Why the Holocaust?

Discussions
User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5586
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Why the Holocaust?

Post by Monster » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:45 am

Why is the Holocaust such a contentious subject? Why aren't there people denying other historical events just as vigorously? Like:

The American Civil War
The Mongol destruction of Baghdad
The Roman conquest of Gaul

My question is: Why is the Holocaust so special?
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:55 am

Monster wrote:Why is the Holocaust such a contentious subject? Why aren't there people denying other historical events just as vigorously? Like:

The American Civil War
The Mongol destruction of Baghdad
The Roman conquest of Gaul

My question is: Why is the Holocaust so special?
9/11?
The Armenian genocide?
War crimes in the former Yugoslavia?
Stalin's crimes?
Sandy Hook?
The Boston Marathon bombing?
Landings on the moon?

To take a slightly different view, why were there a Gulf of Tonkin resolution, supposed WMDs in Iraq, and CTs around the JFK assassination?

People with axes to grind, perhaps, and folks full of paranoia and looking for easy answers. Oops, sorry, I don't deny any of these things - I should defer to the loons on this one.

Speaking of loons, we have just two of them regularly posting here - with Eric Hunt joining in whenever his fragile ego is sufficiently bruised. RODOH666 and CODOH show the real power of the denial movement - at RODOH there must be a dozen or two regular deniers posting - and CODOH has had 100s post there over the past few years. 100s, I tell you.

That said, good question for the few deniers out there . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28686
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:41 pm

I wanna add the Crusades and Christian Inquisition to the list.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:24 pm

Monster wrote:Why is the Holocaust such a contentious subject? Why aren't there people denying other historical events just as vigorously? Like:

The American Civil War
The Mongol destruction of Baghdad
The Roman conquest of Gaul

My question is: Why is the Holocaust so special?
There are people who dispute various aspects of any broad historical event. Some people think the American Civil War was about slavery. Others say it was about state's rights. So some people do deny the Civil War.

Some people believe that the descendants of African slaves should receive compensation for injustices their forefathers suffered because of slavery. Others believe that the descendants of slaves are not owed anything because slavery didn't exist.

I've seen these bumper stickers that say "9/11 was an inside job" pasted on automobiles by people who deny the Twin Towers were destroyed.

Just last week I saw an article written by a World War 2 denier who said that the formal declaration of war by Great Britain on September 3, 1939 was the date the war started.

Some people think that the dearth of evidence for the gas chambers means that nothing happened to the Jews between 1939 and 1945.

So to single out the Holocaust as the only event in history that is denied isn't true. Every event in history is denied by somebody somewhere.

The reason the Holocaust issue is so contentious is that some people have an irrational emotional attachment to idea that six million Jews weren't exterminated.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:57 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:. . . some people have an irrational emotional attachment to idea that six million Jews weren't exterminated.
Out of the mouths of loons . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:00 pm

The "idea" that 5+ million Jews were exterminated by the Germans and their allies during WWII is not at all contentious - there isn't a single, qualified scholar I can think of who contests this conclusion.

As with any historical event or development, there is vigorous debate about aspects of the event - why questions, questions of interpretation, phasing, comparative perspectives, etc. In the case of the genocide of European Jews, scholars debate how this loss came about, the place of this event within the history of the Third Reich, how this event compares to other events involving state-sanctioned extreme violence and mass murder, how to place and frame this event, and what to make of it.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Cerdic
Poster
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Cerdic » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:04 pm

IMO the reason why Holocaust denial is more well known and commented upon that the disputes SM mentions is that the Holocaust itself is more widely known and commented upon, or otherwise the denial of it provokes a stronger emotional response from most people than a Soviet apologist suggesting Stalin wasn't all bad.

And the relevance of HD, as little as it has, is linked to the fortunes of European far-right groups. Most nationalists in these countries have officially repudiated HD or do not bring the subject up, but such ideas are still propogated by some in Golden Dawn, NPD, etc.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

Vote Your Conscience.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:41 pm

I am not aware of American Civil War denial and American slavery denial. What are some examples of these CT's?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35098
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Gord » Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:53 pm

Monster wrote:Why is the Holocaust such a contentious subject?
Because it never happened, Hitler was a nice guy, Aryans are awesome sauce, and Jews are evil. :pardon:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:26 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I am not aware of American Civil War denial and American slavery denial. What are some examples of these CT's?
Check out books by James Ronald Kennedy. He's something of an iconoclast among Confederacy/Civil War historians. Therefore, he denies the Civil War happened.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:59 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I am not aware of American Civil War denial and American slavery denial. What are some examples of these CT's?
Check out books by James Ronald Kennedy. He's something of an iconoclast among Confederacy/Civil War historians. Therefore, he denies the Civil War happened.
Your logic is asinine.

