[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

It is a freedom of speech issue. But you are wrong about Holocaust Deniers being exclusively from the "extreme right". David Cole, an atheistic Jew, made a famous documentary in the early 90s questioning certain aspects of the Holocaust. He disappeared from the public and changed his name in 1997 when the JDL put a 25 thousand dollar bounty on his head. The documentary can still be seen on youtube but don't waste your time. If you'll forgive me, I seriously doubt you have the capability for independent thought on this issue.

Your issue seems to be that you aren't capable of making a rational distinction, though. I'm sure there are historians who have tried to investigate the history of it, and I'm sure there are precise details that aren't 100%, that's only logical and applies throughout history. It is completely different to outright holocaust denial. For example even that video of the Bishop that you linked to; he isn't denying the holocaust, he isn't denying genocide, or the number of Jews incarcerated or killed, he's only saying that there's some evidence that other methods may have been more widely used in the killings than gas. Which is, let's face it, a largely irrelevant detail.

His motives leave a question mark to be honest; the interviewer makes reference to "something he said a long time ago" and I suspect a bit of back pedaling is going on.

You seem to not understand that there's a difference between this, and the "sweet old soul" in your OP, who quite openly expressed Nazi sympathies, admiration of Hitler, and outright denial that the holocaust even happened to any great extent.

She is not questioning historical details, she is trying to deny and change history to fit a quite obviously sinister agenda.

Learn to read between the lines.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Your issue seems to be that you aren't capable of making a rational distinction, though. I'm sure there are historians who have tried to investigate the history of it, and I'm sure there are precise details that aren't 100%, that's only logical and applies throughout history. It is completely different to outright holocaust denial. For example even that video of the Bishop that you linked to; he isn't denying the holocaust, he isn't denying genocide, or the number of Jews incarcerated or killed, he's only saying that there's some evidence that other methods may have been more widely used in the killings than gas. Which is, let's face it, a largely irrelevant detail.

His motives leave a question mark to be honest; the interviewer makes reference to "something he said a long time ago" and I suspect a bit of back pedaling is going on.

You seem to not understand that there's a difference between this, and the "sweet old soul" in your OP, who quite openly expressed Nazi sympathies, admiration of Hitler, and outright denial that the holocaust even happened to any great extent.

She is not questioning historical details, she is trying to deny and change history to fit a quite obviously sinister agenda.

Learn to read between the lines.

I don't assume to be able to read her mind but I can say that if I was a German and my people were shamed the world over for an event that was exaggerated I would be wanting to make the history books accurate.

The environment is so toxic towards anyone who questions the Holocaust that no historian (unless they have a backbone made of steel) is going to question any aspect of it because their careers will be damaged (often fatally) and they will have to spend time explaining how they are not a Nazi-sympathizer (as many on here claim I am). Nobody wants to put their careers and their families through that so no rational thinking person will ever question the Holocaust (at least publicly). Thus, without freedom of speech and an environment conducive towards finding the truth (whatever it is), we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened.

I'm offended by the "Denier" label. Would any atheist here like to be called a Resurrection Denier? Labels are a tactic by the establishment because anyone who questions the authoritative version of things needs a label (for 9/11 it was "Truthers"). A more accurate word for Holocaust questioning is "revisionist".

People here are saying the reason why I posted this thread was to evoke nazi-sympathy. Far from it. But I am getting tired of defending that charge. If you are pro-Choice, does that make you pro-abortion? If the answer is no, then why can't you see that believing in freedom of speech for everyone (Nazi's included), does not make you a Nazi-sympathizer?

I do post stuff on Nazism because it stirs the pot and gets people thinking. But I am always careful to say that I don't have Nazi sympathies. I'm against all atrocities committed in WW2 by the Nazis and the Allies.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I don't assume to be able to read her mind but I can say that if I was a German and my people were shamed the world over for an event that was exaggerated I would be wanting to make the history books accurate.

The environment is so toxic towards anyone who questions the Holocaust that no historian (unless they have a backbone made of steel) is going to question any aspect of it because their careers will be damaged (often fatally) and they will have to spend time explaining how they are not a Nazi-sympathizer (as many on here claim I am). Nobody wants to put their careers and their families through that so no rational thinking person will ever question the Holocaust (at least publicly). Thus, without freedom of speech and an environment conducive towards finding the truth (whatever it is), we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened.

I'm offended by the "Denier" label. Would any atheist here like to be called a Resurrection Denier? Labels are a tactic by the establishment because anyone who questions the authoritative version of things needs a label (for 9/11 it was "Truthers"). A more accurate word for Holocaust questioning is "revisionist".

People here are saying the reason why I posted this thread was to evoke nazi-sympathy. Far from it. But I am getting tired of defending that charge. If you are pro-Choice, does that make you pro-abortion? If the answer is no, then why can't you see that believing in freedom of speech for everyone (Nazi's included), does not make you a Nazi-sympathizer?

I do post stuff on Nazism because it stirs the pot and gets people thinking. But I am always careful to say that I don't have Nazi sympathies. I'm against all atrocities committed in WW2 by the Nazis and the Allies.

Well at least now you have revealed your hand. Your statement that 'we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened' is insane and I don't think it is one you'd repeat after visiting Auschwitz or even after just doing some serious research.

The reason that Holocaust Deniers (I'm not going to use the term revisionist) are on the margins of history is because they push an agenda that is completely discredited and largely influenced by their own ideology. The historian who was probably taken most seriously prior to becoming a fully fledged holocaust denier was David Irving and his reputation was destroyed when it was proven that he had deliberately misrepresented and falsified facts in order to push his agenda.

Yes history relies on people challenging the consensus but Holocaust denial does not form a part of any rational historical debate. The only ones who continue to believe in it are those who trap themselves in a bubble where they pretty much only read work and only watch documentaries which espouse holocaust denial and they never read anything that challenges it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well at least now you have revealed your hand. Your statement that 'we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened' is insane and I don't think it is one you'd repeat after visiting Auschwitz or even after just doing some serious research.

The reason that Holocaust Deniers (I'm not going to use the term revisionist) are on the margins of history is because they push an agenda that is completely discredited and largely influenced by their own ideology. The historian who was probably taken most seriously prior to becoming a fully fledged holocaust denier was David Irving and his reputation was destroyed when it was proven that he had deliberately misrepresented and falsified facts in order to push his agenda.

Yes history relies on people challenging the consensus but Holocaust denial does not form a part of any rational historical debate. The only ones who continue to believe in it are those who trap themselves in a bubble where they pretty much only read work and only watch documentaries which espouse holocaust denial and they never read anything that challenges it.

There's a really good film about him being sued over that, called Denial. I must have been living under rock or something but I genuinely didn't know that people were actually trying to deny it happened at all before I saw that movie. Must be absolutely horrific and so disrespectful to any survivors

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well at least now you have revealed your hand. Your statement that 'we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened' is insane and I don't think it is one you'd repeat after visiting Auschwitz or even after just doing some serious research.

Oh yeah. That hand is revealed.

MTVN, since you brought up Auschwitz, I have a question for you. As you seem really confident in the official version of the Holocaust, please do try to answer it while avoiding the usual tactic of attacking the messenger with labels like "Denier" or "Nazi-sympathizer" or claiming that this is some sort of conspiracy. This is no conspiracy. Let me give you a set of facts that everyone agrees on and then a question.

For nearly 50 years, from 1945 to 1995, the people visiting Auschwitz saw plaques saying "4 million" people died there:

Spoiler:

Then, in 1995, the authorities revised that number down to "1.5 million" and visitors would see plaques with the new number. This is the official number to this day.

Spoiler:

My question is this and I'll put it in bold so you can't miss it:
If, for decades, the official number of dead in Auschwitz was 4 million but then, one day, that number was reduced to 1.5 million, how can the total number of 6 million remain unchanged and, moreover, how can we be confident that the 6 million figure is accurate?

To my knowledge there is no answer to this question. But if you can muster a sensible answer I will seriously consider changing my views on this subject. A reasonable thinking person will ponder this question (or some variation of it) but very few will dare ask it because that invites all sorts of accusations that they are a "Nazi-sympathizer" or a "Denier". I am a free-thinking person and I couldn't care less what people on here think of me so I am not afraid to ask it.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

My question is this and I'll put it in bold so you can't miss it:
If, for decades, the official number of dead in Auschwitz was 4 million but then, one day, that number was reduced to 1.5 million, how can the total number of 6 million remain unchanged and, moreover, how can we be confident that the 6 million figure is accurate?

To my knowledge there is no answer to this question. But if you can muster a sensible answer I will seriously consider changing my views on this subject. A reasonable thinking person will ponder this question (or some variation of it) but very few will dare ask it because that invites all sorts of accusations that they are a "Nazi-sympathizer" or a "Denier". I am a free-thinking person and I couldn't care less what people on here think of me so I am not afraid to ask it.

Nobody is denying the numbers gassed or who perished from starvation and disease in Auschwitz haven't changed. But it wasn't just the change of a plaque on a wall. There were huge amounts of research done before that plaque was corrected.

The original numbers came from the Soviets and were accepted at the Nuremberg trials in 1945. It was though, acknowledged in 1989 by the intense works of both Yehuda Bauer (Israeli Holocaust historian), Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Center and 1990 the Auschwitz State Museum, that the correct numbers must be declared to the public.

Let's also remember that Auschwitz was only one of 15,000 labor, death, and concentration camp built by the Nazis.

[MTVN]

Yes that was an initial Soviet estimate which they inflated for their own purposes (as they did frequently), it was not particularly scientific and historians have realised it was not the true figure since long before the plaque was changed.

If that is the most suspect thing you can put forward then it is not a particularly strong basis to question the whole history of the Holocaust.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

My question is this and I'll put it in bold so you can't miss it:
If, for decades, the official number of dead in Auschwitz was 4 million but then, one day, that number was reduced to 1.5 million, how can the total number of 6 million remain unchanged and, moreover, how can we be confident that the 6 million figure is accurate?

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Let's also remember that Auschwitz was only one of 15,000 labor, death, and concentration camp built by the Nazis.

There's your answer good chap.

There were thousands of Nazi death camps where prisoners were held and killed, and the 6 million total figure was calculated completely separately to the original four million Auschwitz estimate, not by "adding up known totals for each camp".

In simple terms;

- They were confident in the total estimate of 6 million total, based on the population before and after the holocaust.

- They estimated 4 million at Auschwitz and 2 million elsewhere.

- Thorough examination revealed a more accurate figure of 1.5 million for Auschwitz.

- They are STILL confident in the 6 million total figure, the only difference is that 4.5 million must have been elsewhere, not 2 million. Which really makes more sense (2/3 killed in one location seems unlikely).




You need to stop reading Nazi / holocaust denial propaganda sites, there are clearly some perfectly simple explanations for your "great mysteries". It's like the argument that there's evidence that not as many were gassed as thought, like the fact that they were shot or executed by various other means is some sort of important revelation. Exactly where they were held, and how they were killed, is not really the most relevant detail, and questioning those things isn't holocaust denial. Attempting to revise down the total death toll - or claim that it didn't happen at all - is a completely different story and --- most importantly --- has completely different motivations.