Why the Holocaust?

Discussions
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14572
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 3:31 pm

Monster wrote:My question is: Why is the Holocaust so special?
Everybody here knowz I'm the fundamental lojik guy here. Extensive knowlej uv histroical detailz iz not my fortay. I formulate a solid framework upon wich the facts can be organized and evaluated.

For this question, the basic undeniable fact that Hitler wanted to eliminate all the Jewz and wuz proud uv the progress he wuz making meanz that the denierz are trying to rob him uv hiz accomplishment. Therefor, the denierz must be either Jewz that are pozing az Neo Naziz or sum outside entity with a grander plan.

Assuming that sumwun needz a minimum IQ to master the art uv typing and that level iz well above the point below wich sumwun coud truly believ the denial claimz, The ONLY theory that makes any sense iz evil alien bastard time travelerz systematicly plundering the Earth.

The function uv this small aspect uv their project iz to recruit idiots. Idiots are plentiful and easy to direct. Very efficient, since they require no lojik to justify doing anything, so can be motivated by simple emotion, prejudis, hate, and maybe a little money that can be taken back easily afterward.

But why just the Holocost?

1. Opportunity. It wuz low hanging froot. Redy made membership AND the essential oppozing team ready to help drum up awareness.
2. Other denial / revision subjects exist, but require much more basic development. I'm sure they are working on them for wen the HD mine playz out.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28589
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:04 pm

:lol:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Monster » Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:57 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Nobody has ever said that the Holocaust flat out did not happen.
There are people who say that, actually.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

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 7:07 pm

iwh wrote:
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?

;)
Butz's "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" covered that territory nearly forty years ago.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

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 Dec 08, 2014 9:59 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Nobody has ever said that the Holocaust flat out did not happen.
Really Mary? And you?

Do you still deny the existence of the old and new gas chambers at Treblinka II extermination camp, where in excess of 850,000 people were executed and their bodies were cremated to hide the crime?
Ash Treblinka 1945.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27567
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 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:02 pm

clarsct wrote:So...

Where the living hell did 6 million Jews go?

It does seem we were missing them. . . .
Deniers don't like this question. Mary in particular specializes in sidestepping it. Here's something telling - and it will take us back to the OP: In this SSF thread, you can read where Eric Hunt showed up in the forum to defend a YouTube video he'd made claiming that Treblinka was a camp for transferring Jews to other places, not a killing center. (As an aside, Eric Hunt finally made himself scarce as his claims fell apart from many sides - his lies were exposed, the shoddiness of his research and his careless use of sources became apparent, his unfamiliarity with Treblinka's history was glaring, and his poor grasp of how Aktion Reinhard worked became clear for all to see.)

It is important to recognize that Treblinka was focused on eliminating the Jews of Warsaw and Radom districts - its largest single extermination operation being the deportation of the Warsaw Jews to the camp during 1942. Historians - those whom Hunt is supposedly "revising" - pay a great deal attention to this massive operation.

Now one would think that anyone interested in what really happened at Treblinka would have a great interest in the fate of Warsaw's Jews, as historians argue that around 300,000 Jews from Warsaw ghetto perished at Treblinka. Not so Mary and David: they handwave the problem away with sophistic nonsense designed to wish away the stark problem: the huge reduction of the Jewish population in Warsaw from July through September 1942.

Worse, Eric Hunt, who took the time to propagandize in favor of a transit (resettlement?) argument, only realized the magnitude of the "Warsaw problem" after making his video and defending it in various forums. Just as Hunt's claims about the individual testimonies he used turned out to be empty and dishonest, so too when it comes to 40+% of the deaths at Treblinka during 1943, Hunt hadn't done his homework. In fact, Hunt decided to do his homework after making his claims: here is a post describing how Hunt called on revisionists to help him out of his predicament with Warsaw's Jews.

So what? Well, in the first place the verdict first, trial methodology has a bit of Alice in Wonderland to it - that is, it's not exactly rational. But for the purposes of this thread what this declare-then-scramble-for-scraps-of-support approach shows is that these guys

- aren't interested in doing history
- are not motivated by historical problems (evidence, improved interpretations, understanding)
- come to discussion of the Final Solution with axes to grind
- are motivated by beliefs and political views

Hunt himself, as Matthew Ellard keeps pointing out, stalked Elie Wiesel from Florida to California, accosted him in an elevator and pulled him from it, scaring the 78-year-old writer and fleeing before making his purposes clear. "Five days after Wiesel was attacked, a man identifying himself as Hunt posted a detailed account of the crime on several anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Web sites." (news article on the antisemitic felon Hunt)

The agenda of these clowns isn't obscure - and it is what prompts people's reactions to them (to answer the OP again). It's the bigoted agenda, the dishonesty about the history and their own motives, and their arrogant dismissal of the experiences of a generation that piss people like me off at deniers.

(You can find even stupider cases of miserable denier silliness in this forum - David's a prime example, filling page after page with confused claims which he makes up as he goes along.)
. . . 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 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Nobody has ever said that the Holocaust flat out did not happen.
Really Mary? And you?

Do you still deny the existence of the old and new gas chambers at Treblinka II extermination camp, where in excess of 850,000 people were executed and their bodies were cremated to hide the crime?
Ash Treblinka 1945.jpg
I have yet to see any persuasive evidence of homicidal gas chambers existing anywhere outside of the United States.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

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 09, 2014 7:01 am

Mary Q Contrary, the Neo-Nazi, holocaust denier wrote:I have yet to see any persuasive evidence of homicidal gas chambers existing anywhere outside of the United States.
That's because you only watch television and your entire knowledge of World War 2 is based on reruns of Hogan's Heroes
Mary digs a hole 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 09, 2014 7:33 am

Mary Q Contrary, the Neo-Nazi, holocaust denier wrote:It would also help your cause if you could explain why, even after seventy years of erosion, the ash is still there.
Gravel Pit Treblinka 1 a.jpg
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 20#p421920" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Mary? Have you worked out this was a photo of the gravel pit at Treblinka I, from the 60's, yet?
:D
Gravel pit Treblinka 1 B.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by iwh » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:13 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Butz's "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" covered that territory nearly forty years ago.
We are discussing the evidence for the Holocaust as compared to an alternative Mary. Butz only talks about "several possibilities".

Most of Butz's "evidence" for these "possibilities" seems to come from 1940s editions of the New York Times!!

Still...You would have thought that after 40 years, someone in the denier movement would have had the intelligence to follow up on Butz's "possibilities" and get some hard primary evidence to back them up.

...any time soon?

...or is it just a lot easier to simply deny.

:roll:
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 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:43 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
clarsct wrote:So...

Where the living hell did 6 million Jews go?

It does seem we were missing them. . . .
Deniers don't like this question. Mary in particular specializes in sidestepping it. Here's something telling - and it will take us back to the OP: In this SSF thread, you can read where Eric Hunt showed up in the forum to defend a YouTube video he'd made claiming that Treblinka was a camp for transferring Jews to other places, not a killing center. (As an aside, Eric Hunt finally made himself scarce as his claims fell apart from many sides - his lies were exposed, the shoddiness of his research and his careless use of sources became apparent, his unfamiliarity with Treblinka's history was glaring, and his poor grasp of how Aktion Reinhard worked became clear for all to see.)

It is important to recognize that Treblinka was focused on eliminating the Jews of Warsaw and Radom districts - its largest single extermination operation being the deportation of the Warsaw Jews to the camp during 1942. Historians - those whom Hunt is supposedly "revising" - pay a great deal attention to this massive operation.

Now one would think that anyone interested in what really happened at Treblinka would have a great interest in the fate of Warsaw's Jews, as historians argue that around 300,000 Jews from Warsaw ghetto perished at Treblinka. Not so Mary and David: they handwave the problem away with sophistic nonsense designed to wish away the stark problem: the huge reduction of the Jewish population in Warsaw from July through September 1942.

Worse, Eric Hunt, who took the time to propagandize in favor of a transit (resettlement?) argument, only realized the magnitude of the "Warsaw problem" after making his video and defending it in various forums. Just as Hunt's claims about the individual testimonies he used turned out to be empty and dishonest, so too when it comes to 40+% of the deaths at Treblinka during 1943, Hunt hadn't done his homework. In fact, Hunt decided to do his homework after making his claims: here is a post describing how Hunt called on revisionists to help him out of his predicament with Warsaw's Jews.

So what? Well, in the first place the verdict first, trial methodology has a bit of Alice in Wonderland to it - that is, it's not exactly rational. But for the purposes of this thread what this declare-then-scramble-for-scraps-of-support approach shows is that these guys

- aren't interested in doing history
- are not motivated by historical problems (evidence, improved interpretations, understanding)
- come to discussion of the Final Solution with axes to grind
- are motivated by beliefs and political views

Hunt himself, as Matthew Ellard keeps pointing out, stalked Elie Wiesel from Florida to California, accosted him in an elevator and pulled him from it, scaring the 78-year-old writer and fleeing before making his purposes clear. "Five days after Wiesel was attacked, a man identifying himself as Hunt posted a detailed account of the crime on several anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Web sites." (news article on the antisemitic felon Hunt)

The agenda of these clowns isn't obscure - and it is what prompts people's reactions to them (to answer the OP again). It's the bigoted agenda, the dishonesty about the history and their own motives, and their arrogant dismissal of the experiences of a generation that piss people like me off at deniers.

(You can find even stupider cases of miserable denier silliness in this forum - David's a prime example, filling page after page with confused claims which he makes up as he goes along.)
The silence is telling.

(Thanks for the info, though. I generally tell Neo-Nazi types to go f___ themselves. As I am a largish guy, they tend to do so. I generally have no time for such nonsense, as life is excrutiatingly short. But I am glad someone has the torch.)
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:04 am

iwh wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Butz's "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" covered that territory nearly forty years ago.
We are discussing the evidence for the Holocaust as compared to an alternative Mary. Butz only talks about "several possibilities".
Then why'd you ask for an alternative scenario if that's not what you want?
Most of Butz's "evidence" for these "possibilities" seems to come from 1940s editions of the New York Times!!

Still...You would have thought that after 40 years, someone in the denier movement would have had the intelligence to follow up on Butz's "possibilities" and get some hard primary evidence to back them up.

...any time soon?

...or is it just a lot easier to simply deny.

:roll:
Give us a Butz conclusion that you think is wrong and tell us why. Specifically.
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 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:53 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Give us a Butz conclusion that you think is wrong and tell us why. Specifically.
Mary...Butz does not talk about conclusions, just possibilities.

Let's look at this one.
Many were dispersed throughout the Soviet Union and integrated into Soviet life somewhere.
We now know a lot more details about the numbers of Jews who managed to escape the Nazis when they invaded the SU in 1941. Around 2.2 million Soviet Jews managed to escape the Nazis. Unfortunately 2.7 million did not.

There is no evidence at all provided by Butz that any western Jews were transported to unoccupied SU between 1942 and 1944.
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by iwh » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:09 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Then why'd you ask for an alternative scenario if that's not what you want?
What I am asking for is evidence of an alternative scenario that is based on new evidence that has recently come to light that better explains the evidence we already have or supercedes the evidence we already have. That's how real historians work. It's called historical revisionism.

You originally stated that the evidence for the systematic murder of Jews in WW2 was in your opinion "weak". I stated that the evidence is stronger than for any denier alternative.

So prove me wrong.

What evidence does Butz bring to the table regarding an alternative scenario, that supercedes the mass of evidence that we already have in support of the Holocaust historiography?
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

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 09, 2014 11:31 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: Give us a Butz conclusion that you think is wrong and tell us why. Specifically.

Mary? Have you actually read The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by A. R. Butz?

No?

Can you name another book, concerning the holocaust, that you have actually read?

:D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27567
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 Dec 09, 2014 12:49 pm

clarsct wrote:. . . I generally tell Neo-Nazi types to go f___ themselves. As I am a largish guy, they tend to do so. I generally have no time for such nonsense, as life is excrutiatingly short. But I am glad someone has the torch.)
When you suggest that they go eff themselves, you are probably speaking the language they understand.

Correction: my post contained a typo where I said that Warsaw Jews made up 40+% of those killed at Treblinka in 1943; duh, it should have read 1942.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27567
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 Dec 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Then why'd you ask for an alternative scenario if that's not what you want?
iwh asked for evidence to support the possible alternative that you guys finally settle on:
You would have thought that after 40 years, someone in the denier movement would have had the intelligence to follow up on Butz's "possibilities" and get some hard primary evidence to back them up.
Are you truly as dim as you try making out - or do you somehow think playing stupid will help cloud issues raised here?
. . . 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 Dec 09, 2014 5:58 pm

Trying not to derail from the subject.
The case of butz is the perfect example of what I was talking about.

It is not a bad work if that was a work of a defense lawyer, it is actually how a defense lawyer should defend his client accused of a terrible crime.
His main point is not to prove that his client is innocent. His objective is to spread doubts about what the accusation is saying. The accusation considered as the "official narrative" by Hannover.
In a judicial perspective, Butz defense speech is rather effective, greatly helped by the natural flaws of the IMT. What to do when you are a lawyer defending a serial killer or a drug baron, a mob? The same tactics:
- destroy the testimonies, all of them, or at least cast doubts on them among the Jury:
They are liars, tortured or coerced and thus should be dismissed all the one. Given the fact that among the witnesses at Nurenberg there a some jerks, you can make the point that if one tells BS, everyone is to be doubted. So you are free to the next point.
- Asking for proofs that are possible to produced. Of course the efficiency of the method is only a partial, but can contribute to keep the jury doubting. For e.g, if I kill every person that enter my house in my living room, but manage to get rid of the weapon, there is a slight chance, even though I kill all those guys...right?
Facts is the Germans destroyed some of the weapons they used, all we have are the victims...Even if, following my comparison, the police can prove that I bought a weapon, ammunition and that everyone who ever entered my house were nowhere to be seen again...Still I manage to get rid of the weapon I used.
- Then comes the fact that I had other houses where I did not kill anyone (despite some bogus witnesses that pretended seeing me killing there as well), so why should I have kill anyone in my other house? (famous Belsen vs Auschwitz)

To sum it up, in every trial, if the defense lawyer does a good job, there is always room for doubts, although the decision of the judges will become a "judicial truth" which after the appeal becomes absolute, whatever the decision is.
Did OJ Simson kill his wife? Most would probably say yes, although the Justice said "hum...maybe not".
Whatever one's opinion, the final decision is definitive!

But that is how justice works and it has nothing to do with History!
I repeat myself because that is the answer to "Why the Holocaust?"... It was tried before it was studied. And when one mixes two disciplines that have little in common, the result is obviously shaky...so to speak.

This thread is the proof that Deniers are still in the courtroom and are unwilling to leave while historians are long gone.

The second aspect I wanted to insist on, replying to Nessie, is that contrary to what he/she says, there was a time when no one wanted the subject to be treated historically. Intentionalism has its roots in Nurenberg, that is undeniable.
And my opinion is that the famous trial in the 80's of Faurisson - after his letter to the paper "le Monde" - was a wake up call for young historians to do the job. It is a fact that up to not so long ago no research had even try to explain how the gaz chambers worked! The why's? the How's? not really neither...Up to 1985, the historiography of the Holocaust was little more than a judicial trial turned into history, or to be more precise dressed historically. Thus the famous conclusion of Vidal Naquet after the 1985 symposium on the Holocaust, where appeared for the first time the first functionalist who were a little minority.
But the wake up call has been very effective...

A last part of the problem is that meanwhile, the memorial approach developed in its own way, based on symbols, remembering, grieving, etc, but on the poor historiography that existed in those times. It was considered to be sufficient: "let's recall and mourn, and don't try to understand".

The result is that even today, very few people has a good knowledge of the Holocaust, and fewer an understanding...there is this work called "the end of the Holocaust" which is a must reed that says it all!
Beyond the obvious symbols: the 6.000.000, Auschwitz, gaz chambers, and bloody Anne Frank...people knows close to nothing! Still some stupid rulers decided to fix the result of the IMT in stone, although 100% of the Historians voted no!
the current Belgian legislation - to take this example - would put Hilberg in Jail! Because if you come to a number below the 6 millions, you are guilty of minimization of the Holocaust! No kidding!
And this although there are no Historians who would argue that there is only a slight possibility to quantify the number of victims of any genocide, for the only reason that there were genocides And genocides are never counted, you just get rid of the target!

If you add to all that that the Holocaust - the memorial one, not the historical one - has been integrated to t the Jewish identity worldwide...You might see "Why the Holocaust"!

To sum the problem: Nor Deniers nor Memorialists bother about history, for different reasons though. The good news is that historical research keeps doing its job!

All this to say that if I were a serial killer I would have loved Butz in my defense team!
And of course, I won't comment on the question : Why would anyone one want to defend a serial killer like me? It is just my lawyer's job!





So effective that basically, most denier's traditional "arguments" are to be found in "the Hoax".

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:36 pm

Balsamo wrote:Trying not to derail from the subject.
The case of butz is the perfect example of what I was talking about.

It is not a bad work if that was a work of a defense lawyer, it is actually how a defense lawyer should defend his client accused of a terrible crime.
His main point is not to prove that his client is innocent. His objective is to spread doubts about what the accusation is saying. The accusation considered as the "official narrative" by Hannover.
In a judicial perspective, Butz defense speech is rather effective, greatly helped by the natural flaws of the IMT. What to do when you are a lawyer defending a serial killer or a drug baron, a mob? The same tactics:
- destroy the testimonies, all of them, or at least cast doubts on them among the Jury:
They are liars, tortured or coerced and thus should be dismissed all the one. Given the fact that among the witnesses at Nurenberg there a some jerks, you can make the point that if one tells BS, everyone is to be doubted. So you are free to the next point.
- Asking for proofs that are possible to produced. Of course the efficiency of the method is only a partial, but can contribute to keep the jury doubting. For e.g, if I kill every person that enter my house in my living room, but manage to get rid of the weapon, there is a slight chance, even though I kill all those guys...right?
Your chances of acquittal are even greater if your crime requires that you fit 28 - 32 people into one square meter or bury nearly twenty times as many people as you have ever seen at Disneyland at one time within an area less than one seventh the size of the public areas of Disneyland.
Facts is the Germans destroyed some of the weapons they used, all we have are the victims...Even if, following my comparison, the police can prove that I bought a weapon, ammunition and that everyone who ever entered my house were nowhere to be seen again...Still I manage to get rid of the weapon I used.
- Then comes the fact that I had other houses where I did not kill anyone (despite some bogus witnesses that pretended seeing me killing there as well), so why should I have kill anyone in my other house? (famous Belsen vs Auschwitz)

To sum it up, in every trial, if the defense lawyer does a good job, there is always room for doubts, although the decision of the judges will become a "judicial truth" which after the appeal becomes absolute, whatever the decision is.
Did OJ Simson kill his wife? Most would probably say yes, although the Justice said "hum...maybe not".
Whatever one's opinion, the final decision is definitive!

But that is how justice works and it has nothing to do with History!
Herein lies the problem with the Holocaust as a historical subject. Nearly all (if not all) the evidence proving the Holocaust has been generated in the course of criminal trials. If you don't believe me, try following the footnotes in any major book on the Holocaust and cross out all the facts in that book that use testimony or documents from a trial as the source. Try countering a denier argument using only testimony that did not emerge during some judicial proceeding. It can be done but it's not as easy.
I repeat myself because that is the answer to "Why the Holocaust?"... It was tried before it was studied. And when one mixes two disciplines that have little in common, the result is obviously shaky...so to speak.

This thread is the proof that Deniers are still in the courtroom and are unwilling to leave while historians are long gone.
If the historians have left the courtroom its because there are very few new trials that will generate new information. But you still have the foundation built entirely on judicial proceedings that were conducted in different countries using different legal systems using different and sometimes nonsensical rules of evidence.
The second aspect I wanted to insist on, replying to Nessie, is that contrary to what he/she says, there was a time when no one wanted the subject to be treated historically. Intentionalism has its roots in Nurenberg, that is undeniable.
And my opinion is that the famous trial in the 80's of Faurisson - after his letter to the paper "le Monde" - was a wake up call for young historians to do the job. It is a fact that up to not so long ago no research had even try to explain how the gaz chambers worked! The why's? the How's? not really neither...Up to 1985, the historiography of the Holocaust was little more than a judicial trial turned into history, or to be more precise dressed historically. Thus the famous conclusion of Vidal Naquet after the 1985 symposium on the Holocaust, where appeared for the first time the first functionalist who were a little minority.
But the wake up call has been very effective...

A last part of the problem is that meanwhile, the memorial approach developed in its own way, based on symbols, remembering, grieving, etc, but on the poor historiography that existed in those times. It was considered to be sufficient: "let's recall and mourn, and don't try to understand".

The result is that even today, very few people has a good knowledge of the Holocaust, and fewer an understanding...there is this work called "the end of the Holocaust" which is a must reed that says it all!
Beyond the obvious symbols: the 6.000.000, Auschwitz, gaz chambers, and bloody Anne Frank...people knows close to nothing! Still some stupid rulers decided to fix the result of the IMT in stone, although 100% of the Historians voted no!
the current Belgian legislation - to take this example - would put Hilberg in Jail! Because if you come to a number below the 6 millions, you are guilty of minimization of the Holocaust! No kidding!
And this although there are no Historians who would argue that there is only a slight possibility to quantify the number of victims of any genocide, for the only reason that there were genocides And genocides are never counted, you just get rid of the target!

If you add to all that that the Holocaust - the memorial one, not the historical one - has been integrated to t the Jewish identity worldwide...You might see "Why the Holocaust"!

To sum the problem: Nor Deniers nor Memorialists bother about history, for different reasons though. The good news is that historical research keeps doing its job!

All this to say that if I were a serial killer I would have loved Butz in my defense team!
And of course, I won't comment on the question : Why would anyone one want to defend a serial killer like me? It is just my lawyer's job!
Because serial killers deserve to be treated fairly in the courtroom and judged only by the facts. If the truth is that you are a serial killer, the facts with bear that out. Same thing with Nazis. You can treat them fairly, dispassionately, and objectively. You can even resolve any ambiguity in their favor. They still won't come across as nice people. You sure as hell don't need to lie about them and make up ridiculous stories.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

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 09, 2014 9:54 pm

Mary Q Contrary, the neo-nazi, holocaust denier wrote: Nearly all (if not all) the evidence proving the Holocaust has been generated in the course of criminal trials. If you don't believe me.....
No one believes you Mary. The Staffordshire University forensic excavation, which has uncovered the old gas chamber at Treblinka II was not a criminal trial. Would you like more examples of how stupid you are?
:D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27567
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 Dec 09, 2014 10:16 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Try countering a denier argument using only testimony that did not emerge during some judicial proceeding. It can be done but it's not as easy.
As you've been told repeatedly, to take one glaring example, Hilberg relied on documents, not testimonies. True, he's been criticized for missing significant experiences and aspects of the Final Solution by his doing so - but the fact is that Hilberg tried in his major work to base the core of his interpretation on documents.

Further to your confusion, historians' making use of documents (and testimonies) that were also part of trials is different to historians' replaying judicial proceedings. Balsamo's distinction between the purposes and processes of the courtroom and history is well taken.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:If the historians have left the courtroom its because there are very few new trials that will generate new information.
No, it is because, as historians, they were not in the courtroom, so to speak, but use the tools of their discipline to build understanding of people, events, and processes in the past - not advocates attempting to convict individuals of violations of the law. As Balsamo notes, it is denial that is mired in the judicial context in a vain effort to paint a prettified portrait of the Third Reich.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:But you still have the foundation built entirely on judicial proceedings that were conducted in different countries using different legal systems using different and sometimes nonsensical rules of evidence.
What buffoonery. You clearly haven't read much historical literature on the Third Reich and the Final Solution. Coming to my mind as examples of the emptiness of your assertion are some books I've read recently - The Diary of Samuel Golfard and the Holocaust in Galicia (Lower), Gates of Tears: The Holocaust in the Lublin District (Silberklang), Expulsion and Extermination (Bankier), The Holocaust in Hungary (Vagi, Csosz, Kadar), Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer (Stangneth - focusing on Eichmann's effort to state his case to his comrades before his arrest), Jewish Resistance Against the Nazis (Henry), To Live with Honor, and Die with Honor! (Kermish), Believe and Destroy (Ingrao), Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust (Fleming), The Clandestine History of the Kovno Jewish Ghetto Police (Kassow, Schalkowsky), A Past in Hiding: Memory and Survival in Nazi Germany (Roseman), and Jewish Responses to Persecution: 1942-1943 (Kerenji), Collect and Record! (Jockusch).

