Should Holocaust revision (NOT denial) be taken more seriously?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

What part of 'he's a Holocaust denier' and 'he thinks that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery' do you fail to understand?
As for Germar Rudolf - are you aware that the man is not scientific in any way, shape or form, but is in fact a convicted holocaust denier who is the (very rough) German equivalent to Fred Leuchter? Who was laughed at?

You want to know where he lies? He states that the Holocaust never happens and he claims that Zyklon B cannot be used in the way that te Nazis used it. Both are false. He claims that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. That is a lie.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

What part of 'he's a Holocaust denier' and 'he thinks that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery' do you fail to understand?

You can lie when saying he is a Holocaust denier if you want. He is denying the existence of gas chambers.
The Holocaust didn't stop nor start with the gas chambers.
It stopped with the cremation ovens for the victims or the liberation of the camps for the survivors.
Most people think it started when people were rounded up and deported. I consider it starts when the ideology that push people to do such actions is allowed to emerge.

Faurisson is not the only one questioning the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary. I never mentioned these publications - they are not relevant with the thread. But even Jewish individuals like Norman Finkelstein wonders about that.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
As for Germar Rudolf - are you aware that the man is not scientific in any way, shape or form, but is in fact a convicted holocaust denier who is the (very rough) German equivalent to Fred Leuchter? Who was laughed at?

He is chemist who demonstrated what was already observed before : the explosivity of cyanide gas. These facts are confirmed by any individual (revisionist or not) dealing with the issue.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
You want to know where he lies? He states that the Holocaust never happens and he claims that Zyklon B cannot be used in the way that te Nazis used it. Both are false. He claims that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. That is a lie.

Once again, who is lying ? You say he says things he never said, just to discredit him ... Where did he said the holocaust never happened ? Where does he denies the cremation or the deportation of the victims ?

Faurisson says 3 kind of things :
What is relevant to his historian work.
The conclusions he draws from his historian work.
His personal geopolitics consideration, influenced by his historian work.

As I said earlier, I don't care about his personal considerations. I just want you or anyone who wish to do the test to consider and try to refute the historical points he brings as a historian.
If you can't disprove the points, you just can't dismiss them because they re too much conflicting with the current narrative you are used to.
You can always try to find alternative conclusions considering these points, given that they can't be disproved.

a reply to: seagull

If you actually care to look, he has been fairly well discredited elsewhere other then in this thread.

Discredited being the right word.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Surfcrab

Anne Frank died of typhus (go look that up, why don't you?) as the result of a lice infestation (look that up too, you'll be very interested in it) in a concentration camp called Bergen-Belsen. Go look that up too. Then look at the YouTube videos of the British liberation of that camp. See all those horrified Tommies wandering about amidst the walking skeletons? One of those is my Grandfather.
Now go away and get an education.

Do you know what was used for combatting lice infestations? Fumigation with Zyklon B.

Walking skeletons don't prove that 6 million jews were gassed with Zyklon B. It only proves that there was no food.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Do you know what was used for combatting lice infestations? Fumigation with Zyklon B.

That's what you would tell people you intend to murder so they will go peacefully.

Walking skeletons don't prove that 6 million jews were gasssed with Zyklon B. It only proves that there was no food.

What about the ones all across Central and Eastern Europe who were forced to dig a pit for their bodies before being shot? Or are the gas chambers the only thing that count? I knew a Hungarian woman who was the sole survivor of her family; the rest were murdered in the camps. She didn't know whether they were gassed, shot, or worked to death. But her experience, apparently, doesn't prove anything in some people's eyes.

a reply to: m1991

Certainly agree that there was a Zionist element aware and even partially responsible for the holocaust. All you have to do is look at who profited from the conflict in question to see who the real culprits are, aka the Zionist bankers who sponsored both the axis and allied powers.

a reply to: DJW001

That's what you would tell people you intend to murder so they will go peacefully.

What a surprise, again you completely misinterprete a comment. I am obviously not saying that they used Zyklon B to de-lice people. It was used to de-lice clothing and trains for instance. And people's heads were shaved.

Also, I thought the story was that they were told that they were going to get a shower.

And you really think that people who were in the camps for quite some time had no idea that they would be murdered there? None of the prisoners were aware what happened there? That alone is enough to make you question things.

What about the ones all across Central and Eastern Europe who were forced to dig a pit for their bodies before being shot? Or are the gas chambers the only thing that count? I knew a Hungarian woman who was the sole survivor of her family; the rest were murdered in the camps. She didn't know whether they were gassed, shot, or worked to death. But her experience, apparently, doesn't prove anything in some people's eyes.

I responded to a specific comment, again you are taking mine out of context.

Walking skeletons still do not prove that 6 millions jews were killed, as suggested by the comment I responded to.

Also anecdotal evidence being told to you doesn't prove to others that 6 million jews were killed, or that a large number of them were gassed, indeed.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

What a surprise, again you completely misinterprete a comment. I am obviously not saying that they used Zyklon B to de-lice people. It was used to de-lice clothing and trains for instance. And people's heads were shaved.

Also, I thought the story was that they were told that they were going to get a shower.

Correct, they were told they were going to get a delousing shower before entering the camp.

And you really think that people who were in the camps for quite some time had no idea that they would be murdered there? None of the prisoners were aware what happened there? That alone is enough to make you question things.

The prisoners were sorted as they arrived at the camps. The young, healthy ones who could be used for slave labor were imprisoned. The weak, useless ones were "deloused." Inmates knew that their survival depended on their usefulness to the Nazi regime, and compliance to the camp regulations. They knew that they would either be worked to death, starve to death, be tortured to death in medical experiments, die of disease, or, if they were lucky, be put out of their misery painlessly. Once they entered the camps, resistance was futile. What do you find questionable about this situation?

Walking skeletons still do not prove that 6 millions jews were killed, as suggested by the comment I responded to.

Exactly how many Jews need to be murdered to qualify as genocide? For that matter, how many Jews, Poles, Russians, Romany, homosexuals, Catholic priests...?

Also anecdotal evidence being told to you doesn't prove to others that 6 million jews were killed, or that a large number of them were gassed, indeed.

So, in addition to records kept by the Nazis themselves, what other evidence do you think you need? Are you looking for an exact number, which may not be possible, or are you simply trying to discredit the whole idea of Nazi genocide? As I have pointed out, it was not limited to the camps. The Ustaše, Germany's Croatian auxiliaries, were such gleeful butchers that Himmler himself told them to tone it down because they were making Nazism look bad!

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
Do you know what was used for combatting lice infestations? Fumigation with Zyklon B.

The document NI-9912 produced at the Nuremberg trial confirm this :
This is one of the few nazi procedure detailing usage of Zyklon B - Richtlinien für die Anwendung von Blausäure (Zyklon) zur Ungeziefervertilgung (Entwesung).

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
Walking skeletons don't prove that 6 million jews were gassed with Zyklon B. It only proves that there was no food.

Most 'witnesses' mentions blue corpses. A main characteristic of cyanide poisoning is red-pinkish coloration ... Did you ever heard of any such thing as someone deported for being part of freemasonry, being a witness of the gas chambers ? ...

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Discredited as in being proven wrong. Many times. On just about every topic concerning the Holocaust.

He is nothing less than a holocaust denier.

a reply to: seagull

He is nothing less than a holocaust denier.

What difference do you make between a denier and a revisionist ?

a reply to: audiopackrat

"This site can’t be reached

www.holocaustdenialvideos.com’s server DNS address could not be found."

That's what im getting when i click the link.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

What difference do you make between a denier and a revisionist ?

A revisionist recognizes the established facts and documents, but re-interprets them in the light of new evidence, or based on original observations or deductions previously made. A denialist ignores all the established facts, documentation, and eyewitness testimony and claims that something never happened.

A revisionist can review the history of America's space program and decide that the "peaceful exploration of space" was always less important than its exploitation for military purposes. In other words, accepting the facts while rejecting the "official narrative." They might go on to note that the government placed its space oriented facilities in southern states, suggesting a political strategy not generally noticed in most mainstream histories. These are examples of legitimate revisionism.

A denialist, for whatever personal reason, wishes to believe that man never landed on the Moon. They completely ignore the historical record, massive documentation, and thousands of participants and eyewitnesses. They seize upon typographic errors and figures of speech as "contradictions." They take statements out of context. They invent elaborate conspiracy theories which become an article of faith without a shred of proof. The commit countless logical fallacies, such as "reasoning from ignorance." They consider their own incredulity as objective evidence. They make no effort to understand the technical details involved. Basically, their objective is to completely deny the reality of an historical event by rejecting all of the accepted historical evidence.

Not surprisingly, I have found many Moon Hoax "theorists" are also Holocaust deniers.

a reply to: DJW001

Exactly how many Jews need to be murdered to qualify as genocide? For that matter, how many Jews, Poles, Russians, Romany, homosexuals, Catholic priests...?

I never denied that genocide took place. 60 million people died because of the war. I do question the widespread and structural use of "gas chambers" and Zyklon B for this purpose, and the numbers involved.

There is a lot of focus on a particular group of WW2 victims.

So, in addition to records kept by the Nazis themselves,

I am not aware of any Nazi records that list gassing victims, or even deaths in those numbers, and the official 6 million number is an estimate which is outdated and is being revised even by Jewish scholars, suggesting it is 2.8 million which still might be way too high given official data on the number of Jewish people worldwide just before the war and just after.......

Where is the database of all those people that were killed? Assuming these millions did exist before the war?

There is so much evidence that shows that the number has always been strongly exaggerated.

Like the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross, released 1948 in Geneva, according to which 272,000 concentration camp inmates died in German custody, about half of them Jews.

As I have pointed out, it was not limited to the camps. The Ustaše, Germany's Croatian auxiliaries, were such gleeful butchers that Himmler himself told them to tone it down because they were making Nazism look bad!

Please. What makes you think I need a history lesson pointing out that the Nazis were bad? You think I am sticking up for the Nazis?

Nope, just making honest observations, and I think I am going to make some more.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Discredited as in being proven wrong. Many times. On just about every topic concerning the Holocaust.

He is nothing less than a holocaust denier.

Can you point me towards the works you have read that disprove his claims? I mean it sounds like you have them handy.

a reply to: DJW001

I wasn't talking to you ... but if you insist ...

How do you apply Historical methodology to confirm the existence of the gas chambers as you once tried for the Moon landings ?

Faurisson denies the gas chambers (given that there are no material evidence) but reviews the Holocaust ... it is consistent with classic set theory.
He is not going to deny the obvious (crematoriums, deportation, ...), he is looking after historical accuracy.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

I am not aware of any Nazi records that list gassing victims, or even deaths in those numbers, and the official 6 million number is an estimate which is outdated and is being revised even by Jewish scholars, suggesting it is 2.8 million which still might be way too high given official data on the number of Jewish people worldwide just before the war and just after.......

There is a prophetic reference in the talmud about 6 million victims.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
Where is the database of all those people that were killed? Assuming these millions did exist before the war?
There is so much evidence that shows that the number has always been strongly exaggerated.
Like the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross, released 1948 in Geneva, according to which 272,000 concentration camp inmates died in German custody, about half of them Jews.

Rabbi Jamus G. Holler on 18th November 1945 at the Jewish Community Center Auditorium, delivered a speech mentioning a total population of 2 million jewish individuals ( Source : FBI - Document 1 page 7).
The Red cross indeed provided figures (requested by Zundel for his defense at the 1985 Toronto trial) :



Maybe the Mormons could help (yeah seriously) - they are the only ones to have a genealogical database that could cross-check the figures of Yad Vashem.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

He is not going to deny the obvious (crematoriums, deportation, ...), he is looking after historical accuracy.

Historical accuracy and nationalist myths do not go hand in hand, although insisting on rejecting one aspect of a nationalist narrative will be viewed as an attack on its legitimacy. Just try explaining that there was never an actual state named "Palestine" until the Mandate. Israel uses the Holocaust as a justification for its existence; people who engage in revisionism are often motivated by a desire to de-legitimize it.

As a Belgian, I bet you think that the Germans were committing war crimes in the First World War when they rounded up civilians and shot them. In fact, what they did was entirely in keeping with the Geneva Conventions of the time. The Belgians were guilty of partisan warfare. I'm not saying that the Germans were justified, only that "historical accuracy" is not necessarily emotionally satisfying.

originally posted by: DJW001
Historical accuracy and nationalist myths do not go hand in hand, although insisting on rejecting one aspect of a nationalist narrative will be viewed as an attack on its legitimacy. Just try explaining that there was never an actual state named "Palestine" until the Mandate. Israel uses the Holocaust as a justification for its existence; people who engage in revisionism are often motivated by a desire to de-legitimize it.

Somehow agree. But once again, the Holocaust cannot be narrowed to the alleged gas chambers. Should their existence be finally understood to be a lie, this would backfire on Israel and all those who benefit from it. I first came across the work of Faurisson almost twenty years ago. Ever since I'm left with this pending legitimate question : "If it is a lie ... Why the lie ?".

originally posted by: DJW001
As a Belgian, I bet you think that the Germans were committing war crimes in the First World War when they rounded up civilians and shot them. In fact, what they did was entirely in keeping with the Geneva Conventions of the time. The Belgians were guilty of partisan warfare. I'm not saying that the Germans were justified, only that "historical accuracy" is not necessarily emotionally satisfying.

Actually they torched the house I'm living in. The house was rebuild.
The only guilt of the Belgian was to live on the area that has always been the main battlefield of Europe during the last millennium. Following your logic, I suppose the American natives were slaughtered for daring to resist the European settlers in North America.
I guess that this is because "historical accuracy" was not emotionally satisfying that Vrba used "poetic license" to describe the existence of the gas chambers.

So you can't prove the existence of the gas chambers using historical methodology.
But still, you believe in their existence.
Do you believe in Dinosaurs or do you acknowledge their existence because of existing proofs (mainly fossils in this case) ?