This is what I would like to do, be a revisionist on the holocaust. Point to the other countries and people involved plus point out the many who did try and help.
However how to do that without being associated with the deniers is the problem. How can I object to blanket statements like “Hitler killed 6 million Jews” without making it sound like I’m a denier? I want to say “6 million Jews and other persons were killed by this and that means and these countries all contributed”. Also some people and some countries did try to save many.
What makes you think that people are not aware that, for example, some Poles and Ukrainians assisted Germans in killing Jews while others resisted and helped hide them?
And what about acknowledging either/both makes one a revisionist in the sense that holocaust denial and revisionism is commonly understood?
What QuickSilver said, there is nothing remotely revisionist or controversial about this. This is commonly accepted history. For example, US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
This of course brings us back to chen’s continued ignoring of such things as the Einsatzgruppen, the Jäger Report, Heydrich’s decree that all Jews were to be regarded as partisans and all male Jews between the ages of 15 and 45 were to be shot, the Wannsee Conference, and Generalplan Ost. My own question for chen at this point is why do you continue to bump this thread about once a week to post some already thoroughly debunked nonsense?
Chen019, you keep digging holes. Your links are not valuable. For example, Rudolf claims that "According to Pressac, there is no material or documentary evidence for the existence of a homicidal ‘gas chamber’ in the crematorium of the Main Camp; . . . " which Pressac did write, before he actually visited the camps and was given the opportunity to review the documents that he claimed did not exist. Citing Pressac from the period when he was a disciple of Faurisson, (or citing Rudolf citing earlier claims by Pressac), simply indicates a willingness to use discredited testimony. Pressac was a denier, working with Faurisson who, when Pressac actually reviewed evidence came to the conclusion that the gas chambers had really been execution chambers.
What is the point of posting that sort of nonsense?
Citing Rudolf relying on the wholly discredited claims by Leuchter does nothing to support either Rudolf’s claims or yours.
Leuchter claimed to be an engineer, although his degree, (B.A., only), was in history.
The “samples” he took from the camps were not taken with the correct care to maintain their provenance. He then sent the samples to a lab for analysis to test for cyanide without explaining their purpose, so the lab ground up the samples to be tested, mixing and diluting the surface of the cyanide imbued surfaces, where the cyanide would extend only ten micrometres into the wall, with several inches of brick and mortar from the stolen samples.
While cyanide is a component of Zyklon B, it is not the sole or primary agent. Leuchter claimed that the higher presence of cyanide in the delousing chambers than the extermination chambers proved that the extermination chambers were not used for that purpose.
However, one needs more cyanide to kill insects than to kill humans and his “evidence” regarding the level of cyanide actually contradicts his claim.
Leuchter made a number of “engineering” claims (despite his lack of an engineering education) about the construction of the extermination chambers that are directly contradicted by the actual architectural drawings from their construction.
Any reliance on the lies of Leuchter, (such as Rudolf’s persistent quoting of them), discredits anyone who uses them.
What do you think is generally meant by “Hitler killed 6 million Jews”? It’s rather obvious no one who write or say that phrase mean it as “Hitler personally killed 6 million Jews”, so what commonly held interpretation are you objecting too?
I’ve been saying that the homicidal gas chambers, along with mass killing using electrical current, hot steam, electricity, fire, acids, pneumatic hammers, quicklime, combat gasses, Diesel exhaust gases, boiling water, blood poisoning, conveyor belt shooting, are war propaganda, on a par with atrocity propaganda employed in WWI and more recently in relation to Iraq.
For example, in WWI it was claimed that German soldiers, on the instruction of the Kaiser, were hacking the hands of children, had a corpse factory to turn enemy soldiers in soap and pig food, and that the Austrians had killed 700,000 Serbs using asphyxiating gas.
I also consider the numbers of deaths in the camps are likely exaggerated, although I’ve noted this could be clarified by the International Tracing Service. Why I think this is discussed in more detail in my earlier posts eg. here and here.
Here is a bit of advice in the BBQ Pit for those vainly trying to educate TGWATY and chen019. Sorry about the misspelling of “attention” in the Pit thread title (I reported it and perchance a mod or admin will fix it).
How many thousands eye-witness reports were recorded for those after the war? No thousands? Not comparable then. The existence of war propaganda doesn’t negate the existence of atrocities and using it as an argument shows a lack of understanding of the worlds of fact and logic.
It’ll be interesting to see if Cambodian holocaust denial (yes, it’s a thing)* increases in coming years as memories fade (or at least the deniers hope that’s the case).
In this loathsome example, the author cites Noam Chomsky as an authority, not bothering to tell us that Chomsky walked back his claims nearly two decades before the article appeared.
That tactic of citing denier views that the deniers themselves no longer hold, should be quite familiar to readers of this thread.
*the big difference of course is that such denialism is based on politics and not ethnic hatred.
I thought I answered this earlier. This is a debate thread by someone who is seeking discussion about how anyone could deny or dispute aspects of this part of WWII. I’ve answered with why I think it’s no surprise there is debate on this topic. After all, the official narrative itself has changed dramatically from what was claimed at Nuremberg. I don’t think anyone is going to call Dr Martin Broszat or even those who revised the number of deaths at Auschwitz "deniers’. It’s just a smear designed to stop any discussion.
What do I hope to achieve? Nothing more than anyone else in this thread. I’m just offering my two cents.
I thought I answered this earlier. This is a debate thread by someone who is seeking discussion about how anyone could deny or dispute aspects of this part of WWII. I’ve answered with why I think it’s no surprise there is debate on this topic. After all, the official narrative itself has changed dramatically from what was claimed at Nuremberg. I don’t think anyone is going to call Dr Martin Broszat or even those who revised the number of deaths at Auschwitz "deniers’. It’s just a smear designed to stop any discussion.
What do I hope to achieve? Nothing more than anyone else in this thread. I’m just offering my two cents. I thought that was the point of a debate section.
Perhaps that’s because Broszat has not substantially or completely denied the toll of the Holocaust (to my knowledge, he’s argued that Hitler didn’t direct it – but not that it occurred).
Your understanding of this period of history is incorrect and your sources have been debunked, time and time again. I’m not going spend additional time debunking them if you refuse to read and understand why your conclusions are wrong.
Asked and answered.
What you’ve offered, at best, is conjecture, at worst, distortions and falsehoods.
Please don’t insult people’s intelligence in claiming that these are simply your two cents worth of opinions. Most informed people know denial and revisionism when they hear it. You’re hardly the first to come along bearing alternative facts as evidence. The reason we’re able to judge your opinion as factually incorrect is because there is an overwhelming abundance of debunking that’s been done to show it is in fact factually incorrect. I suspect you know this to be true.
So the only question that remains un-answered, Chen019, is: What do you hope to achieve with your continued counterfactual holocaust denial efforts?
No there is not, (and not where it counts, among academia and historians) there could be if evidence from the holocaust deniers was not as debunked or itself as controversial as it is. The evidence is not on your side at all. As it was the climate change denial and scientific racism that you pointed at in the past.
Dr Broszat conceded in 1960 that the claims made at Nuremberg that their was gassing or mass extermination in German camps like Dachau, Buchenwald & Bergen-Belsen, were incorrect. He noted that inmates who died in the German camps had succumbed to catastrophic hygienic and supply conditions.
Broszat didn’t explain why the eye-witness evidence that had been relied on at Nuremberg was no longer reliable. It would be interesting to know how he reached his conclusions & why the eye-witness evidence from Polish camps could be relied upon.
As I have pointed out above, the reality is that the testimonies about the Polish camps is no more reliable than the testomonies about Buchenwald or other German camps. Indeed, it is directly contradicted by British Intelligence intercepts, inmate records & forensic evidence. In both cases, it IS consistent with atrocity propaganda that was spread during the war.
