What exactly are we arguing about?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby borjastick » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:51 am)

I have just had a very interesting and somewhat frustrating discussion, with a very good friend of mine, about the holocaust and the nature of our issues with it. The discussion became very heated at times and left me with some points and questions to raise here about what exactly are we arguing about?

My friend is 65, highly intelligent and by nature and education a techincally inquisitive man. He got a double first from Cambridge and works in motorsport. He has listened to me banging on over the years about my journey to ascertain the truth about the holocaust. He has never made any comment about it during these years. Today he said that basically he doesn't understand what we are trying to achieve. That when the decision was made by the nazis to press the button to kill jews, it matters not how many, or when the finger was released from the button. That whether they were shot, hanged, gassed is completely irrelevant. That the number be it 100,000 or 6,000,000 is of no consequence. A holocaust happened and we cannot deny it.

He feels that all he needs to be aware of is that a large number of jews died directly due to the nazi's mistreatment of them, and that is all that matters in the context of the second world war. Thus my time investigating it is wasted.

He also feels that us deniers, whilst we have an absolute right to question and dig around, are actually arguing in reality about the consquences of the holocaust, post war, post nuremburg, post Israel, post US support etc etc.

He is largely ambivalent to the whole issue and doesn't really have any interest in the matter. I was stunned by his thoughts and of course feel that it does matter whether 1 jew or six million were killed. That if they were killed en masse deliberately or died from typhus it makes a huge difference to the issue. I wonder what readers think and what I should have said to my friend, not forgetting that this guy's intelligence and ability to get to where you are going before you is the stuff of legend.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby SevenUp » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:37 am)

borjastick wrote:Today he said that basically he doesn't understand what we are trying to achieve. That when the decision was made by the nazis to press the button to kill jews, it matters not how many, or when the finger was released from the button. That whether they were shot, hanged, gassed is completely irrelevant. That the number be it 100,000 or 6,000,000 is of no consequence. A holocaust happened and we cannot deny it.


'What exactly are we arguing about?' is an easy question and the answer is obvious, we are arguing about historical accuracy.

But, the person asking the question is not really looking for an answer, as there is no answer that will satisfy them. His strategy is 'the best defense is an aggressive offense' and he is not really asking a question at all, he is attacking you as a fool. By claiming that the answers to the issues about the holohoax that you raise have no consequence, he is merely looking for an escape from having to consider the issues at all. This desire to avoid rational discussion of the holohoax is UNIVERSAL, it is the most astounding thing to me about the hoax.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Blogbuster » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:11 am)

The aggressive offense approach outlined in this thread is typical for those holocaust controversialists who seek only to create discord and strife. Those who believe the Holocaust happened as recorded are often content to memorialize it in calm, respectful way, they don't feel the need to come to CODOH and attack revisionist beliefs or discussions.

If they were truly seeking to share their knowledge and understanding of the Holocaust, as well as gain some, they would be open-minded in the debate and civil in their approach.

Those who attack others in the name of the Holocaust are not believers, they are troublemakers.
BB
Blog Buster!

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby borjastick » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:29 am)

Thanks for the comments. I must point out that my friend was not 'aggressive' to me or my thoughts on the issue. he feels that there can be no doubt whatsoever that a large but unknown number of jews died by means direct or indirect during the holocaust. therefore if we accept that then the actual number (which of course will never be known) is largely irrelevant. Likewise even if neither side can prove or disprove the theory of mass gassings as a deliberate means to rid europe of its jewry, we cannot deny that many thousands or even more than a million died, so the method doesn't detract from the fact that they died.

I can actually see his point. His only concession was that if all the deaths in the holocaust were indirect, in other words by starvation and disease, then we may have a point in trying to rectify the situation. However the facts are that many jews were shot, with evidence as we all know. So his contention is that we are barking up the wrong trees.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby SevenUp » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:28 am)

borjastick wrote:Thanks for the comments. I must point out that my friend was not 'aggressive' to me or my thoughts on the issue.


He negated every fact you've presented, every argument you've made, with a single comment, that being 'it doesn't make any differnce'. That is total aggression, even if he isn't shaking his fist when he makes the comment. He is in effect saying that you are an idiot, or deluded, or psychologically imbalanced, to be attaching such significance to unimportant matters. Why are you making such a big thing about it when it's not really important anyhow? Are you psychologically imbalanced? See?

borjastick wrote:I can actually see his point. His only concession was that if all the deaths in the holocaust were indirect, in other words by starvation and disease, then we may have a point in trying to rectify the situation.


That's quite a concession and shows some clarity of thinking. I would argue that in fact all there was no holocaust, and deaths of all Jews during WW II were indirect.

First, I'd separate the discussion into two parts the holohoax in the camps, and the holohoax on the eastern front.

The evidence seems pretty clear, for example the Auschwitz records, that all the deaths of Jews in the camps were indirect. Let's assume this is a slam dunk for your side.

borjastick wrote:However the facts are that many jews were shot, with evidence as we all know.


Say what? I'm not a big student of the holohoax on the eastern front, but the best example of a 'well documented' slaughter of Jews is the Babi Yar massacre. There are Nazi documents, the same fellow confessed to killing the Jews and then later making their bodies disappear. But the story is preposterous, and there is not a shred of physical evidence for it. There are no bodies. The confession of Blobel is absurd on its face. Here is another little wrinkle on the Babi Yar hoax - the Nazis were excavating a real mass grave of NKVD victims at Vinnitsa, about 100 km from Kiev, and invited an international team or forensics experts to view the excavation, at the very same time that the hoax maintains Blobel was exhuming and burning the bodies at Babi Yar.

If the best known example of the holohoax on the eastern front is an obvious hoax, what about the other unspecified examples?

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby borjastick » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:00 pm)

SevenUp thanks for your comments, they are very helpful and I would agree with most of the. I do though feel that we cannot argue with filmed footage and photographic evidence of jews being shot. The Babi Yar 'incident' is fast becoming a joke and a thorn in the side of traditionalists.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Mkk » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:29 pm)

borjastick wrote:SevenUp thanks for your comments, they are very helpful and I would agree with most of the. I do though feel that we cannot argue with filmed footage and photographic evidence of jews being shot. The Babi Yar 'incident' is fast becoming a joke and a thorn in the side of traditionalists.

What photos? They've all been debunked at this forum, and/or can't be proven to have Jews in them. (See the Holocaust Contiversies thread, and search for "fake picture", see also Walendey's "Do photographs prove the NS extermination of Jews" in Dissecting the Holocaust.) As for film footage, I am interested as to what this is- and it is from a reliable (non propaganderistic- we all know about those Soviet Holocaust propaganda films.) source.
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9864
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Hannover » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:13 pm)

borjastick said:
Today he said that basically he doesn't understand what we are trying to achieve. That when the decision was made by the nazis to press the button to kill jews, it matters not how many, or when the finger was released from the button. That whether they were shot, hanged, gassed is completely irrelevant. That the number be it 100,000 or 6,000,000 is of no consequence. A holocaust happened and we cannot deny it.

The man is in complete denial of the nature of the 'holocaust' storyline. It DOES matter how many because Jewish supremacists are constantly haranguing everyone about the numbers they claim, '6,000,000 Jews, and 5-6,000,000 'others' thrown in for bait. 'It was the biggest genocide in history', 'the Nazis operated a 24/7 mass production slaughterhouse of enormous proportions', ' the 6M is the most documented event in world history", on & on. The numbers matter, just ask any 'holocaust historian' (an oxymoron if there ever was one).
And ask this man to demonstrate that the 'nazis pressed a button to kill Jews', which would entail an actual order to 'press the button', ask him to show it.

The numbers alleged matter because the true genocidal maniacs were the so called 'Allies' whose terrorist mass murders dwarf any actions of the Germans. The higher the alleged 'holocaust' numbers, the more pious those that have been indoctrinated by the winners bogus version of 'history' can feel. It's like 'hey what we did is nothing in comparison to the Germans', or 'we had to do what we did to stop the evil Nazis'. The man in question refutes the very side in which he takes. Using his own logic, the Germans therefore may have engaged in nothing more than war atrocities which is in fact prevalent in every war, by all sides. Always has occurred, probably always will.

In reality however, this man is seeking a cheap, childish way out of providing proof for the storyline. He thinks he can throw a blanket over Revisionists arguments by saying it doesn't matter. IOW, he fears he can't back it up. Revisionist scholars proof the there were no 'gas chambers & 6m Jews' is irrefutable. He fears being made of fool of; which a fool he already is for buying the propaganda in the first place. Of course, all 'holocaust' Revisionists were fooled before we delved into the absurd unsustainable storyline.

For this man, just ask him what the so called 'holocaust' would mean if by his own reasoning the gas chambers & 6M are removed from the narrative. That would mean there was no 'holocaust' as it's defined by Jewish supremacists. Psychologically speaking, the man is really afraid of being shown that he has bought into a false version of 'history'. His pride can't handle it.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby EtienneSC » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:40 pm)

I would say that the 'holocaust' - or belief in it - matters in several ways. Obviously it is a particular concern of Zionists as it is part of the founding myth of Eretz [the state] of Israel and part of their quarrel with orthodox Judaism. It justifies their assertions about the existence of boundless 'anti-semitism' in the gentile world.

It has also acquired a broader significance in popular culture though, particularly since the 1970s, and I think we haven't really come to terms with the nature or scale of this - interesting that your 65 year old friend had his mind formed before then. Firstly, it deligitimates whole swathes of political discourse from the right, particularly assertions of inequality and cultural difference. Secondly, it raises questions about our idea of human nature, which are not really consistent with what is alleged. Thirdly, it is a kind of condemnation of the western Christianity and a vindication of Jewish legalism (e.g. Adorno's 'minima moralia', with which I have no quarrel, I just wonder what is above the minimum) or perhaps of some kind of secular egalitarian project. Fourthly, it gives a kind of moral trump card to anyone who claims a vicarious stake in it or knowede of it.

Personally I feel a great weight lifted from my mind since I have recovered my right to interrogate the evidence offered rather than just go along with whatever story I'm offered. So I agree that it's important. I agree with your friend that the intention is the essence of the deed, but the scale of things affects the moral quality of it, as an angry outburst is something different morally than a cold hatred that lasts for years.

JoFo
Member
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:14 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby JoFo » 7 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:42 am)

He is largely ambivalent to the whole issue and doesn't really have any interest in the matter.


I think that's the problem right there. It's hard to enlighten someone who really isn't interested in the subject. You might raise some points that could make it more relevant to your friend. Show him how much money has been made by some and paid by others over the past 65 years because of the holocaust legacy. Demonstrate just how often the "moral capital" of the holocaust is used by some to justify current crimes against humanity (Israel). Remind him of the erosion of the fundamental right to free expression in some countries because of the holocaust.

Quote Orwell to him:

" Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. "

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby borjastick » 7 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:54 am)

Well then that put me right and perhaps my friend too. I do find it difficult to find the articulate argument in response when the traditionalist views are thrown in my direction.
However I am a big boy and can handle myself.

I would like to point out that despite what SevenUp says about my friend being aggressive, he wasn't! If one cannot have a heated discussion about a difficult subject with a friend then we are all in a sorry state. To me aggressiveness is when a stranger gets in your face and has physical intent to make his point. That I can deal with too.

My friend has a right to disagree and we should cherish that right. However, your comments were very helpful to me and now I need to decide whether to deliver these to him, or learn from them for the future.

Many thanks to you all for your help in this matter.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby SevenUp » 7 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:11 am)

borjastick wrote:I would like to point out that despite what SevenUp says about my friend being aggressive, he wasn't!


I want to refine my argument ... you write

"He has listened to me banging on over the years about my journey to ascertain the truth about the holocaust. He has never made any comment about it during these years. "

Clearly, he has been passive over the years.

And then "Today he said that basically he doesn't understand what we are trying to achieve."

So, he wasn't only being passive over the years, he was also thinking to himself, 'this guy is talking nonsense'. So, without saying a word, he was being passive aggressive.

Then you have a heated discussion and he tells you how everything you've been saying over the years is of no consequence. So, for a moment at least, the mask of passivity is dropped, and he tells you directly that everything you've been saying is nonsense. This is a slight improvement I suppose so that at least he's telling you what he thinks. But at the same time he's dismissing it out of hand, so nothing has much changed.

The point here is not that the 'heated discussion' was aggressive, the point is that the passivity is aggressive. He dismisses everything you say without even acknowledging that you have made an argument by being passive.

And, the point also is that this passive aggressiveness is UNIVERSAL when it comes to discussing the holohoax, at least it seems to to me. Rational discussion is impossible, it is impossible to get anyone to even acknowledge the simplest fact. Arguments are dismissed without being even acknowledged.

I wish that when I was a 'believer' someone had tried to discuss the holohoax with me. No one did. I wonder what my reaction would have been.

User avatar
jeffersonian
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:19 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby jeffersonian » 7 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:50 am)

That when the decision was made by the nazis to press the button to kill jews, it matters not how many, or when the finger was released from the button.


The Jews were perpetrating aggression against Germany. That makes the whole problem very different. Bolshevism was a Jewish attack partly on Germany. Within Germany the Jews had tried to undermine Germany. From the western countries, Jews were howling for war. With so many Jews controlling aspects of German life, the German people were being stifled. So you see, not only did the Germans not decide to press a button to kill Jews, but Germans were being oppressed by Jews, making (yet another) relocation of Jews inevitable.

Jews fought back, and died in skirmishes. These Jews are often called "partisans".

Jews and Germans died as a result of typhus, war migrations during wartime, and disruptions to supply and infrastructure caused by Allied bombing.

After the war, the Jews were the witnesses, lawyers, journalists, propagandists, and government advisors. This made it possible for them to insinuate just about any history they wanted.

To make matters worse, they now fan out across the western countries, indoctrinating children to believe, and to embrace "tolerance" which is really self-annihilation.

Holocaust denial is ultimately about understanding the full role of the Jew in Western history. Yes, the numbers are inflated, the methods invented, and the motives ascribed to the Germans pure allegation. But it matters because of the social implications before, during, and after the war. And we're being set up again.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby EtienneSC » 7 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:23 pm)

"I wish that when I was a 'believer' someone had tried to discuss the holohoax with me. No one did. I wonder what my reaction would have been."

Likewise. Personally though. I think the term "hoax" is unfortunate and it certainly sounded hollow to me when I was a believer. It comes from Arthur Butz's 1977 book - unless some sleuth can prove me wrong and it's earlier - and thus precedes by a year Spielberg's 1978 Holocaust TV movie that moved his career on from 'ET call home'. I think this opened up a chasm between believers and sceptics that hasn't healed since and that we should seek to overcome. Believers don't hear provocative language in the same way that the more vociferous sceptics do - to them it's as though you're insulting the dead, as in Alan Segal's new play 'Denial'.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby EtienneSC » 7 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:32 pm)

This is an interesting speech by Jonathan Bowden on the meaning of revisionism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6sho3-O ... re=related


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests