Holocaust denial

[Beanz]

Miles, there you go again denying a widely accepted figure. Your opening post used the revised Auschwitz figure as though that discredited the scale of the holocaust itself. If you had no agenda and were interested in a openminded discussion you would have acknowledged my post in which I pointed out that the Polish communists under pressure from Russia were responsible for the original inaccurate figure. Nothing to do with a Jewish conspiracy and yet this is the crux of the argument for most deniers. You obviously post a thread for effect and then jump back in again with no interest in any opinion that does differs from your own. You stifle debate and strangle discourse whilst accusing everyone else of using your own methods.

[Gandalf]

The 6 million sum is more likely than not a myth. Even conservative historians readily concede that murder was not the leading cause of deaths in concentration camps. If you are to say that disease and hunger were also part of the death toll, then you can raise it to around 5.1 as someone such as Hilberg does, but likewise you must also accept that in the case of the North American holocaust, the death tolls are also very high. Murder in north America is also less than the death toll inflicted by hunger and disease. Combined the numbers go up an awful lot. In the case of the European holocaust people like to play up the numbers, in the American holocaust people like to do the opposite. I guess the people writing the history do it from the winners and losers point of view.

It isn't denial to accept that an event took place. It also isn't denial to suggest that traditional numbers are exagerrated. Nobody seriously believes that 6 million Jews were killed. It fails to factor in emigration that had taken place for a start. Confessions obtained at Nuremberg were from men who had been kept in conditions such as those that prisoners in Iraq were forced to endure. You cannot take at value the confessions of tortured men. Most would accept that. And to then accept those numbers as the official take on lost lives is a bit daft.

[El Kabong]

You know what miles, I don't think they killed enough Jews....let's 'ave another crack shall we?

[TitoFan]

I’m a numbers guy, and since all arguments against Miles are falling on deaf ears, I’ve decided to provide the following table, in a last-ditch effort to appease Miles:

# of Deaths.......................Type of Event

1-3..................................Homicide
4-50................................Massacre
51-500.............................FUCKING Massacre
501-1,000.........................Almost Genocide
1,001-10,000.....................Genocide
10,001-50,000...................FUCKING Genocide
50,001-500,000.................Almost Holocaust
500,001-2,000,000.............Holocaust
2,000,001 and up...............FUCKING Holocaust


Causes of Deaths......................Type of Event

75% to 100% by murder.............Apply table above
50% to 74% by murder...............Reduce by one category
25% to 49% by murder...............Reduce by two categories
1% to 24% by murder.................Forget the whole thing


Perpetrators...............................Type of Event

100% U.S................................... Increase by two categories
50% U.S., 50% UK and/or Israel...... Increase by one category
50% U.S./UK/Israel, 50% others...... Leave category unchanged
25% U.S./UK/Israel, 75% others...... Reduce by one category
100% others................................ It never happened

[El Kabong]

What's amusing to me is on one hand miles downplays the Holocaust and on the other hand he equates the early settlers of America to the Nazis. The problem is 100% of miles' sympathy goes towards the Indians and not the Jews or gypsies or whomever else was rounded up by the Nazis and this is a problem because it shows a distinct double standard miles has.

The Jews that died in the Holocaust...."meh, it really wasn't that many"

The Indians that died in the early years of America ...."Your ancestors were murderers!"

Is that hypocrisy lost on you miles?

[imp]

Im sure there is another extra 6 million we dont even know about...who knows!
Hitler hated jews and killing one was more than enough.

[mofo2]

This is a topic I have been looking into a little. The very term denial would indicate that you are saying something didn't happen, that you refute something existed, but most revisionists openly accept that the holocaust existed. It is just that they dispute certain aspects of the traditional claims and in some respects have been proven correct. Initial claims of 4 million Jews killed at Aushwitz were revised down to 1.1 million. Not a small number and it makes you wonder.

I have also been following the story of David Cole, an intelligent young man who raised some interesting questions about traditional historical claims about the holocaust. Money was offered by the Jewish Defense League for informationy about where Cole lived and seemingly Cole went into hiding. A few years later he retracted all of his former views apparently of his own volition.

Clearly in some nations it is a crime to deny the holocaust. Well, actually it is a crime to even question the extent of the holocaust. Nobody is denying the holocaust, but merely questioning the lack of evidence concerning numbers and documents supporting key elements. This should not be a crime and to classify it as such is Orwellian in nature.

It seems that a holocaust denier is anyone who questions official accounts of the holcaust. Obviously revisionist is a far more apt term. Just as you critizise the terrorism of Israel and become an anti-semite, you criticize the lack of evidence on the holocaust and become a denier.

It just sounds more extreme than the so called deniers themselves. Thoughts?

There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.

Those numbers have been heavily revised over ensuing decades, even by accredited historians. Evidence obtained by a witness under duress is just one factor. One should also consider the other evidence available which is what many other historians have done.

Anyone who believes the initial points you made is a nutter, but some of the more extreme estimate do also appear to extremely questionable. The truth is likely much more conservative.

Heavily revised by who?

*Country
*Pre-war Jewish Population
**Estimated Murdered

Austria 185,000 50,000
Belgium 66,000 25,000
Bohemia/Moravia 118,000 78,000
Bulgaria 50,000 0
Denmark 8,000 60
Estonia 4,500 2,000
Finland 2,000 7
France 350,000 77,000
Germany 565,000 142,000
Greece 75,000 65,000
Hungary 825,000 550,000
Italy 44,500 7,500
Latvia 91,500 70,000
Lithuania 168,000 140,000
Luxembourg 3,500 1,000
Netherlands 140,000 100,000
Norway 1,700 762
Poland 3,300,000 3,000,000
Romania 609,000 270,000
Slovakia 89,000 71,000
Soviet Union 3,020,000 1,000,000
Yugoslavia 78,000 60,000

Totals

Population 9,793,700
Murdered 5,709,329

[Beanz]

Like Chomsky Miles you are suffering from a severe case of hypocrisy. You have the gall to speak of unspeakably evil people being under duress whilst ignoring the hateful behaviour they exhibited. Your sympathy for people is very selective and seems not to include anybody who was not wronged by America, Britain or Israel. None of your indignation is saved for the French or Chinese who sold more weapons to Iraq than anyone else, who carried out atrocities in Africa and in the case of China still imprison without due process. No anger at Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan for murdering, raping and maiming women. Do you also share Noam's views on Cambodia?

[Gandalf]

This is a topic I have been looking into a little. The very term denial would indicate that you are saying something didn't happen, that you refute something existed, but most revisionists openly accept that the holocaust existed. It is just that they dispute certain aspects of the traditional claims and in some respects have been proven correct. Initial claims of 4 million Jews killed at Aushwitz were revised down to 1.1 million. Not a small number and it makes you wonder.

I have also been following the story of David Cole, an intelligent young man who raised some interesting questions about traditional historical claims about the holocaust. Money was offered by the Jewish Defense League for informationy about where Cole lived and seemingly Cole went into hiding. A few years later he retracted all of his former views apparently of his own volition.

Clearly in some nations it is a crime to deny the holocaust. Well, actually it is a crime to even question the extent of the holocaust. Nobody is denying the holocaust, but merely questioning the lack of evidence concerning numbers and documents supporting key elements. This should not be a crime and to classify it as such is Orwellian in nature.

It seems that a holocaust denier is anyone who questions official accounts of the holcaust. Obviously revisionist is a far more apt term. Just as you critizise the terrorism of Israel and become an anti-semite, you criticize the lack of evidence on the holocaust and become a denier.

It just sounds more extreme than the so called deniers themselves. Thoughts?

There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.

Those numbers have been heavily revised over ensuing decades, even by accredited historians. Evidence obtained by a witness under duress is just one factor. One should also consider the other evidence available which is what many other historians have done.

Anyone who believes the initial points you made is a nutter, but some of the more extreme estimate do also appear to extremely questionable. The truth is likely much more conservative.

Heavily revised by who?

*Country
*Pre-war Jewish Population
**Estimated Murdered

Austria 185,000 50,000
Belgium 66,000 25,000
Bohemia/Moravia 118,000 78,000
Bulgaria 50,000 0
Denmark 8,000 60
Estonia 4,500 2,000
Finland 2,000 7
France 350,000 77,000
Germany 565,000 142,000
Greece 75,000 65,000
Hungary 825,000 550,000
Italy 44,500 7,500
Latvia 91,500 70,000
Lithuania 168,000 140,000
Luxembourg 3,500 1,000
Netherlands 140,000 100,000
Norway 1,700 762
Poland 3,300,000 3,000,000
Romania 609,000 270,000
Slovakia 89,000 71,000
Soviet Union 3,020,000 1,000,000
Yugoslavia 78,000 60,000

Totals

Population 9,793,700
Murdered 5,709,329

Well, to cite just one, Raul Hilberg would disagree with you. Furthermore, you are claiming that they were murdered, when in fact disease and hunger were the main factors. Gas chambers were only a part of the process, as were arbitrary executions.

In the case of one holocaust the winners tell us to downplay the deaths by hunger and disease. In the later we are told to tally the numbers all up together as it helps to justify our own cause.

Greenbeanz, I am not displaying hypocrisy in the slightest. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in the history winners camp. I argued this point, but we could also argue about mass murder being carried out by the Stalinist Soviet Union, Mao period China, the Khymer Rouge. As I say, holocaust means mass slaughter and there hasn't been a singular slaughter in world history. The Nazi experience was deplorable, but it wasn't a Jewish event. Multiple millions of others died at the hands of the Nazis and deserve equal respect. It is in that respect that I am not being selective in the slightest. I am well aware of other things going on around the world, but in truth if you were to speak of Armenian genocide on here very few would respond. They get on with things, yet every week Netanyahu compares his neighbors to Hitler whilst actually doing what Hitler did himself. We cannot move on from the holocaust because it is forced on everyone constantly.

[mofo2]

This is a topic I have been looking into a little. The very term denial would indicate that you are saying something didn't happen, that you refute something existed, but most revisionists openly accept that the holocaust existed. It is just that they dispute certain aspects of the traditional claims and in some respects have been proven correct. Initial claims of 4 million Jews killed at Aushwitz were revised down to 1.1 million. Not a small number and it makes you wonder.

I have also been following the story of David Cole, an intelligent young man who raised some interesting questions about traditional historical claims about the holocaust. Money was offered by the Jewish Defense League for informationy about where Cole lived and seemingly Cole went into hiding. A few years later he retracted all of his former views apparently of his own volition.

Clearly in some nations it is a crime to deny the holocaust. Well, actually it is a crime to even question the extent of the holocaust. Nobody is denying the holocaust, but merely questioning the lack of evidence concerning numbers and documents supporting key elements. This should not be a crime and to classify it as such is Orwellian in nature.

It seems that a holocaust denier is anyone who questions official accounts of the holcaust. Obviously revisionist is a far more apt term. Just as you critizise the terrorism of Israel and become an anti-semite, you criticize the lack of evidence on the holocaust and become a denier.

It just sounds more extreme than the so called deniers themselves. Thoughts?

There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.

Those numbers have been heavily revised over ensuing decades, even by accredited historians. Evidence obtained by a witness under duress is just one factor. One should also consider the other evidence available which is what many other historians have done.

Anyone who believes the initial points you made is a nutter, but some of the more extreme estimate do also appear to extremely questionable. The truth is likely much more conservative.

Heavily revised by who?

*Country
*Pre-war Jewish Population
**Estimated Murdered

Austria 185,000 50,000
Belgium 66,000 25,000
Bohemia/Moravia 118,000 78,000
Bulgaria 50,000 0
Denmark 8,000 60
Estonia 4,500 2,000
Finland 2,000 7
France 350,000 77,000
Germany 565,000 142,000
Greece 75,000 65,000
Hungary 825,000 550,000
Italy 44,500 7,500
Latvia 91,500 70,000
Lithuania 168,000 140,000
Luxembourg 3,500 1,000
Netherlands 140,000 100,000
Norway 1,700 762
Poland 3,300,000 3,000,000
Romania 609,000 270,000
Slovakia 89,000 71,000
Soviet Union 3,020,000 1,000,000
Yugoslavia 78,000 60,000

Totals

Population 9,793,700
Murdered 5,709,329

Well, to cite just one, Raul Hilberg would disagree with you. Furthermore, you are claiming that they were murdered, when in fact disease and hunger were the main factors. Gas chambers were only a part of the process, as were arbitrary executions.

In the case of one holocaust the winners tell us to downplay the deaths by hunger and disease. In the later we are told to tally the numbers all up together as it helps to justify our own cause.

Greenbeanz, I am not displaying hypocrisy in the slightest. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in the history winners camp. I argued this point, but we could also argue about mass murder being carried out by the Stalinist Soviet Union, Mao period China, the Khymer Rouge. As I say, holocaust means mass slaughter and there hasn't been a singular slaughter in world history. The Nazi experience was deplorable, but it wasn't a Jewish event. Multiple millions of others died at the hands of the Nazis and deserve equal respect. It is in that respect that I am not being selective in the slightest. I am well aware of other things going on around the world, but in truth if you were to speak of Armenian genocide on here very few would respond. They get on with things, yet every week Netanyahu compares his neighbors to Hitler whilst actually doing what Hitler did himself. We cannot move on from the holocaust because it is forced on everyone constantly.

Disease and Hunger were major factors....you starve someone long enough, then work them into the ground, place them in conditions unsuitable for human habitat whilst denying them even the most basic of medicines and if the disease doesn't kill them the lack of nutrition and medication will!! However neither were as effective as 'Zyklon B' for the mass Extermination of the Jews, although many more thousands of children were killed in medical experiments!!

You have it all wrong...being told that we should never forget is not Having it forced upon us, it is a constant reminder of what true evil is capable of and it is a very important chapter of History...your views my friend are extremely fucked up!

[TitoFan]

Atrocities against humankind should be viewed as just that... atrocities against humankind. When you start saying... oh but it was 1 million, not 6 million... or... oh but your side also committed atrocious acts too... or... oh but it wasn't just Jews, it was other people too... you're purposely trying to downplay just how horrible the events of that time were, and doing a huge disservice to the memory of what actually happened.

[El Kabong]

Miles, lots of Indians died of disease too....another double standard of yours

[Gandalf]

That is a poppycock argument from the both of you. One event is considerably downplayed compared to the other event and yet that is deemed correct in the eyes of many. The Nazi holocaust is the holocaust to end all other holocausts, but that quite clearly wasn't the case. Arguably over 100 million people died in the Americas which means that we should give just as much time to it, but we don't. Instead in the North American example we make childrens rhymes about Indians, play cowboys and Indians and have John Wayne acting as the proud Amercan. In many respects we glamorised the North American genocide and nobody would ever dream of doing that with the Nazi holocaust and rightly so. It would be sick and twisted which is what Tito accuses me of being.

I am not trying to downplay anything, Tito. I am simply arguing that the holocaust was not a Jewish phenomenom and that the numbers are likely considerably exaggerated. I am sorry if I lack sympathy for the imaginary dead, but for all the others of course I am appalled, but likewise am appalled by the treatment of communists, radicals, homosexuals, the handicapped etc (no Beanz, I don't see the point in the paralympics. Just get a job) and I am appalled at the treatment of all others involved in atrocities commited with the goal of wiping out sectors of a populace.

Lyle, many Native Indians died from hunger and disease and so did many Jews and other victims of the Nazi holocaust. I don't see how those views are incombatable.

I am busy with work these days and only seem to get a post or two in each day and I think I said a while back that I think my views have been expressed. I maintain that admitting an event can not be considered denial. It is a flagrant abuse of the word denial. 'You interpret something differently. You are denying the event'. It is such a childish attitude. People get put in prison in so called free countries for this and and it is ridiculous.

[VictorCharlie]

One event is considerably downplayed b/c it is not similar or comparable to the other. As an aggregate the professional historians and anthropologists of the world don't consider the de-population of the North, Central and South America a holocaust. Oh and 100 million? That is laughable.

[TitoFan]

"De-population" sounds a little cold, Victor. To be sure, in all of the Americas, many indigenous indian cultures were systematically wiped out. But as has been repeated often, this happened over decades and even centuries. It was also the result of warring between colonists from Europe and the indian inhabitants. Indians were not led helplessly in single file into a volcano pit or anything like that. Many colonists lost their lives as well. It was a different time back then. New worlds were still being discovered. This is why I and everyone else disagrees with Miles comparing this to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Europe's colonists and the indian cultures in both Americas were not going to be able to coexist.