Essay talk:A critical view of the article on Holocaust Denial

Why did you blank it? It is interesting work, but it needs more references. For example the line:

David Irving was fined 30,000 DM by a German court for saying the gas chamber shown to tourists in Auschwitz 1 is a post-war partial reconstruction by the Soviets and Polish Communists of what is alleged to have previously existed. Later the Auschwitz Museum authorities admitted he was right. Irving's conviction was not rescinded.

I don't find the "truth about holocaust" to be particularly interesting issue, although my country could be indirectly associated with it - Estonia was the only state declared to be "free of Jews" by German authorities. It is emotional topic and I admit I know very little about it.

I find the beginning of your essay more interesting - for example, "If anyone tells us that we must not hold a position because it is “evil” or “against God”, we rightly laugh at them. We do not want to suppress their right to express their views, even though they try to suppress ours. We believe in tolerance and, above all, openness."

It is not only "the fundamentalist Christian Right" that call other people "evil anti-choice freedom-hater" ...

--Earthland (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I blanked it because I accidentally posted it before it was ready. I tried to answer you earlier but I got rather busy with stuff below. I can't edit your section without doing the whole article. Then if someone else adds something in the meantime I'm not allowed to save it.

The world is full of freedom-haters. I concentrated on the religious ones but I don't think I singled out the Christians.

I knew of that declaration.. I'm not sure of its significance. The Jewish population of Estonia was very small, and most of them fled with the Russians in 1941, didn't they?

Qwertyuiop (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"We?"

You're right--the Holocaust (MOST professional historians DO use the upper-case), like all of the human past, is a valid object of historical enquiry, and as such, should not have ideologically pre-built-in limitations in terms of what knowledge we produce about it, with the obvious exceptions of those limitations grounded in its brute ontological reality. And you're right, there are politically-based limitations to what can be credibly said about the Holocaust, although you might want to ask yourself where those limitations come from (and I'm not talking about some sort of worldwide Jewish conspiracy creating those limits, I'm talking about those limits being created in no small measure because of a hateful and hurtful tendency t o deny the ontological reality of the Holocaust). Moreover, you might want to think about temporal distance. We're still very much in the aftermath of a world-shattering event; there are still old people wandering around with numbers tattooed on their arms (I saw one a few months ago), and that immediacy makes "objectivity" (a dicey question at best, as Novick argued) a pretty big task.

That being said, prefacing your little essay with "we" makes it read as if you're speaking on behalf of this community, when you are in fact, speaking for yourself. The Shoah is a sensitive subject, and you might do well to clearly limit this discussion to your own beliefs and opinions, and not make it seem as if "we" have issues with this question. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"We" is used in the first two paras. Is there anything you take issue with there? Qwertyuiop (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's YOUR essay, not OURS, and the first two pgphs make it seem as if they're setting up an argument based on the standards that YOU claim that WE adhere to. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, I'm not sure what you're trying to do--but it seems as if you want to say that WE/Ratwik need to start interrogating the historicity of the Holocaust in a particular manner, which isn't necessarily something that is the case, given its particular nature. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It is *your* essay, not RW's. Therefore, it should be in first-person singular. Please fix so it doesn't seem like RW endorses the essay as everyone's view. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"We" in the first two paras refers to Rationalists in general and RatWikians in particular. After that I do not use "we", but I try to show how the approach of the article conflicts with these principles. Is there anything in the first two paras you would take issue with? Qwertyuiop (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's not an article, it's your essay. You shouldn't speak for others unless you directly quote them. The "we" is inappropriate in a personal essay, because you are arguing for others with your personal opinion. Quote others, or go first-person-singular. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I used "article" to mean "article" and "essay" to mean "essay". Do my first two paras, which use "we" say anything that you would dispute? That is the question I have asked twice already.Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How are you not getting this? You just argued that you are indeed speaking on behalf of others, and want people to dispute what you're arguing. That's not the purpose of essays. They are personal arguments about a specific subject, and there is no reason for anyone else to dispute them. If you don't quote anyone to support your position, then use "I" or "me," not drag others into it to enhance your argument. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be having difficulties with the English language. I'm going to end our conversation here.Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You just summed up (in a nice ironic way) the essential nature of Irrational Atheist. Nice job. --Earthland (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, do you have to crap on every discussion with people who criticize you? If you can't keep shit to the appropriate venues, I will take this up with the 'crats. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My English is fine. You're stuck on "others share this idea, so I'll just leave the argument as 'we'." It's a personal essay. Make it yours, not others'. If you don't see the point made very clearly here, then just delete the essay already. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but they set up the impression that what comes next is written in the spirit of ideals that "we" have--and the particulars of the issue in question make that a bit of an issue. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What I have done is to state some principles which I take to be shared. No one seems to disagree so far. I then try to show how the article that I am criticising doesn't respect those principles. That seems a legitimate and logical way to proceed. Do you not agree?Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And what you're not doing, either in your little essay or on this talk page, is giving any respectful or thoughtful consideration to the question of why this particular event forces us to engage with it in its own particular way. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what "forces us to engage with it in its own particular way" means.Qwertyuiop (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For a guy who harps on people for not being able to understand basic English, you're pretty dense yourself. See what I said above re: the role of the denial of the ontological reality of the Holocaust in shaping historical inquiry into the nature and shape of the Holocaust, and the "open sore" question--the fact that it's a big order to ask for totally detached, "objective" (a loaded term for ANY historical investigation) historical analysis of an event that is, rightly or wrongly, often enframed as being unique in its pain/effects/moral depravity, an event whose political implications are still being played out in contested ways. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are putting words into my mouth, or concepts onto my page, that I didn't use. I didn't talk about totally detached objective history. I don't believe it exists. What I asked for is the right of people to question established views, without being subject to vilification, physical violence and imprisonment. And the right of the rest of us to read them and form our own judgements, or indeed to suspend judgement. Not too much to ask for, is it? Qwertyuiop (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have the right to question established views. What you don't have the ability to do in many countries is to declare that certain parts of history are fabricated, especially for racist reasons. What you also don't have the right to do is demand that you get to question views without being vilified. Part of the freedom of speech is that you can say what you want without government interference, but others may criticize what you say in return. If you don't want to be vilified, don't say things that would get you vilified. Either that or accept what your words will do. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have some points there that are worth taking up. But only if you are willing to do so in quiet, non-confrontational manner. Qwertyuiop (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that you were the one who said this: "Sorry, you seem to be having difficulties with the English language. I'm going to end our conversation here." Again, you want others to be or do what you're not willing of yourself. If you want others to be quiet and non-confrontational, you can't therefore be that way yourself to others. This goes to the whole "not being vilified for what is said" thing. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But you don't quote anyone who takes this position. You just try to lend credibility to your side of the argument by making it a "we" argument, rather than an "I" argument. I don't know how else to make this clearer: It is your essay. Stop trying to make it everyone else's. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your gramophone record got stuck in the groove again. Qwertyuiop (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet you still can't comprehend it. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Faeces of a bull

David Irving was fined 30,000 DM by a German court for saying the gas chamber shown to tourists in Auschwitz 1 is a post-war partial reconstruction by the Soviets and Polish Communists of what is alleged to have previously existed. Later the Auschwitz Museum authorities admitted he was right. Irving's conviction was not rescinded.

David Irving was fined for saying there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz at all(among many other things). This statement makes it seem as if Irving was wrongfully fined. This is not the case, he did willfully break German laws about Holocaust denial. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a reference on this? I admit I was quoting from memory. But I do know that Irving says that he referred to the gas chamber "they show the tourists" in Auschwitz 1. Qwertyuiop (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Down at "Fallout."

“”Because many Western democracies have passed laws against Holocaust denial, racial incitement and defaming the memory of the dead, Irving has frequently come into conflict with the governments of countries he has sought to enter. In early 1992, German authorities fined him 10,000 marks (about $6,000) after he violated a federal law against public expression of the “Auschwitz Lie.” Appealing the fine, an unrepentant Irving declared, “there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, I will not change my opinion.” (His fine was subsequently tripled.)

That should help. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I still can't see why anyone thinks banning Holocaust denial is a good idea. Stupid educated Phantom! 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Germany is touchy about the 30s and 40s, for obvious reasons. But people are free most everywhere else to be idiots about it. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In Germany it is part of laws on hate speech. Hate speech laws do create a border around full out freedom of speech. The reasoning behind these laws is the perpetrators of the hate speech in question hurt the ones who the speech is directed at. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If I got the amount of the fine wrong I'll certainly change that. As for the quote from Irving, I'd like a more independent source than the ADL. But I don't object to changing or removing that section if I got it wrong. Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is a better source then no source (which is what you have got going for the entire essay) Internetmoniker (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. But it's not a very independent one. I expect we can find better, even if it does just confirm the ADL. Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the amount to 10K DM. I'm leaving the rest for the moment but I'll look for further info. Feel free to post here or on my page if you find more. Qwertyuiop (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just saw his fine was tripled (probably for shooting his mouth off, being Irving), so I was right on the amount. Changing it back. Qwertyuiop (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, your essay, your job to fix it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the general purpose behind our discussions.Qwertyuiop (talk)

Uncorrected

This doesn't correct the points made on the talk page. Instead you assume your memory of what Irving said was right and looked for any quote where the crematorium at Auschwitz was rebuilt and not the original. You still haven't found any citations where Irving only said that the tourist spot was a recreation and that the authorities in charge were arguing that it was original. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for that would be that it wasn't intended to. I'm assuming nothing, which is why I have asked others for suitable references. This one's just a source for the Museum's acknowledgement, somewhat grudgingly given to judge by the way it's hidden away. I have read, but cannot vouch for this as I have never been, nor know anyone who has, that there is a small plaque on the site saying that it is a reconstruction, but that it is far from prominent, and that no great effort is made to correct it if visitors get the wrong impression that it is in original state. But, as I said, just hearsay.

Of course there's no citation that the authorities say it's original, because they don't. At least, not since 1995 anyway.

Here's a link from an anti-denier site[1], Nizkor, that confirms the Museum's acknowledgement but claims Irving said "built", whereas the Museum said "rebuilt". Important difference, but who is to say who is right so many years after the event. It was inconvenient for the Museum that the claimed gas chambers were miles away from the main site. They say that this one was used for a short time long before the others were ever used. Qwertyuiop (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Others have also made this point... This is an essay. It's not up to anyone else to reference your claims. If you can't back up your claims, then you should expect others here rightfully to point this out.

Which is indeed precisely what I have requested them to do.Qwertyuiop (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're still assuming that what you're arguing is true, and take a bad-faith argument to support it. Because you believe Irving argued that the crematorium was not original even though the authorities in charge of it said it was, that the point that the crematorium that people see there now isn't prominently promoted as "rebuilt" means they're trying to hide this fact. It just isn't such a vital and important fact, compared to everything else discussed, that they saw fit to make sure your demands were met. In short, it's your essay, tend to it, but be aware you're doing so on a site filled with skeptics who have had many goes with denialists of many forms. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions about what I believe. I'm a sceptic so basically I don't believe very much about anything. Belief isn't part of my mindset. But scepticism goes in both directions. I cast a sceptical eye on holocaust believers and deniers alike. But both have, or should have, full right of expression.

As far as I know the Museum were at this point claiming it was for real, but I'm trying to find out, as that is what the trial was all about. I've already said I'll remove this if we can't source it. It's hardly vital to the essay. Everything I find on it on Google (not a lot) is biased the one way or the other so I can't get a reliable answer.

I said I'd continue the discussion only if you stopped being confrontational, and so far you haven't. Qwertyuiop (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Essay

Despite some flaws that have already been pointed out, like a bit too free a hand with your referenced examples, I thought this essay made some valid points. To be honest, I think you're actually completely right in that the idea of the Holocaust's reality should be open to question. Partially this is because I am an American who believes ardently in free expression, and so the idea that you can be fined for expressing a set of beliefs is abhorrent to me. But also from a rational standpoint, you're right that this should be open to question.

One thing I think you've overlooked is that we tend to associate ideas and sets of beliefs very strongly with the set of people that we perceive as commonly espousing them. Let me pose you a counterexample - fascism.

To most people (at least from what I can see) the notion of fascism is dismissed just as resoundingly and out-of-hand as that of Holocaust denial. Considering it is an ancient belief that has been far more common than not, historically speaking, this seems strange until you realize that this is because the only modern fascists have been (almost without exception) assholes. This is the rule of Asshole by Association - if someone believes something that you know is believed by a heck of a lot of assholes, then you tend to think that person is probably also a hole of the ass variety.

Why do I think MTV's "Jersey Shore" is terrible, even though I haven't seen it? It's because everyone I know who unironically likes the show is an asshole. The same thing goes for Holocaust denial and fascism. So while I think you're right, I also think it's an understandable mistake. That said, our article on this merits serious examination.--^talk 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments. I don't think I overlooked the point you make, though it may have got buried a bit in my verbiage. ;) A major problem here is that any revisionist (small r this time because I mean it in the most general sense) approach is seized on by some racist idiots. And some of the political views of the historians, like Mark Weber, Irving or Carlos Porter are iffy. That's why I stressed the ad hominem bit so much in the essay. Qwertyuiop (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I too enjoyed the essay. The sentiments expressed here are something that I have thought for a long time - even if there may be the odd mistake with detail. This is the type of essay that RW should encourage. --Damo^Hi 22:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing wrong with an essay that openly examines the facts even though the subject is controversial. I think that because you (Qwerty) are writing about Holocaust denialism people are quick to brand you as a denialist yourself, which is obviously not the case. Nicely done. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I, too, agree with most of your points, particularly those pertaining to censorship of dissidents. Stupid educated Phantom! 22:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. If you can identify mistakes of detail please post so I can fix them. Qwertyuiop (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey qwertyuiop (my, that was easy to type!), one thing I think this essay could use is some headers. First, I think it would clear up the we/I ambiguity in the introduction, and second, if someone on the talk page is discussing a particular point, it might be easier to find to read over quickly. Also, headers create a sort of insight into the structural organization of a wiki page (along with an automatic table of contents if there are several). ħuman 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the headers. I'll work on them. For the "we" bit though I think anyone who can read English can understand that I've set out principles I think are generally accepted and then tried to show why I think the article doesn't live up to them. But a header can help with that issue too.

I just copied this from RatWiki's principles:

2 Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.

3 Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

The article is undertaken in the spirit of "2". I think it also needs to examine what Finkelstein calls the "Holocaust Industry" for elements of "3". I also think the snarkiness, which I know RatWiki encourages, detracts from the objectivity and makes it look like what I called above "sub-undergraduate facetiousness". It is me, but I'm not logged in. Qwerty. 78.147.253.211 (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Expelled: No Denial Allowed

Might I suggest this as an alternate title? I think it would fit. In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed we learn that great scientists who simply want to give an alternate view on the way life was brought forth on this planet are harassed and threatened by an evil cabal of mainstream scientists who are out to get them. In this essay we learn that great historians who just want to give an alternate view on the Holocaust are harassed and threatened by an evil cabal of mainstream historians who are out to get them. David Irving et. al. are not taken seriously by the community of historians at large. This could be because there is an insidious group of people who just want to show history from one particular point of view. It may also be because David Irving et. al. are a bunch of idiots. Is it wrong to imprison them for saying these things, in my opinion, yes. But are we missing out on great historical work by this suppression, no. Internetmoniker (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What a lot of crap! Try reading what I wrote. You may find it's not that far from what you wrote. But at the same time, if you think people like Derwishowitz and Lipstick are wonderful try reading Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry. And I have actually read both sides of this argument. I wonder if you have. Qwertyuiop (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should respond a little more seriously. It's not historians who want to silence the Revisionists. Not unless you count Lipstick as a historian. I don't. It's Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry and some far-left politicians. (Don't jump to conclusions; I'm further left than right myself: Guardian-reader, Pilger and Chomsky fan.) Hilberg engaged with Revisionists, and so did Pressac. As for Irving, he's an odd case. Personally much to dislike, but as runner down of documentary evidence almost unmatched. He's never written on the holocaust though. Qwertyuiop (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So what does this alleged "Holocaust Industry" actually consist of? There's a lot of passive voice in this essay - people "have been beaten up" or "have been jailed" and "there have been moves in the UN to get a worldwide ban" - all focusing on the revisionists as victims of oppression, but not making it clear who is committing these acts or how this all fits together. Are you suggestion that these events are all connected & there is some grand conspiracy at work? Or maybe the ideas these victims express just tend to make people angry? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Weasel! Have you read Finkelstein?

The essay doesn't present a case for Revisionism. Only that it should not be illegal or persecuted. As far as the essay is concerned that's it.

However, you've asked sensible, intelligent questions, so I'm going to slam a "SERIOUS" sticker on what follows and attempt to answer them, even though they fall outside the scope of the essay.

On the beatings-up, the aggressors are rarely caught. But in America the JDL founded by that ultra-right Jewish Fascist Meir Kahane regularly threatens and doubtless carries out violence. It was the JDL that threatened David Cole into recanting. See links in the essay. I don't think they got anyone in France for beating up Faurisson ten times.

In the US Finkelstein identifies the various individuals and bodies of the Holocaust Industry, which include the ADL and the JDL. They are closely connected to Zionism, and Finkelstein says they use the Holocaust to justify the existence and conduct of Israel.

As for jailing, everyone knows about Irving and you must know about Zundel and Rudolf being banged up for years in Germany. They never threatened anyone. Zundel's a pacifist. He has weird views on Hitler, it's true, but he never hurt anyone or advocated violence. Rudolf's offence was that he believed the Leuchter report was valid and went to do tests of his own and published them. It's highly technical chemical stuff and I haven't a clue how valid it is, and I'm pretty sure the judge hadn't either. Didn't matter because the law said he was wrong. He was banged up for about 3 years and his book was burned!!

The moves in the EU to extend laws against denial have come mainly from the German political establishment and the Left. Like the Gayssot law in France. The point is none of these people are historians or have studied the holocaust. They accept it as a given.

There are reasonable criticisms to be made of the mainstream holocaust story. That's not to say there are no answers to them, but if the questions can't be asked we don't hear the answers. Some weak points are:

- Heavy reliance on eyewitness testimony, which is not rated very reliable by the courts. See Wiki on the subject [2]. Internal inconsistency and mutual contradiction of much of this evidence. Much of it from Stalinist Soviet sources. And much, like the gas chambers in the Western camps, now universally accepted as false.

- Estimates of losses made in the fog of the aftermath of war and massive population movement, with inadequate data, but never revised since. The "six million" given virtually sacrosanct status. Based on subtracting known survivors from previous population. In other contexts (e.g.German deaths in the exodus from Eastern Europe) this is considered to give the maximum estimate of a wide range.

- Apparent mismatch between the alleged industrial scale of the murders and the primitive and inefficient facilities where they took place. There were crematoria in all the concentration camps except those said to be extermination camps! If a technologically advanced nation seriously set out to commit mass murder would they really have used such Heath Robinson contraptions?

- How could it have been carried out in secret if the population of San Francisco or Greater Leeds was burned on open fires in one camp in a few months?

- Paucity of material evidence. Where are the bodies or bones or ashes? Where did the wood fuel come from? Where are the murder weapons?

- Why no forensic investigations? Why, when Revisionists perform them, is the opportunity not taken to repeat them under controlled conditions and prove the Revisionists' error?

I've tried to sum up, for information, in a few lines the Revisionists' principal objections, that need hundreds of pages and serious references to present properly, and of course there are plenty of counter-arguments. Don't ask me to defend them. I'm telling you what they say. I don't in general believe them or disbelieve them. Or the mainstream story, either. I'm a holocaust agnostic. To me none of this proves the Revisionist case. But it does form a case to answer. It should be brought out into the open and answered. If the holocaust case is as solid as is claimed, it should be no trouble at all to demolish the Revisionists. But it won't happen because there is enormous political, financial and emotional capital at stake that just cannot risk being even a little bit wrong.

Have to go to bed, It's nearly midnight.

Somehow my signature got wiped here. I'm putting it back but the date will be wrong. Qwertyuiop (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You said above that this is an essay to promote that no speech concerning the holocaust should be illegal or persecuted. This position is not unreasonable. However I found your essay riddled with unfounded assertions which take away from your message. When I read it I got the feeling the world is out to get holocaust deniers/revisionists. You claim there is only one acceptable way of viewing the holocaust, and it is very detailed, anyone who has a slightly different view on a few of those details is subject to very harsh treatment indeed. I think you are oversimplifying policies concerning the holocaust and exaggerating the consequences. Here are some points of your essay that struck me as odd. (I'm going to undent now, out of laziness)

Paragraph 1 & 2. Heavily and awkwardly paraphrased : "We, Rationalists, are always open to debate on any subject. Therefore we do not want to suppress any speech."

I'm not trying to create a straw man here, this seems to be what is said there right? I want to point out that I for one don't necessarily want to ban laws on hate speech. I think a democratic society that chooses to enact these laws is doing it to protect others from hurt. I view this as a political issue that does not conflict with rationalism. A rationalist is not automatically a libertarian. I think you made this equation to simple, while in fact lots of factors come into it.

"Yet there is one sacrosanct exception: the Holocaust."

This is not the sole exception. Laws on hate speech, and incarcerations for expounding certain views do not stop at the holocaust.

"a particular attitude of unquestioning reverence to an event of history, combined with a dogmatic fixation on precise numbers and events, has gradually, since about 1980, become established as a simplistic and quasi-religious dogma that may not be subject to any enquiry."

This is something that keeps coming back. What is this exact and precise narrative that is considered holy? If this is the case, then certainly it should be written down somewhere as a keystone to test cases on that constitute holocaust denial.

"In Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Poland, and a number of other countries, you will be jailed for several years simply for expressing a dissenting opinion."

Again, dissenting to what exactly? Do you also take into account incitement of hatred laws? And the (in)famous laws that ban mythologizing anything that has to do with the Nazi-party(and Hitler in particular) in Germany? Many cases that end up in conviction are made up of more charges then the one on denial.

Also: Do you contend that these laws are forced upon these countries by "The Holocaust Industry" in some way?

"David Irving was fined 30,000 DM by a German court for saying the gas chamber shown to tourists in Auschwitz 1 is a post-war partial reconstruction by the Soviets and Polish Communists of what is alleged to have previously existed. Later the Auschwitz Museum authorities admitted he was right. "

This was not solely what the case was about. You make it seem like it was, especially by adding this:

"Irving's conviction was not rescinded. "

at the end.

"There have been moves in the UN to get a worldwide ban. "

Source? And isn't it rather difficult to get a worldwide ban when there is no such thing as a world court?

"Even in countries where there is no such legislation, intense moral pressure, destruction of careers and serious physical violence are used to silence dissent and to discourage others from investigating the heretical view."

True, but if someone is beaten up a crime has been committed. There are laws that should protect the deniers/revisionists and punish the assaulters. Cases of wrongful termination can also be taken to a judge. The "uniqueness" of everything that has to do with the holocaust does not make victims of crimes less deserving of justice.

"Both the underlying issue of the holocaust and this issue of suppression of debate by imprisonment, taboo and intimidation are topics far too serious for the sub-undergraduate facetiousness employed in the article. "

This is where you get to the article on this site, the subject of the essay if I go by your title. The article on this site is largely a point by point analysis of what you yourself called "Some weak points" in the post above. Those points are weak because they can be easily countered. I see no reason not to have an article that points out the stupidity apparent in much of the actual things holocaust deniers say. Saying some details on the "mainstream"(again, what mainstream) story are off is one thing. Saying the death toll of the Dresden bombings and the death toll in Auschwitz are roughly equal is another.

I'm sorry that this has become something of a word salad, I don't have the time nor energy to make this a bit more coherent at this point.

(PS. Who are Derwishowitz and Lipstick.) Internetmoniker (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

God that is so long how am I going to deal with the points without chopping it up. ;)

Sorry I wrote "What a lot of crap!" above. Inappropriate and wrong. :(

Firstly I'm not going to comment on anything in my response to Weasel that does not relate to the essay, as I said at the time I wouldn't.

An essay is an opinion piece not an article, so it doesn't need sources for everything, but I agree opinions should be supported. Some things are based on what I've read from reliable sources but will take time for me to track down and add. I've already begun to do that.

"When I read it I got the feeling the world is out to get holocaust deniers/revisionists." I think I've given reasonable supporting evidence for that. Imprisonment, beatings, arson, destruction of careers...

"You claim there is only one acceptable way of viewing the holocaust, and it is very detailed, anyone who has a slightly different view on a few of those details is subject to very harsh treatment indeed." Pretty well, yes. Increasingly that is becoming the case. I dealt with that in the paragraph above.

"A rationalist is not automatically a libertarian." I guess freedom of speech did come into this but that paragraph was more concerned with evidence and the right to dissent. It is one thing to incite hatred and another to express views, however disagreeable, on historical events. quoted in the essay. In my book a rationalist deals with reasonably-presented argument by reasonably-presented counter argument. Being old enough to remember the sort of unpleasant racism that was common currency before Race Hatred laws were passed in the UK, I would say they have worked. I have been at pains throughout the essay to differentiate between hatred and views on history, even when aired by the same person.

"Again, dissenting to what exactly? Do you also take into account incitement of hatred laws?" Yes. Read it again. "And the (in)famous laws that ban mythologizing anything that has to do with the Nazi-party(and Hitler in particular) in Germany? Many cases that end up in conviction are made up of more charges then the one on denial." And many are not. Zundel may have been charged with distributing Nazi memorabilia. I don't know. Rudolf certainly was not. "Holocaust denial" is a crime and there is no defence allowed beyond "I never said it".

I share your ambivalence on hate-speech laws. If they are used to suppress legitimate historical enquiry on the ground that someone might be upset by the result, then that is misuse. I can't think of too many other contexts in which that applies. A lot of people have the same right to be upset at minimising of Joe Stalin's atrocities, as an example. I think what makes this one unique is the allegation of extermination. But (not only) revisionists dispute that, and surely everyone should be delighted if they happened to turn out to be right.

"Those points are weak because they can be easily countered." I think you misread that. Those are weak points in the mainstream narrative. Given to Weasel for information only with the clear statement that I was not going to defend them.

But I don't accept what I think you meant to say, that the article effectively deals with objections. It starts from assumptions and goes for point scoring over fairness. I don't accept that they are effectively countered. And there is too much admixture of snarky crap. Dismissive one-liners do not constitute effective countering.

"And isn't it rather difficult to get a worldwide ban when there is no such thing as a world court?" Indeed! Thank goodness. (I recall reading they even got support from some Muslim countries.) Same applies, so far, to EU attempts.

A fairly random example from the article: "Most of these laws outlaw denial of all crimes against humanity." No, they don't. No one will bang you up for saying Jo Stalin didn't deport the Volga Germans or that Mao and Idi Amin were nice guys. They specifically cite Nazi Germany and Nuremberg.

Another: "According to the Nizkor Project (an Internet project documenting and refuting Holocaust denial),[12] serious historians of the Holocaust never believed the Nazis mass-produced soap" Nizkor was set up specifically to counter Revisionism. It is as polemic and one-sided as the Revisionist sites. It is an excellent source of counter-revisionist arguments but it is anything but objective or a reasonable arbiter. You might just as well cite CODOH or VHO..

"The "uniqueness" of everything that has to do with the holocaust does not make victims of crimes less deserving of justice." True, but that is beside the point. The people still got beaten up. (And in practice the perps were not caught in most cases.)

Still looking at the Irving issue. As far as I was aware it was the gas chamber question. You're not confusing with when he was banged up in Austria? If you have info and sources please post. It would be very helpful. Googling only threw up biased sources (both ways).

The article is a bit of a mish-mash. Probably multiple contributors so it can't decide whether it's snarky, polemic or objective. It certainly rambles and lacks proper structure. But then so does my essay. ;)

Can I quote again something I posted above, because it's in a different section and only posted this afternoon so you may not have seen it:

Just copied this from RatWiki's principles:

2 Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.

3 Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

The article is undertaken in the spirit of "2". I think it also needs to examine what Finkelstein calls the "Holocaust Industry" for elements of "3". I also think the snarkiness, which I know RatWiki encourages, detracts from the objectivity and makes it look like what I called above "sub-undergraduate facetiousness".

Not claiming everything in the essay is perfect by a very long chalk. But if it has stimulated some thought and discussion it will have done its job. Thank you for stopping by and commenting. Feel free to post below, but I won't reply or it risks getting into a "last word" battle. :) Do remember though that the merits and otherwise of Revisionism are OT. I allowed myself to go briefly and overtly OT to Weasel above.

P.S. Alan Dershowitz and Deborah Lipstadt. It's called being snarky (or childish, according to taste). I thought you'd know them if you are familiar with the topic.Qwertyuiop (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot wrong with this essay

I just stumbled upon this, despite it being here for some time. I don't know whether the author is still active here or is interested in correcting his/her work, but credibility rests to some extent on not being totally, 100% freaking wrong about some things. Aemathisphd (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

He wasnt but he's returned for a look as it seems the quality of the article is an issue again. Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I do intend on detailing some of the incorrect things here. Just for starters, Pressac didn't say what he's quoted as saying, which is one of the problems with relying entirely on Holocaust deniers for such "quotations." He was actually quoting someone entirely different (Michel Boüard) and the issue he was quoting him over wasn't testimony.Aemathisphd (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (U

