What is it that deniers deny?

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:33 pm

David wrote:Gawd SM Are you being obtuse for a reason?
You ask what Revisionism is and I tell you...then you bitch. So I quote "an authority" which says exactly what I said and you
claim you "already knew."
Which is because the authority you quoted is the one I told you the check out. LOL

You told me nothing, you repeated empty phrases you picked up somewhere and about which you've not a clue. If you had a clue, you'd have realized that historians do precisely what you claim they don't do - as McPherson explained.
David wrote: thought it logical to start with the Nuremberg Tribunal.
But since historians have been revising thinking about the IMT/NMT - and have challenged and expanded on and rejected and accepted various themes, findings and processes of the trials, I have no idea why you'd think 1) this was a good place to start to understand what of today's historiography deniers reject and 2) it a good idea to start there without your being clear about which specific parts of the trial you wanted to discuss.
David wrote:I don't understand what you mean when you write, "I am here to tell you that the scholars you reject don't start with that assumption."
It means that non-denier historians - those whose work you are always rejecting - don't start with the findings of the trials as any sort of official story.
David wrote:bviously the Tribunal findings have been revised incessantly. That does not vitiate their value as the starting "Story."
Again, it is odd - if you want to discuss how the Third Reich was understood in the late 1940s, fine, but that doesn't fit with the topic of this thread, which is what deniers deny . . . today. Now. What they reject that is being written today and now, based on recent research and understanding. You could start a separate topic for your pet peeve?
David wrote:I don't limit revising history to "the Holocaust." The IMF was a show trial wherein the "Holocaust" was a part of a bigger
picture of German culpability.
I don't know what the IMF has to do with this, but, again, we are asking about Holocaust denial, not the general process of historical revision. You will notice that in the OP I didn't mention American slavery or Herbert Hoover or Radical Reconstruction or the war in Vietnam. In fact, I quoted where I'd written about what Holocaust denial is and I linked to a RODOH thread where six/gas/plan is discussed. That was the topic. Not a general survey of all the efforts made to revise prior historical understanding.

I don't think that this is so hard for you to understand as you pretend. Even you're not so stupid. What you're doing is trying to avoid the topic so as to be able to witter on about anything that suits you whenever instead of answering specific questions. Maybe you should open a topic called "Ask David Anything" or "David, Revisionist Guru" or something. Would that help?
David wrote: I am a dyed-in-the-wool patriot but I guess your concept of being a good American is to look the other way when the government fakes evidence and bulls*ts the people.
Where do you get that? What did you do to stop the American aggression in Vietnam?
David wrote:By the way, my family served in armed services for the last four generations. What did your father/grandfather do in WW II so that you can lecture me on "not liking the Allies?"
My father served on a battleship in the Pacific and his ship shelled Yokohama/Tokyo: he considers that a war crime, by the way. I didn't lecture you on a thing - I merely mentioned how you are unable to bring yourself to mention anything positive regarding the Allies and always defend the Third Reich. Which is your problem, not mine.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5091
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:23 pm

David wrote:I don't limit revising history to "the Holocaust." The IMF was a show trial wherein the "Holocaust" was a part of a bigger
picture of German culpability.
I don't know what the IMF has to do with this, but, again, we are asking about Holocaust denial, not the general process of historical revision. You will notice that in the OP I didn't mention American slavery or Herbert Hoover or Radical Reconstruction or the war in Vietnam. In fact, I quoted where I'd written about what Holocaust denial is and I linked to a RODOH thread where six/gas/plan is discussed. That was the topic. Not a general survey of all the efforts made to revise prior historical understanding.

I don't think that this is so hard for you to understand as you pretend. Even you're not so stupid. What you're doing is trying to avoid the topic so as to be able to witter on about anything that suits you whenever instead of answering specific questions. Maybe you should open a topic called "Ask David Anything" or "David, Revisionist Guru" or something. Would that help?
Revisionits are seven decades behind on this matter. Six/gas/plan is a strawman. When the underpinning of your theory is a lazy strawman you know your theory is {!#%@}.
David wrote:By the way, my family served in armed services for the last four generations. What did your father/grandfather do in WW II so that you can lecture me on "not liking the Allies?"
My father served on a battleship in the Pacific and his ship shelled Yokohama/Tokyo: he considers that a war crime, by the way. I didn't lecture you on a thing - I merely mentioned how you are unable to bring yourself to mention anything positive regarding the Allies and always defend the Third Reich. Which is your problem, not mine.
My grandfather was in the Navy as well, on an antisubmarine vessel in the North Atlantic. He firmly believed that his was the good fight and I agree with him.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:51 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Revisionits are seven decades behind on this matter.
That is the gist of David's contributions here. Out of the horse's mouth . . .
Jeff_36 wrote:My grandfather was in the Navy as well, on an antisubmarine vessel in the North Atlantic. He firmly believed that his was the good fight and I agree with him.
I myself think it is mixed on the Allied side, but mixed is far preferable to what was on the other side! My father volunteered, btw, hoping to fight Hitler in Europe but probably not reading the headlines closely enough about what the US Navy was up to! Despite his very grave concerns - e.g., the relentless shelling of civilian areas of Yokohoma, the nuclear attacks on Japan - he did not doubt that he did the right thing in volunteering. That said, he would never promote military service or war as glorious; from his experience he came to loathe war and was very leery of things military. A complex person, in fact, with extremely well thought out views; hard to "win" a debate with him!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5091
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:15 am

All in all: the better side won. had Hitler prevailed entire civilizations in Eastern Europe would have been destroyed. Armageddon.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:12 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
David wrote:I don't limit revising history to "the Holocaust." The IMF was a show trial wherein the "Holocaust" was a part of a bigger
picture of German culpability.
I don't know what the IMF has to do with this, but, again, we are asking about Holocaust denial, not the general process of historical revision. You will notice that in the OP I didn't mention American slavery or Herbert Hoover or Radical Reconstruction or the war in Vietnam. In fact, I quoted where I'd written about what Holocaust denial is and I linked to a RODOH thread where six/gas/plan is discussed. That was the topic. Not a general survey of all the efforts made to revise prior historical understanding.

I don't think that this is so hard for you to understand as you pretend. Even you're not so stupid. What you're doing is trying to avoid the topic so as to be able to witter on about anything that suits you whenever instead of answering specific questions. Maybe you should open a topic called "Ask David Anything" or "David, Revisionist Guru" or something. Would that help?
Revisionits are seven decades behind on this matter. Six/gas/plan is a strawman. When the underpinning of your theory is a lazy strawman you know your theory is {!#%@}.
How is six/gas/plan a strawman?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:38 am

I'm more interested in how in hell the IMF got into this. Don't they have their hands full trying to get Merkel to be at least halfway reasonable with Greece?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27978
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:41 am

Maybe that's why he's mum in the Majdanek thread. He's trying real hard to figure out what the heck you're talking about here. :lol:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:55 am

In here it is all IMF, battleships, and Grexit; the action and fun - I mean crickets - are over in Majdanek.

