Holocaust Denial [MOD NOTE POST #1]

07-05-2018 02:07AM

Chrongen, your question has been answered several times over and in various ways.
It would have also been answered if you had actually addressed the questions put to you in the op.

The 4 million figure was never really included in the total of 6 million.
Secondly as Tony EH has pointed out this 4 million figure includes 2 million Soviet POWs, so it at most would have been 2 million Jewish people which is still in the range of some of the earlier higher estimates and still vaguely in line with a figure of around 6 million.

That's why the figure was not reduced.
Not because of a conspiracy to inflate the numbers as you seem to be implying.

As for you claims about people being burned at the stake, please explain why we have been pointing to numerous historians who argue for lower numbers? Surely all these people would be in jail if your claims were true.
And how about Piper, who you used to show that the figure was lowered from 4 million to 1. Why is he not punished? How can he hold a position of such high regard in the field of holocaust research if he's supposed to be burned at the stake?

07-05-2018 02:15AM

And again for clarity, I'm not calling for anyone to be punished for their holocaust denial. I just don't feel a ton of sympathy for the lying nazi propagandists who do get punished for it.
There is not a violin tiny enough for them...

JenovaProject · 07-05-2018 02:20AM

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Ive no problem with your moderation.
Just that the reply might have been a better standard than to blatantly ignore a figure of speech to score petty internet points.

Overheal · 07-05-2018 02:27AM

JenovaProject wrote: »

Ive no problem with your moderation.
Just that the reply might have been a better standard than to blatantly ignore a figure of speech to score petty internet points.

I mean the victimhood itself, of acting like you are being tried as a witch, is itself a pretty low standard to score some petty internet points.

JenovaProject · 07-05-2018 02:29AM

Overheal wrote: »

I mean the victimhood itself, of acting like you are being tried as a witch, is itself a pretty low standard to score some petty internet points.

Thats perfectly agreeable...I will edit my post to take out the mod reference:)

fran17 · 07-05-2018 02:09PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Unfortunately some people just see horrific events as opportunities to selectively bash countries/groups/races that they hate

They seek to rewrite history and twist facts in order to fit their world views

The moment Eisenhower saw the camps - he knew that people would try to deny it, which is why he ordered that everything be documented.

Of course not to be confused with Eisenhower's Rhine meadow camps.Curious thing about Eisenhower being in his "Crusade in Europe" memoirs,written a number of years after the war,it makes no reference to genocide,gas chambers or six million.

07-05-2018 02:13PM

fran17 wrote: »

Of course not to be confused with Eisenhower's Rhine meadow camps.Curious thing about Eisenhower being in his "Crusade in Europe" memoirs,written a number of years after the war,it makes no reference to genocide,gas chambers or six million.

So therefore it didn't happen?

fran17 · 07-05-2018 02:19PM

King Mob wrote: »

So therefore it didn't happen?

Hardly a logical conclusion to make but do you not find it curious though?And being on the subject of memoirs neither does Churchill,De Gaulle or Truman mention any plots of extermination.

07-05-2018 02:23PM

fran17 wrote: »

Hardly a logical conclusion to make but do you not find it curious though?And being on the subject of memoirs neither does Churchill,De Gaulle or Truman mention any plots of extermination.

Again, if true, what's curious about it?
How does that throw doubt on the literal mountains of evidence behind the facts of the holocaust and the figures accepted by literally every expert in the field?

fran17 · 07-05-2018 02:34PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again, if true, what's curious about it?
How does that throw doubt on the literal mountains of evidence behind the facts of the holocaust and the figures accepted by literally every expert in the field?

Well "literally every expert in the field" is a rather long list I would imagine and I would also imagine very few of them have contemporary accounts.You don't find it noteworthy,that such an abominable crime is not even mentioned in over seven thousand pages of memoirs from leading figures who actually lived through the horrors of this period?

jackboy · 07-05-2018 02:35PM

fran17 wrote: »

Hardly a logical conclusion to make but do you not find it curious though?And being on the subject of memoirs neither does Churchill,De Gaulle or Truman mention any plots of extermination.

Maybe because Russia became the new enemy. If the Nazis (ie the Germans or the West) were portrayed as animals in the memoirs, that would be good propaganda for the Russians. Better to portray the war in Europe as a heroic battle of nations.

07-05-2018 02:38PM

fran17 wrote: »

Well "literally every expert in the field" is a rather long list I would imagine and I would also imagine very few of them have contemporary accounts.

Yes they have piles of contemporary accounts for soldiers, POWs, survivors, civilians and the Nazis themselves.
Don't be silly.

fran17 wrote: »

You don't find it noteworthy,that such an abominable crime is not even mentioned in over seven thousand pages of memoirs from leading figures who actually lived through the horrors of this period?

I'm trying to see why it's noteworthy, if true. You aren't explaining why it would be noteworthy.

What point are you trying to make with this factoid and what baring does it have on the facts?
Are you arguing for something specific or are you just trying to be coy and have no substantial point to make?

Dohnjoe · 07-05-2018 02:42PM

fran17 wrote: »

Of course not to be confused with Eisenhower's Rhine meadow camps.

Is this a comparison between the camps set up for German POWs with the concentration camp that Eisenhower visited? or what is the intention of this comment

Curious thing about Eisenhower being in his "Crusade in Europe" memoirs,written a number of years after the war,it makes no reference to genocide,gas chambers or six million.

Here's a quote from the book

"“The same day [April 12, 1945] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock."

"“I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’ Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.”

fran17 · 07-05-2018 03:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes they have piles of contemporary accounts for soldiers, POWs, survivors, civilians and the Nazis themselves.
Don't be silly.

I'm trying to see why it's noteworthy, if true. You aren't explaining why it would be noteworthy.

What point are you trying to make with this factoid and what baring does it have on the facts?
Are you arguing for something specific or are you just trying to be coy and have no substantial point to make?

Well we know that of the over 130 Nazis who testified at the Nuremberg trials all barring 2 had their testicles kicked in beyond repair.Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess testified that over 2.5 million Jews had been gassed and cremated,a figure that all now agree to be fanciful.Note that Hoess was the only Nazi who testified to have personally seen the gassing and burning of Jews.
No doubt that the allies and civilians who witnessed these camps in 1945 seen the most horrendous sights.However most urban locations across Germany at the time would have been similar.
My question is,apart from oral accounts,is their scientific evidence to prove the gassing and cremation of persons at these camps?

fran17 · 07-05-2018 03:32PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is this a comparison between the camps set up for German POWs with the concentration camp that Eisenhower visited? or what is the intention of this comment

Here's a quote from the book

"“The same day [April 12, 1945] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock."

"“I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’ Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.”

Just as I stated,no mention of gas chambers,genocide or six million deaths.

07-05-2018 03:37PM

fran17 wrote: »

My question is,apart from oral accounts,is their scientific evidence to prove the gassing and cremation of persons at these camps?

Yes, mountains.

Your "question" does not raise this.
You've also now not only dodged my questions, you've been called out on your fib.

It's very illustrative of the dishonesty inherent in holocaust denial, so please keep it up.

fran17 · 07-05-2018 03:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes,mountains.

Your "question" does not raise this.
You've also now not only dodged my questions, you've been called out on your fib.

It's very illustrative of the dishonesty inherent in holocaust denial, so please keep it up.

I'm struggling to source any.

Infernum · 07-05-2018 03:41PM

Holocaust deniers never seem to be up for discussing whether the figures surrounding the death tolls under Stalin and Mao could have also been deliberately falsified.

That gets them quiet real quickly.

Dohnjoe · 07-05-2018 03:42PM

fran17 wrote: »

I'm struggling to source any.

It takes a few seconds in google..

Or you can start by reading this thread

Ipso · 07-05-2018 03:42PM

Infernum wrote: »

Holocaust deniers never seem to be up for discussing whether the figures surrounding the death tolls under Stalin and Mao could have also been deliberately falsified.

That gets them quiet real quickly.

Because the problem wasn’t enough or the right kind of socialism.

07-05-2018 03:48PM

fran17 wrote: »

I'm struggling to source any.

I bet. Racist propaganda sites rarely are dumb enough to provide the evidence they are desperate to pretend doesn't exist.

However, since you'd just ignore anything I bothered to dig up, as you have with all my questions so far, there's no real point in doing so.

Your original "point" is asinine and proven to be untrue.
Leaving aside the fact that Eisenhower did directly mention the holocaust, you seem to be suggesting that either he didn't know about it, the holocaust was only invented afterwards or he was for some reason making it obvious there's a conspiracy.
None of these things make sense.
There is no logical conclusion you can reach from your silly question that supports the conspiracy theory.

Your question is just an empty sophistic factoid that's oft repeated by racist propaganda. And I wager that's where you heard it.

07-05-2018 03:49PM

Infernum wrote: »

Holocaust deniers never seem to be up for discussing whether the figures surrounding the death tolls under Stalin and Mao could have also been deliberately falsified.

That gets them quiet real quickly.

Or the 5 million other victims of the Holocaust who weren't Jewish.
Can't imagine why...

Tony EH · 07-05-2018 03:50PM

fran17 wrote: »

Hardly a logical conclusion to make but do you not find it curious though?And being on the subject of memoirs neither does Churchill,De Gaulle or Truman mention any plots of extermination.

That's because there wasn't any "plot" as it were. The series of events - most of which were unconnected - that we label "the holocaust", largely happened in an independednt manner. There was no 10 step programme, no guideline, no handbuch issed to the interested parties. Hitler, himself, probably took little real interest in it, other than letting Himmler and Heydrich get on with it, as he saw fit. Hitler was more proccupied with micromanaging the war. Even the political situation at home was dished out to the best administrators, as needed. But, there was no top down set of instructions, or list of actions to discover. In fact, most nazi party members had no idea what was going on in the likes of Auschwitz, Triblinka or Majdanek. That kind of "special action" information was on a strict need-to-know basis, for obvious reasons and Himmler kept a very tight reign on who needed to know what.

So, after the war, while people talked about whatever camp they were familair with (my own parents talked about Belsen, because that was the camp they first heard about) they didn't talk about a "holocaust", because such a term or concept didn't exist in their heads. The same situation existed for people who were writing memoirs, like Churchil, or Eisenhower, who were more concerned with covering the latter years of the life/career in self aggrandisement, which is the main point of a memoir in most cases. The simple fact is, though, that there was no over all "smoking gun", there was no real starting point and no real plan. So it was difficult to link everything up.

It's only later, during the late 50's, after years of occpation in Germany, that historians began to really dig into the nazi's more nefarious activities, that any kind of structure could be pieced together. Books like 'The Scourge of the Swastika' by Lord Russell of Liverpool and 'If This is a Man' by Primo Levi began to appear. Ten plus years after the war, perhaps people were ready to revisit it. In the previous decade, most people who went throught it wanted to (understandably) forget it and the younger generation didn't care.

Even at that, there still wasn't the - dubious - wealth of holocaust books on the shelves of book shops as there is today. That outpouring really only started around the 70's and gathered real steam in the 80's. It surprising to think, but when 'The World at War' first aired in the 70's, many people were shocked by the "holocaust episode": Genocide (1941–1945). Despite the fact the the war had ended nearly 30 years before.

But people didn't have the easy access to information that we do today. Finding out information meant, first actually being interested in the subject and second, doing the research...or at least going to the library or book shop.

Today, if you want to find out something, you type it into Google. The problem there is that you now have a generation that types something into Google, they read a couple of pages and then come away thinking they're experts on a given subject.

Igotadose · 07-05-2018 03:51PM

Hard to source? Really? www.nizkor.org's an excellent starting place. Been around since the 1980's. Well indexed and cross-referenced.

Dohnjoe · 07-05-2018 04:00PM

Igotadose wrote: »

Hard to source? Really?

Have to agree, am dubious when someone comes in with the "hard to source" line but at the same time a "isn't it curious" when referencing thousands of pages of books

One contradicts the other. Anyway I'll withhold judgement for now.

Another resource for evidence is the Irving trial. They didn't want the circus of Irving interviewing (harassing) survivors of the Holocaust, so they relied more on other evidence
https://www.hdot.org (including trial materials)

fran17 · 07-05-2018 04:04PM

King Mob wrote: »

I bet. Racist propaganda sites rarely are dumb enough to provide the evidence they are desperate to pretend doesn't exist.

However, since you'd just ignore anything I bothered to dig up, as you have with all my questions so far, there's no real point in doing so.

Your original "point" is asinine and proven to be untrue.
Leaving aside the fact that Eisenhower did directly mention the holocaust, you seem to be suggesting that either he didn't know about it, the holocaust was only invented afterwards or he was for some reason making it obvious there's a conspiracy.
None of these things make sense.
There is no logical conclusion you can reach from your silly question that supports the conspiracy theory.

Your question is just an empty sophistic factoid that's oft repeated by racist propaganda. And I wager that's where you heard it.

I believe that to be untrue.

wexie · 07-05-2018 04:04PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Today, if you want to find out something, you type it into Google. The problem there is that you now have a generation that types something into Google, they read a couple of pages and then come away thinking they're experts on a given subject.

On top of that there seems to be a whole new swathe of 'new style' neo nazi propaganda out there, much slicker, much less openly antisemitic or white supremacist and much more scary in their hideousness.

You'd nearly long for the good old days when they were easily spotted and avoided

07-05-2018 04:08PM

fran17 wrote: »

I believe that to be untrue.

So when Dohn Joe posted a direct quote, directly for the memoir you referenced, that was... what?

A fake by Dohn Joe?
Eisenhower referring to something else entirely?
You live in an alternate reality where you are right?

Again, please continue, you are doing more damage to holocaust denial than we can manage.

wexie · 07-05-2018 04:09PM

Igotadose wrote: »

Hard to source? Really? www.nizkor.org's an excellent starting place. Been around since the 1980's. Well indexed and cross-referenced.

Or http://www.yadvashem.org/

I'd imagine though some of the people that can't 'find' any sources may have some ideological issues with this one in particular...:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring · 07-05-2018 04:31PM

Harika wrote: »

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.

It named the Korheer report, for a reason! What he got from the Reich Main Security Office was data (statistics) to place in his report and was told not to change anything. The report is his work though and he never denied this very different to what you said.

Raul Hilberg alleged the letter may not be authentic? Holocaust researchers don't like this letter for this reason.

The statement that I also mentioned that over one million Jews died in the camps of the Generalgouvernement and Warthegau by special treatment is also incorrect. I have to protest against the word "died" in this context.

It was precisely the word "special treatment" that prompted me to call the RSHA by telephone to ask what that word meant. I got the answer that it was Jews being settled in the Lublin district.

Braunschweig

Dr. Richard Korherr

Holocaust Denial [MOD NOTE POST #1]

Comments