Holocaust - The Whole Picture

[Scott Smith]

I'm amazed that Roberto knows so much about Butz when he hasn't even read him. Butz merely took Holocaust Revisionism, ca. the mid-1970s, and synthesized it. He also added some interesting observations about cremation physics and so on, something the Believers never thought to do until confronted by the Deniers. Yes, the historiography is old. For one thing it is no longer claimed that millions were gassed at Auschwitz.

True Believers don't like people asking questions about how things supposedly happened. It is sacrilege. So here's a mantra for you, Chuck:

You must NOT understand. You must Believe and THEN you may understand.

How else does one account for your simplistic Is-Too/Is-Not argumentation?

No help from Roberto, here! What would it take to get you to think outside of the box for just a moment?

Best Regards,
Scott

[Charles Bunch]

I'm amazed that Roberto knows so much about Butz when he hasn't even read him.

Not nearly as amazing as your pronouncements on Holocaust history when you've read so little of the history!!

Butz merely took Holocaust Revisionism, ca. the mid-1970s, and synthesized it. He also added some interesting observations about cremation physics and so on, something the Believers never thought to do until confronted by the Deniers.

Why should historians address themselves to lies until they are made?

Yes, the historiography is old. For one thing it is no longer claimed that millions were gassed at Auschwitz.

Typical denier dishonesty. Two distortions in one sentence. Millions gassed wasn't the accepted scholarly standard when Butz wrote, and none of the scholarship on the matter has anything to do with Butz or Holocaust Deniers, who have contributed not one scintilla of evidence in decades of mindless denial.

True Believers don't like people asking questions about how things supposedly happened. It is sacrilege.

Says the true believer who ignores evidence in order to maintain his mindless denial!!

How else does one account for your simplistic Is-Too/Is-Not argumentation?

Argumentation is appropriate to counter arguments. You have neither the knowledge or intelligence to make one.

[Roberto]

I'm amazed that Roberto knows so much about Butz when he hasn't even read him.

Well, the author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century is copiously discussed in Zimmerman's Holocaust Denial. And little if anything is left of his nonsense at the end of it.

Butz merely took Holocaust Revisionism, ca. the mid-1970s, and synthesized it.

He compiled all those silly progapanda lies into a screed that suckers like Smith eagerly devoured, right?

He also added some interesting observations about cremation physics and so on, something the Believers never thought to do until confronted by the Deniers.

Translation: He added some nonsensical pseudo-scientific considerations about cremation physics and so on, which historians never cared about until confronted with propaganda liars like Butz, for the simple reason that it is not the task of historiography to assess the specifics of murder and body disposal devices.

Yes, the historiography is old.

Do you call Butz' junk "historiography", Reverend?

For one thing it is no longer claimed that millions were gassed at Auschwitz.

Neither was that so at the time Butz put together his pamphlet. Ever heard of Reitlinger, Hilberg et al, Reverend? Or of camp commander Rudolf Höss, who in his memoirs written in 1946/47 gave a figure of 1,130,000 dead, much to the annoyance of his Polish captors?

True Believers don't like people asking questions about how things supposedly happened.

On the contrary. True Believers love to ask such questions because they are their best defense against the inconvenient evidence that challenges their Faith. Gullibility and ignorance on the part of those who read such questions provided, that is.

It is sacrilege.

No. It's just an academic discussion about the sex of the angels.

You must NOT understand. You must Believe and THEN you may understand.

Sounds like Smith's hallowed principles: You must NOT understand why the Nazis murdered millions of people. You must Believe that they did not, and THEN you may understand that they were not all that bad.

No help from Roberto, here!

Roberto takes the freedom to bust into any conversation he likes to, in case you haven't noticed.

What would it take to get you to think outside of the box for just a moment?

Now that's a question I would like to ask the Reverend. What would it take to get you to think outside the IHR/Codoh bullshit box for just a moment, Smith? To switch on your brain and just see the evidence as it is?

[Xanthro]

I do have to say that is pretty crazy to say that tens of millions of Germans knew about a supposed planned, systematic extermination of jewry.

There was nothing "supposed" about the Holocaust planning nor the "systematic extermination of jewry."

It takes ideological blinders to dismiss the overwhelming evidence in support of the holocaust.

The same can of ideological blinder that would have to be in place to believe that tens of million of Germans knew what was happening to the Jews during the war.

Xanthro

[Oswald Mosley]

It is also completely false. History is not the scientific community, where it is often the case that new theories are met with ridicule, deserved or not.

History is not much different from science. It is the role of the historian to research and interpret events from the past, but he is often hampered by dogmas imposed from above for reasons of 'political correctness'. There is an 'official line' on the issue of the Holocaust and anybody who goes against it is punished. Fact.

With History, controversy sells, if it can be supported

No, it doesn't sell, because the publishing houses will most likely not publish or distribute the books. You have to do that yourself, at great cost, to have a chance of spreading your controversy.

The same is true with the Holocaust. Salaries and jobs and the ability to get published are contingent upon supporting the prevailing historical interpretation of the Holocaust, but upon advancing good History. It's the fact that Holocaust Denial requires bad historical method that gets Deniers in trouble. Not, that they are challenged traditional history

Not true at all. What you mean by 'good history' is 'official history', i.e. what is acceptable to the establishment. David Irving has never used bad hisotrical method, infact he has been praised by numerous other distinguished historians for his excellence in research methodology.

Oswald, you post makes it ovbious that you hate Isreal. That calls into question your objectivity in your conclusions, and makes one question whether your opinion that only 2-3 million died, or that the Holocaust was "one of many evil atrocities committed in the 20th century." and equal to those others, is based on research, or is based on the fact you don't want Isreal to exist.

Wrong again. I don't hate Israel, I crtiticise Israel, in the same way that many people in my country (and throughout Europe) are doing so, on both the Left and Right of the political spectrum. Infact, more on the Left, to be honest. This is the old argument of the establishment when faced with Holocaust critics: anti-Semitism is equated with criticism of Israeli policies. Don't expect people to buy this crap any more.

Perhaps you'd like to cite an example of an historical event which historians claimed occurred, which in fact it didn't, just because of their salaries? I suspect we'll wait a long time for you to respond.

It's not that straightforward. Anyway, I'm not claiming that the Holocaust didn't exist you idiot, I am simply saying that it has been: 1 - grossly exaggerated and 2- used as a political football by Israel and the global Jewish establishment.

And yet historians do debate issues of the Holocaust all the time. There is nothing controversial about it. That doesn't include denying it occurred, as the evidence so manifestly shows

Yes, they do debate it, and many of those who debate (eg. Irving and others) are attacked and vilified simply because they do not agree with the majority view. Proves my point. And the issue of Holocaust denial is irrelevant; Iriving is not and never has been a denier of the Holocaust, but merely a critic and revisionist of this subject.

Irving was proven to be a liar, Holocaust Denier, falsifier of history, and an antisemite. Finkelstein doesn't deny the Holocaust.

Irving is a critic, not a denier. As for his personal political views, that's his business. Finkelstein is also a critic.

Steadfast refusal is the language of a an ideologue unwilling to let facts interfere with his prejudices.

Funny - you could say the same of those who 'steadfastly refuse' to accept criticism of the Holocaust!

The Jews had been found, "registered" and concentrated before the killing began in 1941. But don't let your ignorance upset you "steadfast refusal

Wrong yet again! Most Jews had not yet been transported to any concentration camps as of as late as the Summer of 1941.

Your opinion is absolutely worthless. And those who died of disease caused by Nazi imprisonment policies were murdered

My opinion is worth no less than yours or that of anybody else using this forum. And your definition of murder would make the USA guilty of as big a genocide as that of the Jews in the 1940s; where are the millions of Red Indians who roamed the plains 150 years ago?

[Charles Bunch]

Perhaps you'd like to cite an example of an historical event which historians claimed occurred, which in fact it didn't, just because of their salaries? I suspect we'll wait a long time for you to respond.

It's not that straightforward. Anyway, I'm not claiming that the Holocaust didn't exist you idiot, I am simply saying that it has been: 1 - grossly exaggerated and 2- used as a political football by Israel and the global Jewish establishment.

Claiming gross exaggeration is another denier method. What evidence do you have it has been exaggerated?

And yet historians do debate issues of the Holocaust all the time. There is nothing controversial about it. That doesn't include denying it occurred, as the evidence so manifestly shows

Yes, they do debate it, and many of those who debate (eg. Irving and others) are attacked and vilified simply because they do not agree with the majority view.

Wrong. Irving is villified because he's a liar who promotes denial of established historical fact because he hates Jews. The fact that lies are the "minority" view accords them no merit.

Proves my point. And the issue of Holocaust denial is irrelevant; Iriving is not and never has been a denier of the Holocaust, but merely a critic and revisionist of this subject.

