forced into war."
— That Allied "war crimes" are in any way on par with the Holocaust.

I think this definition is both flexible and precise. Do you have a better one?

I believe that this definition has two insalvable flaws.

1) If to be a holocaust denier you have to fulfill at least three of these postulates, it opens the gate for real deniers not to qualify as such. For example: I just assert:

— That there was no intention of genocide
— That fewer than six million Jews perished during WW2

I am just asserting two, hence according to your definition I do not qualify as a holocaust denier, even though what I am asserting, in reality, is the utmost essence of holocaust denial. And here we come to the second flaw:

2) In these postulates central, key tenets in holocaust denial (— That there was no intention of genocide — That fewer than six million Jews perished during WW2) are ranked equally to other postulates which are either "minor" technicalities (— That gas vans were never used to execute prisoners) or other aspects that are unrelated to the essence of the holocaust (— That Allied "war crimes" are in any way on par with the Holocaust).

In your definition, ranking central points equal to technical or tangential aspects of the holocaust can have two unwanted effects:

1) As I have shown before, it provides loopholes for denialist, that can concurr on the "second class" postulates while denying the essential postulates.

2) It can be a deterrant for serious research: For example: I can be a historian, investigating the methods utilized to kill in concentration camps and I may have evidence on some hitherto unknown method, broadly and massively used to kill millions, which renders the use of Ziklon or gas vans insignificant, in comparison. If by questioning the importance of Ziklon and gas vans, I run the risk of being considered a denialist, it will surely impair the progress and the results of an otherwise serious research.

I do not think that it is a good idea to include unwanted details in the definition, they are not essential for a definition to be precise, yet flexible. Here goes my proposal

Holocaust denial constitutes the casting of substantial doubts, or the negation of: the officially-sponsored, systematic and methodical allienation, dispossession, deportation, internation and physical elimination of the jewish people; either at its conceptual, planning or execution stages; that took place under the premises of the German National Socialist regime, in Germany and its occupied territories in Europe, from 1933 to 1945.

[Tyrian]

Vulkan: your definition seems to be the best one I've seen so far. It is exactly my point that the details are extremely important, and that one should be able to study those details without being called denier or something worse. I addressed this topic because I wanted to know what the forum considers denial, so that I would be able to intervene within the rules, and not worry about wether people may think my opinion is more inclined towards the denial or non-denial concepts. Of course, I knew the day would come when people would start insulting me, just because I wanted to discuss mathematical details. It is human nature.

[Tyrian]

Mr Schultz

Even though you seem to be calling me a crypto-fascist, I will not stoop to that level. You see, your comments say a lot more about you than they say about me. You seem to have this paranoid notion, that everyone has a hidden agenda, and political motivations, and so on, and so forth. Sorry, but you seem to be lunging at the wrong beast. Your true enemies are the nazi regime glorifiers, not the deniers. You remind me of D Quixote, trying to destroy all the monsters, which were really nothing more than windmills. Plus, I am not even a denier, but if You want to direct your rage towards me, I cannot do anything about it. You have created your misconcepted notion of my personality, even before I typed a single letter, just because you think that I should fit this group, or that group, or the other ( I don't know how many groups are there in your mind...). It saddens me really. You could direct your hatred towards the real criminals who are out there, not pacifists like me.
As far as facts go, I am simply using your words. You are the one who is bothered by facts, not me. And since I'm not trying to prove or deny anything, there is no point in claiming I am.
And no, I do not worship the devil, or any genocide. It is quite ridiculous, even amusing, to watch strangers insulting other strangers, simply because they do not share exactly the same views. You can actually tell which side has won an argument, by checking who starts lobbing insults first (which of course, is the result of not having any real further arguments to present). Maybe, in time you will find your aggressiveness to be misplaced. I certainly know that, in this case, it is.

[David Thompson]

Tyrian -- You wrote:

I addressed this topic because I wanted to know what the forum considers denial, so that I would be able to intervene within the rules, and not worry about wether people may think my opinion is more inclined towards the denial or non-denial concepts.

Our rules are posted for all to see, at: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

If a reader disagrees with our rules, or feels intimidated by them, he is free not to post. No one asks that posters here be dishonest or hypocritical, only that they comply with the rules which set forth the purpose and policies of the forum and section. As for opinions, we're not particularly interested in them in the research sections of the forum, unless they are backed up by sourced and verifiable facts.

Those rules discourage personal remarks, and prohibit insulting ones. Please avoid them. The same goes for you, R.M. Schultz.

[R.M. Schultz]

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.

You’re right! Even Scott Smith would have escaped Tyrian’s net!

Here goes my proposal

Holocaust denial constitutes the casting of substantial doubts, or the negation of: the officially-sponsored, systematic and methodical allienation, dispossession, deportation, internation and physical elimination of the jewish people; either at its conceptual, planning or execution stages; that took place under the premises of the German National Socialist regime, in Germany and its occupied territories in Europe, from 1933 to 1945.

Hey, pretty good! This is exactly the kind of exchange I was hoping to get when I started the original Definition thread about two years ago.

Mr Schultz
Even though you seem to be calling me a crypto-fascist, I will not stoop to that level. You see, your comments say a lot more about you than they say about me. You seem to have this paranoid notion, that everyone has a hidden agenda, and political motivations, and so on, and so forth.

Yes, I do believe that everyone has a political agenda and that, if this is not openly espoused, it is thus axiomatically a hidden agenda. There is nothing sinister about this, it just has to be considered at all times when discussing matters that inherently touch on the political.

Those rules discourage personal remarks, and prohibit insulting ones. Please avoid them. The same goes for you, R.M. Schultz.

For the record, while I have stated that I believe Holocaust Deniers to be cryto-fascists and/or racists, I have never accused Tryian of being a Denier. The thrust of this thread is to try to define Denier and I just don’t think that his posts have helped us to do that. This is very different from accusing him of denial.

[David Thompson]

R.M. -- Scott Smith/ Poison Dwarf isn't and can't be here to defend himself, so avoid making comments about him.

[R.M. Schultz]

R.M. -- Scott Smith/ Poison Dwarf isn't and can't be here to defend himself, so avoid making comments about him.

If I recall, Scott Smith was banned for Holocaust Denial. What I was trying to do was to show that, using Tyrian’s criterion, even someone who was banned as a denier would have escaped his definition. No personal insult to Scott was ever intended.

[Tyrian]

Mr. Larry D.

Nice to see you calling me a friend! ( even if it is just ironically ). Despite the fact that my background has absolutely no bearing on the validity, and rational basis of my opinions, I will have to say that I have not lied about anything that I may have said about my own self. Of course, that is completely unimportant to you, since you are now simply interested in smearing my reputation.

No, I am not a teenager, so, I do not deserve any kind of patronizing.
I never said I was a young undergraduate physicist, but I am an undergraduate physicist. I'm actually in my late 20's, so, that makes me a fully grown man, wouldn't you agree?
Actually, this is the first history forum I have ever joined, so, your argument is totally baseless.
As far as revisionism goes, I still don't know much about it to actually comment your conjecture. However, if revisionists are more scientific than historians, and don't base their conclusions on false moral high grounds, I would join their ranks in no time (not really, because I think for myself, and I never follow herds ).
Your final statement confuses me. Are you comparing me to the police agents in disguise? I hope it is not something worse.
Do you have my number? Is that a threat? I ask the moderator to give an opinion on this.

[Tyrian]

DXTR

Sorry to disagree with you, but I think we may be discussing different things ( so, there may be no disagreement at all!). What I call numerical truth is just the result of a statistical analysys of the problem, so that an accurate estimate can be obtained. We use this mathematical tool to obtain a result. The result itself comes with a margin of error, which allows us to know how wrong or how right we are. This result may then be interpreted in a larger context, but the number itself does not change, whatever the interpretation given. This is what I call numerical truth, although I may be overextending myself with words here. Regards

[David Thompson]

Tyrian -- You remarked:

Your final statement confuses me. Are you comparing me to the police agents in disguise? I hope it is not something worse.
Do you have my number? Is that a threat? I ask the moderator to give an opinion on this.

Larry D.'s remarks are neither insulting nor threatening. "I/ we've got your number" is an English idiom meaning "I/ we understand what you're talking about," or "I/ we understand your position/ outlook/ agenda." The idiom is similar to, but less blunt than, the Anglo-American expression "The jig is up." (The dance/ nonsense/ swindle/ con game is over.)

You may profit from a review of the posts involving Stapel, which discuss the same subject matter as your posts, although from a feigned point of view. You can find them by using the forum search, with "Stapel" as the keyword in the search category "author." The forum search engine is located at http://forum.axishistory.com/search.php

Let's drop the bickering and personal remarks and get back on topic -- a useful definition of "holocaust denier."

[David Thompson]

R.M. Schultz -- You wrote:

If I recall, Scott Smith was banned for Holocaust Denial.

Your recollection is incorrect. See:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 477#300477
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 451#333451

and:

Krema-wurst as a holocaust claim
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32510

The reasons for banning in all cases are given in this thread:

Banned members
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=7219

Now let's move on.

[R.M. Schultz]

R.M. Schultz -- You wrote:

If I recall, Scott Smith was banned for Holocaust Denial.

Your recollection is incorrect ...

Frankly, since the banning took place in October of 2003 and my memory is a little hazy on it, and since I never read any of the (by now notorious) "Krema-wurst" as a Holocaust claim thread, all I had to go on was the announcement:

Scott Smith has been banned for repeatedly violating the guidelines despite being given many warnings.

You will forgive me if I had assumed that the guidelines being violated pertained to Holocaust Denial.

BTW: Does anyone know if poor Scott recovered from the traffic accident he suffered last year? As a fellow cyclist I certainly wish him the best of health.

[R.M. Schultz]

... if revisionists are more scientific than historians, and don't base their conclusions on false moral high grounds, I would join their ranks in no time (not really, because I think for myself, and I never follow herds ).

The point at issue here is not what the facts are, but how we are to apply those facts that are widely accepted by reputable historians to create a definition of “Holocaust Denier.” Frankly, I have only the general reader’s grasp of the facts of the Nazi Genocide (my area of expertise and interest is with the political factions within the NSDAP before the Blood Purge) and I really don’t want to get involved with any of the famous squabbles over Holocaust nit-picking (e.g. was there human soap? were gas vans used for executions? was Himmler a transvestite? etc.). I think there is a consensus about certain basic facts of the Holocaust that all men of good will generally agree upon and deviation from this consensus at some point (and it is that point I am trying to define) becomes Denial.

[David Thompson]

RM -- You remarked:

BTW: Does anyone know if poor Scott recovered from the traffic accident he suffered last year? As a fellow cyclist I certainly wish him the best of health.

You might check the RODOH forum, which he hosts, for more details. You can find it at:

http://p102.ezboard.com/brodohforum