Denying the holocaust

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not making a claim really. However, no, you are misconstruing standards of dialectic to favor your own skepticism. It would not make an iota of sense to expect a thorough and scholarly refutation on a board such as this. Which makes your demand rhetorical at best, in which case we revert to the burden of proof on the one making the new, unconventional, unreceived, unaccepted claim - specifically, that something other than 6 million people being killed happened.

that's just squirming out of it

and I was under the impression that you DID make a claim as you said 'documents exist that prove..."
I didn't ask for a 'scholarly and thorough (or vise versa) refutation' - so implication of me moving toward making 'not an iota of sense' is entirely redundant and verging on an indirect attempt to belittle me imho
I asked you to show me where to find those documents - ie you made a claim absolutely

If you want to retract your claim as you can't back it up - that's fine but squirming out of it whilst preparing to spit venom is not

So, I ask once again - where can one see these 'documents' that you professed are in existence ?

You guys are funny...

You prove it. No, you prove it. No, you prove it.

You said it. No, you said it.

Ha Ha...ruven said it.

Huh? Now, what were we talking about?

sorry twoshots - i looked at the previous page - it wasn't you that made the original claim.. please disregard my comment about you squirming, and accepts my apologies - you were not..

sorry

However the 'burden of proof' is on that person to provide proof of the documents they claim exist.. ruveyn?

LOL claire333, it is like that isn't it?! haha

Anyway, Yad Vashem states

Findable here
Since that took all of 5 clicks and a visit to wikipedia to find, I'm sure verifying their sources should be a trivial enough matter. It's why God gave us Google Scholar.

the emphasis in that quote is on 'also used' for me ie the the primary source data for the conclusion was a census - that doesn't prove anything about 6,000,000 people having been murdered - I think you might consider people moving all over europe and out of it in quite a jumble at that point in history not to mention the 100,00 jews that were in the wehrmacht either

bet you didn't know about that!!? LOL

If you want to discuss why the pre war census numbers are not actually applicable then it does get bogged down in scholarly articles and analysis of migration statistics of central and eastern Europe for the prewar years.

I can do that - but this message board format is not the easiest to accomplish such and it has also occurred to me that I am hijacking the OP's thread.

The thread was a question about free speech and they clarified they did not want it to be a discussion about these matters.

If you really want to discuss the subject properly - I can refute the postulation derived from the material that quote mentions beyond reasonable doubt I believe - if you really want to then you are welcome to PM me and I will send you a link to a different site where the format is more friendly for such

No, not a holocaust denial site

Otherwise if terms of proof - it is still on ruveyn to show their source.. but as said I don't want to hijack a free speech thread - I'm not the OP and I've pointed to my misgivings about what you all take for granted as truth without question

I am not going to start a holocaust revision thread as it's too 'in your face' and I do not choose to spend pages and pages explaining that I am not a bigot or a nazi to people who get really reactionary as soon as it's mentioned..

peace

Last edited by Concenik on 30 Mar 2009, 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, I'm not terribly interested in this debate actually, but be it duly noted that that particular sliver is a mere general summary, and a multitude of scholarly works can be found in it and Wikipedia's citations. There is no paucity of scholarly work on the Holocaust, which is what makes it the established story, which, ahem, puts the burden of proof on your side of the fence. =þ

It's a well known fact that wikipedia is NOT a reputable source for ANY academic work as it is openly edited and subject to moderator approval - ie not scientific and also that it has a clear agenda since the owner and also google execs met with representatives of the Israeli government last year nto discuss what was 'acceptable content'

Wikipedia - citations from wiki? What about all the citations it does NOT have to officially accepted scholarly works?

I contend you're statement about paucity actually - that is just your OPINION

Look, I've offered to fully provide you with a platform where these matters can be investigated properly - but you said it 'doesn't really interest you'

and I said I'm not hijacking this thread anymore

As I said to Duessel, twice - watch Daniel Coles' film as a starting point if you want a beginnings to 'proof'

He is Jewish and his film p*ssed of the jewish defence league - a semi paramilitary organisation if truth be told - it angered them so much that he went into hiding and is STILL there.

People who speak out about this stuff - many many many of whom are NOT nazis - are intimidated and have their careers and lives destroyed. If there is nothing to hide why is that?

believe whatever you want - I don't care - not my problem - however I want the truth

Wikipedia can be an easy and pretty good way to find citations for info. This isn't a terribly strong claim, and frankly, while I can't speak for much of social science stuff as the field is rife with nonsense to begin with, most of the claims of how unreliable Wikipedia are are wildly exaggerated, predicated on an innate mistrust rather than hard evidence (see: Nature, who found a roughly comparable accuracy on scientific articles between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica).

You asked where the accepted account comes from, I give you a way to find sources. Where is the problem with this?

The thread is already jacked. The only logical conclusion is that it be forced down over Pennsylvania.

We'll have to agree to disagree about wikipedia's censorship policies - that was my reference not whether it ostensibly functions well as an encyclopedia...

Sorry, i should have said thanks also - I did and do intend to see if the cited pieces are one's I've looked at already or not..

I mean that with NO sarcasm intended

Perhaps you'd consider watching Daniel Cole's film seeing as you've participated in this thread and taken a definite position on the subject we've discussed so far..

I think the OP should say whether they are ok with their thread being hijacked - they did state after all they didn't want it to be used as a platform for this exact debate.

wow, 4 people have voted they think it should be illegal to discuss it!!

way to go with freedom of speech

DentArthurDent said he accidentally voted no because he thought it said illegal instead of legal. But still, that means three people actually did vote no.

ah yeah, I forgot that, thanks hester386. 3 though - gee, it scares me to think about that sort of thing. If I spoke like I am on this thread openly in the country I live in - I'd be liable for prison too! It's ludicrous !

Good point can you provide a link to the 'fact' that you claimed about Nazi documents showing that they killed 6,000,000 people ?


I'm really stopping my hijack of this thread I just couldn't resist quoting you there ..

Can you provide a link to that, so that those who speak German can see whether they agree with you? You demand documentary evidence, it is only fair that you should be held to the same standard.

In something about the Bletchley Park code breakers (I'd give you the source if I remembered), I read that the British knew the extent of the genocide from about 1943, from decoding German transmissions. They chose not to use this knowledge for propaganda, because that would have given away the fact that they had cracked the German codes (for the same reason, Churchill decided not to intercept the German bombers heading for Coventry, whose destination also was know through decoding intercepted messages). That gives you another evidence trail, though one Britain didn't admit to for a long time, because it would have raised questions why nothing was done. I hope that is enough information to assist your future research.

I called the genocide industrialized because it was deliberate, there was a legal structure in place to register anyone who was later scheduled to be killed, and because the extermination camps were set up to kill on an industrial scale, with a corresponding infrastructure and organization.


Apply again the same standards to yourself as to others. Do you have evidence for the gas chambers' primary purpose being delousing, beyond the Nazis telling their victims that was the purpose, so they would walk in without fuss? Has your diligent search through relevant record uncovered how much cyanide gas was delivered to those camps that used it? The commercial name was Zyklon B, if that helps. Have you looked into how sensitive lice are to cyanide, compared to humans?


Give us the argument, not an assertion.


Go ahead and spit the claim.


It is far more than that, as you should have noticed if you had read the first few pages. You can do that through the link I gave you. Kogon was a sociologist and political scientist. He offers not just personal testimony, but also analysis of the political structure.


So are you saying you don't accept personal testimony as evidence?


I intended the book as a starting point, because it is more than just one man's personal experience, and because you sounded like a rather ignorant conspiracy theorist who has read a few web sites. I am now less sure whether you are ignorant, but you still sound like a conspiracy theorist.


No. Seeing that you say you have researched the topic in depth, I'm sure you can give us a source and context. For example, who were these inmates, what had been their position in the camp, why had they been incarcerated there? The Nazis didn't just put political opponents and those they considered racially or morally degenerate into camps, but also some criminals. As in Stalin's Gulag, the criminals were often put in a position of control over other prisoners. I wouldn't be surprised if those people wanted to be well away from the camp before the other prisoners were freed, and that would not change my opinion about the camps. You see why I want more detail than your bald assertion.


Speak for yourself. This doesn't apply to me. And read some of Jared Diamond's work. I think The Third Chimpanzee is the relevant one. I'm sure there is a German edition, if you prefer that.


Depends on what you define as "largely Jewish". If you mean the majority of the personnel were Jewish, your own source doesn't support you. If you mean the proportion of Jews was higher than in the general population, then your source supports you. It doesn't say whether the proportion was higher than in other state institutions, which is relevant. Based on the sources you give me, I don't know whether you have made a claim that has any meaning.


The author apparently tries to counter the "we are victims, and that excuses anything we do, now and forever after" attitude. I wholeheartedly support that. The author also has a nuanced approach, as you can see from the first part I marked. I am not sure your approach is equally nuanced, because I can't see why you use this example. If you just want to demonstrate that the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis was not the only one, that there were others equally important and of similar scale, then it is irrelevant whether any of the perpetrators of other genocides were Jews, especially when the source you quote declares their being Jewish was incidental.

That kind of muddled argument is what makes you look like a conspiracy theorist, and could even make you look worse. I think your muddle was accidental. It could also be a deliberate piece of spin, pretending to make a reasonable point, but inserting information, irrelevant to the reasonable point, that will bias people in the desired direction. To avoid that suspicion, be more careful to keep track of which point you are arguing.


Israel has created an apartheid state. I don't think it has yet progressed to the point of genocide. Except for that important point, I agree. And I think it's not the same as your argument. You can argue the holocaust is not the only or the most significant genocide without disputing the number of victims or the approach of the Nazis or any of the documentation you do dispute. If you want to put genocides into perspective, you need to know more about other genocides. Trying to make one of them look not so bad is missing the point.


I agree. So why do you put your research effort into the events of over 60 years ago, instead of those happening now?


You interpret Dussel as referring to personal responsibility. When talking about personal responsibility for something wrong, that is hardly different from guilt in the legal sense. Dussel isn't old enough for that, any more than your 3 year old. If you are talking about the emotion of guilt, that is something else again.

There is also another relevant meaning of responsibility. Let us do a thought experiment: You just got a nice, fat inheritance from your grandfather. Then you find out that it is the proceeds of crime. You took it in good faith, and after legal statutes of limitations in the relevant jurisdiction expired. Those who suffered from your grandfather's hypothetical crimes are still alive. Does your knowledge give you, the beneficiary of those crimes, responsibility to make some restitution? If your grandfather had committed crimes with the intent of benefiting you, but had failed to make a profit while still harming people, what would your responsibility be then? None of this has anything to do with you being personally responsible for the crimes of this thought experiment.

Get that distinction clear in your mind, then have a look at some of Dussel's post. They generally look like they come from someone very thoughtful and extremely well informed. How likely is it that he would do something as completely stupid and ridiculous as claiming your 3 year old is personally responsible, in the sense of having made a well informed decision to take part, for crimes committed over 60 years before his birth? That seems to be the sense of responsibility you had in mind. How realistic is it that Dussel was referring to that?