MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > Holocaust deniers and laws against hate ...

Holocaust deniers and laws against hate speech


Holocaust deniers, in their attempt to depict themselves as the victims of — rather than perpetrators of — ethnic hate, like to point to cases in which Holocaust deniers have been sent to prison. The way Holocaust deniers frame it, of course, is that the Jew propagandists have pummled the world into creating Jew laws to prevent brave and honest investigation into Jew lies, i.e. the Holocaust, and those who have gone to jail are brave and honest researchers, true and objective and golden intellects perfectly untainted by anti-Semitism and blah blah blah.

It is true that Holocaust deniers are, in some countries, being prosecuted and even jailed under hate speech laws for passing along wack-o-bird conspiracy theories. That’s a unique situation. Why aren't other wack-o-bird conspiracy theories, every bit as fact-free as Holocaust denial, considered illegal on these countries?

Well, think about it from the point of ethnic hate speech. If you claim that NASA faked the Apollo 11 moonlanding, what ethnic group have you defamed? None.

If you claim that 9/11 was an inside job, controlled demolition or space beam or baby H-bomb or whatever, what ethnic group have you defamed? None.

If you claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was a big governent false-flag operation to encourage tough new gun laws, what ethnic group have you defamed? None.

If you claim that Paul McCartney really died in 1966, and the Beatles replaced him with a lookalike, what ethnic group have you defamed? None.

But if you claim that the Holocaust was a Jewish fraud by which the dishonest, conniving Jews have flimflammed the world by pretending to have been the victims of a much, much larger crime than was actually committed against them, then, yes indeedy, you have defamed an ethnic group. And you have done it enough to fall afoul of some nations’ hate speech laws.

The history of Holocaust denial as a movement is the history of a hate group trying its damnedest to sell themselves — to the public, at least — as if they weren’t. And there are nations who, recognizing the direct and unbreakable ties between Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, have explicitly made laws against these lies. Not to protect Jewish secrets, but because they decided racist lies of this sort are bad for their society.

The real issue about hate speech laws is not whether Holocaust denial is hate speech. It plainly is; this board overflows with examples. The real issue is whether or not laws against hate speech should exist. As a fan of the First Amendment, I personally don’t think they should; it turns the kind of moronic cranks you see here — who would otherwise would live out empty lives in pure wack-o-bird obscurity — into martyrs to free speech.

But I also recognize that each country has the right to set its own laws its own way. Most of the nations who have laws against Holocaust denial were either part of the Nazi Reich or occupied by the Nazi Reich, so I can understand that their sympathies might pull in the other direction than mine on these laws. Hitler started with nothing but hate speech, and ended up hauling their Jewish neighbors away to be murdered. So painting these laws with the standard denier boilerplate — "they are panicked efforts by The Jews to keep people from finding out The Truth” and blah blah — well, that’s just plainly in variance with the facts. Sorta like Holocaust denial itself.

reply

I believe that extermination of Jews in Europe took place during WW2, along with at least as many, and probably many times more Roma, Serbs, Slavs, disabled, gays, etc. I personally think that there is a similar proportion of good and bad Jews, as in any other group.

However, you call them an ethnic group? How exactly is a belief system an ethnicity? Perhaps it has something to with maintaining racial "purity," hmm? Perhaps it is just like how the Muslims forbid their women to marry non-muslims? Calling anyone who has anything negative to say about a religion or belief system a racist is using words as a weapon, and is against reason and logic.

Hate-speech is defined in any way, by any person who takes offense based on a hearing something that conflicts with their belief or value system. You cannot give offense, unless you are intentionally insulting someone. Should it be a crime to insult someone? If not, why should it be a crime to offend someone.

Shutting down free speech is an act of ultimate tyranny, and is always counter-productive. Better to let the light of truth and accountability shine on discourse than to force it into the underground. Only those afraid of truth wish to stop debate and discussion.

reply

Better to let the light of truth and accountability shine on discourse than to force it into the underground.


The error in thinking with this is that you assume that society or humans act in some way perfect or are uncorruptable. This is false. People do lie, fall victim to lies and propaganda does work. Propaganda was used by nazi's to allow these crimes. Propaganda is used today just as well. Sometimes just for profit.

Anti-hate speech laws are there to protect against this happening again, nothing more and nothing less.

They are limited in scope and tightly defined. Sure sometimes you will have cases where these laws have negative effects, but that is the case with many laws, they are compromises to enable us to get along.

I believe there is a fundamental human desire to believe the opposite of what someone is saying, whatever it is. Someone will get suspicious and think he might be lying, find circumstantial evidence of lack of character and summise that it's a conspiracy. No matter how obvious the claim and how ludicrous the counter claim. It's automatic. I believe it's a kind of instinctive behavior that occurred as a side effect of our evolution, to make sure that no matter what catastrophic mistake we as a society make, there are always some nutjobs and outsiders doing the opposite that might just increase the chances of survival of the species, or tribe. These are the lemmings who refuse to believe in gravity, and might just end in a better place that the rest. In the past being stupid sometimes payed off.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to learn from our mistakes. Examine the rise of racism in the past, and you can see that "speech" had an important impact on it. These are historical facts. If you find that racism is bad and wrong, you should also strive to avoid factors that could lead to a repeating of history.

Nobody denies that free speech is important, but that doesn't mean you have to take it to extremes. You are still responsible for your speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. This does not "shut-down" free speech. Denying the holocaust and thereby calling jews liars and implying a jewish conspiracy is fundamentally no different from calling for the prosecution of jews.

reply

Worth pointing out that his

Only those afraid of truth wish to stop debate and discussion.

is a pretty standard trope from fringe conspiracy types. And on even the simplest examination, it's clearly not true.

What goes on between Holocaust deniers and real historians is not "debate." It's a seedy group of neo-Nazi-origined talking points being refuted over and over and over and over. And the Holocaust denier response is not -- as actual debate would require -- "you're right, I can't keep presenting this point because it's been thoroughly refuted," but "let me repeat this very same talking point in another forum under another name at another time, because I don't give a spit about truth as long as I can use this lie to attack the Jews."

reply

Yeah, it's easy to dispel. In the context of the movie you could turn it around and argue that suing for libel is using government power to limiting free speech as well.

The more accurate statement would be that "Those afraid of the effect of lies wish to stop the spread of harmful propaganda". Since it's an historical fact that this contributes to racism, prosecution and can lead to genocide.

But I was more interested in the more general question of things that US Americans view as their patriotic virtues, like free speech, and how even progressive and liberal media looks down on Europe because apparently we don't have free speech.

Shouldn't people have a constitutional right to be able to learn the truth? To not being lied to by institutions? Isn't the ability to perceive reality just as important than the right to express yourself? And not just find out the truth through years of study, but to have institutions that you can rely on to make informed decisions?

Propaganda about racism is only one aspect of this and in our current culture far less of a threat than other things. But the same principle applies. People say e.g. climate change deniers have a right to spout their lies, that news media have a right to suppress and bias their reporting on the issue because of free speech laws. But does free speech apply to corporations? And corporate policy to lie for profit?

The same methodology of holocaust deniers is used to obfuscate a lot of important issues today. Maybe we should rethink freedom of speech. Maybe you freedom of speech should also apply in public online spaces who are "owned" by corporations. Maybe it should exclude the right to lie and the obligation of corporations to take reasonable measures to suppress proven falsehoods (fake news).

reply

This is a tricky one. I think the First Amendment is probably the wisest single sentence ever written on this continent. But -- paraphrasing Stan Lee -- it also carries a great responsibility; it puts on us the moral burden to speak the truth even when lies are more entertaining or (in the case of Holocaust denial) more in line with our racist prejudices.

Does it mean there will be people who think Donald Trump won the popular vote, or that his electoral college total was a "landslide"? Yep. Keeping up with reality in the face of fake news and talk radio is not easy. Some people will happily live in the bubble. It's, among the other things, Alexander Burgess's message in his novel "A Clockwork Orange": real freedom includes the right to choose error. (The novel Kubrick filmed, incidentally, was missing its last chapter, which the original publisher cut and Burgess published later -- Alex unscrambled begins to grow up and starts considering life and responsibility after the gang. That is, freedom works, just more slowly and indirectly than the Ludovico-ites thought it should.)

But one of the luxuries of being an American is that WWII was not fought here, and although we paid a great cost in defeating Hitler and his racism, Europe paid a far higher one. Most of the countries in which Holocaust denial is part of the laws against hate speech are countries that were either part of the Nazi Reich or the Nazi Occupation. These countries know what happened to their Jews. And their decisions are based, in part, on that hard-won knowledge of what hate speech can lead to. So I'm not going to arrogantly say they shouldn't have such laws. It's up to them to decide what best serves them and their bitter history.

reply

Why is everybody that denies the holocaust happened considered an anti semite?

Ive never understood this. Is that the only defense?


I watched Denial and was looking forward to the trial ... and they won by basically showing Irving was an "anit-semite" rather than actually proving what he said was wrong. They didnt really prove the holocaust happened or call any survivors to tell their tells, they basically looked for errors in his books and found stuff that made him look like a racist.

reply

Why is everybody that denies the holocaust happened considered an anti semite?


Because the Holocaust denial movement is a product of white-power, anti-Semitic groups. That's what Lipstadt's book is about, and she documents it very well. Irving tried to split the difference -- to push the Holocaust denial arguments without going full-on Nazi -- and it blew up in his face.

Take a look at the history of the movement and you'll see it.

Take the Holocaust denial outfit "The Institute for Historical Review." It's run by a guy named Mark Weber. Here is the sort of people Mark Weber likes hanging out with: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045115/Nazi-invasion-London-EXPOSED-World-s-Holocaust-deniers-filmed-secret-race-hate-Jews-referred-enemy.html

reply

But I completely deny it and am not white nor an antisemite.
Why cant people accept the fact that some people research it and are just coming to factual conclusions?

reply

Factual conclusions?

Did you find where the six million Jews actually went?

What, you didn't?

Big massive effin' hole in your "factual conclusions," ain't it.

Tell any thinking person: "I know what happened! I solved it! Except the part where a third of the world's Jews vanish. That part I have no clue."

They will laugh your ass out the door.

reply

You do realize that even holocaust supporters will admit the 6 million number is bogus, right? You do know that the number of people killed at Auschwitz has gone from 2.5-3M from the Nuremberg trials to 1.1M today, right?

That's where they went.

reply

You do realize that even holocaust supporters will admit the 6 million number is bogus, right?

Horse spit. You swallow the spin.

But let's prove it. Please point to one major Holocaust historian in, say, the last decade, who says the six million number is "bogus."

reply

That plaque at Auschwitz claiming 4 million dead to 1.1 million dead was replaced in accordance to some kind of revisionism, whether you like to admit it or not. And whether or not it wasn't believed truthful in the first place, it sounds like it meant a lot to many. If it wasn't received as the truth, the 4 million quote, then where did the full 6 million number come from? I wonder. I need to check into that sometime...as do others, too.

In regards to an early post by Zort...



"and those who have gone to jail are brave and honest researchers, true and objective and golden intellects perfectly untainted by anti-Semitism and blah blah blah"

That's awfully juvenile. What if it were someone that you knew that were being imprisoned? Would you still being doing the blahing? Holocaust deniers are people too, you know? Even the ones that are full of Jew hatred.


"Not to protect Jewish secrets, but because they decided racist lies of this sort are bad for their society."

That's denial in and of itself.

"The real issue about hate speech laws is not whether Holocaust denial is hate speech. It plainly is "

That's so clearly opinion. If Holocaust denial is hate speech then everything you claim against anti-Semites is hate speech, too. Even if the person is indeed saying that every Jew should be exterminated. If you are rallying against someone and claim they are vermin, that is hate speech directed toward someone even if that someone is indeed delivering hatred toward a group. Just because one person is honest and kind and caring about humanity, that doesn't give them the right to commit the same aggression.



It shouldn't be considered hate speech asking if the Holocaust happened. Nor saying that you don't believe in it. It becomes hate speech when you have an agenda against the group.

If that were hate speech then blacks calling one another the N word should be punishable under the law. If using the word makes someone upset, which the word does for me, then in the subject of making Holocaust denial outlawed the N word therefor should be outlawed. It makes no sense outlawing those things in which people have an interest in, nor outlawing profanity. Having Holocaust denial outlawed is bringing it the same notability. But I'm not worried about what people think in this matter. I'm worried about justice. You cannot possibly believe that justice is done when you outlaw questioning or even denying. It's a losing battle for all sides.

Part of me thinks the N word shouldn't be said, should be outlawed; but I won't make another person do something I have no right to.

In the same regards, if a Jewish person calls a white person an anti-Semite for denying the Holocaust, that should be outlawed. Everything that causes personal injury to a person's mental state should be outlawed, if Holocaust denial should be. But then again, Jews themselves have spoken out against the Holocaust. So, if it is indeed anti-Semites in general that are the hate mongers, then why are there Jews that deny?

What should actually be done is that everyone should be considerate of the other's well being. Instead of outlawing everything that hurts another's mental well being, one should be attentive of what can cause another mental trauma. But if you are a mature human being, someone else's thoughts shouldn't be able to bring you down in such a way that would cause you mental trauma. Unless you are indeed perpetrating the crime and do not wish to hear that being said.


I guess I'm singing to the choir, though. Because those whom are in hate groups have no real empathy towards others. But that doesn't mean their beliefs should be shunned, either. As in religion, anyone should be able to protest what they think is wrong. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Every view should be looked at. Though the ones that are filled will rhetoric, where one cannot question the meaning, that should be shunned. But not with imprisonment.

In the end, people need to think about how the others feel and not just pass that judgement on a certain group that one along identifies with. It's a mature thing to be able to take criticism, as long as it doesn't come with belligerence. Well, even when that happens; if a mature person hears racial slurs, they should be able to debate. And they should be able to question that persons racial slurs. But keep it from being outlawed...Nazi-Germany-style, really.


"As a fan of the First Amendment, I personally don’t think they should; it turns the kind of moronic cranks you see here — who would otherwise would live out empty lives in pure wack-o-bird obscurity — into martyrs to free speech."

That is true. If they are indeed defaming others. Acting as if the whole of the Jewish community is bad because of what a certain smaller cabal did, that is ludicrous. Not every Jewish person is going to think like another Jewish person. It's like that in every community. AN individual should be delt with if they are indeed slaughtering children for their rituals. But the whole group shouldn't be held accountable for a small cabal of extremists. Calling out every Holocaust denier as an anti-Semite is exactly what you should be railing against. Because claiming that that individuals ideals are the exact same as another whom denies something is perpetrating what hate groups perpetrate.


"Hitler started with nothing but hate speech, and ended up hauling their Jewish neighbors away to be murdered."

Hitler wasn't always being irrational. He had the ability of actually doing political work. Like when he addressed the people about disarmament. He clearly stated that he'd sent proposals of peace to America, Britain, Russia and Poland. But none were replied to. He said that he was willing to disarm Germany if, and only if, the neighboring countries would do the same. But he wasn't going to let Germany be plundered. That's sensible. You do not get rid of your arms when there are obvious signs that other countries aren't going to do so, and that is threatening when someone will not reply to a proposal of peace. That wasn't hate speech. But I do agree, there was a lot of it from him.


"So painting these laws with the standard denier boilerplate — "they are panicked efforts by The Jews to keep people from finding out The Truth” and blah blah — well, that’s just plainly in variance with the facts. Sorta like Holocaust denial itself."

What I would have suggested is that painting every single Jewish person as a panicked criminal is ridiculous. You cannot believe that every single Jewish person is innocent. It's just like saying that every Trump or Clinton fan is a criminal in the making.

I know. I know. All of my post sounds like I have a thing against Jews. I don't. I have a thing against injustice. Letting out the truth shouldn't be against the law. Especially if it's what you believe is true. If the deniers have proof that the gas chamber at Auschwitz wasn't a gas chamber, which they did find proof, then don't put them away for telling others what they feel took place. Even if they didn't find that a door to one of the chambers wasn't made of wood with glass in it, they don't deserve to be put behind bars.

Of course, if they do so in a means that puts the whole of the Jewish peoples into a defamation, you need to keep that in mind. But if they find out that there are Zionists doing these things, it should be considered.

Please. Be kind, don't rewind. That's what the world is saying...in much more aggressive rhetoric.

reply

So I ask

Please point to one major Holocaust historian in, say, the last decade, who says the six million number is "bogus."

And what I get is one more half-hearted attempt to run the Auschwitz plaque gambit one more time.

Holocaust denial is exhausted, running on fumes, isn't it.

As for the rest, tl;dr.

reply

ZortMcFleen, when confronted with facts, evidence and visual proofs....you just run and hide, right baby boy?

reply

Nah. But the Auschwitz Plaque gambit just bores me. It has for twenty years. It's the worst cliché of the denier-as-moron who's heard his first denier argument and can't wait to spread it. It's always the announcement: "Hi, I'm a moron, let me hit you with a long-debunked talking point."

Even on this board, you see the same few idiocies over and over, stagnated for decades -- Auschwitz plaque gambit, the con-man Cole (fresh from his Donohue appearance! Oh, wait, that was the early 1990s), no written order means no order -- it just screams noob.

reply

Sorry brainwashed sheep, the 6 million figure is false.

reply

Sorry brainwashed sheep, the 6 million figure is false.


... clucked the noob. Y'all need to come up with fresher material. I'm going to ignore you until you do.

reply

Sorry brainwashed sheep, the 6 million figure is false.

reply

squeak squeak squeak

goes the cave squeaker.

reply

tl; dr? utter moron.

reply

That plaque at Auschwitz claiming 4 million dead to 1.1 million dead was replaced in accordance to some kind of revisionism, whether you like to admit it or not.


That would only be true if you meant revisionism on the side of the former Communist block. It certainly wasn't because of the "brave" findings of some few "revisionists", as you maybe want to suggest here. And it certainly wasn't the case that Western historians had to revise their figures because of the changed Auschwitz plaque.

Deniers always like to portray it like there is some monolithic entity (i.e. "the establishment" of "Orthodox/mainstream history", aka the "Jewish conspiracy") which enforces all of these figures on the world, while ignoring all contextual info where these specific figures exactly came from. The 4 million figure was essentially Soviet propaganda, based on totally false theoretical assumptions regarding the operation of the gas chambers. And what is the deciding factor here: it wasn't believed by a majority of Western historians at all, i.e. those who studied the issue in detail and came up with the a total of roughly around 6 million by different approaches in their works on the history of the Shoah, which is the real basis for what we know today. The 4 million figure was even criticized by one historian directly in his work. See here for more details:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-01.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-02.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-03.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-2-01.html

Meaning the 6 million never had to be corrected, as the 4 million of the Auschwitz plaque was never part of the calculations of major Western historians.

Similarly the correction of the Auschwitz death totals by Rudolf Höß. He himself stated in his autobiography that he never knew the total figure and that he relied on the figures given by Adolf Eichmann. Not much detailed research by historians could have been done already at the time of the Nuremberg trials, so it's understandable that the info given by a top functionary of the Nazi death machinery was accepted at first (by the court at Nuremberg, which is not the same as the historians who studied that issue in detail later). But again deniers always leave out such contextual information, give it a sensationalistic spin and present it as it's all coming from this aforementioned monolithic entity, which must therefore always be consistent (despite the fact that the Nazis did not keep records of everything and destroyed many documents) and which was/is forced into sub-/admission only by the actions of some brave "revisionists".

Intellectually honest historians debate the correct interpretation of historical facts among themselves all the time (see the "Historikerstreit" for example) – and I would go so far to claim that any revisions that had to be done to the historical record of the Shoah were because of the work of renowned historians themselves, not because of that of any so called "revisionists". "Revisionists" are so intellectually dishonest most of the time to dismiss any and all factual evidence out of hand that goes against their preconceived convictions. Typical signs of this are generic carte blanche statements to wipe the slate clean like: "The victor writes the history".

reply

A good post on one of the oldest denier dodges. But just wait -- in a day or two, someone else will try it. Being a Holocaust denier means you never have to say "you're right, you caught me repeating a long-debunked lie."

reply

"It certainly wasn't because of the "brave" findings of some few "revisionists", as you maybe want to suggest here."

Nope, wasn't trying to suggest that at all.

"Meaning the 6 million never had to be corrected, as the 4 million of the Auschwitz plaque was never part of the calculations of major Western historians."

I didn't know that. This is what happens when someone actually takes time to answer a question, and decides to be civil. Thank you for not just sitting behind a computer monitor and calling me something I'm not. Thank you for clearing up that the 4 million number wasn't even used to figure the 6 million number.


From the website you linked:
"Currently, though, unimpeachable sources are seeking to reduce this [sic] figure to 1.5 million. On mathematical grounds alone, the "symbolic figure of Six Million " should be reduced by 3.5 million. Of course, such a reduction does not lessen the [gravity of the] crime in any way, because even one victim is one too many."

I disagree. The reduction does lessen the gravity of the crime, if you want to use the number to gauge the penalty of the sentence a person receives. Yes, indeed, it's awful to kill just one person, but the thought that it doesn't matter how many people died sidelines the truth. How about this analogy: what if one person died and they decided to beef that figure up to 100? Wouldn't that tell you a different story, after all, that's 99 less that were killed. A lie is a lie, whether you can justify the gravity of the situation in your own mind by saying that to yourself.

Now, whenever I read a revisionist talking about the reduction to the 4 million total I'll question them on the fact that that number had nothing to do with calculating the official total.

As to what Zort had to say about being caught in using debunked denial tropes, I did not know about that 4 million count not being used in the official total because no one mentioned that. Not until this thread. Thanks again to quintessenz-80437 for pointing that out. No thanks to Zort for believing that every revisionist is lying scum because they distort the truth. Some people might not know what's what when no one is willing actually tell them. Being civil helps a lot. Being a tyrant whom believes in absolutes gets one nowhere.

reply

Meaning the 6 million never had to be corrected, as the 4 million of the Auschwitz plaque was never part of the calculations of major Western historians.


Wait a second. I just found that the Majdanek number was lowered from 2 million dead to 78,000. Is that too one of those revisions that cannot be considered to lower the 6 million count as is the case with the Auschwitz revision, which was done by Franciszek Piper?

Please, give another source of why the count is 6 million despite the Auschwitz/Majdanek counts being lowered.



Denying an historical event doesn't mean approving it even if it indeed happened...

reply

It's remarkable how well Lucy S. Dawidowicz's number has held up after all these decades since her research decades ago.
The current research puts her within the now-estimated range of 5.75-6.2 million. The various Jew-haters you're dealing with all over this board know this, but they enjoy inflicting emotional pain for some perverse reason.

reply

That four million statistic was correct because the Soviet authorities who persuaded the Polish government to erect that statue also included the three million other mainly Polish and Soviet Jews and prisoners of war, etc., who were murdered at Treblinka, Sobibor, Maidanek, Belzec, and Chelmno into the equation. When that stone edifice was first placed there, most people outside of Europe did not know of the other death camps. Yet there were papers in the German archives that existed to account for the massive number of deaths. Also, Adolf Eichmann, who never denied any of this and was certainly proud of what he had done in Hitler's name, confirmed these atrocities at his trial in Israel in 1961.

Nearly one million people (mostly Polish Jews) were killed upon arrival at Treblinka. More than two hundred thousand people were murdered upon arrival at the extermination center at Sobibor in a nine-month period between 1942-43 until the October 13 uprising ended in a huge number of escapes and the destruction of the camp by the S.S. to hide traces of what they had done. The Nazis also destroyed the death camp at Treblinka after an equally unexpected revolt that same year to destroy any evidence of the murder of almost 800,000 innocent human beings. The sites at Belzec and Chelmno were not merely KZ Lagers (concentration camps); they were wooded areas without any barracks where tens of thousands of people were shot in open fields or gassed within airtight moving vans. The single gas chamber at Maidanek was huge, but the Soviets liberated the camp in 1944 before the Germans could demolish any evidence of their horrible crimes. More than one hundred thousand people were murdered at Maidanek. At least five times that number were killed at Belzec and Chelmno combined. But more people were murdered at Auschwitz than at any other place at any other time in the history of warfare on earth.

The majority of the mass murders took place at Auschwitz, largely due to the fact that both Sobibor and Treblinka had been put out of action in the fall of 1943 six months before the deportation of tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews thereafter consumed in the ovens of Birkenau in the spring, summer, and autumn of 1944. Nearly half-a-million were killed at Auschwitz during that time frame between April 1944 and October 1944 when the gas chambers were dynamited by Sondercommando teams on the threat of death. On October 7, 1944, an uprising (the only one at this most notorious of death camps) by the men of the twelfth Sondercommando inside Crematoria #3 Birkenau, destroyed the gas chamber thereby rendering it incapable of operating. The Nazis continued to gas as many as twelve thousand people per day in the four other crematoriums at Auschwitz, but at the end of October, Heinrich Himmler, the second most powerful man in the Third Reich, whose birthday had fallen on the day of the uprising, ordered the gas chambers dismantled and destroyed all across Auschwitz/Birkenau.

At the time of the Birkenau uprising at Crematorium three, Anne Frank was one of fifteen thousand prisoners in the barracks across the fence. Nine days later, she was deported with thousands of other women in Birkenau to Bergen-Belsen in Northern Germany: she died an unimaginable death from typhus and starvation three months shy of her sixteenth birthday in March 1945. The British troops under General Montgomery liberated Belsen just one month later.

Auschwitz had been fully operational with five gas chambers by 1944, with more than two thousand human beings in each chamber each day. If you calculate the magnitude of several gas chambers in operation from July 1942, when the mass deportations began from Western Europe until November 1944 when Himmler ordered the gassings to cease, numbers do begin to add up. Even Rudolph Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, a close colleague of Eichmann's, admitted that the possible total deaths could have been as high as two-and-a-half million.

There were eleven million Jews in Europe in 1939. It is obvious that six million were murdered by the spring of 1945. Why deny these facts? Few dispute the twenty-odd million Russians killed during the conflict, nor is the fact that nine million others, among them Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, political prisoners, resistance fighters, non-Jewish partisans, and Jehovah Witnesses, as well as the handicapped were also murdered by the S.S. It is only the six million Jewish figures that are widely disputed, which is beyond reprehension.

No one with an ounce of compassion or common sense should ever dispute or deny the main facts of the Second World War in Europe. Or misrepresent them as the anti-Semitic Holocaust Denier-in-chief David Irving has done. He is a nut-job whose pathetic envy of the Chosen People is without a doubt why he has nursed this grudge since his early teens. He can't let go, face the real truth, or admit that he is in any way wrong. This a total travesty. This man should be grateful that he became rich and famous in the first place. There are millions of Jews alive who have never begrudged him one bit of his good fortune until he went off the deep end in 1988 and became a full-blown Holocaust denier, although since the sixties he has falsified facts to exculpate his beloved Fuhrer in one way shape or form. This was never noticeable until he began to show his true colors. Once he did the unthinkable, Deborah Lipstadt was the only one brave enough to call him out.

This small-budget film needs to be seen, not just to be believed, but to spread the truth and render justice to those who were silenced and cannot now speak.

reply

[deleted]

the 6 million lie will stay with us because victors write history. in the end it is not important if it was 6 million or 1 million. the idea behind it is important. but wait, the number has been proven a lie. so what now? i believe the lie about the amount will create more disbelief in what really happened until nobody cares anymore or is fed up with hearing about the plight of some insignificant group out of so many. i took that number for granted, devouring history books during my school time, big mistake! it took me half my life to learn the despicable truth, that 6 Million meant 1 million meant 500,000 meant 125,000 (mostly due to typhoid). its a crime that several generations have been lied to and that a country's conscience has been enslaved and turned a nation into the invader loving culture destroying western Europe.
As for all the idiots calling people racists, there is only one human race.
even better calling someone an anti-semite, lunacy. most people don't even know what a semite is. you don't like the jews stealing arab land and you are called an anti-semite.
you don't like arabs illegally entering your country, raping your women etc, you are called islamophobe. they are all semites. only thing is the rich semites "bought" the right to use that name and be offended in perpetuity.



"violate me with a wine bottle"

reply

in the end it is not important if it was 6 million or 1 million.


Unless of course you're related to one of the five million or so Jews that anti-Semitic crackpots on the internet are so darn sure they've proved weren't murdered by Hitler, using a pure sh*tstack for argument.

What scum you are.

reply

I'm hitting the IGNORE button on this hateful liar you're dealing with.
3...2...1....

reply

ZortMcFleen

Did you find where the six million Jews actually went?

What, you didn't?


Haha, you dare talk about facts when this "6 MILLION" figures has been debunked and revised by the Holocaust Museum itself, to about HALF?

reply

this "6 MILLION" figures has been debunked and revised by the Holocaust Museum itself, to about HALF?


You don't know thing one about this stuff, do you.

So let's call your bluff. Let's see a link to the USHMM -- or Yad V'Shem -- saying that only three million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.

What? You can't? You're talking out your butt? Imagine that!

reply

If something can't be denied, than it can't even be affirmed.

reply