I have made this thread to get a clear insight into what a Holocaust revisionist actually thinks the Holocaust was and what happened to the Jews during the war.
1. Historians continue to debate about the origins of the Holocaust. It is known as “Functionalism versus intentionalism”. The two most important questions are:
What do you think?Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not.
Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy? Although neither side disputes the reality of the Holocaust, nor is there serious dispute over the premise that Hitler (as Führer) was personally responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism that allowed the Holocaust to take place, intentionalists argue the initiative came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.
2. The various methods that were used to kill Jews and others have been established for decades. Namely gassing, shooting, starving, etc. Do you deny that the Nazis used any of those methods to kill Jews and others?
3. Some six million Jews died in the Holocaust. If you disagree with that figure, how many were killed? What are your sources?
4. The Nazis often used euphemism to refer to what they were doing to the Jews. Such phrases like “special handling” (although it certain contexts the term can mean different things) became to be known as referring to the killing of Jews. Another example is when Himmler used the term ‘partisan’ to refer to Jews so the Einsatzgruppen in the East justified their killings under the pretext of killing partisans. However, over time, the term ‘Jews’ became explicitly known and no longer hidden under any pretext. Himmler was so twisted that in his own deranged mind he even justified the killing of Jewish children for crying out loud!
5. After reading a few threads on the first page of this section on this forum I have noticed that some people think that pointing out a few alleged mistakes means that the whole thing never happened. Pointing out a few mistakes from Holocaust survivors does not prove that the Holocaust never happened.
6. Making claims without any evidence to back them up. I think this is one of my biggest problems with Holocaust “revisionism”. For example, Turnagain on another thread made the unfounded claim that the gas chambers at Treblinka probably never existed. I mean, really? I mean if one is going to make wild claims and then have the audacity to ask people who disbelieve him to show evidence for something just goes to show how disingenuous some people can behave.
Another often repeated claim is that the Nazis, ordinary Germans, Nazi collaborators and others who testified what happened were coerced in some way or another, but there is no evidence to support that claim. The repeated citation of Rudolf Höss is not relevant in what he later testified because the torture did not happen when he testified later and what he stated is collaborated with what others also stated. Strangely enough, the book which the torture is mentioned is “Legions of Death: The Nazi Enslavement of Europe” by Rupert Butler. Does the title of the book not give you a clue as to what is in the book? Anyone who wants to use the torture of Höss to be applied to every single person who testified what happened should perhaps read the whole book and not just cite a snippet of it to try and justify your claim. Butler is neither a Holocaust revisionist nor someone who not denies the Holocaust.
Butler wrote extensively about the gassings of Jews and overall the Holocaust.
He even wrote about Höss:
“Never once did Hoess attempt to evade responsibility or deny what he had done.”
The torture claim is one of the many wackadoodle claims constantly used by Holocaust revisionists.
7. Holocaust revisionists don’t get to decide what is to be considered the required or acceptable evidence. Are the people on here posting qualified historians and scholars? I don’t think so. The demand for some form of evidence is not how a reasonable discussion is conducted.
I seriously doubt that Holocaust revisionists have studied much of the evidence to prove what happened during the Holocaust. I don’t believe that anyone who has studied the evidence would doubt, or in some cases deny, that the Holocaust happened.
8. Attempting to discuss things which you have not studied. I don’t think it’s fair to say that all Holocaust revisionists are ignorant, uneducated, etc. But, before this post I took the time to read quite a few threads on this forum and I noticed that Holocaust revisionists often cite Holocaust revisionists for their claims, but they openly state that they refuse to read books by respected historians because they are just repeating Jewish propaganda or something other stupid excuse. I think that’s a pathetic cop-out and goes to show that Holocaust revisionists are not interested in a genuine debate because they are dismissing things they either don’t want to know or accept.
People who genuinely want to discuss the Holocaust will read both the arguments for and against it. Holocaust revisionists seem to only want to read things which allegedly refute the Holocaust and ignore everything else.
9. Do you accept that Holocaust revisionists have made some mistakes in the past? If so, what were those mistakes? Historians and scholars have corrected mistakes that were made in the past.
10. I have noticed that many people on here are still citing debunked and refuted claims such as citing Eric Hunt when he posted that his claims were disingenuous and that they didn’t prove a single thing.
So, ultimately it boils down to, why was the Holocaust a hoax?
It’s very easy to post online wild claims, but why does none of you attempt to debate historians in person so then the accusation of attempting to “weasel dodge” from questions about the Holocaust be there for everyone to see? Also, the evidence for and against would be argued. Do any of you have any new claims since Zundel and Irving made themselves look ridiculous in the courts?
Holocaust denial is a conspiracy theory and those who believe in it also believe in other conspiracy theories. Who would have guessed? A conspiracy theorist by definition is not interested in a rational argument.
This forum is full of antisemitic posts, idolising Hitler and the Nazis, etc. I read someone post that those who genuinely believe that the Holocaust never happened are mentally ill and I just state that I agree with him. I think that holding the apparent belief in Holocaust denial is just one of the many neo-Nazi views some people believe in these days.