Why the Holocaust?

Discussions
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 3:13 am

David wrote:
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, I asked you for a specific reference that supports your claim that the judgment of the IMT states that 1.4 million people were murdered by the Germans at Majdanek and these victims were used as fertilizer. Please don't repeat yourself but provide, in support of what you wrote, a volume or volumes, a page number or page numbers, and quoted text.
. . . 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 » Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:45 am

David wrote:
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.
Blah blah blah. Your attempt to confuse the record - and your dodging what I wrote about Hilberg's and others' "early" estimates of the death toll - are obvious. The death toll at Majdanek has been debated and researched, just like the overall Holocaust death toll, by scholars - and scholars now generally concur that about 10,000 more Jews were murdered in the camp than Hilberg estimated in 1961. OTOH historians now generally concur that between 5 and 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust.

Let's leave this rather clear material aside for a moment: Are you now telling us that you agree with Kranz* that about 60,000 Jews were murdered by the Germans at Majdanek including those killed as part of Operation Erntefest (up to 18,000 shot in the Lublin camps)? (Let me remind you that Kranz's estimate is part of the estimate of 5+ million Jews murdered in the Final Solution. And let me also ask you whether you've read Kranz's book . . . have you?)

- - - - - -

* You label Tomasz Kranz a revisionist. In The Extermination of Jews at Majdanek Concentration Camp, published by Panstwowe Muzeum na Majdanku (Majdanek State Museum) in 2010, Kranz made the following "revisionist" points:

- "'The Final Solution to the Jewish Question,' as the Nazi genocide of the Jews was referred to . . . was . . . implemented in a variety of ways: beginning with the catastrophic living conditions found in ghettoes and 'destruction through labor' in a variety of camps, and followed by execution by firing squad of entire Jewish communities, killings with poisonous gases in special automobiles, and then, in stationary gas chambers. Lublin . . . played a significant role in the mass murder of Jews during World War II." (p 7)

- In Lublin "were situated the headquarters overseeing the liquidation of ghettoes and supervising the murderous operations of death camps in Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka . . . In effect, Majdanek functioned, as a penal camp for the population of villages in the Lublin area who were subject to severe repression and retaliatory actions, and as a transit camp for Polish peasant families from the southern Lublin region, who had been subjects of the brutal evictions and pacifications. The camp also became one site for the implementation of Aktion Reinhard, the mass murder of Jews in the General Government headed by Globocnik in the period from spring 1942 until autumn 1943 . . ." (pp 7, 9)

- "KL Lublin was neither solely a labour camp, nor solely a death camp. Both of these purposes, the exploitation of labour and mass murder were in this case closely intertwined. . . . (i)t was a camp with a very strict regimen, partially intended for gradual extermination." (p 77)

- "Until the summer 1942, Majdanek was a labour camp; then it executed tasks connected with the exploitation and extermination of Jewish prisoners until between May and November 1943, it functioned fully as a death camp." (p 78)

- Majdanek was subordinate to "Globocnik in matters relating to Jews, particularly concerning their extermination in gas chambers which took place on his orders . . ." (p 79)

By the way, I doubt you know what Kranz's job is. Hint.


edit: link to Kranz page repaired and pointed to English version
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.
. . . 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 » Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:53 am

David the lying holocaust denier wrote:Hello SM....You miss the fact that Believer experts like Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz were very very wrong and we Revisionists were right.
No actually David. You got caught editing quotes again remember? The discrepancy in numbers is also due to counting registered victims VS the total number of victims sent there. You carefully edited that sentence out previously. That's why you wont answer Statistical's question. You know I will post your previous lies.

Would you like to me to link you to where you lied previously?

:D

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 4:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Would you like to me to link you to where you lied previously?
:D
I'd like him to link (or reference) to where the IMT judgment says what he claimed.

Since the beginning premise of David's argument was that
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,
it's about time for him to pony up.

Where are these statements made in the IMT's judgment?
. . . 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 » Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:54 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:...Kranz's job is. Hint.
That link has an extra letter and won't load, SM. I deleted it in this quote. :-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 » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:23 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:...Kranz's job is. Hint.
That link has an extra letter and won't load, SM. I deleted it in this quote. :-D
Thanks, fixed in post as well.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:34 pm

Royalcourtier wrote:
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.
This is not true, while I admit it has for a long time been difficult.
But as you said, the discussion needs to be rational....
There are plenty of debate regarding the origins (intentionalists vs functionalists, structuralists, etc.), those responsible (the role of allied/puppet countries/ the implication of such German state institutions), and even the statistics as numbers proposed by historians goes from 4,5 to over 6 million...

Basically, what I have tried to explain, is that most historical events are subject of the same effect. Most are known but hardly understood. This effect affects a significant number of historical events but is more or less noticed depending on its importance, its symbolic or in its political significance.
The problem with “denierism” or to use the French term “negationism” is because of its premises which as we have seen with Badreche are highly politically, ideologically motivated, in a more complex way than them solely being a bunch of retarded Nazis. But still, their position has nothing to do with Historical sciences, and the few who are trying, just fails miserably. Not that it is their fault, they are just not into the historical field, so to speak. They focus on the IMT, some witnesses, etc…they are still in the court room and the only thing they really want to revise is the sentences ordered by the IMT…
I want to personally thank our Rev David here as he remarkably illustrated what I had described. He came with Majdanek death toll and the IMT, while the historical question should be why X thousands people lose their lives in a couple of day, what were the political motivation behind this murder (among so many other of the same type), why were the victims only Jews…The number of victims is not important, the policy that lead to their execution is. Not surprisingly, he dodge Statistical Mechanic request for some substance to his allegation, or his point of view on the fact that no historians – with some exception, I admit – took the Soviet estimate in consideration…Next thing he’ll probably come up with would be the famous 6 million – 3000000 = 6000000 so dear to Revs
And you and Spielberg are wrong, the holocaust was not just a historical footnote and while I don’t defend its theoretical uniqueness, it had some aspects that make it quite unique in European history. So indeed, it should not be treated as just another battle of Waterloo. Genocide do exist and is a serious thing. It happened before and could happen in the future, and who knows who will be the next target…maybe you, maybe me or maybe an unknown Amazonian tribe…
Oh and regarding the genocide in Ruanda which is not denied by no one, although the real number of victims will never be certain, it is not true that no one did nothing to help and even less than no one was tried and convicted. True most were convicted to relatively light sentences, especially when tried in Ruanda, but that is another debate…

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 11:59 pm

Balsamo wrote:Basically, what I have tried to explain, is that most historical events are subject of the same effect. Most are known but hardly understood. . . . I want to personally thank our Rev David here as he remarkably illustrated what I had described. He came with Majdanek death toll and the IMT, while the historical question should be why X thousands people lose their lives in a couple of day, what were the political motivation behind this murder (among so many other of the same type), why were the victims only Jews…
Well said.
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:14 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: What is David's point?
Blah blah blah. Your attempt to confuse the record - and your dodging what I wrote about Hilberg's and others' "early" estimates of the death toll - are obvious
I am sorry SM but you are flailing around with off topic rants. I was addressing Monster's question.
Revisionists are not "denying" anything but trying to bring honesty and Truth to history.
An example is Majdanek.
The fact is that Believer* understanding of Majdanek has almost converged with
Revisionist figures of Majdanek.

Here is the Revisionist position regarding Majdanek.
The concentration camp Majdanek was a place of suffering.

The people imprisoned there suffered under catastrophic sanitary conditions, epidemics, at times completely insufficient rations, back-breaking heavy labor, harassment. More than 40,000 Majdanek inmates died, primarily from disease, debilitation and malnutrition; an unknown number was executed.

The real victims of Majdanek deserve our respect, just as all victims of war and oppression deserve our respect, regardless what nation they belong to. But we are not doing the dead any service by inflating their number for political and propagandistic reasons and by making utterly unfounded claims about the way they died.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/ccm/12.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two brilliant and brave Revisionist scholars wrote that years ago at a time
Believer "experts" were heehawing out figures around 360,000.

Now the revisions of Tomas Kranz has clarified the death toll of Majdanek.
So maybe Mr. Graf and Mr. Mattogno were slightly too low. (although there is
evidence that transfers out of Majdanek in spring 1944 were greater than
Believers have acknowledged.)

But, to return to Monster's comment…
the example of Majdanek shows that claiming that Revisionists are "denying"
the Holocaust is only an example of ignorance.

Another example of the convergence of Holocaust Belief with Revisionism and reality
is the now jettisoned tale of a super secret "Hitler Order."
To again quote the Judgment from the Nuremberg Showtrial.
"In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the " final solution" of the Jewish question in all of Europe. This " final solution " meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy.

The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union.
Various tales of Eichmann and Hoess being called to Berlin and told of the
"Hitler Order" in summer 1941 were standard fare of Holocaust Belief for years. :roll: :roll:

As in the case of Majdanek, Revisionist skepticism of the Hitler Order tale has been
shown to be correct. Functionalism has triumphed over Intentionalism.
See Christopher Robert Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution

Of course, today's Believers have replaced the neat logical propaganda of the Nuremberg Tribunal with their own odd speculation of a secret German conspiracy based on code words and individually instigated "escalations in Nazi persecution of the Jews at victory-induced moments of euphoria." In a major revision Believers have shifted the date of the "Holocaust" from June 1941 until early Spring 1942.





*I am not referring to those crazy Believer fanatics who still try to promote exaggerated figures


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 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:42 am

David the insane holocaust denier wrote: Revisionists are not "denying" anything but trying to bring honesty and Truth to history.
So therefore you can't be a revisionist because you lie and fake quotes.......yes I can see that......
:D

David the insane holocaust denier wrote:The fact is that Believer* understanding of Majdanek has almost converged with Revisionist figures of Majdanek.
No they don't. You can't compare "registered victims" with "total victims" sent to Majdanek. That's why you won't post the actual quotes.

David? how did Tomasz Kranz qualify his figures? What was the exact word he used?

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

What the "historical Question" should be.

Post by David » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:22 am

Balsamo wrote: They focus on the IMT, some witnesses, etc…they are still in the court room and the only thing they really want to revise is the sentences ordered by the IMT…
Hello Balsamo. I really appreciate you telling us what the only thing Revisionists what is, but you are wrong. My personal view is that more politicians and
generals should be hanged or at least prodded with ax handles, and not just the losers. I especially would like to see that happen to those idiots who got us involved in Iraq, since they are still around.


As to discussing the level of evidence paraded through the IMT, a shrunken head, tortured confessions, gunk from a defleshing tank presented as soap, proof that the Germans committed the Katyn killings, evidence of the June 1941 Hitler Order told to Hoess, 1,400,000 dead at Majdanek, it is a good lesson on how quickly trials become corrupted and how dishonest governmental prosecution can become.
What is pathetic are those Believer historians who rely on this garbage.
Which reminds me that SM was going to tell us the date that Hoess visited Himmler.



Balsamo wrote:
I want to personally thank our Rev David here as he remarkably illustrated what I had described. He came with Majdanek death toll and the IMT, while the historical question should be why X thousands people lose their lives in a couple of day, what were the political motivation behind this murder (among so many other of the same type), why were the victims only Jews…The number of victims is not important, the policy that lead to their execution is. Not surprisingly, he dodge Statistical Mechanic request for some substance to his allegation, or his point of view on the fact that no historians – with some exception, I admit – took the Soviet estimate in consideration…Next thing he’ll probably come up with would be the famous 6 million – 3000000 = 6000000 so dear to Revs
And thank you for telling us what the "historical question" should be.
Personally, I tend to think that only a pompous idiot would try and decide what
what question "should" be asked of historical data. For me, any question should be
allowed.

For example, I tend to ask questions like, what really happened? People like
Tomas Kranz have a curiosity similar to mine and bingo, he found out that the figures
Believer experts had been telling us for years were vastly exaggerated.

I also ask questions like, "Why did the Nuremberg Tribunal get the Majdanek figures
so ridiculously wrong?
And I suggest that my sort of question as to
the operation of governments while setting up political trials is still relevant (unfortunately.)

Revisionism is attempt to get the facts of history down correctly. By that, I mean
the dates, the numbers, the places as a start.
Your assertion that, The number of victims is not important, the policy that lead to their execution is. is borderline incomprehensible to me.
The new facts have changed the Majdanek Story from that of a vast Extermination Factory executing hundreds of thousands of people and turning them into fertilizer into a more "normal" horror of confinement in a concentration camp.
That, in turn, effects Believer tales of secret conspiracies to murder people by the
millions. Simply put, your claim of understanding " policy" is ill-founded. You don't
even have the real facts integrated into your theory of what "policy" was.

I have been waiting for the "other shoe to drop" relating to Majdanek.
That shoe being the tales of 6 Operating Gas chambers at Majdanek.
Those stories made sense in the context of Soviet propaganda tales of 1,400,000
dead. They might even make sense with Crazy Judge Lukaszkiewicz's 360,000
murdered. But now they don't.

Anyway Balsamo, maybe you should let researchers and scholars like Tomas Kranz do a little more clarification of the real facts. You might end up having to revise your
ideas.





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 Nov 21, 2014 1:25 am

David wrote:I am sorry SM but you are flailing around with off topic rants. I was addressing Monster's question.
So you think it off topic to respond to the claims you introduced into this thread about the Majdanek death toll - and that the IMT judgment stated a death toll of 1.4 million and that the corpses of victims at Majdanek were used as fertilizer? Why on god's green earth did you offer this claim if you don't want anyone to reply to it?

Please answer my request for a supporting reference for your claim about the IMT judgment.
David wrote:Now the revisions of Tomas Kranz has clarified the death toll of Majdanek.
Please answer the questions I asked you about Kranz's book.
David wrote:So maybe Mr. Graf and Mr. Mattogno were slightly too low.
So was Hilberg, who made his estimate in 1961 . . . which rubbishes the entire thrust of your argument.

David, 2 additional requests:
1) Please utilize quotation marks or the quotation function to show what you are quoting and separate it from your own musings.
2) Please make a coherent and accurate argument - Browning has not "shifted the date of the 'Holocaust' from June 1941 until early Spring 1942." The full title of Browning's book, in fact, is The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. For Browning, the Final Solution began in fall 1941. Browning's "euphoria of victory" argument differs from the views of Gerlach, Longerich and others - and from your claim. To quote Browning, accurately,
my own position emphasizes the importance of September/October 1941 over early 1941, December 1941, or spring 1942. It places these key decisions of September/October 1941 in a context of euphoria of victory rather than frustration over failed Blitzkrieg and either imminent or actual American entry into the war. It places greater weight on the key roles of Hitler and Himmler in comparison to regional and local initiatives.
http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20050728-browning.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you are going to mock, er, deny, er revise historians' works, you need to to know what they argue and why.
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:39 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:So you think it off topic to respond to the claims you introduced into this thread about the Majdanek death toll - and that the IMT judgment stated a death toll of 1.4 million and that the corpses of victims at Majdanek were used as fertilizer?
My only claim was that the dropping of the death toll from
1,400,000 to 78,000 constitutes a "revision," not a "denial."
Do you disagree?


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: What the "historical Question" should be.

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:43 am

David wrote:Which reminds me that SM was going to tell us the date that Hoess visited Himmler.
No, I said I'd already said what I have to about this - and I am waiting for you to reply to what I've asked you about the IMT judgment and about Kranz.
David wrote:People like Tomas Kranz have a curiosity similar to mine and bingo, he found out that the figures Believer experts had been telling us for years were vastly exaggerated.
So now Majdanek is back on topic? LOL
But, no, David, Kranz made an estimate that was significantly lower than some, mainly Soviet and Polish, claims (but also Lucy Dawidowicz) and higher than others, e.g., Hilberg's estimate that 50,000 Jews were killed at the camp. Kranz's estimate was less significantly lower than those of Weiss and Berenstein & Rutkowski - but very close to those of Scheffler and Marszalek.

Kranz didn't derive his number because of "revisionism" but rather through doing what scholars do - questioning evidence and methodologies.
David wrote:I also ask questions like, "Why did the Nuremberg Tribunal get the Majdanek figures
so ridiculously wrong?
And I suggest that my sort of question as to the operation of governments while setting up political trials is still relevant (unfortunately.)
Without questioning that the IMT had both a judicial purpose and a political purpose, I ask you again to show us where the IMT got the Majdanek figure ridiculously wrong. Show us where, in its judgment, as you claim, it gave the conclusion that 1.4 million people were murdered at Majdanek.

David, you don't get to make up facts to suit arguments you wish to put over on people.
David wrote:Revisionism is attempt to get the facts of history down correctly. By that, I mean the dates, the numbers, the places as a start.
Start with getting the facts about what the IMT concluded in its judgment correct. Ok?
David wrote:Anyway Balsamo, maybe you should let researchers and scholars like Tomas Kranz do a little more clarification of the real facts. You might end up having to revise your ideas.
Tell us, in your own words (I've helped with the supporting quotations upthread) what Kranz's conclusions are about Majdanek, its roles in Aktion Reinhard, its multiple purposes, and its place in the Final Solution.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . 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 Nov 21, 2014 1:50 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:So you think it off topic to respond to the claims you introduced into this thread about the Majdanek death toll - and that the IMT judgment stated a death toll of 1.4 million and that the corpses of victims at Majdanek were used as fertilizer?
My only claim was that the dropping of the death toll from 1,400,000 to 78,000 constitutes a "revision," not a "denial."
Do you disagree?
Liar. That was not your "only claim."

Here is what you actually wrote - and claimed:
David wrote: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.
Where did the IMT judgment say these things, David?

As to your wittering about "revisionism," what historians do is challenge and revise one another's understanding of what happened, how, and why based on evidence and argument - what "revisionists" do is deny what happened for political and ideological reasons.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:52 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:So maybe Mr. Graf and Mr. Mattogno were slightly too low.
So was Hilberg, who made his estimate in 1961 . . . which rubbishes the entire thrust of your argument.
??? Why does the fact that Hilberg came up with pretty good figures
in 1961 trash Majdanek as an example of the difference between "Denial" and "Revisionism?" Revisionist figure 40,000 + Hilberg 50,000.

Saying that no one died at Majdanek would be "Denial."
Agreeing with Hilberg that the 360,000 or the 1,400,000 figures are too high seems to
be a clear "revision."


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 Nov 21, 2014 2:09 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:So maybe Mr. Graf and Mr. Mattogno were slightly too low.
So was Hilberg, who made his estimate in 1961 . . . which rubbishes the entire thrust of your argument.
??? Why does the fact that Hilberg came up with pretty good figures
in 1961 trash Majdanek as an example of the difference between "Denial" and "Revisionism?" Revisionist figure 40,000 + Hilberg 50,000.

Saying that no one died at Majdanek would be "Denial."
Agreeing with Hilberg that the 360,000 or the 1,400,000 figures are too high seems to
be a clear "revision."

LOL, because your whole argument has been that there is some sort of Believer number, entered into the judgment of the IMT, that deniers "got changed." In the first place, that's not how the historical sciences work. In the second place, the 1.4 million murdered estimate was not widely accepted - in fact, Lukaszkiewicz gave an estimate within 2 years many times lower. Last, Hilberg's number apparently wasn't in need of too much revision - basically what Kranz did, over fifty years after Hilberg's first edition, was confirm that Hilberg was on track. And show why other numbers were erroneous. With a sound enough argument that no one's yet refuted it. The USHMM Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos entry for Majdanek cites Kranz and gives an estimate in the Hilberg-Scheffler-Kranz range - but, guess what, says too that this number may yet be revised. (Because research and thinking continue . . .)

So it is not really accurate to write, as you did, that
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.
And then to attribute this "current research" to "revisionism." The bad estimates about Majdanek made by the Soviets and others - not the IMT judgment - were "revised" already in 1961 and "current research" has pretty much confirmed, for now, the 1961 research.

It also needs stating that there is nothing about Kranz's 60,000 estimate that is in any way incompatible with, or challenging to, the understanding of the Final Solution I've shared in this forum and the conclusion that over 5 million Jews perished in the Final Solution - after all, Hilberg estimated 5.1 million Jewish victims - and that just 50,000 Jews perished at Majdanek. (Do you agree with Hilberg and Kranz on the role of Majdanek in the European genocide - and with them on the scale of and explanations for the destruction of Europe's Jews by the Nazis and their allies?)

David, you clearly lied to us about the IMT judgment - what you say it held regarding the Majdanek death toll and fertilizer made from corpses of those murdered at the camp. You cannot support the claim you made. As far as I'm concerned, until you speak to this claim of yours, you've got nothing more to say on Majdanek here.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:24 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: David wrote:
Which reminds me that SM was going to tell us the date that Hoess visited Himmler.

No, I said I'd already said what I have to about this
Oh? You posted something in "Confessions?"
Thank you.


Statistical Mechanic wrote:Please make a coherent and accurate argument - Browning has not "shifted the date of the 'Holocaust' from June 1941 until early Spring 1942." The full title of Browning's book, in fact, is The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. For Browning, the Final Solution began in fall 1941. Browning's "euphoria of victory" argument differs from the views of Gerlach, Longerich and others - and from your claim. To quote Browning, accurately,
my own position emphasizes the importance of September/October 1941 over early 1941, December 1941, or spring 1942. It places these key decisions of September/October 1941 in a context of euphoria of victory rather than frustration over failed Blitzkrieg and either imminent or actual American entry into the war. It places greater weight on the key roles of Hitler and Himmler in comparison to regional and local initiatives.
You should have read more of the article, SM. You are wrong about what Browning says is the date the Holocaust started. Please go back and read the part
you omitted from your quote.
"Quite simply, my thesis is that in September/October 1941 the Nazis crossed the watershed from conceiving of a solution to the Jewish question through expulsion and decimation to envisioning the Final Solution as the systematic and total mass murder of all Jews within the German grasp."
http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20050728-browning.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems pretty clear that Browning feels that up until September 1941 to policy was "expulsion and decimation." After that rather vague date, a new policy was "envisioned."
And when did the new policy take effect?


And for Balsamo…
"Second, there is a need for Holocaust scholars in particular to get the facts right
because there are people who do not wish us well.
They stand malevolently prepared to exploit our professional mistakes
and shortcomings for their own political agenda.
"
See, you do need to get the facts right!

And as for the Believer claim of "the secret Hitler Order,"
" After several decades of debate, historians have reached relative consensus on a
number of important points concerning the decisions for the Final Solution. First, there was no single decision, no “big bang,” that produced the Final Solution.
"

And for Monster on why Revisionists are interested in the Holocaust Tale…

"First, if the Holocaust was a watershed event in human history…."
OK…but you don't want people to think about or question the watershed event?


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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:32 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:LOL, because your whole argument has been that there is some sort of Believer number, entered into the judgment of the IMT, that deniers "got changed."
No, that is not my argument. I was addressing Mr. Monster's comment
about "denial." My point is simple…we have revised the Soviet 1,400,000 figure downward to a figure close to what is generally accepted not "denied" anything.

I am not claiming that Hilberg has not also revised the figures.
In fact, my Believer friend, I think that Hilberg's revisions simply show how sloppy and
inaccurate the Nuremberg Tribunal was.




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 Nov 21, 2014 2:44 am

David wrote: ...
It seems pretty clear that Browning feels that up until September 1941 to policy was "expulsion and decimation." After that rather vague date, a new policy was "envisioned."
And when did the new policy take effect?
...
Either in the morning or in the afternoon. But since it isn't known exactly, it didn't happen...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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 » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:49 am

David the insane holocaust denier wrote:My point is simple… Holocaust deniers are lying and pretending the "registered" victims identified by a real historian, Tomasz Kranz with previous estimates of the total figure for executions. That because we are all liars
" The victims were brought to Majdanek from other camps, such as Poniatowa and Trawniki and they were not registered in the camp"

Fixed it for you David!

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 Nov 21, 2014 3:43 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: David wrote:
Which reminds me that SM was going to tell us the date that Hoess visited Himmler.

No, I said I'd already said what I have to about this
Oh? You posted something in "Confessions?"
Thank you.
Not until just now. We'd gone over this months ago . . .
David wrote: You should have read more of the article, SM. You are wrong about what Browning says is the date the Holocaust started. Please go back and read the part you omitted from your quote.
"Quite simply, my thesis is that in September/October 1941 the Nazis crossed the watershed from conceiving of a solution to the Jewish question through expulsion and decimation to envisioning the Final Solution as the systematic and total mass murder of all Jews within the German grasp."
http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20050728-browning.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems pretty clear that Browning feels that up until September 1941 to policy was "expulsion and decimation." After that rather vague date, a new policy was "envisioned."

Not exactly. At least according to Browning, who concludes the article I linked to with this:
In the fateful months of September/October 1941, the goal of Nazi Jewish policy fundamentally changed from a vision of expulsion and decimation to one of total and systematic extermination. Many decisions were still to be taken concerning how, when, at what rate, in what sequence, and with what temporary exemptions. But the “basic decisions” and “total clarity” sought by Höppner in early September were now there. Those working on the Jewish question were no longer in doubt about what “working toward the Führer” meant and what was expected of them. This new vision of total eradication—to be carried out in “reception camps in the east” through “special measures” such as Brack’s “gassing apparatuses” . . .—differed fundamentally from the old vision. Among the many decisions taken in the course of the evolution of Nazi Jewish policy, in my opinion, this was the single most important one. The watershed between previous policies and the Final Solution had been crossed.

Are you now arguing that the early murders, first gassings, deportations, etc - see below - are not in Browning's view part of the Holocaust?

David wrote: And when did the new policy take effect?

You haven't read Origins? In that book Browning devotes a section to "The Final Solution from Conception to Implementation, October 1941 - March 1942." In this section, Browning says that the policy took effect immediately in October 1941 - and work began to put the new policy into effect and get it fully operational as quickly as possible. He explains the implementation ramp up starting in October 1941 that led to full-scale implementation of the FS underway by spring - with, in his opinion, some key steps like these:

- the first gassing facility of the FS, Chelmno, operating already in December 1941

- deportations of Jews from the Altreich, Ostmark, and Protectorate starting, you guessed it, in October 1941

- the murders of Central European Jews in Riga and Kaunas in late fall 1941

- construction of the Belzec gassing facility (begun on 1 November 1941.

Thus, according to Browning, once the direction was determined, by October 1941, the new policy took effect at once with a phase of "initiation, experimentation, and preparation," with the first gassings and with murders of deported Central European Jews. The "watershed" came in fall 1941, and the Germans ramped up the FS as quickly as possible, solving the technical, logistical, organizational and other problems, starting in October 1941, to get to full scale over the next 5 or so months. That's Browning's argument.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . 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 Nov 21, 2014 4:13 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:LOL, because your whole argument has been that there is some sort of Believer number, entered into the judgment of the IMT, that deniers "got changed."
No, that is not my argument. I was addressing Mr. Monster's comment
about "denial." My point is simple…we have revised the Soviet 1,400,000 figure downward to a figure close to what is generally accepted not "denied" anything.

I am not claiming that Hilberg has not also revised the figures.
In fact, my Believer friend, I think that Hilberg's revisions simply show how sloppy and
inaccurate the Nuremberg Tribunal was.



The Soviet estimates so we're never widely accepted, so your argument falls apart.

Are you going to continue to ignore the request for you to support your claim about what was in the IMT judgment?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

cs194
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 12:47 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by cs194 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:07 pm

Well in answer to the original question I'm surprised that there is a whole section on this forum devoted to this subject.

I'm Jewish, I had family die in the Holocaust and family that survived it. I think the reason that the Holocaust gets such big headlines compared to other atrocities was the aim of trying to permanently wipe out an entire group of people. That said the world hasn't learnt given what happened in Rwanda twenty years ago.

The purpose of Holocaust denial or revisionism when the revisionism is put against a backdrop of mounting evidence to the contrary, is to allow for a set of circumstances where the event can happen again. This is the same for any genocide and is neatly summed up in the conclusion of this article.

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 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:52 pm

cs194 wrote:The purpose of Holocaust denial or revisionism when the revisionism is put against a backdrop of mounting evidence to the contrary, is to allow for a set of circumstances where the event can happen again.
I would agree with you, in that, we all share the common duty to not allow the circumstances to arise, that would allow such an event to happen again.

I would argue, that exposing the holocaust denial cult is one of many activities that are continuously and ongoing, that are required to stop these circumstances happening again. It's not just about Jews & Gypsies. Next time it may be left handed people, people who wear glasses, people who once voted another way or any other arbitrary characteristic that some dickhead "picks on" for a short term political gain.

However, I don't think the holocaust denial cult has any coordinated "manifesto" at all. Although the cult may have a handful of older high profile people, who wan't a return to the "good old days" of National Socialism, the cult is simply a cult and the majority of its followers reflect that. Nowadays, the cult seems to be more about small time con-artists seeking donations from junior cult members. The junior cult members are now mostly transient and will quickly jump to 9/11 or UFO cults, depending on where they get more attention.

