Holocaust Revisionism

I did say that, but clashing or being confrontational is different to merely disagreeing.

I really have no problem at all reading constructive, intelligent, respectful posts by people with a different view to me.

It just seems that the vast majority of "exterminist" posts in this thread have been emotion-driven with little in the way of actual substance.

I do apologize that I overlooked your links, though. I just wish you could debate something a bit more without being so confrontational or implying it's reasonable to lock people up over simple freedom of speech. I mean fine if someone is trying to get a bunch of people to kill Jews or something awful, but to my knowledge the revisionists (and that INCLUDES "denial") we have been discussing were not doing that.

Additionally... perhaps there is uncertainty over what "denying" of the Holocaust would entail.

First of all, there is the question of what a "holocaust" actually entails:

hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-)
n.
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
2. A massive slaughter.

Therefore, referring to the Nazi concentration camps as a "holocaust" really depends on numbers, motives and exact events.

I feel the term "Holocaust denier" is very sloppy and seldom true. Most "Holocaust deniers" are debating certain points and casting doubt on the official story, in much the same way 9/11 "truthers" are not debating whether or not the towers came down, they are debating how and why.

In my opinion, the term "Holocaust denier" is limiting. Details of the Holocaust are being revised all the time. Just because we are questioning MORE of them, or particular points such as the gas chambers doesn't mean we're any different. Again, I notice nobody is arguing in favour of the electro-chambers anymore, or whatever they were called, or the Jew soap or vapourizing weapons or any of the other stuff. Howcome you aren't supporting that? Oh, right, because it turned out to be propaganda. The 4 million dead at Auschwitz? Also revised.

So please don't make out we are the extremists here because it's just not true. We are REVISIONISTS and we are not alone.

Peace

 

There you go again, pretending that all you're trying to do is to discuss "things". No, you are trying to minimize the greatest tragedy of the last 100 years and you say it's just because of your curiosity. You have a poor ability to identify reliable sources. You need to examine your motives and the expected consequences of your actions and ask yourself if you should be going down this road.

 

Some say they know exactly what happened because of the testimonies of the arrival of the first troops. However, as I've posted earlier, these "eyewitness accounts" have been shown to be varied and false; for instance, electrocution, the vaporizing of bodies with some newfangled invention which for some reason was never recovered, Being gassed with diesel fumes from trucks.

So far, I've heard ad-hom attacks on expert court witnesses whom, after analysis of the proclaimed gassing sites, determined that no such gassings occurred. I have seen nothing yet to refute those findings. In the court trial, the foremost authority/author on the holocaust was asked if he knew of any scientific evidence that would support the idea of mass gassings. He said he as at a loss. So, let's start there; does anyone have anything to disprpove the experts who testified in court to the logistical impossibility of such a gassing and burning of bodies?

 

I think the biggest issue here is that most people seem to start with the presupposition that it is an open-and-shut case.

If we all just opened our minds a bit I think we would get to the bottom of all this much sooner

 

If you had bothered to read post 115 you would have discovered the only degree your so called expert has is a BA.

Further to this

A BA does not make for credibility when play acting as an engineer.

 

We just should make sure, by passing to the next generation, that it is never forgotten, what suffering man does to man...and it should never happen again!
That we are all different, in so many ways, and thats ok! But never should you want to hurt another, be it a human, or other animal...we should never WANT to do it! Ever..
Thats what the History books should say about this!

 

I'm not sure where I have been any more 'confrontational' than anybody else.
If you, personally, have perceived that to be the case either towards others or yourself - then please do give an e.g so I know where you are coming from.

I do not think I said or even implied that people should be locked up for discussing the Holocaust.
Infact, I think I've tried to get across that people are NOT locked up for discussing the Holocaust but they are for denying the Holocaust.
And I think only then if it is a 'public statement' and/or "incitement of the people".
I think in certain places there is legislation relating to publicly (such as publishing books etc) distorting known truths (or something along those lines)...
Very different than you, I and others here discussing the Holocaust.
If you think I'm being confrontational there, then it might be frustration of having to repeat myself.

I think whenever I have mentioned imprisonment of Holocaust deniers you two (you and storch) have tried to suggest I'm saying it's because people are discussing the Holocaust.
I'm not sure if that is a genuine misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I am saying.
You just did it again in your response to me.

Published 'revisionists' can incite anti-Semitic sentiments.
Some, that have been mentioned in this thread, will say that is not their intention.
I'm not saying that is their intention.
But, I do not believe that isn't the intention of some.
The people mentioned are hardly going to say that their wish is for others kill Jews etc.
But their material could provoke people to do that, or be used to 'justify' antisemitic sentiments.

David irving: The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism", and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/11/irving1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709128.stm

You and others are clearly not in the same league as him and others like him.
People like you in countries that do have legislation regarding the Holocaust are not either - hence not being in prison.

How many constitutes a 'Holocaust' in you opinion?

I do not think 'they' are.
The majority, if not all, the material being used in this thread is atleast a decade old and in some cases three decades old.
The only 'new' material' you will possibly find is people parroting what has already been said a number of times one two three decades ago.

Who said I was 'supporting' that in the first place?
Do you think there are two columns one column that I accept and one column you accept?

David Irving changed his position after he had read documents that he could have read before he even decided that he would attempt to deny the Holocaust. He even admits that he isn't an expert.

Ooooohh, get a load of you...

I don't think you are an 'extremist'.
I'm not really sure how much you have delved into all of this.
Or what you actually believe (in full)...
It does seem as if you are starting from a particular position rather than being neutral, and seeing where all of this takes you.

 

Just so we are clear, who would that be? Leuchter?

If so, I and others already have posted some info about him.

 

Heat,

I didn't ask you for an ad-hom attack on who it was that testified in court as a court expert, I asked if you have anything to refute what was testified to. Focus on that. My guess is that you have no idea of how to respond to what was testified to except to say that the man was a dummy.

 

My own view is that the halocaust defintely took place.

But what interests me is the motivation of those who say it never did, or was only on a small scale (which wouldn't make any difference).

There's no doubt that some extreme right wing types would like to whitewash Hitler and the Nazis. And I think that maybe that's the real agenda.

 

Yes, Odon, you have posted stuff about Leuchter. However, you've shown nothing to refute what he says about gas chambers. What is it that you specifically disagree with him on? Let's start there.

 

Someone go ahead and describe what you believe you understand about how the gassing operation worked, and we'll see if we can break it all down and find out if it holds any water.

 

That is such a weird thing to say. Why should anyone waste time refuting what a proven con artist says? Are you unable to see that his testimony is worthless? Forget Leuchter and move on to a credible source.

 

That's funny, I thought I asked someone to describe the gassing process so that we can see whether or not their descrption of the process holds water. But for the record, what was it that Leuchter said that convinced you that he was mistaken?

 

Here, I'll help start you out. Were a thousand or so jews gassed at one time?

 

What 'stuff' did I post? I think it is pretty much what Heat posted, and I think both went through what was wrong with his methods, and he has been pretty much discredited.
I'm not going to put the chap on 'trial' here as that has already been done elsewhere.

What I took from the material I posted was that his methods were questionable and his motives dubious.
Specifically, that he went bashing around at bricks - seemingly unconcerned if the bricks he was bashing were part of what was being described as a gas chamber, and were not from brick work that was used to reconstruct the gas chamber.
Also, that, apparently, if you want to analyse for the substance you don't go hacking at brick work and crush it into oblivion.
You remove the whole block and test the surface.
I think somebody said something like doing what he did was like trying to analyse paintwork by taking a sample of the woodwork underneath.

 

Atleast three people already have...

 

The thing is, I know that in order for you people to have come to a conclusion about how things went down, you must have come across something in your extensive research on this issue that explained just how the gassing operation took place, and why it totally makes sense to you. So, in the spirit of comparing notes, let's hear what you have.

 

Don't be shy, Odon, I want to hear your version of how the gassing was accomplished. Were a thousand or so gassed at one time? We can go on from there.

 

I'll show you mine if you show me yours...