I'm not sure if I was aware at the time, but I do know he was quoting Bouard, but approvingly, in his interview with Valerie Igounet (spelling from memory :] ) Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

On the word "Holocaust," the OED dates its use in this specific context to 1942 (i.e., while it was going on), and the word is used in the authorized translation to Israel's Declaration of Independence (1948).Aemathisphd (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but my point was the way its use exploded after c.1970: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Holocaust&year_start=1940&year_end=2012&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CHolocaust%3B%2Cc0

David Cole was never physically threatened by the ADL. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find he says in his book that he was and that he was actually beaten, and I've seen the threats posted on the web. Sorry I can't go straight to them now. Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Stalin and Mao were tyrants probably each responsible for more deaths than Hitler, but there is no taboo on investigating the extent and the context of their atrocities." This is wrong on a couple of different levels. First of all, you can be jailed in Lithuania and Poland for denying Stalinist atrocities. More importantly, you can't be jailed in ANY country merely for "investigating the extent and the context" of Nazi or Communist atrocities. That's what historians do. Indeed, this whole essay protests against laws that don't exist. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some Eastern European countries have brought in similar laws. I don't know how many of them were in force at the time of the essay. But of course people are imprisoned for years for investigating Nazi atrocities if they don't come up with the right conclusions. Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There has been no "lack of forensic investigation." There have been no fewer than four investigations at Auschwitz (include two by deniers, both of which found HCN residue on gas chamber walls), as well as investigations at Belzec and Treblinka. Probably more than I can't call immediately off the top of my head. That I could think of six without breaking a sweat is saying something. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that the first Polish analysis at Auschwitz was sent back to do it again because it didn't get the right answer. I'm not going to get into those interminable arguments about the second one because I don't know enough about it, but since it's illegal to question the Holocaust in Poland, apart from all the nonlegal taboos that apply everywhere, there is no way they are coming up with the wrong answer the second time. We have not seen, nor will we, any forensically-controlled, scientific investigations, say to attempt to refute Rudolf. I mean look at the farce of Caroline Sturdy-Colls who found some bones in a cemetery, the odd tile, tin cup and comb and claimed she'd "proved the Deniers wrong". Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"It [anti-Semitism] is not the position of most Revisionist historians." In fact, it is the position of the vast majority. Kindly indicate three "revisionists" who meet the very three criteria you set out yourself who aren't anti-Semites. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bradley Smith, Samuel Crowell, David Cole, If you're sniffy about "historian", Mattogno and Kues. You might say Graf was. I'd say he somtimes shows resentment at the way he has been treated, but there's no sign of it in his work, but it would change nothing in the history of WW2 if every man jack of them was a screaming Jew baiter, and, as you know "anti-semite" has become a weasel word to delegitimise any criticism of Jews, however valid.Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

None of this has, of course, anything to do with the thesis of the article which is the right to free investigation and to disseminate ones conclusions. However, I don't think we disagree on this as you are one of a small group who disagree with the Revisionists but openly debate them and seek to refute their conclusions. My respects, therefore.Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is that there IS evidence to support the idea that the holocaust deniers (and that's exactly what they are) are lying; there might not have been gas chambers in the western camps but there were those in the east; other methods of extermination (overworking, shootings) also occurred in the camps. Eintzestgruppen extermination squads killed many jews as well. There are countless documents made by the Nazi regime, testimony from former guards decades after the fact and in such number that the idea they were extracted via torture is ludicrous. What's more, the claim "- Estimates of losses made in the fog of the aftermath of war and massive population movement, with inadequate data, but never revised since. The "six million" given virtually sacrosanct status. Based on subtracting known survivors from previous population. In other contexts (e.g.German deaths in the exodus from Eastern Europe) this is considered to give the maximum estimate of a wide range." is false. They were taken into account; in fact it wasn't until 1948 or so that the almanac stopped using prewar numbers. They did their homework. The sheer number of jews before 1939 is so different from afterwards that "oh they migrated to other countries" fails to hold up. Millions of jews would have been noticed going to the soviet union. Basically the essay seems like it's trying to say that the holocaust wasn't all that bad, or that deniers are being unfairly treated. No it's because evidence has been examined and found legit. Like 9/11 truths, alien conspiracy theorists "e have looked at the evidence and do not find it convincing" - Anon^{— Unsigned, by: 66.75.61.201 / talk / contribs}