Holocaust deniers

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Holocaust deniers

#1  Postby LIFE » May 01, 2010 12:42 am

So, as a person who actually went to several mass graves and the remains of some concentration camps during some school excursions, who has seen some very disturbing, uncersored and very explicit documentaries about the Holocaust...what's the evidence those deniers provide in favour of their claims the Holocaust never happened?

And keep it rational, please :thumbup:
"If you think education is expensive, try the cost of ignorance" - Derek Bok
"Words that make questions may not be questions at all" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
User avatar
LIFE
Site Admin
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bernhard
Posts: 7152
Age: 38
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Holocaust deniers

#2  Postby stijndeloose » May 01, 2010 12:46 am

Evidence that something doesn't/didn't exist!? :ask:

I figure they try to discredit the actual evidence for the holocaust. Never read anything by them, though, tbh. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, revisionist/denialist books are forbidden in Belgium.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#3  Postby LIFE » May 01, 2010 12:50 am

stijndeloose wrote:Evidence that something doesn't/didn't exist!? :ask:


Why not? Say I provide evidence that I was at "this and that place at this and that time" and you take the opposing position providing evidence that I was at another place during that time, e.g. with photos, witness accounts etc. Maybe my evidence is fake and contrived?

Or to give another example...isn't the fact that the judeo-christian God doesn't answer prayers (as some tests convincingly suggested) evidence that he actually does not answer prayers as it is claimed by people of some religious faith? Sorry for the tautology but I guess you know what I mean to say :shifty:
"If you think education is expensive, try the cost of ignorance" - Derek Bok
"Words that make questions may not be questions at all" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
User avatar
LIFE
Site Admin
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Bernhard
Posts: 7152
Age: 38
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#4  Postby wunksta » May 01, 2010 12:59 am

ive read about disputes over the numbers, that there wasnt mass poisoning going on etc. more just revisionist type stuff, ive never read anything that disputed the event happened though
The night is dark and full of terrors...
User avatar
wunksta
 
Posts: 1350
Age: 35
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#5  Postby Varangian » May 01, 2010 2:30 am

This is a classic:

Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile, you may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's easy. For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it.

Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?"

Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because . . .

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax.

The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense; b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question; c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII; d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.

14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.

16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).


Any similarities with debating creationists are purely coincidental...
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 54
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#6  Postby Tyrannical » May 01, 2010 5:07 pm

Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.


Those numbers can't be right. That's 91 corpses per day per oven.

Image
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#7  Postby Gawdzilla » May 01, 2010 5:18 pm

Varangian:

That could be altered to fit the birthers, Second Gunmans, FDRdidits, etc., so easily. There's a boilerplate for these nuts to follow when they start something new.
Chief Engineer on the Derail Express.

Geoff wrote:Not that I've anything against paedophilia, but it does leave one open to accusations of catholicism...


This space for rent.
User avatar
Gawdzilla
 
Posts: 3217
Age: 68
Male

Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Holocaust deniers

#8  Postby stijndeloose » May 01, 2010 5:55 pm

Tyrannical wrote:
Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.


Those numbers can't be right. That's 91 corpses per day per oven.


Recommended reading.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#9  Postby Tyrannical » May 01, 2010 5:59 pm

Reading.........
Good fences make good neighbors
User avatar
Tyrannical
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 6708
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#10  Postby stijndeloose » May 01, 2010 6:07 pm

Tyrannical wrote:That is very long, and my attention span isn't. Could you highlight the relevant part?


:what:

The whole study is relevant. There's a number of highlights, though, including:

As has been mentioned twice before in this study, the best information we have on the output of these ovens is the period from October 31 to November 12, 1941 in Gusen, after they had been overhauled. While the 677 bodies burned during these 13 days average 26 per muffle, an analysis of the underlying data reveals that a Topf oven could burn far in excess of this amount. On November 7, 1941 these two muffles incinerated 94 bodies in a period of 19 hours and 45 minutes, or 47 per muffle. This means that each oven could incinerate a body in 25.2 minutes. This was probably achieved by adding a new body to the oven before the prior body had been totally incinerated, a method which appears to have been envisaged by the Topf instructions discussed earlier.


Admittedly, the number 4756 is a bit controversial, as noted here:

The most controversial information comes from the Bauleitung on June 28, 1943. It reported that in a 24 hour period the six ovens of Krema I could incinerate 340 bodies; the five triple muffle furnaces each in Kremas II and III could incinerate 1440 corpses, or 2880 combined; Kremas IV and V could each incinerate 768 corpses or 1536 combined. The total for all five was 4756 and the total for the four Birkenau crematoria Kremas II through V - was 4416. For purposes of comparison with Gusen, there were many lighter-weight women and children incinerated in the Auschwitz ovens. By contrast, there were no women and children in Gusen in 1941, only men.

Deniers reject the Bauleitung figures outright. Denier critics have not totally accepted these numbers. However, the Gusen data suggests that the Bauleitung figures may have been more credible than previously suspected. The Bauleitung's 340 figure for 24 hours for the six ovens of Krema I comes out to about 25 minutes per body burned, the same result achieved at Gusen on November 7, 1941.


I still recommend that you read the whole thing, though.
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#11  Postby pensioner » May 01, 2010 6:41 pm

I can get a warning for telling someone to fuck off but some members of this site can post links to Holocaust denying sites like the bnp without any censure whatsoever. Have a look at this BBC video and please tell me how much freedom of speech these guys had.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/4445811.stm
There’s class warfare, all right,” said US billionaire Warren Buffett a few years ago, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.
User avatar
pensioner
 
Posts: 2879
Age: 81

Country: Uk
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#12  Postby Agrippina » May 01, 2010 6:55 pm

bookmarking
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 108
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#13  Postby natselrox » May 01, 2010 7:01 pm

Tyrannical wrote:
Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.


Those numbers can't be right. That's 91 corpses per day per oven.

Image


Punches,if only the interwebs could transmit them! :whine:
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 107
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#14  Postby natselrox » May 01, 2010 7:12 pm

Bronowski at Auschwitz. I posted this on FB last night.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlDumTPyn00[/youtube]
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 107
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#15  Postby Aurlito » May 01, 2010 7:25 pm

Holocaust is refutable because there has been political advantages taken out of this event.
If your thoughts are the same as they were yesterday, your retired.
User avatar
Aurlito
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 652
Age: 26
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Holocaust deniers

#16  Postby stijndeloose » May 01, 2010 7:28 pm

Aurlito wrote:Holocaust is refutable ...


Meaning? :ask:
Image
Fallible wrote:Don't bacon picnic.
User avatar
stijndeloose
Banned User
 
Name: Stdlnjo
Posts: 18554
Age: 39
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#17  Postby Gawdzilla » May 01, 2010 7:29 pm

stijndeloose wrote:
Aurlito wrote:Holocaust is refutable ...


Meaning? :ask:

Meaning ex post facto event can negate reality, of course.
Chief Engineer on the Derail Express.

Geoff wrote:Not that I've anything against paedophilia, but it does leave one open to accusations of catholicism...


This space for rent.
User avatar
Gawdzilla
 
Posts: 3217
Age: 68
Male

Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#18  Postby Calilasseia » May 01, 2010 8:55 pm

I wrote this some time ago over at RDF, and it's worth posting again. The original post I saved under the heading The Fallibility Of Historians Is No Reason To Give Up. I shall now reproduce it in full.

EDIT: I wish to reassure everyone that I posted this in reply to Szymanowski, NOT because he was engaged in Holocaust denial, but because the point he made about the fallibility of human beings, and its potential effects upon rigorous historiography, was ruthlessly exploitable by Holocaust deniers, and I wanted to pre-empt such egregious abuse of his point. If Szymanowski is reading this, I re-posted the original post somewhat in haste, and out of the context of the original thread, the post might mislead people into thinking I was addressing a Holocaust denier. I wish to emphasise MOST strongly, that Szymanowski does NOT fall into that category, in order to dispel any ambiguity once and for all.

And with the above, I correct an oversight that I should not have made in the first place. :)

***************************************************************************************************************************

Szymanowski over at RDF wrote:No human historian can be impartial: that's history lesson 1.


In answer to this, I would have to say the following.

Part of the problem with history is that it does not merely cover events, it also covers the motivations of the humans responsible for those events. Elucidating this is always going to be fraught with difficulties, even when one has access to a wealth of material as is the case with modern figures of influence, because one can never completely eliminate the possibility that those figures were acting dishonestly when recording their thoughts. Of course, certain types of dishonesty are detectable, and one of the areas of research in the field of historiography that is currently fairly lively is the detection of various categories of dishonesty on the part of authors of various sources (e.g., personal diaries).

