The "Holocaust" - #4 thing to not discuss online

[Lamprecht]

From:
Top 10 Things You Should Never Discuss Online

http://listverse.com/2009/11/18/top-10- ... ss-online/

4
The Holocaust

The Holocaust is ALWAYS a fire starter. It never happened. It happened but the numbers are inflated. It happened but why is it so important. The Holocaust is about the Jews. The Holocaust is about all the targeted populations of the Nazis. The Holocaust didn’t get the job done. One reason this topic is so toxic is enough people are around who were eyewitnesses to make a strong case one way, but enough people are around who must rely on second hand information to be subject to influence by deniers. Either way, almost NOTHING elicits the strong feelings that the Holocaust does, and if one makes the mistake of saying one doesn’t care either way, well, god help you.

I wonder why it's such a taboo?
Which eyewitnesses make a strong case?
Hmmm...

[Ilikerealhistory]

First of all that photo is fake. The guy on the left with the rifle looks original to the background. The two people on the right are pasted in place. This looks like the same quality as the fake pictures made by the Soviets in the 1950's. Also you cannot make out any insignias on the uniform of the shooter. It could just as easily be claimed to be a Soviet Bolshevistic shooting Germans.

This quote; "One reason this topic is so toxic is enough people are around who were eyewitnesses to make a strong case one way" attempts to be neutral, but the word "eyewitnesses" is always associated with people who claim to be victims of the Holocaust(R). Just because a group of people claim they saw pink elephants fly, does not mean it is true. There are many more honest eyewitnesses that say the Holocaust(R) didn't happen as claimed (no gassings, etc). One group of "eyewitnesses" is veteran allied soldiers who saw the after effects of allied bombings. Those veterans were biased against Germans since WWI, and wanted to believe what they heard to give validity to the destruction they inflicted against the Germans.

[ginger]

Where else can you question the Holocaust lore? At least we have some freedom on-line.

President Obama made a wonderful speech in China recently - he said the free flow of information makes a society stonger.

If the Holocaust is such a taboo, why is there a book "Auschwitz" in the children's section of the public library in my city? - complete with pictures of heaps of corpses and a narrative about how they all died in gas chambers. There was a lot of death in World War II; there is no way to know where the pictures were taken, and yet children are tricked into believing that the heaps of corpses were the result of Nazi gas chambers.

There is a film of a World War II concentration camp in Germany where one sees a bulldozer pushing heaps of corpses. Conventional wisdom now accepts that there were no gas chambers in Germany. So the film is horrible but it is not evidence of Nazi gas chambers.

Why should the topic be taboo? This country has been browbeaten into accepting these stories since the end of World War II. Now the public can challenge the stories on-line.

[Älghuvud]

Conventional wisdom now accepts that there were no gas chambers in Germany.

What do you mean by "conventional wisdom"? As far as I know the holocaust is still widely accepted among historians, the heck knows why.

[gbrecht]

President Obama made a wonderful speech in China recently - he said the free flow of information makes a society stonger.

You forget his speech at Auschwitz saying how holocaust denial is evil and must be stopped or something along those lines. Puppet.

[ginger]

Thanks for asking about the conventional wisdom, Alghuvud.

There once were claims that there were gas chambers at Dachau. I saw a film, I believe Alfred Hickcock helped make it, - and in the film one saw dead bodies in a gas chamber at Dachau. One saw thousands of corpses in camps of Belsen and Buchenwald; my impression for a long time was that these corpses represented the victims of the gas chambers. I don't remember ever seeing pictures of piles of corpses at Auschwitz.

Arthur Butz in "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" helped debunk the gas chamber stories for me. I have read recently an interrogation of a Nazi officer Dieter Wisliceny in 1945. In the interrogation he stated that the camps in Germany were never intended to be extermination camps. I read recently on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum webpage that there was no evidence of persons being gassed at Dachau. I read in another book whose title I forgot that historians now accept that there were no gassing at Dachau. "Time" magazine had an article years ago stating the Jews were deported East (Poland) to be exterminated in gas chambers. My conclusion is that stories about gas chambers in Western Europe have been dropped.

Stories about gas chambers in Poland have not been dropped.

[Älghuvud]

My conclusion is that stories about gas chambers in Western Europe have been dropped. Stories about gas chambers in Poland have not been dropped.

Yes, you're right. One example for the Western concentration camps is Dachau. The funny thing about this is that some historian are still trying to prove that there were at least some gassings while most others now hold that such a claim was never made in the first place.

[ginger]

Alghuvud -

No doubt there are people who won't let it go - but the good news is that now they are on the losing side of the argument.

Any backpeddling on the gas chamber myth is good news to me.

[ginger]

gbrecht -

Obama was heard on the subject of the Holocaust a few times shortly after he became President.

He spoke at Buchenwald and included a sweeping assertion that there were persons who deny the Holocaust and that such a denial of fact and truth is baseless and ignorant and hateful. I believe those were his words at Buchenwald - at least they are a fair representation of what he was saying at the time.

Buchenwald and the camps in Western Europe may have been liberated by the Americans, and there were horrible scenes of piles of corpses and starvation, but currently most historians do not claim that there were gas chambers operating in Western Europe during World War II.

The word "Holocaust" is such a broad term that one can not know what Obama meant by the word.

[ginger]

On the subject of the taboo of the Holocaust -

Obama, when he was still a Senator, spoke at Yad Vashem at a ceremony in June 2008.

He said when he next visited Israel he intended to bring his daughters to visit Yad Vashem.

Why expose his happy children to the horrors of war - and the obscene Holocaust spin on each picture, each railroad car, each pair of shoes. I hope he will change his mind.

The Holocaust should be a taboo as a school subject for children who are too young to deal with the grimness and who would not be encouraged to criticize what is being taught.

[Ilikerealhistory]

Conventional wisdom now accepts that there were no gas chambers in Germany.

What do you mean by "conventional wisdom"? As far as I know the holocaust is still widely accepted among historians, the heck knows why.

"Conventional" basically means "by convention," or more specifically by a group of people who got together (had a convention) and decided what will be considered "the truth" regardless of what really is the truth.

500 years ago conventional wisdom of the Catholic church was that the Earth was flat, and that it was the center of the Universe. In electricity, conventional current flows from positive to negative, but the truth is that electrons flow from negative to positive; the exact opposite. Conventional current theory was created by a group of scientists who got together and decided what the truth would be. The problem is that it was eventually beneficial for the majority of people to know the truth about electricity and the universe, but it is not beneficial to the majority of people to know the truth about the Holocaust(R). The only people who would benefit from the truth would be those people who are oppressed by the false stories of the Holocaust(R): The Germans and their WWII allies.

Ironically "conventional wisdom" is always wrong because it is based on lack of knowledge, lack of information, or deliberate lies.

[Lamprecht]

Golden comment #807:

And Ava,

You posted an article (full of self-citations and citations from other Holocaust deniers) that claimed that only 300,000 Jews died in the Holocaust. That’s not examining the numbers, that’s not revisionism, that’s a bloodclaat lie.

I think it’s great when laymen examine history, some of them are very good at it. In this case, Ava Braun, you should just let the experts handle it – people who aren’t twisted by one of the most destructive, racist, and violent ideologies ever created.

Did you read correctly? Revisionism - or "Holocaust denial" as they say it - is destructive, racist, and violent.

Though unsurprisingly, the belief in the "Holocaust" is actually more destructive, racist, and violent than revisionism.

Why was David Cole forced into hiding? Why was Irving, an old man, beaten up? Why was Zundel and his followers attacked on the streets by Jewish thugs? Why was a pipe-bomb set off at Zundel's home?
Perhaps because it is violent?

Racist? What a meaningless word. Today, "Racism" is a term used to discredit something without using facts.
Simple fallacy: Racism is wrong; Holocaust denial is racism; Holocaust denial is wrong.
We must also not forget the "Zone of hate" that Wiesel sets aside for all Germans and suggested all Jews do the same.

Destructive? Please.
It's not as if revisionists are destroying a basic human right - the right to free speech...

[Älghuvud]

"Conventional" basically means "by convention," or more specifically by a group of people who got together (had a convention) and decided what will be considered "the truth" regardless of what really is the truth.(...) Ironically "conventional wisdom" is always wrong because it is based on lack of knowledge, lack of information, or deliberate lies.

With regard to your last sentence, that sounds a bit radical. But I have got the point.

[Lamprecht]

More from the same person:

I would like to know how Holocaust revisionism is “one of the most destructive, racist, and violent ideologies ever created”

How is it an ideology?
How is the belief that the Holocaust is exaggerated destructive, racist, and violent?

Nazism is the ideology, moron. And Neo-Nazism is what motivates Holocaust deniers.

Those who deny the Holocaust (as in, those who reduce the number of Jews deliberately killed by the Nazi ideology by millions) are mostly motivated by a desire to sanitize Nazism of it’s greatest ugliness: the deliberate murder of millions of Jews.

It seems this person is "motivated by a desire to sanitize Nazism of it’s greatest ugliness" because he/she feels the need to deny the original claim that tens of millions of Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

[jnovitz]

The Holocaust should be a taboo as a school subject for children who are too young to deal with the grimness and who would not be encouraged to criticize what is being taught.

Curiously enough there used to be a rule in at least Auschwitz and Majdanek Museums that children under 14 were not allowed to visit. I dont suppose it is observed much these days.

I expect it was enforced during the Communist times.