I sort of wonder, if the con-artists like Bradley Smith and Fred Berg are consciously making "the debate" seem bigger than it is, simply to ensure donations keep flowing into their pockets. If they really wanted a "final victory" they would groom their best "historian" and send him to a university to fight real academics on an acceptable academic platform......but they refuse to do this as it would end potential donations in the future.

cs194
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 12:47 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by cs194 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:27 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
cs194 wrote:The purpose of Holocaust denial or revisionism when the revisionism is put against a backdrop of mounting evidence to the contrary, is to allow for a set of circumstances where the event can happen again.
I would agree with you, in that, we all share the common duty to not allow the circumstances to arise, that would allow such an event to happen again.

I would argue, that exposing the holocaust denial cult is one of many activities that are continuously and ongoing, that are required to stop these circumstances happening again. It's not just about Jews & Gypsies. Next time it may be left handed people, people who wear glasses, people who once voted another way or any other arbitrary characteristic that some dickhead "picks on" for a short term political gain.

However, I don't think the holocaust denial cult has any coordinated "manifesto" at all. Although the cult may have a handful of older high profile people, who wan't a return to the "good old days" of National Socialism, the cult is simply a cult and the majority of its followers reflect that. Nowadays, the cult seems to be more about small time con-artists seeking donations from junior cult members. The junior cult members are now mostly transient and will quickly jump to 9/11 or UFO cults, depending on where they get more attention.

I sort of wonder, if the con-artists like Bradley Smith and Fred Berg are consciously making "the debate" seem bigger than it is, simply to ensure donations keep flowing into their pockets. If they really wanted a "final victory" they would groom their best "historian" and send him to a university to fight real academics on an acceptable academic platform......but they refuse to do this as it would end potential donations in the future.
Yes agreed, denying deniers as it were is one of many important actions that need to be taken to stop such events repeating (and yes it could happen against any group for any reason - as a left hander you now have me worried :shock:) which I assume is the purpose of this part of the forum.

I don't know those deniers you reference although I've read a little of the more prominent ones. We are in the last generation where Holocaust survivors are still alive which helps but I think it's important to continue to quash deniers such that, a hundred years hence, their version isn't thought of as the truth.

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 25, 2014 12:13 am

cs194 wrote: - as a left hander you now have me worried
I am also a left hander. I also remember when the Khmer Rouge started shooting people with glasses because they might be "intellectuals". "Any excuse" is good enough for neo nazi political dickheads.

cs194 wrote:I don't know those deniers you reference although I've read a little of the more prominent ones.
Well one advantage is that there aren't many holocaust deniers left, so it's easy to spot the con artists in the dwindling cult.
cs194 wrote: We are in the last generation where Holocaust survivors are still alive which helps but I think it's important to continue to quash deniers such that, a hundred years hence, their version isn't thought of as the truth.
I agree. The facts and integrity of history must be maintained forever, to stop people making the same mistakes over and over again.

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 25, 2014 2:20 am

cs194 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
cs194 wrote:The purpose of Holocaust denial or revisionism when the revisionism is put against a backdrop of mounting evidence to the contrary, is to allow for a set of circumstances where the event can happen again.
I would agree with you, in that, we all share the common duty to not allow the circumstances to arise, that would allow such an event to happen again.

I would argue, that exposing the holocaust denial cult is one of many activities that are continuously and ongoing, that are required to stop these circumstances happening again. It's not just about Jews & Gypsies. Next time it may be left handed people, people who wear glasses, people who once voted another way or any other arbitrary characteristic that some dickhead "picks on" for a short term political gain.

However, I don't think the holocaust denial cult has any coordinated "manifesto" at all. Although the cult may have a handful of older high profile people, who wan't a return to the "good old days" of National Socialism, the cult is simply a cult and the majority of its followers reflect that. Nowadays, the cult seems to be more about small time con-artists seeking donations from junior cult members. The junior cult members are now mostly transient and will quickly jump to 9/11 or UFO cults, depending on where they get more attention.

I sort of wonder, if the con-artists like Bradley Smith and Fred Berg are consciously making "the debate" seem bigger than it is, simply to ensure donations keep flowing into their pockets. If they really wanted a "final victory" they would groom their best "historian" and send him to a university to fight real academics on an acceptable academic platform......but they refuse to do this as it would end potential donations in the future.
Yes agreed, denying deniers as it were is one of many important actions that need to be taken to stop such events repeating (and yes it could happen against any group for any reason - as a left hander you now have me worried :shock:) which I assume is the purpose of this part of the forum.

I don't know those deniers you reference although I've read a little of the more prominent ones. We are in the last generation where Holocaust survivors are still alive which helps but I think it's important to continue to quash deniers such that, a hundred years hence, their version isn't thought of as the truth.
Frankly - and I am happy with this state of affairs - I think that for the most part deniers are taken as, well, I don't know the exact word, but repulsive. The perception people have of this lot is that they are icky, bottom feeders, not to be taken seriously, negligible. Their situation really is worse than marginal.

Even some deniers recognize their isolated situation, which is only growing worse for them. Here is an interview which one of their leading lights, Germar Rudolf, recently posted on his website:
Q: What do you think about revisionism’s role in the world?

A: . . . At this moment, there is no chance that revisionism will have a considerable breakthrough anywhere. We need a major paradigm shift in the Western world for this to happen. So for now, all we can do is collect evidence and prepare it in a way for posterity to see and understand, once the time has come. . . . I thought for many years that a breakthrough is imminent. I don’t believe in breakthroughs anymore.

Rudolf explained the problem as the entanglement of revisionism with politics - "I’ve become more of a purist. I think revisionism ought to be an academic enterprise and should avoid any entanglement with social or political groups" - but he can't help himself in the same interview from lapsing into the language of political activism - rationalizing his palling around with David Duke. It is clear, despite some oddball attempts to pass themselves off as populists, anti-imperialists, or anti-racists, what these politics are. http://germarrudolf.com/2014/10/half-a- ... ar-rudolf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most people are repulsed by defense of the Third Reich - and this form of defense, mendacious and incoherent, comes off as odious.

That said, it's a good thing to counter their dishonesty and to deny many of them the pleasure they get in killing European Jews a second time, even if only rhetorically. Their incompetence is not only an inept defense of the Nazis but also a form of disrespect for and vilification of the victims - transparently so. Which is why they find themselves objects of loathing. Contrary to the implications of the original post in this thread, all this really isn't very controversial or unexpected.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Balsamo » Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:43 pm

David:
I also ask questions like, "Why did the Nuremberg Tribunal get the Majdanek figures
so ridiculously wrong?
Easy, although i don't know how far it went in the judgement and you don't seem to want to clarify that question. Because it was put forward by the Soviets and spread by most of the Communist papers across Europe...According to the Soviet calculation more than 12.000.000 were killed in the camps...the nature of the victims are never indentified. So if Rev's wants to correct the number, they should not use the 6.000.000 mark, but the 12.000.000...So you can start: 12.000.000 - 3000.000 (Auschwitz)- 1.320.000 (Majdanek), etc...
Anyway, as eplained, the 1.400.000 was never considered by the rare historians interrested in the Subject, quite the contrary as most important works of the time (Reitlinger, Hilberg, Poliakov,...) had numbers well below the symbolic 6.000.000...and Poliakov did participate to the IMT
Revisionism is attempt to get the facts of history down correctly. By that, I mean
the dates, the numbers, the places as a start.
Your assertion that, The number of victims is not important, the policy that lead to their execution is. is borderline incomprehensible to me.
Rev's do not attempt to get the facts of history down correctly. The focus on wrong data provided by dubious sources (in the case of Majdanek on communist newwspaper), on wrong data once considered by a military tribunal, on idiocies provided by naive or dishonnest witnesses, disregarding documents, downgrading them as falsification, or just ignoring them...It has nothing to do with historical sciences, they act as a lawyer or a prosecutor in a court room...

I am not surprised that you don't understand what i wanted to say: So i'll take another example that should be more familiar to you: the bombing of Dresden, so dear for Rev's.
In 1946 the red cross proposed an estimate of 360.000 !
It was revised down to 200.000 by Irving.
Most of the german press when writing on it had numbers in the range of 60.000 to 150.000...
Today, most estimates turn around 25.000 to 35 or 40.000...
Does it change a thing on the theoretical aspects of the bombing compaign led by the Allies? Nope!
Depending on your stance, was the bombing of this city more or less legitimate, more or less criminal, depending on the number of victims?
Is a rapist a more gentle person if he only rapes 5 young girls instead of 10?

According to your logic, one should ask what really happened in Dresden between 12 and the 15th of February 45, because someone is lying...To the extend, was the city really bombed? or was it just a regular fire that destroyed the city, maybe lit by the Nazi in order to accuse the Allies of crime against humanity...and so goes the denier's logic.

Indeed, it is the policy that matters!
Now my position is that those bombings were indeed criminal, more that the adoption of so called Strategic bombing as a military doctrine was already illegal before it was even used, and i can even affirm that had the Allies lost the war, they would have had their own IMT and would have been hunged.

But this is a judicial logic, not the one of any serious historian!

Now, if you would make the effort to read historical research, you'd know that the historiography is revising itself pretty nicely, that there is no clear "official narrative" so dear to Hanover, but on the contrary many debates, disagreements, ... beside the affirmation that the Jewish people, along with other minorities, suffered genocidal policies....which is precisely the point disputed by deniers, and which makes them deniers.

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:48 pm

cs194 wrote:The purpose of Holocaust denial or revisionism when the revisionism is put against a backdrop of mounting evidence to the contrary, is to allow for a set of circumstances where the event can happen again.
I am a Revisionist and you are totally wrong about the
"purpose" of Revisionism.
First, as the examples of Majdanek and Auschwitz show, there has been a
great exaggeration of the tragedy. Then there is the missing "Hitler Order"
which shows that the Nuremberg presentation of facts needed to be revised.
So please don't babble about "a backdrop of mounting evidence to the contrary."

Secondly, what Revisionists question are the sick, impossible tales like
human soap factories and Diesel or Steam gas chambers. And we are right on all these tales too.

The "evidence" for these weird stories is just the same as the evidence for witches,
ie. "confessions" and "eye witnessing."

But your claim is that Revisionists are preparing for a "Second Holocaust." So I guess the amazing revisions of Holocaust history in the last decade don't matter to you.

As to your claim regarding the "purpose" of Revisionism, you are the victim of confused thinking.

The truth seems to be that Wars and mass murders are usually the result of government misinformation.
The example of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the Iraq Invasion are an
example. The lie of the Spanish sinking the USS Maine is another.
National Socialist anti-Semitic propaganda is another.
Revisionism is challenging the propaganda that our government has fed us.
The best defenses against further genocide and wars are free speech, free thought, and
a free press. That is exactly what Revisions want.












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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:29 pm

Balsamo wrote: David:

I also ask questions like, "Why did the Nuremberg Tribunal get the Majdanek figures
so ridiculously wrong?




Easy, although i don't know how far it went in the judgement and you don't seem to want to clarify that question. Because it was put forward by the Soviets and spread by most of the Communist papers across Europe.
Don't blame the Communists. They made up many of
the most impossible stories but Western "experts" kept repeating (and often still repeat)
the exaggerated figures. The Nuremberg Show-Trial repeated the propaganda
about Human Fertilizer.

We have a chorus of Believers claiming that "Revisionists are politically motivated when
then underestimate German crimes." Turns out we were right.

What is funny is that Believers ignore the obvious. Historically the extent of deaths at the Camps has been greatly overestimated for political reasons.







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 Dec 02, 2014 12:08 am

David, the lying holocaust denier wrote: I am a holocaust denier and you are totally wrong about the "purpose" of Revisionism.
It that why you support Ernst Zundel?
:D

How A Holocaust Denier Fooled The Internet With Nazi Jetpack Soldiers
http://jalopnik.com/how-a-holocaust-den ... -482770651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David, the lying holocaust denier wrote: Then there is the missing "Hitler Order"
It's not missing David. It was verbal like other orders Hilter gave. Where is his written order for the 1944 Ardennes Campaign? Do you claim that didn't happen too?
:D
David, the lying holocaust denier wrote: Secondly, what Revisionists question are the sick, impossible tales like human soap factories and Diesel or Steam gas chambers.
Diesel gas chambers have been excavated by Forensic Archaeologists. You simply deny them because you are a Neo Nazi holocaust denier in a retirement home.

No one here has mentioned human soap factories .

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by David » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:32 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: David, I asked you for a specific reference that supports your claim that the judgment of the IMT states that 1.4 million people were murdered by the Germans at Majdanek and these victims were used as fertilizer. Please don't repeat yourself but provide, in support of what you wrote, a volume or volumes, a page number or page numbers, and quoted text.
After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap. Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6 million Jews, of which 4 million were killed in the extermination institutions.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/ju ... ws-02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Nessie » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:52 pm

David wrote: I am a Revisionist and you are totally wrong about the
"purpose" of Revisionism.
Agreed. revisionism is an attempt to put an acceptable gloss on Holocaust denial.
David wrote: First, as the examples of Majdanek and Auschwitz show, there has been a
great exaggeration of the tragedy. Then there is the missing "Hitler Order"
which shows that the Nuremberg presentation of facts needed to be revised.
So please don't babble about "a backdrop of mounting evidence to the contrary."
None of the above had anything to do with revisionism. It all came from proper study by historians.
David wrote:Secondly, what Revisionists question are the sick, impossible tales like
human soap factories and Diesel or Steam gas chambers. And we are right on all these tales too.
The initial Polish reports of such did the same. So have historians.
David wrote:The "evidence" for these weird stories is just the same as the evidence for witches,
ie. "confessions" and "eye witnessing."
Lie.
David wrote:But your claim is that Revisionists are preparing for a "Second Holocaust." So I guess the amazing revisions of Holocaust history in the last decade don't matter to you.
None of the revisions came from revisionist/deniers. There is a possible exception with Berg's evidence dismissing diesel as the means of killing at the AR death camps.
David wrote: As to your claim regarding the "purpose" of Revisionism, you are the victim of confused thinking.

The truth seems to be that Wars and mass murders are usually the result of government misinformation.
The example of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the Iraq Invasion are an
example. The lie of the Spanish sinking the USS Maine is another.
National Socialist anti-Semitic propaganda is another.
Revisionism is challenging the propaganda that our government has fed us.
The best defenses against further genocide and wars are free speech, free thought, and
a free press. That is exactly what Revisions want.
Denial/revisionism is as agenda driven and hostile to facts that do not suit them as much as any of the propaganda they criticise of others. A truthful history of what happened in the Holocaust is the best defence against it happening again in Europe.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Micklos
Poster
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:32 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Micklos » Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:12 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
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?

.
Yeah, but most of those were one-off things. The Holocaust happened over a wide area, over a long period. Also, not even the worst twoofers are denying that 11/09 happened (I refuse to commit the error) or the boston Marathon...they are flat-out saying the holocaust never happened at all. Not even that it was faked in a Nevada sound stage

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:18 am

Micklos wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
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?

.
Yeah, but most of those were one-off things. The Holocaust happened over a wide area, over a long period. Also, not even the worst twoofers are denying that 11/09 happened (I refuse to commit the error) or the boston Marathon...they are flat-out saying the holocaust never happened at all. Not even that it was faked in a Nevada sound stage
Holocaust "Deniers" are people who have studied the historical record and found that evidence that Nazi Germany intended to physically exterminate the Jews, that Nazi Germany built industrial size gas chambers for that purpose, and that six million Jews were intentionally murdered as part of this planned genocide is very weak. Nobody has ever said that the Holocaust flat out did not happen.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by iwh » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:23 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: Holocaust "Deniers" are people who have studied the historical record and found that evidence that Nazi Germany intended to physically exterminate the Jews, that Nazi Germany built industrial size gas chambers for that purpose, and that six million Jews were intentionally murdered as part of this planned genocide is very weak.
...but infinitely stronger than any "Denier" historical alternative...an alternative that would have to be a prime requisite if the present established Holocaust historiography were to be somehow miraculously turned on its head.

...any time soon?

;)
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by clarsct » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:31 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Micklos wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
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?

.
Yeah, but most of those were one-off things. The Holocaust happened over a wide area, over a long period. Also, not even the worst twoofers are denying that 11/09 happened (I refuse to commit the error) or the boston Marathon...they are flat-out saying the holocaust never happened at all. Not even that it was faked in a Nevada sound stage
Holocaust "Deniers" are people who have studied the historical record and found that evidence that Nazi Germany intended to physically exterminate the Jews, that Nazi Germany built industrial size gas chambers for that purpose, and that six million Jews were intentionally murdered as part of this planned genocide is very weak. Nobody has ever said that the Holocaust flat out did not happen.
So...

Where the living hell did 6 million Jews go?

It does seem we were missing them...

UFOs?

Seems to me they'd have turned up by now. I mean, there were family looking for them, right?

Everyone on Schindler's List lied? The real one, not the movie. Of course they lied in the movie, those actors were portraying a part.

Just askin'. Shouldn't have. I might get an answer.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14582
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by JO 753 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:01 pm

Considering the lojik uv the basic premis uv the entire HD effort, and factoring in the evidens prezented I can conclusively state that there iz absolutely zero possibility that...

Hold on. Forgot wut I wuz thinking. Hold on... it'll come back to me...
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14582
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by JO 753 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:05 pm

Sorry, didnt want to disrupt this important subject but therez this woman on Dr Phil who drinks hand sanitizer! Like a gallon a week!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.