Auschwitz Museum Director Reveals 'Gas Chamber' Hoax

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Either way, I really couldn't care less if the number was 3 million, 4 million, 5 million, or 6 or 10. But, what I do find suspicious (and objectionable) is the absolute insistance on a particular rounded figure. Why is unquestioning belief of this figure so central to the holocaust tenet?

As I also said earlier, numbers are bunkum and they are usually part of a political take on things. Accurate numbering is such a difficult task, that I find anyone that clings to an absolute figure to be somewhat foolish. It's incredibly difficult to say with absolute certainty how many "x" died in "x".

Well, first of all it's overstating the case to say there is an unquestioning belief in the figure of six million. The generally accepted number is in the range of about five to six million.

In fact, one of the earliest sources for a figure of six million came from the Nazis themselves. The SS officer and Nazi party member Dr Wilhelm Hoettl in an affidavit to the Nuremberg trials in November 1945 said:

In August 1944 at the occasion of a visit in my apartment in Budapest, Eichmann told me that he had to make a report for Himmler on the number of Jews killed, and that he estimated the sum-total of the Jews killed as 6 millions. Of those 4 million had been killed in the extermination
institutions in the East, while the additional 2 millions were killed by shootings -- mainly by the Einsatzgruppen of the SIPO and the SD during the campaign in the East.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/documents/ftp.py?documents//nuremberg/ps2615-hoettl

Hoettl repeated this claim in an affidavit to Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem in 1961, although it should be said that Eichmann himself denied ever having said such a thing. (But then he would, wouldn't he . . .)

Raul Hilberg in The Destruction of the European Jews, the first comprehensive history of the Holocaust, originally published in 1961,came up with a figure of 5.1 million.

http://www.amazon.com/Destruction-European-Jews-Set-Third/dp/0300095570/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj

According to the main Wikipedia article on the Holocaust:

Hilberg's estimate of 5.1 million [Jews murdered], in the third edition of The Destruction of the European Jews, includes over 800,000 who died from "ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 killed in open-air shootings; and up to 2,900,000 who perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll of Jews in Poland as up to 3,000,000. Hilberg's numbers are generally considered to be a conservative estimate, as they typically include only those deaths for which records are available, avoiding statistical adjustment.

British historian Martin Gilbert used a similar approach in his Atlas of the Holocaust, but arrived at a number of 5.75 million Jewish victims, since he estimated higher numbers of Jews killed in Russia and other locations. Lucy S. Dawidowicz used pre-war census figures to estimate that 5.934 million Jews died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll

Tony EH

Hmmmm, doubt of the 6 million can see you brandished as a "holocaust denier" (and all that that subsequently entails) in certain places and jail in others.

Also, I'd take anything Martin Gilbert says on any subject with a pinch of salt these days. Gilbert wrote of the 4 million Auschwitz figure in 1981, which has been demolished and reduced to a generally accepted of 1 million in more recent years. And while I don't accept "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", if he was wrong on that, he could be wrong on other parts of his arithmetic as well. Either way, I've long since abandoned Gilbert as a credible historian. He's in the bin, alongside Steven Ambrose. He's populist historian, that writes cash-in work. Sure, he'll make loads of money, but the worth of his efforts isn't up to much.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Hmmmm, doubt of the 6 million can see you brandished as a "holocaust denier" (and all that that subsequently entails) in certain places and jail in others.

It is absurd to say that even in those countries where Holocaust denial is an offence one could be jailed for publicly "doubting" whether six million Jews died. Would Hilberg have been prosecuted for his estimate of 5.1 million?

I'm not in favour of criminalising Holocaust denial myself, partly because I'm against abridgment of free speech in principle, but also because it allows people like Nick Griffin to imply that there are truths being suppressed which they can't reveal for fear of prosecution. This is exactly what Griffin did on the BBC last week.

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, I'd take anything Martin Gilbert says on any subject with a pinch of salt these days. Gilbert wrote of the 4 million Auschwitz figure in 1981, which has been demolished and reduced to a generally accepted of 1 million in more recent years.

It is simply untrue that the figure of 4 million deaths in Auschwitz was generally accepted until recent years. For example, Hilberg's overall estimate, going back to 1961, included an estimate of 1 million killed at Auschwitz and so is unaffected by this change. You can see from the figures above that his total estimate for all deaths in the camps is 2.9 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_the_European_Jews#A_destruction_of_5.1_million_Jews

Brian Harmon also quotes Gerald Reitlinger deriding the four million figure as "ridiculous Soviet propaganda" as far back as 1968:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-01.html

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is simply untrue that the figure of 4 million deaths in Auschwitz was generally accepted until recent years.

You need to read what I wrote again.

Mahatma coat

If I said to you

I've got 10 million dollars spread across four bank accounts, 4 mil 3 mil 2 mil one mil, then you'd say show me, so I show toy the first bank account which I say has a million in it and lo and behold when I bring up the balance theres 1.2 million dollars in it

then I show you the next one whic I say has 4 million in it, only wnen I open it theres 0ne million, would you believe me if I said that even tho the money wasnt in that account the total of 11 million was still correct or would you like to actually physically check each of the remain accounts yerself.independently of me.

gizmo555

Mahatma coat wrote: »

If I said to you

I've got 10 million dollars spread across four bank accounts, 4 mil 3 mil 2 mil one mil, then you'd say show me, so I show toy the first bank account which I say has a million in it and lo and behold when I bring up the balance theres 1.2 million dollars in it

then I show you the next one whic I say has 4 million in it, only wnen I open it theres 0ne million, would you believe me if I said that even tho the money wasnt in that account the total of 11 million was still correct or would you like to actually physically check each of the remain accounts yerself.independently of me.

Well, to use your analogy of an audit, Hilberg's figures with regard to the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz - again, first published as far back as 1961 - have been "audited" in the sense that they are and always were consistent with the revised figures mentioned in this thread.

There is therefore no discrepancy between his overall estimate of 5.1 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the revised figures for the number murdered at Auschwitz.

Summary of main statistics from Hilberg:
http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/

Summary of revised figures from official Auschwitz website:
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=13&limit=1&limitstart=3

Tony EH

So, why isn't there an insistence on 5 million as an "official figure", instead of the usual 6?

Or why isn't there any umph on Reitlinger's 4 million figure?

Why does it have to be 6?

Because there's so much discrepancy in the figures (and Hilberg doesn't speak for the entire holocaust community BTW), I'll go back to my original point and that is that figures are bunkum. People will choose, at the end of the day, to believe in what figure they wish on such matters.

The problem is, is that saying that "you don't believe" in this particular case, can see you lose your livelihood.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

So, why isn't there an insistence on 5 million as an "official figure", instead of the usual 6?

Or why isn't there any umph on Reitlinger's 4 million figure?

Why does it have to be 6?

There is no "official figure". Six million, I suppose, is the number that has been lodged in the popular consciousness since it was first put into the public domain as a result of Hoettl's testimony as to Eichmann's estimate in 1945.

By the way, Reitlinger's estimate was between 4.2 and 4.6 million - this is what he said on the matter:

Since the reading of the Nuremberg indictment in November 1945, naming the figure of 5,700,000 Jewish victims of Germany, the round number of six millions has become a generally accepted assumption in most circles that are interested in the matter. But in the course of writing this book I have been forced to the conclusion that, while it cannot be determined even within a half million degree of accuracy, the true figure may be considerably smaller . . . Whether six million died, or five millions, or less, it will still be the most systematic extermination of a race in world history. Moreover, once the principle of the murders is proved, there is no particular magic in additional millions. As a German, Walter Dirks, has written: "It is shameful that there should be Germans who see a mitigating circumstance in reducing the sum from six millions to two millions!" (My emphasis.)

http://books.google.ie/books?id=83dvJxPm--EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Inasmuch as any authority could be called "official", I suppose Yad Vashem would come closest, and this is what its website says:

There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59–5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million. (My emphasis.)

http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/index_before_change_table.asp?gate=5-3

Tony EH wrote: »

The problem is, is that saying that "you don't believe" in this particular case, can see you lose your livelihood.

I don't see how merely saying you don't believe as many as six million Jews died in the Holocaust could lose you your livelihood. Be that as it may, as I've already said, I don't believe Holocaust denial should be punishable, both on general freedom of speech grounds and because it in fact plays into the hands of Holocaust deniers.

Fuinseog

Tony EH wrote: »

So, why isn't there an insistence on 5 million as an "official figure", instead of the usual 6?

Or why isn't there any umph on Reitlinger's 4 million figure?

Why does it have to be 6?

Because there's so much discrepancy in the figures (and Hilberg doesn't speak for the entire holocaust community BTW), I'll go back to my original point and that is that figures are bunkum. People will choose, at the end of the day, to believe in what figure they wish on such matters.

The problem is, is that saying that "you don't believe" in this particular case, can see you lose your livelihood.

there is also the matter of marketing. the holocaust (a term that may only be used to describe what happened to the Jews) is being marketed as the single worst tragedy to befall mankind. it was, we are led to believe, unprecedented.
the higher the number the more unique it appears. there were other acts of genocide but the holocaust must be made to stand apart.

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

There is no "official figure". Six million...

I don't see how merely saying you don't believe as many as six million Jews died in the Holocaust could lose you your livelihood.

The 6 million has been spouted continuously. In nearly everything to do with the Second World War (at least since the 70's), the "6 million" has singled out for special mention. It's mentioned so often that people who know absolutely nothing else about WWII can tell you the number of Jews supposedly killed. So, regardless of whether these days Yad Vashem says "there's no official figure", they still give it a mention.

Likewise, reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial" and one treads into that territory very carefully. In addition, when one looks at what has happened to others when they go up against the big names in the holocaust clique, the fear of losing one's livelihood is very much a clear possibility (and I'm not talking about David Irving).

MrMicra

Tony EH wrote: »

Likewise, reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial"

Where?

Morlar

Originally Posted by Tony EH View Post

Likewise, reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial"

MrMicra wrote: »

Where?

Do you really suggest that a source or a website link are required in order to confirm that ?

MrMicra

I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.

That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.

gizmo555

MrMicra wrote: »

I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.

That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.

+1

Morlar

MrMicra wrote: »

That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.

Well that is not exactly what the poster said, that is how you re-formed the original statement into a new one.

The laws in Germany contain the following :

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.


In this case, asserting that the numbers are exaggerated - can be interpreted as 'belittling'.

(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbes the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

There are also (and have been for a long time) moves to have these laws enforced across europe.

gizmo555

Morlar wrote: »

Well that is not exactly what the poster said,

No it's not exact, but this is what Tony did say:

Tony EH wrote:

reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial"

On that basis, Raul Hilberg, for example, would be categorised as a holocaust denier, which is self-evidently absurd.

Morlar

gizmo555 wrote: »

On that basis, Raul Hilberg, for example, would be categorised as a holocaust denier, which is self-evidently absurd.

That is the exact anomaly that many holocaust revisionists point to in order to illustrate the dangers & extent of such legislation.

marcsignal

MrMicra wrote: »

I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.

That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.

It's a fair enough request to ask for proof, or evidence. 2 examples I know of are Fred A. Leuchter and Ernst Zundel. Leuchter made Electric Chairs, Lethal Injection Equipment, and Gasing Chambers for the U.S.prison system, but hasn't worked since publishing the Leuchter report, an independent study of exactly what we're discussing here. Zundel went to jail in Toronto for publishing a booklet entitled 'Did six million really die?'

There is a good documentary featuring both men called 'Mr Death - The rise and fall of Fred A Leucchter' which should be available on the web somewhere. If I find a link to watch it I'll post it, it's well worth a look.

As Morlar eludes, it's as good as common knowledge, that refuting the status quo has been the runation of many a man's career.

.

MrMicra

Neither of the individuals to whom you refer are reputable. The choice of these people as examples undermines Tony EH's claims. There must be an example of a scholar who has revised downwards the number of European Jews killed in the 1939 - 1945 period by the Germans or by their puppet regimes and who has suffered for so doing. I am not restricting this request to imprisonment a lost job would be some evidence.

I would be interested to see if any prosecutions have taken place under the German law mentioned above of reputable scholars.

marcsignal wrote: »

As Morlar eludes, it's as good as common knowledge, that refuting the status quo has been the runation of many a man's career.

Zuendel runs a Nazi publishing company. He isn't a reputable individual and therefore he is not an example of the sort that I mentioned.

Leuchter is a more interesting example, he doesn't appear from the information given to be especially reputable either. He seems to be not a Nazi but rather a man who will do anything for money. He appears to be a monster.

June 13, 1991 edition of New York Times wrote:

details his agreement with prosecutors to "serve two years' probation for practicing engineering without a license".

wikipedia article linked to by marcsignal wrote:

... James Roth swore under oath to the results at the trial.
It was only after he got off the stand that Roth learned what the trial was about. In an interview for Morris' film, Roth states that cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls, to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness (he is seen in Morris' film hammering at the bricks with a rock hammer).
Not informed of this, Roth had pulverized the entire samples, thus severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample. Roth offers the analogy that the tests were like "analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it."

Alabama Assistant AG Ed Carnes wrote:

Leuchter was running a death row shakedown scheme: if a state didn't purchase Leuchter's services, he would testify at the last minute for the condemned man that the state's death chamber might malfunction.

Morlar

The definition you are seeking to impose on this discussion is too limited and restricting. Anyone name put forward may, or may not, fit your definition of what is 'reputable', this is a ludicrous condition to attempt to impose on this discussion.

All of which conveniently ignores the primary fact that the effect of this legislation is to create a climate of fear among the academic community and others on the entire subject of holocaust numbers. This is the goal of this legislation and is key to stifling free and open debate.

The very fact that you can be prosecuted for deviating one iota from the mantra is reason enough for people not to stick their necks out this is the insidious effect which many people find objectionable. The most notable examples of people (historians and scholars) who do stick their necks out and have gotten away with it are, jewish, bulletproof to prosecutions on this as it happens.

One example of someone who was not jewish and who was prosecuted for holocaust denial (who may or may not fit your definition of 'reputable') was the bishop Richard Willaimson. It is worth noting that he was prosecuted in Germany for something he did not say in Germany. He put the numbers of those deliberately killed at 300,000 and triggered a media storm and diplomatic incident at the highest levels of government as a result.

In the end he was roundly and almost uniformly ostracised and fined €12,000 to be paid at €100 per week from now on. That was a member of the clergy, can you imagine if that had been a minor academic with no discernible media-friendly character references ?

Unless you are going to say that without a link to a study (you would approve of) to confirm it that there is actually no climate of fear on this subject?

I would disagree with you if that is what you are contending. As the other poster said before we went off on this tangent, the 6,000,000 mantra is at the core of this debate, if you 'belittle' this figure you can go to prison. Define 'belittle' in the context of a figure 6,000,000 The line between 5,999,999 and 300,000 is unknown, what is known is that if you are a high profile biship 300,000 will get you a €12k fine in Germany even if you do not say it in Germany.

** Just googled this and found that he did make the comment in Germany (Regensburg), but it was to a Swedish television channel not for broadcast in Germany.

MrMicra

There was an article in the New York Review of Books within the past 3 months that gave a figure for the total number of European Jews killed by the Germans and puppet governments at less than 6 million. It also played down the importance of Auschwitz.

The author was Timothy Snyder a professor of history at Yale. He has not lost his job.

Morlar wrote: »

The definition you are seeking to impose on this discussion is too limited and restricting. Anyone name put forward may, or may not, fit your definition of what is 'reputable', this is a ludicrous condition to attempt to impose on this discussion.

The examples given initially are a Nazi and a man who lied about his credentials and falsified data. I am not setting the bar all that high by excluding them.
If I were called a Nazi in a newspaper I could sue and win damages. If it was maintained in a newspaper that I misrepresented my professional qualifications I could sue and win damages.
If you are a person with whom it is libellous to be compared then you are not reputable.

Morlar wrote: »

One example of someone who was not jewish and who was prosecuted for holocaust denial (who may or may not fit your definition of 'reputable') was the bishop Richard Willaimson. It is worth noting that he was prosecuted in Germany for something he did not say in Germany. He put the numbers of those deliberately killed at 300,000 and triggered a media storm and diplomatic incident at the highest levels of government as a result.

In the end he was roundly and almost uniformly ostracised and fined €12,000 to be paid at €100 per week from now on. That was a member of the clergy, can you imagine if that had been a minor academic with no discernible media-friendly character references ?

300,000 is not 4.5 million. It isn't 3 million. It is in fact holocaust denial because such a low figures implies that there was no deliberate plan to kill off the European Jews but rather that some died through maltreatment and because of the harsh conditions of the concentration camps. It is a much lower figure than the number of Jews killed outside the camps. It is holocaust denial and I congratulate the German courts for enforcing their own laws.

Wikipedia wrote:

Williamson has expressed controversial views about Jews. He called them the "enemies of Christ" and urges their conversion to Catholicism. He claims that Jews and Freemasons have contributed to the "changes and corruption" in the Catholic Church.

Wikipedia wrote:

He has also stated that Jews aim at world dominion ] and believes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be authentic. Williamson has denied that he is anti-semitic...

Wikipedia wrote:

Citing the pseudoscientific Leuchter report, Williamson has denied that millions of Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps and the existence of Nazi gas chambers, and praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.

Wikipedia wrote:

During an interview on Swedish television recorded in November 2008, he stated: "I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, is hugely against six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler",and "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas chambers."

MrMicra

Morlar wrote: »

Define 'belittle' in the context of a figure

A number which is less than six million but not so low that it implies that there was no concerted effort to kill the European Jews.

Is there an example of a scholar who has deemphasised the holocaust that is who has said that it was not a priority for the Germans or even someone who has said that it is being misused as a symbol today and who has suffered for it?

Morlar

So, to recap, going by those wikipedia quotes, the Bishop is not reputable enough either.

MrMicra

You can make up your own mind as to his reputability. He is however a holocaust denier rather than someone who has simply revised the numbers downward.

Morlar

MrMicra wrote: »

You can make up your own mind as to his reputability. He is however a holocaust denier rather than someone who has simply revised the numbers downward.

You asked for an example of someone who had been impacted by holocaust denial legislation for not sticking to the 6,000,000 figure.

You were given several examples.


None of which you accept on the grounds of the condition & restriction you are seeking to impose on the discussion, that you need to personally approve of the character of those involved (which is ridiculous).

Or, alternately by limiting the definition of the discussion to a narrow band of numbers somewhere between 6m and 4.5mil as the band of discussion you find agreeable.

MrMicra

Morlar wrote: »

You asked for an example of someone who had been impacted by holocaust denial legislation for not sticking to the 6,000,000 figure.

The implication was that one could be convicted of holocaust denial for deviating from this figure even if one was not in fact a holocaust denier.

Morlar wrote: »

You were given several examples.
None of which you accept on the grounds of the condition & restriction you are seeking to impose on the discussion, that you need to personally approve of the character of those involved (which is ridiculous).

There is nowhere that the individuals given would be regarded as reputable. The first two were a Nazi and a criminal!

Morlar wrote: »

Or, alternately by limiting the definition of the discussion to a narrow band of numbers somewhere between 6m and 4.5mil as the band of discussion you find agreeable.

It isn't an especially narrow band. After all it is larger than the total number of Jews that Williamson believed had been killed!

To remind you of the discussion earlier:
Tony EH said:

Tony EH wrote: »

Likewise, reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial" and one treads into that territory very carefully.

The implication is that any scholar who believes that the number of Jews killed by the Germans was less than 6 million would be scared to publish this information even if that person believed that the German government had made an organised attempt to kill all the Jews in Europe during that time.

I then said:

MrMicra wrote: »

I would like an example of a reputable individual who has suffered material damage as a result of making the statement that even though there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s rather than 6 million having been killed there were in fact only 4.5 million European Jews killed by the Germans in the period 1939 - 1945.

That seems to be what the poster above is claiming and I would like an example to be given.

A Nazi is not a reputable individual.
A convicted perjurer who falsified his credentials is not reputable. Williamson's figure of 300,000 killed (if it is a figure for the total number of Jews killed in the 1939-1940 period) is not consistent with ...

MrMicra wrote: »

the statement that ... there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate the European Jews in the 1940s

in other words it is holocaust denial rather than a debate about numbers killed.

Tony EH

There are a couple of people playing slight of hand in this discussion and they know who they are.

It's obvious to everyone, even with a passing interest in WWII (or the holocaust for that matter) that straying from the much touted 6 million figure gets one branded.

It's completely ridiculous, if not completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise, especially when holocaust denial laws are lurking around the corner and double so, when it was one of the tenets mentioned in the case against David Irving, by hired gun Richard Evans.

And asking for a "reputable" person's name to be put forward as an example is silly as well.

The very fact that ANYONE is pulled up for disbelief of a series of events is proof enough that disbelief of the holocaust touchstones is something that people should be aware of as a dangerous pursuit.

Either way, everyone should look into the case of Joel Hayward as an example of pressure that a good historian could come under for not toeing the line. IMO, his book "Stopped at Stalingrad" is standard reading on the subject, but his university thesis got him into hot water. A university thesis, for Christ’s sake!

Likewise, Norman Finkelstein came under enormous pressure from the holocaust lobby for his book, "The Holocaust Industry"...

...and he denied nothing.

Even though Finkelstein didn't stray from the 6 mil, it's still pure farce to pretend that reducing the figure of 6 million yields no danger, when there's ample proof that it does...even to so-called "reputable" people.

MrMicra

So we now have one example of a reputable historian who suffered because of his legitimately presented views. He did indeed lose his livelihood for challenging the views of 'the holocaust clique'. Though thank goodness his career seems to have recovered.

Tony EH wrote: »

And asking for a "reputable" person's name to be put forward as an example is silly as well.

everyone should look into the case of Joel Hayward as an example of pressure that a good historian could come under for not toeing the line.

Why is it silly when it is so easy?
Are you really unable to distinguish between Hayward and Leuchter.
Joel Hayward is a reputable historian who was misled by the criminal Leuchter's fabricated report. The treatment of Joel Hayward is disgraceful and reflects badly on New Zealand (and ) and Massey and Canterbury Universities. I am glad to see that his career has recovered.

Tony EH wrote: »

Likewise, Norman Finkelstein came under enormous pressure from the holocaust lobby for his book, "The Holocaust Industry"...

Irrelevant the book is about the way in which a self appointed set of Jewish conservatives contrived to manipulate the memory of the holocaust for financial gain. It is a direct attack on the 'holocaust lobby' not a piece of holocaust denial.

Tony EH

How do you know his career recovered?

Tony EH

MrMicra wrote: »

Why is it silly when it is so easy?

It's silly, because they are still examples. Just not examples YOU want. Besides, if you had read on, you'd see why I think it's silly...
"The very fact that ANYONE is pulled up for disbelief of a series of events is proof enough that disbelief of the holocaust touchstones is something that people should be aware of as a dangerous pursuit."

MrMicra wrote: »

Irrelevant the book is about the way in which a self appointed set of Jewish conservatives contrived to manipulate the memory of the holocaust for financial gain. It is a direct attack on the 'holocaust lobby' not a piece of holocaust denial.

It's not "Irrelevant" in any way. It's entirely relevant. Norman Finkelstein suufered incredible attacks by the same holocaust fraternity, that attacked Hayward, Leuchter, Irving and Zundel.

...and in that respect, there is no difference between any of them.

MrMicra

He is the Dean of Air Power Studies at the RAF college and a tenured Professor of the University of London. Still your point stands. The affair was disgraceful he lost his job at a university in New Zealand and had to sell his book collection (some 8 years after he wrote the thesis).

He did in fact deny the holocaust by the way (therefore not mere quibbling about numbers) but he did so as a result of honest scholarship (he was 23 when he wrote the paper that got him into so much trouble).

Joel Hayward made four claims:
There were no gas chambers (he now believes that there were gas chambers).
Hitler gave no formal order for the extermination of the European Jews (he still stands over this)
We cannot know the number of Jews killed but it was certainly less than six million. (he still stands over this).
Jews in Poland and Belarus died for basically the same reasons as their christian neighbours. Starvation, maltreatment and murder. (the historical evidence as regards this has changed since 1993 and as a result he has changed his mind)

This led him to the belief that the death of Jews in 1939-1945 was qualitatively similar to the death of other people in Poland and Belarus and that Jewish victimhood was not special.

In his paper Joel Hayward made a deliberate decision to treat those who believe that there was an organised plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe and those who do not believe this as equally credible.
Unfortunately one of those who believes that there was no such plan is Ernst Zuendel who paid Mr Leuchter to produce his report.
That report has now been discredited.
At the time that Joel Hayward wrote his thesis it had not been discredited (or at least he was not aware that it had been discredited if it had).

He seems unfortunately to have regarded the Leuchter report as a 'smoking gun'.

MrMicra

Tony EH wrote: »

It's silly, because they are still examples. Just not examples YOU want.

Because they are a Nazi and a criminal.

Tony EH wrote: »

It's entirely relevant. Norman Finkelstein suufered incredible attacks by the same holocaust fraternity, that attacked Hayward, Leuchter, Irving and Zundel.

It is clear from Joel Hayward's case that groups like 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' have too much power, in fact that organisation should be wound up.

Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier.
Joel Hayward is a reputable historian.

You do them both a disservice by linking them with Zuendel and Leuchter.

Morlar

Whether or not you find the examples given earlier on the thread as reputable people or not is as irrelevant as whether or not you find them attractive, or, think they smell nice.

They were not charged, prosecuted and convicted because they did not pass your character-test. The various examples were convicted for holocaust denial which is the subject that is being discussed here & the laws in question do not only apply to those you approve of.

Likewise this discussion does not revolve that way either. No one has agreed to the conditions you are trying to place on this discussion, (neither to limit the discussion to areas of numbers between 4.5m & 6m band or to only examples of holo-denial legislation if you approve of the people on some personal level)

You said that the Finkelstein case is irrelevant in the context of a discussion on holocaust denial. I disagree with that take on things. You can not discuss holocaust denial legislation without mentioning the holocaust lobby/pro-israel lobby.

This history is central to the justification for the creation of the state of israel and so delicately placed that to question some detail or other is (in some peoples eyes) to effectively undermine it & will incur the wrath of groups like the ADL, the likes of C.A.M.E.R.A, F.L.A.M.E, G.I.Y.U.S (who far as I remember were active on boards around the time of the last Lebannon war) & likeminded groups & individuals. So the lobby and advocacy groups are relevant.

We are not discussing an closed-off, safe, historical event. It is still politically volatile and in addition constantly bumped to the top of the news agenda, whether it is compulsory schooltrips, funding for h museums, h advisors to schools, hollywood films, books, magazines or other cultural connections, tv programmes etc

It is not an area of history that is open to rigorous & open "free from recriminations" kind of debate. Unlike for example the Irish Famine where the numbers were originally & for decades inflated, now down to approx 1m dead. Irish people did not cry out for legislation to keep the numbers higher or prosecute anyone who disagreed - if the famine were central to the creation of our state (as the holocaust is to israel) perhaps things would be different but I doubt it.

The reduction in numbers is seen not as anti-irish scholarship but as the normal consequence of informed, un-biased, politically neutral free and open debate among scholars and academics not operating in a climate of fear. Can you imagine how much progress would have been made if scholars operated on other areas of history knowing that to question a deathtoll would lose their reputation, their job and put them in prison ? Would you view that as a healthy development ?

MrMicra

Morlar wrote: »

Whether or not you find the examples given earlier on the thread as reputable people or not is as irrelevant as whether or not you find them attractive, or, think they smell nice.

The standards are not arbitrary; to be compared with Zuendel or Leuchter would be libelous.

Tony EH maintained that deviation from the 6 million figure was alone enough to find oneself ruined. This is not the case.
I refer you to the New York Review of Books article 'the Real Holocaust' which revises the figure of 6 million downward. It is by Timothy Snyder a professor at Yale.

The examples given as victims of what it is claimed is repressive legislation include a Nazi, and a criminal.

One of these criminals and Nazi conspired to produce false information which nearly led to a brilliant academic career being destroyed. This is not 'inquiry' it is dishonesty. Perhaps stricter legislation is needed.

Williamson is a victim of Zuendel and Leuchter. He is an anti semite but he is still a victim of their false reporting. He found his prejudices confirmed by their 'research'.

Joel Hayward chose as an academic exercise not to consider the moral character of the holocaust deniers in his study of the historiography of the holocaust. This led him into holocaust denial rather than numerical haggling.

The reality is however that a Nazi and a criminal cannot be trusted not to fake their research.
The moral character of holocaust deniers is central to this argument.

Incidentally Morlar do you really believe that downward revisions of the total dead in Ireland in the 1844-1849 period are value neutral and apolitical?

Tony EH

MrMicra wrote: »

Because they are a Nazi and a criminal.


It is clear from Joel Hayward's case that groups like 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' have too much power, in fact that organisation should be wound up.

Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier.
Joel Hayward is a reputable historian.

You do them both a disservice by linking them with Zuendel and Leuchter.

I don't accept your opinion.

MrMicra

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't accept your opinion.

What part of my opinion don't you accept?
Do you accept that Joel Hayward is a reputable historian? If not why not?
Do you accept that Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier? If not why not?

Do you accept that Ernst Zuendel is a Nazi? If not why not?
Do you accept that Leuchter is a criminal? If not why not?

Do you accept that 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' should be wound up? If not why not?

Do you accept that downward revisions of the number of the Jews who died in Europe in the 1939 - 1945 period by scholars who accept that there was a deliberate plan executed by the German state to kill all the Jews in Europe do not in and of themselves lead to academic sanction?
If not I would like an example.

Morlar

MrMicra wrote: »

Incidentally Morlar do you really believe that downward revisions of the total dead in Ireland in the 1844-1849 period are value neutral and apolitical?

I do not care who the numbers come from - so long they are open to being discussed & freely debated in an enviornment where those taking part in the discussion can do so without fear of losing your reputation, job or liberty.

This is the same level of freedom that applies to every other historical event (outside the borders of dictatorships or authoritarian regimes).

It is this freedom & civil liberty that holocaust denial legislation seeks to curtail. The character of it's victims is irrelevant. The effect of this sort of insidious legislation is not to be measured only in convictions - it is measured in the climate of fear it creates.

Tony EH

MrMicra wrote: »

What part of my opinion don't you accept?
Do you accept that Joel Hayward is a reputable historian? If not why not?
Do you accept that Norman Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier? If not why not?

Do you accept that Ernst Zuendel is a Nazi? If not why not?
Do you accept that Leuchter is a criminal? If not why not?

Do you accept that 'the New Zealand Jewish Council' should be wound up? If not why not?

Do you accept that downward revisions of the number of the Jews who died in Europe in the 1939 - 1945 period by scholars who accept that there was a deliberate plan executed by the German state to kill all the Jews in Europe do not in and of themselves lead to academic sanction?
If not I would like an example.

The above is a load of nonsense talk and does nothing whatsoever for the thread. Neither does your attempt to shift the goalposts and narrow the discussion to what you feel comfortable with and I won't entertain such silliness.

However, i will point out again that you are wrong on this point...

Tony EH maintained that deviation from the 6 million figure was alone enough to find oneself ruined. This is not the case.

Richard Evans, in the case against Irving, pointed out quite clearly that one of the 'methods' of so-called "holocaust denial" was reduction of the 6 million figure.

Pierre Naquet said in the 80's that reduction of the number of Jewish victims was part of "Revisionism", which unfortunately has since become a byword for "anti-Semitism"/'holocaust denial'.

You are just simply wrong to suggest that it has no effect and trying to pretend that people can question it without any danger whatsoever isn't going to find much support.

The bunkum term "holocaust denial" is a deliberately elastic term designed to encompass as much or as little as the shouter wants. From saying that Nuremburg was victors justice, to disbelief of gas chambers. And that term has been given far too much clout as a legitimate accusation to be leveled against somebody.

For instance, some people may believe that there wasn't an official genocide policy within the Third Reich, but may believe that millions of Jews were killed and gas chambers existed etc. The non-belief alone of official policy would get that person branded as a "holocaust denier". And the point of having the silly term so elastic is to ward people off questioning and argumentation, lest they suffer the effects of the people already mentioned in the thread.

People should be allowed to question (or deny) whatever they want, without having to face a barrarge of black campaigning from the multitude of special interest holocaust/Jewish groups.

marcsignal

@ MrMicra

Ahem ? Would you like to explain yourself ??

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055730938

Or would you just prefer to badmouth people on this thread without having the common decency to afford them the opportunity to challenge you ???

You have 24 hours to explain yourself, or you sir, will earn the privilige of being the first boardsie to earn pride of place on my ignore list, and you will not come off it.

I smell an ADL attack dog in the camp guys, and I dont mean the Concentration Camp........

.

Mahatma coat

its simple Marc

either he can show you where you are mistaken, in which case no doubt your position will be revised in light of new FACTS

or he cant show you where he believes you are mistaken, in which case I wouldnt expect to see him postin here much more

marcsignal

Thanks Mahatma coat, we'll just have to see I guess. I won't know of course, because despite giving him best part of a week to respond, he doesn't seem to want to participate, so on to my IL he goes i'm afraid.

OooooooK, let's continue where we left off then, shall we ?

I've just a few more points to raise about numbers, and then I want to throw a few issues regarding the technical side of what were discussing here, out to the audience, and I say 'audience' because I've been monitoring the view count on this thread since the beginning, and it seems to have held an increasing level of interest for many people anyway, particularlly in the last few weeks. So readers, if you're from the Mossad ? just make sure you have everyone's correct names and addresses, you wouldn't want to have your cronies shoot the wrong man woman or child.

Anyway......

Here's an interesting letter written by Martin H Glynn, former governor of the State of New York, in a publication called 'The American Hebrew' on, wait for it..... October 31st 1919. Thats 14 years before Hitler came to power. It seems that WW2 wasn't the first time 6 million Jews died, or were dying, in a Holocaust, or is it just a perculiar coincidence ??



It's difficult to read, so the full text is here

The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!
By Martin H. Glynn

(Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)

From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.

These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter's cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers.

In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand.

Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood.

In this threatened holocaust of human life, forgotten are the niceties of philosophical distinction, forgotten are the differences of historical interpretation; and the determination to help the helpless, to shelter the homeless, to clothe the naked and to feed the hungry becomes a religion at whose altar men of every race can worship and women of every creed can kneel. In this calamity the temporalities of man's fashionings fall away before the eternal verities of life, and we awaken to the fact that from the hands of one God we all come and before the tribunal of one God we all must stand on the day of final reckoning. And when that reckoning comes mere profession of lips will not weigh a pennyweight; but deeds, mere intangible deeds, deeds that dry the tear of sorrow and allay the pain of anguish, deeds that with the spirit of the Good Samaritan pour oil and wine in wounds and find sustenance and shelter for the suffering and the stricken, will outweigh all the stars in the heavens, all the waters in the seas, all the rocks and metals in all the celestian globes that revolve in the firmament around us.

Race is a matter of accident; creed, partly a matter of inheritance, partly a matter of environment, partly one's method of ratiocination; but our physical wants and corporeal needs are implanted in all of us by the hand of God, and the man or woman who can, and will not, hear the cry of the starving; who can, and will not, take heed of the wail of the dying; who can, and will not, stretch forth a helping hand to those who sink beneath the waves of adversity is an assassin of nature's finest instincts, a traitor to the cause of the human family and an abjurer of the natural law written upon the tablets of every human heart by the finger of God himself.

And so in the spirit that turned the poor widow's votive offering of copper into silver, and the silver into gold when placed upon God's altar, the people of this country are called upon to sanctify their money by giving $35,000,000 in the name of the humanity of Moses to six million famished men and women.

Six million men and women are dying -- eight hundred thousand little children are crying for bread.

And why?

Because of a war to lay Autocracy in the dust and give Democracy the sceptre of the Just.

And in that war for democracy 200,000 Jewish lads from the United States fought beneath the Stars and Stripes. In the 77th Division alone there were 14,000 of them, and in Argonne Forest this division captured 54 German guns.This shows that at Argonne the Jewish boys from the United States fought for democracy as Joshua fought against the Amalekites on the plains of Abraham. In an address on the so-called "Lost Battalion," led by Colonel Whittlesey of Pittsfield, Major-General Alexander shows the fighting stuff these Jewish boys were made of. In some way or another Whittlesey's command was surrounded. They were short of rations. They tried to get word back to the rear telling of their plight. They tried and they tried, but their men never got through. Paralysis and stupefaction and despair were in the air. And when the hour was darkest and all seemed lost, a soldier lad stepped forward, and said to Col. Whittlesey: "I will try to get through." He tried, he was wounded, he had to creep and crawl, but he got through.To-day he wears the Distinguished Service Cross and his name is

Abraham Krotoshansky.

Because of this war for Democracy six million Jewsh men and women are starving across the seas; eight hundred thousand Jewish babies are crying for bread.

(Continued from page 582)

In the name of Abraham Krotoshinsky who saved the "Lost Battalion," in the name of the one hundred and ninety-nine thousand and nine hundred and ninety-nine other Jewish boys who fought for Democracy beneath the Stars and Stripes won't you give copper, or silver, or gold, to keep life in the heart of these men and these women; to keep blood in the bodies of these babies?

Thoughts ??

Mahatma coat

Oh it Obviously a Forgery

that would have been written around the time of the Versailes conference in an attempt to focus on the balfour promise.

its a disgusting bag of lies and halftruths.

odd tho that they use the figure of 6 million. must have some form of significance to them

marcsignal

if the six million figure was mentioned once, it would be odd, but 6 times ??
Isn't that strange ?

chalkitdown

I find it hard to reconcile the general thrust on this thread with the truth of Treblinka, I don't want to argue figures but it's obvious that methods were available to warrant huge numbers being gassed.
To argue Prussian blue couldn't kill enough to correspond with confessional testimonials (however obtained) from witnesses at Auschwitz seems to belittle events.
The link to the badly produced Australian youtube video offered little truth to my eye.

marcsignal

chalkitdown wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile the general thrust on this thread with the truth of Treblinka...

but what is the truth of Treblinka? as you understand it..

seriously genuine question chalkitdown, I'm curious to know.

Morlar

chalkitdown wrote: »

chalkitdown wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile the general thrust on this thread with the truth of Treblinka, I don't want to argue figures ...

If you apply that same logic to any historical subject, or in this boards context to a thread in say, the History and Heritage Forum about a historical subject (as an example 'the Irish Famine') and respond to such a thread with the statement

'I find it hard to reconcile this thread with the truth of the subject'

it sounds like the approach of someone with a completely closed mind on the subject to begin with (no offence). I would wonder with that viewpoint why even bother ? If your version of the truth is beyond reproach what is the point of reading something which does 100% align with yours ?

chalkitdown wrote: »

but it's obvious that methods were available to warrant huge numbers being gassed.

There is more to the truth than an agreement that the methods required to achieve result x,y,z were in exsistence.

chalkitdown wrote: »

To argue Prussian blue couldn't kill enough to correspond with confessional testimonials (however obtained) from witnesses at Auschwitz seems to belittle events.

Luckily we do not live in countries with holocaust denial legislation just yet, as to 'belittle' events is in itself a form of holocaust denial (it is in Germany at least). In any event I disagree with your point that to discuss the subject from a starting point of being a reasonably sceptical, open minded adult is to 'belittle' an event.

History should be open to debate without exceptions. To question any part of any historical subject is not to belittle it.

chalkitdown wrote: »

The link to the badly produced Australian youtube video offered little truth to my eye.

I agree that the video was badly produced. It looks like it was made by someones grandpa who hadn't read the manual Having said that I think as with most potential sources of information it is the content not the production values which are important.

chalkitdown

marcsignal wrote: »

but what is the truth of Treblinka? as you understand it..

seriously genuine question chalkitdown, I'm curious to know.

I suppose the detail provided by German soldiers would sway my view, there are a few I've come across, such as specifying the type of diesel engine that was used ect.

let's not go down the please provide a link road with this, K?

chalkitdown

Morlar wrote: »

If you apply that same logic to any historical subject, or in this boards context to a thread in say, the History and Heritage Forum about a historical subject (as an example 'the Irish Famine') and respond to such a thread with the statement

'I find it hard to reconcile this thread with the truth of the subject'

it sounds like the approach of someone with a completely closed mind on the subject to begin with (no offence). I would wonder with that viewpoint why even bother ? If your version of the truth is beyond reproach what is the point of reading something which does 100% align with yours ?

There is more to the truth than an agreement that the methods required to achieve result x,y,z were in exsistence.



Luckily we do not live in countries with holocaust denial legislation just yet, as to 'belittle' events is in itself a form of holocaust denial (it is in Germany at least). In any event I disagree with your point that to discuss the subject from a starting point of being a reasonably sceptical, open minded adult is to 'belittle' an event.

History should be open to debate without exceptions. To question any part of any historical subject is not to belittle it.



I agree that the video was badly produced. It looks like it was made by someones grandpa who hadn't read the manual Having said that I think as with most potential sources of information it is the content not the production values which are important.

I suppose that my interest has exposed me to a lot of information, and thanks to threads like this it continues to expand. The content in the Aus video is too extreme in it's 'anti' depiction of events.
I can assure you that I don't have any agenda, nor a closed mind, just the quest for facts.

And please be more careful with the quotes, I said the thrust of this thread.

marcsignal

chalkitdown wrote: »

I suppose the detail provided by German soldiers would sway my view, there are a few I've come across, such as specifying the type of diesel engine that was used ect.

As it happens, I think the use of diesel engines is interestng in relation to gassing executions. Apparently the idea was thought of by Arthur Nebe who passed out drunk in his car after he'd parked it in the garage returning from a nights drinking. It's just that exhaust gas from a diesel engine has considerably less Carbon Monoxide content than exhaust from a standard petrol engine. That considered, I'm interested to know, in the KZ instance, why the Nazis chose diesel engines over petrol.

chalkitdown wrote: »

let's not go down the please provide a link road with this, K?

fair enough, but I am interested in learning as much as I can about this, while it's not illegal to discuss it, so whatever revelant sources you can provide, I'd be grateful for.

Mahatma coat

I'd put the use of Diesel instead of Petrol downto a few factors

They had more diesel engines as Generators andWar machines

at first glance a Diesel engine is alot smokier than a Petrol Engine, so presuming that you didnt know the Carbon Monoxide content of eah exhaust fume The smokier diesel would make more sense

on the topc of fakery, hoe many of these are genuine 'SS Exections'??








four randoms from the first page of a Google image search for 'SS executions'