Is this going to be another hatchet job on the truth? I am really hoping for some facts. Although on a topic with two poles, either sides will say, I have already made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts. So, maybe there is no hope.
shareThe written judgment came out to 333 pages. Following an introduction and a discussion of the complaint, more than three-quarters of the written judgment is devoted to an analysis of all the evidence that was presented. Only then does the judge get to his findings on the evidence. The judge deems that "in the course of his prolonged cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on which the Defendants have chosen to rely." On the issue of Auschwitz, the judge states "My conclusion is that the various categories of evidence do 'converge' in the manner suggested by the Defendants... Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied upon by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews," and "it follows that it is my conclusion that Irving's denials of these propositions were contrary to the evidence." Furthermore, "the allegation that Irving is a racist is also established."
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the defence succeeded in proving everything they claimed in trial but for two assertions: that Irving had broken an agreement with the Moscow archives and mishandled the glass plates containing Goebbel's diaries, and that he hung a portrait of Hitler above his desk. However, the judge pointed out that "the charges against Irving that have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity" that those two claims mentioned above would "not have any material affect on Irving's reputation." The judge decided this in accordance with section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952, which states that a justification defence can succeed despite the failure to prove minor assertions.
The judge summarised his findings as follows:
Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism... therefore the defence of justification succeeds... It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.
Interesting…
Can I read this online somewhere ?
Holocaust Denial is "The Truth"?..........
Someone who says that is either incredibly ignorant of history or a Neo Nazi.
[deleted]
the debate is over whether or not there were 6million or around 600,000.
[deleted]
What is the " extremist far right" exactly?
Billy's joined the National Front / He always was a little runt / He's got his hand in the air [i.e. Nazi salute] with the other [and I'll let you figure out the unprintable rhyme]
[deleted]
The movie is not concerned with and I doubt that the trial was concerned with the question of the numbers of Jews who were intentionally killed in concentration camps versus those who died along the way. I don't know if we know for sure the numbers.
Do you happen to agree that the Nazis intentionally pursued Jew-killing? There are the movies Defiance and the movie Uprising. Do you believe that the events of Defiance or Uprising took place?
Now, it is alleged that the Allies intentionally mistreated German POWs and displaced persons after the war and that the Allies fed them poorly resulting in the deaths of many by starvation, exposure and lack of medical care. Those who argue this get the number of estimated death by calculating how many people were around at the time of the end of the war and how many there were 1 or 2 years later.
It seems like it is at least possible that we the Allies did not feed very well the Germans in various camps after the war and we pretty well know already that the British or French starved some of Germany after WWI.
Do we know the numbers of those killed in any of these events? Not exactly, but we can make guesses and people do make their best guess.
The truth is too much is coming out on the fairy tale of the century, there were no gas chambers, it would be impossible, zlklon b was bug spray to kill lice, they were work camps not death camps, Anne Franks diary just proven a fraud,6 million that's a joke, to have kill many in camps that's burn to dust more than 4000 bodies a day impossible. Here is the truth watch this not the BS movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlBA2zp992c
shareYou signed up to IMdb just to post that? Ewwwwww.
Let's debunk this video, shall we? First of all: the author shows his total ignorance about the historical subject by saying the official claim is that 6 million Jews died in gas chambers. No historian is claiming this AT ALL. For example ca. 1 million of the 6 million were simply shot or otherwise murdered by the mobile death squads called Einsatzgruppen in the East. He should study how exactly the number of 6 million is calculated. This is just another straw man argument.
Secondly: he uses the incredibly stupid argument of the 4 million victims mentioned on the plaque at Auschwitz after the war. People should study the debunking of this argument as it's a perfect example of the cherry picking and omission of facts by deniers, and their deceitful tactics used on the unsuspecting audience. The debunking in short: the 4 million figure was propaganda established by the Soviets, they simply and falsely stipulated that the crematoria ran at full capacity and non-stop. The figure was never accepted by any major Western historian, with only one exception right after the war when proper research was not done already, and by some historians behind the iron curtain. One Western historian even highly doubted the Soviet 4 million figure directly in his work. Meaning: the figure of around 6 million had not to be corrected as the 4 million was NEVER part of the calculations of renowned historians. See here for more details:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-01.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-02.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-03.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-2-01.html
Thirdly: he claims that the Jewish victims were just casualties of war like any other war casualties; against this speaks for example: how Hitler and Himmler talked in their speeches explicitly about the extermination of the Jews, read: the complete eradication of the Jewish people; how Himmler justified the killing of children by saying that he isn't such a coward to leave this task up for his own children to do; and the reports by the Einsatzgruppen where they reported back with bureaucratic diligence from the Eastern front how many Jews (and communists) they had killed. Especially the one by Karl Jäger is remarkable as it listed in detail how many women and children were killed, and how he wanted to kill ALL the Jews in the region he was responsible for. Killing off each and every woman and child of a certain group is NOT a mere "side effect" of a typical war.
The Jaeger Report – Recording Mass Murder
http://alley-cat.info/the-jaeger-report-recording-mass-murder/
Regarding his doubts about body disposal, see the link list below.
Finally: the fundamentalist Christian background of the author of the video and his calling the Jewish religion "satanic" and the "synagogue of Satan" shows once again why denial of the Shoah is only driven by certain ideologies, in this case good old Christian anti-Semitism. And all this shows again that just watching certain YouTube videos and reading on certain websites only is not proper historical research. In the case of the deniers it's just cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body disposal at Auschwitz – The end of Holocaust-denial
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/
Also, modern cremations are subject to a whole host of rules and regulations not applicable to German concentration camps. In modern cremations the ashes of those cremated cannot be comingled with the ashes of other decedents. German concentration camps were under no such compulsion.
A captured memo to SS-Brigadeführer Kammler reveals that the expected incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens was a combined total of 4,756 corpses per day (see a photograph of the document or Kogon, op. cit., p. 157).
Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in practice (see question 45). That's not the point. These crematoria were carefully designed, in 1942, to have sufficient capacity to dispose of 140,000 corpses per month -- in a camp that housed only 125,000. We can conclude that massive deaths were predicted, indeed planned-for, as early as mid-1942. A camp designed to incinerate its full capacity of inmates every four weeks is not merely a detention center.
[deleted]
Well, seems as tho both sides are full of people who want to believe one way or the other.
[deleted]
how simply questioning something about history = Neo-Nazi?
[deleted]
Well, again, you make accusations yet provide no proof
Now, I don't doubt might be some people who question the Holocaust who also happen to hate Jews
[deleted]
That's as far as I read.
[deleted]
In the space of half a dozen years, the Nazis murdered -- murdered -- about a third of the world's Jews. It happened. Not because I say so, but because it happened. And here's a secret: asserting that maybe one of the largest and best-documented mass-murders in history was really just a Jewish fraud -- because that's what your opinion amounts to -- and to this on the basis of half-century-old neo-Nazi disinfo, as you do, well, that's not so much childish as utterly squalid. It's like the conspiracy nuts who say the Gummint faked the Newtown shooting ... except about three hundred thousand times worse.
share[deleted]
I'll continue on researching on my own
Murdered a third of the world's jews. Well documented what documents do you refer? You must be paid to say this surely. It is beyond comprehension. The Germans would have no time to pursue a war. Be logical man, present the evidence. Real evidence not some guy said this or that. Your argument reeks of desperation.
shareMurdered a third of the world's jews.
Well documented
what documents do you refer?
You must be paid to say this surely.
It is beyond comprehension.
Richard J. Evans is a professional historian of the Third Reich. He was retained by the Lipstadt defense team to study Irving's work and document his misuse/distortion of sources and unsupported conclusions. His work was later published as the book, Lying about Hitler.
shareRichards j Evans does not read, write, or speak German so how can he use original source materials. Irving does and can so I consider him a more complete researcher. However, I do think he does have a bias. Anyone who says he is not biased in some way IS stupid or lying.
shareI'm not sure where you get your information. Evans is a specialist in modern German history, a professor at Cambridge University. He refers to his selection as an expert witness, "...it was clear that I had a good command of the German language. I could read the obsolete German script in which many documents were written until the end of the Second World War. And I was familiar with the documentary basis on which a lot of modern German history was written." (Page 8 of Lying about Hitler.)