Irving is a denier of the Holocaust. He denies intentionality, scope and method. That's a denier.

Irving was proven to be a liar, Holocaust Denier, falsifier of history, and an antisemite. Finkelstein doesn't deny the Holocaust.

Irving is a critic, not a denier. As for his personal political views, that's his business. Finkelstein is also a critic.

He's a denier, and being an antisemite and liar are not personal political views.

Steadfast refusal is the language of a an ideologue unwilling to let facts interfere with his prejudices.

Funny - you could say the same of those who 'steadfastly refuse' to accept criticism of the Holocaust!

Lies are not criticism.

The Jews had been found, "registered" and concentrated before the killing began in 1941. But don't let your ignorance upset you "steadfast refusal

Wrong yet again! Most Jews had not yet been transported to any concentration camps as of as late as the Summer of 1941.

Try learning to read. Finding, "registering" and concentrating Jews had already been done before the killing began in 1941. Transporting them to the death camps was a minor problem.

Your opinion is absolutely worthless. And those who died of disease caused by Nazi imprisonment policies were murdered

My opinion is worth no less than yours or that of anybody else using this forum.

Actually that's not the case. Opinion backed by evidence trumps opinion espoused without support. Virtually everthing you said is nonsense.

And your definition of murder would make the USA guilty of as big a genocide as that of the Jews in the 1940s; where are the millions of Red Indians who roamed the plains 150 years ago?

[/quote]

Thank you for illustrating my point!

[Roberto]

And your definition of murder would make the USA guilty of as big a genocide as that of the Jews in the 1940s; where are the millions of Red Indians who roamed the plains 150 years ago?

Not that it matters, but where did Mr. Mosley find those millions of Red Indians in 1852 ?

I would say nothing if he had referred to the Indians of Central and South America butchered by the Spaniards since 1492, but millions roaming the plains of what is now the USA 150 years ago?

A quote with a source reference supporting this contention would be appreciated.

[Xanthro]

History is not much different from science. It is the role of the historian to research and interpret events from the past, but he is often hampered by dogmas imposed from above for reasons of 'political correctness'. There is an 'official line' on the issue of the Holocaust and anybody who goes against it is punished. Fact.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it won't magically become true. It's a silly argument.

Controvesy sells in historical writing, in fact, without some controvesy, or new evidence, without something different, you do not get published. That is the fact.

It's only the Holocaust Deniers, and other dubious people who make this claim. The can't differeniate between their bad history being rejected for being bad history, or being rejected because it's different.

Bad history deserves to be rejected, whether the topic is the Holocaust or not.

The Holocaust deniers make claims not supported by the evidence, it's this lack of evidentual support that causes their work to be rejected.

Xanthro

[Thorfinn]

I do have to say that is pretty crazy to say that tens of millions of Germans knew about a supposed planned, systematic extermination of jewry.

There was nothing "supposed" about the Holocaust planning nor the "systematic extermination of jewry."

It takes ideological blinders to dismiss the overwhelming evidence in support of the holocaust.

Can you please show me the order that was issued by Hitler, and/or the leadership of the Third Reich, that stated that jews were to be exterminated? That order was never given, and without it, there is not proof that there was a planned, systematic extermination of jewry. That is why it is "supposed".

[Benjamin Fanjoy]

Thorfinn wrote:

Can you please show me the order that was issued by Hitler, and/or the leadership of the Third Reich, that stated that jews were to be exterminated? That order was never given, and without it, there is not proof that there was a planned, systematic extermination of jewry. That is why it is "supposed".

Your kidding right??

[Xanthro]

Can you please show me the order that was issued by Hitler, and/or the leadership of the Third Reich, that stated that jews were to be exterminated? That order was never given, and without it, there is not proof that there was a planned, systematic extermination of jewry. That is why it is "supposed".

Thorfinn,
This is way people question your sanity. Seriously, that comes across as so utterly stupid, that no normal person would make such a statement.

First, it assumes that an order was written.
Second, it assumes that if such an order were written, that it wasn't destroyed.
Third, even if such an order were produced, you'd scream "FORGERY!!"

By your twisted reasoning, someone can simply verbally order a murder, and it never actually took place, because no written order exists.

It wouldn't matter that a murder weapon was found, the dead body was found, the person you order to do the killing confessed, to you, somehow, no murder took place.

Simply insane.

Xanthro