Maryzilla has not an ounce of self-awareness, eh? But I had thought at least Maryzilla could read.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 15, 2015 3:37 am

David - http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p471882 - in case you missed it. Best, SM
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:55 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I'm more interested in how in hell the IMF got into this. Don't they have their hands full trying to get Merkel to be at least halfway reasonable with Greece?
LOL! In a discussion about Nuremberg, Stat Mech thinks a typo means we're talking about the International Monetary Fund!!! LOL LOL LOL. Of course, now he's right: the IMF doesn't have anything to do with the Holocaust!
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:47 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I'm more interested in how in hell the IMF got into this. Don't they have their hands full trying to get Merkel to be at least halfway reasonable with Greece?
LOL! In a discussion about Nuremberg, Stat Mech thinks a typo means we're talking about the International Monetary Fund!!! LOL LOL LOL. Of course, now he's right: the IMF doesn't have anything to do with the Holocaust!
You grow stupider by the day.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27978
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:25 pm

I think you got your answer, StatMech. They deny their ignorance in regard to geography, language and orthography. Amongst other things.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:51 pm

David had the temerity to litter our Majdanek thread with more garbage on Nuremberg, in line with his spamming in this forum. So, unlike the gutless bastard David, who confuses topics to evade giving answers, I will reply to his latest crap here:

Ahem, David, listen up:
David wrote:Nuremberg was a propaganda show...much of its value to the producers was in the "evidence" dragged through the courtroom.
It's Judgment was very unclear on what the Tribunal actually found.
Then why are you starting with a judgment that isn't clear? Can't you at least tell us what it is in the Nuremberg judgment - since you clearly don't know the historiography and research done in the decades following the trial - that you disagree with? I don't mean for you to repeat, with goofy capitalization, generic statements - I mean citing actual text and findings so that we can reply to you? But, ahem, please open a Nuremberg thread to do this - this thread isn't for a review of Nuremberg.
David wrote:But, to put the question to you relative to what is an "official story," what could be more official than a Judgment by
a Court, based on evidence supplied by government prosecutors, and enforced by government agents with 12 feet of rope?
Well, since historians have disagreed with the findings, as well as agreed with them, and the "story" has been revised and is still being revised - as James McPherson taught you scholars do - there is, to put it simply enough for you to understand, no official story, narrative, set of conclusions, what have you. In the real world, history is contentious.

So, you need to tell us, in your hypothetical Nuremberg thread, what you think the official story about the Holocaust was, where and how the tribunal expressed it, and what you disagree with. Who knows, since I don't base my thinking on the Nuremberg judgment, we may even agree on some points. Wouldn't that be something?
David wrote:As an aside you seem to be claiming that Hilberg had the power to make official findings?
No, I am claiming that he disputed, as early as 1961, other estimates of the death toll, including the number of Jewish deaths, at Majdanek. This is what scholars do, challenge one another to find better answers. Did you already forget what McPherson explained in his AHA piece?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:45 am

David wrote:How possibly could the Nuremberg "evidence" be so far wrong?
The Soviets had all the evidence that Hilberg had.
Please support this with sources. Hilberg’s and those used by the Soviets. Thank you.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Revisionists deny that 1,400,000 people were killed at Majdanek

Post by David » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:05 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:As an aside you seem to be claiming that Hilberg had the power to make official findings?
No, I am claiming that he disputed, as early as 1961, other estimates of the death toll, including the number of Jewish deaths, at Majdanek. This is what scholars do, challenge one another to find better answers. Did you already forget what McPherson explained in his AHA piece?
Yes he did. So why did Holocaust "scholar" Martin Gilbert bray out claims of 300,000 to 350,000 dead decades later?
Since the facts were on the table for the Nuremberg prosecutors too, how in the f*k could they have been 1.3 MILLION people
wrong?

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:30 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:How possibly could the Nuremberg "evidence" be so far wrong?
The Soviets had all the evidence that Hilberg had.
Please support this with sources. Hilberg’s and those used by the Soviets. Thank you.
Cute...two post ago you were heehawing out that Professor Hilberg was a genius and now you are demanding
that I tell you what sources he used. Hey, Slithery One, Hilberg was right, Graff was right, Tomasz Kranz confirmed it.
They all used records that the Soviets had since 1944.


The only reason for the 1.328,000 victim gap was that the IMT was a disgraceful show trial.
The Soviets took a tragedy and exploited it and exaggerated for propaganda purposes.
Gilbert was even more twisted in his false figures. He would have known about Hilberg but he choose to
go with the "Majdanek Lie."


You have to "explain" why the Soviets were 1.4 million people off. (one Believer has claimed that they counted all the
shoes in the Camp and blamed it on the Germans!
YOU have to explain why "holocaust 'scholars' " like Martin Gilbert were promoting ridiculously inflated figures decades
AFTER Professor Hilberg.

So, to address what Revisionist would revise...take the filthy lies propagated by "Holocaust Scholars" like Martin Gilbert.

Here is what real honest scholars write about 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.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Scott Mayers » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:41 am

Well, thanks to the lack of communication here, I sought elsewhere for my answer on "what is revisionism" and how this relates to "deniers". I learned that "historical revisionism" is akin to precisely what I was referring to regarding "historical reconstruction". The distinction is interpreted by some in various areas, but with regards to this topic, Stat Mech is interpreting even anyone here who asserts "revisionism" is actually only stealing the label to hide their actual position of what is referred to as a "negated" position, or "denier".

I think that while Stat Mech's view may be potentially true of some people he points to, my only question is those who he accuses this of who disagree: do you who hold a "revisionist" view believe it related to this "denier's" position? And, what motivates being "revisionism" if it isn't actually intended to at least question the political justification for the State of Israel? That is, if this position isn't related to any concern of today's politics, what is the concern to bother investing in the area of Holocaust Denial? I understand that "revisionists" supposedly agree that the Holocaust occurred but only differ on contingent differences of the data, for instance. So I'm confused at why anyone would or should care if there is no motive related to anything today. What is the point of your efforts?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:51 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:Nuremberg was a propaganda show...much of its value to the producers was in the "evidence" dragged through the courtroom.
It's Judgment was very unclear on what the Tribunal actually found.
Then why are you starting with a judgment that isn't clear?
You can't be that stupid, SM- As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the propaganda tales paraded in Court and Judgment
had huge impact on history. But the Court was too smart to commit itself to any of the tales of Human Soap Factories or
human skin lamp shades. It let the Soviets parade their faked evidence that the Germans committed the Kaytn killings and (shamefully prevented the Polish evidence from being presented) but the Tribunal (disgracefully) "dropped" the original indictment and sweep
the matter under the rug.

The most obvious example of the impact of the IMT is the Intentionalist Story...ie. that there was the secret "Hitler Order" for the mass murder of all Jews. For decades Holocaust "scholars" parroted the "confession" of Hoess about being called to Berlin and given
superdeduper Secret Orders to build a huge extermination factory for Jewish European at Auschwitz.

and what day or week was it that Hoess was called to Berlin?...that important fact didn't get clearer during the trial, even with
Hoess there! It got more and more vague. Anyway, I digress. So Revisonists have revised the absurd Intentionalist Story.

Another of the Judgments at Nuremberg was the Story that Hitler had a plan to conquer the World, etc. etc.
So the Germans had a secret conspiracy to committed crimes against peace.
That was quickly revised by AJP Taylor and others. So, that is another Revision.

The legal impact of finding the SS a "criminal organization" still stands.
So too does the theory of a "secret criminal conspiracy" to murder European Jews.

So, yes, Nuremberg is the clearest complete Story which people are still revising today.

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:14 am

Scott Mayers wrote: "revisionism" is actually only stealing the label to hide their actual position of what is referred to as a "negated" position, or "denier".


I think that while Stat Mech's view may be potentially true of some people he points to, my only question is those who he accuses this of who disagree: do you who hold a "revisionist" view believe it related to this "denier's" position? And, what motivates being "revisionism" if it isn't actually intended to at least question the political justification for the State of Israel? That is, if this position isn't related to any concern of today's politics, what is the concern to bother investing in the area of Holocaust Denial? I understand that "revisionists" supposedly agree that the Holocaust occurred but only differ on contingent differences of the data, for instance. So I'm confused at why anyone would or should care if there is no motive related to anything today. What is the point of your efforts?
I call myself a Revisionist because that is what I am doing. I started with the official story that I was taught in school and am
throwing out the impossible parts...the sick stories of human soap factories, trick underground shower/gas chambers,
magically disappearing bodies, a million dead at Majdanek.

As to relating it the State of Israel... History is to teach us, inspire us, to educate us.
But we are not in thrall to history. After a certain time, history is not a reason to move into an area and create a state
nor is it a reason to delegitimize an existing nation.
Israel has existed for 65 years. Its right to exist has little to do with events that did (or didn't) happen 3200 years ago,
or 2000 years ago or 70 years ago in a Polish field.

The point of my efforts as a Revisionist is pretty much based on the fact that I hate being told stupid Bullsh*t.
The Ugly Myth is a sick, twisted Story. I don't like it. I am happy when it is proven less and less true.
I am always amazed at Believers who get so mad when their horrible Stories are shown to be exaggerations or false.

I also think it is dangerous when the government holds show trials like the Nuremberg Tribunal...next thing they
will be telling us is that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Scott Mayers » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:52 am

David wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: "revisionism" is actually only stealing the label to hide their actual position of what is referred to as a "negated" position, or "denier".


I think that while Stat Mech's view may be potentially true of some people he points to, my only question is those who he accuses this of who disagree: do you who hold a "revisionist" view believe it related to this "denier's" position? And, what motivates being "revisionism" if it isn't actually intended to at least question the political justification for the State of Israel? That is, if this position isn't related to any concern of today's politics, what is the concern to bother investing in the area of Holocaust Denial? I understand that "revisionists" supposedly agree that the Holocaust occurred but only differ on contingent differences of the data, for instance. So I'm confused at why anyone would or should care if there is no motive related to anything today. What is the point of your efforts?
I call myself a Revisionist because that is what I am doing. I started with the official story that I was taught in school and am
throwing out the impossible parts...the sick stories of human soap factories, trick underground shower/gas chambers,
magically disappearing bodies, a million dead at Majdanek.

As to relating it the State of Israel... History is to teach us, inspire us, to educate us.
But we are not in thrall to history. After a certain time, history is not a reason to move into an area and create a state
nor is it a reason to delegitimize an existing nation.
Israel has existed for 65 years. Its right to exist has little to do with events that did (or didn't) happen 3200 years ago,
or 2000 years ago or 70 years ago in a Polish field.

The point of my efforts as a Revisionist is pretty much based on the fact that I hate being told stupid Bullsh*t.
The Ugly Myth is a sick, twisted Story. I don't like it. I am happy when it is proven less and less true.
I am always amazed at Believers who get so mad when their horrible Stories are shown to be exaggerations or false.

I also think it is dangerous when the government holds show trials like the Nuremberg Tribunal...next thing they
will be telling us is that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Thanks for responding David. I understand you but do question your motive because I'm not sure why this particular subject grants your sole attention (as opposed to other issues)? Why is this particular issue any more significant than exposing bad arguments on any equally disruptive discussion of skeptical inquiry? I can see you may prefer to deal with issues that attend to more realism than whether Big Foot exists, but do you not see that other more realistic issues should deserve equal attention if you are concerned to defeat bad logic? This is why I can accept someone like SweetPea on this site, for instance, because while he attends to argue against certain Global Warming issues, he is universally arguing in other areas too, some of which I can participate and agree with him. When I see those focusing on one unique issue, by contrast, this stands out as a sore thumb! It is like if I only paid attention to one unique person in a crowd of many every time I go to some meeting! While this could be 'coincidental', it is hard not to notice and suggests that you have more than a casual interest in that person.!! AND, if this just happened to be a person who doesn't like you, he/she might find this 'creepy' or, at least, suspicious.

"Hey girl, I just happened to decide to go out and meet people today. What a coincidence it is that we should meet!"

"Yeah, how is it that it seems to be every night you decide to go out, we run into each other? I already told you, I'm not interested. There's a thousand other people here you can talk to. Why do you keep finding me? It's getting 'creepy'."

"Oh, hey girl, I swear that my motives are sincere. I'm not stalking you. ....Really, ...I just like talking to people and you just happened to be there."

"Mmm hmm!"
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Revisionists deny that 1,400,000 people were killed at Majdanek

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:03 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:No, I am claiming that he disputed, as early as 1961, other estimates of the death toll, including the number of Jewish deaths, at Majdanek. This is what scholars do, challenge one another to find better answers. Did you already forget what McPherson explained in his AHA piece?
Yes he did. So why did Holocaust "scholar" Martin Gilbert bray out claims of 300,000 to 350,000 dead decades later?
Since the facts were on the table for the Nuremberg prosecutors too, how in the f*k could they have been 1.3 MILLION people
wrong?
Martin Gilbert clearly made errors. I've not read his work in decades. And I've not looked at his sources. Gilbert's big book on the Holocaust was published almost 30 years ago, so you're proving the point I made earlier, historians practice "revisionism" as a matter of course. It's what they do:
The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful
Are you going to keep dodging the request that you spell out what it is you deny?
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:30 am

David wrote:The Soviets had all the evidence that Hilberg had.
Grrrr, please support this with sources. Hilberg’s and those used by the Soviets. Thank you.

Btw , I remembered late last night that the Soviet 1940s estimate had 400,000 Jewish deaths - I can't recall where I read that - but that estimate has been, obviously, challenged and "revised."
David wrote:Cute...two post ago you were heehawing out that Professor Hilberg was a genius and now you are demanding that I tell you what sources he used.
No, I never used the argument that Hilberg was a genius to explain the death toll at Majdanek, and now I am not simply asking you for his sources. What I am asking you to do now, David, is support your claim that the Soviets had precisely the same sources which Hilberg had. I know for a fact that the Soviets didn't have the same sources available to scholars today, but you've made a claim about Hilberg and the Soviets. Prove it.
David wrote:Hey, Slithery One, Hilberg was right, Graff was right, Tomasz Kranz confirmed it.
They all used records that the Soviets had since 1944.
Sigh. Prove it by listing the sources used by a) Hilberg, b) Graff (whoever that is), c) Kranz - AND d) the Soviets.
David wrote:The only reason for the 1.328,000 victim gap was that the IMT was a disgraceful show trial.
Which rejected certain of the evidence presented to it, didn't even mention the death toll at Majdanek in its judgment or as grounds for convictions or acquittals, and acquitted some defendants on important charges brought against them - IIRC three of them entirely.

Try again.

Let's do this another way: What in your opinion were the major claims in the so-called show trial, which the court accepted, that you disagree with and you say form the heart of the official story? If you are able to settle down and tell us this, we can then open some thread to discuss them. Or use existing threads as the case may be.
David wrote:The Soviets took a tragedy and exploited it and exaggerated for propaganda purposes.
Gilbert was even more twisted in his false figures. He would have known about Hilberg but he choose to go with the "Majdanek Lie."
What is the "Majdanek lie" and how do you know on what basis Gilbert made decisions about what he believed to be the case? Remember: Gilbert's work is 30 years out of date!
David wrote:You have to "explain" why the Soviets were 1.4 million people off.
No, I don't as I'm not the one who believes that the Soviet charges constitute an official story. And I'm not the one who introduced the topic of Soviet charges. And I'm not the one who said Hilberg and the Soviets had exactly the same evidence to work from. You did. So you have to defend your statements. If you refuse to, we can simply dismiss your claims as disingenuous.

Your claims are off topic, by the way, as this thread isn't to debate the IMT but to understand what you wish to deny. I have gathered that one thing you reject is any claims that the death toll at Majdanek was 1.4 million - but I don't think anyone believes that it was - and current scholarship says about 80,000. Do you wish to revise 80,000? You're not being clear, so I am confused.
David wrote:(one Believer has claimed that they counted all the shoes in the Camp and blamed it on the Germans!
How did so many shoes wind up in the camp? The Germans weren't responsible?
David wrote:YOU have to explain why "holocaust 'scholars' " like Martin Gilbert were promoting ridiculously inflated figures decades AFTER Professor Hilberg.
No, I don't. You are the one arguing about an out-of date argument - harping on a book that was published about 30 years ago. IIRC every time Majdanek has come up, I've relied on Kranz, never once on such old thinking.
David wrote:So, to address what Revisionist would revise...take the filthy lies propagated by "Holocaust Scholars" like Martin Gilbert.
First, you need to show us how you know Gilbert lied. Second, done, Kranz's estimates are the ones scholars accept - with caveats. IIRC some people think his estimate is low and work continues.
David wrote:Here is what real honest scholars write about 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.
Blah, blah, blah.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:13 pm, edited 7 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:03 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:Nuremberg was a propaganda show...much of its value to the producers was in the "evidence" dragged through the courtroom.
It's Judgment was very unclear on what the Tribunal actually found.
Then why are you starting with a judgment that isn't clear?
You can't be that stupid, SM- As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the propaganda tales paraded in Court and Judgment
had huge impact on history.
What I'm asking you to do, David, is help us understand what that impact is today and what you reject of today's thinking about various issues. Open a thread on Nuremberg if you want.

You're the one who wrote that the judgment was not clear. If in your opinion the judgment which you want to discuss wasn't clear, but it is that judgment you think needs revision, then you have the obligation to show your readers at least a scintilla of consideration by explaining to them what it is you reject in the findings - and what "believers," as you call scholars, accept.
David wrote:But the Court was too smart to commit itself to any of the tales of Human Soap Factories or human skin lamp shades. It let the Soviets parade their faked evidence that the Germans committed the Kaytn killings and (shamefully prevented the Polish evidence from being presented) but the Tribunal (disgracefully) "dropped" the original indictment and sweep the matter under the rug.
LOL, you really don't understand how this justice thing works, do you? Courts routinely reject or accept charges, and that is what the IMT did too.
David wrote:The most obvious example of the impact of the IMT is the Intentionalist Story...ie. that there was the secret "Hitler Order" for the mass murder of all Jews. For decades Holocaust "scholars" parroted the "confession" of Hoess about being called to Berlin and given
superdeduper Secret Orders to build a huge extermination factory for Jewish European at Auschwitz.
You don't understand intentionalism, do you?

I haven't read the IMT judgment from start to finish in eons. Anyway, I am guessing - since your telling us seems beyond your capability - that you're referring to this part of the IMT judgment:
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
77
a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B 4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy. {465}
The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. . . . These atrocities were all part and parcel of the policy inaugurated in 1941
If you are referring to this conclusion stated by the tribunal, few if any scholars today would agree with this as stated.So, by implication and explicitly, scholars have "revised" this conclusion - or simply not used it, not accepted it, not based their work on it.

If you have other parts of the judgment in mind, please tell us and quote them so we can respond.
David wrote:and what day or week was it that Hoess was called to Berlin?...that important fact didn't get clearer during the trial, even with Hoess there! It got more and more vague. Anyway, I digress. So Revisonists have revised the absurd Intentionalist Story.
Well, leaving aside your not understanding intentionalism, "the absurd Intentionalist Story" was [url=hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism]revised decades ago[/url], not by deniers, but by scholars. Most scholars today utilize a great deal of the functionalist framework, to varying degrees, and those advancing intentionalist arguments, like Goldhagen - about twenty years ago! - have been roundly criticized by those working in the field.
David wrote:Another of the Judgments at Nuremberg was the Story that Hitler had a plan to conquer the World, etc. etc.
So the Germans had a secret conspiracy to committed crimes against peace.
That was quickly revised by AJP Taylor and others. So, that is another Revision.
Interestingly, his book, written over 50 years ago, didn't cause Taylor the kind of discrimination you claim "revisionists" always suffer - although it occasioned vehement debate and controversy. You write as though Taylor worked in a vacuum, no one had challenged him. His book - I repeat - is five decades old. Surely there has been work done since then.
David wrote:The legal impact of finding the SS a "criminal organization" still stands.
So too does the theory of a "secret criminal conspiracy" to murder European Jews.
This being a Holocaust forum, I'm most interested in the last point. Tell us, first, what was the Third Reich's Jewish policy by summer 1942.

I myself don't rely on the IMT judgment for my views about this question - in other threads I've cited recent works I think valuable to understanding it. So, I'd like you, since you seem to believe that revisionism is about challenging the IMT judgment, to cite specific parts of the judgment on the fate of the Jews to which you object and then to tell us what contemporary scholars conclude on the issues you identify. We've seen how this works with Majdanek - where

- you cite charges made at Nuremberg, not the judgment
- you claim that Nuremberg was a show trial, despite the tribunal's not accepting various charges and acquitting some defendants
- you mush together charges and findings - giving us a confusing mess which you refuse to clarify
- you refuse to discuss claims you make such as the Soviets having the same source material as other scholars
- you then conclude basically what recent scholars like Kranz have concluded (!)
- you even thank Kranz
- and you concede that Hilberg, on the subject of Jewish deaths at the camp, had it fairly well in hand by 1961 - the recent scholarship being far closer to his estimate for Jewish deaths than to the 400,000 charged by the Soviets

The other salient point here about Majdanek is that you, "revisionist" spokesperson, made a specific claim about the camp - something about "wrongway gas chambers" that, despite numerous requests, you refuse to explain and apparently cannot defend.

In short, on the death toll at Majdanek, you've shown us that denial has nothing to contribute. It seems rather that "revisionism" is exposed as at best useless, but certainly also mendacious.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:43 pm

As with the Majdanek thread, if David persists in pursuing tangents in this thread, and in refusing to source his claims, I for one will simply conclude that he is being disingenuous and do other, actually worthwhile things. Claims that are not sourced, and made specific, do not deserve to be taken seriously - and after a certain point warrant no reply other than contempt for the poor tactics being used.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

What Have Revisionists Revised?

Post by David » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:30 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:
You can't be that stupid, SM- As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the propaganda tales paraded in Court and Judgment
had huge impact on history.
What I'm asking you to do, David, is help us understand what that impact is today and what you reject of today's thinking about various issues. Open a thread on Nuremberg if you want.

I entered this thread to correct the error of asking "what do deniers deny."
The correct framing of the question is, "What do Revisionists want to revise?"
You seem to have a hard time understanding that the earliest complete and most "official" presentation of a Story was
at the IMT. That is the starting point of Revisionism.
You are trying to tap dance away from that with your claims of a coherent "today's thinking."
The simple fact is that today almost everyone is a Revisionist compared to the original Story presented at Nuremberg.

As you have seen in the thread on Rolf-Dieter Muller's book, the IMT had
several propaganda goals...1. "proving that the Germans started the War" and
2. proving the Germans were so bad that all the suffering and costs to defeat them were necessary.
The Soviets were portraying the National Socialists as "Capitalists on Steroids" and trying to convict them of their own
crimes.
Persecution of Jewish Europeans was a secondary point and thrown in with tales of plans to
exterminate Roma and Slavs. Extermination of Gays was thrown in later.


I have presented a long string of revisions to the Nuremberg Story.
The simplest example that I gave you is the Intentionalist vs. Functionalist debate.
For years all you Believers were Internationalists on the lines presented at the IMT. Today most of you are Functionalists, kinda, sorta.

To try and answer your question, " what you reject of today's thinking about various issues,"
I guess I need to ask you what you claim is "today's thinking." OK

Let me ask you about your thinking today on a Nazi Plan to exterminate Dutch Gays?

Do YOU think the Nazis persecuted Dutch gays and tried to Exterminate them or do you deny that there was such a plan?

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:40 pm

So happy not to be involved in this crappy discussion :D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What Have Revisionists Revised?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:52 pm

David wrote:I entered this thread to correct the error of asking "what do deniers deny."
The correct framing of the question is, "What do Revisionists want to revise?"
So what? That's not what the thread is about - but, to be a nice guy, I've asked you repeatedly what you really want to revise.
David wrote:You seem to have a hard time understanding that the earliest complete and most "official" presentation of a Story was
at the IMT. That is the starting point of Revisionism.
It isn't what this thread is about, though.

Besides which, you've proven the exact opposite. You've proven that "believers," as you call scholars and historians, have long been doing research and analysis which differs from and challenges many of the conclusions of the IMT.

If you want to keep kicking own goals, you can do that without my replying, frankly.
David wrote:You are trying to tap dance away from that with your claims of a coherent "today's thinking."
Uh, no, this was a thread I started. You tried changing the focus. Go back to the OP: you won't find one single word in it about 70 years ago or the IMT or any other of your hobby horses.

I even quoted from a denier forum - from deniers - to frame the question. Now you can SFTU or deal with what was asked.
David wrote:The simple fact is that today almost everyone is a Revisionist compared to the original Story presented at Nuremberg.
ROFL!
David wrote:As you have seen in the thread on Rolf-Dieter Muller's book, the IMT had several propaganda goals...1. "proving that the Germans started the War" and
2. proving the Germans were so bad that all the suffering and costs to defeat them were necessary.
The Soviets were portraying the National Socialists as "Capitalists on Steroids" and trying to convict them of their own
crimes.
Persecution of Jewish Europeans was a secondary point and thrown in with tales of plans to exterminate Roma and Slavs. Extermination of Gays was thrown in later.
Apparently you've got nothing better to do than repeat your views expressed in other threads.
David wrote:I have presented a long string of revisions to the Nuremberg Story.
But since you say that almost everyone's a revisionist, so what? You don't bother saying anything more, so I guess you accept what practically everyone - all of us being revisionists - say. That's fine. Surprising - but it's your right.
David wrote:The simplest example that I gave you is the Intentionalist vs. Functionalist debate.
You misstated that. Are you saying that you, being Numero Uno Revisionist, accept functionalist arguments? Which ones?
David wrote:For years all you Believers were Internationalists on the lines presented at the IMT.
I'm an Internationalist and always have been. I can even sing The Internationale.
David wrote:Today most of you are Functionalists, kinda, sorta.
This means nothing. It is just gibberish. But, since you offered, explain my views and where deniers or whatever you like calling yourselves disagree with them.
David wrote:To try and answer your question, " what you reject of today's thinking about various issues,"
I guess I need to ask you what you claim is "today's thinking." OK
I gave you an example - I don't like dealing in vague generalizations the way you do - and so I have given you the example of Majdanek - which you brought up.

You are now running away from it, because it shows how vacuous your blethering is.
David wrote:Let me ask you about your thinking today on a Nazi Plan to exterminate Dutch Gays?
I have no knowledge of any such plan.
David wrote:Do YOU think the Nazis persecuted Dutch gays and tried to Exterminate them or do you deny that there was such a plan?
See above.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:52 pm

Balsamo wrote:So happy not to be involved in this crappy discussion :D
You are now. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It seems like a light diversion from heavy lifting . . . but it has indeed run its course. What I take from it is that David can't explain his pov. Which is really kind of to be expected.

But I was being serious when I started it - the point being, why are people like Trollo and Mary trying to narrow the views of HD to a tidy trio - when obviously deniers are obsessed (as David is proving, inadvertently) with so much more?
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:44 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Well, thanks to the lack of communication here, I sought elsewhere for my answer on "what is revisionism" and how this relates to "deniers". I learned that "historical revisionism" is akin to precisely what I was referring to regarding "historical reconstruction". The distinction is interpreted by some in various areas, but with regards to this topic, Stat Mech is interpreting even anyone here who asserts "revisionism" is actually only stealing the label to hide their actual position of what is referred to as a "negated" position, or "denier".

I think that while Stat Mech's view may be potentially true of some people he points to, my only question is those who he accuses this of who disagree: do you who hold a "revisionist" view believe it related to this "denier's" position? And, what motivates being "revisionism" if it isn't actually intended to at least question the political justification for the State of Israel?
I don't think the Holocaust has all that much to do with the founding of the state of Israel. Zionism was founded decades before World War II and was politically justified by conditions in Europe that existed before Hitler was born. There had been a slow steady growth in the Jewish population in Palestine and it was inevitable that it was going to reach critical mass eventually. The ending of the British Mandate period is more significant in the founding of Israel than the Holocaust was.

The political justification for the State of Israel doesn't stem from the Holocaust. Nothing Israel does today is OK because the Jews were Holocausted that wouldn't be OK if they hadn't been Holocausted. Israel's right to exist and it's justification for the treatment of the Palestinians doesn't hinge on what happened to the Jews seventy years ago on a different continent by people of a different religion. Holocaust revision will not help nor harm Israel. So there's no reason for somebody to question the facts of the Holocaust because they want to get rid of Israel.

That is, if this position isn't related to any concern of today's politics, what is the concern to bother investing in the area of Holocaust Denial? I understand that "revisionists" supposedly agree that the Holocaust occurred but only differ on contingent differences of the data, for instance. So I'm confused at why anyone would or should care if there is no motive related to anything today. What is the point of your efforts?
As I've said, I'm interest in history for the sake of history. I don't need to see a direct link between the past and the present for it to tickle my fancy. Of course, everything that happened in the past has an effect on the present but I can't see how my life, or anybody's life, would be different today if scholars discovered newly declassified documents revealing that the Lusitania sank after hitting an iceberg or that the State of Georgia intended to physically exterminate the Cherokee. But I would still be interested in knowing this.

If people started foaming at the mouth over the release of these newly declassified documents and the people who revealed the documents found themselves facing legal prosecution, I would be curious as to why anybody would care enough about a historical event to react in such a way. I would assume that the people demanding suppression of these facts had some personal interest in not having the truth revealed. Their concern might be motivated by a link to today's politics, as you have posited. It might be that their self-esteem or self-image is wrapped up in events that happened long ago. I don't really know and if I were interested in it, I'd go over to some psychology discussion forum for answers.

I'm simply interested in knowing what really happened in the past. If the truth is different from what we believe it to be, I want to know. There's no other motivation, political or otherwise, in studying history and learning the truth.

I'm confused as to why you think there must be a direct link between the past and the present before somebody could be interested in history. If revisionist historians find out that Jews were not made into soap or lampshades and that there were no gassings at Dachau, would you not care unless people were directly effected today? If this knowledge harmed Jews or the State of Israel today, would you want it to be known?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:48 pm

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:Nuremberg was a propaganda show...much of its value to the producers was in the "evidence" dragged through the courtroom.
It's Judgment was very unclear on what the Tribunal actually found.
Then why are you starting with a judgment that isn't clear?
You can't be that stupid, SM- As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the propaganda tales paraded in Court and Judgment
had huge impact on history. But the Court was too smart to commit itself to any of the tales of Human Soap Factories or
human skin lamp shades. It let the Soviets parade their faked evidence that the Germans committed the Kaytn killings and (shamefully prevented the Polish evidence from being presented) but the Tribunal (disgracefully) "dropped" the original indictment and sweep
the matter under the rug.

The most obvious example of the impact of the IMT is the Intentionalist Story...ie. that there was the secret "Hitler Order" for the mass murder of all Jews. For decades Holocaust "scholars" parroted the "confession" of Hoess about being called to Berlin and given
superdeduper Secret Orders to build a huge extermination factory for Jewish European at Auschwitz.

and what day or week was it that Hoess was called to Berlin?...that important fact didn't get clearer during the trial, even with
Hoess there! It got more and more vague. Anyway, I digress. So Revisonists have revised the absurd Intentionalist Story.

Another of the Judgments at Nuremberg was the Story that Hitler had a plan to conquer the World, etc. etc.
So the Germans had a secret conspiracy to committed crimes against peace.
That was quickly revised by AJP Taylor and others. So, that is another Revision.

The legal impact of finding the SS a "criminal organization" still stands.
So too does the theory of a "secret criminal conspiracy" to murder European Jews.

So, yes, Nuremberg is the clearest complete Story which people are still revising today.
Check out the wording of France's anti-Holocaust Denial legislation to see how irrelevant the findings of Nuremberg trial are today.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:16 pm

And yet, last I checked, this "official story" - findings of fact at the IMT, as David keeps telling us - is referred to in no more than a couple of countries' HD laws. It's an unofficial "official story"?

The French legislation is a monstrosity, in my opinion, partly because there is no "official" narrative, as well as on grounds of freedom of inquiry and speech.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Post by David » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:47 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:I entered this thread to correct the error of asking "what do deniers deny."
The correct framing of the question is, "What do Revisionists want to revise?"
So what? That's not what the thread is about - but, to be a nice guy, I've asked you repeatedly what you really want to revise.
You start a thread asking what "Deniers Deny" and I politely correct your stupid view of what "Holocaust Denial" is.
It is a Revision of large parts of the propaganda show that was passed off as history for decades.
I even tried to help you along by putting the revisions in the negative- Like we deny the Intentionalist story.
We deny that 1,400,000 people were gassed at Majdanek.
We deny that 4,000,000 people were gassed at Auschwitz.

But you don't like the obvious fact that everybody is a Revisionist to some degree.

Statistical Mechanic wrote: It isn't what this thread is about, though.

Besides which, you've proven the exact opposite. You've proven that "believers," as you call scholars and historians, have long been doing research and analysis which differs from and challenges many of the conclusions of the IMT.
You seem unable to comprehend that Revisionists AGREE with most of the revisions made over the years.
But I even tried to help you with the specific facts which most "Deniers" base their revisions.
Facts like:
There are not 900,000 bodies buried at Treblinka-
The "Star of David" Tile found by Sturdy-Coll wasn't-
There was a huge quarry at Treblinka, oops that wasn't a denial but an affirmative fact.

David wrote:You are trying to tap dance away from that with your claims of a coherent "today's thinking."
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Uh, no, this was a thread I started. You tried changing the focus. Go back to the OP: you won't find one single word in it about 70 years ago or the IMT or any other of your hobby horses.
"Change the focus!?" You draft a stupid question and then bitch when you don't like the obvious answer.
"Deniers" are just doing what all historians have been doing for the last 30 years, revising the propaganda Tales of
IMT.
David wrote:The simple fact is that today almost everyone is a Revisionist compared to the original Story presented at Nuremberg.
Statistical Mechanic wrote: ROFL!
Amazing, Captain...we have found a life form that can write,
"You've proven that... scholars and historians, have long been doing research and analysis which differs from and challenges many of the conclusions of the IMT" and then go into a defensive contraction mode when intelligent life forms
express concurrence with the statement. Most odd.
David wrote:As you have seen in the thread on Rolf-Dieter Muller's book, the IMT had several propaganda goals...1. "proving that the Germans started the War" and
2. proving the Germans were so bad that all the suffering and costs to defeat them were necessary.
The Soviets were portraying the National Socialists as "Capitalists on Steroids" and trying to convict them of their own
crimes.
Persecution of Jewish Europeans was a secondary point and thrown in with tales of plans to exterminate Roma and Slavs. Extermination of Gays was thrown in later.
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Apparently you've got nothing better to do than repeat your views expressed in other threads.
The point is germane to this discussion and I have faith that you will get it someday.
Think of it as the Holocaust Story being a subset of the Nuremberg Story.
Does that help you?

David wrote:I have presented a long string of revisions to the Nuremberg Story.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:But since you say that almost everyone's a revisionist, so what? You don't bother saying anything more, so I guess you accept what practically everyone - all of us being revisionists - say. That's fine. Surprising - but it's your right.
Well no...I am trying to differentiate what you believe and what I believe.
that is why I asked you your belief on the Story of a Gay Holocaust in Holland.
Do you Believe it or not?
David wrote:The simplest example that I gave you is the Intentionalist vs. Functionalist debate.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:You misstated that. Are you saying that you, being Numero Uno Revisionist, accept functionalist arguments? Which ones?
Can we start with agreeing that Lucy Dawidowicz is a goof-ball?


David wrote:To try and answer your question, " what you reject of today's thinking about various issues,"
I guess I need to ask you what you claim is "today's thinking." OK
Statistical Mechanic wrote: I gave you an example - I don't like dealing in vague generalizations the way you do - and so I have given you the example of Majdanek - which you brought up.
Can you answer the question about your current thinking on the Dutch "Homocaust?"
David wrote:Let me ask you about your thinking today on a Nazi Plan to exterminate Dutch Gays?
Statistical Mechanic wrote:I have no knowledge of any such plan.
Hmmm, that's kinda of weaselly answer, SM.
I thought you "don't like dealing in vague generalizations."
Can you step up and try and give a clear answer, please?

If you need to inform yourself on the matter, here is a start.
"It was the first monument in the world to commemorate gays and lesbians who were killed by the Nazis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomonument

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5091
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re:

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:23 pm

You start a thread asking what "Deniers Deny" and I politely correct your stupid view of what "Holocaust Denial" is.
It is a Revision of large parts of the propaganda show that was passed off as history for decades.
I even tried to help you along by putting the revisions in the negative- Like we deny the Intentionalist story.
We deny that 1,400,000 people were gassed at Majdanek.
We deny that 4,000,000 people were gassed at Auschwitz.

But you don't like the obvious fact that everybody is a Revisionist to some degree.
You also deny that any Jews at all were killed as a matter of intent, or that here were gassing chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Belzec. No respectful historian denies these basic, plain facts.

There are not 900,000 bodies buried at Treblinka-
There were 700,000 at one point, not 900,000. The bodies were burned and the graves were destroyed. There is phsycal evidence to that fact, bone fragments, cremains, disturbances ect. ect.
The "Star of David" Tile found by Sturdy-Coll wasn't-
An understandable initial error. The real fact helps us more - it was the logo of a Polish tile company at the time.
There was a huge quarry at Treblinka, oops that wasn't a denial but an affirmative fact.
and?.................


David wrote:As you have seen in the thread on Rolf-Dieter Muller's book, the IMT had several propaganda goals...1. "proving that the Germans started the War" and
2. proving the Germans were so bad that all the suffering and costs to defeat them were necessary.
The Soviets were portraying the National Socialists as "Capitalists on Steroids" and trying to convict them of their own
crimes.
Persecution of Jewish Europeans was a secondary point and thrown in with tales of plans to exterminate Roma and Slavs. Extermination of Gays was thrown in later.
The Nazis intended decimation/enslavement of Russians and Poles. That would have caused about 60 million to die. Not far off.
The point is germane to this discussion and I have faith that you will get it someday.
Think of it as the Holocaust Story being a subset of the Nuremberg Story.
Does that help you?
The Holocaust was proven long before Nuremberg, with the Polish reports from 1942-43.

Can we start with agreeing that Lucy Dawidowicz is a goof-ball?
She presents an opinion using information that is incorrect. She does not rape and distort history.


[

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26839
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re:

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:45 pm

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:I entered this thread to correct the error of asking "what do deniers deny."
The correct framing of the question is, "What do Revisionists want to revise?"
So what? That's not what the thread is about - but, to be a nice guy, I've asked you repeatedly what you really want to revise.
You start a thread asking what "Deniers Deny" and I politely correct your stupid view of what "Holocaust Denial" is.
Tell Mary: Mary's the one who said that HD was six/gas/plan. Tell FP Berg that HD is not boasting that the Nazi are great heroes. And so on. You see, you lot write so much that isn't the six/gas/plan formula . . .
David wrote:It is a Revision of large parts of the propaganda show that was passed off as history for decades.
No, it isn't. Historians have been revising the early understanding of the Third Reich and its crimes - which dates to the war-time - for decades. If it were just revisions of the work of the IMT - what you call "the propaganda show" then "Revisionist" Theo Whatever Its Name is wouldn't be wittering about his problems with Jews.
David wrote:I even tried to help you along by putting the revisions in the negative- Like we deny the Intentionalist story.
You yourself told us that almost everyone rejects this interpretative framework. So you guys are catching up. Big deal.
David wrote:We deny that 1,400,000 people were gassed at Majdanek.
Who claimed the 1.4 million people were gassed at Majdanek? Are you trying to tell us that you guys deny things like "most people have seven ears"?

Please cite where this claim is made and quote directly the wording. I thank you.

As noted earlier, the most widely accepted estimate for the number of deaths at Majdanek is about 80,000. Do you reject this estimate?

You're still unable to say a single word about your lies about Majdanek, eh Wrongway?
David wrote:We deny that 4,000,000 people were gassed at Auschwitz.
The most widely accepted estimate is a minimum of 1.1 million deaths at Auschwitz, most - but not all of them - Jews killed in gas chambers. Do you reject this estimate?
David wrote:But you don't like the obvious fact that everybody is a Revisionist to some degree.
No, you and a tiny number of lunatics, anti-Semites, and Nazi apologists are "Revisionists": most people who study this period are revisionists, as I explained to you but citing James McPherson.
David wrote:There are not 900,000 bodies buried at Treblinka-
No one claims there are.
David wrote:The "Star of David" Tile found by Sturdy-Coll wasn't-
Sturdy Colls herself doesn't claim that the tile had a star of David on it. In her initial work, she and her team made an error. They corrected that error. Very few researchers are so considerate as Sturdy Colls as to open up their research to the public as she's done. Her doing so allows people to follow along as she "revises" her thoughts.
David wrote:There was a huge quarry at Treblinka, oops that wasn't a denial but an affirmative fact.
I don't know of anyone who argues that there wasn't a gravel pit at Treblinka labor camp, not at Treblinka II. Even "Revisionists" aren't stupid enough to confuse the two. AFAIK.

You see now what's confusing about your arguments?
David wrote:"Change the focus!?" You draft a stupid question and then bitch when you don't like the obvious answer.
Yes, change the focus. That is what you did. If the answer is so obvious, why did Maryzilla and Trollo, both deniers, give a different answer to yours?
David wrote:"You've proven that... scholars and historians, have long been doing research and analysis which differs from and challenges many of the conclusions of the IMT" and then go into a defensive contraction mode when intelligent life forms express concurrence with the statement. Most odd.
Er, no, I ask you, since you popped in here, with which conclusions of the scholars and historians who've been doing this work - the ones you call "believers" - you agree and disagree. You refuse to answer, witter on repetitively, and keep blurting out, "Nuremberg! Nuremberg!"
David wrote:Think of it as the Holocaust Story being a subset of the Nuremberg Story.
Does that help you?
It helps me understand what a mindless idiot and hopeless bore you are.
David wrote:Well no...I am trying to differentiate what you believe and what I believe. that is why I asked you your belief on the Story of a Gay Holocaust in Holland.
LOL, what a cretin. I've asked you that question repeatedly, you refused to answer just as repeatedly - you finally said you knew what I believed - but still refused to answer - you see, I didn't ask you about Nuremberg, I asked you, er, what current research by "believers" you reject.
David wrote:that is why I asked you your belief on the Story of a Gay Holocaust in Holland. Do you Believe it or not?
Did you miss my reply, or were the words too big?
David wrote:Can we start with agreeing that Lucy Dawidowicz is a goof-ball?
No.
David wrote:Can you answer the question about your current thinking on the Dutch "Homocaust?"
Stop being an {!#%@}.
David wrote:Hmmm, that's kinda of weaselly answer, SM. Can you step up and try and give a clear answer, please?
I have no knowledge of any such plan.

Would you prefer that I say I know about something I don't know? That's your approach - but it's not mine.
David wrote:If you need to inform yourself on the matter, here is a start.
"It was the first monument in the world to commemorate gays and lesbians who were killed by the Nazis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomonument
I haven't read about the persecution of gay Dutch men and lesbian Dutch women by the Nazis, and the link you provided says nothing about "a Nazi Plan to exterminate Dutch Gays."

Your inanity grows more tedious by the post.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:58 pm

Jeff_36 wrote: You also deny that any Jews at all were killed as a matter of intent, or that here were gassing chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Belzec. No respectful historian denies these basic, plain facts.
"Respectful?" So you think that stories of detainees pushing their own wives and children into gas chambers
to save their own lives is respectful? You have an odd view of respectful.

And, to the point of what I "deny," you have not followed anything of what I have been writing.
I do not know of any Revisionist who believes that the National Socialists did not have a series of anti-Semitic programs
put into effect by the German government.
The difference is that we see that the policies varied from country to country and time to time.
You Believers have a goofy mix-up

As to deaths, go back and read what Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno say just about Majdanek.
First they correctly calculate that over 83% of the deaths at the Camp were Jewish victims. That is at a time
you idiot Believers were babbling about 300,000 non-Jewish deaths. Do you even fu*k'n understand that?

As to the number of deaths, conditions of detention, and respect, please read what Revisionists have actually written rather than
blow lies out your ass-

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.


[snip remaining drivel and Strawmen while we wait for SM to tell us his current thinking about
Stories of a Holocaust of Dutch Gays.




[[/quote]

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27978
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:09 am

Strawmen while we wait... yep, that sounds about right.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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

SM runs toward the Door

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:38 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:Hmmm, that's kinda of weaselly answer, SM. Can you step up and try and give a clear answer, please?
Statistical Mechanic wrote: I have no knowledge of any such plan.

Would you prefer that I say I know about something I don't know? That's your approach - but it's not mine.


Your inanity grows more tedious by the post.
I feared you would try to slither away from the question but it is extremely relevant to
this thread.

Just as I have shown that everyone is now a revisionist relative to the Nuremberg Tribunal I am trying to
show that "current thinking by Believers" contains lots of "Denial."
The trouble is that SM is clamming up on his actual "current thinking."

The Tale of Dutch Gays being sent to the Gas Chambers
To complete the discussion regarding the "Homomonument" (the official name of the monument)
On September 5, 1987 a monument was dedicated on the bank of the Keizersgracht canal, near the historic Westerkerk church, the "moral heart
of Holland, so to speak. it takes the form of three large pink triangles made of granite, set into the ground so as to form a larger triangle.
See- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomonument

At the time it was dedicated to the Dutch Gays the evil Nazis threw into the gas chambers.
As part of a validating claims for "victim of the Nazis" status, some scholarly research was done.
Guess what? The whole story of Dutch Gays being killed was a myth.
In fact, the only people busted during the Occupation seemed to have been older guys with boys.

See- Nazis Left Dutch Gays Untouched, Says Historian
NRC Handelsblad (The Netherlands)


.. .. In fact, very few of those people were persecuted in the Netherlands, says historian Anna Tijsseling, who obtained her doctoral degree at Utrecht University on Wednesday for her thesis Guilty Sex: Homosexual indecency offences around the German occupation. Actually, the legal prosecution of homosexuals was more intense before and immediately after the war, her research shows. Her conclusions counter the generally accepted view of Dutch homosexuals as victims of the Nazis. Tijsseling calls this image "a persistent fiction, created by the gay-emancipation movement in the 1970s."

Guess what, articles on the Homomonument forget to link to Dr. Tijsseling's research and the follow-up study done because
Tijsseling's report stunned all the believers in a Dutch Gay Holocaust.
Caution-Believer Historians at Work with Dr Tinseling's research being thrown into the Memory Hole.

From SM's dissembling and hissing, I think he would go along with me and DENY there having been a Dutch Gay Holocaust.
Yes?
No?


How about a Roma Holocaust, SM? Do you think that was an policy of the German Government to exterminate all Roma
or do you DENY that too?

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

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:56 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Strawmen while we wait... yep, that sounds about right.
Ah, Scrm- How kind of you to pop up with your typical oafish off-the-wall comments.

Seems beyond your intellectual capacity to understand that I am answering the question, What do I DENY-
I DENY that there was a gassing of a single Dutch homosexual, The Story that caused the Monument to be built.

Your slithery fellow Believer is still trying to get an honest word from between his lips on the subject.

Do you want to try to make a relevant comment for a change?
Do YOU
Believe [ ] check here
or
Deny [ ] check here

that there was a Holocaust of Dutch Gays by the Nazis?

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by nickterry » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:01 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: Check out the wording of France's anti-Holocaust Denial legislation to see how irrelevant the findings of Nuremberg trial are today.
Clearly, you never checked out the wording, because the Gayssot law is based around the IMT charter, specifically article 6 definining 'crimes against humanity'. The only reference to the findings of the IMT is that the crimes against humanity under discussion must have been committed by a member of an organisation declared criminal by the IMT or perpetrated by an individual convicted in a French or international court.

Article 6 defines crimes against humanity as follows
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

In effect, 'contesting the existence' of murder or extermination by the SS, whether in gas chambers or not, and whether of Jews or not, is what is criminalised. Revising conclusions about those murders is not, ergo the IMT judgement and its death tolls are not set in stone by the law.

Art. 24 bis. - Seront punis des peines prévues par le sixième alinéa de l'article 24 ceux qui auront contesté, par un des moyens énoncés à l'article 23, l'existence d'un ou plusieurs crimes contre l'humanité tels qu'ils sont définis par l'article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l'accord de Londres du 8 août 1945 et qui ont été commis soit par les membres d'une organisation déclarée criminelle en application de l'article 9 dudit statut, soit par une personne reconnue coupable de tels crimes par une juridiction française ou internationale.
http://legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.d ... rieLien=id

machine translation:
Art. 24a. - The penalties provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 24 those who contested by one of the means set forth in article 23, the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6 of the Charter of the International military Tribunal annexed to the London agreement of 8 August 1945 and that were committed either by the members of an organization declared criminal under Article 9 of the Statute, or by a person convicted of such crimes by a French or international court.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27978
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:09 am

Thanks, Dr Terry!
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.