|
Post by Gibson on Feb 12, 2023 18:02:06 GMT
Nessie frequently complains that revisionists distort and strawman his beliefs and arguments. Well. Whenever people disagree on something both sides typically feel their opponents are not appreciating or understanding the substance of their arguments. From my point of view, I have never seen any comments from Nessie, despite his voluminous posting career, that do justice to the revisionist case or that show any understanding of it. I am not big on issuing "challenges," but since Nessie has implied that he does not distort or strawman revisionism, I think it is fair to "request" that he provide us with a non-strawman summary of the revisionist case. No need for it to be lengthy, just something that shows some understanding of the position and which revisionists themselves would see as a reasonable representation of their views. I would be curious to see if he is willing and able to doing this. If the request is declined, very well, but, as an enticement, if the request is honored, I will reply with a post a "steelman" version of the orthodox case. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steelman
|
|
𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by 𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 on Feb 24, 2023 13:01:14 GMT
There are various summaries of the denier/revisionist case, that I and many others use. In its most simple form;
- there were no mass gassings
The slightly more detailed version of that, and the one I use the most, is the transit camp theory;
- the people sent on mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B, were not gassed and left those places to go elsewhere.
There is a variation to that of, which leaves many unanswered questions as to what happened;
- it is not certain there were mass transports to the AR camps, or A-B.
There are some deniers who suggest they do know what happened, such as claims the Kremas were used as delousing centres or for mass showering and that the AR camps were used as transit camps, hygiene stops or for property seizure.
If you combined that, you end up with the denier argument being, there are theories as to what happened, but we do know is that there were no mass gassings at the AR camps and A-B Kremas.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 25, 2023 17:38:41 GMT
How is that a summary of the revisionist case? At best you have simply stated a revisionist conclusion (no gassings, which is not even the main one imo) without any explanation of how that conclusion was reached. When I say revisionist "case," I mean the evidence and arguments supporting the position, not just a bare conclusion. I doubt you could find a single revisionist who would endorse your post as a good summary of "the revisionist case."
Despite your miserable failure, I will give my own summary of the orthodox case. There are of course counterpoints and naturally I do not agree with many of these interpretations but out of fairness I will refrain from offering any of my own commentary here. I think by comparing my answer with Nessie's, it will be abundantly obvious who is strawmanning who. I will also point out here that the orthodox side is usually resistant to presenting their side and insist that the Holocaust does not need to be proved.
Demographics -Prewar statistics of global Jewish population were generally around 16.7M. Some estimates a bit lower in the 15-16M range. The postwar figures are usually around 11M. Revisionist figures from Sanning and others often rely on selective/cherrypicked numbers and assumptions. -Much evidence of Jews being registered, concentrated, and deported from Western Europe, from Poland, from Hungary and other places. Korherr, internal Hungarian deportation figures. -By all accounts the Jewish population of Poland dropped dramatically. -Lack of evidence of resettlement on the scale that would be required. -Hoefle telegram indicates over 1M Jews were sent to the AR camps.
Final Solution -Abundant evidence of anti-Semitic ideology and anti-Semitic laws. Belief in eugenics, euthanasia, racial hierarchy. -Himmler's Posen speech and others, speaks of extermination of the Jews as a dark secret. -Goebbels diary says 60% of the Jews would probably have to be "liquidated." -Hitler, in his last will and testament, says he made good on his promise (which he made repeatedly) that "the real culprits would have to pay for their guilt," i.e., the Jews would be made to pay for starting another war. -Eichmann's confessions, including recordings from before he was in Israeli custody (which would nullify most of the common revisionist arguments about forced confessions etc).
Einsatzgruppen -Huge amount of documentary evidence. The OSRs, 180-L, PS-212, Jager report, etc. -Confessions of Ohlendorf, Blobel, and others.
Euthanasia -Euthanasia program well-documented and not disputed. -NMT Case I evidence, including confessions of Brack, along with documentary evidence such as NO-205, NO-365, NO-249 -Confessions of Widmann and Nebe at later trials. -T4 personnel reassigned to AR program.
Gassings -Gas vans: PS-501, Just document -Pressac's criminal traces. Morgues outfitted with gas tight doors, etc. -Kremer Diary -Testimonies by Hoess and many others. -Trace amounts of cyanide in Auschwitz wall samples suggests some exposure to HCN.
Philosophical Points -That the Soviets, Americans, British, etc exaggerated things for propaganda and made many inaccurate claims does not mean the Germans were innocent. By analogy, if a prosecutor presents planted evidence or engages in misconduct, that does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent. -Many of the less supportable claims such as 4M at Auschwitz and the soap factories and other easy targets for revisionists had already long been discounted by orthodox scholars like Hilberg and Reitlinger pretty early on. -The standards of evidence demanded by revisionists is far higher than what would ordinarily be demanded. Few genocides and other atrocities could be demonstrated to the degree revisionists demand, yet surely things like this have and do happen. This overly skeptical approach will generally bias you toward disbelieving atrocity stories in general even though atrocities are common. -Circumstantially, if we have a regime known to be anti-Semitic, if we know they gathered up Jews and sent them off to unknown locations, and if we have large populations drops, the standard explanation that was generally accepted at the time becomes the most probable. The alternative explanation would have required falsification of demographic and immigration data, tremendous amounts of false testimony, and forgery of documents.
|
|
𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by 𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 on Feb 25, 2023 19:49:35 GMT
How is that a summary of the revisionist case? At best you have simply stated a revisionist conclusion (no gassings, which is not even the main one imo) without any explanation of how that conclusion was reached. When I say revisionist "case," I mean the evidence and arguments supporting the position, not just a bare conclusion. I doubt you could find a single revisionist who would endorse your post as a good summary of "the revisionist case." You asked for a "summary of the revisionist case. No need for it to be lengthy....the position and which revisionists themselves would see as a reasonable representation of their views" The denial of mass gassings is the prime revisionist/denier case. If you had used the word evidence, instead of case, what you wanted would have been clearer. You are lying that the "orthodox" side is resistant to presenting their "side", by which you mean evidence and that the Holocaust does not need to be proved. You show that you are lying, by listing a summary of some of the evidence presented by the "orthodox" side to prove the Holocaust. By all normal standards of evidencing, using contemporaneous evidence from eyewitnesses, other witnesses, documents, forensics, archaeology, imagery, physical items and circumstantial evidence, mass gassings is proved. Add in the Nazi motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime and the case against them is rock solid.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 25, 2023 21:19:03 GMT
You failed utterly to present the revisionist case and you damn well know it. You are probably not capable of summarizing the revisionist side coherently and even if you could you would not do so because you are a hack and you have no intellectual discipline or curiosity.
Case (noun) - a set of arguments supporting a particular action, cause, etc.
You say that I am "lying" when I say that the orthodox side generally doesn't try to prove the holocaust. Okay, so cite me some orthodox books that try to prove the holocaust and that lay out the arguments the way I just did. You will find some of that scattered in books like Hilberg but in no sense is this their goal to prove it in a comprehensive and convincing way. Rather they take virtually all of it for granted. Professors like Lipstadt explicitly say that the holocaust is not to be debated. The only books that try to even try to present something resembling proof were written as damage control in response to revisionism.
|
|
𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by 𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 on Feb 26, 2023 8:28:11 GMT
You failed utterly to present the revisionist case and you damn well know it. You are probably not capable of summarizing the revisionist side coherently and even if you could you would not do so because you are a hack and you have no intellectual discipline or curiosity. Case (noun) - a set of arguments supporting a particular action, cause, etc.Using that definition, the denier case is their arguments are that there were no mass gassings, because mass gassings, as described by the witnesses are not physically possible. Same with the mass pyres, oven cremations and graves, which deniers also argue are not physically possible. Therefore they argue, there were no mass gassings, pyres, cremations and burials. The evidence you listed, is used by historians like Hilberg to prove the Holocaust. Quote Lipstadt saying that the Holocaust is not to be debated. The evidence used to prove the Holocaust was already there in 1945 and it was used to convict numerous Nazis of their crimes. The physical evidence from what was left of the AR camps and A-B Kremas, multiple witnesses to what had happened inside those places and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, mass theft of property and no mass departures and millions of Jews disappearing inside small camps and a few Kremas. Since 1945, as more evidence has been traced, documents, witnesses, futher camp site examinations, the case for the Holocaust has been further strengthened. No evidence for any alternative has been found. Some deniers have tried to make cases for alternatives, such as the AR camps were transit camps, but they have failed, because they rely on arguments, not evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 26, 2023 18:43:27 GMT
You failed utterly to present the revisionist case and you damn well know it. You are probably not capable of summarizing the revisionist side coherently and even if you could you would not do so because you are a hack and you have no intellectual discipline or curiosity. Case (noun) - a set of arguments supporting a particular action, cause, etc.Using that definition, the denier case is their arguments are that there were no mass gassings, because mass gassings, as described by the witnesses are not physically possible. Same with the mass pyres, oven cremations and graves, which deniers also argue are not physically possible. Therefore they argue, there were no mass gassings, pyres, cremations and burials. The evidence you listed, is used by historians like Hilberg to prove the Holocaust. Quote Lipstadt saying that the Holocaust is not to be debated. The evidence used to prove the Holocaust was already there in 1945 and it was used to convict numerous Nazis of their crimes. The physical evidence from what was left of the AR camps and A-B Kremas, multiple witnesses to what had happened inside those places and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, mass theft of property and no mass departures and millions of Jews disappearing inside small camps and a few Kremas. Since 1945, as more evidence has been traced, documents, witnesses, futher camp site examinations, the case for the Holocaust has been further strengthened. No evidence for any alternative has been found. Some deniers have tried to make cases for alternatives, such as the AR camps were transit camps, but they have failed, because they rely on arguments, not evidence. That's a very shallow understanding of revisionism. Forensic arguments are only one aspect and you didn't really do justice even to that. Hoax of the Twentieth Century, for example, an early foundational revisionist text, relies on completely different arguments. The arguments about the difficulties of burying, digging up, and burning all the bodies at the AR camps didn't even become popular until the 2000s. www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=863163Hilberg's book is enormous. You will find some relevant documents scattered throughout, but he clearly did not feel any onus to prove the fundamental claims. And more recent books take it even more for granted. My post above is a better summary of the orthodox case than Hilberg's book. For Lipstadt's philosophy, read the early pages of her book Denying the Holocaust. From Chapter 1, If you read the rest of the book (which you clearly have not read), you will see that her "analysis" of revisionism is 99% ad hominem.
|
|
𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by 𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 on Feb 26, 2023 19:13:42 GMT
Using that definition, the denier case is their arguments are that there were no mass gassings, because mass gassings, as described by the witnesses are not physically possible. Same with the mass pyres, oven cremations and graves, which deniers also argue are not physically possible. Therefore they argue, there were no mass gassings, pyres, cremations and burials. .... Some deniers have tried to make cases for alternatives, such as the AR camps were transit camps, but they have failed, because they rely on arguments, not evidence. That's a very shallow understanding of revisionism. Forensic arguments are only one aspect and you didn't really do justice even to that. Hoax of the Twentieth Century, for example, an early foundational revisionist text, relies on completely different arguments. The arguments about the difficulties of burying, digging up, and burning all the bodies at the AR camps didn't even become popular until the 2000s. www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=863163From Butz, to Mattogno, deniers have been arguing the claims about what happened inside the AR camps and Kremas are physically impossible, therefore it is a hoax. Do you understand why such arguments do not make logical sense? Hilberg's book is scattered with evidence to prove his claims. Your assertion he did not do that, is unevidenced. Her argument is to not debate deniers. That is different from the Holocaust is not to be debated. Anyone who comes with an evidenced argument, where the evidence is say, a newly discovered document, witness or other contemporaneous evidence, can debate the Holocaust. Someone whose argument is purely, I don't believe the Holocaust happened as described because I don't think what was described is physically possible, is, according to Lipstadt, not worthy of debate, because they bring nothing to the knowledge of what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 26, 2023 20:27:27 GMT
Ok, Nessie. I'm done with you. You don't have a sufficient grasp on reality for worthwhile discussion to be possible.
|
|
𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 196
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Feb 27, 2023 5:13:55 GMT
For Lipstadt's philosophy, read the early pages of her book Denying the Holocaust. From Chapter 1, If you read the rest of the book (which you clearly have not read), you will see that her "analysis" of revisionism is 99% ad hominem. Her argument is to not debate deniers. That is different from the Holocaust is not to be debated. Anyone who comes with an evidenced argument, where the evidence is say, a newly discovered document, witness or other contemporaneous evidence, can debate the Holocaust. Someone whose argument is purely, I don't believe the Holocaust happened as described because I don't think what was described is physically possible, is, according to Lipstadt, not worthy of debate, because they bring nothing to the knowledge of what happened. [Emphasis added.] So basically, Lipstadt will not debate the Holocaust (or suffer it to be debated at all if she can help it) unless the persons debating hold the Big-H as a tautology. She gets to define what is meant by Denier and how far you can honestly question the details. Only True Believers are allowed to speak. How is that any kind of real debate? Science ─ and ultimately fact-based historiography, I would argue ─ is built upon skepticism and not upon canon. Except in theology, you should understand before you believe and not believe so you can understand. Lipstadt is basically a grifting theologian who calls her beliefs History. It is so incredibly contemptible. Btw, my views on the Big-H can be summed up to something like: Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Nobody Was Gassed!
|
|
𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by 𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 on Feb 27, 2023 9:27:31 GMT
Ok, Nessie. I'm done with you. You don't have a sufficient grasp on reality for worthwhile discussion to be possible. In this post, you provided me with a summary of the "orthodox case"
where you listed some of the evidence for the Holocaust, the Final Solution and mass gassings and shootings.
If you were expecting me to provide a similar list of evidence that makes up the "revisionist case", I cannot, because there is none. Instead, argument is used. Arguments about the evidence for mass gassings, and arguments why that evidence is too unbelievable to accept.
So, don't run away and instead, please provide me with a summary of the "revisionist case".
|
|
𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by 𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 on Feb 27, 2023 9:33:31 GMT
Her argument is to not debate deniers. That is different from the Holocaust is not to be debated. Anyone who comes with an evidenced argument, where the evidence is say, a newly discovered document, witness or other contemporaneous evidence, can debate the Holocaust. Someone whose argument is purely, I don't believe the Holocaust happened as described because I don't think what was described is physically possible, is, according to Lipstadt, not worthy of debate, because they bring nothing to the knowledge of what happened. [Emphasis added.] So basically, Lipstadt will not debate the Holocaust (or suffer it to be debated at all if she can help it) unless the persons debating hold the Big-H as a tautology. She gets to define what is meant by Denier and how far you can honestly question the details. Only True Believers are allowed to speak. How is that any kind of real debate? Its not a real debate, she will not debate deniers. Did you see the David Baddiel documentary, Confronting Holocaust Denial? He goes into that issue in some detail. History and science are primarily evidence based. Theology is faith based. No, she is a historian whose beliefs are evidence based. It is you who has a faith based belief, as you cannot evidence what happened and you disbelieve a version of events that is evidenced. Which was one of my initial summaries.
|
|
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 27, 2023 14:38:03 GMT
"If you were expecting me to provide a similar list of evidence that makes up the "revisionist case", I cannot, because there is none."
This same guy complains about being "strawmanned." What a clown.
Nessie, I've given you every chance and you've repeatedly shown yourself to be uninformed, overly stubborn, and not worth talking to. If you want any interaction from me, frankly, you will need to start doing some better quality posting. And be more intellectually honest.
|
|
𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,150
|
Post by 𝐍𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 on Feb 27, 2023 17:15:29 GMT
"If you were expecting me to provide a similar list of evidence that makes up the "revisionist case", I cannot, because there is none." This same guy complains about being "strawmanned." What a clown. Nessie, I've given you every chance and you've repeatedly shown yourself to be uninformed, overly stubborn, and not worth talking to. If you want any interaction from me, frankly, you will need to start doing some better quality posting. And be more intellectually honest. Second request, please provide me with a summary of the "revisionist case". You can include evidence revisionists use to make their case.
|
|
𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭
🦅
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐬
Posts: 196
|
Post by 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 on Feb 28, 2023 3:20:20 GMT
So basically, Lipstadt will not debate the Holocaust (or suffer it to be debated at all if she can help it) unless the persons debating hold the Big-H as a tautology. She gets to define what is meant by Denier and how far you can honestly question the details. Only True Believers are allowed to speak. How is that any kind of real debate? Its not a real debate, she will not debate deniers. Did you see the David Baddiel documentary, Confronting Holocaust Denial? He goes into that issue in some detail. Lipstadt will not debate Deniers because she is a faith-based theologian, and those who do not agree with her worldview are therefore of the Devil, or "Deniers," as she calls them. I don't know if I have seen the David Baddiel documentary that you are referring to. I last saw Baddiel in some program where he was being chummy with Dr. Nick Terry, formerly of RODOH. The way I remember it, Baddiel made nary an argument besides pouty-faced ad hominem, and instead of making some valid points, he just laid out an absurd line of straw dogs. I remember thinking, "What an idiot. Not even trying." He thinks that floating tautologies is making an argument. It is all self-evident to him because he's a Jew. But that is not making an argument, nor "evidencing" anything, as you would say. Furthermore, I have a hard time respecting somebody who doesn't use shampoo and desperately needs a shave and a shower-bath. I suppose that in trying to look as gassable as Béla Kun or Karl Radek he's just doing a troll bit ─ like Dean Martin in character, sipping scotch and pretending to be hammered. Science ─ and ultimately fact-based historiography, I would argue ─ is built upon skepticism and not upon canon. History and science are primarily evidence based. Yes, exactly. They are empirical or observational, and record measurements, etc., which are then subjected to testable hypotheses and revision. When our theory becomes good at making causal predictions, then we approximate an understanding of the real world and can go far to explain what happened in the past. But Theology isn't evidence-based. It is by definition MYTHology. However, Theology can have its own narratives and didactic storytelling, which is not necessarily History. You seem not to know the difference. No, she [Lipstadt] is a historian whose beliefs are evidence based. It is you who has a faith based belief, as you cannot evidence what happened and you disbelieve a version of events that is evidenced. No, you are just trying to flip the script. It's been over 80 years now since the first claims that German laundries were steam gaschambers, and that cans of Zyklon-B used for fumigations of buildings and gassing clothing were used in some kind of homicidal manner. We still have no technical proof for homicidal gassings in any of the German concentration camps. And yet the whole Holocaust story revolves around millions of Jews magically gassed to death. Btw, my views on the Big-H can be summed up to something like: Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Nobody Was Gassed! Which was one of my initial summaries. Yes, and the above is a conclusion not a premise. I am mainly interested in gassing claims because that is the key to the Greuelpropaganda fabricated by the Victors against the Vanquished and still used to wave the proverbial bloody shirt in the modern race-war against White people, whose leaders in this assault are often Jews ─ to paraphrase Army intelligence officer Montgomery Schuyler ─ "of the greasiest type." I admit that I am not very interested in shootings or anything else that may have happened to Jews during World War II because it was a horrible experience for everybody ─ except maybe for Americans stateside and Jews in Hollywood. Btw, this has been linked to already at the board, but have you seen DenierBud's latest short on the OSS influence in the postwar propaganda? 
|
|