Respectful Insolence

Holocaust deniers sometimes refer to the Holocaust as the “Holohoax,” as if the whole thing were one huge hoax perpetrated on the world by Jews. Indeed, if you have the stomach to dive into the deepest, darkest, most disgusting parts of the Internet, where Holocaust deniers freely spew their lies, you will even find explicit assertions that the Holocaust is nothing but a hoax that the Jews used to justify the formation of the State of Israel and to collect reparation money. Indeed, do a Google search for the term “Holohoax” and you will find well over 43,000 entries. That the Holocaust was a “hoax” is almost religion among a significant number of deniers.

Years ago, I used to have a bit of fun with pinheaded Holocaust deniers on alt.revisionism by asking them explicitly in as innocent a tone as I could manage: If the Holocaust was indeed a hoax, who, specifically, was responsible for it? I would qualify my question by adding that just saying “the Jews” is not an adequate answer. I wanted to know which Jews. Just saying “Zionists” was not adequate. I wanted to know which Zionists. I wanted names! I wanted dates! I wanted the who, what, when, where, and why! But, above all, I wanted evidence to show that these people actually perpetrated this “hoax.”

Are such questions all that unreasonable? After all, it’s the deniers who are arguing for a conspiracy that would have to be so massive and secretive that nothing like it had ever been seen before or has ever been seen since.

Oddly enough, no Holocaust denier was able to answer my simple, direct question.

Of course, I certainly didn’t originate this question, but I like to think that I used it with some panache as one of my favorite tools, along with a related question asking about the logistics of how such a massive “hoax” could possibly be pulled off, much less kept secret for over 60 years, human nature being what it is (to talk, that is). And it appears that the tradition continues, as Nick Terry over at Holocaust Controversies looks at Holocaust deniers struggling to answer the very question that I used to taunt them with. Not surprisingly, now, as then, they aren’t doing a very good job:

Over at The Phora, playground of demented young pseudo-intellectual racialist fruitloops the world over, one of the few sane people still in possession of their marbles asks a salient question of the assembled horde of ‘Revisionists':

Who created the ‘Holohoax’ they like talking about so much?

Cue much earnest rumination and cud-chewing from the bovine herd of deniers, much passing of gas and very little enlightenment.

Since discussing these things with internet Nazis is like talking to a brick wall, I’ll give you Sulla the Dictator’s questions and responses and you can fill in the blanks. Believe me, it makes much more sense that way…

Here is how Sulla began:

What shadowy group is responsible for creating this ‘myth’, and then KEEPING IT IN PLACE like Opus Dei in the Da Vinci Code, “Revisionists” of the Phora? I would like to discuss this specific issue, gentlemen. Now that you have a forum dedicated to this…business…we can afford to discuss these subjects individually rather than the whole topic in single threads.

Cue the first shambling jellymonster attack, and the rest is internet history, in both senses of the term.

Heh. “Shambling jellymonster attack” is right. Things haven’t changed at all since I asked the same question of deniers. The responses, as described by Nick, border on downright hysterically funny. If you read the entire thread, it’s hard not to chuckle heartily every other post. There are references to a Jewish reporter, the lawyers of “several Jewish organizations,” the house of Rothschild, the Illuminati (of course–who else?), and the Middle Temple of London. There were also some mentions of the Israeli lobby. Finally, there was an exasperated comment from Sulla, who just couldn’t take any more:

In the middle of your bizzare rant, why didn’t you take any time to discuss the issue of this thread? This thread isn’t about your silly theories on the Holocaust. This is about who faked it. And it isn’t about laughable (Insane) broad strokes, either, such as “The Jews” or “England”. Its about hard tacks. Organizations or government officials who ordered it, individuals or units who forged documents, and then organizations, individuals, or units which are forcing people to teach it now.

I’ve noticed that you folks seem utterly incapable of answering these questions, with the exception of Illusion, who fingers the Illuminati.

And so the thread continues (edited by Nick, fortunately).

If you want evidence of the utter ludicrousness of the whole “Holohoax” claim by Holocaust deniers, plunge in. If you have a really strong stomach for racist conspiracy-monger (and tolerance for self-abuse), you could even read the entire original, unedited thread for yourself. There’s some unintentionally hilarious stuff there, but there’s also some really idiotic pontificating. (Come to think of it, a lot of the idiotic pontificating and hand waving is pretty funny, too. Funny and pathetic.) And, of course, deniers whose off-topic or unresponsive answers were removed whine and cry about “censorship.”

Par for the course for Holocaust deniers.

