The holocaust and revisionists

Stabshauptmann · 23-01-2005 7:39pm #1

Hi, Ive read some articles and posts across the interent about how the holocasust never happened or at least not to the extent ppl say it did.

Im not a member of Irish Skeptics and dont know what sources would be a good start but I presume that perhaps people here have heard the best arguements both ways. Is there any valid doubt about the existance / size of the holocaust?

sliabh · 23-01-2005 11:01pm

Necromancer wrote:

Is there any valid doubt about the existance / size of the holocaust?

In short - No.

There will (and always have been) a few that suggest it didn't happen or wasn't as bad as they say. But then there are people that maintain the earth is flat and/or the sun goes around it.

All the documents, personal testimony, records and physical evidence says it happened. Those that say otherwise are usually closely aligned with neo-nazi groups that have a political agenda behind their position.

Myksyk · 23-01-2005 11:41pm

Part 4 of Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" is entitled 'History and Pseudohistory' and gives and overview of the holocaust revisionist movement. His site www.skeptic.com might be a place to access more detailed sources of information.

ecksor · 24-01-2005 1:19am

The sun doesn't go around the earth? That really depends upon your frame of reference I think ...

pH · 25-01-2005 12:17am

A good place to start is the Holocaust Trial. Basically this examined the evidence that the holocaust deniers had in a courtroom setting. Needless to say the deniers lost.

Deborah Lipstadt wrote a book about Holocaust deniers and David Irving (a denier) then sued her in a UK court. This trial has been subject of documentaries, dramatic reconstructions and books.

In general it is always good for an individual to question any belief or widely held opinion. This should involve looking at the evidence for and against in a crtitical manner and then making up your own mind. The problem with doing this for the Holocaust is that it was such an terrible crime, and there are huge sensibilities associated with it.

The idea is to catch the unwary in the questions, and once they have visited a few websites, it's obvious that there's no way that number of people could have been killed and there's evidence that no gas was used at Auschwitz.

Stabshauptmann · 25-01-2005 10:51am

I read some transcrips of statments aparently made by survivers of concentration camps of mobile electric guns that disintigranted ppl, of locations of camps that cant be found etc.

I put that down to either lies on behalf of the website or to poor memory, the lines between rumours and reality breaking down. I dunno.

Your saying there was no gas used at Auschwitz??! wow, when did they find that out?

I dunno, but I tend to believe it did happen on some scale, but then again why not 6 million considering stalin purged about 20m ppl. Or is there much doubt over that too?

DadaKopf · 27-01-2005 3:26am

No gas was used at Dachau. The documentary series on Auschwitz on BBC2, which has consulted recently declassified documents that were locked up behind the Iron Curtain to makes its case, seems fairly certain gas was used there. But that's just based on documents of the camp's plans and eyewitness accounts, so they could be wrong. I suppose the only way to know would be to exhume and examine (probably at random) the mass graves. German documentation at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps enumerate those murdered in 1942, although I suppose the cause of death was concealed in official language.

I agree that all widely held beliefs should be subjected to critical inquiry, but denying the holocaust (rather than debating the extent of it) seems unlikely when you consider how hard it would be to keep the one story going for so long.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 27-01-2005 3:31am

when you consider how hard it would be to keep the one story going for so long.

if the christians did it, the jews can too!

DadaKopf · 27-01-2005 3:48am

Hehehehe.

Talliesin · 11-02-2005 2:43pm

pH wrote:

there's evidence that no gas was used at Auschwitz.

Oh come on, even the deniers have dropped that one. It was once a mainstay of their arguments, based on "research" by a professor of literature (why a professor of literature should be seen as an expert in the field of chemical forensic investigation is beyond me). Primarily the allegation was that there was no traces of hydrocyanic acid, which one would expect to find if large amounts of gas had been used.
However the findings of Polish forensic experts who investigated the site clearly demonstrated huge quantities of hydrocyanic acide, particularly in Crematorium II.

pH · 11-02-2005 5:53pm

Oh come on, even the deniers have dropped that one. It was once a mainstay of their arguments, based ...

I'm really not sure what you're saying here :

Are you telling me that there is not one site on the net anywhere still stating that there were no gas chambers used at Auschwitz?

here's one http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04g_gas.html

I have no real interest in debating the Holocaust or Holocaust denial with anyone. The point is there are plenty (Try a Google search with Auschwitz and "no gas") of websites stating this.

What point are you trying to make here? That these racist nazi scum are in fact rational evidence-based debaters doing this just to clear up history?

When one of their points is found to be incorrect they just drop it?

Please post me a few links to these websites - they should clearly say they once believed it but no longer do.

Anyway the 'research' I saw was on a BBC2 documentary featuring an 'Electric chair repairman' (Fred A. Leuchter) who scraped off part of a wall in the camp and then had it analysed. This proved that gas hadn't been used at Auschwitz!

I await your link to a statement to say that this moron ever rectracted his evidence.

Turley · 11-02-2005 6:29pm

Mordeth wrote:

if the christians did it, the jews can too!

How the holocaust like a religion? How is is similar to Christianity and how is it different?

magpie · 22-02-2005 2:53pm

I think it's safe to assume it happened. What I find more interesting is the way it has been shamelessly exploited in order to generate revenue for one group of people who were involved, while the gypsies, handicapped etc are glossed over and ignored.

For more see Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry http://www.serendipity.li/more/finkel.html.

Finkelstein's parents were at Auschwitz and received something like $6000 compensation, while Jewish Barristers and members of Holocaust organisations continue to make millions off the suffering of their co-religionists. Even more sinister, and almost ludicrous, is that money is still being extorted left, right and centre under the pretext that descendants of persons at the camps are equally 'holocaust victims' and so entitled to more cash from the German Government, who are forced to keep their mouths shut and pay up, time and time again.

Not to mention the galling pro-Israeli hijacking of the Auschwitz commemorations.

It's time to shut the camps down permanently, rather than having them running as propaganda and revenue generating machines fuelled by the deaths of the millions who went through them. Let these people rest in peace.

Turley · 23-02-2005 6:01pm

magpie wrote:

I think it's safe to assume it happened.

I don't think it is clear what, precisely "it" is that people are talking about here. A holocaust is commonly defined as a great or widespread destruction of people or animals ususally by fire. The bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima could be called holocausts. Perhaps World War II could be called a holocaust.

The popular term "the holocaust" needs to be defined so we know what we are talking about. I would like to know:
What exactly do people mean when they say, "the holocaust"?
What is the origin of the term, "the holocaust"?
What are the essential characteristics of "the holocaust"?
How is "the holocaust" distinguished from "a holocaust"?

robindch · 24-02-2005 2:11am

> I don't think it is clear what, precisely "it" is that people
> are talking about here.

I suspect most people will probably understand that magpie was referring to the mass murder of Jews during WWII.

> The bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima could
> be called holocausts.

These are frequently referred to as holocausts -- do a google search to confirm.

> What exactly do people mean when they say, "the holocaust"?

Again, I think most people, even holocaust deniers, understand 'the holocaust' to mean the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War. I hadn't realised there was any doubt about this word when applied to a single, specific event -- perhaps you can tell us where the word is used ambiguously with the article 'the'?

> What is the origin of the term, "the holocaust"?

Comes from greek 'holo' (from whence our English 'whole', which is what it means; also seen in 'holistic' etc), 'caust' comes from greek 'kaustos', meaning burnt, whence also 'caustic' etc). The word was used in the greek text of the bible as a translation of the curiously similar-sounding hebrew word 'olah', then transliterated to the familar English word in some early English bibles, but subsequently dropped in favour of 'burnt offering'.

> What are the essential characteristics of "the holocaust"?

Dead Jews, not limited to those burnt.

> How is "the holocaust" distinguished from "a holocaust"?

hmmm... I think that the answer to this question is again fairly self-eivdent, but if you need to know more, see either here or here for further discussion of this.

If it's not too rude a question, could you let us know, please, what you're trying to get at?

- robin.

Turley · 24-02-2005 3:47am

robindch wrote:

> I don't think it is clear what, precisely "it" is that people
> are talking about here.

I suspect most people will probably understand that magpie was referring to the mass murder of Jews during WWII.

> The bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima could
> be called holocausts.

These are frequently referred to as holocausts -- do a google search to confirm.

> What exactly do people mean when they say, "the holocaust"?

Again, I think most people, even holocaust deniers, understand 'the holocaust' to mean the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War. I hadn't realised there was any doubt about this word when applied to a single, specific event -- perhaps you can tell us where the word is used ambiguously with the article 'the'?

> What is the origin of the term, "the holocaust"?

Comes from greek 'holo' (from whence our English 'whole', which is what it means; also seen in 'holistic' etc), 'caust' comes from greek 'kaustos', meaning burnt, whence also 'caustic' etc). The word was used in the greek text of the bible as a translation of the curiously similar-sounding hebrew word 'olah', then transliterated to the familar English word in some early English bibles, but subsequently dropped in favour of 'burnt offering'.

> What are the essential characteristics of "the holocaust"?

Dead Jews, not limited to those burnt.

> How is "the holocaust" distinguished from "a holocaust"?

hmmm... I think that the answer to this question is again fairly self-eivdent, but if you need to know more, see either here or here for further discussion of this.

If it's not too rude a question, could you let us know, please, what you're trying to get at?

- robin.

I think it is clear what I am trying to get at is to define exactly what it is we are talking about.

The origin of the term holocaust is readily available. I was curious about the origin of the term "the holocaust" to mean, as you say, "the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War."

robindch · 24-02-2005 10:06am

> I was curious about the origin of the term "the holocaust" to
> mean, as you say, "the mass murder of Jews during the
> Second World War."

You should have asked that question, then, instead of the ones you did ask

Still, the two links which I gave above do list and comment upon the evolving usages of the word 'holocaust' from the 1500's to today. In the case of the second article, it's in a ~30,000 word dissertation which, in all meanings of the word, is exhaustive! A very brief summary is here.

hope this helps,

- robin.

Turley · 24-02-2005 12:00pm

robindch wrote:

> I was curious about the origin of the term "the holocaust" to
> mean, as you say, "the mass murder of Jews during the
> Second World War."

You should have asked that question, then, instead of the ones you did ask

I precisely did ask the origin of the term "the holocaust." You should have read the question carefully.
You are a wiseacre and a smart aleck.

sliabh · 24-02-2005 12:12pm

Turley wrote:

I precisely did ask the origin of the term "the holocaust." You should have read the question carefully.
You are a wiseacre and a smart aleck.

I am going to have to side with Robindch here. It wasn't clear what you were asking. You seemed to be arguing about the semantics of the term.

I think pretty much everyone is clear what "The holocaust" refers to. Just like a reference to "the wall" in Germany is obviously the Berlin Wall.

Turley · 24-02-2005 5:51pm

sliabh wrote:

I am going to have to side with Robindch here. It wasn't clear what you were asking. You seemed to be arguing about the semantics of the term.

I think pretty much everyone is clear what "The holocaust" refers to. Just like a reference to "the wall" in Germany is obviously the Berlin Wall.

I only wanted to know the origin of the term we are talking about.

I am not arguing.
I asked a question about the origin on the term "the holocaust."
The question was misunderstood and and the origin of the term "a holocaust" was posted.
I politely asked the question again regarding the term "the holocaust".
This was followed by a snide remark blaming me for their misunderstanding.
Now a fool is choosing sides.

robindch · 24-02-2005 6:29pm

> Now a fool is choosing sides.

Turley -- I think this comment was uncalled for.

- robin.

davros · 24-02-2005 9:03pm

Turley wrote:

Now a fool is choosing sides.

Such talk will lead to sanctions. I would have stepped in after "wiseacre" and "smart alec" if I'd read the thread sooner. We don't do name-calling around here.

I'm always reminded of those puzzles that begin "Nine perfectly logical individuals are sitting in a circle wearing coloured hats..." There are no perfectly logical individuals posting here, the language most people use is imprecise, people's understanding is imprecise, they might be reading in a hurry, etc.

If something is misinterpreted, patience and explanation is called for. If meaning is ambiguous, a bit of common sense will often tease out the intent.

Turley · 25-02-2005 4:28pm

davros wrote:

If something is misinterpreted, patience and explanation is called for. If meaning is ambiguous, a bit of common sense will often tease out the intent.

Davros-
If you check the dialog that preceded I did not change the topic of conversation here to "me". When the question was misunderstood I politely responded with patience and repeated the question. Please go back and read my response. The topic was then changed to "me" by Robin. After my polite, on topic, response his smart alec remark was directed at me.

I am not the topic of this thread and I do not want to be the topic of this thread. It was foolish to choose sides on the topic of "me." Nothing was added to the answer the question of the origin of the term "the holocaust."

If you wish to reject me, I may thank the Lord for sparing me the indignity of being a member of this group.
-Turley

robindch · 25-02-2005 4:53pm

> The topic was then changed to "me" by Robin.

I don't want to aggravate the situation, but I would respectfully point out that I didn't change the topic, just suggested that you meant a different question than what you actually asked -- if you think I am mistaken in this, then I would, again respectfully, ask you to re-read your original posting which I believe to be ambiguous. FWIW, I did include a smiley at the end, to indicate that my comment was not intended to be a 'smart-alecky' insult against your person, and I apologise unreservedly for what I wrote to be, and clearly mistakenly assumed, was a polite comment, if you did indeed take it to be a slagging off.

Now, back to the topic?

- robin, enjoying the Killarney sun this weekend.

Myksyk · 25-02-2005 5:32pm

Turley wrote:

If you wish to reject me, I may thank the Lord for sparing me the indignity of being a member of this group.
-Turley

It seems to me that this is the most insulting thing that Turley has said. It is clear that people differ dramatically in opinions and beliefs but this is a clear statement that he has no respect for the sincerity of the people with whom he is speaking. If having discussion with people who may not share his worldview or accept his arguments is such a blow to the core of his being then might I suggest that he not wait for a 'rejection' and operate his right to withdraw from the forum.

magpie · 25-02-2005 5:42pm

Interestingly one of the key points in Finkelstein's book is over the use of the term 'holocaust', specifically that Jewish groups refuse to allow it to be applied to any events other than the Jewish experience in WW2, for instance the treatment of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks in WW1, or even the fate of Gypsies and the handicapped in WW2 Germany.

Their argument is that it dilutes the seriousness of the holocaust if you use the term to describe other events. Finkelstein argues, and I would agree, that this attempted monopolisation of suffering is disrespectful to any other ethnic groups who have suffered similar fates and is an attempt to cast the Jewish population as the 'victims' and everyone else in the world as the 'agressors', and therefore morally and finanically obligated to the Jewish people, and by extension the Israeli state.

davros · 25-02-2005 7:29pm

Turley wrote:

When the question was misunderstood I politely responded with patience and repeated the question.

Yes, you did. I think it's me being misunderstood now. I was trying to make a general point, not direct my remarks specifically at you or anyone else. This thread is a mild example but we have had other threads where someone jumps in, all guns blazing, complaining about the ignorant misuse of the word 'is' or similar. Then the thread becomes more about linguistics than the topic at hand.

I understood your original question. I also thought the answer to it was quite complete and reasonable. Let's just leave it at that and not continue with the who-said-what. I'm not blaming you for that debate but I have to draw the line at the name-calling. That can't lead anywhere good.

If you wish to reject me, I may thank the Lord for sparing me the indignity of being a member of this group.

That's an insult too, but it's very elegantly phrased and not directed at anyone individually. I enjoyed it

Turley · 27-02-2005 3:28pm

magpie wrote:

Finkelstein argues, and I would agree, that this attempted monopolisation of suffering is disrespectful to any other ethnic groups who have suffered similar fates and is an attempt to cast the Jewish population as the 'victims' and everyone else in the world as the 'agressors', and therefore morally and finanically obligated to the Jewish people, and by extension the Israeli state.

The first use of the term "the holocaust" in this context did not make it a household word with the universal understanding it has today. How did this happen? And when did this happen?

Capt'n Midnight · 27-02-2005 3:49pm

Look at Vietnam / Korea - appox 4 million civilians killed during each war.
Ruwanda/Brundi - 1 million killed.
Cambodia - pushed back to the stone age and about 1/4 of the population killed.
And there ware the one million armenians killed in turkey between the first and second world war some of whom ironically found refuge in germany.

So there can be no doubt that if those numbers can be killed in smaller less populated regions that larger numbers could be killed in europe during the war. Twenty million Russians were killed, so many that the ratio of males to females was changed.

Important to remember that about half those killed in extermination camps wern't Jewish, I am tired of how the muslims ( one million in yugoslavia ) and others are ignored by holocust propoganda especially in light of "jewish" treatment of the palestinians.

Also important to remember that there were only about 6 extermination camps , most of the rest were standard concentration camps like Dachau. Much of Auschwitz was a concentration camp, there was ALSO an extermination camp at the same site. Most if not all survivors came form the concentration camp.

I'll try to dig up the secition form "world at war" about the lituanian camp, about 300 Germans and 1000 locals were responsible for one million deaths.

Zombrex · 27-02-2005 6:22pm

Turley wrote:

The first use of the term "the holocaust" in this context did not make it a household word with the universal understanding it has today. How did this happen? And when did this happen?

You seem to be asking retorical questions that you already know the answer to as if you are trying to make a point. For example you say here that the word was not household until recently, but then you ask when that happened. If would seem strange that you know it was not a household word back then, but not know when it became so.

The points you are trying to make are not clear and that is why people seem to be confused about what you are trying to say.

If that is not the case, I apologise.

THis page is a good summary of the origin of the word Holocaust -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(disambiguation)

The term holocaust means a great loss of life, or sacrifice, from Greek holokaustos, which literally means "burnt completely by fire"
...
Accordingly, before World War II, it was common to refer to any great fire as a holocaust. In recent decades, however, the term has become synonymous with genocide.
...
Used alone, as in "The Holocaust", it has largely come to refer to the experience of mainly Jews, and in rarer occasions, Gypsies, Poles, and other groups in Europe during World War II
...
The term has recently come to be used quite generally, describing events that have affected a large group of people, but where suffering rather than death was the main outcome. The expression "Silicone Holocaust" is one such.

Turley · 01-03-2005 12:13am

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be asking retorical questions that you already know the answer to as if you are trying to make a point. For example you say here that the word was not household until recently, but then you ask when that happened. If would seem strange that you know it was not a household word back then, but not know when it became so.

The points you are trying to make are not clear and that is why people seem to be confused about what you are trying to say.

Thank you for the Wikipedia link to the term "the holocaust".
I was not asking questions rhetorically or trying to make any point other than clarifying what we are talking about. I am curious how this term "has largely come to refer..." as Wikipedia states, "Used alone, as in "The Holocaust", it has largely come to refer to the experience of mainly Jews, and in rarer occasions, Gypsies, Poles, and other groups in Europe during World War II."

I think it is worth asking, "how do we know what we know?"

I sense the term has largely come to refer to the experience of Jews duing WWII since the 1970's but I may be mistaken. I don't really know. The term may have first been used during WWII but the first use of the term did not cause the term to "largely come to refer..."

The holocaust and revisionists

Comments