MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > What is Holocaust denial?

What is Holocaust denial?


Part of this case turned on the question: what is Holocaust denial? Lipstadt had called Irving a Holocaust denier, and for her legal defense to work, she had to show that it was true, that Irving was a Holocaust denier. And that in turn meant being able to define Holocaust denial.

We can go to the dictionary for a first stab at it. Here's the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

Holocaust denial: the mistaken belief or assertion that the Holocaust did not happen, or was greatly exaggerated.

Notice that you don't have to deny 100% of the Holocaust to be a Holocaust denier; when someone tries to argue that only 300,000 Jews died in the camps, they're denying over 90% of the death toll, and that's rightly called denial.

But for a legal procedure the definition has to be more precise. So one of the expert witnesses, Prof. Richard J. Evans -- an excellent German speaker who taught a course the documenation of the Third Reich at Cambridge University -- and two of his PhD students (Nikolaus Wachsmann and Thomas Skelton-Robinson) went through thousands of pages of Holocaust denial materials looking for the common themes. They were able to boil it down to these four points.
- that Jews were not killed in gas chambers or at least not on any significant scale;
- that the Nazis had no policy and made no systematic attempt to exterminate European Jewry and that such deaths as did occur were the consequence of individual excesses unauthorised at senior level;
- that the number of Jews murdered did not run into millions and that the true death toll was far lower;
- that the Holocaust is largely or entirely a myth invented during the war by Allied propagandists and sustained after the war by Jews in order to obtain financial support for the newly-created state of Israel.
(This is Justice Gray's paraphrase of Evans, taken verbatim from the text of the verdict, at paragraph 8.4.)

These points were part of Evans' submission to the court, serving as the trial's definition of what constitutes Holocaust denial. Significantly, David Irving did not challenge the definition, and it's the one the judge used to weigh the question of whether Irving is a Holocaust denier. (Spoiler: he is.)

Sometimes Holocaust deniers, trying to "prove" they're not really Holocaust deniers, will say "Of course, there was a Holocaust, just no genocidal plan, no gas chambers, no six million dead Jews." That's a bit like saying, "Of course I ride a bicycle -- just one without pedals, handlebars, wheels, chains, a seat, or any sort of motion." What they try to do, that, is hope you won't notice that what they say they believe isn't actually the Holocaust as the rest of the world knows it, but a much-reduced mini-Holocaust.

reply

[deleted]

Once again, you demonstrate: scratch a Holocaust denier, find a Jew-hater.

reply

Notice how these warped haters always leave out that the continuing research that lowered the Auschwitz death toll also places the total Holocaust deaths as 5.75 - 6.2 million?

reply

I think it's also worth noting that the west never really took the Soviet calculation all that seriously, and it wasn't really taken all that seriously in the east either -- it was after all the camp's own historians who fought to have the plaque replaced.

But the Auschwitz plaque gambit remains one of Holocaust denier's favorite opening moves, because (a) it's easy to understand and (b) most people aren't going to have the background to know that the plaque had already been discredited among historians as an unsupported estimate.

reply

I would say that is true in 99% of the cases. A 'hidden agenda' as it were. In the other 1% of cases, it is possible that some over-educated, academic, whackos, try to make a case on purely historical grounds. I.e., no other agenda an no anti-semitism per se.

reply

We've already gone over this. "Holocaust Denial" is a charged, misleading, and ultimately partisan term that deliberately seizes upon the public's misconceptions in order to reinforce those misconceptions and make it harder for the world to take Revisionists seriously.

Holocaust Revisionism is a term used to describe the rapidly growing movement of scientists and professionals otherwise committed to examining the inconsistencies of the Holocaust narrative in order to prevent a truthful rendition of what we actually can know.

reply

We've already gone over this.

Yes, but you obviously didn't learn anything.

"Holocaust revisionism" is a pseudo-academic pseudo-history movement allied from day one with the racist far right -- as exemplified by your own use of racial coding against what you perceive as (((Jewish))) -- that adopts the name of "revisionism" while abjectly failing to earn it. Calling myself an MD doesn't make me an MD; Holocaust deniers calling themselves "revisionists" don't make themselves revisionists.

Incidentally, that was a hilarious typo in your last paragraph. Inadvertent, or is your subconscious trying to tell you something?

reply

You're absolutely right, just as Eastern Europeans calling themselves Jews (per se) are absolutely ludicrous especially when they claim that they have a God-given right to the ancient land of "their" people. Just because I live in Arizona and have an affinity for the culture and beliefs of the Navajo people does not give me the right to claim that I'm Navajo. Thanks for enlightening us on the hypocritical semantic games that are at play.

reply

You're absolutely right, just as Eastern Europeans calling themselves Jews (per se) are absolutely ludicrous especially when they claim that they have a God-given right to the ancient land of "their" people. Just because I live in Arizona and have an affinity for the culture and beliefs of the Navajo people does not give me the right to claim that I'm Navajo. Thanks for enlightening us on the hypocritical semantic games that are at play.


Question, how hard to do you squirt when you whack off to Veit Harlan movies?

reply

This kinda thing doesn't help anybody.

reply

just as Eastern Europeans calling themselves Jews (per se)

Ah, look, the Khazar bit pops up. Another favorite of anti-Semites.

Unfortunately, the DNA studies refute it completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry

Ashkenazi Jews are ... wait for it ... Jews. Sorry if you can't handle it.

reply

Thanks for lumping all of us into a ridiculous false category.

I'm a Jewish person of Eastern European descent, and I don't claim any land except my family home with the mortgage on it. And I don't know any other Jewish person who would claim that either. You're honestly just making things up.

reply

For the record, there are no "scientists and professionals(?)" who are "examining the inconsistencies of the Holocaust narrative."

Any that claim to do so are certainly not scientists, nor are they (professional) historians as the world understands those terms.

There are no inconsistencies in the records and verified evidence.

No scientists, nor any (professional) historians with credibility in the world would attempt to look at the records, the proven evidence and the eyewitness accounts and conclude anything other than what took place.

Those that do clearly bring prejudice to the table.

reply

[deleted]

Dr. Fred Leuchter is not a professional.

Massachusetts brought criminal charges against Leuchter for representing himself as an engineer without a license. Leuchter not only lacks an engineering license but has neither an engineering degree nor any other relevant professional certification or recognized credential - wikipedia


If you think of David Irving as a 'reputable' professional, then you place yourself with him outside of history. You deny that any Holocaust took place and are anti-Semitic, well this also places you outside of history and civilized society. What you seem to be doing here is just baiting those you hate. Which is basically something a jerk would do. Bravo!

reply

"Dr." Fred Leuchter isn't even a doctor. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree. He has never earned a doctorate in any field.

reply

Walter Luftl is a professional. He is not only a licensed engineer but he was president of the Austrian engineers association. He came to the same conclusion as Fred Leuchter - that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz -
http://codoh.com/library/document/2383/
And why do you keep insisting that anyone who questions the holocaust is anti semitic when there are Jews who are holocaust revisionists -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6912
Try watching the Auschwitz documentary by Jewish revisionist David Cole -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHzWo79dCHs

reply

Fred Leuchter is not a "Dr" of anything. He has a B.A. in history. He may be a talented autodidact of engineering, but he has never earned a doctorate.

reply

If anyone is naturally prejudice it is the Jews since they worship Satan as their god

Speaking of Satan, now would be an excellent time for you to go to hell.

reply

If anyone is naturally prejudice it is the Jews since they worship Satan as their god


Jews don't even believe in Satan, or Hell, actually. They identify the concept of "Satan" with an angel whose God-given duty it is to tempt mankind and lead them astray, while it's our duty to resist said temptation.

But hey, I don't even know if you "revisionists" consider me a Jew since my heritage is Eastern European and Russian, and I don't actually observe Judaism as a religion. Because clearly I should cede all right to determine my cultural identity to you so-called "experts."

reply

Zort, I applaud your lucid, articulate, and well-thought-out essay. It's too bad that the baiters are everywhere, but we who are sane easily outnumber them. I feel I hardly need to remind you to be strong; you clearly are.

I happened across this movie's trailer just about 15 minutes ago and went straight to your comments. I'm very proud of you. Keep it up!

Fiona

reply

Well, thank you. The idea is simple: fight lies with facts. This is comparatively easy to do, because Holocaust deniers really haven't come up with much of anything new for the last half century, and I'm still waiting to see someone post an argument I haven't seen before.

reply

Seems like an easy thing to do....fighting lies with facts. Problem is, there is so much anti-intellectualism these days. Hoards of defiantly ignorant, uneducated people who who take pride in their ignorance. A shame, really.

reply

Yes -- there has never been a shortage of groups looking for idiots to flimflam.

But by any reasonable account, Holocaust denial is a failure. Half a century ago neo-fascists laid the Holocaust denial egg in the historians' nest, hoping that historians would raise the offspring as one of its own. Instead, historians immediately recognized it as the fraud it is, and recognized its origins as well. And for all their strutting puffery, they haven't made any inroads anywhere except the more uh-duh corners of the internet.

Holocaust denial is also a failure as a recruiting tool to enlarge the ranks of the anti-Semites ... because it's so effin' goofy that you've already have to have gone round the Jew-hating bend to think there's anything at all to it.

reply

Zort, I really want to thank you for your analysis and defense of accepted history. As a person of Jewish descent, when I saw the commercials for "Denial" I grew quite alarmed that this was just going to bring Holocaust deniers out of the woodwork, especially considering the election cycle we're in.

For anyone disputing proof of the Holocaust, please do yourselves a favor and visit Holocaust museums. There's more than enough evidence. Pictures, belongings, interviews. There are still-living survivors of concentration camps.

And for the record, I grew up in a middle class home, and both my parents still work 60 hours a week to make ends meet. I attended a private college and have a big ol' mound of student debt that I'm still paying off 10 years later. If Jews really controlled the world, my family wouldn't be struggling like most families in America. We're just like everyone else. We're people, human beings, with no greater or lesser advantage because of our religion or cultural identity. And personally, I think anyone who blames Jews (or Muslims, or Latinos, or LGBT individuals) for their problems is simply trying to distract themselves from their own inadequacies.

The only true enemy we will ever face is ourselves. Own up to weakness, own up to failure, learn from it, and redouble your efforts. Anything less, and you're only making excuses.

reply

As a person of Jewish descent, when I saw the commercials for "Denial" I grew quite alarmed that this was just going to bring Holocaust deniers out of the woodwork, especially considering the election cycle we're in.

Like any fringe/hate group, they like it any time they feel they're getting any kind of mainstream attention, no matter how negative -- as in, a movie about how the leader of their movement blew off one toe after the other, seriatim, in a London courtroom.
If Jews really controlled the world, my family wouldn't be struggling like most families in America.

Yeah, the International Jew Money Conspiracy That Runs All The Banks needs to speed up its payment cycle. My solid-gold toilet keeps getting sent to Donald Trump by mistake.

reply

Having seen the film yesterday, it's worth noting that the first thing you see Lipstadt do in this movie is go through exactly the four points I list above as criteria describing what Holocaust deniers preach.

reply

[deleted]

So, I'm not an anti-Semite, nor a neo-Nazi.


it comes from the child sacrifices that the Jews supposedly do to gentile children.


Enough said.

reply

For you, enough said. But for me, it comes with a little more respect than a person like you is willing to give.

I state a probable reason that there is Antisemitism, but you don't feel that a simple discussion is merited in any way. Just because that anyone who mentions the possible reasons are of course Antisemitic. Which isn't true in my case.

I didn't say that I subscribe to it. I don't wish to see any Jews put to death, nor hounded for their beliefs. I'm of the mind that everyone should be able to present their own thoughts. But you're of the mind that people whom try to delve into what the problem might be should be ridiculed for their obvious, to you, Antisemitism.

Do you believe in free speech? Or does that just extend to one particular part of human society? I've seen the hate rallies on videos, the skin heads doing the stiff arm. I've even seen those where I work do that just for jest. And even though I don't think that Hitler was the evil person he's made out to be, I still don't like to see that salute. It's because it is so instilled into me that it symbolizes hate. And Hitler's hatred for the Jews was the biggest flaw in his ideology.

Just because I find that the Holocaust might not have happened, doesn't say that I am one of those in the KKK, or the neo-Nazi groups.

I can't stand those that close their minds to the facts of life. Jews are people as well as blacks and all other races. But I also can't stand hypocrisy.

Enough said...for now.

reply

I state a probable reason that there is Antisemitism

The anti-Semite blames the Jews for his anti-Semitism. Par for the bigot course. Nothing new under the bigot sun.

reply

Well, of course they blame the Jews. They have no real moral compass, those whom are anti-Semitic or neo-Nazis. I was saying that if you wanted to get down to the source, you need to question everything, and look into everything, every possibility, whether it's true or not. There's truth to be told in the most dubious places.

But in regards to the Holocaust, I listen to every view. That's why I've come to think that it didn't happen. I'm sorry to any Jews that lived through WWII that are on this board. I know that persecution was definitely part of the Nazi regime. I just have a hard time reconciling what I've learned in such documentaries as Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story NEVER Told and those that tell story after story that seems to have contradictions with what actually happened. That Palestine and Germany were trying to work together to get all Jews to move. That's only talked about in one documentary. And that Auschwitz had money, swimming pool, theater. If Jews were being gassed right off the train why then did they cut their hair? Head lice? That makes little sense if they were just gonna be exterminated. And if those whom were placed directly into gas chambers hadn't gone through lice treatment, if they didn't get their hair cut, why display it now?

Now as to David Irving. I did see that he spoke at neo-Nazi rallies. I'm appalled at such a thing. That knocks him down from the respect I thought he showed. He does seem to be a bit less credible after I realized that!

I want the truth, but I feel that there's something wrong in being prosecuted for ones views. It's how the Jews were treated in Nazi-Germany. Now it's revisionists...?

reply

So, basically, you have given us the formulation by which you excuse to yourself the ugly fact that you're getting your stuff about the Jews from hate sites instead of better, more objective -- i.e. not grotesquely anti-Semitic -- sources. And so ends today's episode of "how anti-Semites explain themselves to themselves."

reply

Let me ask you this: Do you hate me?

And I'll ask you to please refrain from calling me an anti-Semite and a neo-Nazi. Thank you.

reply

He never answered. Didn't wish to say the truth in whether he hates me or not. Silence, I've heard, is a good indicator of guilt. He also placed me on ignore. Silence is golden when dealing with hate mongers.

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

reply

Just watch "Adolf Hiter: The Greastest Story NEVER Told" and you'll be privy to some things that aren't too well known.


I had watched the chapters 20 + 21 in the past which deal with the Shoah, they do not contain one single piece of new veracious information, but instead consist just and only of long debunked Shoah denying lies and omissions. I came very quickly to the conclusion that this is exactly what the design of the corresponding website suggests: just neo-Nazi propaganda, in part recycled from old Nazi propaganda, with the obvious purpose to whitewash Nazism. For example it really has the audacity to show excerpts from an old propaganda movie by the Nazis about Theresienstadt – a model and transit camp, built and filmed specifically to fool the Jews of Germany, the Red Cross (!) and the whole world about what the Nazis did in the concentration camps, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_concentration_camp#Use_as_propaganda_tool – in order to convince the viewer that all the camps were just something like recreational facilities. Watch the documentary "Ghetto Theresienstadt: Deception and Reality" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2277812/) about the staged Nazi production of the film "Theresienstadt – Ein Dokumentarfilm aus dem jüdischen Siedlungsgebiet" (1944) for more details. Unbelievable, capitalizing on old Nazi propaganda to create new Nazi propaganda.

It contains the usual other denier lies, to make it short I just link to the articles addressing/debunking them below.

Regarding Auschwitz: I always find it strange that "revisionists" often argue that all of the camps could only have been either a death camp or a work camp, while in the case of Auschwitz it is well known that this camp developed from a work camp to serve as a death camp as well, demonstrated for example by the fact that the people arriving by train were selected at the ramp: those deemed unfit for work (or "of use" for certain Nazis for medical experimentation) went to their immediate death in the gas chambers, while the others were interned in the camp were they had to do forced labor – often until they died from exhaustion, sickness or malnutrition. Near the end of the war the retreating Nazis often walked the inmates on death marches westwards towards other camps (so much for your "one-way-ticket" claim). This logical fallacy (– or is it just ignorance about the historical matters at hand?) in their reasoning is one of many that I have observed among the community of so called "revisionists".


"Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr." (excerpt, 1999) - The Leuchter Report Disproved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63pZRmcGZ3E

Leuchter, Rudolf & the Iron Blues
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/

The Chemistry of Auschwitz
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/

Chemistry is Not the Science: Rudolf, Rhetoric & Reduction
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/

Material from the trial Irving vs. Lipstadt
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf

The Soap Allegations
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html
http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi

The Human Soap Controversy
Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman: Denying History – Who says the Holocaust never happened and why do they say it? (pp. 114-117)

Rudolf Höß wasn't "tortured to give a specific testimony"
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hoess-rudolf/hoess-faq.shtml
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar19.html
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/wolzek-paradox/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/hoess.rudolf.ferdinand/ftp.cgi?people/h/hoess.rudolf.ferdinand//on-torture
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.h-ref.de%2Fpersonen%2Fhoess-rudolf%2Fhoess-folterungen.php&act=url

reply

I actually know quite a lot about the Holocaust. I've read and watched videos about it. Seen movies. I've been doing so since early 2000. I don't know everything, but I know that Auschwitz started as a camp for political prisoners. The sign, Arbeit Macht Frei was designed by such a prisoner to show in the letter "B" which was situated inverted to show how "inverted" the camp really was.

It then was slowly turned into a death camp with construction of gas chambers.

Back in April I found a youtube video posted by a racist girl and I took the leap to a documentary she suggested, Adolf Hitler: the Greatest Story NEVER Told. I watched the whole thing. I wonder if any of you have actually watched it rather than just call it propaganda. Because let me tell you, everything is propaganda. Every documentary, everything you are sold, whether you like it or not, is just that: Propaganda.

I tune into everything, not just that which is supposed to be good for you. I feel that you can't just judge a book by its cover. I've read it mentioned that those who made the documentary are either neo-Nazis or anti-Semitic, but I don't know if that is true or not. Because every post Zort has replied to me in he has called me anti-Semitic/neo-Nazi, which I am not. That is why I take what is said about people with that proverbial grain of salt. Because not all people are trustworthy, nor are truly 100% wrong, even though they side with haters.

So, please, do not call me an anti-Semite, nor a neo-Nazi. Because I am not part of a hate group. One within such groups are those whom want to see every other race exterminated, and I for one do not wish harm on anyone!

reply

http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/

"Holocaust denial, known in Germany as the Auschwitz lie, has been gaining exposure in recent times, in part perhaps, because of the growth of the Internet. Deborah Lipstadt in her thought-provoking book Denying the Holocaust argues persuasively that the existence of the Holocaust is not a matter for debate: there is nothing to debate; it is a historical fact."

I would like to argue that everything is up for debate. If you find yourself with inquiry as to whether David Cole's documentary at Auschwitz is correct or not, you should be able to question the Holocaust without being written down as an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi.

You might have been curious as a child as to what things were, and whether or not they were good or bad. And as an adult, you have the right to be curious in anything as well. And people telling you that you should be smart enough to know something is fake or not, that doesn't help.

I'm sure you've believed in something for years and then found that everything you were told about that something is false. And it might have taken you some inquiry into that something to figure it into your head. You should allow anyone to be able to question things, and to bring about their own thoughts on the matter. Rather than spit on them and lump them all in the same camp. Pun intended!

If the child was brought up by anti-Semitic neo-Nazis and finds themselves believing in the Holocaust and disowning their upbringing, you'd consider them your friend. But if a person is finding that not everything they were told about Hitler and the Nazis and the Holocaust seem totally honest, you shouldn't treat them like an enemy. That's what Hitler's flaw was. It's a dissonance to me.

reply

I would like to argue that everything is up for debate. If you find yourself with inquiry as to whether David Cole's documentary at Auschwitz is correct or not, you should be able to question the Holocaust without being written down as an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi.

What you prefer not to notice or acknowledge is that Holocaust denial has been from its organizational beginnings in the 1970s a product of anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and Jew-hating cranks of all sorts. Look up Carto, look up McCalden, look up Mark Weber, and try to pretend with a straight face that they aren't squalid little Jew-haters. Yet they're not fringe figures in the Holocaust denier movement, but at its very center.

So if it bothers you that there's such universal agreement that Holocaust denial is an anti-Semitic playground, then it's time for you to get a grip on the sordid, nasty, racist history of the movement you're defending and promoting. The reason that Holocaust denial is very tightly associated in the public mind with raving Jew-haters is because Holocaust denial *is* tightly associated with raving Jew-haters.

reply

I'm not defending a movement. I'm defending my own feelings on the matter.

As for Holocaust denial being an anti-Semitic playground, that may be the case for some. And you might be right in thinking that it was brought about in such a light. But I'm not quick to pass judgement. I like to take in as much knowledge as possible instead of limiting myself by the prejudices around me. I take it into account denial coming from that group, but I also take into account the inconsistencies of what I've learned in what's been said by the eyewitnesses, and the documentaries I've watched about what happened in those camps. I take into account the most that if you are jailed for simply asking questions, there is something wrong with that law. And with those who enforce such laws should be questioned and corrected, because one shouldn't be lead away for that kind of offense! Nor should it be considered an offense.

Your saying to limit oneself to what's accepted and don't ever think that your opinion and ideas are ever going to make a difference. And you're also saying that everyone with Holocaust denial on the brain is part of a hate group. That bothers me. People like yourself whom deem a person in the same light as those in hate groups when you don't really even take the time to actually get to know the beliefs of said person. That's worrisome. Because not everyone is the same as the next person.

Saying that, it's far too presumptuous for you to tell another person that they need to get a grip on something. When what you're saying might just be biased from your own hatred.

Do you know the swastika is associated with Nazism, anti-Semitic movements, and hate groups? Yet in some parts of the world it's still being used for its original meaning, that of well being.

reply

And so ends today's episode of "Things people tell themselves when trying to defend to themselves material they know full well is of anti-Semitic origin."

you're also saying that everyone with Holocaust denial on the brain is part of a hate group. That bothers me.

Read Lipstadt's book. It's plain as day where Holocaust denial comes from, and it's plain as day that they tried to disguise that, and it's plain as day that it failed.

Call your own bluff. Read Lipstadt.

You won't, of course.

reply

Call your own bluff. Read Lipstadt.

You won't, of course.


That's because I'm not bluffing, Zort.

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

reply

That's because I'm not bluffing, Zort.

What do you call a guy who announces that he's trying to look at the topic of Holocaust denial from all angles, yet refuses to read what is internationally recognized as the single best book on the topic of Holocaust denial?

Bluffing.

Including bluffing to yourself.

reply

This guy is one of several Jew-haters on this board I clicked IGNORE on.
You're wasting your time with these ignorant haters.

reply

Please, do not call me a Jew hater. That is plainly incorrect.



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

reply

Yeah, after that last outburst of his, I decided you were right. He's on ignore. He did a better job than some at pretending that his mind was actually open -- but at the end of the day, he was happy to quote any damn thing from hate sites, take it as true, and put the burden of disproving it on someone else, moving the goalposts as necessary to make the disproving impossible. That's not how rational scholarship works.

reply

Putting me on ignore was probably good for me, as you cannot reply to what I have to say anymore. More limelight for me than for you now!😁




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

reply

I never refused to read any book, Zort. You are projecting your own xenophobia over onto me. Are you Jewish, Zort? Or are you of any race that isn't white? I simply ask because I want to know if you are taking what I have said personally and exaggerating what my intentions are by creating the delusion that everyone has the same exact reason for discussing denial. And, another question, do you think I am white?




"The extent to which ''deniers'' have been smeared and persued and even threatened with death should appall every proponent of free speech."




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

reply

You are projecting your own xenophobia over onto me. Are you Jewish, Zort? Or are you of any race that isn't white?

Well, then, we're pretty obviously done here. Sorry I wasted so much of my time on you. You'll grow out of this, or you won't.

reply

We were pretty much done when we started. But I enjoyed the banter. There was no arc, and there won't be an arc, because some are set in their ways of mistreating others on how they have seen others being mistreated - just to join the crowd and feel devilishly special. It's the way many treated the Jews. It's how you and your ilk treat someone whom you view as under you. I do believe there was a famous Jew that mentioned something like that sometime during his life. I don't follow his scripture at all, nor do I follow any.

Their grandfather, mother, father, sister, whomever, treated a person of a certain race or religion or ideal distasteful, and thus they decided to do so themselves. I can see that some are pretty distasteful themselves, and they do indeed deserve to be handled differently for what they are and the way in which they behave, although I'd say respectfully despite the inconvenience. But to try to say that you actually tried to allow an open mind into a conversation, then say you're done here, that's just the oldest hat that most wear. It's conceited.

Thankfully I never ended up that way. A little step into who I am: I was ragged on when I was under five years old, my oldest memory, that I kissed a black person, but they called them the N word. I didn't understand at the time, but I so do now. Age has made me wiser, but not so much happier. I'm glad I didn't treat anyone in here the same as I have seen. But others decided to pretend they were being generous when they just wanted to see a show. Hope you had a nice dinner along with it.




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

reply

Silly me. Here I thought that this was supposed to be all about film commentary. But since you have decided to used it to rant out a lot of pseudo psychobabel, and historical distortion, I feel I have no choice but to try to enlighten you.

For openers we can start off with that hoary old blood libel allegation. Libel is the perfect term for it, since there has never been a documented case of Jews using a gentile child for a blood sacrifice. NEVER. NEVER EVER. Got it? And using a 5000 year old Biblical story to somehow "prove" this just demonstrates your complete ignorance.

Now to the Holocaust. And just a few FACTS. You remember facts, don't you? We'll start off with the minutes of the Wanasee Conference. 1942. The Germans put Eichman in charge of "the final solution" (their words) calling for the extermination of all European Jewry. Then we have the records of the German railroads, detailing the scheduling of the cattle cars to the concentration camps. The we have the records of the shipments of the Zyklon gas to the camps. Then the statements of the German officers and soldiers who witnessed, or participated in, the torture and death. And the statements of the handful of survivors. And the statements of the Allied troops who liberated the camps.

I could go on, but obviously you are not open to reality. And, yes, you ARE an anti-semite.

reply

Silly me. Here I thought that this was supposed to be all about film commentary. But since you have decided to used it to rant out a lot of pseudo psychobabel, and historical distortion, I feel I have no choice but to try to enlighten you.

For openers we can start off with that hoary old blood libel allegation. Libel is the perfect term for it, since there has never been a documented case of Jews using a gentile child for a blood sacrifice. NEVER. NEVER EVER. Got it? And using a 5000 year old Biblical story to somehow "prove" this just demonstrates your complete ignorance.

Now to the Holocaust. And just a few FACTS. You remember facts, don't you? We'll start off with the minutes of the Wanasee Conference. 1942. The Germans put Eichman in charge of "the final solution" (their words) calling for the extermination of all European Jewry. Then we have the records of the German railroads, detailing the scheduling of the cattle cars to the concentration camps. The we have the records of the shipments of the Zyklon gas to the camps. Then the statements of the German officers and soldiers who witnessed, or participated in, the torture and death. And the statements of the handful of survivors. And the statements of the Allied troops who liberated the camps.

I could go on, but obviously you are not open to reality. And, yes, you ARE an anti-semite.

reply

nattylap2

"For openers we can start off with that hoary old blood libel allegation."

Did you even read what I said?

"I have seen documentaries about the actual origin of the word Holocaust, and that it comes from the child sacrifices that the Jews supposedly do to gentile children. It's in the Bible, too, but God intervenes in the story of Abraham and his son. But did God intervene in all cases? I don't know. But that is one reason there are so many anti-Semites. Whether or not "blood libel" is actually true or not, I do not know for certain, but it has been in history books that some Jews have been found to have done so. If that's true, I can understand anti-Semitism. But I am honestly not going to generalize a whole group based on a few individuals. I think that is what is wrong with society."


You, like Zort, take and run without the full story. I am not an anti-Semite. So, please don't call me that. It's rude and against what I believe in. But I'm pretty sure you won't be a kind person toward me, so I'll let you decide what you want to do.



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

reply

"Zyklon gas gas to the camps"

Can you tell me how Zyklon B worked?



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

reply

For openers we can start off with that hoary old blood libel allegation. Libel is the perfect term for it, since there has never been a documented case of Jews using a gentile child for a blood sacrifice. NEVER. NEVER EVER. Got it? And using a 5000 year old Biblical story to somehow "prove" this just demonstrates your complete ignorance.

Yeah, when your starting point is a winking reference to the most infamous anti-Semitic smear of the last thousand years, you are definitely not starting off on the right foot in terms of the attachment-to-reality-versus-embrace-of-wacky-racist-slanders scale. To then pivot to Holocaust denial just doubles down on the anti-Semitism, as everyone seems to recognize but him.

reply

I'd like to see an end to this thread, it's sick-making.

Shoah is a 9 hour documentary on the subject matter, it proves the events incontrovertibly with full documentation & evidence supplied.

To the point where truck manufacturers were asked to move the axles as the camps were concerned their "cargo", when gassed, would fall in one direction & shift the vehicle's balance, thereby causing damage to the vehicle.

It also didn't just happen to those of the Jewish faith, but was initially practised against the sick, mentally infirm, criminal, & expanded not just to Jews but Gypsies, homosexuals and others that took the physical form that Nazism hated.

There is NOTHING anyone can say now to refute those events, stop feeding the trolls and disturbing those who know the truth, by childish bickering & playing armchair detective.

Remember those who died, how many, and why - and then make sure it never happens again.

reply

I'd like to see an end to this thread, it's sick-making.


I put BravisJ on ignore pretty close to a month ago. It was clear he was going to keep on straining at historian-documented gnats and swallowing saw-it-on-the-YouTube camels.

reply

Several posters n here are no better than the fascists who ran the camps, they should be banned from this site. Anyone denying that millions were gassed by the Nazis is as evil as they were. Irving was a liar and it was proved in court that he was, yet idiots and racists still support his point of view on here.

reply

I just read this on a youtube board and I wished to add it here:

"It is always up to persons making the accusation of murder to make their case. So far, ridiculous survivor testimony, tortured soldiers confessions and Army PSYOPS photos and films are the best proof that there was no holocaust of the Jews!"

But who am I to keep bickering because someone thinks that it happened when they themselves have seen no actual proof? Like the guy above said, we're all arm chair detectives, myself included. I have no actual proof to back either side, only youtube videos I've seen. I don't wish to denigrate the dead, just wish to mention that it doesn't seem well documented at all.

I've seen Shoah. It was well over a decade ago. But I cannot recall much on the side of evidence in that film. Just people talking. Testimonies. That's it.

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

reply

There's little here but a few feeble howler monkeys stroking their justice boners over second-hand opinions. No one here has even slightest notion what really happened in 1940's Germany. All you do know is who is in power now and what to kowtow to -- the thing to remember about power is that it shifts, doesn't it?

reply