Controversial Historian Ursula Haverbeck (the 'Nazi Grandma')

[loungelizard]

Are people here actually saying that they believe the laws preventing genocide denial in a few countries exist in order to stifle 'the truth'? That no one in the world, not even in the countries where Holocaust denial is mandatory - can find out 'the truth' because of a ban in 13 European countries on publicly denying acts of genocide? What about the other 183 countries who don't have such a law? Do they know 'the truth'? And if not, why not?

That makes no sense:

1 Who is behind this effort to stifle 'the truth'? Is it the Romani people: are they trying to hide the truth that half a million of them were murdered during the Holocaust? Or perhaps the homosexuals - were 15,000 not murdered? Or maybe the Slavs, who were said to have been murdered in their millions? What about those with disabilities? Nearly 300,000 of them were murdered by the Nazis. Or is it the Jehovah's Witnesses, 5,000 of whom were also victims? You may think it's the Catholic church, as thousands of priests were murdered. Or perhaps it was the Freemasons, and 100,000 of them were not in fact murdered. What about the Spanish Republicans? Or the Russian? Or maybe the Jews?

2 Why is there only a handful of countries worldwide who have such laws? If there is so much fear of this 'truth' getting out, the only way that would work if very single country in the world criminalised denial. Truth doesn't stop at geographical boundaries. Indeed, there are some countries where the only account of the Holocaust is that of denial that it ever happened – surely 'the truth' is available there. So, what is this 'truth' that you're saying is being hidden? The internet is not censored in this regard. I'd love to know what it is.

3 It makes sense for the perpetrators of genocide to try to deny their actions: think of the Sudanese government for example. In this case, however, Germany has some of the most stringent laws regarding Holocaust denial. Why do you think that is?

5 Most of these laws did not come into force until the 1990s. Why didn't what you are calling 'the truth' leak out in the 50 years since the end of WW2?

6 We are talking atrocities and crimes against humanity that are the best documented in history. The level of evidence – written, filmed, recorded and photographed: artefacts, personal statements, eyewitness statements, testimonies – is meticulous and unprecedented and all is publicly available. So are you really saying there is another source of evidence hidden away somewhere that will negate all the mountains of proof already archived?


If indeed there was a plot to silence the truth of the Holocaust, this would be a far more effective way to do it....

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4V4bmm6yJMw

[loungelizard]

Posted by bsbray (here)

Let's say that a new study was done of data that had not been looked at in any depth before, but it reveals that actually more people may have died during the Holocaust than originally thought. If this is published, will it be censored? Probably not, but this is a conceivably scenario.

Now let's say that the same study looks at this previously unscrutinized data and, instead, it shows that there were actually some significant number less people killed during the Holocaust. Of course the Holocaust would still be a tragedy, but the known facts of the situation would be adjusted some for historians. But no, this would be illegal under law.

Inciting riots would be one thing, but to ban this type of discussion even within academia, and its apparent blanket application to ban unrelated materials (from "no questions"), just shows the true intent of this kind of law. It is exactly what someone like George Orwell would expect.

In his Ministry of Truth, George Orwell was actually warning us of the dangers of the rewriting and manipulation of recorded history. Of changing the facts to fit a chosen political agenda or ideology. Of the inversion of truth to confuse and obscure. That sums up those who deny genocide perfectly.

The suggestion that anyone who revises conclusions following the discovery of new evidence is doing something illegal is very odd: those who make a profession of studying history are constantly revising their conclusions based on newly interpreted evidence – it's part of the job description! Nothing is written in tablets of stone, and there is no one “party line” to which all historians adhere. In fact, few ares of knowledge are as open to controversy as history! Understanding is always being refined and adjusted, but to deny the event itself in the face of irrefutable evidence is to step over the line into a belief system and not evidence-based objectivity.

Denialism is not revisionism. Denialism is the rejection of all known, established historical evidence for reasons of ideology and/or politics.

[Deega]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
@ Deega: I apologise if it seems I'm smothering your thread - we have a really bad internet connection here, and can only get online a few times every day. So I have to take advantage of those moments to post all my thoughts in one go.

Denial of genocide and crimes against humanity is not a noble pursuit undertaken by brave whistle-blowing, truth-speaking warriors. Whether it refers to crimes committed in Rwanda, Armenia, Darfu, Ukraine, the Balkans, the Soviet Union, Equatorial Guinea, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Iraq, Japan, Cambodia, Burundi, China, Namibia, Turkey, Guatemala, Indonesia, the Congo, occupied Europe (this list is not exhaustive)....the tactics are universal, and the aim is to always to absolve the perpetrator of any guilt and criminal actions by throwing up a murky smokescreen of denial.

No mass murder means there are no mass murderers. The objective is to make the perpetrators appear innocent and the victims, guilty.

For the record, I don't think it's a good idea that countries legislate against genocide denial: I think it's self defeating. Freedom of speech is a wonderful ideal, and I have great respect for the countries in the world who have made the difficult decision to uphold freedom of speech above everything else; I'm fortunate enough to live in such a country.

But its important to try to understand the decision taken by a few countries – many of which were directly involved in or affected by the perpetrated atrocities of the National Socialist Party and/or Communism – to attempt to deal with hate crime through legislation. If free speech is silencing voices and historical fact – and has the potential to incite violence – should it still be free?

If we are going to refer to the laws on holocaust denial, it seems right that we should read those laws first. If we do actually read them, we won't find anything about criminalising discussion.  Nothing about criminalising questioning...nothing about criminalising research and investigation...nothing about sharing and disseminating evidence...nothing about criminalising privately expressed opinions...

In European countries, the word Holocaust doesn't even appear in these laws. “Crimes against humanity” and “genocide” do.

No problem Lounglizard, you have something important to say, Avalon Members of different worlds, different mindsets, different cultures mingled here, so there a lot of very interesting material shared, so yours also.

A few comments on this posts -

Denial of genocide and crimes against humanity is not a noble pursuit undertaken by brave whistle-blowing, truth-speaking warriors.

Yes, I'm in the bandwagon with you on this observation.

The objective is to make the perpetrators appear innocent and the victims, guilty.

Is there a race more likely to do this than others? or every Nations may market their Nation using such a twisted scenario!

For the record, I don't think it's a good idea that countries legislate against genocide denial: I think it's self defeating. Freedom of speech is a wonderful ideal, and I have great respect for the countries in the world who have made the difficult decision to uphold freedom of speech above everything else; I'm fortunate enough to live in such a country.

Great, same with many here, aren't we lucky?, I think so!

If free speech is silencing voices and historical fact – and has the potential to incite violence – should it still be free?

I live in Canada, my Prime Minister try to silence Scientist discoveries, but he will pay the price next election hopefully. IMHO, Free Speech is magnanimity in respect to life, to people, without it, it's the opposite. And yes, it should be free, it takes courage, it takes positive intents, it takes honour, wisdom.

Tell me Lounglizard, why is it that many people have been prosecuted in the like of Zundel, Haverbeck, Wise, other for taking step in Holocaust denial?, so there is a Law if there is prosecution!

Blessing to you!

[Deega]

Hey thanks again Loungelizard, who ''stifle'' the Truth on Holocaust Denial? From what I have read, it seems that the Financial World (Banks, international financiers) financed the 1st - 2nd WW, and who is behind the Banking Systems, you have the answer.

Other countries don't have such a law because, they're not important to the Financial World, otherwise, they would have one.

So, what is this 'truth' that you're saying is being hidden? The internet is not censored in this regard. I'd love to know what it is.

Another side of the Story may be interesting for the ''losers'' to appreciate don't you think? And yes, the Internet show something but the Germans and other Nations under the Law wouldn't sanctioned it!

It makes sense for the perpetrators of genocide to try to deny their actions: think of the Sudanese government for example. In this case, however, Germany has some of the most stringent laws regarding Holocaust denial. Why do you think that is?

Very interesting interrogation, like it! Would it be plausible that the German Government was under the guided hand of the Financial World, I would think so, but it's only my thinking!

As you know, the Victors tell the story, yes, tons of documents were edited, run, but I have never heard the other side of the Story, and now, it begins to surface, Mrs Haverbeck, M. Dennis Wise, and others will come along. When a Nation forbid Historical Facts for his people, after a while, it gets back to be known. As we have read, heard over the year, ''The Truth isn't afraid of Investigation''.


Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few.
George Berkeley

Blessing to you!

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
In his Ministry of Truth, George Orwell was actually warning us of the dangers of the rewriting and manipulation of recorded history. Of changing the facts to fit a chosen political agenda or ideology. Of the inversion of truth to confuse and obscure. That sums up those who deny genocide perfectly.

I'm not talking about denying genocide. I'm talking about making it illegal to even discuss the facts of the matter in an academic setting. That is very Orwellian.

The suggestion that anyone who revises conclusions following the discovery of new evidence is doing something illegal is very odd: those who make a profession of studying history are constantly revising their conclusions based on newly interpreted evidence – it's part of the job description! Nothing is written in tablets of stone, and there is no one “party line” to which all historians adhere. In fact, few ares of knowledge are as open to controversy as history! Understanding is always being refined and adjusted, but to deny the event itself in the face of irrefutable evidence is to step over the line into a belief system and not evidence-based objectivity.

The facts and figures of the Holocaust are only irrefutable because it is literally illegal to refute them in many European countries.

In America it is not illegal to discuss the subject. I have approached it with an open mind and what the old woman in the video above says seems to have a lot of merit. You can suppose that she is lying when she says she wrote those various organizations and received no response, but for me this is not at all surprising because the Auschwitz facility was not capable in a technical sense of destroying as many bodies as have been claimed. Lots of people died there, that is undeniable. But the thing that many historians seem to be questioning (where it is legally allowed, remember) is the exact number and nature of the casualties. You can ask what is the point of this, but it is exactly the kind of thing historians study in any case.

Denialism is not revisionism. Denialism is the rejection of all known, established historical evidence for reasons of ideology and/or politics.

You can make up as many -isms as you want and apply them to whoever you want. Words are inherently meaningless until we give them meaning, and the meaning you are giving them seems very emotionally charged.

I am only interested in two things on this subject: freedom and truth. It's important to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press to discuss academic issues in academic settings, at the very least in this case, and we should all be concerned with finding the truth. I very seriously doubt that you have even considered the other side of the argument from the way that your words are charged.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

WW2 is a much more complex situation in general than what people are typically taught in their history classes. There is lots of context, subtext, and facts and figures that do not make it into the typical narrative of the situation.

To begin with, while the Nazis and fascists were doing lots of terrible things in many respects, the "Allies" were doing a lot of the same thing. In America we rounded up all of the Japanese and put them into detainment camps for years. Prisoners of war, men, women and children, simply for being Japanese. We didn't make it a policy to kill them, but still it is a serious human rights violation. Also in Europe, the British and American bombers destroyed many German cities, killing millions of civilians. I believe it was Hamburg that was intentionally set on fire, destroying manufacturing and residential areas of the city, and just generally destroying it and killing many of its inhabitants indiscriminately. This was not isolated to Hamburg but happened in many cases.

What the Soviets did was even worse than what the Nazis did. Stalin had something on the order of 20 million of his own citizens killed, which is over three times the 6 million figure typically cited for the Holocaust. You will notice that there are no laws against challenging this, and as a matter of fact the British government refused to even acknowledge that this definitely happened for many years. When the Soviets "liberated" the Poles, they ended up killing even more of them, as well, as they did not actually liberate anyone but just set up a puppet government. The Soviet soldiers were also encouraged to rape and murder all the German citizens they wanted, as well as citizens of the Baltic states, as they marched across northern Europe. Millions of civilians were killed from this as well, including some of the most gruesome stories I have ever read from WW2.

Soviet veterans later admitted they had a saying, "from 8 to 80." This meant to them that anyone between the ages of 8 and 80 years old was free to be raped and murdered. Many Baltic and German women were gang-raped and then crucified or nailed to buildings naked. Again, this was not just isolated incidents, but condoned by Soviet officers as the "spoils of war" that their soldiers deserved from the German people.

It's not illegal to dispute that, and in fact this is very little taught and is not known by most people. Because of what we are told the Nazis did, all sympathy for German civilians seems to be lost (despite the fact that not all Germans were Nazis by any means), and so no one cares about these things. Plus the Soviet Union was our ally so we should be thankful for what they did for us, right?

If you really think about these things in a balanced way, it is pretty readily apparent that there is a severe imbalance in what people tend to focus on when we think of human tragedies during WW2. This is without even mentioning the Pacific Theater, which had horrors of its own that also matched the Holocaust, all of which are free to question. The Japanese also killed more civilians than are usually attributed to the Holocaust, but again this has not been politicized, is not illegal to question and is not even generally memorialized in the West. The Japanese are estimated to have killed between 4 and 12 million people in China alone, depending on who you ask.


So just to reiterate it again. These things are not even much remembered anymore, despite being in some cases worse than the Holocaust itself in terms of numbers and a policy of genocide.

Only the Holocaust is still emotionally charged, extremely politicized (meaning it is still used for political arguments in the modern world), and it is only illegal to question the so-called facts about the Holocaust.

For people to get as emotionally worked up at the Holocaust makes me feel sick honestly, because of all of these other tragedies that they turn their noses at and forget about in 5 minutes. These people getting all worked up don't give a damn about human tragedies. They are just acting how they believe is socially acceptable in their culture. It is a knee-jerk reaction based on social conditioning and that is all.

[Violet]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
In European countries, the word Holocaust doesn't even appear in these laws. “Crimes against humanity” and “genocide” do.

Excerpt from the Belgian law of 23 March 1995 with regard to this subject:

Wet van 23 maart 1995 tot bestraffing van het ontkennen, minimaliseren, rechtvaardigen of goedkeuren van de genocide die tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog door het Duitse nationaal-socialistische regime is gepleegd (BS, 30.III.1995) - en: 7 mei 1999 (BS, 25.VI.99) en 17 augustus 2013 (BS, 5.III.2014).

full law: http://www.diversiteit.be/wet-van-23...goedkeuren-van (in Dutch)


translated bold part: the genocide committed during WW2 by the German national-socialist regime.

There are cases where people don't deny the event but doubt the number of victims. That also falls under negationism.

[loungelizard]

Posted by bsbray (here)
... but for me this is not at all surprising because the Auschwitz facility was not capable in a technical sense of destroying as many bodies as have been claimed. Lots of people died there, that is undeniable.

Interesting choice of word...'casualties'. Why not 'victims' I wonder?

Are you referring here to the gas chambers and crematoria? If so, evidence for your claim please - from sources other than Faurisson or Leuchter! Oh, and I'd be grateful if you could check first on this thread as I and others have already spent a lot of time replying to such claims and it's pointless to duplicate information (I presume you're familiar with PRATT? Point Refuted A Thousand Times... ;-) ) https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ghlight=Hitler

If Auschwitz-Birkenau had no gas chambers/crematoria, what do you consider made former SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch give an interview on Swedish television in 1981, where he said of Auschwitz:
“I wasn't confronted with extermination directly until the order came that I had to take part in the exterminations since the camp's doctors were overloaded and couldn't cope with it. “Special treatment" in the terminology of the concentration camp means physical extermination.”


I know if I quote Rudolf Hoess's admission of guilt, there could be claim that it was coerced (although he knew he was a dead man, so why would he bother admitting to something he hadn't done? Surely he would have taken the opportunity to deny everything.) but I'll do it anyway:

“Mass executions by gassing commenced during the summer of 1941 and continued until fall 1944. 1 personally supervised executions at Auschwitz until first of December 1943 and know by reason of my continued duties in the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, WVHA, that these mass executions continued as stated above. All mass executions by gassing took place under the direct order, supervision, and responsibility of RSHA (the Gestapo). I received all orders for carrying out these mass executions directly from RSHA....
Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chamber to accommodate 2,000 people at one time whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each.”

Why would Himmler, in his Posnan speech in October 1943 speech, say “I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people.
It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."

Why has Oskar Groening, the 'book keeper of Auschwitz” who is on trial at the moment, testified that he was aware of and involved in the deaths – by Zyklon B – of 300,000 Hungarian Jews at Auschwitz?

Have you read the minutes of the Wannsee conference where the Nazi leadership initiated the plan to annihilate European Jewry?

The 5 to 6 million figure was referred to by SS officers themselves:
SS officer Wilhelm Hoettl at Nuremberg, 1945: "Approximately 4 million Jews had been killed in the various concentration camps, while an additional 2 million met death in other ways, the major part of which were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia. "

Dieter Wisliceny, SS man and assistant to Adolph Eichmann, testified before the Nuremberg tribunal: "He [Eichmann] said to me on the occasion of our last meeting in February 1945, at which time we were discussing our fates upon losing the war: "I laugh when I jump into the grave because of the feeling that I have killed 5,000,000 Jews. That gives me great satisfaction and gratification."

I could go on...

[loungelizard]

Posted by bsbray (here)
Only the Holocaust is still emotionally charged, extremely politicized (meaning it is still used for political arguments in the modern world)

I understand your point here - but this doesn't mean the events of the Holocaust are not true.

Posted by bsbray (here)
For people to get as emotionally worked up at the Holocaust makes me feel sick honestly,

It's clear from this statement that, for some reason, you are extremely emotionally involved in this narrative. This will – and has - clouded your judgement.

Posted by bsbray (here)
..because of all of these other tragedies that they turn their noses at and forget about in 5 minutes.

It's possible that you have a culture-centric view of the world; it may be true in the US it's not true everywhere.

Posted by bsbray (here)
These people getting all worked up don't give a damn about human tragedies. They are just acting how they believe is socially acceptable in their culture. It is a knee-jerk reaction based on social conditioning and that is all.

That is an intensely condemnatory statement that is dismissive of so many and speaks volumes about the writer. What exactly do you consider makes you qualified to pass judgement on millions of people in such a way? How can you possibly claim to know their motives and feelings?

[loungelizard]

@bsbray

In post 26, you're using moral equivalency:
B happened, and is worse than A.
Therefore A is justified.

Such an approach is fundamentally flawed: the existence of other horrible crimes do not negate the one under discussion. No one with any understanding would claim that The Holocaust is the largest mass murder in history – or even in the last century. Neither does anyone think it is the only crime against humanity during World War II.

But it is irrational to set the bar of what makes something wrong at the worst possible atrocity, as doing so would justify all other actions except the one that is judged to be the worst at any given moment:

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
I understand your point here - but this doesn't mean the events of the Holocaust are not true.

Doesn't mean that they are either, so this is a moot point.

It's clear from this statement that, for some reason, you are extremely emotionally involved in this narrative. This will – and has - clouded your judgement.

Lay out what I have said so far that you want to dispute and we can do so, and you can see how level-headed we both can be, despite the fact that I am disgusted with people who cry about one tragedy when it's socially acceptable, and ignore the rest when that's also socially acceptable. Just because I recognize this does not mean that I cannot also reason with you at the same time. I find it unreasonable that anyone would not have this reaction.

Posted by bsbray (here)
..because of all of these other tragedies that they turn their noses at and forget about in 5 minutes.

It's possible that you have a culture-centric view of the world; it may be true in the US it's not true everywhere.

I know enough about European culture to know how much of an institution the Holocaust is there, while other genocides are not. Remember it is not in the US that it's illegal to even debate the facts of the matter. It's in Europe where this is the case, and the "official story" is enforced by law while other genocides do not receive the same privilege, despite being equally the product of racial and political hatred.

Posted by bsbray (here)
These people getting all worked up don't give a damn about human tragedies. They are just acting how they believe is socially acceptable in their culture. It is a knee-jerk reaction based on social conditioning and that is all.

That is an intensely condemnatory statement that is dismissive of so many and speaks volumes about the writer. What exactly do you consider makes you qualified to pass judgement on millions of people in such a way? How can you possibly claim to know their motives and feelings?

It's very simple. Millions of people conform to what is socially acceptable. Why are most people Christian in a Christian nation, and most people Muslim in a Muslim nation? Because people living in those geographic locations are persuaded by the topography in different ways, or religion is a genetic inheritance? Of course not. They are just conforming to what is socially acceptable in their society.

I live in western society. I know what it's like. I know how people are forced into false political dichotomies as if they have no other options. And I know how the Holocaust is marketed for political reasons. Don't act like this is just something that happens in America and not in Europe because I am not nearly so stupid as to believe that.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
@bsbray
In post 26, you're using moral equivalency:
B happened, and is worse than A.
Therefore A is justified.

I cannot find where I made any such argument.

Can you please quote directly from me where I say that "A" is justified?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
Are you referring here to the gas chambers and crematoria? If so, evidence for your claim please - from sources other than Faurisson or Leuchter!

I don't even know who those people are, but you're not afraid of them are you?

PRATT is also known as the "old news" logical fallacy. It's also something that paid disinformants have used for years. You don't have to believe me on that, of course, and I'm not going to bother to prove it because it is not worth the effort. The important point that is provable, is that yes, "old news" is a logical fallacy.

If Auschwitz-Birkenau had no gas chambers/crematoria

Please quote from me where I have made this claim.

It is going to be difficult to have a point-by-point discussion with you if you don't know what I actually posted. Yes, I'm sure you could go on, and on, but maybe we should focus on not twisting what I say first of all.

[Deega]

Hmm!, so many unrelated numbers (link below), it look like it ain't possible to have a ''true'' number of victims corresponding to Holocaust, I guess sharing information may bring another light on the subject. And here is the work of French Jewess Olga Wormser-Migot.

In 1968, the French Jewess Olga Wormser-Migot wrote a book on the National Socialist concentration camps (45) which is considered standard today; in it, she states:
"Auschwitz I... which was to remain the model camp and simultaneously the administrative centre -- had no gas chamber."

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/hoh/chap5.html


Blessing to everyone.

[loungelizard]

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by loungelizard (here)
I understand your point here - but this doesn't mean the events of the Holocaust are not true.

Doesn't mean that they are either, so this is a moot point.

We know the events of the Holocaust are true not because of the people who make you "sick" by speaking about it, but because they are proven by physical evidence. Millions and millions of pieces of physical evidence. That is how we know what happened. Simple.

I do not deny that there are those who have exploited, are exploiting and will exploit events in history to their own ends.

Incidentally, commemoration of other atrocities is not forbidden. Isn't it within all our powers to bring attention to all these other atrocities if we feel they are under reported? And to stand up to those who insist – when the evidence proves otherwise - on denying them.

I do wish we could actually get down to looking at the events themselves rather than playing these word games.

It's clear from this statement that, for some reason, you are extremely emotionally involved in this narrative. This will – and has - clouded your judgement.

Lay out what I have said so far that you want to dispute and we can do so, and you can see how level-headed we both can be, despite the fact that I am disgusted with people who cry about one tragedy when it's socially acceptable, and ignore the rest when that's also socially acceptable. Just because I recognize this does not mean that I cannot also reason with you at the same time. I find it unreasonable that anyone would not have this reaction.

Apologies for seeming to be difficult, I'm not sure what it is that you have said so far about the Holocaust.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by loungelizard (here)
@bsbray
In post 26, you're using moral equivalency:
B happened, and is worse than A.
Therefore A is justified.

I cannot find where I made any such argument.

Can you please quote directly from me where I say that "A" is justified?

Again, you're going for the distraction of nitpicky semantics rather than tackling content (as Michael Philips wrote: “If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. “)

If one action is held to be worse than another, the first action is trivialised and is therefore - by implication - not as important.


You wrote:

“What the Soviets did was even worse than what the Nazis did.”

“the "Allies" were doing a lot of the same thing.”

“These things are not even much remembered anymore, despite being in some cases worse than the Holocaust itself in terms of numbers and a policy of genocide."

“The Japanese also killed more civilians than are usually attributed to the Holocaust,”


I'm no philosopher but I think we are bordering on the tu quoque fallacy here

[loungelizard]

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by loungelizard (here)
Are you referring here to the gas chambers and crematoria? If so, evidence for your claim please - from sources other than Faurisson or Leuchter!

I don't even know who those people are, but you're not afraid of them are you?

Sorry? You haven't heard of Faurisson and Leuchter? And you weren't sufficiently curious to look them up? I'm (almost ) speechless! I did wonder how serious your interest was, and how extensive your research into this area of history when you weren't familiar with Haverbeck, and were not aware that Oskar Groening, the accountant of Auschwitz, is currently on trial.

In your post 10, you asked, “How would you know what evidence there isn't on both sides of the debate?” If you haven't heard of Faurisson and Leuchter, I need to ask you the same question now. Otherwise, there is no point in trying to discuss anything here.


It is going to be difficult to have a point-by-point discussion with you if you don't know what I actually posted. Yes, I'm sure you could go on, and on, but maybe we should focus on not twisting what I say first of all.

I'm afraid that it's going to be difficult to undertake a point-by-point discussion – not because I'm unable to respond to your assertions, or don't wish to refute your claims - but because of the slippery semantics game that you are playing in order to avoid actually looking at real historical issues.
I'd like to make clear here that I have no intention of continuing this game because it's pointless and it's a distraction.

But I would be delighted to engage in examining material in greater detail if you're interested in undertaking serious discussion. You are (I hope!) clear about my position the subject of the Holocaust. If we are to debate, I'd appreciate the same honesty from you in return as you haven't yet made your views clear. Do you have a problem with the established narrative of the Holocaust, and if so, could you be specific?

Also, out of respect for Deega, perhaps we could investigate the claims made by Ursula Haverbeck in the OP – I can't watch the video due to terrible internet connection, but you could put forward a synopsis of her ideas and we could go from there. Providing we respect PRATT.

[Rocky_Shorz]

Posted by syrwong (here)
This is an unbelievable event. Any confirmation of it from other sources?

"Auschwitz Museum Director
Reveals 'Gas Chamber' Hoax
By P. Samuel Foner
The Spotlight
Volume XIX, Number 2
5-31-4


In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum admitted on camera that 'Krema 1,' the alleged 'homicidal gas chamber' shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union -apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin.

What Piper said - in effect and on camera - was that the explosive 1988 Leuchter Report was correct: no homicidal gassings took place in the buildings designated as 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz.

With this admission by none other than the respected head of the Auschwitz State Museum, one of the most sacred 'facts' of history has been destroyed. This 'gas chamber' is the major historical 'fact' on which much of the foreign and domestic policies of all Western nations since WWII are based.

It is the basis for the $100+ billion in foreign aid the United States has poured into the state of Israel since its inception in 1948 - amounting to $16,500 for every man, woman and child in the Jewish state and billions more paid by Germany in 'reparations' - not to mention the constructing of Israel's national telephone, electrical and rail systems...all gifts of the German people. It is the basis for the $10 billion 'loan' (read 'gift') made to Israel for housing its immigrants in the occupied territories...while Americans sleep on the streets and businesses are bankrupted by the thousands. (Note - As of 2004, not a single 'loan' of US tax money made to the state of Israel by Washington has ever been paid back. -ed)

Germany is paying 'reparations' - the the United States is making major contributions - to atone for the 'gassings at Auschwitz' and elsewhere. If the 'homicidal gas chambers' were postwar creations of the Soviets, in which no one was gassed regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin, then these 'reparations' were unnecessary, and were based on fraud.

The videotape on which Dr. Piper makes his revelations was made in mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole and follows 12 years of intensive investigation by dozens of historians, journalists and scientists who have tried to get to the bottom of what really happened at Auschwitz.

Like most Americans, since his youth, Cole had been instructed in the 'irrefutable fact' that mass homicidal gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. The number of those executed - also declared irrefutable - was 4.1 million.

Then came the Leuchter Report in 1988 which was followed with an official 're-evaluation' of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.1 million). As a budding historian - and a Jew - Cole was intrigued.

Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted or questioned the official 4.1 millon 'gassing' deaths at Auschwitz was labeled an anti-semite, neo-nazi skinhead at the very least. Quietly, because of revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.1 million. No mention was made of the missing 3 million.

The Cole videotape interview proves that the people who run the Auschwitz State Museum had made a practice of fabricating 'proofs' of homicidal gassings. Keep in mind that over the years millions of tourists have been told that 'Krema 1' is in its original state, while officials knew that 'original state' is a ie.

The political, religious, fiancial and historical ramifications of this proof of no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz cannot be measured. Coupled with the Leuchter Report, the Cole interview with Dr. Piper on videotape proves that what Western governments have taught about the Auschwitz gas chamber since WWII is a lie. It proves that what televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been telling their flocks is simply not true.

No one, regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin was gassed to death in any building so designated at Auschwitz. And without 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz, where is the reasoning for the special treatment of the state of Israel?

Note - This is excerpted from the orginal, much longer article by P. Samuel Foner." link

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
We know the events of the Holocaust are true not because of the people who make you "sick" by speaking about it, but because they are proven by physical evidence. Millions and millions of pieces of physical evidence. That is how we know what happened. Simple.

I get sick not because of the Holocaust, but because people get up on a pulpit and preach about the Holocaust, but not about what Stalin did, for example. That just shows how much such people really care.

It's easy to say "millions and millions," also seems easy for you to mock and ridicule others, but something else to actually show it.

I do not deny that there are those who have exploited, are exploiting and will exploit events in history to their own ends.

And is this not totally disgusting?

If millions of people are killed in a genocide, that should be made something to remember. People should be made to reflect on that, and try to comprehend just exactly what that means in terms of families, of husbands and wives and children and fathers and mothers, and relate it to their own family. To imagine if their own family members were killed in such a way.

But then imagine that some wealthy politician, who you know doesn't really give a damn, gets up and starts politicizing your own family members' deaths for some political agenda.

That really is disgusting to me. You can see that too don't you? But that doesn't mean that you become illogical about the whole issue.

Incidentally, commemoration of other atrocities is not forbidden. Isn't it within all our powers to bring attention to all these other atrocities if we feel they are under reported? And to stand up to those who insist – when the evidence proves otherwise - on denying them.

Sure, but why are there no laws "protecting" these things from historical review?

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by loungelizard (here)
@bsbray
In post 26, you're using moral equivalency:
B happened, and is worse than A.
Therefore A is justified.

I cannot find where I made any such argument.

Can you please quote directly from me where I say that "A" is justified?

Again, you're going for the distraction of nitpicky semantics rather than tackling content

I just asked you to show me where I made the equivalency that you claimed. Apparently you can't, because I didn't actually say what you claimed I did.

You wrote:

“What the Soviets did was even worse than what the Nazis did.”

“the "Allies" were doing a lot of the same thing.”

“These things are not even much remembered anymore, despite being in some cases worse than the Holocaust itself in terms of numbers and a policy of genocide."

“The Japanese also killed more civilians than are usually attributed to the Holocaust,”


I'm no philosopher but I think we are bordering on the tu quoque fallacy here

You wouldn't have to worry about what you felt "we are bordering" if you took the whole context of my post into account. Short and simple, I didn't actually make the equivalency you claimed, and you were already putting words in my mouth.

I am not against having a discussion, but I am going to start cutting my responses short as soon as you start twisting my words, because that is a level of discussion I'm not going to descend to. Or in this case, when you have twisted my words in a previous post, and then instead of saying, "Oops, maybe you didn't actually say that," you just accuse me of yet something else instead of admitting that I didn't make the argument that you claim.

It is not "semantics" when you claim I am making an argument that I clearly am not. You either have to read more carefully or be more honest with the words as you read them, or it isn't even worth my time to respond.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by loungelizard (here)
I'm afraid that it's going to be difficult to undertake a point-by-point discussion – not because I'm unable to respond to your assertions, or don't wish to refute your claims - but because of the slippery semantics game that you are playing in order to avoid actually looking at real historical issues.

This isn't a semantics game.

I brought this up in another post already. Formal logic, compared to "intuitive" logic (what you just think sounds logical), is something like the difference between a colander with large holes, and a fine sieve, when it comes to discriminating information.

Think about what I mean by that. If can use formal logic, meaning that you know your arguments are all sound, and you are not employing logical fallacies, you can connect A to B in a very direct and straightforward manner, and then carry it on to C, then I have no problem discussing this stuff with you. It is a real discussion between two peers who can respect each other while debating facts, and can both recognize when they are wrong.

If, instead, you are posting a bunch of ad hominem insults from 3rd parties, for example, as I have seen you do, then this represents a very different mentality. This is not being reasonable and respectful but is rather being very unreasonable and disrespectful, and you can't expect a mature discussion from that kind of mentality. I don't have to wait until it becomes directed at me. I can simply see it directed at someone else or a general group of people and already know how you are capable of "reasoning" things out.

I have been through many, many point-by-point debates with people, on many different subjects. I am at the point now where if I see ad homs and mockery from that person, I ask myself, why should I even engage with this person at all? It is a totally different mentality. We have to resolve these kinds of issues beforehand or it is a waste of both of our time. If not, I just will not waste my time.

[Bubu]

Red flag. why would a person be jailed for his/her belief while the media and puppets lie all the time. This reinforce my suspicions that the official holocaust story isnt true.

"A German court has found Ursula Haverbeck, also known as ‘Nazi Grandma’, guilty of inciting hatred by saying that Holocaust is fiction and there were no gas chambers in the Auschwitz concentration camp. The octogenarian was handed a six-month jail sentence.
Read more

Haverbeck, a notoriously fervent denier of the mass killings of Jews during Holocaust, received yet another conviction, this time for claiming at an event in Berlin in January last year that Holocaust did not happen and nobody was gassed in the infamous death camp in Auschwitz, that claimed lives of 1.1 million people between 1940 and 1945, mostly Jews.

Haverbeck who pleaded not guilty, alleged that she was citing from a book when speaking at the event. However, upon studying the half-a-minute footage, the court determined that it “was her own speech” and found her guilty. Her lawyer’s argument that prosecuting her violates Haverbeck’s right to free speech, failed to score any points with the judge. Moreover, while on trial, the accused repeated the statement, Der Spiegel reports.

An author for Neo-Nazi magazines, Haverbeck has never minced words in expressing her more-than-controversial beliefs no matter the consequences.

Next month, she is set to stand trial on similar charges in the town of Detmold, where she is appealing the eight-month jail sentence the court handed to her last September. The charges revolving around her letter to Detmold’s mayor in which she insisted that Auschwitz was a plain labor camp. The letter was timed with the trial of a former SS guard at the Auschwitz death camp, Reinhold Hanning, tried in Detmold. The court eventually sentenced Hanning to five years behind bars “for accessory to murder in 170,000 cases.”

In August, Haverbeck lost an appeal in the district court of Verden in Lower Saxony, which increased her jail term from 10 months to two years without parole. The court found her guilty of inciting to Holocaust denial.

Under German law, incitement of hatred constitutes not only encouraging hatred or violence to a particular group of people, but also approving of, denying or downplaying Nazi crimes. Those found guilty by the court face up to five years in prison. However, Haverbeck is yet to serve any jail time, as the decisions in her cases are still pending.

Haverbeck has also received two fines and a suspended sentence for sedition.

https://www.rt.com/news/406932-holoc...zen.yandex.com