The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Discuss historical events and information concerning any culture, time, or location in our world (or even the frontier beyond).

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby Sun Fin » Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:45 pm

dajiangjun doesn't seem to believe that the Holocaust happened and the others are telling him otherwise.
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7744
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Vicar Factory

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby Crazedmongoose » Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:23 pm

No Sir, you will not find ONE witness who saw 6 millions Jews slaughtered.


This is, without qualification, one of the most stupid statements I've ever read.

but we did not have photo evidence or video evidence that 6,000,000 Jews were systematically murdered via gas execution.


I know what you're getting at, but for the same reason this is also quite ridiculous.

There is also the fact that there has never been a single document or order signed by Adolf Hitler calling for the systematic execution of European Jewry. Was it burned, as it is alleged? It is possible, but it still stands that no one has ever seen one.


I think it's generally accepted amongst people who accept the holocaust that Hitler didn't order the final solution personally?
User avatar
Crazedmongoose
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:10 am
Location: Sydney, Aus

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:22 pm

agga wrote:since most people know very little, or nothing, about the history of and context surrounding the holocaust, they accept its occurrence on a sort of faith, giving it the status of modern myth, with evil villains (nazis), saintly martyrs, etc. etc. recognizing something like this as a type of myth can lead one to question whether it has any basis in truth at all, and i think that this is where dajiangjun is coming from. it may also be where many of his sources are coming from.


Can you qualify what you mean by most people know very little or nothing about the history/context of the holocaust? I think most people, even those with poor grasps on history, possess a competent understanding of what happened, why, where, and when. They may not have researched historical documents verifying said occurrences, if that is what you mean. But that certain doesn't make them ignorant of the event.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby agga » Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:11 pm

agga wrote:since most people know very little, or nothing, about the history of and context surrounding the holocaust, they accept its occurrence on a sort of faith


Shikanosuke wrote:They may not have researched historical documents verifying said occurrences, if that is what you mean.


this is what i mean, in part. everyone has heard of the holocaust, and hitler, and anne frank, and WW2, etc. etc. but most people, i doubt, know much about these things in any really substantial sense - we/they have the basic idea, we accept it as truth and moral/historical lesson, and move on to other things in life that we're more interested in spending time learning about.

Shikanosuke wrote:But that certain doesn't make them ignorant of the event.


they know that the event occurred, on the basis of having been told by others that it occurred. and, given the way mass media works in modern times, many of us have been "told" by primary witnesses; we've read elie wiesel, seen documentary footage, heard testimony of survivors, gone to museums, etc. but, still, most of what we learn about historical events, including the holocaust, is second-hand at best; we're given summaries, dramatizations, representations, lessons, etc. in themselves, these are not "evidences" of something having occurred.

this is the way that most of us have learned most of what we know of history. we accept, as fact, that events occurred; but whether or not we know that they occurred is an honest epistemological question that i have a sense for but no ability to expound on; sounds more like something WWD could talk about.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby dajiangjun » Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:49 pm

WeiWenDi wrote:I don't see how you can possibly claim that Zündel is not motivated by hate. His published works (like 'The Hitler We Loved and Why' and 'Did Six Million Really Die?') are rife with anti-Semitic cant, and he has been known to make threats against Holocaust survivors (particularly the incident in 1987 at the Finta trial) and against all Jews worldwide (as in 1997, when he said they 'have a Holocaust coming'). Sorry, but in this case the shoe fits perfectly - it's particularly laughable in light of his attitude that 'genocide didn't happen, but even if it didn't happen it should have'.

Rense is a bit more slippery, but he routinely and often enthusiastically hosts hate-mongers on his show, and has a close working relationship with fellow anti-Semitic radio host Ted Pike.


Actually, it is the opposite. It seems the establishment is rife with hatred as ever since Zundel became semi-famous for his holocaust denial, his house was bombed three times, he had multiple attempts on his life, and received hundreds of threats on his life for his claims. Ernst Zundel does not hate Jews, and prior to his publicity and trial, he had many Jewish friends. As for Hitler, he did have various positive, as well as negative, effects on Germany and this cannot be denied, so perhaps that is what Zundel is talking about with the Hitler he admired. Plenty of people admire Genghis Khan and he was one of the greatest mass murders in history as well, should this detract from their ability to make an informed decision?

As for Rense, he has nothing to do with the Red Cross reports aside from hosting them on his website. His personal opinions and his show has nothing to do with the Red Cross documents, so he is really inconsequential.

No; the vast majority of scholars believing something does not make it true - the vast majority of the evidence pointing to a scholarly consensus, however, makes it infinitely more likely to be true.


There is a lot of evidence presented that it may not be entirely true, but instead of taking it into consideration we shall simply dismiss it as neo-Nazi rhetoric.

Yet you spew it all forth here unchallenged and without any kind of critical analysis and merely the flimsiest attempts to distance yourself from whatever about it you think might look bad; you privilege it above the historical scholarship you have routinely disdained in favour of blatantly political hate-motivated interests. Not reading too much into that is fairly difficult to do, particularly when this copypasta trolling tactic is so oft repeated.


I have not allied nor distanced myself from any of the information, I've merely posted information that offers an alternative view and stated that it should be considered and not simply dismissed as hate-propaganda. I couldn't care less if I look bad on an internet forum and I assure you I am not trolling. All that you have "spewed forth" is that these sources cannot be accepted because they are, according to you, political hate-motivated interests and that the scholarly consensus is that the event happened.I am willing to bet you have not read any of the information, nor opened your mind to the possibility that we may be wrong about the holocaust. At least I can say that I am open to the possibility of it have been true or not true and do not blindly accept scholarly consensus.

Like I said, I can't find any independent verification that he has done 'decades of research', and his name is mentioned almost solely by hate groups trying to advance their own cause by using this single letter which you have reproduced here almost in full. If you can source it, that would be one thing, but you didn't take the opportunity to do so either here or before.


He also has wikipedia pages about him in non-English languages. I guess anyone who disagrees with you or the mainstream dogma of the holocaust must be part of a hate-group.

And yet a.) none of the Marxists who either came up with the theory or who were active in the early Soviet Union were practising Jews; and b.) the greatest atrocities of the Soviet Union were carried out under the orders not of Jews, but of a Georgian - attributing all of the evils of the Soviet Union to Jews is thus completely unfair, and speaks to bigotry rather than legitimate criticism. If you can't see how that is the case, then there obviously isn't any point in continuing this discussion.


You know as well as I do that Jewishness is not only a religion, but an ethnic group as well. Whether or not they were practicing their religion does not detract from the fact that they were Jews. There is such a thing as an atheistic Jew. Marx was a Jew.

"Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators."

This is from Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. He also wrote the book "Last Days of the Romanovs, published in 1920--

"I have done all in my power to act as an impartial chronicler," Wilton wrote in his foreword to Les Derniers Jours des Romanoffs. "In order not to leave myself open to any accusation of prejudice, I am giving the list of the members of the [Bolshevik Party' s] Central Committee, of the Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or secret police], and of the Council of Commissars functioning at the time of the assassination of the Imperial family.

"The 62 members of the [Central] Committee were composed of five Russians, one Ukrainian, six Letts [Latvians], two Germans, one Czech, two Armenians, three Georgians, one Karaim [Karaite] (a Jewish sect), and 41 Jews.

"The Extraordinary Commission [Cheka or Vecheka] of Moscow was composed of 36 members, including one German, one Pole, one Armenian, two Russians, eight Latvians, and 23 Jews.

"The Council of the People's Commissars [the Soviet .government] numbered two Armenians, three Russians, and 17 Jews.

"Ac.cording to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik state, including the above-mentioned, in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews."

"If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand everywhere in the affair of the assassination of the Russian Imperial family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet administration," Wilton went on to write.

Effective governmental power, Wilton continued (on pages 136-138 of the same edition) is in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918, he reported, this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and three were of Russian ancestry. The nine Jews were: Bronstein (Trotsky), Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Lurie (Larine), Uritsky, Volodarski, Rosenfeld (Kamenev), Smidovich, Sverdlov (Yankel), and Nakhamkes (Steklov). The three Russians were: Ulyanov (Lenin), Krylenko, and Lunacharsky.

"The other Russian Socialist parties are similar in composition," Wilton went on. "Their Central Committees are made up as follows:"

Mensheviks (Social Democrats): Eleven members, all of whom are Jewish.

Communists of the People: Six members, of whom five are Jews and one is a Russian.

Social Revolutionaries (Right Wing): Fifteen members, of whom 13 are Jews and two are Russians (Kerenski, who may be of Jewish origin, and Tchaikovski).

Social Revolutionaries (Left Wing): Twelve members, of whom ten are Jews and two are Russians.

Committee of the Anarchists of Moscow: Five members, of whom four are Jews and one is a Russian.

Polish Communist Party: Twelve members, all of whom are Jews, including Sobelson (Radek), Krokhenal (Zagonski), and Schwartz (Goltz).

"These parties," commented Wilton, "in appearance opposed to the Bolsheviks, play the Bolsheviks' game on the sly, more or less, by preventing the Russians from pulling themselves together. Out of 61 individuals at the head of these parties, there are six Russians and 55 Jews. No matter what may be the name adopted, a revolutionary government will be Jewish."
Last edited by dajiangjun on Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dajiangjun
Initiate
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:18 am

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby dajiangjun » Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:53 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:
Mestre Will wrote:Ow ow ow ow Stop .... i lost myself in here .... what exactly you guys are debate about Holocaust?
It is kind of in the title of the thread. But to catch you up it appears that dajiangjun is attempting to dissociate his so called 'quest for truth' with being a neo-Nazi, while providing and giving credence to dubious sources linked with hate-groups. I assume this because he believes the 'dogma' around the Holocaust is some conspiracy motivated by political sentiment. I figure his response to my summary will be that we're just too indoctrinated into believing the mainstream view of history, and we're too blind to consider that bigots might be able to provide reliable data.


It's funny because bigots are able to provide reliable data. Scholars who you readily accept information from may secretly be bigoted in some way, how are we to know?
User avatar
dajiangjun
Initiate
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:18 am

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby James » Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:48 pm

dajiangjun wrote:It's funny because bigots are able to provide reliable data. Scholars who you readily accept information from may secretly be bigoted in some way, how are we to know?

How do you even qualify this statement? When you go to a bigot for information about a source, rather than to, say, a general historian who has covered a whole mess of different subjects, you are going to get the inaccurate information from the bigot in nearly every case.

Also, regarding the Holocaust, the Holocaust denial angle requires creative thinking along the lines of 'evidence' which is very limited in scope compared to the treasure trove of information detailing a history most historians are quite comfortable with. I don't have much to add because WWD has done a marvelous job of handling the discussion, but from where I sit it takes the same sort of creative thinking to come to a 'Holocaust denial' perspective that it does to believe Bush orchestrated 9/11.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby dajiangjun » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:07 pm

James wrote:
dajiangjun wrote:It's funny because bigots are able to provide reliable data. Scholars who you readily accept information from may secretly be bigoted in some way, how are we to know?

How do you even qualify this statement? When you go to a bigot for information about a source, rather than to, say, a general historian who has covered a whole mess of different subjects, you are going to get the inaccurate information from the bigot in nearly every case.

Also, regarding the Holocaust, the Holocaust denial angle requires creative thinking along the lines of 'evidence' which is very limited in scope compared to the treasure trove of information detailing a history most historians are quite comfortable with. I don't have much to add because WWD has done a marvelous job of handling the discussion, but from where I sit it takes the same sort of creative thinking to come to a 'Holocaust denial' perspective that it does to believe Bush orchestrated 9/11.


My point is that a bigot may have the possibility of being correct as much as a non-bigot has the possibility of being wrong, and vice-versa. Many of the sources I have searched through are not from bigoted sources. My further point is that we do not know what secret bigotry any author, scholar, or historian may or may not harbor, so it should not come into play; everyone is biased in some way or another. Instead of looking at WHO the information is from, we should be looking at WHAT the information is informing. Some of the folks accused of holocaust denial, such as David Irving, were respected historians in their field with a variety of books before their accusations. Another case may be made for Fred Leuchter, who prior to his investigation of the camps, believed fully in the official version of the holocaust, was not a part of any bigoted group nor harbored any bigoted ideologies. It is only after the event in question is questioned that suddenly the questioners become voracious hate-filled anit-Semites pursuing extremist ideologies. This is not to say there are not extremist neo-Nazis out there who deny the holocaust, of course there are. However there are also respectable scholars and even other Jews who have questioned the authenticity of the official story.

I forget where I read it now, but I once read an article that stated that a human being is most likely to believe the very first version of a story or information that he or she hears, and from then on will not only find information that agrees with this perspective, but will also filter out and even ignore outright any information that goes against this perspective. This is why so many superstitions and rumors are able to stick for so long, like Obama's birth certificate or his being a Muslim for example . The same could be applied in the case of history. So my advice would be what I stated in another thread; instead of simply dismissing it as an outrageous conspiracy theory, fully convince yourself that the opposite of what you believe is true and research all information that supports this opposing view. After this, find all information that supports your original view. Weigh out both options and come to your own conclusion.
User avatar
dajiangjun
Initiate
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:18 am

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby agga » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:20 pm

dajiangjun wrote:My further point is that we do not know what secret bigotry any author, scholar, or historian may or may not harbor, so it should not come into play; everyone is biased in some way or another. Instead of looking at WHO the information is from, we should be looking at WHAT the information is informing.


to reiterate james' point, it does matter where information comes from. bigotry is a deep and emotional state of mind, which influences perceptions, interpretations, memory, decisions, etc. if a source is known to harbor animosity towards jews, any information it presents should be treated as extremely suspect. it's also difficult to hide, more so the more intense it is, so the idea that any source could be a secret bigot is not really useful - bigotry approaches irrelevance when it is so minor as to not explicitly influence an individual's words and actions (i.e. if you can't find, anywhere, that a source has stated a negative opinion of jews, it's unlikely that the source is significantly anti-semitic; and remember that by "source" we're largely talking about writers and historians here).
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: The Holocaust and Holocaust Denial

Unread postby dajiangjun » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:30 pm

agga wrote:
dajiangjun wrote:My further point is that we do not know what secret bigotry any author, scholar, or historian may or may not harbor, so it should not come into play; everyone is biased in some way or another. Instead of looking at WHO the information is from, we should be looking at WHAT the information is informing.


to reiterate james' point, it does matter where information comes from. bigotry is a deep and emotional state of mind, which influences perceptions, interpretations, memory, decisions, etc. if a source is known to harbor animosity towards jews, any information it presents should be treated as extremely suspect. it's also difficult to hide, more so the more intense it is, so the idea that any source could be a secret bigot is not really useful - bigotry approaches irrelevance when it is so minor as to not explicitly influence an individual's words and actions (i.e. if you can't find, anywhere, that a source has stated a negative opinion of jews, it's unlikely that the source is significantly anti-semitic; and remember that by "source" we're largely talking about writers and historians here).


Any my point is that we do not know what deep and emotional bigotry any person harbors unless he displays it outright. Anyone could harbor any sort of bigotry and produce a scholarly work supporting his or her ideas. Of course if I went onto a website with swastikas covering the page and a skin-head Joe-schmo stating that the Nazis explored space and that they never harmed anyone, and that Jews deserved what fate they received, etc. it would obviously be untrustworthy. My point is that many of the sources of the information I presented are not from bigoted sources, only that they appear on websites hosted by people who may or may-not be bigoted.

Once more, I have come to the conclusion that this topic will be a me vs. everyone else debate, and I do not have the time or energy to continue combating it. So in conclusion, allow me to say, that I concede defeat, am withdrawing from the debate, and accept the official version of the Holocaust. I'm no longer going to read or reply to this thread, so let it go where it may. I just hope someone out there may have benefited from receiving an alternate view of history.
User avatar
dajiangjun
Initiate
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to World History Deliberation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved