Alonso wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:58 am
IMPORTANT: The purpose of this thread is to have a discussion among revisionists. It assumes that the so called holocaust never happened.
...no systematic extermination of Jews ever happened
nor there was ever a plan to do so.
That story is a hoax,
we know that.
I think you should maybe amend the wording of this, and at the same time analyse your approach to the topic.
We need to be clear what we are saying DEFINITELY DID
happen, and what DEFINITELY DIDN’T
Then we can ask for what is unclear.
And so the wording we use is crucial. If we start with a vague, inaccurate and unclear proposition, we will less likely attract replies that lead to any clarity.
I think you have started from an immediately unhelpful position when you wrote: “the holocaust never happened”
First you have to define what is included in that "holocaust". What exactly constitues a 'holocaust' event and what doesn't? Without a clear starting definition, if you discuss this with friends and relatives you will just attract justified ridicule and disbelief, by claiming “the holocaust never happened”. For how can you say with certainty it never happened if you admit you don't know what parts of the narrative actually did or didn't happen?
Then you say: "That story is a hoax"
. Which story exactly? Who are you saying wrote that 'hoax' story? How do you know its a hoax if you don't know which parts are true and which hoaxed?
I presume that you have asked this question precisely because you are attempting to arrive at greater clarity of all this. I'm just trying to say that because of your wording I suggest in your thinking you have started badly, and in a way that can be improved.
There is a good reason why Raul Hilberg deliberately never used the term “the holocaust” in his definitive three volume work. And there is a good reason why both David Cesarani and David Irving thought the word shouldn't be used if you are attempting to discuss the actual historical events.
In his book ‘Final solution: the fate of the Jews 1933-49’ David Cesarani wrote:The nomenclature is itself increasingly self-defeating. The Holocaust — capitalised here to signify the cultural construction rather than the historical events to which it is assumed to refer — has come to imply a unitary event characterised by systematic procedures and a uniformity of experience. But newer histories point to the nuances between different countries, regions, districts, and even adjacent villages. They are more sensitised to variations over time, breaking it down into locales and segments, each with distinctive characteristics that could accentuate the chances of life or death.
Certain historians argue that a number of overlapping genocides raged within The Holocaust. Romania, for example, embarked on murderous ethnic cleansing against local Jews to suit a national agenda that was distinctive from, and even cut across, German aspirations. Perspectives on the catastrophe are changing, yet this is barely reflected in the reproduction of an agreed but ageing narrative.
...Educational programmes have more latitude and ambition when confronting such touchy issues, but since they are designed to inoculate against racism, the emphasis is on the crimes of the Germans, their allies and accomplices or the indifference of ‘bystanders’. To dwell on the terrible things that Jews did to Jews would be tantamount to ‘blaming the victims’, a variety of prejudicial thinking that ‘Holocaust education’ is itself supposed to expunge. Ironically, these are the very areas currently being explored by responsible, conscientious researchers.
...there is a yawning gulf between popular understanding of this history and current scholarship on the subject. This is hardly surprising given that most people acquire their knowledge of the Nazi past and the fate of the Jews through novels, films, or earnest but ill-informed lessons at school, which frequently rely on novels for young adults or their filmic versions. Misconceptions are reinforced by the edited and instrumentalised versions purveyed by campaigning bodies and the constellation of organisations devoted to education and comemoration.
...The reappraisal begins with the term [‘the holocaust’] itself, a term that arguably is well past its sell-by date.
So there you have a Jewish historian trying to get to grips with the conflicting opinions and common misconceptions. Do you really believe he was part of a deliberate ‘hoax’ and deception? I don't.
There are different understandings and disagreements, both within the currently consensus view AND the revisionist view.
Cesarani disagrees with Hilberg and Browning on certain things. Faurisson and Berg disagreed on certain things very passionately and even insultingly. Many revisionists disagree with Irving and Mark Weber. David Cole disagrees on certain things with everybody, both revisionists and exterminationalists.
So I think you would be better served by starting from a position that doesn't assume something so vague and divisive as “the holcaust never happened. We know its a hoax”
. I myself DO NOT believe either of those two statements to be accurate.
E.g. I myself believe that Jews were“systematically killed”
in East Europe during the war with Russia. But as Irving wrote in the quote you provided from his book on Goebbels, some of that was done by Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukranians, etc., so was not part of any plan concocted by the Third Reich.
And then some of that mass-killing of Jews WAS
perpetrated by the Third Reich Einsatzgruppen. But was that because they were Partisans, or because they were Jewish?
So the wording I have highlighted in yellow I would argue is an incorrect and unhelpful starting point.
Alonso wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:58 am
...usually hoaxes are not lies, but rather half truths, or, more likely, 1% truths. So what is the 1% of the story that is actually true? I recently read a presentation by David Irving
in which he argues that Goebbels was the main responsible for the Jewish plight in Germany, and that his crimes against the Jews were his responsibility in the Crystal Night and the deportation of thousands of Jews to the East. Apparently, at some point Goebbels said "The Jews are Europe’s misfortune. They must somehow be eliminated, otherwise we are in danger of being eliminated by them."
About the deportation Irving says:
Goebbels was told that the Jews in the Baltic states had been massacred on a colossal scale [...] by the Lithuanians and Latvians [...] in revenge for what the Jews had done to them during the year of Bolshevik terror following the Soviet Russian takeover in June 1940.
The Germans decided to evacuate the German Jews to [Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia]. I don’t know why they hit on this mad solution, because if the Baltic peoples themselves didn’t like their own Jews, these territories certainly weren’t going to be very safe for foreign Jews. But the Germans didn’t really care.
Speer and Goebbels started a ruthless campaign in 1941 to drive out and deport the Jews from Berlin
So these would have been some of the crimes committed by the nazis against the Jews. But Irving's presentation is not meant to be comprehensive, it is just a discussion of Goebbel's diary. I think that revisionists agree that thousands of Jews were enslaved in concentration camps. Apart from that, other revisionists don't agree with Irving's account. So what did actually happen?