As far as I know, the Kennedys don't claim that civil war didn't happen during 1861-1865; instead, the Kennedys argue that in the conflict that did happen the South was right, the North was the aggressor and carried out genocidal warfare and related programs against the southern nation, and, thus, that the war happened, only, as apologists for the Confederacy have long held, not because of slavery or to preserve the Union but as part of a wider effort on the part of the North to destroy the southern way of life. In the view of the Kennedys it was a war of northern, capitalist aggression against the South, leading to economic, political, and cultural subjugation of the region right up through the civil rights movement, busing, and welfare.

What about American slavery denial, that is, those others, of whom you wrote, who say that slavery didn't exist?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:23 am

Monster wrote:My question is: Why is the Holocaust so special?
I don't think it is. I think World War two was "special" because it was a rare example of Total War under Clausewitz's definitions. Scorched earth policy, genocide, the holocaust, the destruction of cities, slave labour, were just the unusual "results" of Total War.

I don't know, but I guess if I were to add up all the monuments to various atrocities and awful things that happened during WWII that all the differing aspects of this destruction are given public profile and not just the holocaust.

(That being said, I wonder if there are many monuments in China concerning the Japanese atrocities?)

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:18 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I am not aware of American Civil War denial and American slavery denial. What are some examples of these CT's?
Check out books by James Ronald Kennedy. He's something of an iconoclast among Confederacy/Civil War historians. Therefore, he denies the Civil War happened.
Your logic is asinine.

As far as I know, the Kennedys don't claim that civil war didn't happen during 1861-1865; instead, the Kennedys argue that in the conflict that did happen the South was right, the North was the aggressor and carried out genocidal warfare and related programs against the southern nation, and, thus, that the war happened, only, as apologists for the Confederacy have long held, not because of slavery or to preserve the Union but as part of a wider effort on the part of the North to destroy the southern way of life. In the view of the Kennedys it was a war of northern, capitalist aggression against the South, leading to economic, political, and cultural subjugation of the region right up through the civil rights movement, busing, and welfare.

What about American slavery denial, that is, those others, of whom you wrote, who say that slavery didn't exist?
If somebody disagrees with that much of the accepted narrative of the Civil War, they are denying the whole thing ever happened. That's how it works on your planet. What would you call somebody who said the National Socialists didn't try to exterminate the Jews?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:12 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:If somebody disagrees with that much of the accepted narrative of the Civil War, they are denying the whole thing ever happened.
You're growing more desperate and stupider by the post: the Kennedys specifically interpret the ACW (even re-naming the agreed-upon war) from a pro-Confederacy point of view rather than denying the whole thing ever happened. In fact, in The South Was Right!, the Kennedys champion the war. They call it "the War for Southern Independence," describe the Union as the "victor," "the Yankee invader," and an "Imperial power," and, citing Jeff Davis, explain how the "victor" - in the very "war" you say the pair are denying happened - got to "write its history." Try again but try something coherent and worth discussing.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:That's how it works on your planet.
Not at all. Among normal people, there are differences in how events are interpreted and the meaning attributed to them. The Kennedys interpret, if we can credit them with something beyond crude recycling of old propaganda and homilies, the war fought in 1861-1865 from a pro-Confederacy point of view and lament the South's defeat in a war you say they're denying happened at all: they cast the war, which they say occurred, as one between two nations, the South seeking its independence, and worry over how the war that you say didn't occur is called on account of the meaning conveyed by different names for the same events.

You're trying to make a political debate about the war a debate over whether the war occurred or not: this is a transparent and idiotic ploy on your part.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:What would you call somebody who said the National Socialists didn't try to exterminate the Jews?
Uninformed, willfully ignorant, stupid, gullible, credulous, in denial, politically motivated, pro-Nazi, or anti-Semitic.

Your stretch attempt at an analogy fails, of course, because the Kennedys contest how to describe and politically judge an agreed-upon war, with x casualties and such-and-such battles, whilst in your case you do not agree to documented mass murder and extermination actions but instead witter on about emigration or ethnic cleansing where mass murder was carried out, with x victims and in such-and-such places.

I will grant that with most deniers of the Jewish genocide, as with the Kennedys, there is a political ax to grind, but the similarity doesn't extend to where you try taking it.

So precisely zero people denying the war itself happened, now where are the deniers that slavery existed, the ones you alluded to?

Grow up.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:04 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Monster wrote:My question is: Why is the Holocaust so special?
I don't think it is. I think World War two was "special" because it was a rare example of Total War under Clausewitz's definitions. Scorched earth policy, genocide, the holocaust, the destruction of cities, slave labour, were just the unusual "results" of Total War.

I don't know, but I guess if I were to add up all the monuments to various atrocities and awful things that happened during WWII that all the differing aspects of this destruction are given public profile and not just the holocaust. . . .
There is, of course, the obduracy of die-hards who think that by means of sophistic and semantic games they can apply lipstick to disguise the ugly pigs that are National Socialism and Jew-hatred.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:32 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:If somebody disagrees with that much of the accepted narrative of the Civil War, they are denying the whole thing ever happened.
You're growing more desperate and stupider by the post: the Kennedys specifically interpret the ACW (even re-naming the agreed-upon war) from a pro-Confederacy point of view rather than denying the whole thing ever happened. In fact, in The South Was Right!, the Kennedys champion the war. They call it "the War for Southern Independence," describe the Union as the "victor," "the Yankee invader," and an "Imperial power," and, citing Jeff Davis, explain how the "victor" - in the very "war" you say the pair are denying happened - got to "write its history." Try again but try something coherent and worth discussing.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:That's how it works on your planet.
Not at all. Among normal people, there are differences in how events are interpreted and the meaning attributed to them. The Kennedys interpret, if we can credit them with something beyond crude recycling of old propaganda and homilies, the war fought in 1861-1865 from a pro-Confederacy point of view and lament the South's defeat in a war you say they're denying happened at all: they cast the war, which they say occurred, as one between two nations, the South seeking its independence, and worry over how the war that you say didn't occur is called on account of the meaning conveyed by different names for the same events.

You're trying to make a political debate about the war a debate over whether the war occurred or not: this is a transparent and idiotic ploy on your part.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:What would you call somebody who said the National Socialists didn't try to exterminate the Jews?
Uninformed, willfully ignorant, stupid, gullible, credulous, in denial, politically motivated, pro-Nazi, or anti-Semitic.
"in denial?" In denial of what? Is it accurate you'd would call that person a stupid "Centrally Planned Physical Extermination of the Jews" denier?
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Your stretch attempt at an analogy fails, of course, because the Kennedys contest how to describe and politically judge an agreed-upon war, with x casualties and such-and-such battles, whilst in your case you do not agree to documented mass murder and extermination actions but instead witter on about emigration or ethnic cleansing where mass murder was carried out, with x victims and in such-and-such places.

I will grant that with most deniers of the Jewish genocide, as with the Kennedys, there is a political ax to grind, but the similarity doesn't extend to where you try taking it.

So precisely zero people denying the war itself happened, now where are the deniers that slavery existed, the ones you alluded to?
There are people, even some self-hating Negroes, who say that some slaves were better off under slavery than they were under freedom. Denying the oppressive nature of slavery is denial of slavery itself.

The Kennedy boys might be accurately described as slavery deniers but they would probably deny that (cause that's what deniers do, they deny the truth). However, there's no way they can deny that they are pro-slavery and hate African-Americans. Because Anti-African American prejudice is the only reason why somebody would deny--no, excuse me, I forgot, "revise"--the Civil War
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:38 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:"in denial?" In denial of what?
In denial of evidence to the contrary.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Is it accurate you'd would call that person a stupid "Centrally Planned Physical Extermination of the Jews" denier?
Well, I gave you a list of quick reactions, not knowing what this hypothetical person's arguments about the Nazis not trying to exterminate the Jews might be, assuming that, unlike you, this person had a coherent argument about the Nazis not trying to exterminate the Jews - or even an incoherent argument, any argument at all, in contrast to you.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:There are people, even some self-hating Negroes, who say that some slaves were better off under slavery than they were under freedom. Denying the oppressive nature of slavery is denial of slavery itself.
Ah, the ill-conceived semantic and sophistic games go on. You're playing with yourself, of course.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:The Kennedy boys might be accurately described as slavery deniers but they would probably deny that (cause that's what deniers do, they deny the truth). However, there's no way they can deny that they are pro-slavery and hate African-Americans. Because Anti-African American prejudice is the only reason why somebody would deny--no, excuse me, I forgot, "revise"--the Civil War
I see. You claimed slavery deniers exist and can't name a single one. Good for you.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28686
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:25 pm

Mary, you look a little lonely.

