Can't We Have an Even-handed Discussion About the Holocaust?

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Character assassination tactics are a red flag revealing weakness in one's substance of debate.

Pointing out that someone has a history of falsification of documents and is generally intellectually dishonest is not character assassination, but a judgement based on fact.

Originally posted by EvanB



I personally view some of these posts as a way of rehabilitating Hitler and rewriting the fact that he was nothing more than satan incarnate..

In fact, I feel violated just reading some of these threads even subconsciously sickend by the dark between the lines text of the writers..

I wont be participating again..

edit on 20-7-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)

Well to begin with describing a man as the incarnation of a fantasy product is exhibiting exactly the kind of emotional garbage the OP requested be left out of the thread.
This is not about "Rehabilitating" Hitler, this is about all the victims of the holocaust, and how some of them have been swept under the carpet of history by falsifying the numbers of victims from one particular race.
Hitler didn't falsify the numbers, if they wasn't falsified, or, incorrect, they never would have been revised downwards after research and facts, took the place of emotion and agendas in setting those figures in the first place.

Just as a reminder. David Iriving currently does no longer claim that there weren't any gas chambers at Auschwitz, as someone claimed previously in this thread.

Speaking at Heathrow Airport last night, Mr Irving said: "On Auschwitz I was mistaken. I said that there were no gas chambers, although that was strictly true because I later discovered evidence that they were in fact just outside the camp.

Other things, he has not retracted yet. Guess he can't afford to lose any more friends.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Character assassination tactics are a red flag revealing weakness in one's substance of debate.

Pointing out that someone has a history of falsification of documents and is generally intellectually dishonest is not character assassination, but a judgement based on fact.

edit on 20-7-2012 by NichirasuKenshin because: (no reason given)

I think that you can reveal past history without name calling arbitrary subjective terms like anti-semite.

Debunk all you want, I have no issue with that.

I am just saying I have a very hard time believing people that base their opinion on name calling.
It's not professional.

Originally posted by muzzleflash


I am just saying I have a very hard time believing people that base their opinion on name calling.
It's not professional.

I did not base my opionion on name calling.

I base my opinion on David Irving's proven falsifications as well on his blatant flip-flopping on certain issues.

That's not name calling, just stating an opinion based on observations.
And quite frankly, I've got no idea why you would associate me with calling Irving an anti-semite. I don't deal in such things.
I just think he's a terrible, terrible historian ever since the late 70's.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Character assassination tactics are a red flag revealing weakness in one's substance of debate.

Pointing out that someone has a history of falsification of documents and is generally intellectually dishonest is not character assassination, but a judgement based on fact.

edit on 20-7-2012 by NichirasuKenshin because: (no reason given)

The biggest lies will have the thickest walls and the largest number of guards to protect them.
Especially where a nation that exhibits much national pride, will have an incredible amount of people willing to defend it in anyway they can.

If that means a concerted and organised character assasination of someone who is calling their innocence and involvement in fabricating aspects of the "Truth" into question, why wouldn't they?.

You see an event such as this being made into no go research territory, unless the research is to help maintain the official story, is made no go for a reason.
Very few people have had the stomach for the fight it involves in calling into doubt the "Facts", the easiest way to deal with someone like that is to destroy his credibility, depending on how much emotional attachment you have to the official version of events, will show how capable you are of discussing and being open to accept that what you might believe is wrong, and, vice versa.
Yes the holocaust happened, but what were the reasons for falsifying the numbers, so much, is what i am interested in.

Originally posted by The X

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Character assassination tactics are a red flag revealing weakness in one's substance of debate.

Pointing out that someone has a history of falsification of documents and is generally intellectually dishonest is not character assassination, but a judgement based on fact.

edit on 20-7-2012 by NichirasuKenshin because: (no reason given)

The biggest lies will have the thickest walls and the largest number of guards to protect them.
Especially where a nation that exhibits much national pride, will have an incredible amount of people willing to defend it in anyway they can.

If that means a concerted and organised character assasination of someone who is calling their innocence and involvement in fabricating aspects of the "Truth" into question, why wouldn't they?.

So falsifiying the historic account is OK with you as long as it is done for the "good cause"?

I bet that works fine and dandy for you. It doesn't for me, or for anyone else who is interested in history as a social science.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


MSM is pushing hard to induce that Germans were blood thirsty people who were mislead by Hitler.

I don't believe that because human beings are not animals.

Those who use usury are the one who are bringing death and destruction to this planet. Whether Jews or none-Jews.

Usury brings no construction but brings oppression to the one who borrows money.

The term seems first to have been used in connection to Jews in Germany with regards to the burning of Synagogues in 1938, it's common usage of today is as the term was promoted from the 1960's onward.

An early Jewish employment of "holocaust" to refer to events in Nazi Germany was in a telegram of 16 November 1938 from the Chief Rabbis of Palestine to the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire: "PROPOSE YOU ... PROCLAIM JEWISH DAY OF MOURNING ... FOR HOLOCAUST SYNAGOGUES GERMANY ..." (Hartley Library: University of Southampton Special Research Collections - information brochure, n.d. [1998], p. 12 -- MS 175/142/1 in the collection, MS copywright J. Schonfield) As has been pointed out in postings on this list, the London Times Literary Supplement in an editorial of 26 August 1939 warned of an impending "holocaust" of Jews in Nazi Germany. (p. 503, col. 2)

www.fpp.co.uk...


The problem i see with this definatively defined package is that if forces absolute acceptance or rejection of a proposed scenario within narrowly defined parameters, becoming faith based, with those who question it's teachings dismissed as heretical deniers.


What is generally outside of the parameters for discussion are the reasons behind the first mass killing of Jews in 1941 in the territories the Wehmracht liberated/occupied from the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, Beloruss, the Ukraine, here began popular uprising/pogroms against the Jews who were seen to have been deeply implicated in Bolshevik oppression, mass killings and policies of starvation, repression of religion and Nationalism.

This appears to have surprised the Germans, whose initial policy was of non-interferance, this leading on to the organisation of those involved into police militia units and a more systematic approach organised by the SS.


These militia of the Baltic States and the Ukraine had no reservations about shooting Jews from dawn till dusk, their justification was that the Jews had orchestrated Bolshevism toward similar genocidal policies against their own Nation and peoples, thus they saw these measures as reciprocal, they would reject any notion that the Jews were innocent or had a monopoly on righteousness.


Any balanced analysis of the anti-Jewish pogroms thus needs to take into account the events that occured before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, yet that is outside the parameters of 'The Holocaust' package, and it is heretical for me to consider such motivations.


After 1942 when no furthur territories were occupied in the East a reduced number of the Einsatzgruppen militia were involved in the Operation Reinhard actions in Eastern Poland in 1943, when in numbers that have not been properly determined, some Jews from the ghettoes were transported to three transit camps and most probably shot in the same manner that had been effective furthur East.


The militia have also been considered as active at Auschwitz Monowitz in 1944, again their role appears to have possibly been that of shooting Jews who were not to enter into the camp system.


Within the camp system itself the Red Cross figures in conjunction with the Germans own records give best information as to the number of fatalities,

Charles Biedermann (Red Cross Delegate and Director of the International Tracing Service) testified (under oath) in a Canadian court case, that, as of December 31, 1976, the Red Cross had the names of only 357,190 individuals who died (of all causes) in the entire German concentration camp system.

Biedermann also confirmed that, as of December 31, 1983, that number had increased to 373,468 deaths (again, from all causes) in all of the Nazi camps.

guardian.150m.com...


The 'gas chambers' and stories of mass killings within the camp system are a myth that originated at Nurnburg, perpetuated within 'The Holocaust' package. were it was first suggested that all camps such as Dachau had such chambers, then this revised to only those in Poland, were the Soviets constructed crude after the fact resemblances of such in air-raid shelter and crematoria.


There is no doubt that Hitler intended the Jews presence within the camp system to be terminal, as they were entirely dispossesed, but his attitude would appear to have been that over the longer term the seperation by gender and thus lack of reproduction, in conjunction with attrition through the harsh conditions would solve the problem, and that in the meantime the Jews could be gainfully employed within the purpose built industrial complex.


This resume i believe will stand up to long term historical scrutiny.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt



The 'gas chambers' and stories of mass killings within the camp system are a myth that originated at Nurnburg, perpetuated within 'The Holocaust' package. were it was first suggested that all camps such as Dachau had such chambers, then this revised to only those in Poland, were the Soviets constructed crude after the fact resemblances of such in air-raid shelter and crematoria.

Funny how David Irving, paragon of the revisionist side of the argument, doesn't seem to agree with this.


And a general reply:

I remember holding a book in my hand by a native american, printed in the 19th century. I'm almost certain that the term "holocaust" was used in referring to the extermination of native americans. Given that, it is indeed a shame that the term "holocaust" is seen as exclusively reserved for the jewish victims of Nazism. I always understood the term to cover all victims of the Nazis, and I think other uses are biased and unfair.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


The best way to deal with the subject is to discuss one element or "fact" of the Holocaust at a time in a very clear and precise manner.

Yes it is true the Nazis were not just Germans.

Originally posted by bluemirage5


Yes it is true the Nazis were not just Germans.

Very important point. Expanding on it:

1. Some of the most prominent racial demagogues in Nazi Germany were recent immigrants, although they had german roots. Rosenberg comes to mind, or Darré. Hitler of course.

2. Many of the people actually doing the killing (especially in the South East, but also in the death and labor camps) were locals. The Trawniki being just the most prominent among them.

Rereading this post made me think of a quote from David Irving:

"It did occur to me how many of the leading Nazis were either Austrian by birth,
or educated in Austria. Really, if they're so touchy about the whole thing, they
shouldn't have done it in the first place."

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Will you provide some evidence of these claims? i have visited Auschwitz and seen what the purpose of this camp was with my own eyes. i wonder if you have done the same? but i welcome informed and rational debate so look forward to actual sources and evidence for your claims. also no mass graves? for a student of history you have not done much research.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


David Irving has an odd crush on Hitler, the entire point of his investigations seemingly to suggest he wasn't implicated, which is of course ridiculous.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

David Irving has an odd crush on Hitler, the entire point of his investigations seemingly to suggest he wan't implicated, which is of course ridiculous.

I guess on that we both can agree, even if the rest of our interpretation is as divergent as it can get.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by The X

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Character assassination tactics are a red flag revealing weakness in one's substance of debate.

Pointing out that someone has a history of falsification of documents and is generally intellectually dishonest is not character assassination, but a judgement based on fact.

edit on 20-7-2012 by NichirasuKenshin because: (no reason given)

The biggest lies will have the thickest walls and the largest number of guards to protect them.
Especially where a nation that exhibits much national pride, will have an incredible amount of people willing to defend it in anyway they can.

If that means a concerted and organised character assasination of someone who is calling their innocence and involvement in fabricating aspects of the "Truth" into question, why wouldn't they?.

So falsifiying the historic account is OK with you as long as it is done for the "good cause"?

I bet that works fine and dandy for you. It doesn't for me, or for anyone else who is interested in history as a social science.

Isn't that what thas happened?, for the good of one nation and it's people, some aspects of the history of the death camps has been embellished (at best) falsified (at worst).
And no, it is not okay.

Please explain how you have reached this conclusion?.
That is not what i have said, and i am confounded as to how you could think that is anything like i am implying?.
In no sentence have i said, "He is right and has been the subject of willful character assassination".
I have said, Israel has many defenders, they are not above character assassination, and, in such a patriotic people, it is to be expected, they feel compelled to defend israel, national service, is a great primer in this.

Both sides of the story again, on one side someone calling into question the events and figures, on the other, people defending the "Official version", the truth does not need defending with the threat of law.
And why does it matter so much that people DO believe it happened?.
Is it necessary that all christians know that up to 50million of their brothers and sisters were murdered by the regime in russia?, under threat of penalty of law for daring to call into question the numbers of actual killed, or the fact it happened?.

"In the face of evidence that is incontrovertible assassination of character is all that remains, you have to call into question his reliability and truthfulness, as a witness".
As muzzleflash was saying, it is a tool used to maintain lies.
And no im not saying his evidence IS Incontrovertible, im relaying something from a chat i had with a barrister once.

When you go in search of the "Truth" keep your skepticals on, both sides of the story are there to be found, but, both sides will be trying to negate the others version of events.
The truth is somewhere in between.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin



I doubt that we are totally divergent, after all i have stated that Hitler planned an absolute genocide of the Jews within his control, albeit over the longer term, and also i question the methodology and numbers stated at Nurnburg within the camp system.

Originally posted by The X
.

When you go in search of the "Truth" keep your skepticals on, both sides of the story are there to be found, but, both sides will be trying to negate the others version of events.
The truth is somewhere in between.

I couldn't agree more.

But just because there are two sides to any story doesn't mean that both are always right.

In fact, there are a lot of stories were only one side can be right; and the other one must therefore be untrue.

It's hard to argue for or against something when it's unclear what is being argued. As long as you don't follow a blanket denial of the crimes of Nazism, I have no problem with it.

With most of the more moderate things that the revisionist's side has presented in this thread, I agree.

I only take objections to the most extreme claims, such as that gas chambers didn't exist. Or that death camps didn't exist. Or that all of the deaths in labor and death camps were accidental, due to illness and unintentional starvation.

I don't know how I end up being portrayed as the one who simply believes the official story in evey thread. Firstly, I do not believe that there is such a thing as an "official story" as far as the second world war is concerned, and secondly, I take objection with most of the things criticized by moderate revisionists as well, such as pretending that the Jews were the only victims of Nazi mass violence.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

 

I doubt that we are totally divergent, after all i have stated that Hitler planned an absolute genocide of the Jews within his control, albeit over the longer term, and also i question the methodology and numbers stated at Nurnburg within the camp system.

I would also agree that the NMT is a long shot away from the real numbers. Some of this may be explained by reffering to overzealous prosecution of the NMT. But it can also be explained by sheer ignorance. It takes time to gain a decent perspective on what has actually happened. It takes alot of research, research that was impossible to do at the time, and some research that simply wasn't done because the exact numbers had no importance for the NMT as a whole. The case that the NMT made did not rely on specific numbers. I'd consider the NMT as a starting point as far as the numbers are concerned.

So yeah, it seems that we do agree on more than one thing :-)

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Yes, very true. Even Hitler was Austrian born with mixed blood lines.