Deniers getting owned?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
Im_Not_Creative_Enough
Poster
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:32 pm

Deniers getting owned?

Postby Im_Not_Creative_Enough » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:09 pm

While prominent denier figures like Eric Hunt are abondening revisionism in recent years, their followers - and when I say followers I mean to the hordes of denier memelords on Youtube, 4chan and alt-right twittersphere - seem to grow in numbers every year. Thus it looks like taking down (no, I don't mean "censor", Johnny) a "major" denier is less hard than taking down denier "minions". I wonder, did anyone here ever managed to make a denier to abonden at least some aspects of revisionism and/or acknowledging his mistakes?
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 12382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:27 pm

Not exactly but I know an ex-denier well and was involved in debates and dialogue when the person re-thought his views. The individual was exceptional in that he 1) is nice as hell, 2) is very smart and thoughtful, 3) was not motivated by anti-Semitism, and 4) had already been reading basic historical literature whilst being a "revisionist." His change of views was most definitely a process, not a conversion. A rational process based on academic historical methodology (the individual studied history at university level) and on growing awareness of the gaps in and methodological shortcomings of revisionist works. As he discovered that revisionist claims failed to stand up to scrutiny, he abandoned revisionism in favor of studying the history. Not a generalizable model, I'm afraid.

In this forum, which is not academic but neither is it 4chan, we seem to be seeing a decreasing interest on the part of deniers. Unless one counts blake's scurrilous unearthing of video of my street band . . .
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

BornAgainDisciple
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:10 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby BornAgainDisciple » Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:19 pm

Real revisionism and Holocaust denial are two different things as far as I know.
Some of these deniers think they are revisionists but real revisionism accepts failures and corrections
like any other historian etc.
I think Eric used to be revisionist, then denier, then a bit more close to real revisionism.
He still seems to be supporter of White nationalism judging by his writings.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4217
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:27 pm

BornAgainDisciple wrote:Real revisionism and Holocaust denial are two different things as far as I know.
Some of these deniers think they are revisionists but real revisionism accepts failures and corrections
like any other historian etc.
I think Eric used to be revisionist, then denier, then a bit more close to real revisionism.
He still seems to be supporter of White nationalism judging by his writings.


Hunt even said abandoning denial would give him more time to focus on WN.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 12382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:16 pm

I check Hunt's Questioning the Holocaust webpage from time to time: it appears not to have any significant updates, if any at all, since 23 February, when he reported on his debate with FP Berg.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Balsamo » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:13 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Not exactly but I know an ex-denier well and was involved in debates and dialogue when the person re-thought his views. The individual was exceptional in that he 1) is nice as hell, 2) is very smart and thoughtful, 3) was not motivated by anti-Semitism, and 4) had already been reading basic historical literature whilst being a "revisionist." His change of views was most definitely a process, not a conversion. A rational process based on academic historical methodology (the individual studied history at university level) and on growing awareness of the gaps in and methodological shortcomings of revisionist works. As he discovered that revisionist claims failed to stand up to scrutiny, he abandoned revisionism in favor of studying the history. Not a generalizable model, I'm afraid.

In this forum, which is not academic but neither is it 4chan, we seem to be seeing a decreasing interest on the part of deniers. Unless one counts blake's scurrilous unearthing of video of my street band . . .



Are you thinking about Wahrheit who was posting on codoh? and later came to rodoh?

I completely agree with you about him, as i also do think that there are some "honest revisionists" who fall into it as a honest reaction to the sometime caricatural teachings on the holocaust. And as a matter of facts, some "revisionsit works" are quite efficient in arousing doubts among people who had no background on the subject.

I made some tests years ago, showing David Cole's video to friends, and it was truly effective. Had i been a denier back then i would have easily convert them. Of course, it is the opposite that happened, some debate, some explanation, rectification were enough.
But then what would have happen had they watch the video on their own, as most people do?

Note that i did the same test with "Denier's bud" - if you remember him, and it proved much less effective, essentially because of this nasty voice...

On the other hand, i am pretty sure that David Cole was effective because...well he seemed like a nice guy, he was Jewish, and seemed really honest. He did not fall into blatant antisemitism Rhetoric.
Glad he turned his back on denial too.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3866
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:38 am

I disagree. Coles video was pretty bad, featured a loto f cherry picking and his "relevations" were unsurprising to anyone with knowlege of this buisness.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Balsamo » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:21 am

I did not say it was a "good" work, Jeff.
I said it was pretty effective influencing people without basic knowledge.

Small nuance
;)

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby BRoI » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:14 am

Coles [sic] video was pretty bad, featured a loto f [sic] cherry picking and his "relevations" [sic] were unsurprising to anyone with knowlege [sic] of this buisness [sic].


Pressac had written in his 1989 study A:T&O [p.123, 150] that the crematorium and gas chamber in Auschwitz I was a post-war reconstruction. Yet this information was far from being common-knowledge amongst *anyone with knowledge of this business* in 1992—the year Cole released his film—as the following statements from an official of the Polish Embassy in London show:

I WAS sure that the statement of Mr David Irving (Letters, December 16) that "as Poles themselves now admit, the gas chambers on display at Auschwitz were built after the war for tourists to look at" was absolute nonsense.
Nevertheless, I took the trouble to verify from which source he might have obtained his information.
I must say that neither the government officials nor members of political parties and social organisations, journalists, academics, virtually everybody I approached on the subject had ever heard anyone publicly expressing such an absurd opinion.

Janusz Dluzynski [press attaché],
Embassy of the Republic of Poland, London.

[Letter to the Daily Post (Liverpool, England; 3 a.m. edition), Wednesday, January 22, 1992, p.14.]


David Irving in row with Poles over Holocaust
By BERNARD JOSEPHS
DIPLOMATIC EDITOR

Revisionist historian David Irving was under fire this week from Polish diplomats over his claim that the gas chambers at the site of a Nazi death camp were fakes, built as attractions for tourists.

Mr Irving's allegations were contained in a letter published in the Liverpool Daily Post, in which he wrote: "As the Poles themselves now admit, the 'gas chambers' on display at Auschwitz were built after the war for tourists to look at."

In a reply to the paper, a Polish Embassy official described Mr Irving's statement as "absolute nonsense." The official said he had checked with government, political and academic sources in Poland, and "virtually" all of them said they had never heard "such an absurd opinion."

He added: "I think that only a mentally unstable person could have said the words which Mr Irving attributes to 'Poles.'"


Mr Irving. who wrote the foreword to the Leuchter Report, a pamphlet by an American engineer claiming that there was no evidence of mass gassing of Jews in Auschwitz, declined to name his source. But he added: "All I can say is that the person who made the statement was the person best suited to know."

[Jewish Chronicle (London), Friday, January 24, 1992, p.5.]
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3866
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:57 pm

BRoI wrote:Pressac had written in his 1989 study A:T&O [p.123, 150] that the crematorium and gas chamber in Auschwitz I was a post-war reconstruction. Yet this information was far from being common-knowledge amongst *anyone with knowledge of this business* in 1992—the year Cole released his film—as the following statements from an official of the Polish Embassy in London show:


I speak for myself - I was aware that it was a reconstruction long before I was even aware that Holocaust denial existed. It's really apparent to anyone who reads intensively on the history of the camp. It is also a minor detail that has no bearing on the camp as it stood in 1941-1944, especially Birkenau for obvious reasons.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4217
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:59 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
BRoI wrote:Pressac had written in his 1989 study A:T&O [p.123, 150] that the crematorium and gas chamber in Auschwitz I was a post-war reconstruction. Yet this information was far from being common-knowledge amongst *anyone with knowledge of this business* in 1992—the year Cole released his film—as the following statements from an official of the Polish Embassy in London show:


I speak for myself - I was aware that it was a reconstruction long before I was even aware that Holocaust denial existed. It's really apparent to anyone who reads intensively on the history of the camp. It is also a minor detail that has no bearing on the camp as it stood in 1941-1944, especially Birkenau for obvious reasons.


I didn't know until I read Pressac. But, you're right, it has no bearing on Birkenau.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 12382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:57 pm

I don't think I knew there was a chamber still there, reconstructed or not, until engaging with HDers; the stuff I read early on about Auschwitz dealt with what happened at the camp during the war, not deniers' pet ideas. Among many of their "discoveries," this one has always bored me a great deal.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby BRoI » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:44 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I didn't know until I read Pressac. But, you're right, it has no bearing on Birkenau.

Who said it had a bearing?

Pressac devotes a mere 43 WORDS in the entire book to the fact K1 was reconstructed. You did well to recognise the significance of his one sentence, and, 4-words-in-a-photo-caption on the reconstruction. And, you even recall the moment you read it, all these years later. :?

You Jeffs, with your big, implausible, unevidenced claims. You're like this chap. He also insists that the reconstruction was known to him, and therefore obvious, prior to Cole's video. Whilst unintentionally proving it wasn't, and talking of himself in the third person.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4217
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:51 pm

BRoI wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I didn't know until I read Pressac. But, you're right, it has no bearing on Birkenau.

Who said it had a bearing?

Pressac devotes a mere 43 WORDS in the entire book to the fact K1 was reconstructed. You did well to recognise the significance of his one sentence, and, 4-words-in-a-photo-caption on the reconstruction. And, you even recall the moment you read it, all these years later. :?

You Jeffs, with your big, implausible, unevidenced claims. You're like this chap. He also insists that the reconstruction was known to him, and therefore obvious, prior to Cole's video. Whilst unintentionally proving it wasn't, and talking of himself in the third person.


Have you stopped medicating, rabbit? What, exactly, did I say to touch you off?

I merely stated that I didn't know until I read Pressac. No big revelation. No insult intended.

Relax, rabbit. I have no beef with you.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1321
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Balsamo » Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:48 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
BRoI wrote:Pressac had written in his 1989 study A:T&O [p.123, 150] that the crematorium and gas chamber in Auschwitz I was a post-war reconstruction. Yet this information was far from being common-knowledge amongst *anyone with knowledge of this business* in 1992—the year Cole released his film—as the following statements from an official of the Polish Embassy in London show:


I speak for myself - I was aware that it was a reconstruction long before I was even aware that Holocaust denial existed. It's really apparent to anyone who reads intensively on the history of the camp. It is also a minor detail that has no bearing on the camp as it stood in 1941-1944, especially Birkenau for obvious reasons.



How did you know back in 1992, Jeff?
there were no internet, and except Pressac whose book was not for everyone, even the theme of the gas chambers had been really studied. Pressac first book was a limited printed one that was published in 1989 i think. The other one was only published in 1993 or so. Cole first appeared at the famous TV Montel show in 1992, then at the more famous Donahue show in 1994...none of them reached Europe.

What were the minor detail that made you realize it was a reconstruction?

Personally, at that time, i was a first year student passionate by the XVII-XVIII century, and i did not really give a dam about those things. I had heard of Faurisson's trial, and the laws that were discussed, and this rose my curiosity about what was going on. But not much more, actually...until 1995 or so when Belgium was about to vote its own Anti-Denial law and we were consulted. But then again, even through the debate, i did not feel concerned as my sphere was two centuries earlier.

So i actually discovered the David Cole video a bit later, through the internet. By then, much had changed, i mean between the time when the video was made and the time it came to my attention. During this gap, new works had been published, and challenges posed by Revisionists were being addressed. The trend went even wider, as today's historical work on the holocaust have greatly improved our knowledge...for those who followed it.
Again i "met" the holocaust through a postgraduate work on nationalism in central and eastern Europe...years after Cole's video had been made.

But back in 1994, i am watching for the sake of this discussion, the Donahue show, and watch Micheal Shermer: well his reaction to the video is surprising calling it "very interesting", but appalling are his counter arguments like the "huge order of Zyclon-B", or accusing of "shifting the burden of proof", or "you don't need a lock to keep the doors closed"...or showing footage of camps liberated by US troops in order to prove the gas chambers...Well i am not going to get through the whole farce...but it kind of reveal the problem that existed back then (1994).

What i meant is that those who had the opportunity/obligation years later to go through the whole bibliography that had been published since then, well they had the answer...but that was and still is a tiny minority of the public.

Given all that, asking questions that no one could really answer back then was a good strategy. And that lack of answers made Holocaust denial a little hot for a while.
Now the reason it is dying - i mean, look at codoh or rodoh had become by 2017- is because of the progress of knowledge that had been accumulated since then.
But for those interested in the subject.

This is why i said that David Cole's video could still have produced some effect when it was spread through the internet a decade later, until the guy retracted from his former believes.
The same way, Eric Hunt video were {!#%@}, there were also quite effective, especially when it targeted Spielberg's effort. The same way, Eric Hunt own retraction is also a good news.

