http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... s_01.shtml
Although the information is pretty easy to refute for any reformed revisionist, a brief response to this article will follow:
Holocaust deniers are people who contend that the Holocaust - the attempt by Nazi Germany to annihilate European Jewry during World War Two - never happened. According to the deniers, the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, the notion of homicidal gas chambers is a myth, and any deaths of Jews that did occur under the Nazis were the result of wartime privations, not of systematic persecution and state-organised mass murder
Aside from "deniers", a word I don't much like to see used, this is correct.
Deniers dismiss all assertions that the Holocaust took place as conscious fabrications, or as psychotic delusions.
WRONG. Many people, who are not actually deluded, genuinely believe the Holocaust took place- because it's what they've been told. Yes, many of the eyewitnesses are brazen liars and fabricators, and SOME believers seem to be a bit TOO attached to the Holocaust, but it doesn't change the fact that, IMO, this statement is incorrect.
ome even claim that Hitler was the best friend the Jews had in Germany, and that he actively worked to protect them.
In my time as a revisionist I have seen nobody claim this- although it is true in some cases, such as Kristallnacht, Hitler did try to protect the Jews from physical harm.
According to deniers, Jews have perpetrated this hoax about the Holocaust on the world in order to gain political and financial advantage, and it was in fact Germany that was the true victim in World War Two.
Well, sort of. I suppose not all "deniers" have looked into general WW2 revisionism, although it isn't hard to imagine that many have.
Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism, positing that Jews have concocted a giant myth for their own ends.
So it is Anti Semetic to say the Jews have ever done ANYTHING wrong? Yeah, right. Also, if this woman actually knew about revisionism, she'd know we actually claim the Holocaust propaganda was mainly circulated by the Allies, and then later picked up by the Jews for their own ends.
It persists despite the fact that the Holocaust is one of the best documented genocides in history,
I.e not a single document refers to it.
with a wide array of evidence documenting virtually every aspect of it.
I.e documenting every aspect aside from the mass murders.
For example, approximately a million Jews on the Eastern Front were shot during 1941-42, and buried in large pits. This is known partly because the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing units that coordinated these massacres, prepared detailed reports on the murders - reports that contained precise death tolls, broken down into men, women and children.
The reports that may or may not be authentic, and have no supporting evidence, and contradict logic as to what the Einzatgruppen where meant to be doing? See the chapter here: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/08-t.pdf and search the forum. Also, if the Germans were so adamant about destroying the documents refering to killings in the camps, why weren't these alleged documents destroyed? It makes no sense.
These reports were sent to high ranking officials in Berlin, and to army, police and SS officers, as well as diplomats and even prominent industrialists. This wide distribution suggests that the perpetrators felt no shame at what they did. Had these killings not been part of Berlin's policy, the reports would never have been so widely distributed.
Any proof? No?
Deniers argue that evidence such as this was forged, after the end of World War Two, by people working for world Jewry.
A HANDFUL of documents have been proven/are suspected to have been forged, but others have merely been distorted in their meaning.
They claim that forgers created these and other documents - complete with complex internal reference markings, on typewriters that perfectly matched those used by the various German units said to have written the documents -
She does realise that the Allies, ofcourse, had ascess to German typewriters after the war. As Butz points out, with the Einzatgruppen documents, there are only signatures on the non-incriminating pages, aswell.
and then planted thousands of these perfect forgeries
"Thousands"? In my time as a revisionist, I haven't come across "thousands" of documents that revisionists claim to be forgeries- and even then we give good reasons as to why they might be forgeries.
She then goes on to avoid the arguments of the revisionists when it comes to these forgeries.
Many perpetrators confessed to what they had done during the war, after it was over.
The confessions never make any sense, and were nearly always commited under torture or legal pressure.
For example, Otto Ohlendorf, commander of one of the Einsatzgruppen units, testified quite openly that between June 1941 and 1942 his Einsatzgruppe murdered 90,000 people.
That's a lot less then the million Jews above. Were these partisans or what? Was this guy under any pressure?
Also, lol at that innocent picture of children allegedly on their way to the gas chambers.
Deniers dismiss confessions by German perpetrators that a 'Final Solution' to the 'Jewish question' was indeed a part of the Nazi programme - by saying the confessions were produced under torture.
We claim that the Final Solution was not what you claim it to be. Nobody denies there was some kind of "Final solution"- but we argue on whether it was murder or deportation.
This, however, ignores the fact that some of the more detailed confessions were written after the perpetrators had been sentenced to death.
I don't know much about individual cases here, but it doesn't change the fact if they were tortured while it was happening. Also, it doesn't change the ridiculous and contradictory nature of the "confessions".
It also ignores the fact that many of the perpetrators described - sometimes in great detail - what happened, but insisted that they either had nothing to do with it or were forced by their superiors to participate.
Again, all of these accounts make no sense, as said above some were under torture etc., and the "I had nothing to do with it" is an obvious way to worm out of a crime that has been pushed onto you.
Thus this argument fails to take into account the statements of Nazis such as the Commandant of Birkenau concentration camp, Rudolf Höss, who described the mass murders that took place in his camp in a document written after he had been sentenced to death.
He was tortured, his statements make no sense, and he possibly didn't even write them. Comeon, do better Debbie.
It also fails to account for Adolf Eichmann who, in the memoir he wrote during his trial, spoke of the gassing of the Jews.
During the legal trial? There goes the idea these confessions weren't under legal pressure, again. I believe Eichmann is dealt with in "one third of the Holocaust", and maybe elsewhere on this forum.
Some deniers explain away the confessions by positing that after the war these Germans were subjected to a barrage of propaganda, and themselves become victims of the hoax.
...Not really. Although do some say they only heard about the Holocaust "after the war".
forge thousands of documents in record time without being detected
What documents? As I said above, there are only a few documents revisionists claim to be forged.
and create physical evidence attesting to an annihilation programme
It has been proven that, among over things, the Poles or Soviets created those holes in the Auchwitz Crematoria. Otherwise, there is no physical evidence.
but they even convinced the very people said to be a part of the hoax that it had actually happened.
We don't claim this. The Allies pushed this propoganda, but that was only a few men; everyone else probably truly believed it.
Some deniers posit that the Jews said to have been killed under the Nazi regime actually survived the war, and succeeded in avoiding detection by going to places such as the Soviet Union or the United States. In these countries, the deniers claim, there were already so many Jews that no one noticed a couple of million more.
We have statistically proved this.
Then she talks about- wait for it- gas "buses". The first document she cites, the "Turner document", is dealt with in the new Gas Vans book ( http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/26-tgv.pdf) The "Just" document is also dealt with.
She then talks about the gas chambers at Auchwitz. The various documents she cites have been dealt with many times, see especially Auchwitz: The case for Sanity.
The deniers fail to explain why a door for a delousing chamber or morgue would need a peephole.
We have already explained this for a delousing chamber. Wasn't Morgue 2 planned to be turned into a hygiene center? I believe Mattogno wrote something about this somewhere.
And we don't ignore testimony- we have taken it apart piece by piece, and have proven it to be contradictory and nonsensical.
In February 1943 Auschwitz camp building authorities complained to Topf, the company that built the crematoria equipment, that they needed ventilation blowers 'most urgently'. Why the urgency, if this was an air-raid shelter, morgue, or delousing chamber?
Why if it was a gas chamber, either? Nothing was urgent there- but it was for a morgue, because hundreds were dieying each day and the crematoria needed to work.
Deniers hypothesise that the urgency was a result of official fears that the camp would be hit with a typhus epidemic, which would cause a tremendous spike in the death toll. Without the proper ventilation system, the crematoria would not be able to operate.
I thought the camp had already been hit by a typhus epidemic at this time?
Deniers try to bolster their argument about the typhus by pointing to documents which show that at this point in time the planned monthly incineration rate of Auschwitz had been boosted to 120,000 bodies.
What documents? There are several documents which talk about cremation capacity, but as Mattogno has proven, the crematoria could have cremated about 162,000 bodies- not much more that the monthly incineration rate mentioned here!
The rest of her non-argument falls flat on it's face because of it.
On 6 March 1943, one of the civilian employees working on the construction of Crematorium 2 referred to the air extraction system of 'Auskleidekeller [undressing cellar] 2'. No normal morgue could require an undressing room, particularly one that was 50 yards long. In that same month, there were at least four additional references to Auskleidekeller. It is telling that civilians who, according to the deniers, were in Birkenau to work on underground morgues, repeatedly referred not to morgues but to the ventilation of the 'undressing cellars'.
As Mattogno has shown in the above mentioned Case for Sanity these undressing rooms were undressing rooms for corpses.
In the same letter the employee asked about preheating the areas that would be used as the gas chamber. If these were morgues they should be cooled, not preheated. Heating a gas chamber, on the other hand, would speed the gassing process by more quickly vaporising the gas from the Zyklon B.
Once again, Deborah avoids counter arguments. Among others, Rudolf has shown expert literature says morgues do need some kind of heating.
On the "gas tight doors", as shown in "Dissecting the Holocaust", in the part on the central construction office of Auchwitz, that the alleged gas tight doors were not actually gas tight.
Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.
And again... The photos have obviously been changed, and "what paper"? I believe the paper she is refering to has already been refuted by Mattogno.
There is much additional evidence affirming Auschwitz/Birkenau's role as a killing centre. There is no reputable evidence that affirms the deniers' claims.
Not much to say here.
I haven't read much about the Diary of Anne Frank. It it is genuine, it actually bolsters the "deniers" case, because Anne survives Auchwitz as a child.
David Irving, a man who has written many books on World War Two, a number of which deny the Holocaust.
Not that I can say much, but as far as I know Irving denied that Hitler had any knowledge of the Holocaust. That's it.
Then there is some stuff on the Irving trial, Remember, the trial tackled IRVING'S arguments, and not the other revisionists; the main weapon in the article of Lipstadt, Van Pelt, has been categorically refuted in the aforementioned Case for Sanity.
Holocaust denial is a form of virulent anti-Semitism. But it is not only that. It is also an attack on reasoned inquiry and inconvenient history. If this history can be denied any history can be denied.
That is, any history can be debated and challenged. And that's a good thing. And please, we are not Anti Semites, for the last time.
Holocaust deniers have, thus far, been decidedly unsuccessful in convincing the broader public of their claims
There is a thread in this forum that includes a poll on some Germans, showing some 30 percent of them didn't believe in the Holocaust. Revisionism is growing around the world. Most people just don't want to listen to the menacing "deniers".
although many people worry that after the last of the Holocaust survivors has died (most are now in their 80s) deniers will achieve greater success.
Well, I'm not worried. I am for truth in history, whether it is convenient for survivors or not.
. However, historians, carefully relying on a broad array of documentary and material evidence,
Again: There is no material or documentary evidence? The documents Deborah cites have either been proven to be forgeries, or have non criminal meanings. The material evidence refutes the genocide claims in every aspect.
a small sample of which is mentioned in this article, can and already have demonstrated that Holocaust denial is a tissue of lies.
...A small sample of which have been mentioned in this article, can and already have demonstrated the Holocaust is a tissue of lies.
Well, once again the lies, half truths, mis information and dodging of the believers has been demolished. If I can be bothered I may write a response to the other BBc articles some time.