Scott wrote: I am not attempting to "reduce the entire body of Revisionist work" to the mantra of the so-called Pope of Revisionism: No-Holes/No-Holocaust.
I merely disagree with Mr. Faurisson on this one approach and other simplistic arguments that can be defeated by amateurs (like me).
You can? Donnerwetter!
Okay, let's say I'm the "Pope of Exterminationism," Dr. Joe Q. Rabinowicz, Professor of Holo-History. My folks were gassed, you dirty bastard (just kidding).
Now, you crackerjack Revisionists with real engineering degrees have conclusively proved that those goshdarned holes were just never there in the first place. And all my Holo-horses and all my Holo-men can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The holes just weren't there. And the word is already out. No Holes!No Holocaust?
Non-Sequitur. It does not follow. It just does not follow.
You protest that all the Holo-witnesses say this-and-that about Zyklon-B and whatnot. I (Rabinowicz) reply, "so F****** what, Denier?! The witnesses got it wrong. Rumor and hearsay on the details. Nana and Pops are still DEAD. And the Nazis gassed them."
And then the myth morphs again. So ten years down the road we are talking not about holes in basements but about flying-saucers or some other equally-plausible figment. Maybe cylinders of chlorine or something for water treatment. Rabinowicz continues: "I have an invoice from the WVHA right here for shower heads to administer the gas and... Blah, Blah, Blah, X cylinders of chlorine for 'special treatment' of 'water' (=codeword for gassing Jews)."
Same old Holocaust™.
Sofar nobody has been able to locate those alleged holes yet. Substantial parts of the morgues are still intact, including the foundatations and all walls, I understand. All that happened is that the roof collapsed, for Krema II partially and Krema III completely. It is not difficult to reconstruct the old roof or to locate the alleged holes, if there are or were any.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done--on the contrary. Everything should be investigated. The Devil is in the details.
I am attacking the notion of oversimplification. "If it didn't happen as alleged then it didn't happen" is a fine legal fiction. But it ain't gonna "work" for epistemology. And it won't convince anybody (if that is the desired outcome). Sorry.
And without holes, how on earth did they get those Zyklon B pellets into the morgue? And without the Zyklon B introduction holes the confessions of perpetrators and testimonies of “Sonderkommando” witness about the Auschwitz gas chambers are going up in smoke.
But Professor Rabinowicz has an alternate theory, THE theory: "Nobody has used the Zyklon-B and diesel theses since Hilberg and Poliakov (R.I.P.), and Revisionists had nothing at all to do with it. NOTHING, I tell you. NOTHING!
And besides, nobody even teaches them anymore except for carefully selected modern curricula that you American bigots wouldn't understand." (Rabinowicz sets the accepted canon, you see, and the whole Industry voluntarily helps him "enforce" it.) "You don't want to be a Denier
do you, Ms. Lipstadt?"
On Plates 13, 14 and 15 Pressac includes in his “Die Krematorien von Auschwitz” detail ventilation drawings, plans and sections, for the ventilation system of morgue 1 of Krema II. I checked ever square inch of those drawings looking for the heater and HCN gas generator, there is nothing, absolutely nothing. Believe me.
I don't know and I don't really care (although it is interesting). I'm skeptical that a half-million people were gassed in a basement. Period. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of holes, that is just MY prejudice. But you have to convince others--if you want to make headway with your thesis, that is. And why not?
Personally, we have seen that wartime basements were routinely fitted with airtight Luftwaffe bombshelter doors, in a solid bit of pertinent research. It is a simple Revisionist idea and a good one--not that testing for HCN on walls or looking for holes is a bad idea either, you understand. Let's just not go too far with our evidence.
So we have these airtight morgues. We stuff in these people on the ruse of getting a shower. Perhaps it really is plumbed as a shower. Anyway, we shut the door and go to lunch. When we come back they are all dead from suffocation. Why wouldn't it work? The hard part is unloading the bodies and washing the room for the next go-around. It may not work for the numbers claimed but the notion of millions murdered in special camps in special rooms is the weak point of the Holocaust™ anyway as I see it. (Faurisson is dead right on that score.)
We are all amateurs, and why would a debate with members of the “RODOH” forum does anything for the revisionism? (I sometimes think that Scott just wants to see the fireworks going off, which certainly will happen, while he would sit back, having a good old time)
Oh, you've got me pegged! I'm a little scamp, like my second grade picture shown. I would
enjoy it. But like Beavis and Butt-Head, I'm not allowed to talk about fire here
. It gives people ideas, see.
You know where to find me and I will answer your questions. Let's just say for now that I'm not that dumb. It might look bad at the moment but I know exactly what I'm doing.
To quote Hayward in The Fate of Jews in German Hands:
An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism
In my view, this inflexibility [of Holocaust believers], and stridency is a mistake. Its like putting all your eggs in one basket. Had I been in charge of this issue I would have anticipated that someday I might have to say, "OK, so maybe our figures aren't etched in stone, and maybe gas chambers weren't as prevalent as we thought. So what? It really doesn't change anything much, does it? However extensive it was, or wasn't, it was still terrible and deserves the universal condemnation of mankind."
Had they [the Holocaust believers] done this, they wouldn't have boxed themselves into a corner as they have. What could happen (and I think it will happen) is that no amount of repression and name-calling will keep scholars from investigating this issue (some might even be attracted by it on those grounds alone), and it's probably just a matter of time until some mainstream scholar, possibly nearing retirement, will publish the revisionist book that will break the dam and then all this effort has been for naught.
Yes, but when you are dealing with a religion, which is what the Holocaust™ ultimately is, you find it is too easy to take the eggs out of the basket and put them in another. I can debate the divinity or even the existence of Jesus until hell freezes over and it will not
change the mind of a True Believer. Does that mean that the rationalist should throw his hands into the air and start training to be a witch? No, it doesn't. Change can come a detail
at a time and "consensus" follows. It starts when somebody looks through the telescope for the first time, kicking and screaming all the way.
But the tactics the Revisionists have been using for the last ten years or so--it seems to me--couldn't have been better advised by the ADL.
Look, I've known about Revisionism for a long time, 1979. I never really got all that interested in it, despite an undergraduate degree in History, until after the Irving-Lipstadt fiasco in 2000. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Irving's politics, he is a first-class historical author. So I read Debbie's book and thought it smacked so much of anti-intellectualism and the justification of Thoughtcrime that it was like a wake-up call for me. First they come for the "crackpots" and then they come for--well, anybody with different ideas, I guess. And I pride myself on my non-conformity. Holocaust or not, this is important to me. All I am asking is for Revisionists, too, to "think outside of the box."