However, if a historian or historiographer allows personal bias to intrude too much into his work, then others will alight upon this and write revisions of his work. In extreme cases, that historian or historiographer will be discredited publicly - the classic case in point being David Irving, who allowed his fetish for Holocaust denial and his manifest apologetics for Hitler to ruin his reputation, as anyone reading the publicly available accounts of the 2000 libel trial will discover with ease. Indeed, I can claim a tiny part in that process, because when the trial was announced, in an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement back in 1999, it contained a statement of Irving's purported defence position in that forthcoming trial, and upon reading it, I was so amazed at his chutzpah that I contacted Deborah Lipstadt to pass on some relevant information, regarding a Channel 4 television documentary that would, on its own, blow his defence wide open. She graciously wrote back to me to thank me for my contribution, and informed me that her lawyers were already gleefully perusing the relevant material. Irving is now the classic lesson in what to avoid when erecting claims about historical events and personages, because his career is in ruins, and he owes something like £2 million in legal costs for his failed action. Indeed, a scathing review of Irving's entire approach to history, once he came under the spell of the hologram of Holocaust denial, was written in The Independent by the journalist James Dalrymple, and I think it's apposite to view that here, so I'll reproduce it in full below:

James Dalrymple, The Independent wrote:He Says Auschwitz Is A Myth,
But He Has Never Set Foot In The Place,
Never Seen The Evidence


By James Dalrymple

The Independent, Wednesday, 12th April, 2000

The vast, sprawling complex of stone and steel that was once created so lovingly by the cream of German architects and engineers is now an empty, silent mausoleum on the banks of a dark river in southern Poland. They have let the swamp grass grow high among the ruins and on a summer night when the soughing wind makes it sway, there are those who say that if you listen closely you can hear the foul breath of the beast himself.

Its very size is breathtaking. Standing on a ridge above the floodplain, as I did a few years ago, you cannot see where this Kingdom of Murder – the place to which we have always given the collective name of Auschwitz – begins and ends. It seems to stretch from horizon to horizon, filling an entire featureless plain between two meandering rivers – the Vistula and the Sola – outside the peaceful town of Oswiecim. Heinrich Himmler, who surveyed the site as he followed the all-conquering Wehrmacht, changed its name immediately to Auschwitz. At first the crazed little bureaucrat intended that it should be a barracks for thousands of slave labourers who would work at the factories being built by the chemical giant IG Farben in a futile attempt to turn coal into rubber and petrol. Not a single ounce of either was produced.

But later, as Himmler and Germany itself descended into the final madness, and the slaughter of Jews accelerated through 1943 and 1944, countless thousands of men, women, children and babies were turned into smoke and ashes. The modest Auschwitz main camp was extended out across the plain to become the gigantic Konzentrationslager known as Birkenau, a place the size of a small city that only had two kinds of buildings – wooden huts for the temporary storage of people, and five massive gas-chamber-crematoria complexes to dispose of them. It became, for nearly three years, the perfect industrialised killing machine.

But David Irving claims almost all of this is untrue. He agrees that many did perish there. But he says that they died through disease, hunger and exhaustion, the victims of war, suffering the fate of countless refugees throughout history. There was no planned mass murder, he states categorically. And the numbers who died have been grossly exaggerated. Three million? Four million? Nonsense. Logistically impossible. Nor were there any gas chambers. Just fumigation areas where lice-ridden clothes were treated to prevent disease. And the big crematoria ovens? They were needed to get rid of corpses of people who had died for the reasons given above.

Day after day I watched him at the London Law Courts, doing what he likes doing most. Striding back and forth, letting his formidable imagination take over the control of his tongue, working an audience like a craftsman orator. The Law Courts have often been his stage and the atmosphere of a courtroom is like a drug to him and he loves it. But he is neither a fool nor a madman. He may be a show-off, an intellectual bully and a man capable of making facts fit his theories, but do not ever doubt his tenacity and his capacity to present an argument, backed by his version of the truth.

Mr Irving, unlike some of the other clowns, fantasists and wealthy anti-Semites who control the growing movement called Historical Revisionism, is – or was – a gifted historical investigator, but somewhere, at some point, he lost the plot. For whatever reason, he was swept into that dark netherworld of Holocaust denial, and he began to glory in the spurious fame it brought him, strutting about the world, claiming Hitler didn’t know about the death camps and that Auschwitz was a Polish tourist trap.

Like a magician producing rabbits from a hat, he produces questions that are disturbing, puzzling, confusing, even bewildering. Remorselessly, he plants tiny seeds of doubt in the minds of even intelligent and reasonable people. Why did the Germans build a fully equipped hospital in Auschwitz if they intended to kill everybody? Why did they not destroy the five huge crematoria when they ran before the Russian army? Why did they leave behind them thousands of living witnesses? Why were there no holes in the roofs of the “gas chambers” where the Zyklon B pellets were allegedly dropped? The buildings are still there, he roared at one point in his libel trial, and nobody can show me any holes.

On and on it goes. Find some tiny inconsistencies, discover some flaws in witness accounts, prevent logistical anomalies as Zionist lies – and soon the minds of those who were not even born during the Holocaust are filled with the possibilities that it could all be a lie.

Unlike many of our more celebrated historians of that period, Mr Irving could speak fluent German and didn’t spend his time behind a desk in academe. Instead he combed the archives of Europe and later, Russia, and produced a series of stunning – and thrillingly written – accounts of the Second World War. And he is clever in that he allows some of the horrors to remain. That is what makes him so dangerous. When the neo-Nazi rabble say these things they are easily dismissed. When Mr Irving talks, people begin to listen.

He once turned savagely on me when I suggested that he was part of the Holocaust denial movement. “I have never, never denied that acts of slaughter took place”, he roared. “Millions upon millions perished in the war. But we must be very careful to separate myth from truth. And Auschwitz is largely myth”.

But Mr Irving is always faced with one glaring truth. He has never, not once, set foot in the place. He has not seen, as thousands of pilgrims – including me – have, the clear evidence that still lies, ruined but intact, on the ground, exactly as it was when the Red Army arrived 55 years ago. And each of his trick questions are, like the crumbling stones of all crazed conspiracy theories, easily answered.

He is right in saying that four million did not die there. But well over a million did. He is lying when he says that there are no holes in the roofs of the cleansing areas. There were, and are. I have seen them. The hospital that he boasts about was built for the guards and staff. The crematoria where upwards of 900,000 perished were so large that they could not be destroyed, even with hundreds of tons of dynamite that were used. And in their panic, the Germans left behind thousands of mostly dying survivors. And most graphically of all, years of work by forensic scientists have shown that under the great pools of water at the northern end of Birkenau, is a 30ft layer of ash – the remains of thousands of corpses.

Finally, there is the written confessions of the killers themselves, men like Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau, which make it clear that the complex was designed and built by some of the most illustrious industrial corporations of Germany as a complete apparatus for the daily murder of thousands of people.

But you could go on answering these absurd fantasies. And this is what the denial merchants want. For many years, the strategy of the authorities, particularly the Jewish authorities, was to ignore the denial movement, hoping it would simply go away. Now, that is no longer possible. Each year, it seems to grow in strength, like a virus attacking the heart of a great truth. Now the strategy is to meet it head on wherever and whenever it raises its head.

To some, the Irving libel trial was seen as the opening of Pandora’s Box. The fear was that for the first time in Britain, in a major public arena, the monstrous poison of revisionism had finally been allowed to fly up into the air, perhaps to flourish and grow in the media as the minutiae of the Holocaust is argued by pundits from both sides. And listening to it all – bewildered and confused by the enticing theories of a powerful dealer in fantasy retold as history – a new generation may have been lured into thinking that it was perhaps not as bad as they had been taught. Were there actually no gas chambers? Was Auschwitz largely a myth, not allowed to be challenged? Were six million really murdered, or did they die as victims of war, just like the other 50 million who perished from the shores of France to the steppes of Russia?

Or has something of value emerged from these long weeks in Room 73 of the old law courts in The Strand? The systematic slaughter of an entire generation of people who were neither combatants or even enemies, known as the Holocaust and perpetrated by one of the most civilised nations on Earth, is unique in our history. There have been many acts of genocidal violence, before and since, but they did not involve the transport of millions to industrial complexes built and staffed by ordinary German men and women for the single purpose of mass murder over a period of years. It is something that must not only be remembered. It must be studied endlessly, by each new generation as they try to answer the unanswerable.

And again, uniquely, the final flowering of this catastrophe is still in existence. The ghastly ruined abomination of Auschwitz-Birkenau still exists today, silent and forbidding in the open plains of Upper Silesia. It is only a couple of hours away from Heathrow Airport. It is a place to which we should perhaps take all our young men and women, when they are old enough to cope with the unique horror of it, so they may pass their memories to their own children.

The Holocaust libel action, in all its absurdity, has turned a great spotlight on this terrible place. And as he slinks away like a thief in the night into the oblivion he deserves, the lies of David Irving may have done history a kind of favour.


I went to the trouble of reproducing that lengthy article in full because, whilst history and historiography deal by definition with material that is much, much more open to interpretation than scientific data, and which correspondingly requires even more care in handling, there are people out there determined to exercise that care. There are people determined to see that history is approached with due care and attention with respect to intellectual rigour, that inferences drawn from the data are robustly derived, and that when speculations are erected, they are presented honestly and explicitly as speculations.

Of course, humans are fallible, and historians will be only too happy, if they are true to their calling, to admit this. But, they will also point to the data they have examined, point to the statements they have made with respect to the matter of seeking to draw conclusions in a robust fashion from that data, and say in response, "if you have a defensible alternative hypothesis, then present it".

You may think I'm giving historians too much credit, and point to my own example of Irving above as evidence to support your case. I provided lengthy material on Irving specifically to demonstrate that, to use a popular colloquialism, when historians go bad, they do so big time. The line between controversial but defensible thesis, and fringe lunacy, in the world of the academic historian, is a dangerously fine one, but academic historians are by and large aware of this. It's one of the reasons that proper, critically robust historical accounts take decades to materialise, because the potential for the generation of intellectual chaff is considerable, and all too often realised in certain controversial areas of historical study.

For example, one section of history arising from World War II, namely the rise to power of Ante Pavelic and the Ustashe in Croatia, is likely to remain problematic even for the best historians that our academic institutions can produce, not only because seething ideological tensions were rampant during the period in question, but also played a significant part in the years immediately following, during which the Yugoslavia of Tito tried and executed several of the key figures. Additionally, passions are raised even today in the Balkans with respect to this episode, passions that were inflamed by much more recent events familiar to television viewers, and I suspect that the business of determining the actual facts with respect to this period, and winnowing out the ideological embellishments erected by individuals with manifest agendas, will take a prodigious amount of effort.

But should we simply throw up our hands and wail that it cannot be done? I say no. I say that we should strive to exercise that effort, and strive assiduously to be true to human history, especially during those dark eras when our far-distant reptilian inheritance (see Carl Sagan for more on this) rose to the fore, and for reasons either of territorial conquest or blind adherence to ideology, some of our species saw fit to kill many others of our species in gruesome and hideously cruel ways. We owe it to those unfortunate corpses to be diligent here, all the better to equip us to strive to avoid repeating the same mistakes, all the better to steer us away from actions that add to the contents of those mass graves. The dangers of not exercising this diligent effort are, in some respects, even greater than the dangers of not defending valid scientific theories against duplicitous attack from ideological stormtroopers for doctrine. We forget the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Armenian genocide, the horrors of trench warfare, the Holocaust, Tuol Sleng and Srebrenica at our peril, and we had better make damn sure that the lessons we learn from these festering canker sores on the body politic deliver to our species the kick up the backside it sorely needs.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#19  Postby William.Young » May 01, 2010 9:34 pm

Tyrannical wrote:
Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.


Those numbers can't be right. That's 91 corpses per day per oven.

Image

"... one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort..."
Image
User avatar
William.Young
 
Posts: 272

Print view this post

Re: Holocaust deniers

#20  Postby Gawdzilla » May 01, 2010 10:01 pm

William.Young wrote:"... one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort..."

Especially if they're on the Ilse Koch Diet .
Chief Engineer on the Derail Express.

Geoff wrote:Not that I've anything against paedophilia, but it does leave one open to accusations of catholicism...


This space for rent.
User avatar
Gawdzilla
 
Posts: 3217
Age: 68
Male

Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Next

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest