Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial
GFM,
<<No, you're right. But during the war, there was a lot of propaganda and counter-propaganda. The Germans would have you know that the Russians eat babies for lunch, and vice-versa. Had no one asked any questions, the Katyn massacre would have been committed by Nazis.>>
Even during the war, Katyn only became known because the Germans found the graves, Goebbels made a great propaganda ballyhoo out of it and the Soviets – rather unconvincingly from the very start – tried to save their image by blaming the killings on the Nazis.
++Why, you didn’t seem that gullible when I first met you.++
<<Er.... I don't think I'm too gullible. Do you not think it is important to listen to what people have to say, rather than dismissing them outright?>>
I do. But I’ve been listening far too long to “Revisionist” nonsense to still think that they have something to say.
<<You have, of course, every right to disagree with them later on.>>
You don’t disagree with nonsense. You dismiss it as what it is.
++False testimonies exist in regard to any historical event. But you don’t believe that one eventual false testimony about gassings at Belsen speaks against there having been gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau and other extermination camps, do you?++
<<No, of course not. But it annoys me that people would advertise something like that as a global representation of what really happened in Nazi Germany.>>
Well, Bergen-Belsen was a lot more representative of the Nazi regime than many other features, including the extermination camps. The Nazis caused far more people to die the way the Belsen inmates died than in gas chambers or at execution pits.
++Sure. Half the truth is also a lie, as a Swiss saying goes.++
<<Exactly my point. I think it is important to learn everything, and that comes about by listening to as many perspectives as possible, do you not think?>>
Sure. But I wouldn’t consider ideologically motivated propaganda a perspective to be reckoned with.
<<It is important to report the full truth, rather than a half-truth, for students of history, such as myself.>>
It sure is. The problem with “Revisionists” is that half-truths are the very best you can expect to hear from them.
++Of course not. But “Revisionist” propagandists would like us to believe just that.++
<<And only by knowing more can we debunk their proposals.>>
More would be helpful, but what we know already is more than enough to expose their proposals as the heap of cattle manure they are.
<<But you cannot debunk them without listening to what they're claiming first, no???>>
I’ve been attentively listening to “Revisionist” bunk for almost one and a half years now.
<<Thanks for your time!>>
You’re welcome.
Roberto
<<No, you're right. But during the war, there was a lot of propaganda and counter-propaganda. The Germans would have you know that the Russians eat babies for lunch, and vice-versa. Had no one asked any questions, the Katyn massacre would have been committed by Nazis.>>
Even during the war, Katyn only became known because the Germans found the graves, Goebbels made a great propaganda ballyhoo out of it and the Soviets – rather unconvincingly from the very start – tried to save their image by blaming the killings on the Nazis.
++Why, you didn’t seem that gullible when I first met you.++
<<Er.... I don't think I'm too gullible. Do you not think it is important to listen to what people have to say, rather than dismissing them outright?>>
I do. But I’ve been listening far too long to “Revisionist” nonsense to still think that they have something to say.
<<You have, of course, every right to disagree with them later on.>>
You don’t disagree with nonsense. You dismiss it as what it is.
++False testimonies exist in regard to any historical event. But you don’t believe that one eventual false testimony about gassings at Belsen speaks against there having been gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau and other extermination camps, do you?++
<<No, of course not. But it annoys me that people would advertise something like that as a global representation of what really happened in Nazi Germany.>>
Well, Bergen-Belsen was a lot more representative of the Nazi regime than many other features, including the extermination camps. The Nazis caused far more people to die the way the Belsen inmates died than in gas chambers or at execution pits.
++Sure. Half the truth is also a lie, as a Swiss saying goes.++
<<Exactly my point. I think it is important to learn everything, and that comes about by listening to as many perspectives as possible, do you not think?>>
Sure. But I wouldn’t consider ideologically motivated propaganda a perspective to be reckoned with.
<<It is important to report the full truth, rather than a half-truth, for students of history, such as myself.>>
It sure is. The problem with “Revisionists” is that half-truths are the very best you can expect to hear from them.
++Of course not. But “Revisionist” propagandists would like us to believe just that.++
<<And only by knowing more can we debunk their proposals.>>
More would be helpful, but what we know already is more than enough to expose their proposals as the heap of cattle manure they are.
<<But you cannot debunk them without listening to what they're claiming first, no???>>
I’ve been attentively listening to “Revisionist” bunk for almost one and a half years now.
<<Thanks for your time!>>
You’re welcome.
Roberto
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
STRIKE A POSE FOR ME...
Both photos look posed to me. Obviously Allied or Zionist propaganda.
Re: STRIKE A POSE FOR ME...
That everything you don't like looks "posed" to you we know, True Believer. But you used to be more eloguent in your sermons. Has the cat got your tongue, buddy?Scott Smith wrote:Both photos look posed to me. Obviously Allied or Zionist propaganda.
The picture is one of those taken by the British liberators of Bergen-Belsen. The source given is:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... lsen03.refPhillips, R., Ed. The Belsen Trial. William Hodge and Company, 1949. p. 129.
Where would the Brits have got those emaciated dead bodies to "pose" the picture, Reverend? Did they transport victims from the "Hunger Winter" 1944/45 in the Netherlands to Bergen-Belsen in deep-freeze trucks to avoid untimely decomposition, perhaps?
- Cantankerous
- Member
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: 01 Sep 2019, 22:22
- Location: Newport Coast
Re: Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial
Did you ask any people in the former USSR if they cling to their belief that some Polish Jews escaped death camps in Poland by fleeing to the USSR?GFM2000 wrote: ↑20 Mar 2002, 08:58I have listened long at the arguements by Roberto and Scott, and still find some difficulty at drawing the fine line between skeptism and holocaust denial.
I, for one, strongly believe in skeptism, if only because through the questioning of our "censored" version of history were we able to deduce some true facts about war crimes committed during WWII. For example, if we were to merely accept what we were taught, we would believe that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazis rather than the Russians. Conversely, there are many ultra-skeptics who believe that the holocaust never happened, simply because there is no physical evidence of the deaths and destruction of millions that remain today.
Does anyone have any input?
Also, did you ever have the chance to sway hardcore Holocaust deniers and skeptics with photocopies of images of dead Jews and Gypsies in ravines at concentration camps in Germany?
Re: Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial
I believe that there are too few namely hardcore Holocaust deniers. In my opinion It is impossible to deny that the Holocaust did happen. However, there are debates about important details - number of victims, the gas chambers. So is it right in this context to call the doubters, the "diminishers" as Holocaust deniers? It is not so easy question to answer.Cantankerous wrote: ↑08 Aug 2020, 21:24Did you ask any people in the former USSR if they cling to their belief that some Polish Jews escaped death camps in Poland by fleeing to the USSR?GFM2000 wrote: ↑20 Mar 2002, 08:58I have listened long at the arguements by Roberto and Scott, and still find some difficulty at drawing the fine line between skeptism and holocaust denial.
I, for one, strongly believe in skeptism, if only because through the questioning of our "censored" version of history were we able to deduce some true facts about war crimes committed during WWII. For example, if we were to merely accept what we were taught, we would believe that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazis rather than the Russians. Conversely, there are many ultra-skeptics who believe that the holocaust never happened, simply because there is no physical evidence of the deaths and destruction of millions that remain today.
Does anyone have any input?
Also, did you ever have the chance to sway hardcore Holocaust deniers and skeptics with photocopies of images of dead Jews and Gypsies in ravines at concentration camps in Germany?
-
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial
It is rationally impossible to deny that by 1945 there were 6 million Jews missing from the pre-war population of Europe. Even the names of the great majority are recorded.
Furthermore, the mechanisms by which they were killed are well recorded, often by the Nazis themselves.
So outright deniers, who are very few in number, are either dishonest or deluded.
However, their activities have kept the topic alive and have encouraged sceptics to try and nibble away at the edges of the basic narrative by quibbling over details.
The problem with sceptics is that they are sceptical, not open minded. They are instinctively inclined to question received opinion, whaterver that is. They are approaching from a particular angle, not one of detachment. They are not deniers, but their scepticism offers aid and comfort to the deniers, because they keep their pot boiling.
Cheers,
Sid.
Furthermore, the mechanisms by which they were killed are well recorded, often by the Nazis themselves.
So outright deniers, who are very few in number, are either dishonest or deluded.
However, their activities have kept the topic alive and have encouraged sceptics to try and nibble away at the edges of the basic narrative by quibbling over details.
The problem with sceptics is that they are sceptical, not open minded. They are instinctively inclined to question received opinion, whaterver that is. They are approaching from a particular angle, not one of detachment. They are not deniers, but their scepticism offers aid and comfort to the deniers, because they keep their pot boiling.
Cheers,
Sid.