MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > Why historians reject Holocaust denial

Why historians reject Holocaust denial


Historians operate the same way juries operate: the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt.” If, after weighing the evidence, there is a clear and broad consensus is that something true beyond *reasonable* doubt, then it’s accepted as a historical fact, and the burden of proof has been met. Like a jury’s verdict, it doesn’t mean that the verdict is set in stone for all time. But it does mean that the burden of proof has shifted — shifted onto any person who wants to change the result.

In a trial, the person is innocent until proven guilty. If the jury decides to convict, however, the person is considered guilty, and the burden of proof moves to him or her to show why the verdict should be thrown out in an appeal. It’s no longer “innocent until proven guilty” but “guilty unless the verdict is overturned."

That’s where Holocaust denial is. The historical verdict on the Holocaust is a solid consensus that

- Yes, the Nazis had a racist state policy calling for genocide against the Jews.

- Yes, because of this policy, the Nazis murdered Jews through mass shootings, mass gassings, and mass incarceration in intentionally unliveable conditions.

- Yes, the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis is roughly six million.

- There has been for about fifty years a tiny movement, coming from the extreme far right, to deny all this, and their arguments don’t hold water.

Just as “I disagree with it” isn’t enough to void a jury’s verdict after it’s been delivered, “I disagree with it” isn’t enough to overturn an established historical understanding. If you want to dislodge our historical understanding of what happened to the Jews in WWII and replace it with your Plan B version, you’ve got to show that your version is BETTER. Not just different, but BETTER. It has to be more plausible, not less plausible. It’s got to be able to explain more, not less, and do it in a way that better fits the evidence — by which I mean all the evidence, not just a few bits plucked from here and there. It can’t fill a small explanatory hole by leaving a far bigger one somewhere else.

That last point is a crucial one. Once of the central facts of Jewish life in the 20th century is that between 1939 and 1945 about a third of the world’s Jews — six out of roughly seventeen million — were never heard from again, having disappeared against the backdrop of a clearly documented Nazi genocidal program. Any serious explanation of the events of WWII has to account for htis. So for historians to even begin considering treating Plan B seriously, it has to be able to plausibly answer this question in an evidence-substantiated way: what happened to the missing Jews? If they weren’t murdered, where did they go? Where were they in 1946? Where are their descendants? And what is Plan B's documentation for it, the evidentiary support for the Plan B explanation of where the Jews went so silently?

Holocaust deniers say that it’s not their job to provide any explanation at all for where the six million Jews actually went. But if they want their Plan B to be taken seriously by historians, it has to be at least as plausible as our current understanding, at least as substantiated by evidence as our current understanding, while explaining as much or more. If they can’t show it’s a step forward rather than backward, they shouldn’t be at all amazed that historians reject it instantly — for the same reason you don’t take your car into the shop and say, “My transmission is working fine now, please replace it by a crummy one that will fail all the time."

reply

Historians reject Holocaust revisionism because they will blacklisted as being "antisemitic" and a "Holocaust denier." That's literally it. After being branded in such a way, nobody will take their word seriously, they will have to find an obscure publisher, Jewish terrorist will bomb their homes, ban their books, and do everything possible to incarcerate, deport, or in any other way make life as unpleasant for them as possible. It's for this reason that historians don't even touch the Holocaust: they know that you cannot build a historical narrative out of something rooted literally in dubious eyewitness accounts.

reply

So yes, folks, he really did both (a) complain about Holocaust denial's being associated with anti-Semitism and then (b) go on to spin anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about how the Jews control your mind.

Geeeeeniuses, aren't they, folks. Every last one of them.

reply

What conspiracy theories? Everything I told you actually happened to David Irving and countless others. Once again, this is recognition of fact. You called the recognition of fact with regard to identifying Hollywood's large Jewish factor, calling this simple recognition of fact "antisemitic," and you once again cannot identify fact here, which is the real things David Irving suffered just for publishing books of original research. You call it an "antisemitic conspiracy theory," which at this point seems to be indicative of nothing more than a hollow buzzword.

reply

Historians reject Holocaust revisionism because they will blacklisted as being "antisemitic" and a "Holocaust denier."

This is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Not that you didn't know that already.

Historians reject Holocaust denial because it's neo-Nazi crap, even if it tries laughably to perfume itself as "Holocaust revisionism."

reply

How is it antisemitic or conspiracy? Once again, the biography of men like Zundel, Irving, and Leuchter is all we need to know. None of these men did anything but speak the truth to the best of their ability, and what happened to them? All of them had their lives destroyed by terrorists and corrupt political establishments. None of this is conspiracy, it is, once again, the facts of the matter.

Historians reject Holocaust Revisionism because they must do so if they want to preserve their careers and reputations. Given your obvious disdain towards us, surely you would agree that a filthy historian who accepts Revisionism is a rabid antisemite whose life should be destroyed due to his heresy?

reply

Once again, the biography of men like Zundel, Irving, and Leuchter is all we need to know. None of these men did anything but speak the truth to the best of their ability

Hahahahahahah!

Oh yeah, Zündel the truth-teller, Irving the truth-teller, Leuchter the truth-teller. Thanks for putting this fish into the barrel.

Zündel was a Hitler partisan who tried to hide it in public by writing his "The Hitler We Loved and Why" with a pen name. Of course, his having written this probably makes him a hero in your eyes. Ever seen photos of the inside of Zundel's home? It's a shrine to Hitler. That, by the way, is a bad thing.

Irving was so famously mendacious in his approach to historical evidence that out of the thirty or so specific lies the Lipstadt defense called him out on in their pre-trial submissions, on only three did the judge say, "Well, that one wasn't so bad."

And Leuchter -- the fact that you still find it necessary to defend this hilariously inept crank says quite a bit about Holocaust denial's inability to learn from its mistakes.

Yet these are the biggest names in the Holocaust denial world: a Hitler-lover who tried to hide it, a furiously dishonest writer of pop-history whose lies caught up with him, and a crank-doofus par excellence.

That is the intellectual basis of the movement you defend. Not just defend, but -- haha! -- BELIEVE.

reply

Zundel has hid nothing. I've watched nearly all of his videos, he is unapologetic for his support of his people during WW2.

Irving was, and I think it could still be said is, the premiere researcher of WW2 real history. There are no lies in his works under question. There are mistakes, to be sure, but that is inevitable when you've written so many pages about your subjects. The very matter is inherently impossible to prove: how can you prove that Irving deliberately falsified history? You can't, which the grand elephant in the room of the whole trial. The fact that such a sentence was declared against him goes to show the nature of that kangaroo court to begin with.

Leuchter had his life destroyed for simply taking a job and doing his best at it. His findings were repeated with the same results by Rudolf. Of course I defend him: because I believe that scientists and researchers like this who actually care to provide humanity with the truth of such a dangerously-misunderstood event like the Holocaust should be able to do whatever they wish without consequence.

Maybe instead of destroying the lives of Revisionists, the Holocaust lobby could use its extraordinary amounts of money and resources to conduct their own research to prove their propaganda?

That's right: they can't. They know that the bill of goods they're giving us is a load of *beep* so they instead make big budget films and participate in big budget court cases in order to brainwash the masses with their drivel and silence us heretics through well-publicized witch hunts.

reply


Zündel hid his name on the pamphlet he published, "The Hitler We Loved and Why," using a pseudonym. Because Zündel is a blameless hero in your eyes, please find a way to blame that on the Jews.

By the way, as an English major, you fully understand the difference between supporting Hitler, which is what Zündel does, and supporting "his people," which is how you disingenuously euphemize what he does. Points off for dishonest rhetoric. You think people don't notice when you pull crap like that?


Actually, Irving is one of the premiere figures in faked history, as was shown over and over in the trial. Once historians saw how fundamentally dishonest he was in his approach to evidence, his reputation dissolved. It had already begun before the Lipstadt trial, but that self-inflicted wound finished him off.


Leuchter took the money and ran on a job he wasn't qualified for, produced the biggest embarrassment to the Holocaust denial movement until Irving blew his own rhetorical brains out in court, and is now known as the man who was in so far over his head he didn't even know he was in over his head. Again, if he's one of the intellectual giants of your movement, then your movement has no intellectual giants.

And Rudolf -- hahahaha! I'm curious to see whether he's mentioned in the movie, because there's a really great story there. hahahaha!

That's right: they can't. They know that the bill of goods they're giving us is a load of *beep* so they instead make big budget films and participate in big budget court cases in order to brainwash the masses with their drivel and silence us heretics through well-publicized witch hunts.

What is it about the losers of Holocaust denial that always reduces them, in the end, to sounding like thwarted comic book villains?

reply

"Dubious eyewitness accounts"?

Well we can't ask all of my many dead relatives (except my parents and father's sister) who were murdered, can we?

You might sing a different tune If you could hear the accounts by my parents, and their friends who survived the Shoah, of the brutal systematic murder of those with nothing to contribute to the third reich such as the elderly, children, and ill. Those from the brutal and inhumane treatment in the various ghettos before transport to the death camps.

You may not be aware of how the nazis used the rest as slaves for their nefarious activities. When those were no longer useful, they were murdered.

If you sincerely want to hear the truth, simply log on the the foundation established at the University of Southern California by Steven Spielberg for the Shoah and other genocides to hear the actual heartbreaking accounts of the survivors.

https://sfi.usc.edu

reply

You might sing a different tune If you could hear the accounts


No, these psychologically-warped Jew-haters won't sing a different tune no matter what evidence you present.
Don't waste your time with them, even though it burns you up inside.

reply

[deleted]

Got that, jcherub? Your dead family members are only pretending to be murdered. This "expert" has a "whole folder" that proves it. I mean, everybody knows that a bunch of crap downloaded from some hate site is more likely to be true than your own family's personal experience.