These books do not aim to re-litigate the cases before the Nuremberg tribunals but using a wide variety of source material they seek new understandings of the period: the footnotes in these books, contrary to your claim, include diaries and journals, contemporary media, letters, demographic and economic data, Third Reich documents from various agencies, Jewish archives, perpetrator and other testimonies outside of as well as in courtrooms, memoirs, underground and resistance reports, Allied and Axis government files, records of fascist and collaborator organizations, photographs and artifacts, Jewish Council records, DP and tracing service records, contemporary academic studies, etc. (We know too that physical studies such as that of Sturdy Colls and Haimi/Mazurek are important to current research. Like so much of the source material in the books mentioned above - and many others - this work doesn't involve trial records nor does it re-play the proceedings.)

Many of the government documents and reports which historians examine were indeed evidence in postwar trials - but one hallmark of the work done since, in addition to the variety of the evidence consulted by historians, is the quantity of sources tapped: for example, by the estimate of Lawrence Douglas IMT investigators studied more than 100,000 documents - of which only 4,000 were submitted as evidence in the trial against the major war criminals. The Berlin Document Center, established in summer 1945, holds about 30 million files on the Third Reich and war period. Along with this variety and quantity of source material has come, as Balsamo told you, heated debate and new interpretations of the period (in the past we've mentioned Blatman's book on the death marches, Gruner's on forced labor, Bloxham's survey, and others).

You are stunningly articulate about your ignorance of the scope and depth of the documentation for the Third Reich and Final Solution.

In my case, encountering some years ago you clowns, with your wailing about the postwar trials you're so ignorant of, was what actually led me to read accounts of the trials, since few of the many books I'd read prior to "denial re-litigation" took an approach like that of judicial proceedings or rarely did such works cover the same ground as the postwar trials.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . 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 Dec 09, 2014 10:18 pm

Mary Q said
Your chances of acquittal are even greater if your crime requires that you fit 28 - 32 people into one square meter or bury nearly twenty times as many people as you have ever seen at Disneyland at one time within an area less than one seventh the size of the public areas of Disneyland.
Thank you for confirming that you too are in the courtroom.
You are still babbling about what one or two witnesses pretended, while the real question is what happened to the Jews from Warsaw who disappeared by thousands daily. What is funny is that most deniers don't have a problem is crazy numbers when it comes to other kind of victims...250,000 in one night in Dresden, 3 millions during the Holodomor, or whatever tens of millions victims of communism.
Herein lies the problem with the Holocaust as a historical subject. Nearly all (if not all) the evidence proving the Holocaust has been generated in the course of criminal trials. If you don't believe me, try following the footnotes in any major book on the Holocaust and cross out all the facts in that book that use testimony or documents from a trial as the source. Try countering a denier argument using only testimony that did not emerge during some judicial proceeding. It can be done but it's not as easy
.

That is not correct, although it is true that many evidence of different quality emerged thanks to the huge inquiry that preceeded the IMT. The fact that TODAY a document is classified through the IMT system, does not mean that the document was created by the IMT. Of course the Nazi classification system is no longer in use...
Why would I even try to counter whatever Denier's "argument" through testimony only?
Do you realize that you are only making my point here?
If the historians have left the courtroom its because there are very few new trials that will generate new information. But you still have the foundation built entirely on judicial proceedings that were conducted in different countries using different legal systems using different and sometimes nonsensical rules of evidence.
You have it the wrong way again. Thanks to the absence of new trials, historians are free to do their job...and with great success and much less agreement than before. You just did not follow the evolution of the historiography, that is all.
Because serial killers deserve to be treated fairly in the courtroom and judged only by the facts. If the truth is that you are a serial killer, the facts with bear that out. Same thing with Nazis. You can treat them fairly, dispassionately, and objectively. You can even resolve any ambiguity in their favor. They still won't come across as nice people. You sure as hell don't need to lie about them and make up ridiculous stories.
You do realize that none of what you said managed to take some perspective from the judicial process you are stuck in! Reading this last paragraph, I guess that you have a great faith in Justice or that you dream of the judicial system that would only fit your view. What if OJ's wife were you daughter or sister? Would you say the same quite of banality?
And as far as I know, being half German myself, I really think that the Nazi were quite fairly treated...Even Skorzeny used this argument:
page 395 of his memoirs, he writes that
- in the British occupied zone more than 700.000 German officers and soldiers went through scrutiny, that in fine only 937 were suspected to have violated the laws of war, that among those 230 were sentenced to death, 24 to live in prison, 423 to short term prison, and 260 were found not guilty!
254 out of 700.000...

- in the US zone, only 570 German soldiers were prosecuted, 177 faced trial, 24 were sentenced to death, 118 to life in prison, and 25 acquitted.

Skorzeny concluded proudly that out of more than 10.000.000 soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht, only 2442 were sentenced...that is 0.024%...

I leave the Soviets outside...
But I think that one can considered those number as fairly treated...

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 09, 2014 11:01 pm

Balsamo wrote:I leave the Soviets outside...
There was German TV miniseries in 1959 called So weit die Füße tragen concerning a Wehrmacht soldier returning from Russian captivity on foot in 49. It was remade as a German Russian co-production in 2001. I haven't found a copy yet.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_weit_di ... 9Fe_tragen_(2001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

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 » Thu Dec 18, 2014 5:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Balsamo wrote:I leave the Soviets outside...
There was German TV miniseries in 1959 called So weit die Füße tragen concerning a Wehrmacht soldier returning from Russian captivity on foot in 49. It was remade as a German Russian co-production in 2001. I haven't found a copy yet.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_weit_di ... 9Fe_tragen_(2001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
google search of - as far as the feet carry - will give results for - AS FAR AS MY FEET WILL CARRY ME -

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

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Balsamo » Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:21 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Balsamo wrote:I leave the Soviets outside...
There was German TV miniseries in 1959 called So weit die Füße tragen concerning a Wehrmacht soldier returning from Russian captivity on foot in 49. It was remade as a German Russian co-production in 2001. I haven't found a copy yet.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_weit_di ... 9Fe_tragen_(2001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
Matthew,

I found this on youtube.
German version with spanish subtitles
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with english subs in three part...
part 1
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
part2
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
part3
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 Dec 22, 2014 1:08 am

Balsamo wrote: Matthew, I found this on youtube.
Thanks for that. The film music composer is the same bloke who scored Solaris and Stalker, in the 70's. I'm friends with his son, who runs a music distribution business in Moscow.

I watched the opening part of the film. I know its a small point but the Wehrmacht uniforms for 1944 were just wrong. Although soldiers kept their older uniforms and kit as long as possible, by 1944 the German army uniform was incredibly simplified. I use Squadron/Signal reference books to date uniforms and thus photos.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27567
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 Feb 04, 2015 2:00 pm

The deranged conspiraloon Werd explains "why the Holocaust," in a recent post at RODOH666 listing the books that have most influenced his thinking:
Werd wrote:Dissecting the Holocaust - Germar Rudolf (ed)
The Biggest Secret - David Icke
Judaism Discovered - Michael A Hoffman II
The Holocaust Industry - Norman Finkelstein
The Committee of 300 - John Coleman
Light on Masonry - David Bernard
Psychic Dictatorship - Alex Constantine
The Illuminati Formula - Fritz Springmeier
The Federal Reserve Conspiracy - Eustace Mullins
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by Monster » Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:10 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:The deranged conspiraloon Werd explains "why the Holocaust," in a recent post at RODOH666 listing the books that have most influenced his thinking:
Werd wrote:Dissecting the Holocaust - Germar Rudolf (ed)
The Biggest Secret - David Icke
Judaism Discovered - Michael A Hoffman II
The Holocaust Industry - Norman Finkelstein
The Committee of 300 - John Coleman
Light on Masonry - David Bernard
Psychic Dictatorship - Alex Constantine
The Illuminati Formula - Fritz Springmeier
The Federal Reserve Conspiracy - Eustace Mullins
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
The bolded ones caught my eye. All I can say is: good lord.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28589
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Why the Holocaust?

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:09 pm

Good lard? That would be Psychic Dictatorship. :-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.