Come to think of it, the whole thread me of the old days back in alt.revisionism, if it had been a moderated newsgroup. Deniers haven’t changed a bit. So, the next time you hear anyone use the term “Holohoax,” try to pin them down. Ask them who perpetrated the “hoax” and how. Don’t let them get away with saying just “the Jews” or the “Allies.” Make them be specific. Make them name names. It’s great fun to make deniers squirm that way.

Comments

  1. #1 Bronze Dog
    June 23, 2006

    When I saw “holohoax”, my first thought was about 9/11 “Loosers” (People from Loose Change) claiming that there were no planes involved, just holograms. No doubt piloted by The Doctor of Star Trek: Voyager.

  2. #2 firefall
    June 23, 2006

    Oh, Orac,that’s simple – it was all orchestrated and implemented by Abel and Solomon Goldstein of 47 Duckwaddle Lane, Shepherds Bush, London W7. Evidence? I’ve got copies of their bloodstained confessions right here in front of me, and photos of them in their imitation-SS uniforms, not to mention an actual fragment of the moustache Abel used to imitate the Dear Leader* in all those faked-up photographs … and I’ve got the street addresses of all the six million jews who went into hiding in Madagascar.

    *oops, sorry, wrong vicious dictator, I mean The Leader

  3. #3 James
    June 23, 2006

    A great number of the “Holohoax” types seem quite enamoured of the Nazis… And yet, for the “Holohoaxers” to have pulled off this hoax, they would have had to have had pretty serious control over the German goverment.

    Hitler was a Zionist puppet! ;)

  4. #4 decrepitoldfool
    June 23, 2006

    I have noticed a sameness to the arguments of holocaust deniers, creationists, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, alties, and UFO people. Not that people who believe in one are likely to believe in the others, but something’s similar among them. I just can’t put my finger on it. Anyone have any ideas?

  5. #5 ArtK
    June 23, 2006

    decrepitoldfool —

    Perhaps they share a very effective vaccination against truth?

    Or, they’ve taken the Red Queen’s advice and are trying to believe three impossible things before breakfast?

    Really, it’s because they believe in something so fervently that anything that casts doubt on their belief must be denied or explained away and they’re quite willing to believe even more false things to do that.

  6. #6 Big C
    June 23, 2006

    decrepitoldfool wrote:

    I have noticed a sameness to the arguments of holocaust deniers, creationists, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, alties, and UFO people. Not that people who believe in one are likely to believe in the others, but something’s similar among them. I just can’t put my finger on it. Anyone have any ideas?

    In all of these cases, the proponents have no substantive arguments backed by evidence. Thus, they must resort to a cocktail of logical fallacies and propaganda to advance their positions. These techniques have been around for a long time, so it’s unlikely that the people making these arguments will invent new ones. Thus, regardless of the nonsense being argued for, the fallacious arguments are the same. It’s all they can do. If they had any actual evidence for their claims, they would present it.

    Orac’s written a couple of posts about this commonality of bad arguments here and here. Skeptico also has a nice post that metaphorically sums up the range of bad arguments made by cranks of all stripes.

  7. #7 Blake Stacey
    June 23, 2006

    About the “sameness” thing:

    It reminds me of a remark Carl Sagan made in The Demon-Haunted World, to the effect that “I’m surprised more alien-abduction therapists haven’t discovered more cases of childhood sexual abuse, and vice versa.” The same question applies here. Why do people who toss around allegations of the “Holohoax” never find evidence about the JFK assassination or the Roswell cover-up? I mean, weren’t they all organized by the Zionists/Illuminati/male fashion models?

    What we really need to answer all these questions are J. Edhar Hoover’s microfilm files. You know, the ones Sean Connery stole in The Rock.

  8. #8 tim gueguen
    June 23, 2006

    Antisemitic conspiracy mongers can’t even name names regarding a “small” conspiracy. alt.tv.networks.cbc and alt.radio.networks.cbc have long had posts claiming Jewish control of the CBC. The poster, who has gone thru several names, would often rant about the “Jewish boys” at the CBC, yet could never seem to produce an actual list of them other than Robert Rabinovich, CBC President. Ironically Rabinovich has had to defend the CBC from accusations that it has an anti-Israel bias. (The poster in question was alleged to be one Marc Lemire, an associate of Ernst Zundel’s, although he would neither confirm nor deny the claim.)

  9. #9 Jim Lippard
    June 23, 2006

    A good rule of thumb for the average Joe to test the plausibility of any conspiracy theory:

    Judge the conspiracy theory by the same standards that the conspiracy theory uses to claim the the official story falls apart. If it has more holes and implausibilities, and accounts for fewer of the facts than the official story, then the official story is a better account.

    This works for creation vs. evolution, it works for “Holohoax” vs. Holocaust, for “remote controlled planes and controlled demolitions” vs. al-Qaeda hijackers, and for CIA/Mafia plot vs. Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone–in each case the official account is a better explanation of the known facts than the fringe theory.

    Corollary: Every “official story” of a very large, complex series of events is going to have some inaccuracies and anomalies to work out, and even some that we may never be able to work out with certainty due to loss of information over time. That isn’t sufficient to refute the entire account. E.g., there are errors in the Warren Commission report–but they still got to an accurate overall conclusion based on a very broad collection of evidence from multiple sources, and fixing the errors strengthens the case (see Gerald Posner’s _Case Closed_, a very entertaining book which does so in the process of criticizing some of the most popular conspiracy theories).

  10. #10 Kiwiwriter
    June 23, 2006

    Well, I would ask the same question of neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers in The History Channel. I would ask them to present their narrative of what really happened in Europe from 1933 to 1945, and explain to me who organized the Holohoax, and how it was done. If such a great effort was made to forge documents, make people disappear or be silent, and create whole faked atrocities, faked photos, sham trials, coerced confessions, phone eyewitnesses, and so on, who did it? Specifically?

    Where are the hidden operators who performed all these feats? Who directed this campaign. Where was it based? Which authority? Since this conspiracy has held over 60 years, how was it passed down from generation to generation to ensure continued compliance all around the world? Who were the Canadian, British, French, New Zealand, Japanese, and Falkland Island authorities to ensure continued compliance? How were all the wartime Nazis and their descendants kept silent for 60 years? How were those who took part in the conspiracy kept silent? What about their families and descendants?

    Where is the paper trail for this conspiracy? How was it accomplished without a single memo?

    And finally, if this conspiracy is so complete, so well-organized, and so perfect, why did they leave so many holes? Why didn’t they forge the written order from Hitler to Himmler and other important documents? Why did they fail to wring confessions out of so many key Nazis? Why didn’t they notarize Anne Frank’s diary, or better yet, keep her alive to say, “Yup, I wrote this?”

    Why did they let Bormann disappear and Eichmann and Mengele escape to Argentina? Why did it take the Israelis 25 years to find Eichmann, if they control the world? Why did they let Himmler, Ley, and Goering kill themselves without leaving behind a full confession? Why didn’t they get one out of Rudolf Hess?

    If the whole thing was to create a State of Israel subsidized by American dollars, why did they do such a lousy job, creating a truncated state surrounded by hostile neighbors? Why didn’t they simply have Israel invade and conquer the whole Middle East, take over the oil supplies, and ensure high prices for the oil barons and bankers?

    So I would ask these questions, and the answer I got was personal attack, vitriol, veiled threats about my home and job, taunting, and insults.

    The reality is, they have no such narrative. And they know know damned well the Holocaust really happened. What they want to do is change that narrative from being a horrific act of mass murder and genocide into being the heroic Aryan race protecting itself from a tribe of subhuman and sneaking conspiratorial banker/Communists, by exterminating the Jewish menace just as it was rearing up its ugly head to wreck humanity. They want the concentration camps to become memorials to the guards, the commandant and Hitler, the Jews to become extinct, and history to say it was all heroic, justified, and necessary.

    In short, it didn’t happen, but the Jews got what they deserved. And anyone who disagrees with that idea gets death threats.

    It’s a topsy-turvy world in Holocaust denial, and a scary and depressing one.

  11. #11 Ahistoricality
    June 23, 2006

    Jim Lippard writes: Judge the conspiracy theory by the same standards that the conspiracy theory uses to claim the the official story falls apart. If it has more holes and implausibilities, and accounts for fewer of the facts than the official story, then the official story is a better account.

    But…. that’s science!

    Also an excellent rule of thumb, very useful in a pinch.

  12. #12 Neutral Observer
    June 23, 2006

    Holohoax? Holohoax! What have they got against Alceas?

    Oops, my bad, those are Hollyhocks.

  13. #13 decrepitoldfool
    June 23, 2006

    That gives me a lot to think about – I especially liked the Skeptico link. But there are commonalities on two levels and one of them I have not figured out yet. Certainly cranks of all kinds use similar arguments – that’s one level. What eludes me is the reason some people prefer an outlandish fiction over the relatively straightforward conclusion. It’s as if they see something waddle, and quack, and swim, and would just prefer to believe it’s a zebra. Why? I’ve been beating my head against this question for a while with no results.

    It isn’t just a preference for dark conspiracies, because you can’t get any darker than the Third Reich, or Al Queda. I’m missing something somehow and it really bugs me.

  14. #14 Lord Runolfr
    June 23, 2006

    I have to wonder if this “whodunnit” approach would be effective against evolution deniers, global-warming deniers, or Ann Coulter.

  15. #15 Nick Terry
    June 23, 2006

    thankee, Orac! The more this point circulates, the easier it is to counter the deniers.

    “I have noticed a sameness to the arguments of holocaust deniers, creationists, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, alties, and UFO people. Not that people who believe in one are likely to believe in the others, but something’s similar among them. I just can’t put my finger on it. Anyone have any ideas?”

    Decrepitoldfool has highlighted something very important here. There ARE homologies in argumentative tactics between the various nutso factions. Some have been pointed out by Michael Shermer, see his essay ‘How Thinking Goes Wrong’ at http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm

    I also wouldn’t underestimate the extent to which many Holocaust deniers also swallow other conspiracy theories. Fredrick Toben, head of the Adelaide Institute, is an HIV-AIDS denier, a global warming denier and probably much else IIRC. Germar Rudolf denies global warming and contributed to a 9/11 conspiracy theory site.

    There is a complete Nutzi on The Phora called IlluSionS667 who espoused Holocaust Denial, 9/11 conspiracy theory, 7/7 conspiracy theory, HIV denial all within the space of 1 week. He fingers the Templars-Illuminati-Rothschilds-Trilaterals-NWO as responsible for it all. He thought that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion showed a glimpse of this Secret World Order, though elsewhere he denied that Jews were behind every aspect of the conspiracy.

    The thing that amazes me about such a character is he claims to have an IQ of 135 and could write reasonably well (in a language other than his native tongue, too). Pressed on various issues he could come back with replies, he wasn’t stunned into silence by argument.

    Shermer has an interesting observation that there is a negative correlation between high IQ and intellectual, or rather ideological, flexibility. In other words, sometimes, the smarter you are, the less likely you are to be able to consider intellectual alternatives, and thus the more likely you are to fall for a crank theory and stick to your guns.

    At the risk of offending the hard-scientists on here, it strikes me that there is something to this. PLEASE NOTE! I only said SOME hard-scientists fall for this sort of shtick.

    Certainly there’s never any hint of interdisciplinary humility when maths graduates, computer programmers and other natural scientists pontificate about the social sciences, historical science or the humanities, when they espouse ‘alternative’ theories or conspiracy-explanations. ‘Doesn’t add up’ is one refrain one often hears from nerds who have fallen for HD.

    In methodological terms, moreover, HD tries to ape hard science and vaunts its ‘scientific’ approach over the fuzzy methods of historiography. The fact that they flout our oh-so-fuzzy methods in turn never seems to cross their antisemitic little minds, or if it does, they must be hoping nobody notices.

    These observations, however, probably don’t hold true for Creationists, who seem to be into faking credentials and have a track record of attending degree mills.

    A final word – we, that is the anti-HD community, are currently compiling a dictionary of logical and argumentative fallacies used by Holocaust Deniers. If you have any observations, comments, contributions, formulations or criticisms, please visit:

    http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3142

    http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1272.topic

    or contact me via my blog.

    One additional project has suggested itself – 100 questions about the ‘Hoax’ to put to Deniers. With Kiwiwriter’s permission, I’d like to use his questions as a starting point.

  16. #16 Hyperion
    June 23, 2006

    I also think that part of the link between various crackpot beliefs is a desire for a world without complexities, a desire for simple, even simplistic answers, especially if they confirm a pre-existing belief (that Israel is evil, that the bible is true, that the medical industry is either corrupt or inept). It is like applying a truly twisted Occam’s Razor to really crappy inductive reasoning.

    Thus, these crackpots prefer the simple belief that the Holocaust was a lie, rather than accepting the complex history of how millions of otherwise normal citizens could take part in such an atrocity; they prefer the simple belief in a 6,000 year old Earth rather than accepting the complex geological and biological processes involved in evolution; they prefer the simple belief that diluted tapwater can cure what ails them rather than accepting the complex nature of human physiology.

    When we wonder how they could accept something like Holocaust Denial, or ID, or Homeopathy, given the egregious logical gaps involved, we’re missing the larger point. These people are, deep down, afraid. They are afraid of a complex world that seems unnecessarily arbitrary and capricious. They cannot accept that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary evil, that humans are just another animal and not special in some way, or that they could contract a horrible disease without warning whose treatment may be painful or nonexistent.

    People deal with these fears by seeking out simplistic answers, regardless of their accuracy. For this reason, no amount of logic will persuade an altie to abandon their woo. Rather, it is necessary, odd as it sounds, to address the deeper fear which drives people to seek out these simplistic belief systems before you can convince them to accept rational scientific evidence.

  17. #17 anon
    June 24, 2006

    Here’s two things I think ‘conspiracists’ have in common: paranoia, and some level of mental illness.

  18. #18 tim gueguen
    June 24, 2006

    Personally I’ve long held the belief that Holocaust denial is ego boosting to its believers. After all if you’ve seen through “the Hoax of the 20th Century” where the majority haven’t you must be more intelligent, more perceptive etc. etc. than the rest of the “sheeple.”

  19. #19 epador
    June 24, 2006

    Obviously, this was a conspiracy of Hitler Cats, devised to make their existence appropriate for a web page to help spread their fame…

  20. #20 Roman Werpachowski
    June 24, 2006

    I think we need to gather all possible personal accounts of the Holocaust, as long as the witnesses live.

  21. #21 Orac
    June 24, 2006

    Obviously, this was a conspiracy of Hitler Cats, devised to make their existence appropriate for a web page to help spread their fame…

    Actually, the Hitler Cats actually don’t really need me to spread their fame. Their blog appears to get around seven times the traffic that I do.

    Humbled by cats that look like Hitler…

  22. #22 Orac
    June 24, 2006

    Personally I’ve long held the belief that Holocaust denial is ego boosting to its believers. After all if you’ve seen through “the Hoax of the 20th Century” where the majority haven’t you must be more intelligent, more perceptive etc. etc. than the rest of the “sheeple.”

    I agree. I also think that any form of conspiracy theory has the same sort of effect: “Heh, those rubes all think that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK acting alone, but I figured it out that it was the mob, in concert with Castro and the FBI, that did it!”Or: “Those idiots all think that al Qaeda brought down the World Trade Center towers, but I know it was really the Mossad and that, if you look very closely, you’ll see that there were explosions at the base and that it wasn’t just the planes.”

  23. #23 Samantha Vimes
    June 24, 2006

    Question for deniers: Are you calling the G.I.s who liberated the camps liars?

  24. #24 Orac
    June 24, 2006

    Question for deniers: Are you calling the G.I.s who liberated the camps liars?

    What deniers claim is that all those dead and dying people found by Allied soldiers were in that condition because Allied bombing had cut off food shipments to the camp. Never mind that it was Nazi policy to feed prisoners as little as possible and work them until they died of either starvation or disease. Never mind that the guards at the camp and the surrounding townfolks were still well fed.

    Basically, deniers focus on gas chambers and ignore the fact that Nazis killed their victims in a number of ways other than gas chambers, including intentional overwork and starvation. They then blame the Allied bombing campaign and the war for all the dead prisoners found in the camps by liberating allied forces.

  25. #25 Jim Lippard
    June 24, 2006

    Roman Werpachowski: “I think we need to gather all possible personal accounts of the Holocaust, as long as the witnesses live.”

    If you ever get to the United States, try to get to the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Their audio/video recordings of eyewitness accounts (as well as contemporary records) are quite impressive.

    And I’d allow at least 5 or 6 hours to go through the museum. I only allowed 4 and felt rushed.

  26. #26 Roman Werpachowski
    June 24, 2006

    Personally I’ve long held the belief that Holocaust denial is ego boosting to its believers.

    Apart from simple antisemitism and fondness of the Nazis, of course.

  27. #27 Nick Terry
    June 24, 2006

    I received a great summary of HDers from a forum moderator:

    “In my experience, revisionists employ every rhetorical fallacy possible in their arguments. I considered putting together something similar several years ago, but stopped when I realized that the study was more appropriate to psychology than logic. My experience has been that the main denier personality disorders, ranked by frequency of appearance, are: (1) anti-semites; (2) contrarians and trolls; (3) neo-Nazis and (4) German nationalists. Categories (1), (2) and (3) often overlap.

    The most frequent forms of fallacious argument used by these people are (1) the tautology; (2) ad hominem attacks, either abstract or personal; (3) poisoning the well; and (4) false or misleading analogies for purposes of misdirection and/or diversion).

    The general forms of argument I’ve seen most often are: (1) Everybody does it; (2) Things were worse during the black plague; (3) No pink flamingo, no holocaust; (4) I read somewhere that you were a child molester; does anyone have more information? (5) Please help me understand; (5) Stonewalling, to include (a) I’m ignorant, and I don’t believe it (We are told that . . . .); (b) I want to cross-examine the dead; and (c) They’re all lying; (6) The Germans may have murdered millions, but you, or your father, or someone he knew stole a pencil; and (7) If you don’t prosecute every criminal, you shouldn’t prosecute any criminal.”

  28. #28 Kiwiwriter
    June 27, 2006

    “One additional project has suggested itself – 100 questions about the ‘Hoax’ to put to Deniers. With Kiwiwriter’s permission, I’d like to use his questions as a starting point.”

    Nick, contact me off-list and I’ll help you put the questions together.

  29. #29 Ron
    October 14, 2006

    I have a great idea.

    Let’s have a public forum on the validity of the holocaust claims. Every expert on both sides of the issue can gather in one place.

    This will never happen, because science, mathmatics, and common sense prove that the holocaust was one of the biggest political scams of all time. Proponents of the holocaust mythology do not like fair, two-sided debate.

  30. #30 Orac
    October 14, 2006

    …science, mathmatics, and common sense prove that the holocaust was one of the biggest political scams of all time. Proponents of the holocaust mythology do not like fair, two-sided debate.

    Oh, goody. Another live one.

    Perhaps you can explain how “science, mathematics, and common sense prove that the Holocaust was one of the biggest scams of all time.” Please be specific with the data, particularly the mathematics.

    Holocaust deniers are so predictable…

  31. #31 Sergey Romanov
    October 14, 2006

    “I have a great idea.

    Let’s have a public forum on the validity of the holocaust claims. Every expert on both sides of the issue can gather in one place.

    This will never happen, because science, mathmatics, and common sense prove that the holocaust was one of the biggest political scams of all time. Proponents of the holocaust mythology do not like fair, two-sided debate.”

    Except:

    1) You haven’t made a case for a serious debate. First you have to show that something is debatable or in doubt. You haven’t shown that the Holocaust history is debatable or in doubt, as a whole (parts are being debated all the time).

    Cf. the flat earth claims and YEC claims. Nobody in his right mind will seriously debate a flat-earther or a YEC. When debates do happen, they’re done only in order to show the silliness of flat-earthers and YECs, not to establish whether their claims are true or false (because they’re obviously false).

    2) You haven’t shown that there are any “experts” on the “other side”.

    3) For a fair, two-sided debate look no further than http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23

  32. #32 faust
    January 9, 2007

    only lies have to be supported by propaganda such as soap bars and lamp shades, myths that holocaust supporters now admit. then they say that they cut people’s hairs before they were getting KILLED, in order to send the hair back and make MATTRESSES out of it. do you believe this? are you that stupid to believe such nonsense? you guys are more ignorant than you think, and need to do more research. http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com

    what is ‘anti-semitic’ anyway? It’s a stigma, a paradigm. no other racial group has such a term that gives them social privelages. the term itself is racist. do you know that semite means arabic? most american ignoramuses don’t know that. stop using the term ‘anti-semite’ it’s a stigma, it’s segregation and social privelage. it’s like if i hate one jew, then i hate all of them, that’s what you guys are doing with this term.

    why does Churchill’s Second World War, Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe, and Gaulle’s memoirs not mention ONE thing about gassings or holocaust or extermination? maybe it just slippped their mind… why does Elie Wiesel’s Night not mention ONE thing about gas chambers in Auschwitz? And why in hell did the prisoners CHOOSE to escape with the SS instead of being liberated by the Soviets?

    there’s isint even any documents to support extermination. all there is is the ‘final solution’ which was emigration into russia and working for the war machine. yes they were forced to work, but they can’t feed the war machine if they’re starved.

    the victors perpetrated this hoax. the soviets came in, saw dead bodies due to typhus, and started making propaganda against the enemy. 4 small gas chambers at auschwitz were used for cremating dead typhus bodies. there wouldn’t be enough time to gas or burn or whatever 1 million victims with such few equipment in 2 years. first the soviets said auscwitz murdered 4 million! then they dropped it to 1 million, quite a large drop no? how can you make such a big mistake?

    the myth WAS perpetrated by the allies, it was victor’s war and victor’s propaganda. the zionist council already made britain to entice the US into WW1 so they can get the Palestine mandate (Balfour declaration) so why not again?

    research more… http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com

  33. #33 Orac
    January 9, 2007

    Oh, please.

    Prisoners didn’t “choose” to escape with the Nazis as the Soviets advanced. They were forced to in what became death marches. Many died; those too weak to continue were left to die at the roadside or simply shot.

    As for One Third of the Holocaust, please, give me another break. Andrew, Roberto, and Sergey over at Holocaust Controversies are in the midst of tearing apart the canards that Ugly Voice/Denierbud is spewing, and Ugly Voice is too intellectually dishonest to link to their rebuttals. As for your crap about typhus and the Auschwitz gas chambers, if I were you I’d be embarrassed for posting such long-debunked drivel. It reveals you to be ignorant, a rank amateur.

    Go away, little one. You’re clearly out of your depth here.

  34. #34 IlluSionS667
    April 26, 2007

    Before I left there due to the poor quality of the average discussion, I’ve had numerous discussions with Nick Terry over this topic. Of all people I discussed with on the “Holocaust”, Terry is definitely the most skilled discussion partner and one of the few to use decent arguments every now and then. I guess I must be honored for him to mention me on several blog websites (including this one).

    Nevertheless, he still has this myopic view on the “Holocaust”, which seems to interfere with the logical part of his brain. Like most other “debunkers” of “Holocaust denial”, he loves to throw insults, use circular reasoning, avoid annoying questions, make wild speculations and deny the obvious.

    Someone here quoted “Judge the conspiracy theory by the same standards that the conspiracy theory uses to claim the the official story falls apart. If it has more holes and implausibilities, and accounts for fewer of the facts than the official story, then the official story is a better account.” It is interesting how this quote is used against so-called “conspiracy theorists”, while it can be used just the other way around.

    We are supposed to believe that Hitler was responsible for the industrial murder of 6 million people without leaving a paper trail (only a handful of highly controversial documents imply the existence of such a murder plan – most documents imply the contrary). We are supposed to believe that all evidence regarding to the supposed murder plan was destroyed, even though there’s no evidence for this and millions of documents were found all over German authorities and are currently stored in American and Russian archives. We are supposed to believe that some concentration camps had gas chambers, even though not a single concentration camp was found with a workable gas chamber. We are supposed to believe that the number of murdered jews is 6 million: a Kabbalic mythical number that just happens to match the number of jews supposebly suffering during WW1 (according to Jewish propaganda used to extort money from other Jews) and that is far higher than any number allowed by population statistics. We are supposed to believe that the Germans used code language in their top secret documents only when it related to the “Holocaut”: eg. migration and special treatment both are supposed to refer to murder, even though there’s no objective reason to believe so.

    So-called “deniers” reject all this, and state that these claims are the remnants of wartime propaganda, which became a part of written history due to the Nuremberg show trials. Torture of witnesses and accused have been described by various people, including a judge who would resign because of the political nature of the trials. Most testimonies that do not correspond with the claims of “deniers” contain various proven fallacies, implausibilities or contradictions with themselves or other testimonies. Governments of 10 European countries refuse to give a forum to these “deniers”, with false accusations of antisemitism and the absurd claim that “denying the Holocaust” is done to make “another Holocaust” easier. “Deniers” are accused of doing nothing but neo-nazi propaganda, even though one of the most prominent “deniers” (Rassinier) was a socialist who spent some time in a concentration camp himself. There are also some Jewish “deniers”, which makes the claim of inherent antisemitism even more absurd. The conclusions about a typhoid epidemic being responsible for most dead, has been confirmed by phorensic data taken from corpses at some of the concentration camps as well as by many inmates. In fact, documents, photographs and facilities present at the concentration camps prove the Germans took special care of delycing individuals as a matter of preventing or stopping typhoid (a common disease in wartime, especially where many people live in a small area) outbreaks in the camps. This is further proven by Red Cross reports, which speak relatively positive on the general conditions of concentration camps such as Auschwitz and which mention the typhoid outbreaks at the end of the war, combined with food shortages that the Red Cross reports themselves blame on the “barbaric allied bombings”. etc.

  35. #35 Luna_the_cat
    April 26, 2007

    That post by IlluSioS667 could be taken as walking proof that it takes a great deal less time and effort to spew nonsense than it does to refute it.

    I’m sure most of the [sane] people present are already familiar with these resources, but nevertheless I recommend
    http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/ and
    http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/ .

    Illu — the Holocaust lacks documentation in much the same way that evolution lacks evidence. Which is to say, it takes dedicated delusion and ignorance in order to ignore its existance.

  36. #36 sean
    September 9, 2007

    uh…how about otto franks, anne franks father. the entire diary of anne franks was examined historically and found to be a forgery, written by a ghost writer otto franks hired, to hide, his complicity with the nazi. it was written in 1943, in ball point pen, which was not available in germany. there have been so many jews like you, that have told so many lies about the historical record of ww2, its hardly worth discussing. the jews concocted this ‘fantasy’ to hide the jewish lead communist revolution in russian in which jews killed 50 million christians.

  37. #37 Orac
    September 9, 2007

    You must be among the stupider Holocaust deniers to trot out that old lie that the Ann Frank diary is a forgery. Most know better than to embarrass themselves by spewing such obvious idiocy. Apparently you do not know better. In any case, it’s not a forgery::

    In the 1950’s, people who hated Jews and wanted to discredit the Holocaust and anything connected with it, began to publish articles stating that the diary was a hoax. When Otto Frank died in 1980, he gave the diary to the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation. There was so much controversy connected with the authenticity of the diary, the N.S.I.W.D. felt obliged to subject every part of the diary to scientific testing in order to determine its authenticity once and for all. They tested the paper, the ink, the glue that bound the book together, the handwriting, the postage stamps and censorship stamps on postcards and letters that Anne and her family sent during their time in hiding. The forensic experts produced a highly technical, 250-page report on their findings. It proved that the diaries were written by one person during the period in question and the changes made to the diaries were of a very limited nature. It proved beyond any doubt that the diaries were authentic.

    And:

    Proceeding from his misleading reference to the Lubeck case, Irving wrote: “Alas, in 1981, the West German police laboratory at Wiesbaden was called in at one court’s direction to test the diaries … Frank refused to allow the diaries out of Switzerland, so the judge ordered the Wiesbaden experts thither … They determined, as reported in Der Spiegel at the time, that parts of the diary were written in ballpoint ink – a pen invented some years after Anne’s cruel death…”

    The truth: In 1981, the diary manuscript was not in Switzerland, having been delivered in November 1980 to the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, under the terms of Otto Frank’s will.

    The “parts of the diary” confirmed by the Dutch as being written in ballpoint ink were two slips of paper, each written in a different hand and neither in Anne’s, inserted as bookmarks into folders into which its Swiss custodians placed the manuscript long after the war.

    The Wiesbaden police report was four pages long, compared with more than 250 for the report made by the State Forensic Science Laboratory in Amsterdam, which the editors of “The Critical Edition” briefed.

    The Wiesbaden experts confirmed that the paper and glue in the manuscript predated the period in which Anne Frank wrote the diary, but mentioned – without stating their number or location – some ballpoint “corrections”. They may have been referring to page-numbering done by the handwriting experts in the Lubeck case, although this was subsequently found by the Dutch not to be in ballpoint.

    Most importantly, the Wiesbaden police were not briefed to conduct any handwriting tests and did not do so, despite the implication Irving creates with his craftily juxtaposed reference to the Lubeck “graphological affidavit”. Handwriting analysis was one of the Dutch forensic lab’s chief tools.

    Irving wrote: “(Otto Frank) did not sue me … He sued several others, winning large sums of money.”

    The truth: Otto Frank was a reluctant litigant, persuaded on only a handful of occasions to act against challengers of the diary’s authenticity. The sole action involving “large sums of money” was one undertaken with the producer and writers of a successful Broadway play based on Anne’s diary. This was to free royalties that had been frozen pending resolution of a plagiarism claim.

    Your spewing the easily debunked Holocaust denier lie that the Ann Frank diary is a forgery reveals you to be not too bright.

  38. #38 Dave Rave
    April 13, 2008

    The Allies need the holocaust badly:
    They use the holocaust as their sole aliby for their violence against the civilization of continental Europe.

    The BBC history channel has already taken responsibility, on behlf of its government for the murder of the Auustrian crown-prince in 1914, namely the set up and operation of the local murder squad, namely the physical begining of WWI.

    Colonel Rezun, AKA “Victor Suvorov” has already taken responsibility on behalf of Stalin for WWII.

  39. #39 Mike Delaney
    April 19, 2008

    I’ll give you a name:
    http://www.benjaminfreedman.net
    and this one too
    http://www.jackberstein.org

    DEBUNK THOSE!

  40. #40 Nomen Nescio
    April 19, 2008

    The Allies need the holocaust badly:
    They use the holocaust as their sole aliby for their violence against the civilization of continental Europe.

    really? and here all along i had thought the casus belli for England and France was the 1939 invasion of Poland, which predated much of the holocaust entirely. do pray tell when Eisenhower cited the holocaust as a more pressing reason to go to war than even Pearl Harbor. and let’s not forget the easternmost of the allies, who never much cared about genocide (being quite practiced at it himself) but had a bit of a grudge over Operation Barbarossa.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.