I recently was abroad without my family for a month and got into a conversation with an American who was on holiday and was staying in the same guest house. One evening after a few weeks of just saying 'hi' in passing, we got into a sitting conversation. We were talking about something or other and I can't remember how it happened, but suddenly the conversation came around to WW2 history.
I very tactly and diplomatically corrected him on certain things he had said, saying I no longer consider what he said to be accurate. He was unusually very open to being corrected and we had a very long conversation that went on from about 9.30 to 1.00 am. Naturally the holocaust pseudo-history came up quite early in the discussion, and when I explained the results of my research into the topic, he was like a thirsty man being given something to drink. He lapped it up. I have never had a discussion like it before. Normally people are shocked and then concerned for my mental health and/or outraged. Either that OR suprised and unconvinced but disturbed by the wealth of verifiable information I provide them with.
This man in his early-sixties asked many intelligent questions and seemed immediately convinced by the answers he received. And then around one hour into the chat he revealed that he was Jewish. An American Jew with, I think he said Russian jewish ancestry on his father's side and Polish jewish on his mother's, both from families that had emigrated to America long before WW2 so hadn't been affected by WW2 Jewish persecution.
It was a fascinating conversation from then on, and I told him that no-one had ever reacted with such openess before to my current understanding. I told him that given the fact he was Jewish I was suprised and impressed by his mental equanimity and his apparent intellectual attachment to verifiable truth.
* * * * * *
Three days later on the same trip abroad, I was at a hotel dining room and got into a conversation with an octogenarian upper-middle-class Indian and a British academic in his mid-sixties sitting on the same table. We also — like with the Jewish American — had never met before.
During the conversation the Indian gentleman said something about WW2, Churchill and Hitler that I felt rather exassperated by and I rather passionately said “oh c'mon. Surely you must admit that can not possibly be true”.
And I gave my understanding of the more correct view.
He was an Indian who had lived through the tail-end of the British Raj but was defending Britain, the British war effort and even Winston Churchill, despite knowing of Churchill's racist hatred of Indians and his culpability in the 1943 Bengal famine!
The conversation went back and forth a bit and as it progressed I could see they were both rather shocked by what I was telling them, and it looked as though they were starting to question whether I was some kind of neo-Nazi fanatic.
The Indian gentleman brought up what he presumably thought would restore the conversation to a more comfortable area of agreement: the holocaust! He said something like: "Well surely you will agree that even if... blah, blah, blah... Hitler had to be defeated because of his collossal crime of gassing 6 million Jews".
What a clanger of a delusion! He genuinely believed that all the mythological and bogus six million number of Jews had been gassed, every single one of them!
And this was an otherwise apparently extremely well-educated and intelligent man!
Well I corrected him on that as tactfully as I could, and diplomatically but confidently told them I no longer believe the holocaust narrative to be reliable history.
So then the conversation got onto the holocaust story and I went into a monologue, elucidating what I consider the most obvious deceits and flaws in the narrative, and how its a travesty that none of this can be discussed or debated intelligently, rationally and unemotionally due to the infringement of free speech and the response of ad hominem attacks if anyone dares to bring up any of this. As it was an evening meal, we left the meal table to retire to our rooms, with some attempt from me at less controversial conversation before separating.
The next day at lunch time I expected them both to avoid me like the plague should we happen to be in the restaurant at the same time, but to my surprise they both were there and asked to join my table. They BOTH wanted to continue the conversation and were both very open to everything I had to say. It was like the other conversation with the Jewish American, with perhaps a little more resistance but similar capitulation to my informed view and wealth of verifiable information. In other words they were quite happy for me to do nearly all the talking and they only interjected with questions when they needed extra clarification of a point. We separated after the meal, with no intention to meet again. But then the conversation continued like that in the evening also at the evening meal.
I.e. they were extremely open and receptive to everything I explained to them about the deceits and exaggerations of the war, of a more fair and impartial understanding of Hitler and the NSDAP AND
about the many obviously false aspects of the post-war Holocaust indoctrination programme.
* * * * * *
Back home a month later, a similar situation occurred with an associate on Facebook who is a WW2 historian and author of about five photographic books on WW2. He never mentions the holocaust in his books or on Facebook as he is one of those people who is only fascinated by the types of weaponry, tanks, planes, uniforms, insignia, etc., and particular battles.
Well he put up some emotionally manipulative nonsense with photos on the jewish experience the other day, presumably because it is Holocaust memorial day. One of them was the obviously deceitful photo claiming to be of multiple scratch marks in a wall from finger nails in one of the claimed gas chambers at Auschwitz.
I merely pointed out that it is a physical impossibility to scratch grooves in concrete with finger nails and that if he doubts it he should try it. He will just leave a trail of powdered finger nail.
He immediately got abusive and stupidly argued that the scratch marks weren't in the concrete but in the paint!
He then wrote a series of separate posts on other totally unrelated holocaust topics asking if I was “a filthy holocaust denier".
His whole argument was based on the logical fallacies of ad hominem, poisoning the well, strawman misrepresentation, etc.
Without responding to his provocative, insulting tone I tried to get him to just keep it to the finger nail scratch-marks point, and objective discussion. I provided a close-up of the Auschwitz wall, showing they were NOT "just in the paintwork".
He eventually conceded that point but added reams of other unrelated Holocaust info, all delivered in a challenging, provocative, insulting manner. He now wanted a direct answer to whether I believed “six million Jews were murdered” by the NSDAP. Interestingly a similar question to the octogenarian Indian gentleman's. But in this case the question wasn't trying to create cordial agreement, but was asked as a form of entrapment.
This man argued in a quite psychotically delusional way. And he is a WW2 author!!
He refused all appeals to just discuss specific points reasonably and respectfully. He was similar to the likes of the many irrational and emotionally conditioned true-believers who discuss here at RODOH.
So the six million question.
I explained I was not a holocaust denier and only interested in preserving history accurately for future generations. I thanked him for acknowledging the error in the fingernail scratches photo. I explained that I consider it a duty for historians and anyone else interested to attempt to separate facts and errors that creep in over time. I basically attempted to keep the discussion respectful. But others were jumping in calling me grossly offensive names and accusing me of being a nazi arse-licker, etc.
All because I had shown one of the myths of the Auschwitz tour to be obviously false.
So were six million jews murdered? I informed that I believe the answer is OBVIOUSLY NOT!!!! I attempted to explain that Raul Hilberg had a figure of 5.1 million total deaths not "murders", and Rummel and others agreed a figure less than the mythological 6 million. I further explained that the total death estimates are from all causes: whether murder, disease, exposure, hunger, or as a result of Allied actions.
This historian author then became quite irrational and beyond reason. More dishonest, insulting, fallacious argument ensued.
His trump 'card' was a quote from the UN also saying six million jews were "murdered" and he added further insult.
I pointed out the 'appeal to authority' — especially one that is no expert authority on the topic — is another logical fallacy easily refuted by the verifiable fact that at least 14,000 of the counted dead succumbed to typhus infection at Bergen-Belsen WHILE IT WAS UNDER BRITISH CONTROL and when the camp no longer had to surmount the wartime obstacles to supplies of food, medicine, clean water, etc., so they could hardly be described as Nazi "murders". He then became more outraged, and ranted abusively before deleting my replies and then blocking me.
Oh, the irony.
As who is most in denial?
Who most deserves the accusation "denier"?
It seems a peculiar but tragic irony, that such holocaust true believers are incapable of reasonable discussion and they are the ones who resort to hateful abuse. But such is the degree of conditioning, that reason loses out to emotion.
This is similar to the treatment I received from Alan Heath.
Maybe this man will also check out my address and employer and try to wreck my personal life in some way. I hope not.