And so is our Black Rabbit retraction.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Denying-History » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:02 pm

BRoI wrote:Pressac had written in his 1989 study A:T&O [p.123, 150] that the crematorium and gas chamber in Auschwitz I was a post-war reconstruction. Yet this information was far from being common-knowledge amongst *anyone with knowledge of this business* in 1992—the year Cole released his film—as the following statements from an official of the Polish Embassy in London show:

Sure, but it doesn't mean that this information wasn't available before deniers arrived... For example, as Piper pointed out in his refutation to David Coles documentary, T-an Sehn 1957 states on page 152 that "in May 1944 the old Crematorium I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter".

So it's not exactly private information that a strong researcher couldn't find out.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby BRoI » Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:07 pm

Denying-History wrote:
BRoI wrote:Pressac had written in his 1989 study A:T&O [p.123, 150] that the crematorium and gas chamber in Auschwitz I was a post-war reconstruction. Yet this information was far from being common-knowledge amongst *anyone with knowledge of this business* in 1992—the year Cole released his film—as the following statements from an official of the Polish Embassy in London show:

Sure, but it doesn't mean that this information wasn't available before deniers arrived... For example as Piper pointed out in his refutation to David Coles documentary that T-an Sehn 1957 states on page 152 that "in May 1944 the old Crematorium I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter".

So it's not exactly private information that a strong researcher couldn't find out.


Are you seriously suggesting anyone would even suspect, let alone conclude, that Crematorium I was largely a post-war reconstruction just by reading the following?

Jan Sehn wrote:Following their series of defeats on the eastern front, and the retreat of Nazi troops, SS authorities started preparations for the evacuation of the camp. Even in the spring of 1943, Bunker 1 was demolished and pits by the two bunkers were filled. In May 1944, the old Crematorium I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter. Crematorium IV was burnt in October 1944, during the revolt of inmates employed there. In November of the same year, Crematoria II and III were closed and dismantled for transfer to Gross-Rosen. Bunker 2 was also demolished. Crematorium V was blown up on the day the camp staff fled.


Conan's famous article from 1995 argues against your point:

In the 1950s and 1960s, various buildings that had either disappeared or had changed function were reconstructed with great errors, to be presented as authentic. Certain of those, too “new” have been closed to the public. And we do not have to mention the delousing gas chambers sometimes as homicidal gas chambers. These abberations have served the negationists well, who have drawn raw material from this for their fabrications. The example of crematorium 1, the only one in Auschwitz 1, illustrates the problem. The first gas chamber was installed in its morgue. It was in operation for some time, in the beginning of 1942. The gassings necessitated the isolation of the zone where it was taking place, and this disturbed the operation of the camp. Therefore it was decided, at the end of April 1942, to move the homicidal gassings to Birkenau, where they were undertaken on an almost industrial scale, with most of its victims being Jews. Crematorium 1 was then transformed into an air-raid shelter, with an operation room. In 1948, when the Museum was created, crematorium 1 was reconstructed in what one supposed to be its original state. Everything there is wrong: the dimensions of the gas chamber, the locations of the doors, the openings for pouring in Zyklon B, the ovens that were rebuilt according to the recollections of some survivors, the height of the chimney. At the end of the 70s, Robert Faurisson exploited those falsifications all the better because at that time the Museum officials refused to admit them. An American revisionist has just shot a video in the gas chamber (still presented as authentic): one may see him questioning the visitors with his “revelations” Jean-Claude Pressac, one of the first to reconstruct the exact history of this gas chamber and its modifications during and after the war, proposes to restore it to its state in 1942, using the German blueprints which he found in the Soviet archives. Others, like Théo Klein, prefer to leave it in its present state, explaining to the public the misrepresentation. “History is what it is: this is all that needs to be said, even when it is not simple, it is better than replace one
artifice with another.” Krystyna Oleksy, who works in the director’s office that is housed in the old SS hospital directly opposite the crematorium, does not want to resolve it. “For the time being we are going to leave it in the present state, and not give any specifics to the visitors. It is too complicated. We will see later on.”

- Eric Conan, L’Express, January 19, 1995,
cf. The Pelt Report,Part XI Irving Adrift (1993-1998).
https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/#vanPelt_5-11

"Conan’s observations about the problems of the restoration, conservation and presentation of crematorium 1 were perfectly justified." - Van Pelt.

Perhaps someone can tell us whether chief prosecutor Hanns Grossmann and defense counsel Eugen Gerhard were aware that they were looking down a Zyklon-B chimney that was built by the Soviet-Poles, or was that trial misled about post-war adjustments to the gas chamber just like the Duesseldorf-Majdanek trial was?

Image
- Irmtrud Wojak (ed.), Auschwitz-Prozess 4 Ks 2/63 Frankfurt am Main, Cologne: Snoeck, 2004.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Denying-History » Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:56 pm

BRoI wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
BRoI wrote:Pressac had written in his 1989 study A:T&O [p.123, 150] that the crematorium and gas chamber in Auschwitz I was a post-war reconstruction. Yet this information was far from being common-knowledge amongst *anyone with knowledge of this business* in 1992—the year Cole released his film—as the following statements from an official of the Polish Embassy in London show:

Sure, but it doesn't mean that this information wasn't available before deniers arrived... For example as Piper pointed out in his refutation to David Coles documentary that T-an Sehn 1957 states on page 152 that "in May 1944 the old Crematorium I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter".

So it's not exactly private information that a strong researcher couldn't find out.


Are you seriously suggesting anyone would even suspect, let alone conclude, that Crematorium I was a post-war reconstruction just by reading the following?

Jan Sehn wrote:Following their series of defeats on the eastern front, and the retreat of Nazi troops, SS authorities started preparations for the evacuation of the camp. Even in the spring of 1943, Bunker 1 was demolished and pits by the two bunkers were filled. In May 1944, the old Crematorium I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter. Crematorium IV was burnt in October 1944, during the revolt of inmates employed there. In November of the same year, Crematoria II and III were closed and dismantled for transfer to Gross-Rosen. Bunker 2 was also demolished. Crematorium V was blown up on the day the camp staff fled.


It was Coles claim that Piper had revealed for the first time that this building was a fraud, regardless of both T-an's book and Pressacs coming out beforehand. T-an's book does not specifically state that the building was reconstructed, it however, doesn't refute my point. The quote itself stands that information did exist in the 1950's that did say the building was adapted (altered) for the use of an air raid shelter. The word adapted is quite discernible, especially when this word is used to describe something being modified.

I also stated any strong researcher is not exactly blocked from finding this out either. Like in 1985 Hilberg stated that "one gas chamber, [was] in good condition, but partially reconstructed, in Auschwitz I..." (Zundel Trial 1985 4-774).

Conan's famous article from 1995 argues against your point:


Actually, he doesn't... he states that buildings were erroneously rebuilt in the 1950's and 1960's and were said to be authentic. It does not disprove my point that a researcher could find these things out, nor does it disagree with the quote that I provided. Cole maintained that he had proven the Museum was concealing that the gas chamber was adapted for use as an air raid shelter. Based on anyone watching his film you can easily get the impression that up to that point the building was being claimed as 'authentic'.

Also, I don't think I denied the Museum refused to admit that the deniers were correct in the 1970's. Why that is important, I am not sure. I do personally, however, agree with Conan's article.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby BRoI » Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:17 pm

Denying-History wrote:It was Coles claim that Piper had revealed for the first time that this building was a fraud, regardless of both T-an's book and Pressacs coming out beforehand.

Would you please provided evidence that Cole made the claim you've accused him of? A quote from the film with the time that it appears will suffice.

I do recall that he mentions Pressac's A:T&O numerous times in the film.


Denying-History wrote:T-an's book does not specifically state that the building was reconstructed, it however, doesn't refute my point. The quote itself stands that information did exist in the 1950's that did say the building was adapted (altered) for the use of an air raid shelter. The word adapted is quite discernible, especially when this word is used to describe something being modified.

His name was Jan Sehn. You keep calling him "T-an". I considered it must have been a typo in your first post, but you repeatedly call him "T-an" in you most recent one too. As you can't even get his name correct, your positing that his text [which you'd never read until I posted it above] somehow alludes to the post-war Soviet reconstruction of K1 is comical.


Denying-History wrote:I also stated any strong researcher is not exactly blocked from finding this out either. Like in 1985 Hilberg stated that "one gas chamber, [was] in good condition, but partially reconstructed, in Auschwitz I..." (Zundel Trial 1985 4-774).

You've lifted the quote and reference without accreditation from a "denier", Barbara Kulaszka. Why did you place "[was]" in the quotation when you have not seen the original source?

Hilberg was discussing his visit to Poland in 1979 as part of the President's Commission on the Holocaust, and specifically the Commission's visit to A-B:

Right. As it happens, it is one gas chamber, in good condition, but partially reconstructed, in Auschwitz 1.

- Hilberg testimony at 1st Zuendel trial, 16 Jan 1985, transcript, p.774-5
We saw, not ruined, but a partly reconstructed gas chamber in Auschwitz 1,

- ibid., p.824

Faurisson testified at the same trial and mentioned numerous times that crematorium/gas chamber of Auschwitz 1 was a reconstruction. He's also been writing about and speaking publicly about it since 1979.


Denying-History wrote:
Conan's famous article from 1995 argues against your point:

Actually, he doesn't... he states that buildings were erroneously rebuilt in the 1950's and 1960's and were said to be authentic. It does not disprove my point that a researcher could find these things out, nor does it disagree with the quote that I provided. Cole maintained that he had proven the Museum was concealing that the gas chamber was adapted for use as an air raid shelter. Based on anyone watching his film you can easily get the impression that up to that point the building was being claimed as 'authentic'.
[emphasis added]

It was; the Auschwitz guide in Cole's film said it was [1992], the Polish Embassy in London said it was [1992], Conan said it was [1995], and van Pelt said [c.1999] Conan's observations of the "... presentation of crematorium 1 were perfectly justified."

Conan's explicitly states that the K1 was still being passed of as authentic in 1995. So, yes, actually, he does argue against your point.


Denying-History wrote:Also, I don't think I denied the Museum refused to admit that the deniers were correct in the 1970's. Why that is important, I am not sure. I do personally, however, agree with Conan's article.

Yet above you're pretending that Conan never stated that as late as 1995 K1 was "still presented as authentic".

To summaries your sources that *prove* information of a reconstruction was available prior to deniers:
1. A 1950s book that you've never seen, and can't even get the author's name correct, which says absolutely nothing about any post-war reconstruction to the building.
2. Hilberg mentioning in 1985 that the building was reconstructed, when Faurisson [who was sat just yards away and was instructing Doug Christie on his cross-examination of Hilberg] had been saying precisely that since 1979.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby Denying-History » Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:44 am

BRoI wrote:
Denying-History wrote:It was Coles claim that Piper had revealed for the first time that this building was a fraud, regardless of both T-an's book and Pressacs coming out beforehand.

Would you please provided evidence that Cole made the claim you've accused him of? A quote from the film with the time that it appears will suffice.


I am relying on Piper's letter, in which he describes Coles video as such. Though I should state my wording it a bit misleading and I apologize for that. Piper states in his response posted in the daily texan that Cole "maintains that I [Piper] first time admitted the allegedly unknown fact the Nazis adapted the crematorium in question - in which the gas chamber were located - [into an] air-raid shelter, the fact allegedly unknown even for Museum guides." (slightly altered.)

If you disagree with the statement by Piper then so be it. I personally don't care.

Also since you are quite often a grammar nazi, it's not "provided". It should be "please provide".

BRoI wrote:I do recall that he mentions Pressac's A:T&O numerous times in the film.


Yes, he does mention Pressac multiple times. Every time he does though is quite trivial. He doesn't mention Pressac when it comes to the reconstruction, though Piper does mention Pressac in his rebuttal.

BRoI wrote:
Denying-History wrote:T-an's book does not specifically state that the building was reconstructed, it however, doesn't refute my point. The quote itself stands that information did exist in the 1950's that did say the building was adapted (altered) for the use of an air raid shelter. The word adapted is quite discernible, especially when this word is used to describe something being modified.

His name was Jan Sehn. You keep calling him "T-an". I considered it must have been a typo in your first post, but you repeatedly call him "T-an" in you most recent one too. As you can't even get his name correct, your positing that his text [which you'd never read until I posted it above] somehow alludes to the post-war Soviet reconstruction of K1 is comical.


Anyone can read my first post and notice that I was not relying on the book. I was getting my information from Pipers reply:

Sure, but it doesn't mean that this information wasn't available before deniers arrived... For example as Piper pointed out in his refutation to David Coles documentary that T-an Sehn 1957 states on page 152 that "in May 1944 the old Crematorium I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter".


So yes obviously I have not read the book considering I did not refer to it as my source. As for the way I spell the name, I again have gotten it from Pipers letter which is transcribed online. The only thing so far that is comical is how trivial this response is.

BRoI wrote:
Denying-History wrote:I also stated any strong researcher is not exactly blocked from finding this out either. Like in 1985 Hilberg stated that "one gas chamber, [was] in good condition, but partially reconstructed, in Auschwitz I..." (Zundel Trial 1985 4-774).

You've lifted the quote and reference without accreditation from a "denier", Barbara Kulaszka. Why did you place "[was]" in the quotation when you have not seen the original source?

[snip]


<Yawn> Let's start with the idea you have provided. If true, then so what?

As for not seeing the original source it's from the Codoh Pdf:

Image

As for why I added "was", at the time I was typing the reply made the sentence flow better. Now that I am more awake I notice it doesn't.

BRoI wrote:Faurisson testified at the same trial and mentioned numerous times that crematorium/gas chamber of Auschwitz 1 was a reconstruction. He's also been writing about and speaking publicly about it since 1979.


Which is again not important.

BRoI wrote:It was; the Auschwitz guide in Cole's film said it was [1992], Cohan said it was [1995], the Polish Embassy in London said it was [1992].


Yes, which as I have stated anyone can get the impression it was being claimed to be authentic up to that point.

BRoI wrote:Conan's explicitly states that the K1 was still being passed of* as authentic in 1995. So, yes, actually, he does argue against your point.


*"passed off"

Yes, he does state the museum was passing it off as authentic. How in the hell that argues against my point that strong researcher from finding out the building was a reconstruction is well beyond me. Obviously, Robert Faurisson found out.

BRoI wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Also, I don't think I denied the Museum refused to admit that the deniers were correct in the 1970's. Why that is important, I am not sure. I do personally, however, agree with Conan's article.

Yet above you're pretending that Conan never stated that as late as 1995 K1 was "still presented as authentic".

It probably was still presented as being authentic in 1995.

BRoI wrote:To summaries your sources that *prove* information of a reconstruction was available prior to deniers:
1. A 1950s book that you've never seen, and can't even get the author's name correct, which says absolutely nothing about any post-war reconstruction to the building.
2. Hilberg mentioning in 1985 that the building was reconstructed, when Faurisson [who was sat just yards away and was instructing Doug Christie on his cross-examination of Hilberg] had been saying precisely that since 1979.


It's also to summarize not "summaries". Well {!#%@} that's 3 spelling errors! You must not have read my post.

1. I never claimed I read the book.

2. Never said that Hilberg was somehow proof that information was available before deniers.

You seem in a rather cynical mood. This might help you with that.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby BRoI » Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:24 pm

Okay, fair enough, you were just unaware of who Jan ["T'an"] Sehn was, nor, consequently, of his immense contribution to the collective knowledge of Auschwitz.

And you're now backing out of insisting *Cole said he was the first*, claiming that you never really meant it anyway! And, you *don't care*!

Perhaps you noticed that your link proves you...er...Piper, were wrong:

David Cole wrote:Dr. Piper seems to be very nonchalant about the fact that changes were made after the war. But if it isn't such a big deal, why hide it from the tourists?

And that's not all. In May of 1992 British historian David Irving was fined by a German court for telling a meeting in Munich exactly what you just heard Dr. Piper tell you. In fact, Piper was even called as a defense witness. But the judge wouldn't allow him to testify even though it might have cleared Irving.

Once again I'll say, if this is not such a big deal, why fine somebody for saying it?

From 29:00ish https://youtu.be/RHzWo79dCHs?t=29m

Cole says in his actual film that Piper had been called as a defence witness to prove to a court that K1 was reconstructed post-war. So, it's unlikely Cole would then claim this was new information, don't you think?

Here's some further links on Irving getting fined in 1992 and 1993 for having said that the Auschwitz 1 gas chamber was a post-war fake in 1990:
"He said the gas chambers to be seen at the site of the camp had been erected as a tourist attraction."
"David Irving has been ordered by a German court to pay 30,000 marks (about $18,000) for telling an audience that the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz shown to hundreds of thousands of tourists annually is a phony postwar reconstruction (“Attrappen”)."


Despite your childish protestation, it is significant that Hilberg's adversary at the Zuendel trial had been publicly claiming K1 was reconstructed since 1979.

Hilberg spent just half a day at Auschwitz I—in the company of Elie Wiesel and a host of other dignitaries. He never mentioned how he learnt the "gas chamber" was "partially/partly reconstructed"; Hilberg said nothing about the ovens or crematorium having also been reconstructed.

Faurisson, on the other hand, told the court that it was the ovens that first made him suspect the building was not authentic:

A. You have in the same building a path, on the left, called "Krematorium" , and on the right a place called "Gas Chamber".
Q [Christie]. Yes.
A. [Faurisson] I got first into the place called "Krematorium". There were there two furnaces with two openings.
Q. What did you do?
A. I noticed some things which were not normal.
Q. What did you notice? Tell us what you noticed.
A. I noticed, for example, that there was no soot at all.
Q. How did you find that out?
A. Putting my finger like that, I saw that there was no soot.
Q. Inside the furnace?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
A. So I decided to find the highest possible responsible....
Q. Person.
A. ....person, of the Auschwitz Museum.
Q. And then what did you do?
A. I found that man called Yan [Jan] Machalek. I asked him to come on the spot. I asked him if those ovens were genuine or not.
Q. Yeah. Don't tell us what he said. What did you then ask him for?
A. I can say that I showed all the same that there was no soot?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay. The conclusion was that it was a reconstruction, a rebuilding and not something genuine.
Q. So what did that lead you to do?
A. I thought, if it is a rebuilding, there was a plan, an engineer or an architect saying to the people, "You must put those bricks like this or like that." I said at the time that I'm a Professor at Sorbonne, that I was interested in the gas chamber.
Q. You were a professor at the Sorbonne?
A. Yes.
Q. So you asked for what?
A. For a plan of the place.
Q. Did you get it?
A. Yes.
Q. Until this time, in all your research, had any plan been published?
A. No plan. I think that I have been the first to publish really a plan.
[4 February 1985, pp. 2365-2366]


In a letter published in the Smith Report no.13, Jan/Feb 1993, Faurisson said he had first published the plan of K1 and spoke publicly about it in 1979. He also alludes to D. Felderer having also written/spoken about the matter:
http://codoh.com/media/files/sr13-ocr.pdf


You might as well again concentrate on my typos, and spelling or grammatical errors, considering you're unable to find any actually evidence to back up your claims—some of which you've already walked-back.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.

User avatar
BRoI
Poster
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Re: Deniers getting owned?

Postby BRoI » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:02 pm

Van Pelt and Dwork on how K1 was being passed off to visitors, from their 1996 book:

There have been additions to the camp the Russians found in 1945 as well as deletions, and the suppression of the prisoner reception site is matched by the reconstruction of crematorium I just outside the northeast perimeter of the present museum camp. With its chimney and its gas chamber, the crematorium functions as the solemn conclusion for tours through the camp. Visitors are not told that the crematorium they see is largely a postwar reconstruction.

When Auschwitz was transformed into a museum after the war, the decision was taken to concentrate the history of the whole complex into one of its component parts. The infamous crematoria where the mass murders had taken place lay in ruins in Birkenau, two miles away. The committee felt that a crematorium was required at the end of the memorial journey, and crematorium I was reconstructed to speak for the history of the incinerators at Birkenau. This program of usurpation was rather detailed. A chimney, the ultimate symbol of Birkenau, was re-created; four hatched openings in the roof, as if for pouring Zyklon B into the gas chamber below, were installed, and two of the three furnaces were rebuilt using original parts. There are no signs to explain these restitutions, they were not marked at the time, and the guides remain silent about it when they take visitors through this building that is presumed by the tourist to be the place where it happened.
- Auschwitz 1270 to the Present, pp.363-364.
"... these witnesses would swear to anything if it gets the Germans killed."
- Solomon Surowitz, Assistant Prosecutor at the 1947 Buchenwald trial.


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jeffk 1970 and 1 guest