Holocaust Denial [MOD NOTE POST #1]

martingriff

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have already said the Holocaust was a real event. Of course, the Nazis are responsible for the deaths they placed the Jews in these camps against their will. How they died, how many died are legitimate questions we can ask?

You are not answering the question. Let me phrase it better with 2?

1) Do you believe that Nazi's in person killed people? You answer i say is yes

2) Are Nazi responsible for people who died due to malnutrition, disease or bombings as they were not in shelters like everyone else due to where they were kpt.

A third question for myself

3) Should those dies in question 2 above be part of the Holocaust figures.

Simple 1 word answers for all 3 please

Tony EH

King Mob wrote: »

The figure of 4 million deaths was never taken seriously

This is incorrect.

I am old enough to have been studying the war for a number for decades. In fact, as a child of someone who was in the Royal Engineers and an evacuee from Guernsey in 1940, "the war" has been a constant part of my life since I can remember.

I can also remember that various authors that I have read upheld the 4 million number. Writers, such as Martin Gilbert, who has written extensively about the holocaust put the 4 million figure in their books, because it was the official figure. Others were pilloried for their doubts about it. All this was before the revisionist craze of the 90's and the internet's ability to spread such stuff easily.

Many said it was merely a Soviet construct. Others insisted that it was factual and for decades, the stone plaques kept the statement as 4 million, until Glasnost, the opening of Soviet records and Poland's independence.

I've been having these conversations online for about 20 years now and it never fails to amaze me why numbers are so important to BOTH sides of the debate. On one hand you have people that would stone you if you say you don't believe the 6 million figure, despite the fact that even holocaust scholars themselves aren't in agreement - Gerhard Reitlinger says it's around 4 million, Raul Hilberg (the foremost scholar in the field said about 5 million). On the other hand there are people who says it's much less, therefore the impact should be considered less, vecause they have their own agendas to play with.

The fact remains that whatever the number is, 4, 5 , 6... the nazi's singled out "undesirables" for "sonderbehandlung", which usually meant death by a variety of methods. That's the historical item that it of the most import, not bitching about numbers.

Tony EH

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Only other concentration camps alleged to have gas chambers was Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek.

There were six camps that were said to have had gas chambers functioning to various degrees. You've missed out on Chelmno.

If you're trying to make a case here, you'll need to at least get that right.

Tony EH

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again these are holocaust supporter numbers and they are highly inflated but we will work with what we got.

1 million at Auschwitz and another 1.5 million at the other gas camps is only 2.5 million. Where did the other 3.5 million Jewish people die?

None gas camps are just small camps with only few thousand were housed they were work camps. None of the other camps can account for 3 million Jewish deaths, they had no gas chambers to systematically kill Jewish people.

You seem to labouring under a number of falsehoods and inncorrect information.

The vast majority of the nazi's victims didn't die in gas chambers. That goes for the Jews too. In Auschwitz, for instance, the biggest killer was disease. Thyphus was rampant from 1944 to the end of the war and claimed a huge number of people and the Germans lacked the ability to combat it effectlively, even if they'd wished to.

Also, the Einsatzkommando claimed about 1 million in the east. Even David Irving, who's often held up as the holocaust denier posterboy, agrees with that.

The nazis did away with people through numerous methods, overwork, undernourishment, hanging, shooting and gassing, along with various other "processes".

Not eveybody was "gassed".

indioblack

Tony EH wrote: »

This is incorrect.

I am old enough to have been studying the war for a number for decades. In fact, as a child of someone who was in the Royal Engineers and an evacuee from Guernsey in 1940, "the war" has been a constant part of my life since I can remember.

I can also remember that various authors that I have read upheld the 4 million number. Writers, such as Martin Gilbert, who has written extensively about the holocaust put the 4 million figure in their books, because it was the official figure. Others were pilloried for their doubts about it. All this was before the revisionist craze of the 90's and the internet's ability to spread such stuff easily.

Many said it was merely a Soviet construct. Others insisted that it was factual and for decades, the stone plaques kept the statement as 4 million, until Glasnost, the opening of Soviet records and Poland's independence.

I've been having these conversations online for about 20 years now and it never fails to amaze me why numbers are so important to BOTH sides of the debate. On one hand you have people that would stone you if you say you don't believe the 6 million figure, despite the fact that even holocaust scholars themselves aren't in agreement - Gerhard Reitlinger says it's around 4 million, Raul Hilberg (the foremost scholar in the field said about 5 million). On the other hand there are people who says it's much less, therefore the impact should be considered less, vecause they have their own agendas to play with.

The fact remains that whatever the number is, 4, 5 , 6... the nazi's singled out "undesirables" for "sonderbehandlung", which usually meant death by a variety of methods. That's the historical item that it of the most import, not bitching about numbers.

I don't think this is about numbers. [Sometimes in this thread I'm not sure what it is about].
I think it has more to do with a motivation behind discrediting the numbers.
Though why anyone would go to such lengths baffles me.
For decades the number of Jews killed was just under 6 million - if it was put to me that a more reasonable number was 4 million, I'd accept it.
In my copy of The Holocaust, Gilbert says the number is "... as many as six million".

Harika

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You full of it. You just want to believe what you want. We even have Harika claiming on here Korherr did not write the Korherr Report. Totally ignoring this report is used by Holocaust historians still to this day.

Korherr is denying in his letter to Das Spiegel "special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) meant the extermination of the Jews in the East, that's it. Still did not stop you guys thanking him for believing his right when he not.

Korherr claims he heard from the Reich Main Security Office that it meant Jews located to Lubian district in Poland. Of course, he could be lying and he did know 1.4 million Jews were sent to the East to be liquidated? But nowhere in his letter is he denying the statistics are fake.

Korherr claimed he did not write that report, it was given to him with the order to not change a thing. You then claimed that was a fake letter from him, if you want you can download the digital version of the newspaper where it was published or if more paranoid go to a German library and read the original newspaper from 1977. And "der Spiegel" is not some blog on the Web without credibility.
I linked you the part where he states that, even Google translate can confirm that if you don't like the translation of a native speaker.
As we don't know who actually wrote the report it is dubious at best and in Germany mostly used by holocaust deniers to justify their belief.

Tony EH

indioblack wrote: »

I don't think this is about numbers. [Sometimes in this thread I'm not sure what it is about].
I think it has more to do with a motivation behind discrediting the numbers.
Though why anyone would go to such lengths baffles me.
For decades the number of Jews killed was just under 6 million - if it was put to me that a more reasonable number was 4 million, I'd accept it.
In my copy of The Holocaust, Gilbert says the number is "... as many as six million".

Conversely, one could also question why it is so important that people believe in the 6 million figure, lest they suffer the indignation of being labelled a "holocaust denier", a term BTW that's so elastic it expands and contracts to whatever the user wants it to mean.

I don't have any truck with either side in these debates, to be honest. My primary interest is of a military nature. But, one can't study the war without studying the other actions of the Germans during the period and ever since I've had access to the net, these type of threads have been around.

But, the holocaust has become such a political football and is, frankly, abused by most groups who both trumpet it and who are "against" it - for want of a better word - that it becomes better simply to block out the various interested parties who want to use it to sell you something, and make up your own mind.

For me, I'll generally stick with someone like Hillberg, who spent most of his life studying the area and even he was open to the idea that his conclusions weren't written in stone, as a good scholar should be.

We'll never truly know the exact figure in question here. But, that's completely beside the point.

Dohnjoe

Tony EH wrote: »

I can also remember that various authors that I have read upheld the 4 million number. Writers, such as Martin Gilbert, who has written extensively about the holocaust put the 4 million figure in their books, because it was the official figure. Others were pilloried for their doubts about it. All this was before the revisionist craze of the 90's and the internet's ability to spread such stuff easily.

Many said it was merely a Soviet construct. Others insisted that it was factual and for decades, the stone plaques kept the statement as 4 million, until Glasnost, the opening of Soviet records and Poland's independence.

The 4 million at Auschwitz was based on a Soviet estimate of the crematoriums running almost nonstop. It generally wasn't accepted by most Western academics and historians

The modern consensus is 5 to 6 mm.

Overheal

I don't care if the figure is 6 million or 4 personally but if that's what the broad consensus is I'm not motivated enough to become a pseudo-expert in the subject to question it, I am happy to believe the 6 million figure as I just don't see the benefit of challenging it nor do I see compelling evidence to doubt it. The Holocaust was still a brutal genocidal event.

Dohnjoe

Tony EH wrote: »

Conversely, one could also question why it is so important that people believe in the 6 million figure,

The "6 million" is simply easier to say that 5.75 or 5.933 or 5.2

There are many historians who have the figure lower than 6 million - they are not branded Holocaust deniers

indioblack

Tony EH wrote: »

Conversely, one could also question why it is so important that people believe in the 6 million figure, lest they suffer the indignation of being labelled a "holocaust denier", a term BTW that's so elastic it expands and contracts to whatever the user wants it to mean.

I don't have any truck with either side in these debates, to be honest. My primary interest is of a military nature. But, one can't study the war without studying the other actions of the Germans during the period and ever since I've had access to the net, these type of threads have been around.

But, the holocaust has become such a political football and is, frankly, abused by most groups who both trumpet it and who are "against" it - for want of a better word - that it becomes better simply to block out the various interested parties who want to use it to sell you something, and make up your own mind.

For me, I'll generally stick with someone like Hillberg, who spent most of his life studying the area and even he was open to the idea that his conclusions weren't written in stone, as a good scholar should be.

We'll never truly know the exact figure in question here. But, that's completely beside the point.

I agree that the exact figure may never be known.
Accepting a lower figure shouldn't alter people's opinion of what was done to European Jews, [and non-Jews, it should be remembered], by Hitler's regime.

Tony EH

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It generally wasn't accepted by most Western academics and historians.

This is simply incorrect.

From Martin Glibert's 'Auschwitz and the Allies', published in 1981.

At 3 P.M. on January 27, Soviet troops reached Aushwitz. They found 648 corpses, and 7,600 survivors: 1,200 survivors in Auschwitz Main Camp. 5,800 at Birkenau, including four thousand women, and 650 survivors at Monovitz. Since the first gas chamber began operations more than two and a half years earlier, a minimum of two million Jews had been killed there, as had as many as two million Soviet prisoners-of-war, Polish political prisoners, Gypsies and non-Jews from all over Europe.

Emphasis is mine.

Now, anyone who's read about the holocaust will be familiar with Gilbert's books on the subject. In fact, it's fair to say he's one of the most published authors on the matter in Britain and probably one of the most famous this side of the Atlantic.

Even he, in 1981, just 8 years before the revision of the plagues in the Auschwitz museum, was writing that the death toll was 4 million plus.

People took the number seriously, because it was the official figure and were willing to put their names and reputations to it.

pitifulgod

Overheal wrote: »

I don't care if the figure is 6 million or 4 personally but if that's what the broad consensus is I'm not motivated enough to become a pseudo-expert in the subject to question it, I am happy to believe the 6 million figure as I just don't see the benefit of challenging it nor do I see compelling evidence to doubt it. The Holocaust was still a brutal genocidal event.

The part that horrifies me is that the people most concerned with reducing the numbers also deny existence of gas chambers and furnaces. Basically sanitising the holocaust.

Tony EH

Overheal wrote: »

I don't care if the figure is 6 million or 4 personally but if that's what the broad consensus is I'm not motivated enough to become a pseudo-expert in the subject to question it, I am happy to believe the 6 million figure as I just don't see the benefit of challenging it nor do I see compelling evidence to doubt it. The Holocaust was still a brutal genocidal event.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The "6 million" is simply easier to say that 5.75 or 5.933 or 5.2

There are many historians who have the figure lower than 6 million - they are not branded Holocaust deniers

True. It's merely a rounded figure that has been agreed upon, like all figures that reach "millions". WWII scholars can't even be sure on battlefield casualty numbers and they're arrived at with far more solid data.

But, it's important to remember that the figure itself isn't a holy number. It's just a generally agreed amount. Problems arise when politically interested groups want to use/minimise that figure for their own means, and the important issue tends to get obscured.

I also think that bringing a litigious nature into the proceedings is unhelpful. It practically drives people into the arms "denier" websites, etc. But, then, that also keeps the subject alive and their are many groups for whom the holocaust is the bread and butter.

As someone coined, "There's no business like Shoah business".

Dohnjoe

Tony EH wrote: »

This is simply incorrect.

That was Gilbert's view. Both Hilberg and Gilbert estimated between 5 and 6 mm died, consistent with today's consensus (although they differed on Auschwitz) Reitlinger estimated around 1 mm dead at Auschwitz, and that was published in 1953.

Different historians had different figures. But the 4 million by Soviet estimates generally did not persist with many historians. As mentioned, the modern consensus is around 1 mm at Auschwitz and approx 5 to 6 mm in total

King Mob

Tony EH wrote: »

This is incorrect.

I am old enough to have been studying the war for a number for decades. In fact, as a child of someone who was in the Royal Engineers and an evacuee from Guernsey in 1940, "the war" has been a constant part of my life since I can remember.

I can also remember that various authors that I have read upheld the 4 million number. Writers, such as Martin Gilbert, who has written extensively about the holocaust put the 4 million figure in their books, because it was the official figure. Others were pilloried for their doubts about it. All this was before the revisionist craze of the 90's and the internet's ability to spread such stuff easily.

Many said it was merely a Soviet construct. Others insisted that it was factual and for decades, the stone plaques kept the statement as 4 million, until Glasnost, the opening of Soviet records and Poland's independence.

I've been having these conversations online for about 20 years now and it never fails to amaze me why numbers are so important to BOTH sides of the debate. On one hand you have people that would stone you if you say you don't believe the 6 million figure, despite the fact that even holocaust scholars themselves aren't in agreement - Gerhard Reitlinger says it's around 4 million, Raul Hilberg (the foremost scholar in the field said about 5 million). On the other hand there are people who says it's much less, therefore the impact should be considered less, vecause they have their own agendas to play with.

The fact remains that whatever the number is, 4, 5 , 6... the nazi's singled out "undesirables" for "sonderbehandlung", which usually meant death by a variety of methods. That's the historical item that it of the most import, not bitching about numbers.

These are fair points. But I think that you're missing the point that holocaust deniers are trying to make.

They are arguing that the 4 million figure was deliberately and purposefully inflated to get the number of deaths to 6 million and that this number was "secretly" reduced without the general public noticing, thus the death toll of the holocaust should have been around 3 million/never happened.

The numbers aren't important to me. But holocaust deniers love manipulating those numbers, reducing them, pointing to the debate around them and fogging the whole thing to try and legitimise their idea that the holocaust was faked or inflated thanks to a Jewish Conspiracy.

The actual historians who argue for a lower death toll are doing so with actual historical methods, while deniers use silly arguments like the one presented in the OP of this thread. There's a vast difference between them and it's very clear who's who.

Dohnjoe

Agreed

Nitpicking over specific numbers and related historians is personal opinion and generally for the military history forums (done in good faith)

This thread is about something completely different. The deliberate and deceitful attempt to reduce the number of deaths of a ethnic-religious group by individuals, done in bad faith, in order to satisfy some vile or willfully ignorant personal views

King Mob

You also have to remember that our resident deniers are arguing that no one is allowed to question the holocaust at all.
However as you point out, there are plenty of historians who put the death toll significantly lower that the 6 million. None of them have been jailed or punished for doing so.

I'm asking them why they think this is the case and how that gels with the idea that it's impossible to question the Holocaust.
Or how someone who was very directly responsible for dropping the figure at Auschwitz from 4 to 1 million would end up as their head historian.

Tony EH

King Mob wrote: »

These are fair points. But I think that you're missing the point that holocaust deniers are trying to make.

Believe me, after 20 years of reading this stuff, there are few points I've "missed".

But, the point still stands. The 4 million figure for Auschwitz was not uniformly dismissed by scholars and writers and it wasn't just Martin Gilbert who wrote about it.

King Mob

Tony EH wrote: »

Believe me, after 20 years of reading this stuff, there are few points I've "missed".

But, the point still stands. The 4 million figure for Auschwitz was not uniformly dismissed by scholars and writers and it wasn't just Martin Gilbert who wrote about it.

Ok, fair. But the other points also stand.
The 4 million figure was never uniformly part of the total of 6 million.
And the 4 million figure being reduced does not imply that the total is significantly less that 6 million. Nor does it imply that there's a conspiracy to inflate the Holocaust death toll.

Dohnjoe

There's a 2016 dramatic film on the subject called "Denial", about Lipstadt taking on Irving. Worth a watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(2016_film)

Tony EH

King Mob wrote: »

The 4 million figure was never uniformly part of the total of 6 million.

True, but that's not what I'm saying here.

I think people tend to jump on these figures for numerous reasons. One is a sort of "gotcha", and I've talked to many people over the years that had that view of subtracting the 4 million from the 6 and wondering where the rest went. Then they jump to the wrong conclusion.

The fact is, even if we were to add the original Jewish death toll figure for Auschwitz to the "6 million" number, it would only add 2 million, as the other 2 million were made up of "others", such as Russian POWs.

So, anyone claiming that the original Auschwitz figure of 4 million was part of the much vaunted 6 million is starting off on the wrong foot.

Chrongen

King Mob wrote: »

You've ignored all of my questions.
I am shocked.

Ok. So who made that estimate?
Why?
Why was it changed?

Can you point to ANY source that ever included the 4 million figure as part of the overall 6 million?


Franzicek Piper is one of the foremost holocaust historians in the world.
He in 100% a supporter of the figure you doubt.

Why would he think that the death toll was 6 million?
Is he wrong when he claims this?
Is he part of the conspiracy, but also somehow not?


What's the difference?
You still rely on the same exact racist sources and long debunked arguments from those racist sources.
You have to invent an insane conspiracy that involves ever historian in the world.

It's just a question of scale.
You don't deny the Holocaust as much as some other people.
It's still denying the Holocaust.


Yes. They did so with actual historical research.
Watching youtube video from racists is not research.

I'm not here to deny the Holocaust, even though that appears to be the way things proceed.

There seems to be a definition: Question anything about the Holocaust and you are a criminal or a white supremacist nutcase or just some unhinged lunatic.

I'm just asking a very simple question, i.e. if the number of those murdered at Auschwitz was reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million then why wasn't the figure of 6 million also downgraded?

I would rather not hear from anybody who talks of "racist" websites or "verbal thuggery" but better to hear from someone who can add and subtract.

It's a very simple question. If the only response is to hurl abuse then that doesn't bode well for a rational discussion.

Chrongen

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a good video of a prominent historian who discusses her experiences with Holocaust Denial.

She makes the case that Holocaust Denial is inherently racist. I agree to an extent, but I feel we have folks who innocently swallow the propaganda not thinking much of it's racist origins and underpinnings.

Why do you subscribe to the notion of "Holocaust denial" yet express skepticism about other historical accounts?

Chrongen

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, fair. But the other points also stand.
The 4 million figure was never uniformly part of the total of 6 million.
And the 4 million figure being reduced does not imply that the total is significantly less that 6 million. Nor does it imply that there's a conspiracy to inflate the Holocaust death toll.

Of course it doesn't imply anything. But it's a very valid question and one that ought not be battered down, as you have done, with epithets of racism and denial,

Were I to suggest or question that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West and consequently postulated that the Earth rotated the Sun, contrary to popular belief, would you take my questions on board or would you demand I be burned at the stake?

Dohnjoe

Chrongen wrote: »

There seems to be a definition: Question anything about the Holocaust and you are a criminal or a white supremacist nutcase or just some unhinged lunatic.

Historians do this all the time. So this is not true at all, and I think we need to move on from this trope.

I'm just asking a very simple question, i.e. if the number of those murdered at Auschwitz was reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million then why wasn't the figure of 6 million also downgraded?

Different historians arrived at different figures, depending on their methods of calculation and research. It's reliant on whom you are quoting. The consensus among most historians, especially with the most recent information is approx 5 to 6 mm. Some maintained that e.g. 2 mm (Jews) died at Auschwitz, others maintained it was around 900,000

At the moment the consensus is around 1 mm for semantics sake (approx 1.1)

The 4 mm figure was an early calculation by a Soviet-Polish commission on the crematoriums operating at full capacity (minus a percentage), which was deemed unlikely by later historians

Dohnjoe

Chrongen wrote: »

Why do you subscribe to the notion of "Holocaust denial" yet express skepticism about other historical accounts?

Not directed at me, but to reply; Holocaust denial has nothing to do with objectively disputing normal historical methods

to paraphrase what I wrote earlier - denial is an attempt to diminish the event motivated not by history, but by e.g. antisemitism

Overheal

Chrongen wrote: »

Of course it doesn't imply anything. But it's a very valid question and one that ought not be battered down, as you have done, with epithets of racism and denial,

Were I to suggest or question that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West and consequently postulated that the Earth rotated the Sun, contrary to popular belief, would you take my questions on board or would you demand I be burned at the stake?

Who burns anyone at a stake anymore?

JenovaProject

Overheal wrote: »

Who burns anyone at a stake anymore?

its obviously a figure of speech.

Overheal

JenovaProject wrote: »

Hardly a mod-worthy reply...its obviously a figure of speech.

If you have a problem with the forum moderation you can PM me, an alternate Mod, or a Cmod. This isn’t the place. Thanks.

It’s a fine thing to ask. That figure of speech is needless hyperbole. Flat-Earthers aren’t “burned at the stake” in any metaphoric capacity. Nor are they prosecuted under any blasphemy law that I’m aware of, even.