Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
On what do you base your denial of the gas chambers?
the neoliberal vision of the future
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
On what do you base your denial of the gas chambers?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
You have said that as far as you know nobody was gassed. You have said that there is no proof of planned extermination. You have said that there was no industrialsed killing. To be able to say these things you have to discount physical evidence, documentary evidence and the testimony of participants, including those carrying out the plan. To be able to do this you have to be able to say that it doesn't matter how the millions of victims died. And in doing all of this you are indeed denying some crucial substance of the holocaust.
It's disgusting to watch, all the more so because the reasons for doing it are so small and selfish.
Louis MacNeice
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Nope, it is far more than that. He is saying that there is so little evidence that he would be worried that it would not stand up in court.
That is a very specific level of doubt – dare I suggest, he is only 95% sure that there were gas chambers.
*He is also contending that the eyewitness accounts are significantly contradictory. He needs to source such a claim.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
The charitable interpretation is that he's not a full-on denier, but rather an ideological typhoid mary, a useful idiot for those who actually believe in the whole denial thing.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
IMHO it's more reasonable to see the Brownshirts in the same light we look at neo-fascist "boneheads". Useful "street level" presences and sources of threat, as well as marching fodder. Ultimately, though, embarrassments to the leadership, and requiring suppression.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's very fucking charitable. It's not really backed up by the evidence of what he's said. He says that there is no significant physical evidence. He is wrong about that. He does not even mention eyewitness evidence in his first long rants on the subject, as if they did not matter.
He is every bit as bad as David Irving.
He is every bit as bad as David Irving.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Nobody has accused you or onar of being a neo-nazi, - most of the people one here, unlike onar, are faithful to the definitions of such words. What Onar is being accused of is misrepresenting history for ideological and propagandistic reasons. In fact I posted exactly this a page or 2 back. Stop being a drama queen.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
What he seemed to be trying to say was that racially motivated mass murder wasn't an essential feature of Nazism, presumably some sort of accident or misunderstanding that could have happened to any regime, honest guv.
He has to say that, otherwise he can't say 'you lot are all Nazis' because if he allows that it's an essential feature, he's got to explain how we're all Nazis when we don't show any signs of wanting to organise racially motivated mass murders.
He has to say that, otherwise he can't say 'you lot are all Nazis' because if he allows that it's an essential feature, he's got to explain how we're all Nazis when we don't show any signs of wanting to organise racially motivated mass murders.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
'It's all really quite appalling.'
'I concur entirely'.
"You see that right-libertarian cow-arse? That's your bestest friend, that is. That's your dad."
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Yep. that's how I'm seeing it. Being very narrowly specific with point A, in order for points B to Z to make any sense.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Ah, the old ones are still the best!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's a novel twist on holocaust denial, certainly. He feels the need to excuse the Nazis of certain of their crimes in order to lump us in with them.
But to be a bit serious, it is holocaust denial. It really, really is. It exactly the kind of thing that led Primo Levi to despair. It's impossible to deny that Hitler had it in for the Jews, so instead you deny that it was systematic, or planned, or industrial in nature. Yet those that were its victims knew that it was all these things. He is spitting on their graves with this shit.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
That's not all he's doing though. This forms part of a wider narrative he's attempting to present that purports to "prove" that Hitler never intended to go to war or engage in industrial scale murder. And he's still not got back to me on the political dissidents and other "untermensch", for example the disabled, whose extermination began before the war, before Hitler could have been "forced" by the necessities of war to do so.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What on earth do you mean by all?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
There's loads of physical evidence though - and it's tough to separate documentary evidence from the physical anyway, if you're talking about industrialised genocide.
This article from Lipstadt, following Irving's trial is a useful summary - van Pelt's book based on the research he did for the trial is in the bibliography.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
It's also something that even non-lunatics have to do, if they want to maintain an essential equivalence between the Reich and the USSR. I remember a piece in the New York Review of Books that said 'Hitler had gas chambers, but Stalin had the Arctic' - a retreat into flippancy in a case where flippancy is entirely inappropriate. Now that writer wasn't denying the existence of gas chambers, but was trying to rhetorically normalise them if you see what I mean. The attrition rate in the Gulag was utterly appalling, but it wasn't the same as an industrial system for killing masses of people.
No, I am not a gas chamber denier! Saying that there is insufficient evidence for a conviction in court is not the same as saying that it didn't happen. But when that is said I will come with one admission: I have read quite a bit about the Nazis and of the holocaust, but there are things that are mentioned in this thread that I was unaware of, with regards to physical evidence of the gas chambers. I will review this evidence and until then suspend any previous conclusions. As I mentioned earlier, I have all along operated on the assumption that it was incontroversial that there was no physical evidence for the gas chambers, only indirect evidence in the form of witnesses. Apparently this assumption is mistaken and since I am reality oriented and let the evidence dictate my views, I am more than willing to review my position on this matter. After all, I have absolutely no interest in defending the Nazis of anything whatsoever. I have zero ideological stake in Nazism, quite the contrary, as should be evidenced by what I have said about the Nazis throughout this thread and elsewhere.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Quite! Watching some bits of the old "Mary Whitehouse Experience" TV shows still make me choke with laughter.
It wouldn't have been (or still be) so funny if I didn't know academicians of similar ilk, with similar "high-quality" arguments!
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Just to add, I don't think Onar is a holocaust denier. But he is the worst kind of historical revisionist and he is using the arguments of holocaust deniers to back up his position.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Where are the sources for what you have already read which substantiate your claims. You have been asked countless times.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So you will fully retract everything you have said that was intended to cast doubt on the planned, industrial nature of the holocaust, then?
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
It wouldn't have been (or still be) so funny if I didn't know academicians of similar ilk, with similar "high-quality" arguments!
Oh god, you have no idea. . .
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I can't stand Onar, he's an utter cunt, but he hasn't done that. He's denied that there is direct physical evidence, which is not the same as denying that it happened. Onar will need to clarify this but I think he does accept that they existed. He is, however, denying that it was planned, which is still fucking disgraceful.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Yes you are. A liar and a coward too.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I wonder what his next blog post will be about.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He has said repeatedly that there is not enough evidence to say for sure. Repeatedly. He's even quantified the doubt – enough that a court of law would not convict.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I think his position is clear.
Similar threads