I got you an avatar...
Spoiler:
Image

No need to thank me.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Balsamo » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:02 pm

I am not sure that i understood the question which might explain why i fail to see the relevance of most answers.
It is quite obvious that the Holocaust today has been given a status that no other historical event has. And given this status, contentiousness is an inevitable consequence.

So if the question is why this special status? Then we have to go back to the origins.

As Matthew said, it is not only about the Holocaust, it is about the whole Second World War. Never before had so many people died in such a small period of time. It was an almost unprecedented example of Total War that broke all the limits of savagery.
Unprecedented was also the decision to make this war illegal and to put the defeated German State to trial. Not that – given the crimes committed – there were plenty of options, but the IMT was still a very bad “good idea” due to the way it was implemented.

One would have expected – again given the crimes committed and the level of savagery reached – that the priority would be to understand how such thing could have happened in the first place.

But that was obviously not the goal of the IMT. While the IMT is not the topic of this post, what matter is its incidence on how historical research will deal with such an event in the years that followed.
As a contrarian, I would even say that the IMT has its responsibility by being an expression of denials.
Denials of what made the tragedy possible, denial of the “civilized” values behind Nazi actions, denial of the fact that the support to Hitler’s views was not confined to a bunch of psychopaths.
Many additional “external influence” had a harmful effect on how historiography on the War in general and the Holocaust in particular in the following years after the facts. National interests of the victors: for example: the willingness of France and other continental States to diminish their own responsibilities, The willingness for the USSR to “Sovietize” the victims, and of course the US willingness to “naively” criminalize the concept of war.
Of course, one can argue that the IMT exposed a tremendous amount of historical sources, classifying them, making them easily available to historians, but it also indirectly impose a vision of the events to be studied, a road to follow…if and only if anyone was wanting to follow that road. The road led to what is known as a “Nurenbergization” version of history (don’t know if this expression exists in English).

It is important to remember that the IMT was almost immediately contested and of course rejected by the once who chose to side the Nazis. The is the point where “revisionism” or “denierism” was born.

Indeed, Maurice Bardeche – the father of denierism in France – was the first voice to raise against the IMT. And indeed, France and its participation to the tribunal was a target of choice.
France – the betrayed traitor – the undefined State among the victors, barely legal with its leader – General de Gaule – officially a traitor sentenced to death by a legal court was indeed an easy target, as it was promoting a special form a national denierism.

Anyway, Europe and most of the States involved (including Israel) in WW2 wanted to move forward. The IMT was the way out of the mess: A trial, obvious guilties, sentences and a historical vision… as WW2 quickly evolved into a “cold WW3”, even Germany ended up as almost free of charges…It was not Germany nor the Germans, but the Nazi, the SS, and in fine Adolf Hiter.

At this point, one might ask where am I going? Well to the affirmation that the collusion between a judicial approach and a historical ones had created an unprecedented mess which will affect the post war historiography until the 80’s.

How can historians keep the distance with their subjects, their neutrality, given the horror committed, and in the beginning their proximity with the tragedy? More importantly, how were they supposed to take their distance with the judicial logic? And more fundamentally, who would have wanted to hear another version of history than the one that emerged from Nurenberg?

Everyone remembers the fuss created by AJP Taylor when he finally decided that Historians should take back their liberty? That was in 1961 or so!

As far as the Holocaust is concerned, the first major work – at least in France – about the Holocaust was Leon Poliakov “le breviere de la haine” (Harvest of hate) in 56 or so…he participated to the IMT, others historians would be involved in many post war trials…This collusion is in my humble opinion at the root of the “intentionalist” school which dominated the historical scene up to 1985…and which is today a dying man.

The next step to denierism – after the more political one to the IMT – was Rassinier’s reaction to the multitude of fairytales from French camp survivors with the complaisance of almost every authorities, it was the times of “Nuit et brouillard” while works like hilberg’s was not to be translated or published in France until not so long ago. Even today, some French widows still believes that their husband died gazed at Dora…

Then will come the big switch from Israel and the development of the Memorial approach to the Holocaust…without much reconsideration of the existent historiography which will lead to the emergence of the “revisionsim” as we know it now…Butz, Faurisson…

Contrary to Historians and Scholars who would finally reconsider a lot of the former premises, the Revisionists would never leave the 70’s…they still focus on the IMT, on the now outdated historiography of the Holocaust, even though the actual historiography has finally free itself from the former burdens…I think about the famous debate between Borszat and Friedländer, the new perspective by scholars like Christopher browning, the development of functionalism, the new understanding brought by Ian Kershaw, just naming the most famous that comes to my mind…which will allow new perspectives- Donald Bloxham or Arno Meyer comes to mind- and many many others.
The Historiography of the Holocaust is now alive and well…although some “after-effects” of the past miscomprehension are still present, most of the burdens are now left behind, and history as a science will keep on revising itself whatever the silly legislation.

