What Would You Deny?

[Windsor 2,233]

He commented that Hitler knew nothing, of the extermination camps and murders, until 1943 and that he never ordered the genocide.

 

There is a good chance Hitler did not know about the death camps until later on.

He became a very weak dictator. He said things in general conversation and his sidekicks did the work to gain his favour. For example, Hitler may have said ''I hate Jews'', and then 5 minutes later 6 million of them were dead to please the Fuhrer. He didn't need to give actual formal orders.

He obviously knew of the racism of the regime because he promoted it but nothing about death camps. He probably did know about them but we can't be sure. He was far too busy watching films about the British Empire by that stage...

[millwall32 114]

He commented that Hitler knew nothing, of the extermination camps and murders, until 1943 and that he never ordered the genocide.

 

There is a good chance Hitler did not know about the death camps until later on.

He became a very weak dictator. He said things in general conversation and his sidekicks did the work to gain his favour. For example, Hitler may have said ''I hate Jews'', and then 5 minutes later 6 million of them were dead to please the Fuhrer. He didn't need to give actual formal orders.

He obviously knew of the racism of the regime because he promoted it but nothing about death camps. He probably did know about them but we can't be sure. He was far too busy watching films about the British Empire by that stage...

 

...and beside which still no-one has come up with anyone who has denied that there was a deliberate killing of Jews. Even when he was at the height of his questioning of the numbers killed, i.e. during the Lipstadt trial, irving was basing his arguments on the fact that there were some gas chmabers but they were not used for extermination or were destroyed by the RAF or some-such. He has not claimed that Hitler did not kill Jews en masse, he is something of an Anti-Semite himself in case you had not noticed, but rather has tried via obscure academic sophistry to play with the numbers.

There is very little that is edifying coming from those who approach the Holocaust with the atitude and opinion that the scope of its horror should be minimized. However,I cannot understand why those who do so are often portrayed as denying that any death took place at all.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

...and beside which still no-one has come up with anyone who has denied that there was a deliberate killing of Jews.

What's your interpretation of the word "holocaust" in this context?

[Dr Hackenslash 25]

I'm probably going to regret wading into this, but here goes.

 

There is a difference between millions of Jewish people dying because they were worked hard, forced to live in squalid conditions and not being fed much and millions of Jewish people dying because they were gassed.

 

I must confess that I am not to sure of the works of David Irving, but many of his fellow revisionist historians do not deny that many Jewish people died in concentration camps, but they do debate how these deaths happened.

 

For example, it has been pointed out that Zyklon-B, the gas of choice for the Nazis, was very inefficient.

 

Many revisionists claim that the Nazis didn't actual set out to eradicate the Jews, they just didn't care about them enough to ensure they stayed alive when in the concentration camps.

 

There is a difference.

 

As for how much Hitler actually knew, who knows? He knew the camps existed but, in his mind, there were far more important things to worry about than the welfare of the Jewish people in them.

 

I think when people refer to the Holocaust, they mean a system that systematically killed the Jews, as opposed to a system that didn't care if they lived or died.

 

There is, of course, a reason why many Western Governments would want to subscribe to the accepted view of eradication, rather than the revisionist view of death by not caring.

 

And that, and I hate to bring the subject up, is the situation in Israel.

 

While the Israeli authorities are not, by and large, killing Palestinians en-masse, it could be argued that they are killing them by not caring abou their conditions.

 

In many ways, Palestinian areas have virtually become concentration camps in their own right.

 

If it was accepted that Nazi Germany killed millions of Jews because they didn't care whether they lived or not, uncomfortable parallels would be drawn with modern day Israel.

 

Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I'm no historian or socio-politician.

[Tempus Fugit 214]

For example, it has been pointed out that Zyklon-B, the gas of choice for the Nazis, was very inefficient.

 

Zyklon-B pretty effective really

[Dr Hackenslash 25]

 

For example, it has been pointed out that Zyklon-B, the gas of choice for the Nazis, was very inefficient.

 

Zyklon-B pretty effective really

 

That line was hardly the crux of my argument. Nevertheless, to clarify, the way Zyklon-B was used reduced it's efficiency.

 

Also, as it says in the (somewhat questionable) site that your link's pointing at:

 

It was widely available, as it was used for delousing. In fact, probably over 90% of the Zyklon used at Auschwitz was used for delousing purposes. See e.g. Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, p. 215.

 

Now this opens up another kettle or fish. It's interesting that Zyklon-B would have been at the camps in quantity, whatever the Nazi's intentions - to kill or to let die.

[Tempus Fugit 214]

Now this opens up another kettle or fish. It's interesting that Zyklon-B would have been at the camps in quantity, whatever the Nazi's intentions - to kill or to let die.

 

 

I think the Nazi's intentions were pretty clear

 

It took considerably less Zyklon-B to kill a person than to delouse clothes.

[Dr Hackenslash 25]

It took considerably less Zyklon-B to kill a person than to delouse clothes.

 

I'm not saying that some Jews were not deliberately killed. When they no longer served any purpose, I've no doubt they were.

 

All I'm trying to say is that there is a big difference between the forceful eradication of a race and letting people die because you don't care whether they live.

 

If someone kills a baby by shooting them in the head, they meant to do it.

 

If someone lets a baby die by not attending to them, they are still guilty, probably as guilty, but there is a difference.

 

One wanted the baby dead, the other didn't care if the baby died.

[Banshees Scream 110]

 

It took considerably less Zyklon-B to kill a person than to delouse clothes.

 

I'm not saying that some Jews were not deliberately killed. When they no longer served any purpose, I've no doubt they were.

 

All I'm trying to say is that there is a big difference between the forceful eradication of a race and letting people die because you don't care whether they live.

 

If someone kills a baby by shooting them in the head, they meant to do it.

 

If someone lets a baby die by not attending to them, they are still guilty, probably as guilty, but there is a difference.

 

One wanted the baby dead, the other didn't care if the baby died.

 

I agree with most of your points here Dr.Hackenslash.

 

Although I don't see much of a difference in your baby example. Each examples have the

same amount of ruthlessness to me. Shooting a baby in the head may be more deliberate

but the baby would most likely feel not a thing.

 

By not attending to the baby, will have that baby endure great suffering. For many days.

If I were the judgement of the people that commited these crimes i'd hang both of them.

 

Or even tie them up and leave them in a crib for 2 weeks.

[millwall32 114]

...and beside which still no-one has come up with anyone who has denied that there was a deliberate killing of Jews.

What's your interpretation of the word "holocaust" in this context?

 

I think this works as a reasonable definition

 

"hol·o·caust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hl-kôst, hl-)

n.

Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

 

Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).

A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).

A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames. "

 

If taken as a definition I would say that we still haven't come up with anyone in denial that it happened.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I think this works as a reasonable definition

 

"hol·o·caust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hl-kôst, hl-)

n.

Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

 

Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).

A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).

A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames. "

 

If taken as a definition I would say that we still haven't come up with anyone in denial that it happened.

David Irving.

[millwall32 114]

I think this works as a reasonable definition

 

"hol·o·caust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hl-kôst, hl-)

n.

Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

 

Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).

A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).

A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames. "

 

If taken as a definition I would say that we still haven't come up with anyone in denial that it happened.

David Irving.

The only part David Irving has denied in the first part of the definition, wholly innacurately as far as anyone can tell, is the "especially by fire" part. As I posted yesterday he had some bee in bonnet about the gas chambers not being used solely for slaughter and some proof based on the direction the smoke was blowing in or some such. He did not/doesn't deny that there was extensive loss of life. In fact he has said, by which I mean I have actually heard him say, that that he approves of the extensive loss of life engendered by the Holocaust. During one of his many speeches to German skin-head movemnets he said that the main questions Jews should ask is why they were killed in large numbers rather than work out the numbers killed.

Apart from the fact that those labelling Holocaust Deniers as such seem to be on a short mental loop whereby the only definition they can come up with is that one (as it stands the rallies run something like this "X is a holocaust denier", "But he hasn't denied that there was a Holocaust", "But that is because he is a Holocaust denier")there is a further question- why would those who hate Jews and think that they should be killed in large numbers deny that they were....killed in large numbers?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

The only part David Irving has denied in the first part of the definition, wholly innacurately as far as anyone can tell, is the "especially by fire" part. As I posted yesterday he had some bee in bonnet about the gas chambers not being used solely for slaughter and some proof based on the direction the smoke was blowing in or some such. He did not/doesn't deny that there was extensive loss of life. In fact he has said, by which I mean I have actually heard him say, that that he approves of the extensive loss of life engendered by the Holocaust. During one of his many speeches to German skin-head movemnets he said that the main questions Jews should ask is why they were killed in large numbers rather than work out the numbers killed.

When Paxman asked him "Will You Stop Denying The Holocaust?" he replied "Good Lord, No!" That was on national telly!

 

Apart from the fact that those labelling Holocaust Deniers as such seem to be on a short mental loop whereby the only definition they can come up with is that one (as it stands the rallies run something like this "X is a holocaust denier", "But he hasn't denied that there was a Holocaust", "But that is because he is a Holocaust denier")there is a further question- why would those who hate Jews and think that they should be killed in large numbers deny that they were....killed in large numbers?

Not here to debate the numbers or the methods. Not here to offer alternative viewpoints based on political leanings. Not particularly bothered that people like Irving wish to hold onto their opinions. Same again with revisionists like the IHR. If they want to argue over the semantics of language then let them.

 

David Irving has stated that there was no official campaign of genocide against the jews. I class that as denial.

[millwall32 114]

The only part David Irving has denied in the first part of the definition, wholly innacurately as far as anyone can tell, is the "especially by fire" part. As I posted yesterday he had some bee in bonnet about the gas chambers not being used solely for slaughter and some proof based on the direction the smoke was blowing in or some such. He did not/doesn't deny that there was extensive loss of life. In fact he has said, by which I mean I have actually heard him say, that that he approves of the extensive loss of life engendered by the Holocaust. During one of his many speeches to German skin-head movemnets he said that the main questions Jews should ask is why they were killed in large numbers rather than work out the numbers killed.

When Paxman asked him "Will You Stop Denying The Holocaust?" he replied "Good Lord, No!" That was on national telly!

 

Apart from the fact that those labelling Holocaust Deniers as such seem to be on a short mental loop whereby the only definition they can come up with is that one (as it stands the rallies run something like this "X is a holocaust denier", "But he hasn't denied that there was a Holocaust", "But that is because he is a Holocaust denier")there is a further question- why would those who hate Jews and think that they should be killed in large numbers deny that they were....killed in large numbers?

Not here to debate the numbers or the methods. Not here to offer alternative viewpoints based on political leanings. Not particularly bothered that people like Irving wish to hold onto their opinions. Same again with revisionists like the IHR. If they want to argue over the semantics of language then let them.

 

David Irving has stated that there was no official campaign of genocide against the jews. I class that as denial.

But has also stated that there was. Is he still a "denier"?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Is he still a "denier"?

Only Irving can answer that.

 

I think it's crackers that he's in jail for his opinions but welcome to Europe. You will be assimilated.

[Godot 149]

I found that I struggled to get a picture of the Holocaust from books so spent a week a few years ago travelling around all the death camps. Then it all began to fall in to place. The camps to the east of Poland - Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were such efficient killing operations that only a handful of escapeees - 82 people - survived them. Once the killing was done they were flattened and landscaped.

 

Auschwitz was different, first a concentration camp then, when Birkenau was built, it became part labour camp for the synthetic oil and rubber plant nearby (that still exists as a working plant) and part extermination camp, hence the railhead selections. Majdanek outside Lublin was planned to have been bigger than Auschwitz. This raises the question of who would have been disposed of after the Jews. It looks as if the Slavs would have been next on the list.

 

In Treblinka there is a kind of road of stones - hundreds of them - each with the name of a community from where people were taken. It is difficult to appreciate the scale of the operation. Unlike Russian prisoners, who were left to die, this was a systematic programme which required the in-put of many companies and technologies. I would recommend the trip. You can get to the Polish border in a day from London by car. Martin Gilbert's book, Holocaust Journey makes a useful guide book.

 

The concentration camps were different again, housing a mixture of political prisoners, dissidents, gays, freemasons and Jews. Killings went on there but not in the same systematic way as happened in the purpose-built camps.

 

Zyklon B was made by Degesch, a company that was initially reluctant to supply the gas to the SS, not out of any moral concern, but because the SS wanted it without the smell. This bothered the company since the odor or "indicator" was the only bit of the gas for which it held a patent and it didn't want competitors muscling in on the business. I don't begin to understand it any more than I understand Mr Irving. But I know that it happened and I'm convinced that thousands of ordinary Germans knew what was going on too.

[Tempus Fugit 214]

I found that I struggled to get a picture of the Holocaust from books so spent a week a few years ago travelling around all the death camps. Then it all began to fall in to place. The camps to the east of Poland - Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were such efficient killing operations that only a handful of escapeees - 82 people - survived them. Once the killing was done they were flattened and landscaped.

 

Auschwitz was different, first a concentration camp then, when Birkenau was built, it became part labour camp for the synthetic oil and rubber plant nearby (that still exists as a working plant) and part extermination camp, hence the railhead selections. Majdanek outside Lublin was planned to have been bigger than Auschwitz. This raises the question of who would have been disposed of after the Jews. It looks as if the Slavs would have been next on the list.

 

In Treblinka there is a kind of road of stones - hundreds of them - each with the name of a community from where people were taken. It is difficult to appreciate the scale of the operation. Unlike Russian prisoners, who were left to die, this was a systematic programme which required the in-put of many companies and technologies. I would recommend the trip. You can get to the Polish border in a day from London by car. Martin Gilbert's book, Holocaust Journey makes a useful guide book.

 

The concentration camps were different again, housing a mixture of political prisoners, dissidents, gays, freemasons and Jews. Killings went on there but not in the same systematic way as happened in the purpose-built camps.

 

Zyklon B was made by Degesch, a company that was initially reluctant to supply the gas to the SS, not out of any moral concern, but because the SS wanted it without the smell. This bothered the company since the odor or "indicator" was the only bit of the gas for which it held a patent and it didn't want competitors muscling in on the business. I don't begin to understand it any more than I understand Mr Irving. But I know that it happened and I'm convinced that thousands of ordinary Germans knew what was going on too.

 

An interesting and enlightening post Godot.

 

You do have a strange choice in holiday destinations though.

[M Busby Airlines 7]

I found that I struggled to get a picture of the Holocaust from books so spent a week a few years ago travelling around all the death camps. Then it all began to fall in to place. The camps to the east of Poland - Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were such efficient killing operations that only a handful of escapeees - 82 people - survived them. Once the killing was done they were flattened and landscaped.

 

Auschwitz was different, first a concentration camp then, when Birkenau was built, it became part labour camp for the synthetic oil and rubber plant nearby (that still exists as a working plant) and part extermination camp, hence the railhead selections. Majdanek outside Lublin was planned to have been bigger than Auschwitz. This raises the question of who would have been disposed of after the Jews. It looks as if the Slavs would have been next on the list.

 

In Treblinka there is a kind of road of stones - hundreds of them - each with the name of a community from where people were taken. It is difficult to appreciate the scale of the operation. Unlike Russian prisoners, who were left to die, this was a systematic programme which required the in-put of many companies and technologies. I would recommend the trip. You can get to the Polish border in a day from London by car. Martin Gilbert's book, Holocaust Journey makes a useful guide book.

 

The concentration camps were different again, housing a mixture of political prisoners, dissidents, gays, freemasons and Jews. Killings went on there but not in the same systematic way as happened in the purpose-built camps.

 

Zyklon B was made by Degesch, a company that was initially reluctant to supply the gas to the SS, not out of any moral concern, but because the SS wanted it without the smell. This bothered the company since the odor or "indicator" was the only bit of the gas for which it held a patent and it didn't want competitors muscling in on the business. I don't begin to understand it any more than I understand Mr Irving. But I know that it happened and I'm convinced that thousands of ordinary Germans knew what was going on too.

 

An interesting and enlightening post Godot.

 

You do have a strange choice in holiday destinations though.

 

Im sure it makes a change from Vietnam eh?

Godot - respect.

[Godot 149]

Funnily enough re-Vietnam, it did have attractions for the Glitterati, not underage, but the prostitutes were very noticeable on the road sides waiting for passing truckers. I would advise not to make the trip in winter as I did. A heavy snowfall all over the country slowed things down, but we still had time to call at the Verdun Ossuary on the way back. All in all, enough death for a life-time.

[Godot 149]

Eek, just had bad vibes from that post, Ossuaries, THAT number and all, had to move on quick

[M Busby Airlines 7]

Funnily enough re-Vietnam, it did have attractions for the Glitterati, not underage, but the prostitutes were very noticeable on the road sides waiting for passing truckers. I would advise not to make the trip in winter as I did. A heavy snowfall all over the country slowed things down, but we still had time to call at the Verdun Ossuary on the way back. All in all, enough death for a life-time.

 

Theres quite an impressive one in Faro,Portugal,if anyones going on holiday there this year.

Opposite the main Post Office.

[scsibear 4]

<Godot>

 

A very interesting post that about the camps. Personally I would love to go and see some of them myself especially Auschwitz, I have been fascinated with it for many years tho I have no idea why and would loved to have gone to the liberation Anniversary last year. I also have some videos regarding the camps including Auschwitz/Birkenau and Majdanek to name but a few, plus books, footage and interviews from survivors.

 

I actually have a friend who lives in Poland so one day I might make the trip

 

Regards

scsi

[Godot 149]

One of the oddest things is that they do postcards. I was going to send one with the usual "wish you were here message," but couldn't do it

[millwall32 114]

I found that I struggled to get a picture of the Holocaust from books so spent a week a few years ago travelling around all the death camps. Then it all began to fall in to place. The camps to the east of Poland - Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were such efficient killing operations that only a handful of escapeees - 82 people - survived them. Once the killing was done they were flattened and landscaped.

 

Auschwitz was different, first a concentration camp then, when Birkenau was built, it became part labour camp for the synthetic oil and rubber plant nearby (that still exists as a working plant) and part extermination camp, hence the railhead selections. Majdanek outside Lublin was planned to have been bigger than Auschwitz. This raises the question of who would have been disposed of after the Jews. It looks as if the Slavs would have been next on the list.

 

In Treblinka there is a kind of road of stones - hundreds of them - each with the name of a community from where people were taken. It is difficult to appreciate the scale of the operation. Unlike Russian prisoners, who were left to die, this was a systematic programme which required the in-put of many companies and technologies. I would recommend the trip. You can get to the Polish border in a day from London by car. Martin Gilbert's book, Holocaust Journey makes a useful guide book.

 

The concentration camps were different again, housing a mixture of political prisoners, dissidents, gays, freemasons and Jews. Killings went on there but not in the same systematic way as happened in the purpose-built camps.

 

Zyklon B was made by Degesch, a company that was initially reluctant to supply the gas to the SS, not out of any moral concern, but because the SS wanted it without the smell. This bothered the company since the odor or "indicator" was the only bit of the gas for which it held a patent and it didn't want competitors muscling in on the business. I don't begin to understand it any more than I understand Mr Irving. But I know that it happened and I'm convinced that thousands of ordinary Germans knew what was going on too.

A fascinating post. Thank you.

[time 8,596]

[snip]

 

Roger Garaudy is a historian. In his book entitled "The Founding Myths Of Modern Israel" he states that the final solution wasn't mass extermination but a resettlement program and the the holocaust was a myth.

 

[snip]

 

Roger Garaudy has died aged 98.