Definition of “Holocaust Denier”

[R.M. Schultz]

Before I started posting on the Third Reich Forum I had never actually met or talked to a Holocaust Denier, and so you can only imagine how shocked I was when I ran into these ideas for the first time. Now, I’m the sort of fellow who gets a book whenever I have questions, and that’s exactly what I did about this. On the advice of my buddy Ron, I went to the library and got “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, that gas chambers were never used to execute prisoners, and that there was no intention of genocide.

This strikes me as a pretty useful definition. Is it on the mark?

[Xanthro]

Before I started posting on the Third Reich Forum I had never actually met or talked to a Holocaust Denier, and so you can only imagine how shocked I was when I ran into these ideas for the first time. Now, I’m the sort of fellow who gets a book whenever I have questions, and that’s exactly what I did about this. On the advice of my buddy Ron, I went to the library and got “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, that gas chambers were never used to execute prisoners, and that there was no intention of genocide.

This strikes me as a pretty useful definition. Is it on the mark?

I think it's a pretty stupid definition, as it requries acceptance of facts in the definition itself.

I'd say a better definition is a Holocaust Denier is someone who asserts that the Nazis did not undertake a structured and organized practice of exterminating Jews.

I'd include anyone who deliberatly distorts facts and evidence in order to minimize the number of deaths are rationalize away the act itself.

The method of death, and whether it is 4 million or 8 million is irrelevent.

There are legitimate historians who place the total number killed below six million, they are not deniers. The total number killed depends on the methodology used.

Xanthro

[Wulpe]

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

This strikes me as a pretty useful definition. Is it on the mark?

"Jews who perished during WW II" would also include Jews who served in the russian, polish, french, US, british,... army and were dying in battle, which is usually not called Holocaust. Or is it ?

[Hans]

The leading Revisionists, as Holocaust denier call themselves, define their position as follows:

There was no National Socialist order for the physical extermination of Jews.
Likewise, there was no National-Socialist plan for physical extermination of Jews.
There was no German organization and no budget for carrying out the alleged extermination plan.
The internment camps had no homicidal gas chambers or sophisticated methods for mass murder. Furthermore, the reports of mass shootings were greatly exaggerated and taken out of context.
Statistical investigations of living Jews worldwide show clearly that the losses of this ethnic group during the Second World War were nowhere near six million. The exact number is probably well under half a million.

[R.M. Schultz]

I'd say a better definition is a Holocaust Denier is someone who asserts that the Nazis did not undertake a structured and organized practice of exterminating Jews.

That's pretty good, but why limit it to Jews? Why not make it:

A Holocaust Denier is someone who asserts that the Nazis did not undertake a structured and organized practice of genocide.

After all, were not the Polish intelligencia, the Gipsies, and millions of others also targeted for extermination?

[Xanthro]

I'd say a better definition is a Holocaust Denier is someone who asserts that the Nazis did not undertake a structured and organized practice of exterminating Jews.

That's pretty good, but why limit it to Jews? Why not make it:

A Holocaust Denier is someone who asserts that the Nazis did not undertake a structured and organized practice of genocide.

After all, were not the Polish intelligencia, the Gipsies, and millions of others also targeted for extermination?

Because the infrastructure and methodologies were created to exterminate Jews. While once completed, the Nazis used these same infrastructures to murder others, this is a by product of the original goal, which was Jewish extermination.

The plan was to exterminate Jews, and this was the core goal. Some sick individuals decided, "Hey, it works so well on Jews, let exterminate others too"

Nobody seriously argues that death camps would have been built solely to murder the Non-Jewish victims of Nazi terror.

Xanthro

[Germanica]

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

I must agree with Xanthro, that is a pretty stupid definition. If true, then prominent historians Raul Hilberg and Gerald Reitlinger must be "deniers" - for they place the death toll at 5.1 and 4.6 million respectively. Also, if the above definition is true, then every "functionalist" historian must be a denier, for they assert that the fate of the Jews in World War II was a direct result of the conflict. They do not deny the deaths in any way, shape or form.

Professor Arno J. Meyer's work "Why did the Heavens Not Darken?" must also be a work of denial, as he states that "from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones."

Is it "Holocaust denial" to carry out an examination into the events that surrounded the Jewish Question? Is this event beyond historical investigation? If a similar study was conducted into the occurances of the Soviet Gulag system, it is highly likely that there would be little or no repercussions.

Regards,
Germanica

[Caldric]

The leading Revisionists, as Holocaust denier call themselves

I agree with that statement, it all comes down to the fact that they do not believe it happened. Or was much reduced. Revisionist is just a sheep cloak to hide the wolf.

Or there are those that take the wildest theory and run with it or defend the upper ring of Nazi leaders with weak loopholes. Just look at the Julius Streicher thread, or the Eichmann thread, how can a person maintain that these men were just "cogs" or "harmless" when their actions and deeds lead to the death of millions of people. I am not sure if this is denial or just Nazi apologist and followers? There seem to be people who find much of the Nazi system appealing on many levels including racial arguments.

[Jeremy Dixon]

Interesting!

[David Thompson]

For this section of the forum, the guidelines on holocaust denial appear at:

"A note on holocaust denial"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=10881

"On Questions, Claims and Proof"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21825

There is no specific numerical criteria in either statement.

[Jeremy Dixon]

I understand - sorry if I broke any rules I will edit my comments

[David Thompson]

In my opinion, your comments were within the guidelines. Please feel free to restore them.

[Erik]

R.M. Schultz wrote:

Before I started posting on the Third Reich Forum I had never actually met or talked to a Holocaust Denier, and so you can only imagine how shocked I was when I ran into these ideas for the first time. Now, I’m the sort of fellow who gets a book whenever I have questions, and that’s exactly what I did about this. On the advice of my buddy Ron, I went to the library and got “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, that gas chambers were never used to execute prisoners, and that there was no intention of genocide.

This strikes me as a pretty useful definition. Is it on the mark?

I think it's a pretty stupid definition, as it requries acceptance of facts in the definition itself.

I'd say a better definition is a Holocaust Denier is someone who asserts that the Nazis did not undertake a structured and organized practice of exterminating Jews.

I'd include anyone who deliberatly distorts facts and evidence in order to minimize the number of deaths are rationalize away the act itself.

The method of death, and whether it is 4 million or 8 million is irrelevent.

There are legitimate historians who place the total number killed below six million, they are not deniers. The total number killed depends on the methodology used.

Xanthro

Has R.M. Schultz just met a Holocaust Denier in the poster of Xanthro?

According to the Shermer/Grobman definition, he is such a Denier.

The method of death, and whether it is 4 million or 8 million is irrelevent.

Is that not the same as asserting

...that fewer than six million Jews perished during WW2, that gas chambers were never used to execute prisoners

?

He does not say that he “denies” it, he only asserts that it is “irrelevent”.

Isn’t that a way to “rationalize away the act itself”, like a denier?

There are legitimate historians who place the total number killed below six million, they are not deniers. The total number killed depends on the methodology used.

How does one know that they really are legitimate, since they are deniers according to a definition ( albeit “stupid”)? Aren’t Shermer/Grobmann legitimate enough?

I'd include anyone who deliberatly distorts facts and evidence in order to minimize the number of deaths are rationalize away the act itself.

How do you distinguish the “legitimate” historians from those “included” here? Is there a legitimate way to minimize the number of deaths?

The facts and evidence are there, aren’t they? Although “whether it is 4 million or 8 million is irrelevent”?

The total number killed depends on the methodology used.

The methodology to kill?

Or the methodology to count the total number killed?

Please explain!

In a later posting Xanthro wrote:

Because the infrastructure and methodologies were created to exterminate Jews. While once completed, the Nazis used these same infrastructures to murder others, this is a by product of the original goal, which was Jewish extermination.

Were the “infrastructure and methodologies” created solely for the purpose or exterminating the Jews?

Railroads? Zyklon B? The camps?

What does it mean that the extermination of the Jews was “once completed”?

I’ll ignore the assertion that “whether it is 4 million or 8 million is irrelevent” – and the “methodology” dependance, too, by the way(see above) – but were no others transported and gassed in the camps until the extermination of the Jews was "completed"?

Xanthro is perhaps no “denier” according to the standards of Hans and Mr. Thompson, but are the “facts” concerning the Holocaust “irrelevant”, too?

As long as you “believe”, you can’t go wrong in Holocaust history?

[dmsdbo]

I would say that the definition regarding the National Socialists using a structured system to commit genocide, targeted prominately at the Jewish people of Europe, but also other groups that were deemed to be "unclean" by the National Socialist establishment, is probably the best.

Also, as long as you believe that anywhere from 4-8 million Jews were killed, and don't actively believe less, then you are in the clear imo. This obviously excludes people who don't know much about the Holocaust and therefore could not give you an accurate number due to a lack of understanding. As well, it should be noted that Jews that died of natural causes in Auschwitz are as much victims of the Nazi murder machine as those that were gassed. They were forcibly moved to that camp with the intention that they would be killed, and the reasons for their death were almost completely a result of their presence at the camp. Remember, old people would not have been kept around, nor would the ill, so the only people who would have had a chance to die of "natural causes" would be those that were healthy before entering the camp.

[hunor]

As well, it should be noted that Jews that died of natural causes in Auschwitz are as much victims of the Nazi murder machine as those that were gassed. They were forcibly moved to that camp with the intention that they would be killed, and the reasons for their death were almost completely a result of their presence at the camp. Remember, old people would not have been kept around, nor would the ill, so the only people who would have had a chance to die of "natural causes" would be those that were healthy before entering the camp.

It's very frightening!!! If I didn't know that it's true I would believe that it's just a film...a psycho film.