But delta_sixtwo had already aired his anti-Semitism in plain sight before you arrived to this board, pulling out the triple-parens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses), half-heartedly defending having done so, and then quietly hoped that nobody but me had noticed. So nobody's really surprised he's doing something as grotty as telling you that your family is lying about so deep a tragedy.

Holocaust deniers have a nasty tendency to lose the battle for hearts and minds when -- through the kind of thing this guy is pulling -- they demonstrate they have neither.

reply

[deleted]

"Dubious eyewitness accounts"?
Well we can't ask all of my many dead relatives (except my parents and father's sister) who were murdered, can we?

Holocaust deniers -- like this particular dweeb -- know they can't possibly explain away all the many, many eyewitness accounts of all the aspects of the Holocaust, from survivors and from perpetrators, including the accounts you link to. So instead they go for the big imperious gesture -- "I, the Emperor and Ultimate Arbiter find these eyewitness accounts.... duuuubious." In his mind, that means: "begone! poof!" and magically they all disappear. That way he doesn't have to address their actuality.

reply

Sorry but that "six-million" figure was being tossed around YEARS before the actual holocaust. Google THE MYTH OF THE SIX MILLION and "yes" most of the sites that pop up you will undoubtedly label as anti-semitic, but some of the sources cited are Jewish sources including copies of the original texts from which these references appeared.

reply

Sorry but that "six-million" figure was being tossed around YEARS before the actual holocaust. Google THE MYTH OF THE SIX MILLION and "yes" most of the sites that pop up you will undoubtedly label as anti-semitic, but some of the sources cited are Jewish sources including copies of the original texts from which these references appeared.


Oh, go lick Kristina Soderbaum's pussy.

reply

and "yes" most of the sites that pop up you will undoubtedly label as anti-semitic

Once again, the basic schizophrenia of the Holocaust denial movement. They want to spread anti-Semitism, but they want to plead innocent to the spreading of anti-Semitism.

reply

ARABS ARE SEMITIC TOO, YOU'RE BROTHERS & YET YOU HATE EACH OTHER ?!
________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/loveunderlaw

reply

Wasn't there roughly 100,000-150,000 Jews that fought for Hitler in WWII?

And during the Olympics, Hitler rose to give respect for Jesse Owens, and sent the Olympic champion a picture of himself. But Roosevelt snubbed the man simply because he was black. That was what Owens wrote in his book.

Hitler was against the Jewish banking system that put Germany in debt. And once he got Germany free of the banks, America and Britain were getting so behind in their own economy that they had to force WWII onto Germany. Envy was the reason. Before the war, Hitler sent many proposals of peace to each nation, saying that if those neighboring Germany would get rid of their armaments, Germany would as well. But no one answered. Well, I guess they did with entering the war. Not fighting according to the Geneva Convention, which Hitler thought they would do.

I see that those whom are supposedly such righteous individuals behave according to the notion that since they are most civilized in their own convictions that are primarily accepted by the established wealth are therefor free to behave unflinchingly, vehemently vicious to those whom they perceive as those who violate a perceived covenant that everyone is supposed to subscribe to whether they like it or not.

Rudeness plagues this world. As does pre-assumption that since one is uttering thoughts supposed to be quieted, quelled and put to sleepy time like such stubborn and ill-behaved school children cornered with the feared "dunce" hat on are, as usually treated, are meant to be spoken to with such ill-contempt. It's a travesty of human nature. If you are a person who believes that you should be treated properly and fairly according to your own human dignity, then you should treat others, however different in their opinion as yours, on the very same level. You are not better nor worse than they are if you act upon a decent amount of bravery and do not intend to destroy their dignity because of claims they make. Please, grow a little back bone and decide to join the human race, civilized and thoughtful, instead of the way in which you choose to act, ZortMcFleen. You're a bully if I have ever seen one. You hide behind the same exact rhetoric, in sentiment, that your divine enemy supposedly hid behind. You're just as empathetic as you believe Hitler was toward the Jewish counterpart to those that think differently than you do. You are who you hate, in spirit. And it should be disquieting to you if you had the ability of self-analysis. Introspection is your friend.

Sorry for the tirade. I felt it necessary. I have a problem with self aggrandizement if it involves putting others down.

reply

Hitler was against the Jewish banking system that put Germany in debt.


As always, scratch a Holocaust denier, find an anti-Semite.

reply

And as always, you pretend to know more than you do. Scratch a human being and find a human being. Scratch an absolute, find an extremist.

reply

And as always, you pretend to know more than you do.

"As always"? How long are you pretending you've known me?

reply

I don't know you, nor do I suggest that I do. Every time you reply to anyone that adds nothing to your own views, you reply the same...as always. It's your shtick; dismiss those that don't believe in the Holocaust. Always deny them their right to pass along their difference of opinion. Are you claiming that that isn't a fair assessment? Because I feel that it is. Now I admit, my last post in reply to your post, you did actually engage in the conversation. That's the first reply I've read so far that you seemed to actually reply with respect.

reply

It's your shtick; dismiss those that don't believe in the Holocaust.

I think that most people, by the time they're ten or so, know the difference between a historical event and a religion. Your formulation is telling.

reply

A historical event and a religion? Call me puerile, but what are you talking about?

Children at ten aren't at the same wave length as adults, and some never progress to knowing the difference between religion and belief.

reply

It's your shtick; dismiss those that don't believe in the Holocaust.

Historical events are accepted or rejected. Faiths are "believed in" or "not believed in."

When I hear someone say "I don't believe in the Holocaust," I know I'm dealing with someone irrational -- not merely for the idiotic rejection of a solidly documented historical event of great scope, but also for the attempt to misclassify the Holocaust as if it were merely a matter of faith.

reply

I'm not attempting to classify the Holocaust as something you need faith to believe in (1-1-17: I changed my mind on that one thanks to Zort's complaint; you have to have faith in something you weren't around to witness!). The word "believe" is being used by you as something semantically different as to what I used it for. It might have been the wrong word, but now that I think about it, for something that didn't happen in one's own lifetime, one does need to have faith to be able to believe it happened. Especially when I cannot look at evidence that hasn't been properly catalogued. David Irving had many original documents that were taken from him when he was imprisoned for his denial. What happened to those documents? Why did he have them? Why weren't they used in historical texts? Or were they?

In David Cole's documentary of Auschwitz, I've learned that the gas chamber that is said by the tour guide to be original isn't in fact. The head director at the museum told Cole that it in fact was "rebuilt". There weren't locks on the door, a door which opens to the inside. That there's a latch that one can open from both sides. And a clear indication that there had been walls knocked down that show that they made the room bigger to possibly give more dimension making it look more the part.

Just because the Holocaust was an extermination of great scope, doesn't mean that the evidence is of the same scope.

I have yet to see the evidence not being explained as something different than what eyewitnesses have said. I've seen no evidence that can conclude that there was a Holocaust of only Jewish proportion that was deliberate. I see that there was a Holocaust that spread the actual scope of far more than just 6 million. 75,000,000 were murdered in WWII. At least, that's what's being told. And in Hitler's army fighting off communism and capitalism, were 100,000-150,000 Jews. Why were they in Hitler's Wehrmacht? Why did Hitler allow them to fight for the cause of putting an end to communism?

I thank you for your time and patience.

reply

Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are Siamese twins joined at the hip and sharing the same heart, and this has been true from the very beginning of the movement. You know this and your response is a shrug. That is completely inadequate. I'll believe you're actually trying to take the anti-Semitism argument off the table when I see you *actively* taking on the anti-Semites on this board. Which you don't. Why? Because, for all your passive-aggressive protests, the coarse, direct, unambiguous anti-Semitism appearing here doesn't bother you enough to type literally a single keystroke to directly repudiate it.

So, here's the score.

The Holocaust denial movement is the creation of people you know you can't defend. Zündel, Irving, Weber, Carto, McCalden -- these grotesque anti-Semites are central to the movement's history, the very core of it, and yet we are supposed to consider this somehow irrelevant to the movement's purpose.

Your response is to take their arguments, erase the swastika from the letterhead they're printed on, and say "all better now!" That may be sufficient for you to explain it away to yourself, it may work well inside your own head, but out here in the real world, nope.

But Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism didn't stop being joined at the hip with the fading of the IHR. Even a cursory glance at this board demonstrates that plain as day.

Your response is that they are occasional fringe voices, unrepresentative of the movement, and should be ignored. You can't bring yourself to go any farther than admitting that a movement everyone rightly recognizes as clotted to the gills with Jew-haters and neo-Nazis might have the occasional, rare bad egg with a suboptimal opinion on The Jew. Like it or not, these guys are absolutely representative of your movement. It has always been people like this that carried the movement forward.

The evidence is right in front of you. The only matter that's in actual play is: which excuse will you deal to yourself to explain away your internal decision to refuse to see it?

reply

Your response is to take their arguments, erase the swastika from the letterhead they're printed on, and say "all better now!"


I like the way you put that.

BTW, I put this guy on Ignore.

reply

I'm not defending neo-Nazism nor anti-Semitism. I am defending the right to be looked upon as an individual instead of being placed in the same category. I have the right to my own thoughts without being labeled by you or anyone else. Now, as I asked before, which you've rudely denied, stop defaming me as an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi. When have I ever ranted at a Jewish person that they should have been exterminated? Never. And I never will.

I understand loud and clear that denial is being projected by such hate groups. That many of them do indeed latch onto Holocaust denial. But that doesn't give you the right to attach the same connotation to someone whom denies the Holocaust. I do not deny the Jewish religion their beliefs. Nor do I deny them the right to be.

It's time to allow individuals their own rights to what they feel. The fact that I don't believe the Holocaust happened via an extermination plan isn't me exhibiting anti-Semitism and I'm definitely not defending neo-Nazism. Both are appalling groups. People who hate Jews and those whom want them dead. I am not one of them.

I didn't say that Holocaust denial comes from occasional fringe voices behind hate groups. I never said that. I claim that I'm not in a group nor am associated with one that inspires hate mongering, but happen to think it's not right to be placed in prison for stating their own beliefs.

I think I'm just saying everything I've already said time and time again. I am not defending a movement but my own thoughts on a matter.

The reason I haven't taken any anti-Semitists on is because I haven't read that many posts. I do not have any time to do so. If I have any problems with them I'll let 'em know. The only problem I've encountered thus far is posters who defame someone who takes their own stance as an individual who is taken for granted as someone they are not.

And as to putting me on ignore. It's everyone's right to put anyone on ignore. I do not wish ill will to anyone who does so.

reply

I'm not defending neo-Nazism nor anti-Semitism.

Yes, I'm certain that's what you tell yourself.

But I suspect you know better on some deeper level.

reply

Time to give up, I suppose. I'm sure not willing to go any further, especially when we cannot talk face to face. This is too impersonal. You can project anything onto another person to help boost your own ego here. Have a great day.

reply

Your argument never really went beyond this: "I must drink the sewer on the chance that some of it is fresh water, but I must avoid the mainstream freshwater pipes because other sewer-drinkers tell me it's tainted."

At some point you'll see the problem with your stance.

reply

...and at another point you might accept that not all Holocaust deniers are evil scum.

reply

Holocaust denial is not a tinfoil hat. It is a tinfoil armband with a tinfoil swastika. The evidence for the Holocaust as we know it is more than clear -- so clear that the only way you can study it and then reject it is if you have decided, ahead of time and perhaps not completely consciously, that you are going to reject it. And what kind of person does that?

reply

A strawman that a particular Zort has fashioned from projected illusion.

reply

[deleted]

i wear my swastika arm band proudly..like you wear your brainwashed skewed historical knowledge shamelessly and blatantly

reply

zrngthic: i wear my swastika arm band proudly..like you wear your brainwashed skewed historical knowledge shamelessly and blatantly


It meant something quite different, still does in certain countries.

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

reply

[deleted]

Here are the facts: Serious unbiased research by the overwhelming majority, almost all, reputable historians supports a conclusion. You deny the conclusion in whole or part based on your own biased "research" done with dubious sources. Why? Why are you even motivated to take such an unpopular position when you lack any credentials? Why not let the issue pass into history, like WWI or the Civil War, and leave it to the academics? the answer is obvious. You are a neo-nazi appologist who wants to whitewash the Third Reich. Deny that!

reply

I wish I could thank ZortMcFleen, but he put me on ignore. He made me understand that, contrary to what he/she thinks, one does have to have a fair amount of faith to believe in any historical event, especially if one was not present.

If you cannot see the gas chamber, nor were there to make certain who the dead are, or that the ashes you have found are indeed from the 40s and are that of gassed Jewish decent, you do have to have faith that what you are being told, or sold, is true. Without that faith, a faith created subconsciously, I believe, you'd be reticent to actually believe in what you are being shown.

I didn't think about this until Zort said, "but also for the attempt to misclassify the Holocaust as if it were merely a matter of faith.'

It has to be a matter of faith since one cannot touch the 6 million. And it isn't irrational to understand this. It is irrational to deny that. So, thank you, Zort, for pointing this out to me, even though it wasn't your intention, nor without your knowledge to grasp that what you were saying was actually incorrect...






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

reply

This guy, like so many others who've been brainwashed/indoctrinated into fanaticism, are typical of that mindset. Like other fanatics of all types, there is only black or white. It is utterly incomprehensible to them, that someone who isn't a bone fide, card-carrying, anti-Semite could have any questions about the validity of 100% of the history we are force-fed.

If you question even a single incident, you are a Jew-hater. You question a date, you are a Jew-hater. You question any number, yup...just another Jew-hater.

That, is lunacy.

History, as anyone who has studied it knows, is ripe and overflowing with inconsistencies, misquotes, errors, edits, mis-translations, and great heaping spoonfuls of incorrect accounts. Some incidents have more, some less. This is true of "history" from 10 years ago, let alone things which happened three quarters of a century ago.

To ignorantly, obnoxiously, and delusionally proclaim that any person who doubts even a tiny fraction of historical accuracy, is the very definition of fanaticism.

Are there Jew-hating racist extremists? You bet. Tons of them. But that's not what we are talking about. To label anyone who understands the nature of written history, and all which comes with it, as such...is more than ridiculous, it is pure lunacy.

And this flavor of extreme fanaticism is taught and encouraged.

Also:

All white people are racist.
All men are misogynistic.
All straight people are homophobic.

Right?

How convenient to dismiss anything which contradicts the history which we've received. Because, history does not contain errors....EVER!

Well done, you bright shining geniuses.

It's not unlike those ultra hard-core Christians who think the world is only 8,000 years old, and dinosaur bones were placed by God to test our faith. And if you don't agree with them, you are Godless heathen who is going to hell. See how nicely that works?

There is more to say, but I'm running late for my bi-monthly white supremacist potluck dinner. I mean, I'd have to be part of that organization, yes? No normal and rational person would ever say the things I've said without being an extremist.

Silly buffoon.

reply

Another one of those Travis-Bickle-at-the-mirror speeches deniers are so good at. And by "good" I mean terrible.

reply

I must chime in and give the perspective of someone from a neutral stance:

As is the case with most people, I have always harbored a deep level of disgust towards Hitler and the Nazi for the atrocious acts of war crimes they have committed in WWII. I have never had a reason to question the authenticity and accuracy of the generally accepted historical records of the Holocaust. As a matter of fact, I've never even heard of the term "Holocaust Denier" until today.

The rational basis for such claims seem ludicrous at first stroke. However, as an avid fan of "real" (not just the victor's) history and a solemnly committed critical thinker, I simply cannot immediately write them off without questioning the basis for their arguments. Admittedly, I do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision on the subject matter. However, if there is one thing I know for certain, is that recorded history is plagued with inaccuracies and sometimes outright lies that have been weaved into "truths" by the victors in order to further their political and personal agenda.

It is never black and white, and ANYONE who claims such is either blissfully ignorant or heavily invested in pushing a particular agenda of their own.

reply

I think this is sound, as far it goes: before you've looked at the evidence, both sides may be valid in a theoretical sense.

But historians don't reject Holocaust denial because it's different. They reject it because it fails to do the basic thing history does: explain what happened.

One third of the world's Jews before WWII were no longer there after WWII. The missing six million have two things in common: they were Jewish, and they were in areas inside the Reich or the Nazi Occupation. The Nazis were notorious for their violent anti-Semitism. Eyewitness accounts, testimonies of survivors, testimony of perpetrators, physical evidence, documentary evidence all point in one direction: a Nazi program of genocide against the Jews.

So no real historian -- as opposed to YooToob wack nattering about Jew conspiracies -- has any serious doubt that the Nazi genocide against the Jews had six million victims, and that it operated with mass shootings, mass gassings, and mass incarceration in intentionally unlivable conditions. It's like the Apollo 11 moon landing: the evidence for it is just so overwhelming that if you reject it, you reject it for other reasons than "lack of evidence."

The Holocaust deniers have their arguments, but they're just not persuasive, and deniers play them again and again even before they were debunked. (See that other thread that just popped up about the pseudo-chemist Leuchter and his claim that the gas chambers would explode. That one's been shown to be obviously not true, obviously on the face of it untrue, for several decades. But still the deniers try it out, hoping the reader doesn't know that.)

What the Holocaust deniers *can't* do, though, is answer a simple question: if that missing one third of the world's Jews weren't murdered, then where did they go? Before the Soviet Union fell, deniers made vague handwaving gestures that said the missing Jews were all relocated behind the Iron Curtain. But twenty years after the Iron Curtain fell, and the archives opened, there is exactly zero evidence that six million Jews were somehow snuck in.

So historians see, on one side of the argument, massive evidence for mass slaughter, and on the other side of the argument, charlatans shrugging their shoulders and saying "we don't know where a third of the world's Jews went, but whatever it was, it was part of a Great Big Jew World Conspiracy."

In short, Holocaust deniers have a case only in a theoretical sense; looking at the evidence shows them to be the conspiracy mongering clowns they rightly have the reputation of being.

reply

ZortMcFleen: One third of the world's Jews before WWII were no longer there after WWII.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_cRTc62MQ&t=1226s


What happened to the alleged 6 million dead?

Many hundred thousands of Jews immigrated from Europe before the war. Aproxamitely a quarter of a million died as a result of old age, mal nurishment and disease in the camps and ghettos.

A Jewish military brigade group was formed during the war and at least a million Jews fought in uniform and many fell in action. Other Jews pretending to be civilians but murdering from ambushes died as partisans.

THousands of Jewish communities in Poland, Russia, Hungry, Romania, Czechoslovakia were destroyed by their own anti-Jewish groups and not by Germans.

On the 17th of November 1941 Stalin actually sent out order number 0428 ordering special murder squads to dress in German uniforms and slaughter civilians behind German lines. Always leaving a few survivors that could blame the murders on the Germans.

Many Jews continued to live unmolested in Germany and occupied territory and many of them were killed as a result of the allied bombing raids.

One day before Germany surrendered British bombers attacked and sank in Lubec bay the Cup a corner and the teal deck killing 8 thousand Jewish patients from Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen camps as well as many German medical staff.

After the war many thousands of Jews liberated from concentration camps in the east were immediately enslaved as laborers by the Russians. Interestingly, as Jewish populations in Europe drop dramatically they arose just as dramatically in other countries such as Israel, the US, South Africa and south America as well as Australia.

Many more Jews decided they had had enough of being Jewish. And they changed their names and religion.


As always, from those darn "Holocaust denier" youtube videos. But what Zort always neglects to mention is that "Holocaust Promotion" videos are vast on youtube as well. But it's never about the truth to the McFleen cabal. I know that was rude, but I couldn't help the sarcasm. It makes me chuckle.

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

reply

Great post.
Its funny how certain persons in here tend to use same "insults" over and over again, lacking ability to discuss anything in normal fashion.
I guess anger and namecalling has always been instrumental part of their ability to discuss.

Do you think its coincidental that the worst of a bunch has been member for 5 years but has shown interest in only ONE movie so far, and thats this one?
True movie lover if there ever was one :)

And by "shown interest" I mean stalking these boards like some kind of demented ninja, calling anyone that doesnt share his view ret..ds and coming up with the most laughable examples and irrelevant stuff, trying to sound smart.
Take a couple of minutes and try counting his (hundreds, more or less the same) posts since this board came up, its obvious he has nothing else to do but make his JDL/ADL overlords happy.
In their minds there are only two kinds of people - those who believe everything and "the others". You may question only one aspect of the story (numbers for example) but its more than enough, it doesnt make you a bit better than those who deny everything about it.

Its like you said - just one "wrong" question is more than enough for these modern fascists to brand you worse than Hitler. And its obvious that every question is a wrong one.

reply

Its funny how certain persons in here tend to use same "insults" over and over again, lacking ability to discuss anything in normal fashion.
I guess anger and namecalling has always been instrumental part of their ability to discuss.


Like I've mentioned a time or two, they use the same rhetoric that is the epitome of propagandists. They only accept that black and white narrative. If it didn't come from them, it isn't worth mentioning.

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

reply

ZortMcFleen: Historians operate the same way juries operate: the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt.”


It just occurred to me that juries send innocent people to prison, and even death row, all the time. Then evidence comes about that actually should acquit the prisoner of all wrong doing. Are they set free when said evidence comes to light? Not always.

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

reply

i have a friend like you--who buys into memes and misrepresentation of information present in documentaries. They don't go to the source material--they rely on others to interpret facts and misrepresent them and pretend that they are being "reasonable or unbiased. You've watched lots of documentaries. That doesn't mean that they are "true". Go to the source material and actually read what is used. As a second generation German American who had family members in Germany, who had their friends try and escape because of the systematic murder of someone based in their religion, I find it offensive that someone dismisses the massive amount of bodies and all the testimony of those who were there. It wasn't imaginary. It wasn't about creating sympathy for Jews. There's no value to misrepresenting murder but there is iin denying it-- to justify and exonerate those that committed it. You have to question the motives for lying and what agenda is at its core. That core is to make villains into those that were victimized. It's all too common to blame the victim and, in this case, it is being done by denying that this horrific event ever happened.

Holocaust denying came into vogue at just the right time to allow others to dismiss what occurred because there's obviously a conspiracy by all Jews to defraud the world. Sure that's their movitstion because they benefit from it by getting....absolutely nothing whereas those making documentaries that sell that mass murder on a previously unforeseen scale do benefit those that committed the atrocities by legitamizing--gradually--what was done. It's a slow seduction starting off with "well they didn't committ mass murder" and some of their ideas about the German Republic were pretty good until you are suckered into their entire belief system. It's called indoctrination and the Nazi regime did a bang up job and still do.

Go to the source material and you'll find that those documents really DO prove it happened. They arent open to interpretation. It's the banality of evil once again trying to obscure what really happened so that it can be allowed to happen again.

-"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense." -Steve Landesberg

reply

I cannot go to sources. They aren't in the country I live in, and if they were, I cannot afford to travel to the sources. I won't believe what I read in a book; their pictures can be misrepresented as Jewish deaths committed by Nazis when they're actually caused by allied bombing of a camp in Germany that the Brits bombed. And it's well known that historians have made it official that no so called death camps were on German soil.

It's all in the research of the source material, as you say, and that's what the revisionist historians have done. They follow up on the stories in eye witness testaments and in their books. It's all in those documentaries you claim have a negative agenda.

wtdk123: There's no value to misrepresenting murder but there is iin denying it-- to justify and exonerate those that committed it.


I don't think you understand that your wording of the above quote goes in the favor of those who don't buy into the Holocaust. You say there's no value in misrepresenting murder, but there is in denying it. That means you're giving value to deniers. Plus, exoneration means to absolve of blame. Meaning, they aren't to blame, so they're acquitted of guilt. That's freeing Nazis from a criminal charge. (My following remarks will clearly show why you haven't represented yourself clearly and correctly.)

I know you didn't mean that which you wrote, but that's what you've posted.

And you're right, there's no value in misrepresenting murder. That is in no way what I am doing. I am not misrepresenting murder because I don't deny murder took place. I know that Jews were murdered during WWII. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing extermination, genocide. Not murder in its usual definition. But systematic and planned mass murder. Which is clearly detestable. Both, not just genocide, but murder. Of one person, or millions, it's all clearly wrong. And so is misrepresentation of what I have been saying.

That which has been shown in those documentaries you are so quick to disregard has a lot of merit. The question from me to you is have you even looked into those documentaries, and have you gone to the sources yourself? If you haven't then you cannot possibly discuss that which they claim. Not without completely ruining your own agenda. Mine is to set the story straight, and to go onto tell the truth in what I've been learning.

wtdk123: I find it offensive that someone dismisses the massive amount of bodies and all the testimony of those who were there.


I have never dismissed massive amounts of the dead, because I have never seen them. If I had seen them, then I could tell you that they're real, and you suggesting that I would dismiss them is offensive to me. What you don't understand is that I am not anything like your friend. So, please, don't complain to me about being offended, when you yourself are committing offence.

Plus, this is the internet. You're going to be offended by many and often. And to allow that to affect you isn't going to help in a discussion. Once you allow something some one has said offend you and let it anger you, you have then lost the ability to reason fairly and to determine with rational thought what someone is actually saying rather than what you believe they are saying. It cuts out clear thought, and makes your sense of reality indistinct from what is actually happening. I do not say this to edge you into a corner to try to offend any further. So you needn't worry. I don't do things like that. I'm being as helpful as I can. That is why I am talking about my disbelief in the Holocaust. I feel it might help. I don't do this to bring hate upon anyone. Not even to those that have been the culprits in such claims as genocide of 6 million Jews and 5 million others.

because there's obviously a conspiracy by all Jews to defraud the world.


Wrong. I don't buy into that. I understand that there are individuals that identify as Jews whom do indeed play a big part of lying to the world. But I don't claim that it's every single Jewish person. It can't be, because there are definitely Jews that are good, decent, and honest people. But like in every culture, there are dishonest folk, and that happens to be those that carry on the lie. But I don't believe that every single person is lying; I think they buy into the rumors of the time that extermination was occurring. Like when Gena Turgel walked out of a shower room and inmates claimed that she'd just walked out of a gas chamber. If that were true, she'd had been dead. In her testimony she claimed that those whom wanted to kill her accidentally turned the water on instead of the gas. If she were in a real gas chamber the shower heads wouldn't have drawn water, because those were fake. As was the memory of those whom claim they lived through extermination. Memory goes quickly when in duress. Not even those whom have lived through the camps have perfect memory. It's the first thing to go when you're being displaced. Stress causes the imagination to go wild.

So, please do not misrepresent me through some vague notion you have on every other Holocaust revisionist/denier, or what have you, because you are wrong to do so. That could offend me, but it doesn't, because I know that people aren't aware of anything that happens outside of their own ego. They are easily manipulated, read: indoctrinated, into that which they consider truth, which really only stems from a subconscious faith in what they've been told to believe.

Sure that's their movitstion because they benefit from it by getting....absolutely nothing


Haven't you heard of the billions that they were given by Germany through reparations because of the Holocaust? The German's/Nazis paid for their homeland. If they hadn't been given that money through the claim they made that 6 million of their people had been exterminated they wouldn't have Israel. It's a fact. Look it up.

It's called indoctrination and the Nazi regime did a bang up job and still do.


Yes, it's definitely indoctrination when people get offended by something that took place many years ago that they weren't around to actually witness themselves, and instead of relying on actual evidence, they claim it's real not through advancements in discovery but through blind faith. By the way, the Nazi regime ended in 1945. It's no longer a thing. The thing now is those whom claim that there are millions of dead bodies that prove of millions being gassed and cremated. There can't be because the supposed ashes weren't found. Those ashes found at Treblinka by those investigators were from illegal dumping of modern day dead, who's relatives scatter. It's a crime, but it's been done, and you can indeed find those ashes. Watch the following documentary to find this:

The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax Exposed

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

I find it unlikely that you'll actually take the time to watch it. I find it utterly likely that you'll dismiss it on a whim, and arbitrary whim. But I could be wrong.

Go to the source material and you'll find that those documents really DO prove it happened. They arent open to interpretation.


How's about you try that above link and see if Holocaust revisionists actually are those that are misinterpreting what's found, or if it's those that are trying to convince "you" that what they've found states that extermination happened. You'll find that those that claim the Holocaust happened do most of the interpreting.

These days there are neo-Nazis that stigmatize actual real work done by people who know what they're doing. I'm not referring to the Leuchter report. Even if I was, it's been so maligned that no one actually looks at the details. Minimal cyanide was found in all the rooms that Fred Leuchter examined, but within the fumigation chambers was found very high concentrates of cyanide. Yes, every building was fumigated, that's why there's cyanide found in the fake chamber in Auschwitz.

Well, there you have it. Either feel further offense, or actually accept that I am not the sinister person that you think I am. But do have a good day.

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

reply