Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Auschwitz Museum Director Reveals 'Gas Chamber' Hoax
Options
Comments
-
-
-
I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.
That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.0 -
I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.
That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.
+10 -
That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.
Well that is not exactly what the poster said, that is how you re-formed the original statement into a new one.
The laws in Germany contain the following :
(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.
In this case, asserting that the numbers are exaggerated - can be interpreted as 'belittling'.
(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbes the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
There are also (and have been for a long time) moves to have these laws enforced across europe.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well that is not exactly what the poster said,
No it's not exact, but this is what Tony did say:Tony EH wrote:reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial"
On that basis, Raul Hilberg, for example, would be categorised as a holocaust denier, which is self-evidently absurd.0 -
-
I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.
That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.
It's a fair enough request to ask for proof, or evidence. 2 examples I know of are Fred A. Leuchter and Ernst Zundel. Leuchter made Electric Chairs, Lethal Injection Equipment, and Gasing Chambers for the U.S.prison system, but hasn't worked since publishing the Leuchter report, an independent study of exactly what we're discussing here. Zundel went to jail in Toronto for publishing a booklet entitled 'Did six million really die?'
There is a good documentary featuring both men called 'Mr Death - The rise and fall of Fred A Leucchter' which should be available on the web somewhere. If I find a link to watch it I'll post it, it's well worth a look.
As Morlar eludes, it's as good as common knowledge, that refuting the status quo has been the runation of many a man's career.
.0 -
Neither of the individuals to whom you refer are reputable. The choice of these people as examples undermines Tony EH's claims. There must be an example of a scholar who has revised downwards the number of European Jews killed in the 1939 - 1945 period by the Germans or by their puppet regimes and who has suffered for so doing. I am not restricting this request to imprisonment a lost job would be some evidence.
I would be interested to see if any prosecutions have taken place under the German law mentioned above of reputable scholars.marcsignal wrote: »As Morlar eludes, it's as good as common knowledge, that refuting the status quo has been the runation of many a man's career.
Zuendel runs a Nazi publishing company. He isn't a reputable individual and therefore he is not an example of the sort that I mentioned.
Leuchter is a more interesting example, he doesn't appear from the information given to be especially reputable either. He seems to be not a Nazi but rather a man who will do anything for money. He appears to be a monster.details his agreement with prosecutors to "serve two years' probation for practicing engineering without a license".... James Roth swore under oath to the results at the trial.
It was only after he got off the stand that Roth learned what the trial was about. In an interview for Morris' film, Roth states that cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls, to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness (he is seen in Morris' film hammering at the bricks with a rock hammer).
Not informed of this, Roth had pulverized the entire samples, thus severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample. Roth offers the analogy that the tests were like "analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it."Leuchter was running a death row shakedown scheme: if a state didn't purchase Leuchter's services, he would testify at the last minute for the condemned man that the state's death chamber might malfunction.0 -
The definition you are seeking to impose on this discussion is too limited and restricting. Anyone name put forward may, or may not, fit your definition of what is 'reputable', this is a ludicrous condition to attempt to impose on this discussion.
All of which conveniently ignores the primary fact that the effect of this legislation is to create a climate of fear among the academic community and others on the entire subject of holocaust numbers. This is the goal of this legislation and is key to stifling free and open debate.
The very fact that you can be prosecuted for deviating one iota from the mantra is reason enough for people not to stick their necks out this is the insidious effect which many people find objectionable. The most notable examples of people (historians and scholars) who do stick their necks out and have gotten away with it are, jewish, bulletproof to prosecutions on this as it happens.
One example of someone who was not jewish and who was prosecuted for holocaust denial (who may or may not fit your definition of 'reputable') was the bishop Richard Willaimson. It is worth noting that he was prosecuted in Germany for something he did not say in Germany. He put the numbers of those deliberately killed at 300,000 and triggered a media storm and diplomatic incident at the highest levels of government as a result.
In the end he was roundly and almost uniformly ostracised and fined €12,000 to be paid at €100 per week from now on. That was a member of the clergy, can you imagine if that had been a minor academic with no discernible media-friendly character references ?
Unless you are going to say that without a link to a study (you would approve of) to confirm it that there is actually no climate of fear on this subject?
I would disagree with you if that is what you are contending. As the other poster said before we went off on this tangent, the 6,000,000 mantra is at the core of this debate, if you 'belittle' this figure you can go to prison. Define 'belittle' in the context of a figure 6,000,000 The line between 5,999,999 and 300,000 is unknown, what is known is that if you are a high profile biship 300,000 will get you a €12k fine in Germany even if you do not say it in Germany.
** Just googled this and found that he did make the comment in Germany (Regensburg), but it was to a Swedish television channel not for broadcast in Germany.0 -
Advertisement
-
There was an article in the New York Review of Books within the past 3 months that gave a figure for the total number of European Jews killed by the Germans and puppet governments at less than 6 million. It also played down the importance of Auschwitz.
The author was Timothy Snyder a professor of history at Yale. He has not lost his job.
The examples given initially are a Nazi and a man who lied about his credentials and falsified data. I am not setting the bar all that high by excluding them.The definition you are seeking to impose on this discussion is too limited and restricting. Anyone name put forward may, or may not, fit your definition of what is 'reputable', this is a ludicrous condition to attempt to impose on this discussion.
If I were called a Nazi in a newspaper I could sue and win damages. If it was maintained in a newspaper that I misrepresented my professional qualifications I could sue and win damages.
If you are a person with whom it is libellous to be compared then you are not reputable.
300,000 is not 4.5 million. It isn't 3 million. It is in fact holocaust denial because such a low figures implies that there was no deliberate plan to kill off the European Jews but rather that some died through maltreatment and because of the harsh conditions of the concentration camps. It is a much lower figure than the number of Jews killed outside the camps. It is holocaust denial and I congratulate the German courts for enforcing their own laws.One example of someone who was not jewish and who was prosecuted for holocaust denial (who may or may not fit your definition of 'reputable') was the bishop Richard Willaimson. It is worth noting that he was prosecuted in Germany for something he did not say in Germany. He put the numbers of those deliberately killed at 300,000 and triggered a media storm and diplomatic incident at the highest levels of government as a result.
In the end he was roundly and almost uniformly ostracised and fined €12,000 to be paid at €100 per week from now on. That was a member of the clergy, can you imagine if that had been a minor academic with no discernible media-friendly character references ?Wikipedia wrote:Williamson has expressed controversial views about Jews. He called them the "enemies of Christ" and urges their conversion to Catholicism. He claims that Jews and Freemasons have contributed to the "changes and corruption" in the Catholic Church.Wikipedia wrote:He has also stated that Jews aim at world dominion ] and believes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be authentic. Williamson has denied that he is anti-semitic...Wikipedia wrote:Citing the pseudoscientific Leuchter report, Williamson has denied that millions of Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps and the existence of Nazi gas chambers, and praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.Wikipedia wrote:During an interview on Swedish television recorded in November 2008, he stated: "I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, is hugely against six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler",and "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas chambers."0 -
Define 'belittle' in the context of a figure
A number which is less than six million but not so low that it implies that there was no concerted effort to kill the European Jews.
Is there an example of a scholar who has deemphasised the holocaust that is who has said that it was not a priority for the Germans or even someone who has said that it is being misused as a symbol today and who has suffered for it?0 -
So, to recap, going by those wikipedia quotes, the Bishop is not reputable enough either.0
-
You can make up your own mind as to his reputability. He is however a holocaust denier rather than someone who has simply revised the numbers downward.0
-
You can make up your own mind as to his reputability. He is however a holocaust denier rather than someone who has simply revised the numbers downward.
You asked for an example of someone who had been impacted by holocaust denial legislation for not sticking to the 6,000,000 figure.
You were given several examples.
None of which you accept on the grounds of the condition & restriction you are seeking to impose on the discussion, that you need to personally approve of the character of those involved (which is ridiculous).
Or, alternately by limiting the definition of the discussion to a narrow band of numbers somewhere between 6m and 4.5mil as the band of discussion you find agreeable.0 -
The implication was that one could be convicted of holocaust denial for deviating from this figure even if one was not in fact a holocaust denier.You asked for an example of someone who had been impacted by holocaust denial legislation for not sticking to the 6,000,000 figure.
There is nowhere that the individuals given would be regarded as reputable. The first two were a Nazi and a criminal!You were given several examples.
None of which you accept on the grounds of the condition & restriction you are seeking to impose on the discussion, that you need to personally approve of the character of those involved (which is ridiculous).
It isn't an especially narrow band. After all it is larger than the total number of Jews that Williamson believed had been killed!Or, alternately by limiting the definition of the discussion to a narrow band of numbers somewhere between 6m and 4.5mil as the band of discussion you find agreeable.
To remind you of the discussion earlier:
Tony EH said:
The implication is that any scholar who believes that the number of Jews killed by the Germans was less than 6 million would be scared to publish this information even if that person believed that the German government had made an organised attempt to kill all the Jews in Europe during that time.Likewise, reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial" and one treads into that territory very carefully.
I then said:
A Nazi is not a reputable individual.I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.
That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.
A convicted perjurer who falsified his credentials is not reputable. Williamson's figure of 300,000 killed (if it is a figure for the total number of Jews killed in the 1939-1940 period) is not consistent with ...
in other words it is holocaust denial rather than a debate about numbers killed.the statement that ... there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s0 -
There are a couple of people playing slight of hand in this discussion and they know who they are.
It's obvious to everyone, even with a passing interest in WWII (or the holocaust for that matter) that straying from the much touted 6 million figure gets one branded.
It's completely ridiculous, if not completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise, especially when holocaust denial laws are lurking around the corner and double so, when it was one of the tenets mentioned in the case against David Irving, by hired gun Richard Evans.
And asking for a "reputable" person's name to be put forward as an example is silly as well.
The very fact that ANYONE is pulled up for disbelief of a series of events is proof enough that disbelief of the holocaust touchstones is something that people should be aware of as a dangerous pursuit.
Either way, everyone should look into the case of Joel Hayward as an example of pressure that a good historian could come under for not toeing the line. IMO, his book "Stopped at Stalingrad" is standard reading on the subject, but his university thesis got him into hot water. A university thesis, for Christ’s sake!
Likewise, Norman Finkelstein came under enormous pressure from the holocaust lobby for his book, "The Holocaust Industry"...
...and he denied nothing.
Even though Finkelstein didn't stray from the 6 mil, it's still pure farce to pretend that reducing the figure of 6 million yields no danger, when there's ample proof that it does...even to so-called "reputable" people.0 -
So we now have one example of a reputable historian who suffered because of his legitimately presented views. He did indeed lose his livelihood for challenging the views of 'the holocaust clique'. Though thank goodness his career seems to have recovered.
Why is it silly when it is so easy?And asking for a "reputable" person's name to be put forward as an example is silly as well.
everyone should look into the case of Joel Hayward as an example of pressure that a good historian could come under for not toeing the line.
Are you really unable to distinguish between Hayward and Leuchter.
Joel Hayward is a reputable historian who was misled by the criminal Leuchter's fabricated report. The treatment of Joel Hayward is disgraceful and reflects badly on New Zealand (and ) and Massey and Canterbury Universities. I am glad to see that his career has recovered.
Irrelevant the book is about the way in which a self appointed set of Jewish conservatives contrived to manipulate the memory of the holocaust for financial gain. It is a direct attack on the 'holocaust lobby' not a piece of holocaust denial.
Likewise, Norman Finkelstein came under enormous pressure from the holocaust lobby for his book, "The Holocaust Industry"...0 -
How do you know his career recovered?0
-
Why is it silly when it is so easy?
It's silly, because they are still examples. Just not examples YOU want. Besides, if you had read on, you'd see why I think it's silly...
"The very fact that ANYONE is pulled up for disbelief of a series of events is proof enough that disbelief of the holocaust touchstones is something that people should be aware of as a dangerous pursuit."Irrelevant the book is about the way in which a self appointed set of Jewish conservatives contrived to manipulate the memory of the holocaust for financial gain. It is a direct attack on the 'holocaust lobby' not a piece of holocaust denial.
It's not "Irrelevant" in any way. It's entirely relevant. Norman Finkelstein suufered incredible attacks by the same holocaust fraternity, that attacked Hayward, Leuchter, Irving and Zundel.
...and in that respect, there is no difference between any of them.0 -
Advertisement
-
He is the Dean of Air Power Studies at the RAF college and a tenured Professor of the University of London. Still your point stands. The affair was disgraceful he lost his job at a university in New Zealand and had to sell his book collection (some 8 years after he wrote the thesis).
He did in fact deny the holocaust by the way (therefore not mere quibbling about numbers) but he did so as a result of honest scholarship (he was 23 when he wrote the paper that got him into so much trouble).
Joel Hayward made four claims:
There were no gas chambers (he now believes that there were gas chambers).
Hitler gave no formal order for the extermination of the European Jews (he still stands over this)
We cannot know the number of Jews killed but it was certainly less than six million. (he still stands over this).
Jews in Poland and Belarus died for basically the same reasons as their christian neighbours. Starvation, maltreatment and murder. (the historical evidence as regards this has changed since 1993 and as a result he has changed his mind)
This led him to the belief that the death of Jews in 1939-1945 was qualitatively similar to the death of other people in Poland and Belarus and that Jewish victimhood was not special.
In his paper Joel Hayward made a deliberate decision to treat those who believe that there was an organised plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe and those who do not believe this as equally credible.
Unfortunately one of those who believes that there was no such plan is Ernst Zuendel who paid Mr Leuchter to produce his report.
That report has now been discredited.
At the time that Joel Hayward wrote his thesis it had not been discredited (or at least he was not aware that it had been discredited if it had).
He seems unfortunately to have regarded the Leuchter report as a 'smoking gun'.0 -
Because they are a Nazi and a criminal.It's silly, because they are still examples. Just not examples YOU want.
It is clear from Joel Hayward's case that groups like 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' have too much power, in fact that organisation should be wound up.It's entirely relevant. Norman Finkelstein suufered incredible attacks by the same holocaust fraternity, that attacked Hayward, Leuchter, Irving and Zundel.
Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier.
Joel Hayward is a reputable historian.
You do them both a disservice by linking them with Zuendel and Leuchter.0 -
Whether or not you find the examples given earlier on the thread as reputable people or not is as irrelevant as whether or not you find them attractive, or, think they smell nice.
They were not charged, prosecuted and convicted because they did not pass your character-test. The various examples were convicted for holocaust denial which is the subject that is being discussed here & the laws in question do not only apply to those you approve of.
Likewise this discussion does not revolve that way either. No one has agreed to the conditions you are trying to place on this discussion, (neither to limit the discussion to areas of numbers between 4.5m & 6m band or to only examples of holo-denial legislation if you approve of the people on some personal level)
You said that the Finkelstein case is irrelevant in the context of a discussion on holocaust denial. I disagree with that take on things. You can not discuss holocaust denial legislation without mentioning the holocaust lobby/pro-israel lobby.
This history is central to the justification for the creation of the state of israel and so delicately placed that to question some detail or other is (in some peoples eyes) to effectively undermine it & will incur the wrath of groups like the ADL, the likes of C.A.M.E.R.A, F.L.A.M.E, G.I.Y.U.S (who far as I remember were active on boards around the time of the last Lebannon war) & likeminded groups & individuals. So the lobby and advocacy groups are relevant.
We are not discussing an closed-off, safe, historical event. It is still politically volatile and in addition constantly bumped to the top of the news agenda, whether it is compulsory schooltrips, funding for h museums, h advisors to schools, hollywood films, books, magazines or other cultural connections, tv programmes etc
It is not an area of history that is open to rigorous & open "free from recriminations" kind of debate. Unlike for example the Irish Famine where the numbers were originally & for decades inflated, now down to approx 1m dead. Irish people did not cry out for legislation to keep the numbers higher or prosecute anyone who disagreed - if the famine were central to the creation of our state (as the holocaust is to israel) perhaps things would be different but I doubt it.
The reduction in numbers is seen not as anti-irish scholarship but as the normal consequence of informed, un-biased, politically neutral free and open debate among scholars and academics not operating in a climate of fear. Can you imagine how much progress would have been made if scholars operated on other areas of history knowing that to question a deathtoll would lose their reputation, their job and put them in prison ? Would you view that as a healthy development ?0 -
Whether or not you find the examples given earlier on the thread as reputable people or not is as irrelevant as whether or not you find them attractive, or, think they smell nice.
The standards are not arbitrary; to be compared with Zuendel or Leuchter would be libelous.
Tony EH maintained that deviation from the 6 million figure was alone enough to find oneself ruined. This is not the case.
I refer you to the New York Review of Books article 'the Real Holocaust' which revises the figure of 6 million downward. It is by Timothy Snyder a professor at Yale.
The examples given as victims of what it is claimed is repressive legislation include a Nazi, and a criminal.
One of these criminals and Nazi conspired to produce false information which nearly led to a brilliant academic career being destroyed. This is not 'inquiry' it is dishonesty. Perhaps stricter legislation is needed.
Williamson is a victim of Zuendel and Leuchter. He is an anti semite but he is still a victim of their false reporting. He found his prejudices confirmed by their 'research'.
Joel Hayward chose as an academic exercise not to consider the moral character of the holocaust deniers in his study of the historiography of the holocaust. This led him into holocaust denial rather than numerical haggling.
The reality is however that a Nazi and a criminal cannot be trusted not to fake their research.
The moral character of holocaust deniers is central to this argument.
Incidentally Morlar do you really believe that downward revisions of the total dead in Ireland in the 1844-1849 period are value neutral and apolitical?0 -
Because they are a Nazi and a criminal.
It is clear from Joel Hayward's case that groups like 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' have too much power, in fact that organisation should be wound up.
Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier.
Joel Hayward is a reputable historian.
You do them both a disservice by linking them with Zuendel and Leuchter.
I don't accept your opinion.0 -
I don't accept your opinion.
What part of my opinion don't you accept?
Do you accept that Joel Hayward is a reputable historian? If not why not?
Do you accept that Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier? If not why not?
Do you accept that Ernst Zuendel is a Nazi? If not why not?
Do you accept that Leuchter is a criminal? If not why not?
Do you accept that 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' should be wound up? If not why not?
Do you accept that downward revisions of the number of the Jews who died in Europe in the 1939 - 1945 period by scholars who accept that there was a deliberate plan executed by the German state to kill all the Jews in Europe do not in and of themselves lead to academic sanction?
If not I would like an example.0 -
Incidentally Morlar do you really believe that downward revisions of the total dead in Ireland in the 1844-1849 period are value neutral and apolitical?
I do not care who the numbers come from - so long they are open to being discussed & freely debated in an enviornment where those taking part in the discussion can do so without fear of losing your reputation, job or liberty.
This is the same level of freedom that applies to every other historical event (outside the borders of dictatorships or authoritarian regimes).
It is this freedom & civil liberty that holocaust denial legislation seeks to curtail. The character of it's victims is irrelevant. The effect of this sort of insidious legislation is not to be measured only in convictions - it is measured in the climate of fear it creates.0 -
What part of my opinion don't you accept?
Do you accept that Joel Hayward is a reputable historian? If not why not?
Do you accept that Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier? If not why not?
Do you accept that Ernst Zuendel is a Nazi? If not why not?
Do you accept that Leuchter is a criminal? If not why not?
Do you accept that 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' should be wound up? If not why not?
Do you accept that downward revisions of the number of the Jews who died in Europe in the 1939 - 1945 period by scholars who accept that there was a deliberate plan executed by the German state to kill all the Jews in Europe do not in and of themselves lead to academic sanction?
If not I would like an example.
The above is a load of nonsense talk and does nothing whatsoever for the thread. Neither does your attempt to shift the goalposts and narrow the discussion to what you feel comfortable with and I won't entertain such silliness.
However, i will point out again that you are wrong on this point...Tony EH maintained that deviation from the 6 million figure was alone enough to find oneself ruined. This is not the case.
Richard Evans, in the case against Irving, pointed out quite clearly that one of the 'methods' of so-called "holocaust denial" was reduction of the 6 million figure.
Pierre Naquet said in the 80's that reduction of the number of Jewish victims was part of "Revisionism", which unfortunately has since become a byword for "anti-Semitism"/'holocaust denial'.
You are just simply wrong to suggest that it has no effect and trying to pretend that people can question it without any danger whatsoever isn't going to find much support.
The bunkum term "holocaust denial" is a deliberately elastic term designed to encompass as much or as little as the shouter wants. From saying that Nuremburg was victors justice, to disbelief of gas chambers. And that term has been given far too much clout as a legitimate accusation to be leveled against somebody.
For instance, some people may believe that there wasn't an official genocide policy within the Third Reich, but may believe that millions of Jews were killed and gas chambers existed etc. The non-belief alone of official policy would get that person branded as a "holocaust denier". And the point of having the silly term so elastic is to ward people off questioning and argumentation, lest they suffer the effects of the people already mentioned in the thread.
People should be allowed to question (or deny) whatever they want, without having to face a barrarge of black campaigning from the multitude of special interest holocaust/Jewish groups.0 -
@ MrMicra
Ahem ? Would you like to explain yourself ??
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055730938
Or would you just prefer to badmouth people on this thread without having the common decency to afford them the opportunity to challenge you ???
You have 24 hours to explain yourself, or you sir, will earn the privilige of being the first boardsie to earn pride of place on my ignore list, and you will not come off it.
I smell an ADL attack dog in the camp guys, and I dont mean the Concentration Camp........
.0 -
Advertisement
-
its simple Marc
either he can show you where you are mistaken, in which case no doubt your position will be revised in light of new FACTS
or he cant show you where he believes you are mistaken, in which case I wouldnt expect to see him postin here much more0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement