David Irving and Holocaust Denial

[Norsemaiden]

This is not Holocaust denial - it's the claim that the Jews use the Holocaust to their own ends. This is a totally different thing. This guy says "If the Holocaust didn't happen" - how can you call him a Holocaust denier?

Finkelstein denies that 6 million were killed. How do you define what the Holocaust is and then qualify what counts as denial? No one says Jews were not executed after all.

David Irving is accused of being such a denier yet he says millions were killed, just there was no systematic gassing involved. That's the case with other so called deniers.

Jean Marie Le Pen was convicted of holocaust denial for saying that it was a "detail of history" - after all many millions more were murdered in the Soviet Union by Stalin.

 

[kmik]

One reason neo nazis so universally believe The Holocaust to be a detail of history and a gross exaggeration is that they have come to their views as a direct result of being outraged at the lies told about The Holocaust and the way it has been made into an article of faith.

Also there is the aspect that believing in the Holocaust tale doesn't do (let's take me for example) - it doesn't do me any favours. What it does is tell me that my people are congentitally evil and that Jews are victims that should be allowed all kinds of privileges as a result. Why should I just want to swallow that? There is plenty of expert evidence, not only from historians like David Irving (who even Bomber Harris, who committed the Dresden war crime calls: the only historian I would ever trust) but also from independent experts like Fred Leuchter that things are not the way the establishment claims they are. I should have nothing to lose by being sceptical, but by not being sceptical I stand to be laid with a lot of guilt, (since all people of Germanic origin are collectively guilty according to the Jewish view) to hate people who are more related to me and could well be innocent, and to be forced to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by Jews for fear of being mean to victims, to have certain ideas that seem sensible blackened as being evil (eg eugenics or ethno-nationalism) and so on. And then I ask: who benefits?
Weighing it up - I choose the position that seems the more reasonable from a subjective point of view.

If some American gangsters came up to me and told me my grandmother had machine gunned their family, and that I must pay them compensation, never criticise their criminal activities, and consider my grandmother the epitome of evil I wouldn't be inclined to believe it either. Nor would I be sympathetic.

Nice rhetoric. I will repeat again that moral claims about the Holocaust, the consequences it should have, "the Jewish view" on it, and the historical truth of the matter are totally different things, and yet it seems from reading your post that there's no difference. Almost everything you say is deliberate manipulation it's almost impossible to pick up one thing, but the rhetorical question, for example - "who benefits?": the Americans also benefit from 9/11, yet you don't claim - I hope - it's some sort of conspiracy.

You might also want to know that there was a lot of opposition in Israel to get money from Germany, over 40%. And why the Americans need this? They invented the Holocaust so that they can aid Israel? (Oh, wait, I forgot America, too, is controlled by the Jews!)

If you seriously believe that prejudiced "white nationalists" have found out about the lies and became anti-Semite because of that... well, good luck.

 

[kmik]

Finkelstein denies that 6 million were killed. How do you define what the Holocaust is that one can evaluate the denial of? No one says Jews were not executed after all.

David Irving is accused of being such a denier yet he says millions were killed, just there was no systematic gassing involved. That's the case with other so called deniers.

Jean Marie Le Pen was convicted of holocaust denial for saying that it was a "detail of history" - after all many millions more were murdered in the Soviet Union by Stalin.

Thick line between revisionism and denial. I suppose if it's grossly overestimated it becomes Holocaust denial (less than 2 million?)

I don't know so many of the details about Irving so I can't comment. It's problematic, but if the case is what you say then indeed his treatment was not fair.

The tragedy of the Holocaust is not merely in the death toll; it's the only case in history of a systematic extermination of a race. It is a part of history, that's true, and worthy examination; to call it a "detail" he probably means an "insignificant detail", but it wasn't.

 

[speed]

Thick line between revisionism and denial. I suppose if it's grossly overestimated it becomes Holocaust denial (less than 2 million?)

I don't know so many of the details about Irving so I can't comment. It's problematic, but if the case is what you say then indeed his treatment was not fair.

The tragedy of the Holocaust is not merely in the death toll; it's the only case in history of a systematic extermination of a race. It is a part of history, that's true, and worthy examination; to call it a "detail" he probably means an "insignificant detail", but it wasn't.

Here here kmik. Frankly, I dont understand why it really matters if only 4 million died rather than 6 million. It is this systematic destruction of a intelligent and highly cultured race that is so despicable, any hair splitting is equally offensive.

On the other hand, it shouldnt be against the law to make Irvings claims.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Thick line between revisionism and denial. I suppose if it's grossly overestimated it becomes Holocaust denial (less than 2 million?)

I don't know so many of the details about Irving so I can't comment. It's problematic, but if the case is what you say then indeed his treatment was not fair.

The tragedy of the Holocaust is not merely in the death toll; it's the only case in history of a systematic extermination of a race. It is a part of history, that's true, and worthy examination; to call it a "detail" he probably means an "insignificant detail", but it wasn't.

The Jewish race has been very far from exterminated. There was no intention to genocide them (in the complete sense that the word means) and in fact they were asked if they would accept being resettled in Madagascar. They refused because they wanted Israel. Some Jews lived in the Third Reich and had important positions or were simply left alone - like those mentioned earlier.

There have been no documents showing an intention to genocide the Jews ever found.

However, there is this http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.html

Food for thought.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

The 3.3 million Polish Jews who had lived in Poland for centuries accepted death rather than going to Madagascar because they wanted Israel? Give me a break.

The Madagascar plan relied on using the Royal Navy's ships to export the Jews after England was conquered. The realizations first that the British would not surrender and second that the war effort was doomed led to the implementation of the Final Solution in 1942.

The final solution was very well documented by the Nazi themselves.

This is the Korherr Report which reported methodically reported on the status of the Jews in Europe when the final solution was implemented in 1942.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2097&sid=e1c472e6de9afcd87ee33c811089e651

On top of this there are extensive records of train departures and arrivals, minutes of nazi council meetings and countless witness testimonials.

Hitler, speaking in 1939:
"Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

Goebbels, in a private diary entry 1941:
"Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."

 

[kmik]

The Jewish race has been very far from exterminated. There was no intention to genocide them (in the complete sense that the word means) and in fact they were asked if they would accept being resettled in Madagascar. They refused because they wanted Israel. Some Jews lived in the Third Reich and had important positions or were simply left alone - like those mentioned earlier.

There have been no documents showing an intention to genocide the Jews ever found.

However, there is this http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.html

Food for thought.

There was no intention to genocide the Jews =/= there was no Genocide. There are, like I said, serious historians who deny such a plan.

To speed, it doesn't matter if it's 4 million or 6 million from a "moral" point of view, I'm just saying that at a certain point revisionism and correction becomes denial and claim that evidence is fabricated and the line has to be drawn. Nile is absolutely correct I think in pointing out that the Holocaust is not just a crime against the Jews, it is rooted in a very twisted belief that the world can be "fixed", like a machine, that you can start categorizing people like cattle, etc. And it has also nothing to do with the Jews being a "good" or "bad" race.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The 3.3 million Polish Jews who had lived in Poland for centuries accepted death rather than going to Madagascar because they wanted Israel? Give me a break.

The Madagascar plan relied on using the Royal Navy's ships to export the Jews after England was conquered. The realizations first that the British would not surrender and second that the war effort was doomed led to the implementation of the Final Solution in 1942.

The final solution was very well documented by the Nazi themselves.

This is the Korherr Report which reported methodically reported on the status of the Jews in Europe when the final solution was implemented in 1942.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2097&sid=e1c472e6de9afcd87ee33c811089e651

On top of this there are extensive records of train departures and arrivals, minutes of nazi council meetings and countless witness testimonials.

Hitler, speaking in 1939:
"Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

Goebbels, in a private diary entry 1941:
"Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."

Indeed it makes no sense to choose death rather than going to Madagascar if that is the choice.
Why didn't the Jews get wiped out? There are plenty of explanations of why it would have been physically impossible to have incinerated so many. The ashes have never been found also.

"Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

Yes, so first the Bolshevization of the world, and the Jewish victory, and THEN the annihilation of the Jewish race. He said also that it would mean the end of the world for everyone if they should succeed. And that means themselves included.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Indeed it makes no sense to choose death rather than going to Madagascar if that is the choice.
Why didn't the Jews get wiped out? There are plenty of explanations of why it would have been physically impossible to have incinerated so many. The ashes have never been found also.

Firstly you ask why the all of the Jews were not killed, then point out the logistical difficulty of elminating a disperate population. The Nazis brought the full brunt of modern beurocracy and industrial efficiency to bear on the undesirables of the population. I have to admit, "where are the ashes?" is one of the more novel revisionist arguments I've heard. I've always heard that the ashes were flushed into ponds near the crematoria.

Yes, so first the Bolshevization of the world, and the Jewish victory, and THEN the annihilation of the Jewish race. He said also that it would mean the end of the world for everyone if they should succeed. And that means themselves included.

Read that again, "it will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes I did read that exerpt from an alleged speech by Hitler wrong. It actually sounds very similar to something he wrote in Mein Kampf that said that the victory of the Jews would be the funeral wreath of mankind.



Perhaps the text of that speech is falsified, as Hitler's speeches have been (and Hitler's diary also).
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/hitler-quote-documents.htm

1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain paper by an unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech' although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date. There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries:

Here's another Jew who is debunking myths about the Holocaust:

The more I learn about the truth, the more I get infuriated at the demonization of the Germans and at the insanity of the Zionist Holocaust Industry. Most of the world is in the dark about so many things.....The Holocaust Hoax is ultimately a gross disservice to the Jewish People ourselves........As I keep telling people....we should be GRATEFUL to the revisionists, not be angry at all!!! What a world........ I hope that revisionist historians realize they are doing the Jewish People a great favor in showing us we didn't lose the numbers that were foisted on us, including the totally unwarranted demonization of the Germans......and once Zionism is a thing of the past the Holocaust Industry will go out of business. The more I think about the implications of all of the lies and exaggerations, the more upset I get.

http://www.cwporter.com/orth.htm

Scroll down a little way and see what he says about the ashes.

 

[The Black Prince]

The Holocaust, like any name-brand historical 'event,' has long since been co-opted as an empty icon. It is, in the essence of contemporary usage, something completely unreal in that it exists in the consciousness of men as nothing more than whatever symbolic projection they choose to make it, with little concern for the flesh and blood reality of historical occurrence. There seems to be a Heideggerian slant to this forum, so I'll leave you with a quick thought of mine:

A hammer is a hammer because it is used for hammering. A Holocaust is a Holocaust because it is used to moralize. Here, as everywhere else.

 

[kmik]

Every historical event turns into an icon. This is more apparent in the post modern age, and the best example is, of course, the war on terror, which is a symbolic entity that can doesn't "exist" in the conventional sense. 9/11 likewise has much boarder symbolic implications than actual implications; the image of the collapse is more significant than the collapse itself. To use your analogy, a hammer is a hammer because it is used for hammering, 9/11 is 9/11 because it is used to "fight terror". There are the facts and there is the narrative. The French Revolution isn't "real", there are accepted facts, we turn them into the narrative. History must be reduced to something, it's an ocean of infinite information.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Mostly you're right there Kmik, except not every historical event is turned into an icon, only those that serve the powers in charge at the time.

Good observations Black Prince btw.

 

[OldScratch]

Every historical event turns into an icon. This is more apparent in the post modern age, and the best example is, of course, the war on terror, which is a symbolic entity that can doesn't "exist" in the conventional sense. 9/11 likewise has much boarder symbolic implications than actual implications; the image of the collapse is more significant than the collapse itself. To use your analogy, a hammer is a hammer because it is used for hammering, 9/11 is 9/11 because it is used to "fight terror". There are the facts and there is the narrative. The French Revolution isn't "real", there are accepted facts, we turn them into the narrative. History must be reduced to something, it's an ocean of infinite information.

Ouite right. Yet the problem with this "revisionism" issue is that this is one part of that aforementioned ocean that cannot be waded into, lest one be flung into a jail-cell for daring to swim therein! The idea that such inquiries mustn't be made because they may or may not aid some sort of "neo-Nazi" agenda or implicitly spread "hate" is the most flimsy and vulgar of rationales for prohibition. In this case the "facts" are not only irrelevant, but likely illegal, even under the most benign investigation - only the narrative matters...and only the narrative is allowed by law to matter. I know of no other historical event in western history that is dealt with in this fashion.

 

[kmik]

Mostly you're right there Kmik, except not every historical event is turned into an icon, only those that serve the powers in charge at the time.

Good observations Black Prince btw.

Not true at all. It's impossible not to reduce historical events into symbols, because there are infinitely many events. What is the French Revolution? "If there's no bread, let them eat cake"? Guillotine? Napoleon? That famous painting? Facts can be reinterpreted in different historical narratives; the French Revolution didn't "occur", in principle. It is also an "empty icon" (still the reality of the French Revolution can be, in a sense, disputed in the same sense that Casus Belli is not always accepted. Holocaust denial, well, denies facts...)

The danger is that the signifier becomes more important than the signified, or that there is no signified at all. You see that this guy defines the Holocaust based on its supposed usage as an icon; I don't know how many times I said that even if it is cynically used for profit or license to kill Arabs the truth of the matter is a different thing (novelist Jose Saramago siad something like this in an interview)

 

[kmik]

I was on phone while I typed that so I didn't notice your reply. I already said that I'm against laws against holocaust denial.

BTW - I don't think a hammer is a hammer because it is used for hammering. Hammering discloses the Being of a hammer. In fact to say that something is defined by function is the reverse of what Heidegger sought to achieve, no? You can hammer with everything but it still won't be a hammer because in the hammer lies all sorts of other possibilities

 

[Norsemaiden]

Synopsis
More than nine million Germans died as a result of deliberate Allied starvation and expulsion policies after the Second World War - one quarter of the country was annexed, and about fifteen million people expelled in the largest act of ethnic cleansing the world has ever known. Western governments continue to conceal and deny these deaths. At the same time, Herbert Hoover and Canadian Prime Minister MacKenzie King created the largest charity in history, a food-aid program that saved an estimated 800 million lives during three years of global struggle against post-Second World War famine - a program the German people were initially excluded from as a matter of official Allied policy. Revised and updated for this new edition, "Crimes and Mercies" was first published by Little, Brown in the UK in 1997, becoming an immediate best seller.

[ame]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crimes-Mercies-Civilians-Occupation-1944-1950/dp/0889225672/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205331617&sr=8-1[/ame]

I don't understand how the Germans can be so relaxed after recent history like that - and the biggest mass rape in history included. I think perhaps such horrors induce a state of mental denial. It is hard enough for me to imagine the magnitude and how the allies could have done that.

 

[TheAnonymous]

I can't see how it can be denied that there was a predetermined extermination of a race. From the start Hitler and the Nazis planned for the Jewish race to die, whether directly (gas chambers, etc) or non (or less) directly from starvation, overworking, etc. Reading the facts in books is one thing, and is important, but as a Jew living in Israel I can tell you that I have heard many Holocaust victims talking about what they went through, and it's apalling. The conditions were so horrible that the Nazis (thinking they would win the war and continue the Holocaust many more years) couldn't poissibly think any Jew would survive. Is there any difference between that and putting a bullet in their head (which they also did)?
The Holocaust is the biggest atrocity mankind has ever known, and facts and figures won't ever be able to change that
And about the compensation matter, then yes, Germany has a duty to pay those it has harmed. People were scarred for life by the Nazis and the only one whose duty is to compensate them is Germany. Personally however I salute the German government for taking that stance, that they have taken the responsibility for their past action, and I could not possibly blame the German people (today) for what has happened in the past.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The Jewish race was far from exterminated. Germans, on the other hand, seem unlikely to survive the end of this century. And it didn't help that millions of them were herded into open fields without shelter or food after the war by the allies and starved to death in the most inhumane of conditions.

I don't say Jews didn't die - but I do say, let's put things in a realistic context.

And don't forget some Jews find the holocaust to be exaggerated in a scary way
http://www.cwporter.com/orth.htm
If I were a Jew I would not want to be lied to

 

[kmik]

It's on the internet, therefore it's true.

And what makes you think that Germans won't survive by the end of the century? And if that's true, how is that relevant?

PS - I'm just wondering - are there any other conspiracies except for the Holocaust in history that we should know about? I'm just curious.