He also notes that his report analysing Irving's written work and many videotaped speeches ran to about 750 pages, so the publishes book (266 pages, not counting notes) is summary, with comment on historical standards of truth.
The same David Irving who once said that the German word "Ausrottung" does not mean extermination in order to downplay the significance of the audio recording of Himmler's infamous speeches in Posen/Poznan [listen to the speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_cmbi3iIg]. He claimed that it simply meant deportation, a wild claim that would be instantly dismissed by any native German speaker. He then claimed that the meaning of the word changed over time, a claim that has been proven utterly wrong by looking up dictionaries from that time:
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/ausrotten.shtml
In the end he finally admitted in an interview that it meant extermination in the sense of killing Jews. He could have come to that conclusion much earlier simply by listening to the speech and interpreting this word in its context where Himmler speaks of seeing hundreds of corpses lying there, how hard it is to cope with this, the gravity of the situation, the importance of keeping silent about it – just like they did after the Night of the Long Knifes (killing of SA members). So much for the self-proclaimed "expert on the German language".
See here as well:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ausrotten/
Like Bill Clinton said, I did not have sex with that woman. Everything is open to interpretation.
shareYep. The shape of the earth is open to interpretation too. That's why astrophysicists are having such a great big debate over whether the earth is flat.
Oh, sorry, no, they aren't. They know the evidence for the spheroid "interpretation" is overwhelming, and the evidence for the pancake "interpretation" is a bunch of wacko crap.
Just like historians know the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming, and the evidence for the deniers' little fantasy is a bunch of wacko crap.
Just like historians know the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming
Now, now, be honest. Give the whole quote, not just a single cherry-picked word. But giving the whole quote would rather seriously undermine your position, wouldn't it, which is why you didn't do it.
shareI think I have you here, as the word 'thin' seems to have been used by Irving of these unabridged non-consecutive comments about Auschwitz by Gray:
"I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings."
"Vulnerable though the individual categories of evidence may be to criticisms of the kind mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it appears to me that the cumulative effect of the documentary evidence for the genocidal operation of gas chambers at Auschwitz is considerable."
" is right to point out that the contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes so as to reduce the incidence of diseases such as typhus. The quantities of Zyklon-B delivered to the camp may arguably be explained by the need to fumigate clothes and other objects."
also from Lipstadt's trial transcript:
Line 21: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcripts/day20/pages91-95.html
Compare and contrast the following claims:
1. "The judge in the trial, Lord Justice Gray, described the evidence the court was about consider as 'thin.'"
2. "David Irving -- who was shown by voluminous evidence in court to be an anti-semite, racist, liar, fraud, and Holocaust denier -- has *claimed* (among his many, many outright deceptions) that Justice Gray called the evidence for mass gassing at Auschwitz 'thin' although he did not actually do so."
What's the difference? The first one was your claim, and puts Irving's words in Justice Gray's mouth. The second one is true.
Here, by the way, is what Justice Gray really said in the verdict, to sum up the section of the judgement dealing with the matter of gassing at Auschwitz:
"13.91 Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews."
Somehow I suspect your definition of "unbiased" is something along the lines of "agrees with me".
I find Oscar Bait infinitely more interesting than ticket bait
The verdict was detailed, closely argued, fact-based, and supported its conclusions very well. Holocaust denial is a wacky right-wing fraud rooted in anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, and the verdict lays out exactly how. Irving had plenty of time to make his case in the courtroom, and he failed dismally, because there *is* no case for Holocaust denial.
To display Irving as anything other than what he is, a fundamentally dishonest flimflam artist making a living by twisting facts to appeal to an anti-Semitic audience, *would* be taking a hatchet job to the truth.
I'm glad to see that this movie has been made. I'm sorry that, as a result, that mendacious lot rightly called Holocaust deniers have another excuse to creep from behind the walls for a brief moment in the light.
If anyone who questions the holocaust is doing so because of "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory" then how do you explain the fact that there are Jews who are holocaust revisionists -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6912
Any family that's big enough is going to have a few crazy uncles. Google "Frank Collin" to find out about a Jewish guy who used to run the Nazi White People's Party in the US, for example. A few bonkers on the fringe don't mean a damn thing, just like finding a crazy aerospace engineer who thinks Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing doesn't mean a thing. David Cole (when he's not going by the name "David Stein") is just another example. Pure scam artist, hopping from scam to scam.
Now crawl back in your hole.
Firstly, I don't come from a hole. Secondly, you making statements that anyone who questions the holocaust is an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist" shows that you are the one involved in a scam and telling lies.
David Cole is not the only Jewish revisionist either -
www.countercontempt.com
There is also Joseph Ginsburg, Roger Dommergue, Ditlieb Felderer,Bezalel Chaim, Paul Eisen, Gilad Atzmon, Samuel Crowell and others -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6912
EU countries have totalitarian laws which imprison people for asking questions about the holocaust. That's not how a democracy works. If they think the revisionists are wrong then they should prove it the democratic way through discussion and open debate -
http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=2
Let me speak a little louder so you can hear me all the way down there in that hole you come from.
There are twenty million Jews in the world. You've named less than a dozen. Is anyone supposed to be dazzled, to say, "woah, that changes everything"? What they'll say is what I say: "Less a dozen Jewish cranks, big deal. This bloody-3 must be the king's own idiot if he's impressed by that."
There is no law against "asking questions about the Holocaust" anywhere in the world, although your inane talking point insists that you must insist there are. What Cole and the other crazies you site do isn't merely "asking questions about the Holocaust," but reiterating long-debunked lies easily traced to neo-Nazis and neo-fascists.
Surely you're not going to argue that all Jews are immune from being cranks, are you?
For half a century Holocaust deniers have tried to hide the racist, far-right-wing origins of their movement. And they fail, again and again and again, as you're failing.
Don't like it? Scurry back into your little hole of ignorance, hatred, and "I learned it from Youtube."
People ask questions all the time--books and articles are written on how and with what level of popular support deportations, massacres, and exterminations of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, dissidents, and others occurred. What many European countries have outlawed is not asking questions, but denying the event. As other posters have noted, that denial is almost always linked to anti-Semitism and neo-nazi extremism.
share"Are you kidding me???"
Short answer: "No".
If Germany had won the War, could we expect an unbiased view of the von Stauffenberg plot from UFA?
I like your statement.
share[deleted]
Although, to complete the analogy, there would need to be a racist charlatan trying to make a living off his dumb-as-rox supporters by peddling the lie that the July 20 plot never actually really happened, and is actually just a myth promulgated by an indescribably powerful international ethnicity acting in perfectly unified conspiracy on every nation on earth in a centrally directed plot to defraud the world. And there would have to be come counterparts to swojtak saying, more or less, "lie to me, I love it when you lie to me."
You almost have to pity people like swojtak. But only almost.
I don't see that swojtak is in need of our pity any more than any one else posting here. Maybe he just wants to discuss history. I don't see a problem with that.
If we listen to our currently dominant cultural voices, the "priestly class" now known as University professors, we can easily conclude that any supposed factual terrain. established by long-standing consensus, is in danger of dissolving into misty uncertainty.
If race doesn't exist, and is a social construct, why are so many laws and redistributive economic tools employed to blunt the impact of disparity? Why wouldn't those actions be counter-productive to the extent that they perpetuate classification errors and mistaken assumptions?
If the genders are social constructs, how many "votes" are needed to nullify gender differences? Because the categories have already been defined as products of demotic consensus.
If the Holocaust happened exactly as we're taught in school, why would some countries need laws to enforce agreement? Would you jail swojtak for asking his questions?
The victors write the history books.
As usual, challenge a defender of Holocaust denial, get a sea of racially tinged bromides, red herrings, and vapid straw men.
We could argue about where there should or should not be laws against hate speech. But the world's quite clear -- outside of a few tinfoil corners -- that Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech pretending (badly) to be honest scholarship while failing dismally to be either scholarship or honest. The Irving trial only demonstrated the flimflam nature of Holocaust denial one more time.
But hey, surprise me. Be the first defender of Holocaust denial I've ever encountered who directly admits, rather than furtively obfuscates, the movement's long association with neo-Fascists and blackshirts -- the British National Party, the National Party, the National Alliance, and Hitler partisans like Zündel.
There's a reason Holocaust denial is associated in the public mind with froth-mouthed blackshirts: it's a clearly documented fifty-year history of being a product of the seig heil boys. So surprise me. Be the first one who actually tells the truth about that awkward, awkward fact.
If you can't, don't bother to reply.
Clever last line, there, as you essentially set the parameters for any answer I might give. A preemptive strike, I believe it is called.
I suggest you re-read your response for ad hominem attack language that does you no favors. Remember, you are arguing for an established, doctrinaire, officially sanctioned view. You don't need phrases like "froth-mouthed". Those are for political debates where there is emotional room for vast differences. You are on the winning side! You already have all the standing governments and every university I could name on your side. So relax. Why so emotional?
Responses like yours is one reason *why* there is a small (don't get upset, I emphasize it is small) historically revisionist community. "Why", some people wonder, "do these people get so upset if you question certain topics?".
If I said there was no such thing as the executions that took place under Stalin, would you be upset? Or might you calmly direct me to some source material?
If I claimed the Allies never bombed the city of Dresden, would you use emotional language to set me straight, or would you helpfully link to some online source that I could peruse for my edification?
Yet, if even a whiff of suspicion about the received wisdom of the holocaust is picked up, you cheerfully hurl emotional language and epithets (again, see your response).
Anyone who has become known for holocaust denial is to some extent guilty of other "thought crimes" or unacceptable ideas. I'm speaking of a range of names anyone familiar with the topic would know. Are they all "Nazis"? I don't think so; I don't consider David Irving a Nazi.
But admittedly the overlap would be impressive, speaking again of those who harbor holocaust doubts and also harbor inconvenient notions about the value of Western culture and White, Gentile people's role in it. Why be ashamed? If we support autonomy and independence for African and Middle Eastern Nations, for example, why not the same for European countries? Unless of course you consider them to have no right to any self-interested behavior. And here is the admission you demanded of me: most if not all holocaust "deniers" are White Gentiles with an active interest in their cultural and genetic survival. If you object to that on principle, you must also condemn the "Black Lives Matter" movement and AIPAC.
Here is my problem with your standpoint: if your facts are good, and you have good sources, why so defensive? It actually makes your cause look suspect. If you are confirmed in your own mind that all official holocaust information is solid, there's certainly no need to shout, threaten free-speech, or name-call. That would be unnecessary overkill.
I looked in your racist, hilariously overblown and hilariously pretentious spew for the part where you admitted that Holocaust denial is a product of neo-fascists, and -- of course, given the absolute spinelessness of the movement -- such an admission was not forthcoming. Lotsa handwaving, lotsa look-over-there, eight layers of euphemism, but the actual admission of Holocaust denial's ties to neo-fascism ... nope, you're too tiny to do that. You want to appear reasonable, and you can't do that while citing the "fourteen words."
Displaying once again the fundamental dishonesty of the Holocaust denial movement, not to mention its comic pretension.
I'm done paying any attention to you. Feel free to goose step in little circles if you'd like, if it makes you feel better. Kiww the wabbit, kiww the wabbit!
Doubling down on emotion and hysterics, I see.
If you really want to help maintain the edifice of official holocaust history, unquestioned and (evidently) unquestionable, you'd be well-advised to remain silent, and let the professionals handle it.
You are making the Official Orthodoxy look bad, by looking desperate.
The claim that anyone who questions the holocaust is "anti semitic", "neo nazi" or "white supremacist" is not true because there are people from all nationalities that are doing it. Black columnist from Veterans Today Jonas E Alexis on the holocaust -
www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/21/the-holocaust-is-a-racket/
www.veteranstoday.com/2016/04/12/the-holocaust-establishment-fails-yet-again/
Holocaust deniers are so funny, in their not-funny way. Alexis is a bug-eyed wackjob who froths on an anti-Semitic conspiracy site about the Illuminati and calls Jews "the Synagogue of Satan", but hey, he's black, so he must be right!
You don't have to be a white supremacist to be an anti-Semite, but you do have to be a anti-Semite to be a Holocaust denier like Alexis. The fact that he's dumb as a box of hammerheads doesn't help.
But hey, keep digging, maybe you can find a Holocaust denier named Pedro, and you can once more try (and fail) to peddle your tokenism-based argument. Holocaust denial is a product of folks like the National Front and the British National Party and the National Alliance. You look like a fool denying it. But there's something bigger you look like a fool for denying.
You are correct, bloody-3, that questioning the official Orthodoxy on the Holocaust can be done by anyone, even blacks and Jews. I watched a very reasonable, rational, and fact-based debunking of the Auschwitz "gas chambers" filmed, researched, and narrated by a Jew. He seemed quite embarrassed at the hyperbole he was presented with as "fact" by camp museum personnel.
Just typing in "Auschwitz debunked" at YouTube brings many videos up.
The International Red Cross put the number of deaths at all camps at around 271,000. It seems perverse for a group of people to grossly exaggerate their own tragedy for political capitol. Aren't 271,000 people worth mourning sincerely, on their own?
To claim an outlandish "six million" is an insult to those who really suffered and perished.
What you mention is the David Cole documentary on Auschwitz -
http://codoh.com/library/document/1001/
He has his own website -
www.countercontempt.com
He also appeared on the DONAHUE show -
http://codoh.com/library/document/214/
There are other documentaries on the holocaust here -
http://codoh.com/library/categories/1167/
Because hey, if there's any indication that somebody couldn't possibly, possibly be lying, it's that he was a guest on an 1980s talk show.
Really, this shows the main reason that the Holocaust denial movement pretty much collapsed after Irving. At least Irving had some tiny pretense of being a historian. Without him, it was down to gross little grifters like the David Cole this guy is clinging so hard to.
No, the International Red Cross did nothing like that. It even strongly told deniers that they are wrong about the interpretation of their documents. They said that their mission is "to help war victims, not to count them" and that they were not able to do so even if they wanted to. The debunking of this "argument" in short:
- this refers to the document from the "Sonderstandesamt Arolsen" (International Tracing Service) [see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICRC_letter_-_traceable_deaths_only.jpg] which contains the ca. 271.000 number; the document itself states that it only lists registered deaths (see German word "beurkundeten") from the camps; everybody knows that people selected on the ramps for immediate death at Auschwitz were not registered at all, the International Red Cross only compiled numbers from the documents it found in the liberated camps and we all know that many documents have been destroyed by the retreating Nazis. Deliberate omission of key facts, in this case directly from the document itself.
- the ICRC had only limited access to the camps, mostly model camp sections or even whole model camps like Theresienstadt, and could not have been able to compile such total numbers.
- the ICRC reports actually DO mention things like systematic extermination, death camps and the absolutely miserable conditions of Jews.
For some more details see here:
Criticism of Holocaust denial: International Committee of the Red Cross
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross
And in this manner all these "revisionist concerns" can be debunked. People just have to look up the info, it's all out there since many years already.
I don't know what jmiller claimed, since I put him on ignore after he revealed his far-right racism, but - because Holocaust deniers are so terrible at coming up with new ideas, and have been recycling the same basic idiocies for almost half a century - I figure it's some variation on the Bad Arolsen presto-chango the International Committee of the Red Cross has been denouncing as a neo-Nazi sham since 1978.
That our seig-heil boys here are still trying to peddle a scam that was debunked back in the days of disco shows, once again, that for all their table-pounding about seeking only the truth, pursuit of the truth is the last thing on their minds.
They hate Jews, plain and simple. They may find the occasional token Jewish wacko like David Cole to hide behind, but they don't fool anybody - they're in it for the Jew hating.
What do you expect? This is not a documentary about the factuality of the Shoah but a drama about the personal experiences of Deborah Lipstadt with the libel trial brought by David Irving against her in order to silence her and her publisher. So much about the self-proclaimed defenders of free speech by the way who rant about laws against hate speech all the time. But maybe you just wanted to abuse this opportunity to cast some doubt.
People here will see some deniers taking this opportunity. Not everyone might be aware, but all their doubts due to perceived "inconsistencies" have been thoroughly addressed and debunked in the past. Check out these sites which do exactly that in a most comprehensive manner:
http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/
Or read Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman.
Deniers will try to get everybody involved in endless discussions about their perceived "inconsistencies" and any evidence that DOES NOT exist, while they never talk about the huge amount of evidence that DOES exist in support of the factuality of the Shoah. But the one thing that ultimately brings their house of cards down is the one thing that deniers never talk about: what they actually DO believe in. Because they always suggest by implication that there is a massive (Jewish) conspiracy that is forced on the unsuspecting world. The vast scope of the Shoah was several years including totally different countries, spheres of power like the Soviet Union, a huge number of eyewitnesses who must have been instructed and documents which must have been forged in a consistent way, evidence from independent fields, the majority of them confirming each other and converging on the conclusion that the Shoah did happen. A "hoax" on that scale would have required the complicity of a lot of people and would have left a huge paper trail. For some strange reason only the deniers know none of this evidence ever leaked into the public, no memos, no written orders, no equivalent to a "Führer order". No whistleblowers ever came forward to warn the world about how the Jews were "pulling the wool over everyones eyes". Even the Nazis allegedly all played along for the rest of their lives after being "tortured" a little bit. And the deniers cannot even name the exact people involved in this "hoax" and the main organization that served as the headquarter for this massive conspiracy. All in all: the hard evidence in support of this alleged conspiracy is not even a fraction of the documented evidence in support of the factuality of the Shoah. It simply does not exist. This conspiracy theory is totally implausible and only driven by certain ideologies.
The hoax of the Holocaust. Where's the evidence?
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/~jamie/the-hoax.shtml
But here is the kind of problem the orthodoxy runs up against, and it is but one of many:
https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/jewish-estimate-sees-number-of-holocaust-dead-drop-to-2-8-million/
Quote from caption regarding signs posted at Auschwitz:
"Above left: This was the plaque on display at the Auschwitz camp until 1989: note the "4 million" victims. Above right: This is the plaque currently on display at Auschwitz (2002) - note the suddenly reduced number of victims to 1.5 million - a casual reduction in the number of deaths by 2.5 million."
If 2.5 million deaths can be casually deleted, it reveals the grotesque distortions that have muddied the waters on this topic. People begin to question "facts" when there is this kind (2.5 million!) of room for error.
In addition, neutral sources (i.e., neither German nor Israeli) for the population of Jews in Europe are remarkably static for figures before WWII and after.
Mr. Miller, are you a former boxer?
shareAs I have said:
all their doubts due to perceived "inconsistencies" have been thoroughly addressed and debunked in the past
Secondly: he uses the incredibly stupid argument of the 4 million victims mentioned on the plaque at Auschwitz after the war. People should study the debunking of this argument as it's a perfect example of the cherry picking and omission of facts by deniers, and their deceitful tactics used on the unsuspecting audience. The debunking in short: the 4 million figure was propaganda established by the Soviets, they simply and falsely stipulated that the crematoria ran at full capacity and non-stop. The figure was never accepted by any major Western historian, with only one exception right after the war when proper research was not done already, and by some historians behind the iron curtain. One Western historian even highly doubted the Soviet 4 million figure directly in his work. Meaning: the figure of around 6 million had not to be corrected as the 4 million was NEVER part of the calculations of renowned historians. See here for more details:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-01.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-02.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-03.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/appendix-2-01.html
A good post.
Anybody who looks at the Holocaust denial movement is going to see two things really quickly.
First, they're full of crap. Their arguments fall apart like a cardboard box in a hurricane the moment you get a look at the actual evidence. For all their hand-waving certainty, they just ain't got the goods and on some subconscious level they know it.
Second, they're not doing a very good job at all disguising their far-right cause and their anti-Semitism. They try to pose as normal, everyday people who just happened to encounter some odd things about the Holocaust -- but get them talking, and in five minutes they'll be telling you about the Jew threat to western civilization.
[deleted]
A hilarious look at the very tiny mind of the Jew-hating troll.
They see wacky Jewish conspiracies behind every door and under every bed. But who's "heavily deluded"? The Jews, of course.