MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > What Holocaust deniers really don't want...

What Holocaust deniers really don't want you to know

posted 8 years ago by ZortMcFleen
50 replies | jump to latest

Here’s a little something Holocaust deniers don’t want you to know.

Holocaust deniers try hard to disguise the white-power origins of the Holocaust denial ideology. That’s not surprising, when you see what a gaggle of stormtroopers created the Holocaust denial movement in the first place.

* Richard Harwood — author of one of the pamphlets Zündel printed and smuggled, “Did Six Million Really Die?” Except, whoops, "Richard Harwood" turns out to have been a pen name of Richard Verrall, communications officer of the National Front. If you haven’t heard of the National Front, they’re a white-supremacist, neo-Fascist party in the UK. Fun fact: Roger Waters says he used them as the model for the “Hammers” when he wrote Pink Floyd’s “The Wall.” And the Police wrote a great song about their tendency to do the Nazi salute: “Billy’s joined the National Front / He always was a little runt / He’s got his hand in the air with the other c——s / You’ve got to humanize yourself”

* Ernst Zündel — who presented himself as just an ordinary guy of German extraction who had a few puzzling questions about the Holocaust; turns out his home was virtually a shrine to Hitler, he co-wrote and published the pamphlet “The Hitler We Loved and Why,” and made his money smuggling neo-Nazi materials into West Germany.

* Lewis Brandon — co-founder of the most important of the Holocaust denial organizations until about 2000, “The Institute for Historical Review.” Except, whooops, "Lewis Brandon" turns out to be David McCalden, communications officer of the British National Party, a white-supremacist neo-Fascist offshoot of the National Front. Fun fact one: The BNP lost a civil rights lawsuit a few years ago, by the way, when its whites-only membership plank was found to be — wait for it — discriminatory. Fun fact two: the BNP was bankrupted recently when its leader, the white-power dirtbag Nick Griffin, used an image of a Marmite bottle in his campaign video. The company that owns the label, rightly believing that the BNP is puke it wants nothing to do with, sued the party for unauthorized usage of the label and wiped it out financially. Hooray!

* Willis Carto — the other co-founder of “The Institute for Historic Review.” And an old-guard McCarthyist who ranted about “Judeobolshevism” as a bit Jewish plot to destroy whites and Christianity. He wasn’t new to frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Semitic publication when he founded the "Institute":
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/us/willis-carto-far-right-figure-and-holocaust-denier-dies-at-89.html

* Mark Weber — who took over the IHR when David McCalden died. He used to edit the white-supremacist newsletter “the Spotlight” published by the white-supremacist, neo-Fascist National Alliance. The National Alliance was co-founded by a guy named William Pierce, best known for having written the white-pride, anti-Semitic novel “The Turner Diaries” that inspired Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols to bomb the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, slaughtering over 200 men, women, and children — just the way the novel describes it, and for just the same white-power overthrow-the-Jew-gumvint reasons the novel’s hero does it.

These aren’t little furtive characters foaming at the edges of the movement. This is the front rank, the core of the core. These are the leaders who founded the movement. “Harwood”’s pamphlet was, for example, the first Holocaust denial crap Zündel published; an infamously crap study from Zündel’s trial (“The Leuchter Report”) was the first Holocaust denial pamphlet David Irving published.

But the neo-Fascist link with Holocaust denial isn’t just an artifact of the past. Only last year in the UK, they had a Holocaust denial conference and used neo-Fascism to publicize it. Participants were told to look for a man carrying a book by Oswald Mosley and wearing as a tie pin the logo of the British Union of Fascists, and he would guide them to the conference. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045115/Nazi-invasion-London-EXPOSED-World-s-Holocaust-deniers-filmed-secret-race-hate-Jews-referred-enemy.html

Look up Oswald Mosley if you don’t know him already; Fascist to the bone and proud of it, blackshirted founder of an organization he proudly named the British Union of Fascists. You can see why Holocaust deniers would use him as a rallying point. And look, there’s the neo-Fascist Mark Weber — arguably the US’s leading Holocaust denier, now that Germar Rudolf has been booted out for visa violations — was a keynote speaker.

Our friends the Holocaust deniers would prefer it if you didn’t know any of this. Some of them, judging from the interactions on this board, may not even know it themselves, and just blindly carry on these people’s work like happy little drone bees who don’t know they’re carrying poisoned pollen.

[–] PotassiumMan 8 years ago

For a while, David Irving himself tried to deny he was anti-semitic, but evidence of his hostility toward the Jews could only be hidden for so long. His bigotry played a major role in his life's purpose of defending Hitler and the Nazi regime.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

This is why Irving's defeat was so catastrophic to the movement. He was their biggest name. He wasn't an overtly squalid anti-Semite like Carto or McCalden or Weber or Zündel. He was their glamour boy. And when even your glamour boy goes down in flames on point after point after point after point, the way Irving did -- it's really hard to overstate how thoroughly the verdict went against him, and in how great a detail Irving's position was eviscerated -- well, the movement never really recovered. To the (tiny) degree it has, it's because it's now trying to downplay their Nazi apologia ... but not with what you'd call a lot of success; sooner or later, they all go back to "Hitler was defending himself from The Jew."

If I'm remembering right, Lipstadt's book didn't explicitly call Irving anti-Semitic, just a crank historian with a habit of resting his thumb on the pro-Hitler side of the scale. But she showed in court that he was very clearly was anti-Semitic too.

[–] JusMe2 8 years ago

Condemned by his own words:

"more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's motor car in Chappaquiddick then died in the gas chamber in Auschwitz."
Speech in Toronto, 8 November 1990 & in Calgary, September 1991

"Now you think that's tasteless, what about this? I'm forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it's called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can't get more tasteless than that, but you've got to be tasteless because these people deserve all our contempt."
Speech in Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991

"Mrs Altman, how much money have you made out of that tattoo since 1945? [Laughter] How much money have you coined for that bit of ink on your arm, which may indeed be real tattooed ink?"
Speech in Tampa, Florida, 6 October 1995

A little something he was teaching to his baby daughter:
"I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry-an
Ape or Rastafarian."
David Irving Diaries (Vol. 60), 17 September 1994

[–] VVolfySnackrib 8 years ago

What Holocaust supporters don't want you to know:

Some of the previously believed "facts" of the Holocaust includes turning Jews into soap, taking the skin from Jewish babies and making lampshades out of them, Nazis apparently shrunk Jewish heads, and Eichmann says there was a permanent fountain of blood coming out of the ground where Jews had been shot.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

Yes, Eichmann at his trial reported:

I passed a site where Jews had been shot some time before and where - apparently
as a result of the pressure of the gasses - the blood was shooting out of the
earth like a fountain.http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-087-05.html

Maybe that wouldn't have happened if the Nazis hadn't killed so many gosh darned Jews, eh, Sennachrib?

[–] Euronymus 8 years ago

maybe you should study up on physics and why these confessions under torture left so many tell tales to the other defendants that were so ludicrous they all know these were forced confessions...also check out the last days by spielberg and the contraditions and lies, testimonies literally copied from contemporary books and eye witness testimonies that change from brother to brother... there are many facts that merit further investigation...
these lies serve but one purpose and that is to keep us down and blind and prevent us from seeing the cycles cfr.reichstag and twin towers... it s easy to be in of the herd and support their lies because you think you are one of the good guys but ignorance always makes you one of their puppets.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

There's another conspira-wack born every minute.

[–] Euronymus 8 years ago

yeah and dumb babies seem to be default for a while now

[–] swojtak 8 years ago

Exactly.

[–] thaicoons 8 years ago

I am definitely not an antisemite, I never even met any Jews, but I got intrigued by the fact that it's illegal in some countries to even question historical "facts" that have since been rejected and with all due respect, things don't add up. Holocaust, as described, doesn't make sense; not as far as the number of victims go, not in terms of how people are supposed to have been killed, how bodies are supposed to have been cremated, what conditions are supposed to have been like in concentration camps, how the entire thing was processed in Nurenberg etc.

In my opinion the Jewish community isn't doing itself any favours by banning an open debate on Holocaust as an historical event, let alone by persecuting and in some cases physically attacking the deniers.

Since all those videos on you tube have started to get attention, there are many people that are just skeptics, not deniers or pro Nazi, I don't understand why debating Holocaust should be exempt from free speech. We can freely talk (or even deny) the Armenian genocide, pogroms in Russia, starvations in China, the crime of the Khmer Rouge, events in Bosnia, Rwanda, atrocities committed by ISIS, why should Holocaust be different, it's far from unique, people have been killing each other since day one and Jews have been Holocausted for 2.000 years.

David Irving makes a good point when he says that for all the debate on persecution of Jews, no one ever bothers to ask why. Some people are antisemites isn't a good answer, some people also hate Gypsies, immigrants, Moslems, to name just a few minorities but there has never been a Holocaust against anyone else. What is it about the Jews that seems to have been triggering the darkest bits of human psyche for 2.000 years now.

[–] YakPro 8 years ago

Your posting is emblematic of the "Naive Innocent" type of Holocaust Denial. You claim to not understand how an attempt at extermination on such a grand scale could happen, when the Holocaust is one of the most documented events in history.

Let's try to address some of your "points" individually:

1] Number of Victims: as numerous written records (and the Eichmann trial showed) the Nazis were among the most anal recordkeepers of all time. Records of train departures and arrivals, gas cannister usage, bodies cremated, etc. This is what the historian Hannah Arendt meant by the term "Banality of Evil". In fact, recently discovered documents seem to indicate that the true number is greater than the previous 12 million. Note, I am using that number because it includes Gypsies, immigrants and other 'undesirables' that you claim were not victims.

2] How people killed: Again, there is overwhelming eyewitness and written evidence of the manner of killing, which included, but is not limited to gas chambers, mass shootings and 'medical experiments'. These eyewitnesses include not only the survivors themselves but also former SS members. There are also photographs.

3] Methods of cremation: See # 2. In addition, the Allied Forces who liberated the Camps have confirmed the Crematoria and mass graves.

4] Conditions in Camps: you just cannot be serious on this one - there are a huge number of eyewitness accounts, again by survivors as well as former SS and villagers in the vicinity of the Camps.

In the end, there are some events for which there aren't "two sides". You may think, in your heart of hearts, that sun exposure doesn't lead to skin cancer, but that doesn't change the correlation between the two. Quoting David Irving, on a board discussing a court case in which he was exposed as an anti-Semite, is probably not the best strategy in showing your neutrality on this subject.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

Let's check the score.

Some variation on "I'm not an anti-Semite, but..."? Check.

Some variation on "I'm really only interested in the free speech angle, but..."? Check.

Some variation on "Holocaust denial isn't an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory"? Check.

Some variation on "The Jews are trying to shut down debate"? Check.

Some variation on "Let me passive-aggressively suggest things somehow just don't add up without being specific because if we get to specifics I always lose"? Check.

Some variation on "Aren't the Jews really the ones to blame for their own problems"? Check.

Bonus points: a quote from David Irving as if Irving weren't recognized worldwide as a thorough anti-Semite.

Congratulations, you've hit all the standard talking points of the Holocaust deniers when they do the "I'm just an honest, innocent noob" act.

You are, to borrow a phrase from Stephen King, an apt pupil.

[–] YakPro 8 years ago

[–] chuggin_farmer 8 years ago

David Irving makes a good point when he says that for all the debate on persecution of Jews, no one ever bothers to ask why. Some people are antisemites isn't a good answer, some people also hate Gypsies, immigrants, Moslems, to name just a few minorities but there has never been a Holocaust against anyone else. What is it about the Jews that seems to have been triggering the darkest bits of human psyche for 2.000 years now.

You must not have looked much into the holocaust. Half a million gypsies were murdered during the holocaust. Approximately 11 million people died during the holocaust, 6 million Jewish, 5 million non-Jewish including gypsies, Jehovahs, people of colour, homosexuals, the sick and disabled, non-Jewish Polish and people that stuck up for any of these people or people part of the rebellion.

[–] lucasrowan 8 years ago

Art Spiegelman"s graphic novel 'MAUS' is far and away the most moving and accurate pictorial account, outside of historical film and photo, of the holocaust. For dummies like me who don't read good or much at all anymore, I would recommend it to any and all who are willing to have their eyes opened to the truth of the holocaust.

The thing that's missing most in holocaust denial, aside from the truth of the actual event, is the people. Without the people, there could not have been the holocaust. What revisionists want us to forget, or want to water down to a piddly number, is the actual number of people that were murdered, in multi-nefarious ways, in order to shift the focus to other, far-more important things, such as - no residue of cyanide was detected (a discovery by David Irving no less) in the remaining brick work at the Auschwitz gas chambers, or the fact that the doors opened outward from certain gas chambers and furthermore, weren't even locked!

The innocence of the revisionists is nail biting.

I was thinking along the lines of a snail being a slug with a shell, or if you prefer it the other way round, a slug is a shell-less snail.

Both cases are true. But they are still different in name and where they can go.

Revisionists are snails... they can't squeeze everywhere with that monkey on their back, so they graze the facts from the fringes. Slugs, on the other hand, have no problem squeezing through the smallest of cracks - they have a more untimate understanding of the bigger picture.

Anyway, arguing with revisionists, the really 'good' ones, is like playing tennis with a sea cucumber.

It actually isn't a waste of time, but it is rather pointless.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

It actually isn't a waste of time, but it is rather pointless.

If your intent is to change the mind of a true believer, you're quite right. But that's not my intent.

Instead, I want to show the reader new to learning about the phenomenon of Holocaust denial that, despite all its occasional flights of high-minded rhetoric, it is really just an old-school anti-Semitic scam, pseudohistory and pseudoscience, a movement full of Jew-haters, and that their carefully misleading gambits crash and burn on contact with actual fact.

They really are quite a dishonest bunch, and quite a racist bunch as well -- but they've had enough time to polish their opening gambits in a way the average person is not going to be able to refute off the top of their heads. But these gambits are old -- in some cases, half a century old -- and their flaws are not hard to find.

[–] therealsunnybubbles 8 years ago

When faced with the cold hard truth of it all, when all the facts and figures are added up, when all the photos are studied and all the movies watched, when all the drawings and testimonials and memoirs and books and tattoos are taken into account and added to the mounds of bags and suitcases and shoes and belts and teeth and rings and hair and fillings, and gold and diamonds and almost entire towns and the countless dissected (bisected) cities. With all this, with rivulets of fat running from the pyres of corpses... with the minds of certain SS honed to one purpose and one purpose only, namely, what to do with the Jews?

Of course we are dealing with racists and neo-nazis and fascists in the guise of liberal free thinking intellectuals on a wave a few beads higher than the mean cyberspace surfer.

David Irving, for example, I think was actually doing pretty well morally until he went and got his teeth stuck into Dresden and saw how dishonest the historical world was, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Holocaust etc stealing all the limelight. And then what happened was quite understandable, but never admitted. He became a Teutophile. The seeds for denial were sown by the firebombing of Dresden. Or maybe something from his childhood?

Anyway, the solution became easy in the end and as we know, final.

Funny to think there are people attempting to undo so much death.

[–] NeilNR 8 years ago

I was first exposed to Holocaust denial fifty years ago, back to the days of George Lincoln Rockwell.
The quandary is if you debate the deniers, the Holocaust itself becomes debatable.
If you don't, young newcomers hearing the neo-Nazis' unrefuted lies for the first time may think they're valid.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

I first bumped into these cats in the early(-ish) days of the internet. And I learned that, for all their dramatics, they really have been recycling the same gunk since the days of Rockwell's American Nazi Party, and it was probably the case with most of these guys that I knew their arguments better than they do.

I think it's important to show -- and very easy to show -- that these guys just aren't what they present themselves as. One of the first things you hear Lipstadt say in the movie is that the Holocaust denial movement is a false front, a happy-face mask for a far nastier agenda, and you can see that dozens of times over on this board.

For the actual historical analysis, and refutation of the Holocaust denial nonsense, the van Pelt report is unmatchable.

https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt_toc/

But it's not necessary to go into that much detail in order to demonstrate these racist clowns are racist clowns.

[–] emvan 8 years ago

What is it about the Jews that seems to have been triggering the darkest bits of human psyche for 2.000 years now.

(Did you really ask this question in all naivete?)

The Christian Gospels portrayed the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus, and Jews steadfastedly refused to convert to the newer religion. They were thus viewed as Christ-killers and unrepentant heathens.

This is the entire source of anti-Semitism.

What connects these two aspects is that the Gospel portrayal of Jesus's final days is a pack of anti-Semitic lies, and would read as such to any educated Jew. For instance, one of the things the Biblical "Pharisees" condemn Jesus for, healing on the Sabbath, was a Pharisaic teaching and innovation. The Gospels portray the Pharisees as Christ-killers because, at the time the Gospels were written, Pharisaic Judaism was the dominant rival religion.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

There's a good book about this by Joel Carmichael called "The Satanizing of the Jews: Origin and Development of Mystical Anti-Semitism." He argues (and I think this makes a great deal of sense) that the medieval image of the Jews as the minion of Satan -- the devil's own private army, not really human but demons in human form, duplicitous and corrupting the pure, bent on the destruction of all that is good and the enslavement of mankind -- didn't fully fade with the fading of the Church as the center of the western intellectual framework. In the modern reformatting of anti-Semitism, "The Jews" are no longer considered supernaturally powerful, but they are supernaturally wealthy (which amounts to the same thing), supernaturally organized, duplicitous and corrupting, and are continuing to carry on a scheme to destroy all that is good and to enslave mankind. It is the same medieval tune with only a slightly different arrangement.

If you're the sort who sees the Jews like this, then the idea that six million of them might tiptoe off somewhere and go into permanent hiding -- maintaining perfect silence for three and four generations -- is not a stretch, because Jews are crafty and dishonest like that.

(I could add, on a personal note, that the first time I read "Paradise Lost," I was struck by how much of Milton's depiction of Satan's army of demons jibes with the anti-Semite's view of the Pernicious Jew. There is really a very strong case to be made.)

[–] konstantin_felixov 8 years ago

"The Satanization of Jews"
There are a lot of books that try to explain it, yet none has made it possible to convince the masses. Once that is achieved we are duly expecting the next Hollywood blockbuster with unlimited budget to show us all. Until that point we can all rest on the fact that these masses must be all racist and live out there to get us jews.

Obviously a non-believer can try to use rationality and has tried so for the last few thousand years, albeit that always ends in a bloodshed. From Babylon to Berlin the evil nazi scum is everywhere it seems.

I think this topic by itself is quite hilarious. Have not seen the movie either and I already know it is a triumph of the righteous against the wicked. Feminazi sharing her feelings is what matters, not facts...haven't we learned anything from WW2?
PS: Share the opinion that libel laws should exclude the possibility of a punishment for oppressed minority. Let's make the UK fair again, like Germany is!

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

Another thing might be that the Jews (and other non christian groups) were often not allowed to join many of the guilds in Medieval Europe and were thus not allowed to do many if not most of the jobs.
Some of the jobs they could do was lend money as their religion allowed them to do that for a profit while Christianity did not.
So you get this situation where poor christians are forced to borrow money from the Jews.
They already find these people strange and different, they are being told all sorts of crazy rumours about these people, such as ridiculous nonsense regarding virgin sacrifices and so on.
But on top of that suddenly you have a town where lots of people owe a few jews lots of money, these jews are the only ones who can borrow money and are doing rather well.
So you get this deadly combination of people not trusting jews, being jealous of their success and owing them money.
Jews were pushed into the banking system and then people blamed them for being part of the banking system!
Either way, regardless of if the people truly believed the crazy rumours, if they were just jew haters, if they truly were jealous, fact was that if someone gave a mob an excuse to kill the jews, you wouldnt have to pay back the money you borrowed.
So in quite a few cases tiny sparks caused huge massacres of the jewish communities in cities all over europe.
This became less later on but some of the jews were still involved in the banking and money lending business and people kept noticing this, while totally ignoring that the majority of european jews were just as poor as them and had common jobs like them.

[–] thaicoons 8 years ago

[–] shempXIV 8 years ago

Meaning...?

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

VVolfySnackrib, I've noticed two distinct narratives in your posting. In the one dated September 11th, you claim that Holocaust deniers do not have the right to exist. In the following dated September 16th, you clearly are one of those deniers. You can check the original posts yourself as I've provided a link to both...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/board/nest/258314651?p=2&d=261311055#261311055

VVolfySnackrib September 11th:

I am very disturbed to see some people in this thread saying everyone has the right to exist. The Holocaust denier no longer has this right. His existence means hatred of all unlike him, and he will do what he can to eliminate those who are unlike him. This statement that the Holocaust denier has a right to live is a notion that I don't like very much. Does the Nazi that tear a Jewish child limb from limb with his own hands and his evil brute force have such a right to live? Does the Nazi that puts a pistol to the face of a Jewish child and pull the trigger has a right to live? Nazis are everywhere today and they are killing Jews everywhere!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/board/nest/261418005?d=261475498#261475498

VVolfySnackrib September 16th:

What Holocaust supporters don't want you to know:

Some of the previously believed "facts" of the Holocaust includes turning Jews into soap, taking the skin from Jewish babies and making lampshades out of them, Nazis apparently shrunk Jewish heads, and Eichmann says there was a permanent fountain of blood coming out of the ground where Jews had been shot.

So, which are you, VVolfySnackrib? Are you the you of September 11th, the one that wants to see all Holocaust deniers dead? Or are you the you of September 16th, the one that seems to be a Holocaust denier? I don't wish to be rude and I am not a doctor, but you seem to exhibit dissociative identity disorder.

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

[–] aforandy 8 years ago

Look up Oswald Mosley if you don’t know him already

Some positive obituary quotes, from right-wing & left wing London newspapers:-

Oswald Ernald Mosley, Baronet, died December 3rd 1980

"Brilliant man in the Commons... compassionate and humane... a man of genuine courage and inspiring leadership" -- The Daily Telegraph

"Thought to have been the most handsome and gifted British political leader of the twentieth century ...brilliant debater, gifted, lucid and compassionate..."
-- The Times

"Genuinely eager to champion the unemployed and other underdogs... dynamic and handsome, popular... gifted and a natural leader" -- The Guardian

Mosley, in his cell on the Isle of Man, knew that Churchill had ordered his death, upon a German invasion of Britain.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

So a defender of Holocaust denial is also a defender of Hitler's biggest contemporary fan in the UK.

