ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags general discussion , holocaust , holocaust denial , World War II history

Reply
Old 6th July 2016, 11:52 AM   #321
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
What else do you expect from someone who cites Carlos Porter?
Anti-semism, usually.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 02:43 PM   #322
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Degeneve View Post
As a matter of fact Garaudy has never been considered as a "major French philosopher". And he was also not an historian.
I will not argue the adjective "major". Garaudy describes his own reputation here in the context of support for a German revisionist:
http://germarrudolf.com/wp-content/u...istPos37_e.pdf
He was author of numerous works of intellectual history, which requires considerable historical knowledge, A Short History of the Soviet Union (1994), Orators of the French Revolution (1991) and Islam in the West (2000). I can think of few holocaust scholars who have such a wide range of publications.

Originally Posted by Degeneve View Post
When he was a communst he was denying the existence of the goulag and when he became a muslim (after having been christian in between) he started to deny the holocaust. A men of great intellectual and moral probity...
I think he was naive about Islam - indeed, apparently he was condemned as a "hypocrite" in a fatwa. If he had seen the progress of the Muslim Brotherhood he would perhaps have revised his view of the problems of Israel. Knowledge of the gulags emerged slowly. In fact, some scholars still dispute their scale. However, in contrast to the holocaust, they are allowed to pursue their research without it affecting their careers in western academia.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 03:03 PM   #323
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
[...]
The main point in terms of historical method is that eye-witness testimony on its own is not a reliable source of knowledge, for the simple reason that people can choose to lie and be made to lie. The inference from "So and so confessed to X" to "X happened" contains a possibility of error, which needs to be evaluated. Hence, history that privileges eye-witness accounts can amount to little more than retailing gossip. I have no answer to hand on the role of the euthanasia program. It should certainly be considered, particularly as it suggests that staff records exist for the AR camps.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 03:10 PM   #324
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
The main point in terms of historical method is that eye-witness testimony on its own is not a reliable source of knowledge, for the simple reason that people can choose to lie and be made to lie. The inference from "So and so confessed to X" to "X happened" contains a possibility of error, which needs to be evaluated. Hence, history that privileges eye-witness accounts can amount to little more than retailing gossip. I have no answer to hand on the role of the euthanasia program. It should certainly be considered, particularly as it suggests that staff records exist for the AR camps.
All four of the men I named agreed there were gas chambers. Were they all mistaken? Lying? Three of them were part of the SS staff of Treblinka and directly involved in its operation. Pardon me if I take their word for it, rather than silly revisionists bleatings. They were there, you weren't.

All available evidence agrees with them too. Why should these men be doubted, given that there's nothing to even suggest they were not telling the truth?
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

Last edited by Dash80; 6th July 2016 at 03:17 PM.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 03:32 PM   #325
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
All four of the men I named agreed there were gas chambers. Were they all mistaken? Lying? Three of them were part of the SS staff of Treblinka and directly involved in its operation. Pardon me if I take their word for it, rather than silly revisionists bleatings. They were there, you weren't.

All available evidence agrees with them too. Why should these men be doubted, given that there's nothing to even suggest they were not telling the truth?
er, ah, could it, would it be because a certain fellow here on this thread doesn't want to believe in something those German guys were involved in? Maybe?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 03:54 PM   #326
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
Anti-semism, usually.
The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists. As it has some justification, it has hindered the reception of revisionist work. One way out of this impasse has been to focus on the Polish museum authorities' role as enablers of the holocaust mythos. This is the standpoint of Carlo Mattogno's book Curated Lies - The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (Holocaust Handbooks, 2016). As far as I know, the Auschwitz museum has yet to respond to this criticism. It may be that in due course the Auschwitz authorities will make the same decision as those at Maijdanek and downgrade the death toll to accord more closely with the German records held in Moscow.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.

Last edited by EtienneSC; 6th July 2016 at 04:02 PM. Reason: Minor rephasing
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2016, 04:13 PM   #327
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists. As it has some justification, it has hindered the reception of revisionist work. One way out of this impasse has been to focus on the Polish museum authorities' role as enablers of the holocaust mythos. This is the standpoint of Carlo Mattogno's book Curated Lies - The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (Holocaust Handbooks, 2016). As far as I know, the Auschwitz museum has yet to respond to this criticism. It may be that in due course the Auschwitz authorities will make the same decision as those at Maijdanek and downgrade the death toll to accord more closely with the German records held in Moscow.
Downgrade it to what exactly? The revisionist idiocy that only counts REGISTERED deaths?
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2016, 02:04 AM   #328
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
Downgrade it to what exactly? The revisionist idiocy that only counts REGISTERED deaths?
If it is not idiotic at Maijdanek, why does it become idiotic at Auschwitz? There have also been median figures. Fritjof Meyer suggested "at most" 365,000 in Osteuropa (May 2002), Jean Claude Pressac suggested around 600,000-800,000, both on the basis of gassings.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2016, 03:09 AM   #329
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
If it is not idiotic at Maijdanek, why does it become idiotic at Auschwitz? There have also been median figures. Fritjof Meyer suggested "at most" 365,000 in Osteuropa (May 2002), Jean Claude Pressac suggested around 600,000-800,000, both on the basis of gassings.
Out of curiosity, how many people do YOU believe died at Auschwitz?
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2016, 04:09 AM   #330
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists.
Only because it's true.

Quote:
As it has some justification, it has hindered the reception of revisionist work. One way out of this impasse has been to focus on the Polish museum authorities' role as enablers of the holocaust mythos. This is the standpoint of Carlo Mattogno's book Curated Lies - The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (Holocaust Handbooks, 2016).
I don't think going from "the Jews made it all up" to "the Poles made it all up at the behest of the Jews" is really going to do all that much to restore the revisonists' nonexistent reputation.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni

Last edited by A'isha; 7th July 2016 at 04:10 AM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 02:08 AM   #331
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,735
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
The accusation of anti-semitism has long been routine against revisionists. As it has some justification...
It has complete justification. There is no Holocaust "revisionism" without racism. The former is a subset of the latter.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 03:50 AM   #332
Degeneve
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 598
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
Knowledge of the gulags emerged slowly. In fact, some scholars still dispute their scale. However, in contrast to the holocaust, they are allowed to pursue their research without it affecting their careers in western academia.
As a matter of fact ther are no scholars who have been prevented to pursue their research...

You are obviously confusing real scholars with a bunch of cranks who did never manage to provide serious work and conclusions...
Degeneve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 04:06 AM   #333
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,816
Perhaps if holocaust deniers wish to avoid the stigma of antisemitism they could offer a reason for the proposed hoax other than Semitic peoples being untrustworthy sorts?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 04:45 AM   #334
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Degeneve View Post
As a matter of fact ther are no scholars who have been prevented to pursue their research...

You are obviously confusing real scholars with a bunch of cranks who did never manage to provide serious work and conclusions...
This is either uninformed, or virtually tautological. Germar Rudolf served three years in prison in Germany for the Rudolf Gutachten, based on his degree level knowledge of chemistry. Professor Faurisson in France has been dragged through the courts for years and a law passed (the loi Gayssot) that makes it illegal to advertise or distribute commercially his writings. We have already mentioned the Garaudy affair. In France, Vincent Reynouard was imprisoned for 12 months and is currently in exile following another sentence. In Germany the history teacher Udo Walendy and many others have served and many continue to serve time in prison for revisionism. In the last few weeks, holocaust revisionism has been outlawed in Italy and the blog of Carlo Mattogno disabled as a result. This level of political interference makes holocaust studies stand out like a sore thumb from other academic disciplines.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 04:54 AM   #335
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
Out of curiosity, how many people do YOU believe died at Auschwitz?
I am not an authority as this is not my primary interest. However, based on my current understanding of the facts and method of study, I would record upwards of 72,000 fatalities as confirmed by the Sterbenbücher (upwards, as they are incomplete). In addition, the history of the camp needs to record reports and separate accusations of mass killings. To the extent that they can be confirmed by camp records or forensic evidence, they would be added to the confirmed total. This is what has happened at Maijdanek and the western camps (Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, etc).
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 05:34 AM   #336
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,929
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
Knowledge of the gulags emerged slowly. In fact, some scholars still dispute their scale. However, in contrast to the holocaust, they are allowed to pursue their research without it affecting their careers in western academia.
There are no scholars working in appropriate departments who dispute the scale of the Gulag or the Terror of 1937-8. The figures have been known for 25 years; there were some like Robert Conquest who had believed the numbers were higher, but Conquest is dead.

The only academic currently actively whitewashing Stalin's crimes in a western university is Grover Furr, who is a professor of medieval English literature. There are in fact more tenured academics in North American universities who deny the Holocaust than there are to my knowledge tenured academics contesting Stalin's crimes - albeit that number rises to a mere two names: Arthur Butz and Mohammed Kaukab Siddique, like Furr neither of these professors are in a history department.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 07:04 AM   #337
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
I am not an authority as this is not my primary interest. However, based on my current understanding of the facts and method of study, I would record upwards of 72,000 fatalities as confirmed by the Sterbenbücher (upwards, as they are incomplete). In addition, the history of the camp needs to record reports and separate accusations of mass killings. To the extent that they can be confirmed by camp records or forensic evidence, they would be added to the confirmed total. This is what has happened at Maijdanek and the western camps (Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, etc).
So you accept 72,000 deaths of REGISTERED prisoners, where did the rest go? Camp records are incomplete, many were undoubtedly destroyed.

Between the end of 1941 until late 1944, hundreds of transports of Jews arrived in Auschwitz... from all over occupied Europe. All of the evidence suggests the vast majority either died (of disease for example) or were directly murdered there.

72,000 does not add up, considering the numbers sent to the camp. For example, some 400,000 Hungarian Jews, with over 300,000 of them not being registered into the camp, can you explain where all of them went (if they were not murdered immediately)?
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

Last edited by Dash80; 8th July 2016 at 07:07 AM.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 07:28 AM   #338
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,929
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
This is either uninformed, or virtually tautological. Germar Rudolf served three years in prison in Germany for the Rudolf Gutachten, based on his degree level knowledge of chemistry. Professor Faurisson in France has been dragged through the courts for years and a law passed (the loi Gayssot) that makes it illegal to advertise or distribute commercially his writings. We have already mentioned the Garaudy affair. In France, Vincent Reynouard was imprisoned for 12 months and is currently in exile following another sentence. In Germany the history teacher Udo Walendy and many others have served and many continue to serve time in prison for revisionism. In the last few weeks, holocaust revisionism has been outlawed in Italy and the blog of Carlo Mattogno disabled as a result. This level of political interference makes holocaust studies stand out like a sore thumb from other academic disciplines.
As Degeneve said: you are obviously confusing real scholars with a bunch of cranks who did never manage to provide serious work and conclusions.

None of the people you mentioned ever worked in a university history department. Only two of the names you mentioned even had university posts. Most are mere authors - Udo Walendy was no longer a school teacher by the time he was publishing revisionist tracts, Roger Garaudy was long retired and in his 80s when he caused a controversy in the mid-1990s.

Holocaust revisionism doesn't have any academic respectability whatsoever, as determined internationally by academics in their own disciplines, not because of laws against incitement to racial hatred in some European countries.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2016, 01:47 PM   #339
Degeneve
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 598
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
This is either uninformed, or virtually tautological. Germar Rudolf served three years in prison in Germany for the Rudolf Gutachten, based on his degree level knowledge of chemistry. Professor Faurisson in France has been dragged through the courts for years and a law passed (the loi Gayssot) that makes it illegal to advertise or distribute commercially his writings. We have already mentioned the Garaudy affair. In France, Vincent Reynouard was imprisoned for 12 months and is currently in exile following another sentence. In Germany the history teacher Udo Walendy and many others have served and many continue to serve time in prison for revisionism. In the last few weeks, holocaust revisionism has been outlawed in Italy and the blog of Carlo Mattogno disabled as a result. This level of political interference makes holocaust studies stand out like a sore thumb from other academic disciplines.
Among these names the only one who approaches the definition of a scholar is Faurisson. However Faurisson is not an historian but a professor of French litterature and even in his field of "expertise" he has been critisized by his peers.
Degeneve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 06:52 AM   #340
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Degeneve View Post
Among these names the only one who approaches the definition of a scholar is Faurisson. However Faurisson is not an historian but a professor of French litterature and even in his field of "expertise" he has been critisized by his peers.
Whose definition of a scholar are you following? If we turn to J G Fichte's The Vocation of the Scholar (1794) for guidance, we read:
Quote:
[The scholar] "must be thoroughly conversant with the labors of those who have gone before him in his own department. [...] Experience must be questioned, the events of the past must be examined, but with an eye purified by philosophy; we must look around us, and consider our contemporaries. [...] it is the duty of the scholar, as of every man who has chosen a particular condition of life, to strive for the advancement of knowledge, and chiefly of his own peculiar department of knowledge; [...] It is for him to watch over and promote the advancement of other departments" The scholar should "endeavor to preserve himself from a growing insensibility to foreign opinions and modes of thought, which is so common even among the most independent thinkers; for no one is so well informed but he may still continue to learn, and may have something very necessary yet to learn; and it is seldom that any one is so ignorant that he cannot teach something to the most learned, which the latter did not know before. [...] The scholar will never be tempted to bring men to the adoption of his convictions by coercion or the use of physical force".
Fichte does not specify occupation of an academic chair as a condition of scholarship. Indeed, he was himself dismissed from such a post in 1800 in a dispute over atheism. A good deal of revisionist work passes these tests: it has considered its contemporaries and identified the holocaust as a significant cultural issue. It has engaged with previous work through published criticisms, in which respect, academics in this field have only rarely reciprocated.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 07:21 AM   #341
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
So you accept 72,000 deaths of REGISTERED prisoners, where did the rest go? Camp records are incomplete, many were undoubtedly destroyed.

Between the end of 1941 until late 1944, hundreds of transports of Jews arrived in Auschwitz... from all over occupied Europe. All of the evidence suggests the vast majority either died (of disease for example) or were directly murdered there.
A lot of camp records survive, including the Camp Orders published by Norbert Frei in 2000 and the building administration records. The evidence of murder is unconvincing. Numerous revisionist works from Butz and Rudolf to Mattogno detail the reasons why this is so. I agree that this leaves a significant problem as to what happened to the people sent there. It would be helpful to know your best evidence for the numbers of people to be accounted for. I am aware of Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Calendarium - do you have another source?

Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
72,000 does not add up, considering the numbers sent to the camp. For example, some 400,000 Hungarian Jews, with over 300,000 of them not being registered into the camp, can you explain where all of them went (if they were not murdered immediately)?
This again draws attention to a defect in revisionist work on Auschwitz, much of which turns on the problems of the suggested process of killing and disposing of bodies. In general terms, the answer would have to be that Auschwitz was the center of an industrial area in Upper Silesia. It was a Stammlager (Stalag, source camp), meaning that people were sent on to other camps in the area. There are accounts of people being loaded on lorries, so presumably there were means of transportation available.

After the war, there are accounts of Jews being processed in large numbers through displaced persons camps in Europe. Around three million modern Israelis are European descended, as against the low hundred thousands before the war. Only some of this can be explained by organic growth. There are also substantial Jewish populations in many other countries as a result of post-war immigration, the largest being in the USA. Problems with different definitions of who is a Jew, shifting borders, inter-marriage, etc make demographic arguments problematic.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 09:05 AM   #342
Degeneve
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 598
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
Whose definition of a scholar are you following? If we turn to J G Fichte's The Vocation of the Scholar (1794) for guidance, we read:

Fichte does not specify occupation of an academic chair as a condition of scholarship. Indeed, he was himself dismissed from such a post in 1800 in a dispute over atheism. A good deal of revisionist work passes these tests: it has considered its contemporaries and identified the holocaust as a significant cultural issue. It has engaged with previous work through published criticisms, in which respect, academics in this field have only rarely reciprocated.
Academics in this field have been able to identify the main issues faced by your so-called scholars: they do not have the skills requested to make historical research which results in biased research and wrong conclusions.

If one can talk about conclusions at all. Usually the conclusions of the deniers are defined even before the research work begin. This is not the characteristic of scholarship work. This way of proceeding fits much more with crankery.
Degeneve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 11:44 AM   #343
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
There are no scholars working in appropriate departments who dispute the scale of the Gulag or the Terror of 1937-8. The figures have been known for 25 years; there were some like Robert Conquest who had believed the numbers were higher, but Conquest is dead.
Domenico Losurdo's Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend (2009, Italian) relativises the Gulag by comparisons to the Tsarist prison system, the English transporting of Irish prisoners to Australia, etc. Here is a citation he gives about Butyrka prison in Moscow in the 1920s:
Quote:
Prisoners were allowed to go out of the prison freely. They organized morning gymnastic sessions, they started an orchestra and a choir, started a "circle" provided with foreign reviews and a good library. According to the tradition of the pre-revolutionary era, on his liberation each prisoner left his books. A council of detainees assigned cells, which were well decorated with carpets on the floor and partitions. Another prisoner remembered "We walked along the corridors as if they were avenues." For Babina (a revolutionary socialist), life in prison seemed unreal: "Could they lock us up again?"
It sounds to me like certain revisionists waxing lyrical about the Auschwitz swimming pool. Losurdo's work is valuable and correctly treated as such. Perhaps it would be worth opening a new thread on the subject: I will not pursue it further here though as the relevance to this thread is limited.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.

Last edited by EtienneSC; 9th July 2016 at 01:00 PM. Reason: Qualification of unguarded comment.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 02:08 PM   #344
CaptainHowdy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
All four of the men I named agreed there were gas chambers. Were they all mistaken? Lying? Three of them were part of the SS staff of Treblinka and directly involved in its operation. Pardon me if I take their word for it, rather than silly revisionists bleatings. They were there, you weren't.

All available evidence agrees with them too. Why should these men be doubted, given that there's nothing to even suggest they were not telling the truth?
^^^^
This

Eyewitnesses and confessions--WITHOUT CORROBORATION-- are among the weakest forms of evidence. Historians use 'intentional' evidence like confessions and eyewitness accounts in conjunction with the 'non-intentional' evidence, that is, physical and other evidence. There's a synergy between, for example, Hoss' testimony at the Nuremberg trial and the results of the forensic examination of the Dachau and Mauthausen gas chambers that the Americans put into evidence in Prosecution Exhibit #230 at that same trial.

But relying on confessions and eyewitness accounts without corroboration is likely to lead you astray. You don't seem too bothered by it but I'd like my history based on something more than the integrity of Nazi war criminals testifying under oath.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 02:12 PM   #345
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
A lot of camp records survive, including the Camp Orders published by Norbert Frei in 2000 and the building administration records. The evidence of murder is unconvincing. Numerous revisionist works from Butz and Rudolf to Mattogno detail the reasons why this is so. I agree that this leaves a significant problem as to what happened to the people sent there. It would be helpful to know your best evidence for the numbers of people to be accounted for. I am aware of Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Calendarium - do you have another source?


This again draws attention to a defect in revisionist work on Auschwitz, much of which turns on the problems of the suggested process of killing and disposing of bodies. In general terms, the answer would have to be that Auschwitz was the center of an industrial area in Upper Silesia. It was a Stammlager (Stalag, source camp), meaning that people were sent on to other camps in the area. There are accounts of people being loaded on lorries, so presumably there were means of transportation available.

After the war, there are accounts of Jews being processed in large numbers through displaced persons camps in Europe. Around three million modern Israelis are European descended, as against the low hundred thousands before the war. Only some of this can be explained by organic growth. There are also substantial Jewish populations in many other countries as a result of post-war immigration, the largest being in the USA. Problems with different definitions of who is a Jew, shifting borders, inter-marriage, etc make demographic arguments problematic.
I see a lot of hand waving but not much evidence that hundreds of thousands (or around a million) of Jews were not murdered at Auschwitz.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

Last edited by Dash80; 9th July 2016 at 02:15 PM.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 02:18 PM   #346
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,105
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
^^^^
This

Eyewitnesses and confessions--WITHOUT CORROBORATION-- are among the weakest forms of evidence. Historians use 'intentional' evidence like confessions and eyewitness accounts in conjunction with the 'non-intentional' evidence, that is, physical and other evidence. There's a synergy between, for example, Hoss' testimony at the Nuremberg trial and the results of the forensic examination of the Dachau and Mauthausen gas chambers that the Americans put into evidence in Prosecution Exhibit #230 at that same trial.

But relying on confessions and eyewitness accounts without corroboration is likely to lead you astray. You don't seem too bothered by it but I'd like my history based on something more than the integrity of Nazi war criminals testifying under oath.
I understand what you mean. If all we had were those confessions, I'd be less likely to trust their authenticity.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2016, 04:40 PM   #347
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,929
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
Domenico Losurdo's Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend (2009, Italian) relativises the Gulag by comparisons to the Tsarist prison system, the English transporting of Irish prisoners to Australia, etc. Here is a citation he gives about Butyrka prison in Moscow in the 1920s:

It sounds to me like certain revisionists waxing lyrical about the Auschwitz swimming pool. Losurdo's work is valuable and correctly treated as such. Perhaps it would be worth opening a new thread on the subject: I will not pursue it further here though as the relevance to this thread is limited.
This book has made essentially zero impact in the English-speaking world; it's not been translated, and probably won't be. I can't even find any reviews in English in JSTOR, although the book has been out in several languages for a number of years - it would seem that Cahiers du monde russe, a thoroughly multilingual journal specialising in particular in Soviet history, has ignored it, despite there being French and German editions.

So I would dispute your assertion that Losurdo's work is regarded as "valuable" when the real specialists have ignored it - the book has been discussed in Marxist circles and a few left-leaning newspapers, with barely any mentions by historians (I have seen 1-2, in footnotes, while googling - and there are less than 200 hits for his name + Stalin if one slogs back to the end of a search).

Losurdo is a philosopher, and not a historian, and it shows. I found a Spanish translation online, and LOLed at the endnotes, which display a stunningly superficial awareness of post-1991 historiography of Stalinism. On the whole, it's a bit difficult to take seriously a book on Stalin written by someone who doesn't seem to know Russian, but the gaps in his knowledge of the English, French etc literature are also staggering. A left-wing Italian reviewer found a litany of ignorance in Losurdo's book.

It seems from reviews such as this one in German that Losurdo is not that interested in the numbers issue. He seems more interested in relativising Stalinist terror than actually confronting the evidence, which he hasn't cited.

As many reviewers have noted (eg at length in this 17 page German review essay), Losurdo is obfuscating and relativising, usually by setting up tu quoques and strawmen. So this is just another iteration of the Historikerstreit and the 1990s debates over the significance of communism, not anything actually historical.

All in all, Losurdo doesn't really help your attempt to make Holocaust denial respectable, because he is an obfuscator not a negationist; while Grover Furr evidently likes it that someone else has happy thoughts about Stalin, Losurdo is not the Mattogno of the Gulag.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt

Last edited by Nick Terry; 9th July 2016 at 04:54 PM. Reason: comment on a google search
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2016, 03:40 PM   #348
Balsamo
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
Whose definition of a scholar are you following? If we turn to J G Fichte's The Vocation of the Scholar (1794) for guidance, we read:

Fichte does not specify occupation of an academic chair as a condition of scholarship. Indeed, he was himself dismissed from such a post in 1800 in a dispute over atheism. A good deal of revisionist work passes these tests: it has considered its contemporaries and identified the holocaust as a significant cultural issue. It has engaged with previous work through published criticisms, in which respect, academics in this field have only rarely reciprocated.
Come EtienneSC, Fichte and the 18th century?
In those days, some had the ambition to write the history of the world all by themselves. They were brilliant minds and erudite persons for sure, but there was no such things as historical science for yet another century or even more.
History has become a science when it adopted a define methodology, and in this regards, i am sorry to say that most revisionists i have read have not passed the test! Denouncing double standards costed me about 150 posts deleted or not published on codoh, as you might remember.

The problem is that deniers do not publish criticism, they publish "denials", they do not revise history, they cannot even propose coherent historical alternatives, as you admitted, you just cannot fill the gaps between those sent to Birkenau and those who left the camp "alive", and "your" theory becomes even more absurd when it comes to the AR camps... Deniers just deny that those hundreds of thousands or millions were just not killed, they just don't care of what could have happened to them...as historians would do...
Deniers would gain in credibility if they would just, you know, do historical works, that is starting from the past and follow the path through a narrative to a certain point in the future...hint, like tracking and explaining the fate of those expelled from the ghettos in those so called "transit camps" to their final destinations. Sounds easy, no? Do that and you'll become a true revisionist historian.
Balsamo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2016, 06:34 AM   #349
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Balsamo View Post
[...] there was no such things as historical science for yet another century or even more.
History has become a science when it adopted a define methodology, and in this regards, i am sorry to say that most revisionists i have read have not passed the test!
There was plenty of history in the 18th century (e.g. Hume, Robertson). History was always distinguished from science, as it aims at knowledge of particular events rather than general laws. The claim that it "became a science" in the 19th century seems to be based mostly on church history (Ranke) and diplomatic history. However, this presupposes institutional continuity and the archives institutions create. This differs from holocaust studies, where the German state documents were seized by the Allies and may have been contaminated with Soviet interpolations. Not to mention the reliance on witness accounts, which are more an instance of "history from below" than the "scientific" history you mention.
Originally Posted by Balsamo View Post
Denouncing double standards costed me about 150 posts deleted or not published on codoh, as you might remember.
I am interested to hear this. You (or someone of your user name) has around 300 posts on CODOH, ending around a year ago, without a ready explanation. I concede there are some instances of double standards.

Originally Posted by Balsamo View Post
The problem is that deniers do not publish criticism, they publish "denials", they do not revise history, they cannot even propose coherent historical alternatives, as you admitted, you just cannot fill the gaps between those sent to Birkenau and those who left the camp "alive",
The history of an atrocity propaganda campaign is a legitimate narrative. It is the equivalent of Arthur Ponsonby's Falsehood in Wartime (1928). I agree that this is inadequate on its own. For world war one for example, there needs to be history, with the falsehoods Ponsonby identifies included as instances of propaganda rather than events.
Originally Posted by Balsamo View Post
and "your" theory becomes even more absurd when it comes to the AR camps... Deniers just deny that those hundreds of thousands or millions were just not killed, they just don't care of what could have happened to them...as historians would do... Deniers would gain in credibility if they would just, you know, do historical works, that is starting from the past and follow the path through a narrative to a certain point in the future...hint, like tracking and explaining the fate of those expelled from the ghettos in those so called "transit camps" to their final destinations. Sounds easy, no? Do that and you'll become a true revisionist historian.
It is not easy. There was a TV program a few years ago trying to trace one family (that of the actor Jane Seymour). Plainly there are no resources to multiply that effort a million fold. Where are the names of the 1,274,166 sent through the AR camps - in which archive are they held? The only back up document cited is generally a British intelligence decrypt. Perhaps it would be possible to do some tracing on the basis of small but a statistically significant sample. It is not mathematically possible to deal with totals when there is more than one missing, dubious or ambiguous figure, as there is more than one solution to any equation.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2016, 09:46 AM   #350
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,929
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
There was plenty of history in the 18th century (e.g. Hume, Robertson). History was always distinguished from science, as it aims at knowledge of particular events rather than general laws. The claim that it "became a science" in the 19th century seems to be based mostly on church history (Ranke) and diplomatic history.
While there are important precursors in the early modern era to modern source-based history-writing, history established itself as a distinctive modern discipline in the 19th century. The Germans called it Geschichtswissenschaft, which can be translated as historical science, without implying anything about nomothetic or natural science. I presume that Balsamo was alluding to Geschichtswissenschaft when he spoke about historical science.

Quote:
However, this presupposes institutional continuity and the archives institutions create.
No, it doesn't.

Plenty of archives have been taken over, destroyed, plundered, removed, restituted or otherwise affected by the many political upheavals of the modern era - the French Revolution saw a substantial destruction of archival records including business and ecclesiastical records; the records of the Imperial German Army were largely incinerated by the Royal Air Force in a 1945 air raid on Potsdam, while your Nazi heroes stole archives from all across Europe, meaning that many ended up in Soviet hands after 1945.

Quote:
This differs from holocaust studies
Holocaust studies is an umbrella term for any scholarship on the Holocaust. It is not a discipline or a methodology. It is trivially easy to show that academics in English, other humanities, and every single social science have approached aspects of the Holocaust using the methodologies of their respective disciplines.

Holocaust studies no more has a unique methodology than do First World War studies - literature departments clearly study the memoirs, novels and poetry of the First World War, just as they might study Primo Levi, and there are plenty of courses in history departments on WWI that foreground the literature and cultural representations of that conflict.

The historiography of the Holocaust is simply history, and uses historical methodology; its authors have been trained as historians, been awarded history degrees, and are most likely to be found in history departments.

Interdisciplinary research centres for Holocaust studies are no different to interdisciplinary research centres for Medieval Studies, Early Modern Studies, South Asian Studies or any other form of era/area studies - they are ways to bring together academics from different university departments together, and can easily result in hardcore economic and social historians of 17th Century England being bored out of their minds listening to a paper on Shakespeare produced by a colleague from the English department - both work in 'Early Modern Studies', after all.

Quote:
where the German state documents were seized by the Allies and may have been contaminated with Soviet interpolations.
All central German state records of the Nazi era were seized by the western Allies or Soviet Union - not just those relating to the Holocaust. Then they were restituted, see Astrid Eckert, The Struggle for the Files (2012).

You're simply making up nonsense claiming that the German archives captured by western powers contain "Soviet interpolations". They don't, and you can produce no evidence to support this claim, so don't bother offering speculative conspiracy theories peddled by some ignorant revisionist hack.

Quote:
Not to mention the reliance on witness accounts, which are more an instance of "history from below" than the "scientific" history you mention.
I hate to break it to you, but "historical science" has always used eyewitness accounts. Ranke said as much in his programmatic foreword where he coined the phrase 'wie es eigentlich gewesen war'.

Nor is there a meaningful distinction to be drawn between history from above and history from below in this regard. Historians have always considered the memoirs, diaries and letters of politicans, generals and diplomats to be relevant sources, to be evaluated alongside state papers and in many cases, to be used where state papers fall silent or are missing. US Presidential libraries have frequently established large-scale oral history programs to interview members of particular administrations.

The use of diaries, letters, memoirs, interrogations/cross-examinations, journalistic interviews, oral histories and other ego-documents from "ordinary" and mid-ranking participants is completely standard in the historiography of pretty much every single major modern conflict, whether wars, genocides or political struggles such as civil rights. Official records are easily destroyed - at the end of apartheid, South Africa incinerated metric tons of police records - or might never have been generated - how many reports would a commander in an African civil war file with a superior? - so historians of modern conflicts use whatever they can get their hands on.

It is however trivially easy to demonstrate that historians of the Holocaust rely heavily on contemporary, "official" documents, in two ways.

Firstly, "the Holocaust" is a shorthand term covering the entire era of the persecution and mass murder of European Jews from 1933 to 1945 and applies across Europe to Axis states not just the Third Reich. The volume of Nazi and Axis documentation on different aspects of these processes is considerable, despite various attempts to destroy records. This applies also to the killing and death inflicted in ghettos, labour camps, 'ordinary' concentration camps and in mobile killing operations.

Secondly, historians use documents on the extermination camps, the personnel of the camps, deportations to the camps, and the immediate organisational context as a matter of course, knowing that many records were destroyed - Globocnik's final report on Aktion Reinhard, a document that survives, explicitly states that the records of the Reinhard camps were destroyed. The conclusion that these camps were extermination camps does not therefore rest solely on testimony, but is reinforced by direct documentary references to killing and gassing, supported by common-sense inferences based on the totality of the documents mentioning these camps or organisations. These documents also confirm and corroborate numerous points mentioned by non-Nazi sources - for example, Christian Wirth's involvement in Aktion Reinhard is documented, and it's also mentioned by a Polish underground report, Kurt Gerstein and other eyewitness accounts.

Quote:
The history of an atrocity propaganda campaign is a legitimate narrative. It is the equivalent of Arthur Ponsonby's Falsehood in Wartime (1928). I agree that this is inadequate on its own. For world war one for example, there needs to be history, with the falsehoods Ponsonby identifies included as instances of propaganda rather than events.
You are literally 88 years behind the times here; historians of WWI have researched the atrocities that did take place between 1914 and 1918 while also exploring the role of propaganda during the First World War. See John Horne and Alan Kramer, German Atrocities 1914 (2001), which shows that the Imperial German Army really did execute over 6,000 Belgian and French civilians in reprisals in 1914, largely in response to a hysterical belief in 'francs-tireurs' and often due to inexperienced soldiers blaming civilians for 'friendly fire' incidents, while the Allied press then publicised hysterical reactions to real atrocities. The sources confirming reprisal executions are often German Army regimental and divisional histories published in the 1920s and 1930s.

The term "atrocity propaganda" is analytically worthless, as the mere fact that atrocities might be publicised does not say anything meaningful about whether they happened or not. The term propaganda is also used indiscriminately, in ways that annihilate important differences between government actions, media reporting, and other responses, as well as the differences between responses during conflicts and their aftermath.

To give an example, a series of atrocities against Chinese prisoners of war and civilians were undeniably committed by Japanese forces at Nanjing in 1937 - this received relatively little publicity at the time, but was not unknown. Historians have shown that through to 1945, reporters, writers and official propagandists in wartime China paid it much less attention than became the case by the end of the 20th Century in Communist China (see Parks M. Coble, ‘Writing about Atrocity: Wartime Accounts and their Contemporary Uses’, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2, China in World War II, 1937–1945: Experience, Memory, and Legacy (March 2011), pp. 379-398). Commemoration of Nanjing did not become a major trend in China until the 1980s, by which time Japanese journalists had already debated Nanjing during the 1970s. The establishment of a memorial and use of Nanjing in Sino-Japanese relations certainly has propagandistic elements, and there are politicised interpretations from both 'maximalists' (some Chinese and Japanese commentators) as well as 'minimalists' (i.e. Japanese negationists). This hasn't prevented historians internationally from exploring the event historically, and rejecting negationism (see in particular the contributions to Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (ed), The Nanking atrocity, 1937-38: complicating the picture. New York: Berghahn Books, 2007).

Holocaust denial has in any case failed to produce any "history of an atrocity propaganda campaign" for the Holocaust. Passing invocations of the term don't count, nor do brief discussions of some aspects of publicity or propaganda.

Historians of the Holocaust have already examined in some detail how the persecution and mass murder of European Jews was publicised, 'propagandised', politicised and discussed internationally during the war.

This includes the story of an actual propaganda campaign mounted in the US by another bunch of lunatic revisionists, i.e. the Revisionist Zionist 'Bergson Group', who took out newspaper adverts and staged pageants about the mass murder of Jews in Europe during 1943. This propaganda campaign was strongly resisted by other Jewish organisations in the US, who rejected the tactics and methods used by the Bergson Group; it was also entirely secondary to the emergence of news of mass murder in 1942, which was not transmitted via Revisionist Zionist channels, nor did it supplant the process of reporting news from occupied Europe in 1943-1944.

The process of gathering news of persecution and mass murder of Jews between 1942 and 1944 involved the press, national governments and governments-in-exile, NGOs, intellectuals/academics, non-Jewish as well as Jewish organisations outside occupied Europe as well as resistance organisations, intelligence services, Germans and non-Germans, Jews and non-Jews inside occupied Europe. This was an international process, involving neutrals, Allies and the Axis countries. Swiss military intelligence, for example, received detailed information from an SS source regarding the Einsatzgruppen, the evolution of gas vans and about Auschwitz in early 1944.

Much of the news wasn't publicised and was kept secret, and what appeared in the papers was usually a fraction of the information passed on. There is a strong consensus that the global press under-reported the Holocaust at the time, and it is relatively under-represented in official and unofficial Allied propaganda compared to other themes.

Good luck trying to prove that the news of the Holocaust was an invented atrocity propaganda campaign - the term campaign is unwarranted to describe the entire process because it was sporadic, the term propaganda is refuted by the mere existence of unpublicised intelligence reports, and to prove invention you need to account for why different reporters and recipients received news on the same atrocities independently. As in all of the reports.

Quote:
It is not easy. There was a TV program a few years ago trying to trace one family (that of the actor Jane Seymour). Plainly there are no resources to multiply that effort a million fold. Where are the names of the 1,274,166 sent through the AR camps - in which archive are they held? The only back up document cited is generally a British intelligence decrypt. Perhaps it would be possible to do some tracing on the basis of small but a statistically significant sample. It is not mathematically possible to deal with totals when there is more than one missing, dubious or ambiguous figure, as there is more than one solution to any equation.
Historians have managed to prove all manner of economic, political, social, military and genocidal developments across the ages and around the world without always disposing of name lists.

So if your excuse is 'where are the names', you're effectively conceding Balsamo's point, which is that 'Holocaust revisionists' are not historians because they cannot figure out how to prove their claims according to completely conventional standards.

A wide variety of conventional historical sources including contemporary German documents, contemporary Polish underground reports, contemporary Jewish council records and contemporary diaries or manuscripts collectively document the deportation of 1.274 million Polish Jews to the Aktion Reinhard camps in 1942. These sources allow historians to quantify broadly how many from Warsaw, how many from Radom, Krakow, Lwow etc were deported, without disposing of name lists, which were not compiled for these deportations, and which don't exist.

All these sources unanimously fail to provide any substantive evidence that the 1.274 million deportees passed through these camps.

To prove that the camps were transit camps, one could hypothetically find reports from different sources confirming that the majority of the 1.274 million deportees turned up somewhere else. To compete with the sources that say the deported Jews were exterminated at the Reinhard camps, then if one had other sources with at least an equal level of granularity and detail pointing to transit and arrival somewhere else, then you might reach the level of establishing a genuine contradiction and force historians to decide between two alternatives.

We have documents giving statistical breakdowns of the deportations from Warsaw and documents confirming their deportation to Treblinka, if you had documents with statistical breakdowns of the transfers of Warsaw Jews from Treblinka to somewhere else, then you might begin to cast doubt on the fate of the Jews of Warsaw, generally accepted as having been killed in Treblinka.

Unfortunately for you, such sources do not exist.

We don't have name lists for Warsaw and Treblinka, nor do you have them for somewhere further east. Nor do historians of countless other incidents involving just as many people, either in the 20th Century or earlier eras.

We do have statistical documents and sources providing figures for Warsaw and Treblinka. But you don't have any reports specifying 5000, 7000, 10,000, 250,000 or any other figures talking of the Jews of Warsaw arriving somewhere other than Treblinka, having travelled via Treblinka.

You can find sources that show movements of smaller numbers to other locations, but none that show a transit via Treblinka. You can also find diaries and the like recording hearsay of deportations heading to other locations, but none that record a transit via Treblinka.

In fact, you don't have a single source of any kind that speaks of the Jews of Warsaw being 'transited' via Treblinka in 1942.

Therefore a belief in transit via Treblinka is completely un-historical, as it cannot be backed up by sources. Period.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2016, 06:46 PM   #351
LeoMajor
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by EtienneSC View Post
Where are the names of the 1,274,166 sent through the AR camps - in which archive are they held? The only back up document cited is generally a British intelligence decrypt. Perhaps it would be possible to do some tracing on the basis of small but a statistically significant sample. It is not mathematically possible to deal with totals when there is more than one missing, dubious or ambiguous figure, as there is more than one solution to any equation.
That is a patently ludicrous and imbecilic proposition. A number of that magnitude would not be able to simply vanish into the USSR. most were Polish Jews unable to speak a word of Russian. Your earlier speculation on weather or not they wound up in Israel displayed a shocking degree of ignorance on post war demographics.
LeoMajor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2016, 12:27 PM   #352
Balsamo
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2
Great post, Nick Terry...
There is nothing i could add to this one.
Balsamo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2016, 12:41 PM   #353
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
While there are important precursors in the early modern era to modern source-based history-writing, history established itself as a distinctive modern discipline in the 19th century. The Germans called it Geschichtswissenschaft, which can be translated as historical science, without implying anything about nomothetic or natural science. I presume that Balsamo was alluding to Geschichtswissenschaft when he spoke about historical science.



No, it doesn't.

Plenty of archives have been taken over, destroyed, plundered, removed, restituted or otherwise affected by the many political upheavals of the modern era - the French Revolution saw a substantial destruction of archival records including business and ecclesiastical records; the records of the Imperial German Army were largely incinerated by the Royal Air Force in a 1945 air raid on Potsdam, while your Nazi heroes stole archives from all across Europe, meaning that many ended up in Soviet hands after 1945.



Holocaust studies is an umbrella term for any scholarship on the Holocaust. It is not a discipline or a methodology. It is trivially easy to show that academics in English, other humanities, and every single social science have approached aspects of the Holocaust using the methodologies of their respective disciplines.

Holocaust studies no more has a unique methodology than do First World War studies - literature departments clearly study the memoirs, novels and poetry of the First World War, just as they might study Primo Levi, and there are plenty of courses in history departments on WWI that foreground the literature and cultural representations of that conflict.

The historiography of the Holocaust is simply history, and uses historical methodology; its authors have been trained as historians, been awarded history degrees, and are most likely to be found in history departments.

Interdisciplinary research centres for Holocaust studies are no different to interdisciplinary research centres for Medieval Studies, Early Modern Studies, South Asian Studies or any other form of era/area studies - they are ways to bring together academics from different university departments together, and can easily result in hardcore economic and social historians of 17th Century England being bored out of their minds listening to a paper on Shakespeare produced by a colleague from the English department - both work in 'Early Modern Studies', after all.



All central German state records of the Nazi era were seized by the western Allies or Soviet Union - not just those relating to the Holocaust. Then they were restituted, see Astrid Eckert, The Struggle for the Files (2012).

You're simply making up nonsense claiming that the German archives captured by western powers contain "Soviet interpolations". They don't, and you can produce no evidence to support this claim, so don't bother offering speculative conspiracy theories peddled by some ignorant revisionist hack.



I hate to break it to you, but "historical science" has always used eyewitness accounts. Ranke said as much in his programmatic foreword where he coined the phrase 'wie es eigentlich gewesen war'.

Nor is there a meaningful distinction to be drawn between history from above and history from below in this regard. Historians have always considered the memoirs, diaries and letters of politicans, generals and diplomats to be relevant sources, to be evaluated alongside state papers and in many cases, to be used where state papers fall silent or are missing. US Presidential libraries have frequently established large-scale oral history programs to interview members of particular administrations.

The use of diaries, letters, memoirs, interrogations/cross-examinations, journalistic interviews, oral histories and other ego-documents from "ordinary" and mid-ranking participants is completely standard in the historiography of pretty much every single major modern conflict, whether wars, genocides or political struggles such as civil rights. Official records are easily destroyed - at the end of apartheid, South Africa incinerated metric tons of police records - or might never have been generated - how many reports would a commander in an African civil war file with a superior? - so historians of modern conflicts use whatever they can get their hands on.

It is however trivially easy to demonstrate that historians of the Holocaust rely heavily on contemporary, "official" documents, in two ways.

Firstly, "the Holocaust" is a shorthand term covering the entire era of the persecution and mass murder of European Jews from 1933 to 1945 and applies across Europe to Axis states not just the Third Reich. The volume of Nazi and Axis documentation on different aspects of these processes is considerable, despite various attempts to destroy records. This applies also to the killing and death inflicted in ghettos, labour camps, 'ordinary' concentration camps and in mobile killing operations.

Secondly, historians use documents on the extermination camps, the personnel of the camps, deportations to the camps, and the immediate organisational context as a matter of course, knowing that many records were destroyed - Globocnik's final report on Aktion Reinhard, a document that survives, explicitly states that the records of the Reinhard camps were destroyed. The conclusion that these camps were extermination camps does not therefore rest solely on testimony, but is reinforced by direct documentary references to killing and gassing, supported by common-sense inferences based on the totality of the documents mentioning these camps or organisations. These documents also confirm and corroborate numerous points mentioned by non-Nazi sources - for example, Christian Wirth's involvement in Aktion Reinhard is documented, and it's also mentioned by a Polish underground report, Kurt Gerstein and other eyewitness accounts.



You are literally 88 years behind the times here; historians of WWI have researched the atrocities that did take place between 1914 and 1918 while also exploring the role of propaganda during the First World War. See John Horne and Alan Kramer, German Atrocities 1914 (2001), which shows that the Imperial German Army really did execute over 6,000 Belgian and French civilians in reprisals in 1914, largely in response to a hysterical belief in 'francs-tireurs' and often due to inexperienced soldiers blaming civilians for 'friendly fire' incidents, while the Allied press then publicised hysterical reactions to real atrocities. The sources confirming reprisal executions are often German Army regimental and divisional histories published in the 1920s and 1930s.

The term "atrocity propaganda" is analytically worthless, as the mere fact that atrocities might be publicised does not say anything meaningful about whether they happened or not. The term propaganda is also used indiscriminately, in ways that annihilate important differences between government actions, media reporting, and other responses, as well as the differences between responses during conflicts and their aftermath.

To give an example, a series of atrocities against Chinese prisoners of war and civilians were undeniably committed by Japanese forces at Nanjing in 1937 - this received relatively little publicity at the time, but was not unknown. Historians have shown that through to 1945, reporters, writers and official propagandists in wartime China paid it much less attention than became the case by the end of the 20th Century in Communist China (see Parks M. Coble, ‘Writing about Atrocity: Wartime Accounts and their Contemporary Uses’, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2, China in World War II, 1937–1945: Experience, Memory, and Legacy (March 2011), pp. 379-398). Commemoration of Nanjing did not become a major trend in China until the 1980s, by which time Japanese journalists had already debated Nanjing during the 1970s. The establishment of a memorial and use of Nanjing in Sino-Japanese relations certainly has propagandistic elements, and there are politicised interpretations from both 'maximalists' (some Chinese and Japanese commentators) as well as 'minimalists' (i.e. Japanese negationists). This hasn't prevented historians internationally from exploring the event historically, and rejecting negationism (see in particular the contributions to Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (ed), The Nanking atrocity, 1937-38: complicating the picture. New York: Berghahn Books, 2007).

Holocaust denial has in any case failed to produce any "history of an atrocity propaganda campaign" for the Holocaust. Passing invocations of the term don't count, nor do brief discussions of some aspects of publicity or propaganda.

Historians of the Holocaust have already examined in some detail how the persecution and mass murder of European Jews was publicised, 'propagandised', politicised and discussed internationally during the war.

This includes the story of an actual propaganda campaign mounted in the US by another bunch of lunatic revisionists, i.e. the Revisionist Zionist 'Bergson Group', who took out newspaper adverts and staged pageants about the mass murder of Jews in Europe during 1943. This propaganda campaign was strongly resisted by other Jewish organisations in the US, who rejected the tactics and methods used by the Bergson Group; it was also entirely secondary to the emergence of news of mass murder in 1942, which was not transmitted via Revisionist Zionist channels, nor did it supplant the process of reporting news from occupied Europe in 1943-1944.

The process of gathering news of persecution and mass murder of Jews between 1942 and 1944 involved the press, national governments and governments-in-exile, NGOs, intellectuals/academics, non-Jewish as well as Jewish organisations outside occupied Europe as well as resistance organisations, intelligence services, Germans and non-Germans, Jews and non-Jews inside occupied Europe. This was an international process, involving neutrals, Allies and the Axis countries. Swiss military intelligence, for example, received detailed information from an SS source regarding the Einsatzgruppen, the evolution of gas vans and about Auschwitz in early 1944.

Much of the news wasn't publicised and was kept secret, and what appeared in the papers was usually a fraction of the information passed on. There is a strong consensus that the global press under-reported the Holocaust at the time, and it is relatively under-represented in official and unofficial Allied propaganda compared to other themes.

Good luck trying to prove that the news of the Holocaust was an invented atrocity propaganda campaign - the term campaign is unwarranted to describe the entire process because it was sporadic, the term propaganda is refuted by the mere existence of unpublicised intelligence reports, and to prove invention you need to account for why different reporters and recipients received news on the same atrocities independently. As in all of the reports.



Historians have managed to prove all manner of economic, political, social, military and genocidal developments across the ages and around the world without always disposing of name lists.

So if your excuse is 'where are the names', you're effectively conceding Balsamo's point, which is that 'Holocaust revisionists' are not historians because they cannot figure out how to prove their claims according to completely conventional standards.

A wide variety of conventional historical sources including contemporary German documents, contemporary Polish underground reports, contemporary Jewish council records and contemporary diaries or manuscripts collectively document the deportation of 1.274 million Polish Jews to the Aktion Reinhard camps in 1942. These sources allow historians to quantify broadly how many from Warsaw, how many from Radom, Krakow, Lwow etc were deported, without disposing of name lists, which were not compiled for these deportations, and which don't exist.

All these sources unanimously fail to provide any substantive evidence that the 1.274 million deportees passed through these camps.

To prove that the camps were transit camps, one could hypothetically find reports from different sources confirming that the majority of the 1.274 million deportees turned up somewhere else. To compete with the sources that say the deported Jews were exterminated at the Reinhard camps, then if one had other sources with at least an equal level of granularity and detail pointing to transit and arrival somewhere else, then you might reach the level of establishing a genuine contradiction and force historians to decide between two alternatives.

We have documents giving statistical breakdowns of the deportations from Warsaw and documents confirming their deportation to Treblinka, if you had documents with statistical breakdowns of the transfers of Warsaw Jews from Treblinka to somewhere else, then you might begin to cast doubt on the fate of the Jews of Warsaw, generally accepted as having been killed in Treblinka.

Unfortunately for you, such sources do not exist.

We don't have name lists for Warsaw and Treblinka, nor do you have them for somewhere further east. Nor do historians of countless other incidents involving just as many people, either in the 20th Century or earlier eras.

We do have statistical documents and sources providing figures for Warsaw and Treblinka. But you don't have any reports specifying 5000, 7000, 10,000, 250,000 or any other figures talking of the Jews of Warsaw arriving somewhere other than Treblinka, having travelled via Treblinka.

You can find sources that show movements of smaller numbers to other locations, but none that show a transit via Treblinka. You can also find diaries and the like recording hearsay of deportations heading to other locations, but none that record a transit via Treblinka.

In fact, you don't have a single source of any kind that speaks of the Jews of Warsaw being 'transited' via Treblinka in 1942.

Therefore a belief in transit via Treblinka is completely un-historical, as it cannot be backed up by sources. Period.

Excellent sent it to an Arab colleague who harbours just such 'odd' thoughts you expose as faulty.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 04:47 PM   #354
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
Only because it's true.
Why do you insist on stating that all holocaust revisionists are anti semitic ? This is an obvious lie as there are Jews who are holocaust revisionists. David Cole, Roger Dommergue, Samuel Crowell, Joseph Ginsburg, Ditlieb Felderer etc -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6912
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 04:52 PM   #355
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
It has complete justification. There is no Holocaust "revisionism" without racism. The former is a subset of the latter.
Are black revisionists such as Jonas E Alexis racist ?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10...t-is-a-racket/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/04...ils-yet-again/

You also completely ignore the fact that there are Jewish revisionists -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6912
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 04:57 PM   #356
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 290
Occams Razor Destroys The Holocaust Industry

Jonas E Alexis and Nicholas Kollerstrom discuss skeptic Michael Shermer and his attitude to holocaust revisionism -
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07...aust-industry/
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10496
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 05:32 PM   #357
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
Why do you insist on stating that all holocaust revisionists are anti semitic ?
...he says, while posting multiple links to Veterans Today, a website obsessed with how Jews are criminals and secretly control non-Jewish politicians. Really, they're pretty much obsessed with Jews in general.

So thanks for helping me prove my point.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni

Last edited by A'isha; 25th July 2016 at 05:37 PM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 07:21 PM   #358
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
Why do you insist on stating that all holocaust revisionists are anti semitic ? This is an obvious lie as there are Jews who are holocaust revisionists. David Cole,
Originally Posted by David Cole
"“I would like to state for the record that there is no question in my mind that during the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews during World War Two, the Nazis employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the Jews."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06...ery-religions/

Try and keep up Mondial. This article was on your own Veteran's Today website. Why are you posting something that you already know is not true?
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 07:30 PM   #359
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,735
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
Are black revisionists such as Jonas E Alexis racist ?
No doubt about it. Racist to the gills.

Quote:
You also completely ignore the fact that there are Jewish revisionists
I have ignored no such thing. Jewish racists are as common as any other ethnic type. All Holocaust "revisionists" are antisemitic racists, by definition.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage

Last edited by trustbutverify; 26th July 2016 at 07:32 PM.
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2016, 04:05 AM   #360
EtienneSC
Thinker
 
EtienneSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
I presume that Balsamo was alluding to Geschichtswissenschaft when he spoke about historical science.
This was a controversial period of intellectual activity in Germany, when areas of scholarship divested themselves of philosophical and theological oversight. It was not seen by all as an advance at the time. Why, for example, would we need different doctrines of the epistemology of testimony for history, law, etc? - it is a unitary subject. Authors of the "Two Germanys" school (e,g, Muirhead) regarded this as a cultural decline.

What I find with holocaust history, is that the more cautious an author is, the more modest his conclusions and hence the more consistent with revisionism. For example, looking at the start of Wolfgang Benz's Dimensionen des Völkermords (1996), Benz quotes two reports of remarks by Eichmann from the Nuremberg trials about the scale of killings - without endorsing them (pages 1-2). One states that 4 million died in camps, which I think is no longer believed (900,000 in Auschwitz, 1.5 million AR, 150,000 elsewhere is not 4 million). Benz does not address this at this point in the text (he is not obliged to), but states that Eichmann did not deny their accuracy in Jerusalem. None of this implies that what Eichmann reportedly said is true or that he really said it. This is sound method, but although it creates an impression on the non-revisionist reader, it proves nothing about the fate of the Jews.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Holocaust studies is an umbrella term for any scholarship on the Holocaust. It is not a discipline or a methodology. [...]
This made some helpful distinctions for me - nothing to add.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
All central German state records of the Nazi era were seized by the western Allies or Soviet Union - not just those relating to the Holocaust. Then they were restituted, see Astrid Eckert, The Struggle for the Files (2012).

You're simply making up nonsense claiming that the German archives captured by western powers contain "Soviet interpolations". They don't, and you can produce no evidence to support this claim, so don't bother offering speculative conspiracy theories peddled by some ignorant revisionist hack.
I made the remark in light of a specific discussion elsewhere of German Einsatzgruppen records held in Maryland, USA. I understand that one set of these were discovered by the Soviets in Berlin in 1945 and handed to the Americans. Vincent Reynouard has added up the fatalities on one set of Meldungen ("reports"). It appears that these may exist at several levels and have been collated. Some doubts about authenticity and provenance can be raised. There was an order to report the numbers of Jews in each region, but the reports refer to "Jews executed". There is no reason intrinsic to the documents to doubt their authenticity. Reynouard arrived at figures in the region of 335,000 Jews reported killed and totals killed in the region of 445,000 by adding up the numbers in all the reports. However, apparently the Maryland records total to something a little short of 2 million. Mattogno apparently intends to publish on the subject late in 2017.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
I hate to break it to you, but "historical science" has always used eyewitness accounts. [...]
I have no problem with that in principle, only with the priority and probative value attributed to them when they are not supported by official records.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
[...] Globocnik's final report on Aktion Reinhard, a document that survives, explicitly states that the records of the Reinhard camps were destroyed.
I originally downloaded your (collective) book on AR as a pdf which was unreadable in Kindle format. I now see that it is available in a Kindle-compatible (.mobi) format on Archive.org. I was not previously aware of this document, so will review your work more thoroughly. It is widely felt that the history of the camps on both sides is unsatisfactory, partly through lack of documentation.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Holocaust denial has in any case failed to produce any "history of an atrocity propaganda campaign" for the Holocaust. Passing invocations of the term don't count, nor do brief discussions of some aspects of publicity or propaganda.
They have referred to some aspects on the basis of declassified British documents, discussed the role of Ben Hecht in the USA, Ilya Ehrenburg in the Soviet Union, Polish/Jewish sources, etc. I'm not sure why brief discussions "don't count".

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Historians have managed to prove all manner of economic, political, social, military and genocidal developments across the ages and around the world without always disposing of name lists.

[...] To compete with the sources that say the deported Jews were exterminated at the Reinhard camps, then if one had other sources with at least an equal level of granularity and detail pointing to transit and arrival somewhere else, then you might reach the level of establishing a genuine contradiction and force historians to decide between two alternatives.

[...] In fact, you don't have a single source of any kind that speaks of the Jews of Warsaw being 'transited' via Treblinka in 1942.

Therefore a belief in transit via Treblinka is completely un-historical, as it cannot be backed up by sources. Period.
If Treblinka was a mere transit camp, it would not be identified as a point of origin. Overall, there is little point me wasting your time further before I have studied your (collective) work. Plainly, without names, the granularity on the holocaust side is itself not ideal.
__________________
Kommt der Krieg ins Land,
Gibt Lügen wie Sand.

Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg cross examined in 1985 by Canadian attorney Doug Christie (after briefing by revisionist Robert Faurisson). Click here. Video on the Aktion Reinhard camps. Click here. Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt (2013), click here.
EtienneSC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.