But don’t count on the “revisionists” to do that. They are stuck in the past, and any revision of their own dogma by one of their members is and will be sentenced to infamy.

Royalcourtier
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Royalcourtier » Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:10 am

Why is so-called holocaust denial a topic for skeptics?

I can understand that holocaust accounts, origins, statistics etc might be the basis of sceptical debate. But why are we debating (AKA attacking) so-called Holocaust deniers?

Royalcourtier
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Royalcourtier » Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:23 am

Balsamo wrote:So if the question is why this special status? Then we have to go back to the origins...The Historiography of the Holocaust is now alive and well…although some “after-effects” of the past miscomprehension are still present, most of the burdens are now left behind, and history as a science will keep on revising itself whatever the silly legislation....But don’t count on the “revisionists” to do that. They are stuck in the past, and any revision of their own dogma by one of their members is and will be sentenced to infamy.
The problem with discussion of the Holocaust is that rational debate is not possible. Any attempt to discuss the origins of these events, the statistics, those responsible, etc is met with abuse. Debate is not permitted. Anyone attempting to discuss the facts is accused of being a neo-Nazi, a Holocaust denier, etc. Which is apparently a little worse than being a murdering paedophile cannibal. No other historical event has such an elevated status, or is so immune from considered analysis. There is no basis for the semi-divine status accorded to these events. It was, as was notably remarked by Steven Spielberg in 1994, a historical footnote. It may be of greater importance to Jews of a certain age, but for the rest of the 21st century world, it is just one of many thousands of historical events.

The irony of people saying "never again" and "we must never forget", is that in Rwanda in recent years a genocide occurred that was on a larger scale, and no one did a thing to help or intervene - and none of those responsible has been convicted.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:07 am

Royalcourtier wrote:Why is so-called holocaust denial a topic for skeptics?
The holocaust deniers come here and make spurious claims. We pull apart those claims. If you looked at the some of the posts here, you would have worked that out.

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by clarsct » Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:09 am

The topic was split off, IIRC, to keep the sheer number of posts and reposts from flooding other sections.

In other words, the HD come here, not that we invite them. But, like in most cases, if you spout BS on a skeptic's board, there's generally someone there to call you out on it.

Such is the nature of these things.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:36 pm

clarsct wrote:The topic was split off, IIRC, to keep the sheer number of posts and reposts from flooding other sections.

In other words, the HD come here, not that we invite them. But, like in most cases, if you spout BS on a skeptic's board, there's generally someone there to call you out on it.

Such is the nature of these things.
RC has a such a great point. Nowhere else on the Internet are there means (AKA forums) to debate topics like this (AKA "so-called holocaust denial"). Nowhere else on the Internet do sewer-dwellers (AKA deniers) get to spout off on matters about which they are clueless (AKA the Third Reich and its crimes including genocide) only to have others (AKA "we") set them straight (AKA attack them). I can think of no other examples of this sort of thing. Anywhere. On Earth. In forums. On the Internets. In any medium. What is happening here therefore is indeed a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is the propensity some folks (AKA deniers) have to promote their ideology and lies. Using forums. Like this one. But nowhere else would people (AKA "we") reply to such hatstand antics, right? Isn't that RC's point?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:41 pm

Monster wrote:Why is the Holocaust such a contentious subject? Why aren't there people denying other historical events just as vigorously? Like:

The American Civil War
The Mongol destruction of Baghdad
The Roman conquest of Gaul

My question is: Why is the Holocaust so special?
You are confused by your own rhetoric.
If you look at the discussion as a revision, it would help you.

To give you a simple example of what Revisionism is…

At the Nuremberg Tribunal the Court entered into its Judgment the supposed fact
that 1,400,000 people were killed at Majdanek and turned into fertilizer.
Today, the figure has dropped to 78,000, at least according to the Auschwitz State
Museum. See Majdanek Victims Enumerated. Changes in the history textbooks?
http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?opt ... 4&Itemid=8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one is claiming that there was not a Majdanek Camp or that a tragically large number
of people died there. But current research has revised the figure from the
Post-War propaganda high to a realistic number. Research has also jettisoned
the sick twisted tales of human fertilizer factories.

To frame your question correctly, you should be asking,

People have stopped believing in witches, devils, and the existence of burning bonfires in
Hell. Why are they so opposed to correcting similar propaganda tales regarding World War II history?



Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:02 am

David the lying holocaust denier wrote:To give you a simple example of what "Revisionism" is…
"Revisionism" is when a cult member of the Holocaust denial cult, like David, makes up entire stories about concentration camps and runs away when he is caught lying.

"Revisionism" is where a couple of con artists, demand donations from idiots, like David to supply them already debunked propaganda.

"Revisionism" is where David refuses to read Arad with all the train movements because they destroy David's silly claims.

'Revisionism" is a lonely sad compulsive behavioural disorder, where individuals like David do anything to belong to the group and thus, lonely, David posts his propaganda here, with the hope he will one day be allowed to join. ( even though they hate him for being such a bad liar and making the cult look even more stupid. )

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:08 am

Sigh. The Majdanek death estimates were revised, more accurately, researched, debated and refined without the help from the likes of your revisionist heroes, least of all you (you still haven't given us your estimate for the number of Jews sent on past Treblinka in 1943, have you?).

What you fail to say, with your dishonest set-up ("Today, the figure has dropped . . .") is that Scheffler, Berenstein & Rutkowski and Marszalek, long before "today," all estimated death tolls well below the one you claim as the "supposed fact" that was revised: already in 1961 Raul Hilberg estimated that 50,000 Jews had been murdered at Majdanek. The Soviets did submit a claim at the IMT for the murder at Majdanek of 1.5 million "persons: Soviet prisoners of war, prisoners of war of the former Polish Army, and nationals of various countries- Poles, Frenchmen, Italians, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, Croats, and a great number of Jews." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the Soviet claim of 1.5 persons exterminated at the camp became part of the indictment at Nuremberg)

David, please post a reference to the IMT judgment's finding that 1.4 million people were killed at Majdanek and their used as fertilizer. Thank you.

David, do you concur with the estimate you cite of a death toll of approximately 78,000 murders at Majdanek including those killed during the extermination action of fall 1943 called Erntefest (Kranz estimates nearly 60,000 Jews were murdered in the camp during the time of its operation)? Or are you trying your damnedest to wish all these death tolls down to zero?

(By the way, the victims at Majdanek did not merely "die" "tragically" as you try having it: the SS "imprisoned and murdered" these people, as Kranz writes, in "a crime on an enormous scale.")
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:51 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:already in 1961 Raul Hilberg estimated that 50,000 Jews had been murdered at Majdanek.

Hello SM- You seem confused about the topic, which is Monster's
incorrect claim that people only "deny" the Holocaust.
I was merely trying to explain what Revisionism is....revising the absurd sick propaganda tales presented at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
You have presented a fair amount of evidence showing just that, that anyone who
looks into the Majdanek figures wants to revise them-
Thank you.
It is worth noting that many Believer sites still try and cling to a greatly exaggerated figure.
"However, captured records show that only 300,000 were ever sent to the camp in total and that the number of deaths may have been 235,000. But this is not clear."
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/majdanek.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I am a simple Revisionist when it comes to WWII propaganda tales, I would like
to let Monster know that I (pretty much) out-right Deny official history when it comes to blaming the Spanish for sinking the battleship Maine, or passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, or claiming that the Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I should also mention that revisions on WWII history relating to German plans to
murder all Slavs, or Roma, or Gays have been generally accepted. So the contention
in the matter seems to be on the part of Believers, not Revisionists.






User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:26 am

David wrote:Hello SM- You seem confused about the topic, which is Monster's
incorrect claim that people only "deny" the Holocaust.

Not at all, David, I answered what you wrote; since I'd earlier answered others in this thread, I had no need to rehash what I'd already written. Are you now running from what you wrote?
David wrote:I was merely trying to explain what Revisionism is....revising the absurd sick propaganda tales presented at the Nuremberg Tribunal.

So revisionism is about challenging the IMT? That's it? Really? All of the IMT but nothing else? Tell us more . . . and please don't be shy: give us the reference which I requested for your claim about the IMT's judgment and Majdanek.

So you're ok with what Hilberg wrote? But not the IMT? With Kranz? With Silberklang's recent book on Lublin?
David wrote:You have presented a fair amount of evidence showing just that, that anyone who looks into the Majdanek figures wants to revise them-
Thank you.
Lots of history needs re-thinking and further research. So what? Are you going to answer what I asked you about the IMT judgment?

Do you agree with Kranz's conclusions about Majdanek?
David wrote:It is worth noting that many Believer sites still try and cling to a greatly exaggerated figure.
"However, captured records show that only 300,000 were ever sent to the camp in total and that the number of deaths may have been 235,000. But this is not clear."
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/majdanek.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AFAIK Holocaust and Third Reich scholars don't believe this. You snipped that the site says that "Researchers have figures of death that vary from 42,000 at the minimum to 1.3 million at the maximum." The site doesn't reference the researchers to whom it alludes. I'd suggest looking at Kranz's chapter on this issue and wrestling with that.

The History Learning Site, by the way, is the creation of Chris Trueman who taught at the secondary level with a focus British and American Politics; Trueman's graduate degree, an MA, is in management, not history. His niece and nephew apparently have plans to add material on "British History in the Twentieth Century and an in-depth study on Stuart England." They request readers write them about issues with the site. The site appears to be a general interest site for world history, offered by someone who "speaks" for himself, hardly a "Believer site," whatever you mean by that. It seems like a site by "buffs" for "buffs": if revisionism is contending with "buffs," that seems fine.
David wrote:While I am a simple Revisionist when it comes to WWII propaganda tales, I would like
to let Monster know that I (pretty much) out-right Deny official history when it comes to blaming the Spanish for sinking the battleship Maine, or passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, or claiming that the Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I think we can all congratulate you both for being a simpleton and for refusing to blame the Spanish for sinking the Maine, passing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, or claiming that Iraq had WMDs. Whatever this has to do with the matter at hand. Are you alleging that, for example, Hilberg's work is a "WWII propaganda tale"? Browning's work? Longerich's? Other "Believer" historians and scholars?

You do realize, I hope, that the issue isn't what comports with your views and beliefs but rather what the evidence is, taken as a whole, and where it leads.
David wrote:I should also mention that revisions on WWII history relating to German plans to murder all Slavs, or Roma, or Gays have been generally accepted. So the contention in the matter seems to be on the part of Believers, not Revisionists.
David, this is gibberish. What revisions are you talking about, and what initial claims? You seem not to understand how history is developed. And the revisionists aren't even in the debate, given their obsessive negationism, biased methodology, and inability to develop a narrative.

But back to your post:
1) Please post a reference to the IMT judgment's finding that 1.4 million people were killed at Majdanek and their used as fertilizer. You made this claim, now back it up. Thank you.
2) Do you concur with the estimate you cite of a death toll of approximately 78,000 murders at Majdanek including those killed during the extermination action of fall 1943 called Erntefest (Kranz estimates nearly 60,000 Jews were murdered in the camp during the time of its operation)?

(Why do you always dodge direct questions? Are you a coward, or do you hate getting caught peddling BS?)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am
Custom Title: eugenics never stopped

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:42 am

trying to get numaned ?

people are questioning the claimed number of people killed , I think ? there is a chance the numbers may be inflated .
that does not change what an enormous tragedy it was for all Europeans , but especially for the Jewish people .
there is also a chance that sta mech is a Jew who just wants to make sure that tragedy is not forgotten . playing the devils advocate , maybe ?
as a shrink once told me - anything is possible

what would be the correct spelling of numaned ? ps not just (was) a great tragedy , the misery and hate that started is still continuing .
Last edited by psychiatry is a scam on Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28686
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by scrmbldggs » Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:03 am

psychiatry is a scam wrote: :heyup: trying to get numaned ?
...
what would be the correct spelling of numaned ?
:banned:



I think 'numaned' works. :-D
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:15 am

psychiatry is a scam wrote:people are questioning the claimed number of people killed , I think ? there is a chance the numbers may be inflated .
Indeed, some people's estimates of the Majdanek death toll have been grossly overstated. Kranz's little study explains the errors quite well. David ignores all that and tries to get us to focus on a claim he makes about the IMT. David even wrote that the IMT's judgment included the overstatement for Majdanek of 1.4 million deaths. Did it? He won't provide the reference to support his claim. Some people.

The Majdanek death toll estimates have varied widely. I'm not an expert, by any means, on that camp. I know enough to know, just the same, that the work here is the normal work of scholars using evidence to question other scholars. In fairness, it should be noted, and David failed to note, that the estimates were not all way high - some of them were a bit low or close to Kranz's 2005 estimate. . . . What is David's point? That Kranz has pretty much confirmed Hilberg's 1961 estimate?