Coincidence, I'm sure.

[–] aforandy 8 years ago

All statements untrue [are you forgetting Unity Mitford?], but the first is legally actionable: admins do your duty...

So, bereft of argument, you have at last fallen prey to temptations of falsehood and impoliteness. Take a rest from frantic posting, lest you look like the 'Denial' board's village idiot eg. The Daily Telegraph is a philosemitic newspaper that is pro-Israel to a fault.

And here's a stunning shock for you, Zort -- there are no Holocaust deniers.

If naughty Mr. Irving goes so far as to show detailed decodes of Operation Reinhardt death figures on Youtube, whatever are we to think?

Everyone acknowledges in general terms the destruction of the European Jews, despite the deficit in hard evidence [to which I note your admirably strict requirement on these boards] being wholly out-of-proportion to the appalling scale & nature of the crime.

Of the mistaken nuts and fruitcakes you list, please explain why they have significance to you, enough that you actually mention them, sternly labelling them in the usual manner, when to the rest of us they have no meaning or impact whatsoever? Like 9/11 truthers, they can be safely & immediately discarded as unfortunate people with problems.

Could it be, Zort, that you need holocaust deniers -- esp. credible ones -- in order to deplore them?

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

but the first is legally actionable

Ooooh, the bad, bad hombre preemptively reaches for his legal weapon. That always works, doesn't it. Just ask David Irving, who tried the same thing against Lipstadt.

And here's a stunning shock for you, Zort -- there are no Holocaust deniers.

We're at a new level here, folks. Holocaust denial denial.

As Richard Evans showed in his testimony at the Irving trial, and Lipstadt and Justice Gray accepted, and as David Irving did not seek to dispute in any way in the trial, the core of Holocaust denial -- as determined by Evans and two of his grad students after reading vast amounts of Holocaust denial materials -- is the following four points.

- The Nazi state program for genocide against the Jews didn't exist, or there is a strong possibility that it didn't exist.

- The homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz and other camps didn't exist, or there is a strong possibility that they didn't exist.

- The death toll among European Jews is, or there is a strong possibility that it is, far, far less than six million.

- The public understanding of what happened to the Jews of Europe is the product, not of actual historical events, but an international Jewish conspiracy to promulgate a hoax.

All four of these points are demonstrably false; in fact, they were shown to be false in the Irving trial, and represent the standard by which Irving was shown to be a Holocaust denier himself.

It is of course a standard boilerplate argument among Holocaust deniers that if you admit even one Nazi killed one Jew, then you have earned the right to say "I am not a Holocaust denier, how dare you, how dare you."

I am however quite happy to see that you recognize that the founders of the Holocaust denial movement are nuts and fruitcakes.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ppcook-80389 8 years ago

No, The Spotlight was not published by the National Alliance. It was published by Willis Carto.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

Thanks for the correction. He edited the neo-Nazi National Vanguard, not the Carto's Spotlight.

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

I keep seeing the mounds of hair and shoes. That doesn't prove that Jews were murdered. It proves that Auschwitz was a labor camp where those that were placed there were given work shoes and were deloused.

The mounds of dead bodies in Dachau being bulldozed into pits doesn't prove that Jews were murdered. Germany's infrastructure was destroyed by the Brits and American bombing that they weren't able to get the food and medicine they desperately needed. Outbreaks of typhus and starvation happen in war.

Does this prove that the Holocaust didn't happen? No, it doesn't. But the thought that Anne Frank didn't die at Auschwitz does seem to suggest to me that maybe it wasn't a death camp...but does it prove that fact? Not at all.

The knowledge presented by revisionists/deniers gives me plenty of thought as to whether the Holocaust happened the way its told.

Now, in my mind, a Holocaust did happen during WWII. But maybe it wasn't 6 million Jews. 75 million died on result of WWII. All sides, whether Jewish, American, British, German, Russian, etc. But that isn't to say that Jews weren't persecuted, because that is clear as day.

[–] eric-549 8 years ago

There is little doubt that the Holocaust did happen. That the Jews of Europe were singled out for extermination by a German group called the Nazis. There is much evidence that the German people in general were acquiescent to the extermination. Horrible atrocities were committed.

What may be in dispute are the numbers. Who knows how many millions? This may be hard to document. Perhaps it has been documented, I don't know.

But getting to the point I want to make. There have been many, many Holocausts throughout history. In the late 20th century, they changed the name to "Ethnic Cleansing" perhaps to make the Jewish Holocaust more of a unique phenomenon, I don't know. Look what happened to the Armenians in Turkey during the first world war. I could google many other Holocausts of a people exterminated, it's been happening forever. So basically, my question: why did/does the Jewish Holocaust get all the headlines? Oh by the way, I am Jewish.

[–] emvan 8 years ago

The general term has always been genocide. The Holocaust is the specific name for the Nazi genocide against the Jews.

The Holocaust was far and away the largest genocide to date, and remains so. It is also part of a much longer history of anti-Semitism. Hence the amount of attention it has received.

There has been a lot of attention to subsequent genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda. A genocide in Indonesia was overlooked for nearly 50 years before being brought to attention by the documentary film The Act of Killing.

"Ethnic cleansing" is a different but related phenomenon. It's when the majority of residents of an ethnically diverse region decide that they must be the only residents, and demand that the minority flee (usually at once) or be killed. It is a denial of the other people's right to live on "our" land and an assertion that murder is an appropriate tool to enforce that. It falls short of the denial of the other people's right to live at all, which is the definition of genoicide.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

The reason it is in the headlines more than not is because the Jews were singled out. They have merit in that. Why they've been singled out for thousands of years? I don't know, but the question needs to be answered in order to stop it from happening. But it is considered anti-Semitic to ask that question, so the likelihood of it stopping is a bad one.

Before the Jews of Europe were singled out Zionist Jews in high ranks wanted their people taken to Madagascar, so it's been told. Hitler and the Zionists wanted them out of Germany. The bank lenders in America financed Hitler to get the Jews out of Germany.

The Zionists wanted the deportations to cease, but Hitler didn't, so Judea declared war on Germany in 1933. Jews in other countries started boycotting German goods. So how do you react when you're in that climate where you've just gotten into power and the very people whom you blame your misery on declares war on you? Make their nation identify themselves. Put the ones who make trouble into prison.

That's how it's done. It wasn't fair to do so. Hitler saw them as the problem. The Jews as a whole were never the problem. It was the individuals in the high ranks of society that were the problem. But deporting them was a bad idea. And if the Holocaust happened exactly verbatim? That wasn't the solution, either. That would be the stupidest way of handling any problem.

In all of the so-called denier documentaries, I've seen many different details of the events that were called the Holocaust. Camps that were claimed to be death camps, factories of death, were since proven false. Majdanek's death count went from 2 million down to 78,000. And the officials in that museum admit that it was never a death camp.

Auschwitz went from 4 million to 1.1. And on this very board it was said that the 4 million death count was never used in the 6 million. But the interviews with that museums head doesn't really make for a good judge on what actually happened. Franciszek Piper can be seen in the David Cole documentary on youtube contradicting himself often.

The 6 million bit was used in WWI as well as in WWII. It was claimed that 6 million Jewish men, women and children were suffering and dying. The 6 million marks the sacrifice in the Jewish Talmud that the Jews have to suffer in order to get back into Israel. That's the significance of that number. To them, at least.

To me, even if it were that many, what I latch on is what I've read, heard and seen in the books and videos I've seen. First it was of course the movies on the Holocaust, some that drove me to tears. The documentaries, one that I own about Auschwitz that was 6 hours long. Going back to that, I don't recall any actual evidence being shown, only crude computer reconstructions. But when I watched it for the first time and the second time when I bought it, it had me in the Holocaust convinced category.

Now that I recall the crude reconstructions, and have since learned that they were made from memory and not actual documents like blue prints, that the blue prints had been modified, I no longer believe. Yes, the original plans didn't have gas chambers in mind. But once you have that in mind, you need to make certain everything is appropriate for gassings. And those structures weren't made to be used that way.

But yes, the Jews deserved none of what they were put through. Taking out the gassing, you're left with the gunning pits that were filmed. There was a Holocaust, but the imagination of some people have brought about questions. In order to learn, you must ask them. It must be up for debate. Just because the survivors went through hell, that doesn't mean that what they say is 100% correct. Memory fades quickly, especially under duress. And being displaced and put into environments like the swampy conditions at Auschwitz where bugs ran rampant and carried deadly diseases, and the labor for people you didn't want to work for, it makes the memory disjointed.

But that is what happens when a whole nation of people declare war on the very nation that they live within. In the USA, Roosevelt had the Japanese placed in camps as well, so it isn't a Nazi thing. It's very universal. It needs to end! But it won't because there aren't enough peaceful individuals in higher up ranking positions that want the same peace.

And to keep addressing the Nazis as the worst monsters imaginable, you must erase the whole past of America, where I'm from, to actually claim that. Hitler even praised the Americans for their fast paced destruction of some of the Native American settlements. Now, if that isn't bad on America (and Hitler for even saying it) I don't know what is.

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

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

"I keep seeing the mounds of hair and shoes. That doesn't prove that Jews were murdered."

Did you also see the dentures, prosthesis, glasses?
You know the kinds of things you can't do without?

Did you see that many of those shoes belonged to toddlers, too young to work in a labour camp?

Even if it was "just" a labour camp, surely removing the hair (not *just* for delousing as it somehow was good enough to be used for other means), taking away personal items such as photos, letters, wedding rings, removing dentures, prosthesis, glasses and tattooing and separating people even very young children and locking them up in a surrounding that is extremely unhealthy while you're not able to properly feed them and clearly have no intention to (check reports, facts and figures on ood transported to the camps) on its own shows that they had evil intentions with these people or in the very best case scenario were going to mistreat them very badly, not care about their health and even without murdering them would be responsible for tons of war crimes?

"But the thought that Anne Frank didn't die at Auschwitz does seem to suggest to me that maybe it wasn't a death camp.."

Auschwitz was several different camps, part death camps, part concentration camps.
Anne Frank and the others in her group who went into hiding were send to Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Here "only" the very young, very old and infirm who could not work were killed on arrival.
Everyone in the Frank group, all 8, were adults or near adults and relatively healthy and strong.
They were all send into the barracks.
Almost all under the age of 15 were murdered, Anne herself had just turned 15, she was the youngest of the transport to be allowed to live a little longer.
Most of them would be dead within half a year.
After enduring extreme forced labour, hunger rations, abuse, cold and sickness.

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

Did you also see the dentures, prosthesis, glasses?
You know the kinds of things you can't do without?

Did you know that a million people died in Auschwitz? That's where all of that came from. That, as I said, doesn't prove extermination. That proves that people died there.

Did you see that many of those shoes belonged to toddlers, too young to work in a labour camp?

And again, that doesn't prove extermination. That proves that children didn't survive those conditions. I wouldn't claim they could. It's irrefutable that the concentration camps were a terrible place to be in, but they weren't the death camps that we're lead to believe. They had a hospital with healing and dying people in them. Otto Frank was struck down with typhus, the reason he couldn't go to Bergen-Belsen with his daughters. But instead he had a person create a diary from his daughter's writings and published them without much of the real diary intact.

locking them up in a surrounding that is extremely unhealthy while you're not able to properly feed them

What's your source for that? I recently saw a documentary where it's said that the laborers in the camps were given more calories a day than the German people in their homes during the war were given. They had to keep them as healthy as possible to keep them at the jobs.

on its own shows that they had evil intentions with these people

Indeed. The Nazis intentions weren't for the camp internee's own good. If anything was for anyone's good, Judea wouldn't have declared war on Germany. The 1st war wouldn't have happened, and Hitler wouldn't even have been a footnote in an Irving book. But people will always fight amongst themselves, won't they? You could see that with ZortMcFleen and myself in earlier posts. We were fighting. I didn't enjoy it, but I wanted to present my views.

and even without murdering them would be responsible for tons of war crimes?

Okay, let's discuss war crimes. Those that Britain committed against German citizens, or those that America committed on the very same German citizens not hours later in the very same cities. Or, how about America invading Iraq on false charges of WMD? How patriotic were the media? Saying that killing people was the highest form of peace? "I want peace," but the same politician sending more troops to war...?

The Nazis shouldn't have been held accountable for their war crimes if the USA wasn't for bombing cities of innocent Germans. Which one of those Germans had the evilness in themselves? Can you judge that without questioning them first?

That's all I have to say for now. The only point to this is to keep the discussion flowing. I hope you have a good day.

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

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

Except that those things were not all left behind when people died, they were handed in before people died.
The Germans kept records of that.
Tons and tons of the stuff was also exported back to Germany and used for other products or handed out to Germans who lost things in bombings or who suddenly needed prothesis.
The piles there now are just the things they had not exported yet.

concentration camps were a terrible place to be in, but they weren't the death camps that we're lead to believe.

Death camps and concentration camps were two different places.

They had a hospital with healing and dying people in them. Otto Frank was struck down with typhus, the reason he couldn't go to Bergen-Belsen with his daughters.

That doesn't make it any less of a horrible concentration camp where many died.
His daughters did not get to use the hospital, they died of typhus.

But instead he had a person create a diary from his daughter's writings and published them without much of the real diary intact.

Don't even start bringing up such nonsense.
No serious historian even takes those silly claims of fraud considering the diary serious.

Prisoners at Auschwitz had to survive on a diet of 1200 calories a day, not enough.
The food was unhealthy and not enough for people who had to do hard manual labour.
And this was from day 1 onwards.
In Germany the diet dipped below that for a short time around may 1945 but Germans had the option to get their hands on extra food on the black market or by doing work for the allies, such as clearing rubble.
At Auschwitz there were far fewer chances of improving your diet.
In Nazi occupied Holland the diet went a slow as 580 in 1945.
Anaverage working man needs more than 3,600 calories a day.
Even those forced to do hard labour were given only 1700 calories a day, at most.
So "that the laborers in the camps were given more calories a day than the German people in their homes during the war were given" is wrong.
During most of the war Germans had a much much better diet.

Okay, let's discuss war crimes. Those that Britain committed against German citizens, or those that America committed on the very same German citizens not hours later in the very same cities. Or, how about America invading Iraq on false charges of WMD? How patriotic were the media? Saying that killing people was the highest form of peace? "I want peace," but the same politician sending more troops to war...?

Why are you changing the subject?

The Nazis shouldn't have been held accountable for their war crimes if the USA wasn't for bombing cities of innocent Germans. Which one of those Germans had the evilness in themselves? Can you judge that without questioning them first?

Of course the nazis should have been held accountable for their war crimes, but the allies should have as well.
I personally feel that the bombing of civilian targets is always a war crime but it was not considered one during WW2.
Goering was not charged for bombing England for instance as those bombings were all considered strategic.
It was only added to the Geneva Conventions in the 1970s.

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

Except that those things were not all left behind when people died, they were handed in before people died.
The Germans kept records of that.

Please, give me a source and I'll consider it. Until then, we'll have to agree to disagree. Because what I've seen in documentaries, belongings were taken, such as clothing to disinfect, and work clothes were issued.

Death camps and concentration camps were two different places.

Auschwitz and Treblinka were supposedly both. Auschwitz was a camp, and a factory setting where inmates made rubber. And a death camp, if you wish to believe it.

That doesn't make it any less of a horrible concentration camp where many died.
His daughters did not get to use the hospital, they died of typhus.

I never said it was less than a horrible place. But they did have hospitals in a "death camp"!? If they were all sent to Auschwitz in 1944, the height of the extermination, the Franks would have all been taken to the gas chambers. That is the lore.

Prisoners at Auschwitz had to survive on a diet of 1200 calories a day, not enough.

While every German citizen was on a 900 calorie diet. Rationing happened everywhere. I never claimed it was enough. I said it was more than what German citizens were allowed.

Don't even start bringing up such nonsense.

I'm sorry. But why can't I bring up things that pertain to what I wish to discuss?

The food was unhealthy and not enough for people who had to do hard manual labour.

War does that to a nation.

At Auschwitz there were far fewer chances of improving your diet.

Indeed.

Anaverage working man needs more than 3,600 calories a day.

It's claimed, in the USA, that 2,000 is sufficient.

So "that the laborers in the camps were given more calories a day than the German people in their homes during the war were given" is wrong.

Source, please.

Why are you changing the subject?

Are there rules in this engagement that I'm not aware of that I must go by in order to appease you?

I personally feel that the bombing of civilian targets is always a war crime but it was not considered one during WW2.

During WWII it was indeed considered war crimes, because the Nazis were charged with such crimes of aggressive war. While the allies weren't. The allies didn't follow the Geneva Convention. Hitler thought that they would, but they didn't. In fact, after WWI, armaments were supposed to be brought down to a certain number in those countries affected by it. Germany was the only country that followed the treaty!

Goering was not charged for bombing England for instance as those bombings were all considered strategic.
It was only added to the Geneva Conventions in the 1970s.

Source, please.

Thanks for the discussion/debate. I have been enjoying it.

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

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

Because what I've seen in documentaries, belongings were taken, such as clothing to disinfect, and work clothes were issued.

Yes that happened for those who were allowed to live a little longer and had to work.
Which documentaries showed that but forget to mention that all the young and elderly were murdered on the spot and their belongings were send to Germany?

Millions of documents were captured by the allied troops, there were 3.000 tons of records alone submitted at the Nuremberg trial.
The Nazis kept meticulous records.
184,000 eyeglasses were sent to Germany from Auschwitz.
Source; (besides all those German records) Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust.

Auschwitz and Treblinka were supposedly both. Auschwitz was a camp, and a factory setting where inmates made rubber. And a death camp, if you wish to believe it.

Wrong.
Treblinka was an extermination camp, Auschwitz was several camps including an extermination camp but also concentraction camps.
This has nothing to do with what we wish to believe but with historical fact.
The German records show it, even the building plans for Auschwitz show this.
Source Auschwitz: The Nazis and 'The Final Solution'
Not to mention many eye witness accounts from both sides.

I never said it was less than a horrible place. But they did have hospitals in a "death camp"!? If they were all sent to Auschwitz in 1944, the height of the extermination, the Franks would have all been taken to the gas chambers. That is the lore.

Again, Auschwitz was several camps.
The Franks were send to a work camp where "only" those who could not work were killed right away.

While every German citizen was on a 900 calorie diet. Rationing happened everywhere. I never claimed it was enough. I said it was more than what German citizens were allowed.

What is your source?
My source;
"Kuczynski's "Geschichte der Lage der Arbeiter in Deutschland"
1939-40: 3,165
1940-41: 3,295
1941-42: 3,620
1942-43: 3,510
09/44 to 01/45: 2,828.
And this still leaves out the fact that there was a HUGE black market and you could get almost anything you wanted if you were willing to trade or had money.

I'm sorry. But why can't I bring up things that pertain to what I wish to discuss?

You can bring up whatever you like, but I will not discuss such nonsense as the Frank diary being a fraud as it that idiot claim has been debunked so many times.

War does that to a nation.

Except of course that the diet in Germany was a LOT better than in Auschwitz.

Are there rules in this engagement that I'm not aware of that I must go by in order to appease you?

Don't be silly.
I am not demanding you stick to rules, I am simply asking why you were suddenly changing the subject.
I simply claimed the camps were a war crime and you started bringing up completely different subjects.

During WWII it was indeed considered war crimes, because the Nazis were charged with such crimes of aggressive war.

Source?
Goering was in charge of the Lufwaffe, bombing civilian targets was not on his list of what he was found guilty of.
Strategic bombing was not considered a war crime under the Hague Conventions in force at the time.
The Geneva Disarmament Conference in 1932 entertained proposals for banning bombing aircraft but was not approved.
It was not added till 1977.
This can all be found back in any historical files relating to the Hague conventions, the Geneva conventions, the Nuremberg trials, Luftwaffe documents, eye witness accounts, etc, etc.

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

Which documentaries showed that but forget to mention that all the young and elderly were murdered on the spot and their belongings were send to Germany?

There are so many, I cannot recall which. You could yourself look into it, but I will be watching them again myself to see if I can find it for you. Hours of watching, I'll tell you. If you're fanatical about hatred towards Jews and feel that those documentaries are simple neo-Nazi propaganda, you won't get far.

Wrong.
Treblinka was an extermination camp

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/treblinka.html

"Near to an established Arbeitslager (forced labour camp) known as Treblinka l, the site chosen was heavily wooded and well hidden from view. Treblinka I housed both Poles and Jews, and was located by a gravel pit, one and half km from the site of the death camp.

The labour camp functioned from June 1941 until 23 July 1944. The death camp was established as part of Aktion Reinhard. Construction work began at the beginning of April 1942, after SS men came to the village of Poniatowo and inspected the locality."

This has nothing to do with what we wish to believe but with historical fact.

Of course it has everything to do with belief. You must set the belief in order to pass it along as truth as you see it. You might not be conscious of the belief, but it's there. Because if what you are referring to is something you haven't seen 1st hand, there's no telling if it is real or false. So you in yourself must come to believing it happened in order to claim it did.

The German records show it, even the building plans for Auschwitz show this.
Source Auschwitz: The Nazis and 'The Final Solution'
Not to mention many eye witness accounts from both sides.

I own that source on DVD, in fact. There's no real evidence in that source. Just computer recreations. The maps and recreations have been put together by memory, and imagination.

So, are those sources reliable? I don't believe they are. You may ask whether or not the sources I have researched are reliable. I can only say that they make more sense than that of what Holocaust promoters claim.

What is your source?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_cRTc62MQ&t=6s

20 minutes in.

You can bring up whatever you like, but I will not discuss such nonsense as the Frank diary being a fraud as it that idiot claim has been debunked so many times.

Source, please.

To me, this whole debate is nonsense. It should've been tested by the correct authorities to begin with instead of becoming a faith. The link above where it mentions the calorie diet claims there were autopsies and that no poison was found in death camp bodies. But I wish to find the truth, so I will take in anything I can. I don't wish to limit myself on the silliness, as you call it. Because what one finds silly one day is what they might find to be the truth the next. It's silly to suggest that nonsense shouldn't be debated.

Don't be silly.

I wasn't being silly. People like to ask why someone changes subjects in order to confuse and to add criticism to views. They realize that that question holds no real accountability. They wish to suggest that there were rules upon entering a discussion, as if we're on trial, which we aren't. Everything is up for debate.

I am not demanding you stick to rules, I am simply asking why you were suddenly changing the subject.
I simply claimed the camps were a war crime and you started bringing up completely different subjects.

No, I didn't change the subject. The subject you brought up was war crimes, you state so yourself in the above quote. I went with that subject. I decided upon talking in a wider spectrum of other countries war crimes to point out that Germany has been taken under siege by theirs and has been held accountable by the allies for them. I think it fair to say that the allies need to be taken in to account for their own! During WWII and in other cases.

And the concentration camps weren't war crimes in my opinion. They were crimes against humanity. As are all prisons around the world. There's no sense to most of the goings on in any of them.

Source?

The Nuremberg trials, of course. Which goes into the fact that most of what was shown during the trials was nonsense. Steam rooms instead of gas chambers. Electro-rooms where inmates were electrocuted to death. Gas rooms where the floor drops out and bodies go onto trolleys. Big pits of fire that claim to have cremated bodies in Auschwitz, a camp that was built on swamp land by the Poles. Maps that have no buildings located anywhere for fuel storage. Maps that don't have enough space to bury bodies in the masses that are discussed.

Questioning the Holocaust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RddqP0ABzwM&t=4634s

The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax Exposed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b77igZ1InQ

Germar Rudolf on the Holocaust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnfyerQ1mo

All revisionist, so-called deniers, yes. The thing is, you must set aside your own fanatical beliefs in order to learn more. Once you do so, you can focus on the actual work done to prove the Holocaust and not just believe it. Being called an anti-Semite and other such abusive epithets come with the territory. But, as I said, if you take away your fanatical beliefs that those documentaries were created for anti-Jewish hatred, and decide to actually listen to what they have to say, you might find something in them worth merit.

It was not added till 1977.
This can all be found back in any historical files relating to the Hague conventions, the Geneva conventions, the Nuremberg trials, Luftwaffe documents, eye witness accounts, etc, etc.

Link to a source, please.

Those sources I linked might be the source of what I'm talking about. You'd have to watch 'em to find out. I'll be doing so again to help, though.

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

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

Of course it has everything to do with belief. You must set the belief in order to pass it along as truth as you see it. You might not be conscious of the belief, but it's there. Because if what you are referring to is something you haven't seen 1st hand, there's no telling if it is real or false. So you in yourself must come to believing it happened in order to claim it did.

Historical research can be seen as a science.
Historians base their conclusions on fact and evidence.
If you find something that opposes that what you know but it comes with proof, you have to change your opinion.
Belief has nothing to do with it.

I own that source on DVD, in fact. There's no real evidence in that source. Just computer recreations. The maps and recreations have been put together by memory, and imagination.

A considerable amount of the technical paperwork – including many of the construction blueprints, were used as well.
They did their research, there is a LOT of evidence in it.
Check out the material they used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_cRTc62MQ&t=6s

This kind of nonsense is too laughable to even consider as a serious source.
"International Revisionist Video Productions" oh please.

Source, please.

The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation forensic study of the manuscripts for starters.
Just check out some historical websites that are not made by holocaust deniers, neo-nazis, antisemithes, etc.
Try and use websites that are scientific and history driven.

All revisionist, so-called deniers, yes. The thing is, you must set aside your own fanatical beliefs in order to learn more. Once you do so, you can focus on the actual work done to prove the Holocaust and not just believe it. Being called an anti-Semite and other such abusive epithets come with the territory. But, as I said, if you take away your fanatical beliefs that those documentaries were created for anti-Jewish hatred, and decide to actually listen to what they have to say, you might find something in them worth merit.

I have no "fanatical" beliefs.
I am a historian and a scientist, I base my findings on research and facts.
No serious historian with even half an education takes any of those links you shared serious.
Talk of fanatical beliefs; wanting to deny something happened while all the evidence points in the other direction and anyone who knows anything on the subject knows it happened.
I've been studying this subject for a few decades and there are historians who've done so much longer than I have.
I don't care about being called an anti-semite, I don't care about my reputation, I care about what is true and what is not.
Dodgy little videos on youtube made by questionable characters who come to conclusions based on ignoring facts and findings do not change my mind.

Come up with sources that doubt the holocaust that have no link to neo-nazism, anti-semitism, the extreme right.
Come up with such sources that are brought forward by educated well respected historians.
Only then they get any kind of validity.

Step away from that and go and become a real historian.
Go study history in college and see how it works, see what you need to properly analyse and study sources.
Go check out the actual evidence, the documents, the testimonies, the locations.
Read ALL Anne Frank's publications, see every word she read, check out the forensic report, visit the place where she had to hide.
You do not learn to understand history from the internet.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

I have no "fanatical" beliefs.
I am a historian and a scientist, I base my findings on research and facts.
No serious historian with even half an education takes any of those links you shared serious.

That's a very important point. Holocaust deniers have been trying for fifty years to get academic legitimacy for their lies, and they've failed. Instead of learning how to actually do historical research, though -- without which they pre-emptively foreclose the possibility they will be taken seriously -- they instead bitch and moan about how life is being so unfair to them, how the great big International Jewish Conspiracy is persecuting them, how it's another case of Galileo and the Inquisition, and how those who disagree with them are "fanatical" witch-hunters.

Historians are happy to change their mind when that's what the evidence points to, just as astrophysicists are happy to change their mind when the evidence says they must. That's how science works. But astrophysicists aren't somehow required to drop everything every time a flat-earther belches nonsense and demands a rebuttal, especially when it's a rebuttal the flat-earther probably won't even understand, let alone accept. And NASA doesn't have to slam to a halt every time some twit on YooToob announces that he's DEFINITELY PROVEN that Apollo 11 was a fraud filmed by Stanley Kubrick's visual effects department.

The reason Holocaust denial fails isn't because The Jew has academia in a hammerlock. It fails because it's crap pseudo-history, promoted by morons, anti-Semites, and moronic anti-Semites. They're like a baseball team that shows up to every game blind drunk, can't *see* the ball, let alone hit it, and after having one more scoreless game in a fifty-year history of nothing but scoreless games, goes back to the clubhouse to tell themselves: "We're the best team ever fielded, but the umpires are all Jews."

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

Exactly.

While in the same time there have been hundreds, if not thousands of other historical theories that almost everybody disagreed about... but that changed everyones mind just because... evidence.
For decades everyone thought people in Medieval europe were all short, died young and had bad teeth.
We simply accepted that because thats what the old historians wrote and what we were taught in school.
Now in stead of shouting there is a conspiracy to keep the truth down, making wacky videos, accusing others of not wanting to accept the truth, etc, etc, historians simply followed the scientific way of writing a thesis and then supporting it with research and actual proof.
Over the last few decades they dug up medieval burials, examined medieval sources and soon realised that with all the data combined it turns out that medieval people were not that much shorter, did not all die young and generally had a pretty good set of teeth.
Now that is all a bit simplified of course.
But if you want people to take your outlandish crazy ideas on the holocaust seriously, you have to do the work.
And it is saying something that after all these years not one single person managed to bring anything forward that convinced a bunch of historians that the holocaust might be fake.

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

Well, then. I should stop messing around on IMDb boards with the likes of Undutchable and Zort, get out there and do actual research...

Undutch, how many days of field work have you gone through?

Have you gone through the actual archives from German records, or Soviet records to find what you are talking about? Do you take your research from a source other than an original from an archive? Or do you copy what another historian has published in their own text?

Have you gone to the sites of the extermination camps and dug into the earth to find mass graves at Treblinka?

Have you tested the walls in the gas chambers and compared them to the fumigation chambers? And the other buildings within the camps to see if there are any other traces of cyanide from a possible fumigation in them?

Have you spoken with more eye witnesses than just those whom claim there were gas chambers to get their take on events?

Have you ever not referred to someone whom doesn't believe in the Holocaust as anything other than an anti-Semite?

To call someone an anti-Semite you must have more backing that just that they looked into Holocaust revisionist documentaries and came to disbelieving. You must know that they actually do not like those that speak in the Semitic languages. I have nothing against ethnic Jews. Nor do I have anything against the Arabs, whom are also Semitic. I have everything against a group of individuals that create chaos against their own people. And that includes every nation. Not just Jewish nations. This board is, however, subjected to that of what the movie is about, so it's obviously going to be about certain topics.

I respect that you are discussing such subjects with me. But I don't like being considered a rude epithet. But the matter of having to believe in what one takes into their consideration when they cannot go do the actual research is indeed something that everyone has to grapple with. If something is being presented that one can't do their own research on, then there has to be a level of belief on the subject in order to take it seriously. Historical fact is only as deep as the page is thick. No matter if you want to concede to that or not.

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

[–] Undutchable1939 8 years ago

I have many of the things on your list and/or I have spoken to close friends of mine who are historians who did and I've seen the results of their research, heard their experiences, seen the evidence.
Not to mention that I have myself, in person spoken to eyewitnesses, both Jewish and German.

No sensible, educated, serious historian puts any value in the holocaust deniers.
Not because they are scared of their reputation, they couldn't care less.
I don't call holocaust deniers anti-semites, I've called them idiots who are either to stupid, blind or ignorant to understand or see the evidence.
People who have not had the education or training to analyse, interpret or question history properly.
To me this has nothing to do with race or politics, but simply about historical research and how one should work when it comes to understanding the past.
I've had some forensic training.
I look at history the same as I look at crimes.
It is about facts and evidence.
Unfortunately most amateurs look at a crime and come to conclusions based on gut feelings, what they think they know about certain things or based on youtube videos made by people who call themselves experts but whom have no real qualifications.
So you can look at a crime or part of history, not understand or not want to believe something, find your opinions supported by some dodgy websites or amateur youtube videos and think you understand it.
That is not how it works.

You have said several times that you used amateur youtube "documentaries", neo nazi/revisionist websites, etc, etc.
And you deny or question things that have been discussed and analysed for countless hours by people more educated and qualified than you, me and most people here on IMDB put together, who all agree that they are fact.
There is no need for educated people to revisit these topics unless there is actual new evidence.
And I mean real evidence, not the same old silly made up stories that the deniers have been spouting for years, even decades.
You hanging on to the nonsense you find online makes you disqualify yourself and it makes you someone with whom discussing such subjects is a waste of time.

So, after all this, you can respond to what I just wrote or realise that I no longer care and move on.
There is only one thing I really want to know from you.
Have you seen this film?

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

You mention the amateur means of production on those revisionist videos, but neglect to mention the professional videos that the allies used in the propaganda films such as Dachau's liberation, and Bergen-Belsen.

What's the difference between an amateur and a professional? There are some very accomplished yet amateurish documentaries hailed all the time. The problem is that whenever you find a professional film, do you call it a good source if it truly isn't?

Or do you consider it good because it is well made? What's the criteria that you yourself use? And can you explain if you simply go by the means in which it was made? Does anything take away the credibility of what's presented if they show the truth that they found and have a grand production?

Have you ever tried to talk with the deniers? Not just the eyewitnesses. It might be against your moral principals, as Lipstadt claimed was for herself, but I think it might be useful to discuss with them instead of throw them under the proverbial rug. If they truly are deniers, people whom know that the Holocaust happened and pretend other wise, it might help your cause to actually talk with them and allow both sides to show evidence.

I lean towards revisionism, but not because of any hatred. I've seen the many hours of documentaries and have listened to what they have to say. I've noticed inconsistencies on both sides. As in the Treblinka documentary I saw on Netflix about the laborers in that camp finding that Jews are being exterminated. One survivor said that they'd arrive every day. Once off the train they'd be ash in 30 minutes. The problem there is that it takes much longer in today's state of the art cremations, longer by over 30 minutes to two hours. In the camps, they had to shave the hair, so-called humiliation tactic that was actually used to prevent lice, that they'd be gassed, and then cremated. That must take longer than that documentary claimed.

Now whether or not I'm right, I can only speculate. But I don't think that there were gas chambers.

As for the Holocaust. That word doesn't even resemble extermination. It means a whole burnt sacrifice. The more documentaries I've watched, the more it sounds like something is amiss. When Irene Zisblatt mentions her time in the camps, she exaggerates from one account of the same situation to the next. Claiming that if one Jew suicidally throws themselves onto the electric fence, that 5 Jews would be killed in retaliation. Then claims that 100 Jews would be killed in the exact same scenario in another interview. That takes away credibility in my opinion. Each person who claims these things also tends to contradict another testimony. With Zisblatt, she claims Mengele chose her to live as he took her out of the gas chamber himself! She claims she excremented diamonds for years and made it into a broach. The very same diamonds she said her mother wanted her to buy bread with. She must have gotten enough food in the camps to be able to last without trading those diamonds off.

I don't claim any credentials to even consider myself an amateur. If I find a conviction in something, I stick with it until I find something to dislodge that conviction. I had a conviction towards believing in the Holocaust, but have since found that it doesn't make sense.

I have seen Denial. If that is what your question was referring to. I found it to be just okay. It's interesting in the grilled peep hole in that door they were discussing with Irving that he claimed that they gassed corpses because they might have lice. If that is what he really claimed, then that doesn't make any sense, as the judge said.

The translation of that communication that meant one train load of Jews wasn't to be exterminated, to Irving publishing that it was all train loads of Jews weren't to be exterminated... It makes me think of two things. If they said that every train load wasn't to be exterminated, there's no sense in even making such a communication. If there were to be no extermination it needn't be mentioned at all in any communication. But if they were exterminating the Jews, then why was that one trainload not to be exterminated? I want to know the reasoning for both trains of thought, sorry for the pun.

I really don't think that the movie covered enough of the trial. I've heard tell of a crematorium that the lawyer mentioned that there wouldn't be need of a full amount of fuel to burn many bodies, but that wasn't even based upon the actual one that was in use.

Thank you again for communicating kindly.

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

[–] BravisJ 8 years ago

No sensible, educated, serious historian puts any value in the holocaust deniers.

You keep saying this like you're trying to nail it home. Do you think I'll just agree with you if you keep saying it's so?

The following lyrics seem appropriate:

Hozier:
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife

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