The Holocaust

[johnmortons]

fair enough, i didn't want to base my arguments on my education per se anyway and am well aware of how many people go through academia without learning much.

I just wanna know if they came up with new evidences

i am a bit confused by what you mean with "new evidences" and why you think this is so important given that the "old" evidence is not refuted ...but pick for instance Christopher Browning's book "Ordinary Men" (about 10 years old now i think). As far as I know he went through substantial amounts of primary evidence (official files, letters, etc.) which had not been examined before to explore the extermination-work of a particular unit of the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe and their motivations. So, this is an example of 'new' evidence of a particular aspect of the holocaust.

also, browning did not at all agree with all other historians, in particular, he was locked into a fierce debate with Goldhagen. however, not about the basic facts of the holocaust but over the motivations of the perpetrators

 

[Manifespo]

Does anyone have anything to say about this striking speech by Benjamin Freedman?
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

Why did Germany, a war-torn nation so starved for energy on both fronts, waste untold resources shipping thousands of miles, storing, torturing, killing, and burning over 10 million people? Wouldn't 12 million bullets be much more efficient?

Is the Holocaust the only historical event which is criminal to question (in parts of Europe)? And who wants it censored?

And what is the deal with Neturei Karta?
http://www.nkusa.org/

 

[Psychedelic Gleam]

"Is the Holocaust the only historical event which is criminal to question (in parts of Europe)? And who wants it censored?"

The amount of guilt/paranoia the German gov. and people feel about the whole issue is the source of this, not some grand Jewish conspiracy. Its not like they forbid research into it, they forbid people from stating "the holocaust is the lie" and then picking only the bits of data that support their evidence to back their claim. The Germans KNOW the Holocaust happened so the DENIAL of it in a country where it is souch a touchy subject is far beyond taboo. Yes it is odd, and wrong that they supress and punish people for their "questioning" but these people aren't respectable scolars just hatemongers with agendas, spreading what the Germans know to be completely false.

And the Neturei Karta explain what their "deal" is on that site they linked... Always people in a society who disagree with teh actions of a gov... not suprising, maybe a separate "Israel" topic should be opened up as its far too broad to have the holocaust AND israel in one topic.

 

[Judas]

i am a bit confused by what you mean with "new evidences" and why you think this is so important given that the "old" evidence is not refuted

There are a lot of paperwork left over by the Nazis who were so methodical. Some of these have been gone through and interpreted by past historians. Keep in mind that what these historians have are just data and nothing more until it is interpreted to have a meaning. Newer historians, though they may use new souces almost always rely on some established secondary sources where they use the same evidence with already established interpretations. They are essentially continuing a bridge using the foundation already there.
I realize that this is the way all knowledge are accumulated, through new research building on old ones. But with history, with interpretations building on interpretations, I am skeptical to believe one view of an event. History is not as solid as some make it out to be.

Look at the trial of David Irving, who was declared as a Holocaust denier. He was basically interpreting history in his own way through the selection of evidences that supported his thesis, and through misinterpretation of some of these evidences. Evans and his team basically had to do vast amount of research cross examining his evidences before they were able to definitively call bullshit on Irving. Thats how fragile history is. Its very depended on faliable interpretation.

Pertaining to the Holocaust, nobody is cross-examining.

 

[johnmortons]

with interpretations building on interpretations, I am skeptical to believe one view of an event. History is not as solid as some make it out to be....Keep in mind that what these historians have are just data and nothing more until it is interpreted to have a meaning.

imho you are confused. what do you mean by "one view of the event". There are hundreds of different interpretation of why it happened and even how exactly. however, there are some basic facts, FACTS, which do not require any more interpretation because they are so well established and their meaning is just crystal clear. there simply cannot be any doubt that Nazi Germany launched a deliberate, planned campaign of extermination against the European Jews and killed millions of them (alongside many other victims). and there is no way you could interpret this except as a bottomless abyss of horror.

you act as if we are talking about abstract data points with no relation to reality, which could be ordered and interpreted one way or another. but they are not. they are millions of people, kids, fathers, mothers, whole villages and cities who have left very tangible and concrete evidence which (in reference to the basic fact of their death) is NOT up to "interpretation".

are you trying to say that all the names on the endless lists in the concentration camps, all the photos of naked corpses, all the letters and memoirs of victims and perpetrators are faked, or even if not faked, could be interpreted in a way that comes to the conclusion that, after all, nothing ever happend? or what kind of conclusion do you expect? what DO YOU think is what "really" happened? it's not enough to just "doubt" for no reason, with no alternative hypothesis and with no evidence whatsoever.

History is not as solid as some make it out to be.

no, it's definitely not. but some things we just know. i really wonder what kind of proof you want to be convinced.

Pertaining to the Holocaust, nobody is cross-examining.

what nonsense. historians are constantly re-examining the primary sources and attacking each other over mistakes. but as i said above, some things you can examine as long as you want without being able to come up with another "interpretation"... what do you want anyway? do you expect a historian to launch an investigation with the hypothesis "the holocaust never happened"... well, this has certainly been tried, but the reason such a thing is not being published in professional journals is that the evidence that it DID INDEED HAPPEN is just so overwhelming. you can't go into any archive and not come out with bucketloads full of evidence of people exterminated in the holocaust. any such hypothesis is simply disproved immediately, which is why no such papers surface in history journals or elsewhere (except, perhaps, journals and websites with clear political agenda or without any quality standards).

so what is your goal in this discussion? seriously, i don't get it...just doubt and doubt without reason and purpose? is it really so hard to accept that mankind is not above the worst crimes against itself?

 

[Zero the hero]

Pertaining to the Holocaust, nobody is cross-examining.

Seriously man, for someone whose supposedly so familiar with this subject you just don't seem to know anything about it at all? There's HEAPS of on going discussion concerning the Holocaust and many differnt points of view. There are intentionalists, extreme intentionalist, moderate intentionalist, functionalists, extreme functionalists, moderate functionalists, those in between, etc. The topic is hardly closed for debate. In fact, historians constantly debate the Holocaust, and at times quite heatedly in fact. What’s NOT open for debate are points such as, the numbers of Jews murdered (I’m not talking about was it 5 or was it 6 million, etc either, you know what I’m getting at), if it really happened or if it was exaggerated or falsified in ANY WAY with regards to being used as a tool by the Jews in the formation of the state of Israel, etc. I don’t understand why this so fucking difficult for you to understand?

By the way, just curious but what’s this about being "skeptical about all arguments until I learn to read German"? Huh? What does that mean? That you don't "trust" the translations? Why? Because of WHO might have translated them? I don't get it?