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

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

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 ?".

Even if there were no gas chambers, there are still the photographs of mass murderers and the remains of mass graves. What is so important about the gas chambers? Even if the stories about the gas chambers turned out to be exaggerated-- or even fabricated-- why would it "backfire on Israel?"

You are demonstrating one of the fallacies of denialist thinking: if even one tiny detail of the historical record turns out to be inaccurate, the entire narrative must be false. Faurisson focuses on the gas chambers because he wants to deny the entire Holocaust by throwing doubt on the historical record. Presumably, his ultimate goal is to de-legitimize Israel. He is certainly a hero among those who believe that the Holocaust was a particularly sinister Zionist conspiracy.

Actually they torched the house I'm living in. The house was rebuild.

Sorry to hear that, glad it was rebuilt.

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.

The Germans were not interested in Belgium; they were only passing through on what they considered to be a "preemptive strike" on France. If the Belgians had cooperated with the German army, there would have been no repercussions. Instead, snipers in civilian clothing shot at German troops, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

As for Native Americans, the Euro-Americans were happy to trade with them peacefully. Their attitude towards land differed. When the Natives began to realize that their territory was being infringed, they quarreled first with each other and then resisted the settlers. As always, there are two conflicting nationalist myths; one for the settlers, one for the natives.

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.

It was not just Rudolph Vrba's testimony, there is the testimony of Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz:

law2.umkc.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Why would he invent such a story?

So you can't prove the existence of the gas chambers using historical methodology.
But still, you believe in their existence.

I believe in the gas chambers because there are accounts from reliable witnesses. That, ultimately, is the foundation of historical methodology. Incidentally, Faurisson relies on the gullibility of his followers. He claims to have visited Auschwitz and examined the alleged gas chamber, pointing out that it was too small and the door opened inwards, making it impractical. He is counting on your forgetting that the chamber was rebuilt.

Do you believe in Dinosaurs or do you acknowledge their existence because of existing proofs (mainly fossils in this case) ?

I'm not sure what your point is. The best explanation for fossils is that they are a record of now extinct life. The reality of the Holocaust is the best explanation for the existence of mass graves, photographs and records of atrocities, and countless eyewitness accounts.

This thread is closed for review.