Will David show us where the IMT's judgment states that 1.4 people were murdered at Majdanek and their corpses used for fertilizer?
psychiatry is a scam wrote:there is also a chance that sta mech is a Jew who just wants to make sure that tragedy is not forgotten . playing the devils advocate , maybe ?
as a shrink once told me - anything is possible
There's a much better chance that you're mistaken.

To spell it out: my point is that revisionism, as on display here, is negationism, in ignorance of the evidence and the scholarship - and dishonest at its core, and that this negationism is in service of a world view and set of biases.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:31 am

psychiatry is a scam wrote::heyup: trying to get numaned ?
Just for the record.

"Numan" is a banned member. He was an American draft dodger who moved to Canada and built his entire life around hating America. He had a severe personality disorder and was universally hated by all members, until he was banned.

"Psychiatry is a scam" is a white person, who admits his suffers a psychiatric disease who refuses to be treated by African Americans, so he complains on a skeptic forum but won't do anything to get better. He wants the government to give him a house in a "gated white community" so he can get better. He will probably join David as a holocaust denier as they share psychiatric disorders and are both racially prejudiced.

psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am
Custom Title: eugenics never stopped

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:51 am

stumbled on a short essay by Charles Siebert - HEAL THYSELF - men's journal - December page 44 - :heyup: :off:
really like the idea of walking. -
( believe it is very helpful for mental illness , if you live in a nice area ) .
but the story also brings up the idea that existing medical business practices sometimes do not help .
I can not do the article justice here , if you care about your health or someone else , can not hurt to read it ?
let me know if you like it ; if you do not like it - I do not want to know .

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35098
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:21 am

psychiatry is a scam wrote: really like the idea of walking.
Walking is good for your health. Everyone should get out for a walk once each day.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:57 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: So revisionism is about challenging the IMT? That's it? Really? All of the IMT but nothing else? Tell us more . . .
To quote Bradley Smith,
Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as “anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,” that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of the history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view.


David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:23 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Please post a reference to the IMT judgment's finding that 1.4 million people were killed at Majdanek and their used as fertilizer. You made this claim, now back it up. Thank you.
Evidence was given of the treatment of the inmates before and after their extermination. There was testimony that the hair of women victims was cut off before they were killed, and shipped to Germany, there to be used in the manufacture of mattresses. The clothes, money and valuables of the inmates were also salvaged and sent to the appropriate agencies for disposition. After the extermination the gold teeth and fillings were taken from the heads of the corpses and sent to the Reichsbank.

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer,

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:51 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: In fairness, it should be noted, and David failed to note, that the estimates were not all way high - some of them were a bit low or close to Kranz's 2005 estimate. . . . What is David's point?
ROTFL-
"The figure of 360,000 victims appears in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, the Britannica Polish edition, and the Polish Nowa Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN. In all three cases, the source is a 1948 publication by Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz, a judge who was a member of the Main Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland.

360,000 vs. 78,000
What is a few hundred thousand bodies to a Believer?

The point, my poor confused Believer, is to address Monster's question,
"Why aren't there people denying other historical events."

To help you through the two steps of my argument, since you are confused

1. We are not "denying" but revising the wildly inaccurate tales as presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial and still repeated today by Believer fanatics.
2. An example is the absurd tale of 1.4 million people killed at Majdanek which
has been dropped by an amazing 1.3 million people to the tragic but "normal"
figure of 78,000.

SM, I will add that you should fall on your knees and thank the brave revisionist scholars
like Director of Research Kranz and scholar Carlo Mattogno for lifting you
out of the miasma of ridiculous tales of hundreds of thousands of Majadanek
dead as preached by crazy Judge Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz or the twisted
tales of human fertilizer factories as espoused by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

It seems very weird to me that you get so angry every time Revisionists prove that
the the horrible tales are often exaggerated by millions.



David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:08 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:my point is that revisionism, as on display here, is negationism, in ignorance of the evidence and the scholarship - and dishonest at its core, and that this negationism is in service of a world view and set of biases.
Hello SM....You miss the fact that Believer experts
like Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz were very very wrong and we Revisionists were right.





User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27722
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:11 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: So revisionism is about challenging the IMT? That's it? Really? All of the IMT but nothing else? Tell us more . . .
To quote Bradley Smith,
Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as “anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,” that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of the history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view.

David, show us how this is evident in the 9 important histories of the Holocaust I asked you about instead of continuing to wave around vague, general charges.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .