How should the Holocaust be debated?

[Inquisitive]

I actually think starting right out with "the holocaust is a hoax" IS effective for SOME people.

I've tried this one a few times and watched the shades roll down their eyes. For me, it was not successful at all. The way that seems to have the most success is to allow the person to explain something they "know" as absolute fact. This is a concrete concept,something they can cling on to. I then ask, did you or do you know............
It's really a matter of getting them to think on their own level of belief whatever that may be.

[Kingfisher]

Juergen Graf on this subject:

The revisionists must not hope for quick victory; it will not come overnight. They should remember the wisdom expressed in the phrase from the Czech philosopher, Karel Capek, who said:
"Truth must be smuggled. It must be distributed in small doses. A drop here, a drop there -- until people get used to it. Not all at once."

[Carolyn Yeager]

I actually think starting right out with "the holocaust is a hoax" IS effective for SOME people.

I've tried this one a few times and watched the shades roll down their eyes. For me, it was not successful at all. The way that seems to have the most success is to allow the person to explain something they "know" as absolute fact. This is a concrete concept,something they can cling on to. I then ask, did you or do you know............
It's really a matter of getting them to think on their own level of belief whatever that may be.

Well, I didn't say they would embrace it immediately, right in front of you. But presenting it to them that way will allow them to understand that an otherwise sensible person (you) actually thinks that. So it will have an effect over time in making them more open to the idea than they were before. I put a lot of credence in shock value. People are so stuck in their thinking about these politically sensitive issues that they need to be shocked. I wonder if you were to see these few persons later, if they might not have shifted a little from their previous certainty.

The first time someone said that to me, a long time ago, I thought she was really misinformed. I liked and respected her very much, but I immediately rejected such an idea. I was dumbfounded that she would say such a thing and told her so. The holo was not a topic of discussion at that time like it is now, so I didn't think about it long, but I never forgot it. Years later, when it started cracking open for me, I thought of her and it was: "How did she know? Boy, she was way ahead of me!" It appeared her husband and maybe other members of her family were of that opinion; that was my impression. But I had no reason to go against the general consensus at that time. That doesn't mean it was a mistake for her to say it or that it affected my regard for her. If I had heard that from more people than only her, I might have started wondering or thinking about it then.

[Carolyn Yeager]

Juergen Graf on this subject:

The revisionists must not hope for quick victory; it will not come overnight. They should remember the wisdom expressed in the phrase from the Czech philosopher, Karel Capek, who said:
"Truth must be smuggled. It must be distributed in small doses. A drop here, a drop there -- until people get used to it. Not all at once."

Let me just say, in Juergen Graf's defense , that you can usually find a quote from a person who has written a lot, as he has, to support any side of a question. Juergen Graf does believe the "Holocaust" is a hoax, while he might not put it in exactly that way. He makes it clear immediately, in his writings, that that is so; he doesn't shy away from it. He is sometimes, in my opinion, too generous in assigning Jewish deaths, believing it's the better part of valour to concede some ground to his opponent rather than to get bogged down in lesser issues. This is generally the attitude of what we could call our established revisionists -- those whose names are well known. But they are not practicing "a drop here, a drop there." What about the short film that has just come out by Robert Faurisson's friend Dieudonné ? That is certainly "in your face." http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5854.htm and http://www.youtube.com/topic/XXt38V9sv9 ... bala-mbala

[Heidegger555]

How should (inevitably hostile) discussions of the Holocaust be approached ??

Understand which part of the story is the BIG TABOO for your public/listener. Do not approach this part right away, if at all.

Understand that every important definition is like a space on a chessboard that needs to be contested, thrust into doubt. There are many relatively harmless ways to "redefine" 'Holocaust' which go along way to showing people that THIS IS AN EVOLVING STORY. Get them to say the simple phrase "The victors write the history."

Ask how many Jews survived the ghettos/camps. Very rarely will anyone want to talk about this number. (4-5 million)

Get the believers all tangled up in the earlier lies of their 'Holocaust Story,' such that they realize they actually know very little. Who was gassed, where ?? In Buchenwald, two million ?? In Dachau ?? What ?? Piles of corpses, from what ??

I like to say often :" To me it's an open question, which unfortunately cannot be openly discussed in most European countries. Why is that ?? "

Ask for some serious literary sources from experts in the field, from the last twenty years. Whenever they think they know something, point out that they "learned" that from a movie.

Consider that whatever happened to the jews, it happened in the midst of an inconceivably vast war which consumed tens upon tens of millions of innocent souls, whose fate we are curiously not so interested in.

If talking to a jew, remember that for these people there is no "objective reality" which we can agree upon; they view all stories, accounts, memories, wailings and weepings, articles in newspapers, movies,TV programs, as just ideological tools to advance their agenda.

[Inquisitive]

Well, I didn't say they would embrace it immediately, right in front of you. But presenting it to them that way will allow them to understand that an otherwise sensible person (you) actually thinks that. So it will have an effect over time in making them more open to the idea than they were before. I put a lot of credence in shock value. People are so stuck in their thinking about these politically sensitive issues that they need to be shocked. I wonder if you were to see these few persons later, if they might not have shifted a little from their previous certainty.

No, you didn't. Also recognize you didn't say everyone but some. I did the shock therapy (not the first) to a family member 7 months ago, even appealing to her Catholicism presenting the good Bishop Williamson's case. She hasn't spoken to me since. Unfortunately she will have to deal with me again and I will present something else she won't like. But I do keep on plugging.

[mdmguyon]

I put a lot of credence in shock value.

This worked for me. The person who introduced me to such topics was very outspoken about them and explicitly said that his approach used "shock value." But I think it depends on one's tolerance for uncertainty.

[White Wolf]

I put a lot of credence in shock value.

This worked for me. The person who introduced me to such topics was very outspoken about them and explicitly said that his approach used "shock value." But I think it depends on one's tolerance for uncertainty.

There are several great books in the "Holocaust Handbook Series" that really opened my eyes.

Books like "Hoax Of The 20th Century" by Arthur Butz and "Giant With Feet Of Clay" by Jurgen Graf, oh heck, just read all of them!

I think the true openness to discuss this "touchy" topic is what really impressed me and made me realize the extent that this hoax/myth has been taken to.

I'm still hoping for a "Holocaust Revisionist Primer" from the series, hopefully soon. Something simple to not overwhelm people with science and $5.00 words. A laymans guide if possible...

[Petschau]

It is impossible to debate the Holocaust in the strictest sense of the term.
For one, there are too many elements to consider.
Gassing, burning pits, steam chambers. mass murdering Jews, Hitler order, Wannssee Conference, coded messages, etc., etc.
so much that where does one begin?

then, there are the defenders of the myth.
Their entire argument rests on so-called eyewitness statements and highly suspect population numbers.
What kind of debate is that?

To break it down to its simplest form, I'd rely on the laws of physics and thermal dynamics and apply them to Holocaust analogies..
This way, they are debating proven science with their silly fabrications.

[Random]

then, there are the defenders of the myth.
Their entire argument rests on so-called eyewitness statements and highly suspect population numbers.
What kind of debate is that?

I wouldn't say that was their entire argument. Their usual strategy is usually to skip any points of debate at all, since if you question the holocaust you must be a Nazi, Hitler admirer and an anti-semite. Debate is a last resort for a true believer, unless the conclusion has already been decided at the outset, it's in their favour, and no points of opposition are allowed or are to be shouted down [refer to strategy above]. Sadly this seems to work in convincing the majority of the populace.

[Hannover]

It's a religion and anytime you essentially tell someone that their religion is full of it, they simply become even more irrational. They have committed themselves to another burning bush, parting of the Red Sea, Moses and the clay tablets, virgin birth-like set of absurd and scientifically impossible beliefs.

I generally pick my battles according to the moment and the person. But I always emphasize the utter impossibility of the gas chambers claims and the complete lack of mass graves and human remains that are claimed and cannot be shown. Also, I let them know that there are plenty of well researched books and websites for them peruse. Often I tell them something like, 'if you're so sure then why not debate at a site where namecalling and dodging are not permitted.' and always, 'if you're so sure then why are there laws against free speech and scrutiny of the storyline?'


- Hannover

[borjastick]

In any normal debate, for example in Congress or the House of Commons, each side is allowed a certain time to makes its case. After which a vote is held. Whilst each side strongly believes in the veracity of their case they accept the outcome with decency and good grace. That is the democratic way.

This of course will never happen with regard to the holohoax. Not only will they never engage in a real and properly moderated debate, they would never accept an outcome that doesn't conform to their exterminationist position. How could they? They (Israel and the zionist bigots) would be open to massive recriminations. Can you imagine the headlines. 'No jews ever gassed by Nazis.' 'Israel sued by 30 countries for $10billion!'

As always I agree with Hannover in the ways to discuss the issues with any interested parties. Lack of bodies, evidence of gas chambers, witnesses, mass graves etc etc is the best way to start. Keep calm though.

For me the most common point made at a very early point in any debate is 'where did they all go then?' People just assume that the six million did indeed die, by whatever means, and so ask the question of their whereabouts. Of course there were never six million deaths and never six million missing.

As a commentator said above, forgive my paraphrasing here - Hitler murdered six million jews who never existed in gas chambers that were never seen.

[Blogbuster]

Some great insight provided by all. Would be good to get some input from believers and understand how the Holocaust should be debated with revisionists. I think a lot can be learned from both sides of the aisle.

BB

[Kingfisher]

What does it matter how it should be debated? It would be a damn good start if it simply could be debated.

In most Western countries you will be prosecuted if you even attempt to raise the issue in public. In the remaining countries a taboo operates whereby never will a word of revisionism be allowed in the MSM or in academia. No libraries carry Revisionist books and no presentation of Revisionism is given to students anywhere. Instead students and schoolkids are are brainwashed by the Lobby from an ever-earlier age. Academics who have doubts about the H story dare not speak or they will lose their job and become unemployable. Even in countries where you are not supposed to go to jail for HD they can find a way to get you there. Two men are in prison now in the UK (3 and 4 years) for publishing a cartoon of Michael Hoffman's on the Web. They had escaped to the States but the Americans extradited them. A Swedish poster at Codoh got 2 months. In both cases "racial hatred" was the excuse.

Nothing else matters until the taboo is broken. It must be challenged in every possible way and on every possible occasion. People cannot consider our arguments until they can see them. The Internet is our best hope. For all the problems with YouTube, DenierBud, Anthony Lawson and others can be found there. We have our forums like this and most major books can be downloaded. Bookshops may not carry our books, but Amazon does.

[SevenUp]

What does it matter how it should be debated? It would be a damn good start if it simply could be debated.
....
Nothing else matters until the taboo is broken.

The problem that I see is that the taboo is internal to every person in the US. There is no threat of prosecution, and yet people in the US will not discuss the hoax even privately. If you initiate a discussion almost every person will first express a complete lack of interest, and if you press on, as I did talking to a friend over croissants at a local bakery, the person in this case will actually stand up and threaten to leave if you continue. This is someone I have known for years. What in hell is going on ? I've seen it many times in many forms. Sometimes the person will throw up some perfunctory arguments for the hoax, the most popular ... 'What about the tatoos?' ... and when you point out that no one disputes that the Jews (and others?) at Auschwitz were tattooed, they may dredge up another, ... 'What about the photos of dead bodies?'... and if you say that the photos were taken at Belsen, not a 'death camp', after the war and the prisoners obviously died of disease, then there is likely to appear a bit of truculence and the person will simply refuse to continue. In short, it is the internalized taboo that is the problem in the US, and for me, it is the most perplexing thing about the hoax.