Questioning the Holocaust: Ethics of History

The recent post about the Catholic Bishop denying the legitimate gassing of Jews during the Holocaust put a question in my mind. Obviously, for someone to deny the Holocaust entirely is ridiculous. But is the Holocaust immune to scrutiny simply because it IS the Holocaust? Is it impossible to question certain events in history because of the stigma, horror, and emotional importance attached to them? If it is a matter of temporal relativity, how long is long enough before questions can be asked as they inevitably are in history? What do you think?

 

Firstly I just know you wrote that wrong so I'll stop you being hung drawn and quartered...denying the legitimate gassing....big whoops but not a hanging offence...

The holocaust is not immune to scrutiny. But we are all aware some use it for a very different agenda.

History is a living creature.

But first one must set out critera before re writing history.

The proof of 6 million Jewish deaths is there in the numbers of Jewish folk censored and counted in various populations in Europe. The head count at the end is proof of the killing.

So give or take a few thousand who may be off the map here or there, the figure is uncontestable.

So we must move on from that. Anyone who questions the figures must prove otherwise before moving on to the hows and the why's should not even figure in the argument.

The hows can. The killing no matter if gassed, shot, beaten, or just plain neglected was a policy decision. Neglect leading to death if as part of a policy is still murder.

The hows therefore dont really matter.

Its very simple really.

Account for the numbers, easily done on census of european population of Jewish folk at start or before war. Count em again at wars end.

Millions seem to have dissapeard.

The hows, again doesnt matter, policy was to induce death. Therefore murder.

The why's should not even be argued, what excuse can there possibly be?

 

Theres nothing wrong with Holocaust revision, but it can carry a political agenda or if it doesnt have an agenda people would probably call that person a Nazi for questioning certain aspects. Although it gets ridiculous when people claim its just a Hoax.

 

True the number are indeed not solid. Admittedly so. They never can be. But that in itself is used as a revisionist starting point. Its good to argue the figures though, because no matter how solid they are they are not exagerated in the millions.

 

The onus first has to be on disproving the numbers.

There can be no movement or argument until they are disproved. Disparaged is one thing the onus is on disproving them.

If any one can then they must do so. The argument is on the denyers to prove otherwise now.

If they have that proof then I'm sure we are all willing to hear of it.

The problems start when folk then bring in other races that were killed in similar ways too..that is true also, but for this debate we are talking of one race that was systimatically murdered in a time of general warfare between nations but not as part of that warfare.

The onus is on the denyers to bring their proof to the table. I have yet to see this done anywhere without ranting and raving.

So I will leave the debate here for others until or unless someone gives figures to the contrary.

 

Duplicate, my figures come in multiples

 

As far as I'm concerned the denial of history and the scrutiny of history are two very different beasts. The former is not worth serious discussion, while scrutiny is actually something historians, both amateur and academic, do all the time.

Scrutiny provides us with opinions, and where we might wander from the recorded path it's always rather gentle; suppositions and "perhapses" which tend to either provide explanation where none is recorded, or development of theories as to why something recorded may have happened as it did, or was recorded as it was. It's adding or mildly adjusting something, is typically very well considered but is never taken as hard fact, simply a personal possibility, which may or may not be accepted by others. Where scrutiny is successful it changes a few details, not whole areas.

Denial is exploitation, sowing seeds of doubt and as mad as a box of frogs. It's typically built around one tiny detail from one tiny person proposed against a wealth of study by hundreds based on the experiences of thousands regarding the reality for millions.

The key for me is what is being denied, and the function of that denial. For the mass of wealth of history just in the years 1939-45 there's plenty which folk could choose to deny. Oddly enough there's no effort to deny the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, nor the Invasion of Sicily, nor the D-Day landings, etc, all of which are smaller in scale, and theoretically easier to successfully deny than the nazi holocaust. It's always the nazi holocaust. Why might this be?

The function of such mono-denial is plain and simple; it's an effort to remove some discredit from a wholly discredited political stance called nazism or fascism. During the war millions of people came to hate nazism/fascism, mainly because they suffered war as a result of it, quite a simple reflex, but as the war came to an end and the reality of the camps came to light the near-impossible happened. People who hated nazism hated it even more and plenty of people who believed in it found themselves implicated in something they found repulsive.

Now some ex-supporters of Nazism used denial to soothe their shame, and that's an understandable reflex. Watch the films of German citizens being forced to visit camps, or bury the dead and you see real shock. However there's a dark side to denial; the use of it by the dedicated nazi/fascist in an attempt to regain lost ground, to see their outdated and wholly discredited political belief made popular once more. It's a dirty and dishonest effort which, like the original, will never work.

 

That would sum it up nicely

 

Think the term "legitimate gassing" in your post is in question here, while not a native English speaker I think if you meant what I read litterally this thread would be "flaming hot" .

I agree with the sentiment but we are on very slippery ground here as we must then prove not just intent, which is easy in the case of the holocaust given the direct killings which were taking place at the same time, but policy, by which I mean the existence a well documented set of orders, and this clashes with the definition of "neglect" which is not doing enough to prevent the deaths.

While this may seem nitpicking, it is really is a crucial point of distinction as death rates in concentration and refugee camps, which are by no means a Nazi speciality, are been often very high historically and assuming "criminal neglect" by default would open a huge can of worms.

Every country has a "my country right or wrong" crowd. By their own definition they are not interested in debate.

 

Factually based discussion is frightening to them.

I am still confused about the "legitimate gassing" problem. This bishop in the news article cited in the other post "denied the legitimate gassing" of Jews by the Nazis. I made no such personal statement in support of this. Rather, I was simply conveying his statement in this post in order to inform those who did not read that thread before seeing this one. I apologize for the apparent confusion, which still do not understand.

Neglect was also a policy remember. Orders exist reminding German commanders to provide for thier own soldiers, whether housing or food, before concerning themselves with the provision of civilians.

 

Daniel, it really doesnt matter. I just put that in my post to stop a flame war.

The original posting in the other thread you refer to though with a link to the Bishop story does not mention legitimate gassing that I can see...It doesnt matter though, but perhaps you may wish to read that thread header again with the link Because I just have and that line is no where to be seen..

But to be literate and I dont want to be...legitimate gassing to most here will mean it was ok to do so...You didnt mean that, I dont see it in the original bishop thread link and that is only reason I brought it up to stop you being attacked...

But again. It doesnt matter and there is no point in it deflecting away from the main issue anyway.

 

No I agree, it is not nitpicking. We all know the moral equivilance maze that stands before us. And The Gulags cannot be excused their reign of terror either, nor the masses of other races and religions who suffered similar if not the same fates.

But thats the trouble with this debate, not us, but in general. More will always be pushed to the table....but thats why I think that for the purpose of this debate and not wanting to isolate one death against another....This debate always will get bogged down in the old well others did it, too, others suffered too. and if we are to debate this then...then what of the Russians..Our or some of us at least powerfull ally, who we choose to ignore. I agree with this, and it makes the debate harder and goes off in all directions,

Which is why we should try to stick to this one question...referring to the Jewish folk, Jewish numbers Holocaust as it relates to the Jewish murders in ww2.

This seems negative and will raise questions of others I know...but unless we take each one in turn, the debate will grind to a halt as it usually does.

I still believe firmly...the onus and the crux is now on any denyers to show us any huge whole in the numbers without going off to other areas of contention.

Once done I will gladly move on to other murdering buggers...including Uncle Joe.

 

If there were only 3 survivors from Chelmno and 2 from Belzec how do we know how many were exterminated there. Seriously. Did not the Nazis destroy all records that were related to the Holocaust ?

 

Once any historian makes an argument other historians make an attempt to rip that argument apart. Ever since I have participated in this forum I have rarely seen anyone agree on a topic. There is always another point to be made, or another bit of information to be contested. Criticism is a key element of historical debate and should always be present. The problem with the Holocaust debate is that any historian taking an objective view of that topic and finding, for example, evidence that upset the status quo, arguably is that he, or she, would be open to more scrutiny than usual. The fact that the historian's topic is the Holocaust immediately engenders most readers with a bias. Sure the burden of proof lies with the historian trying to prove some aspect of the Holocaust happened differently, or did not happen at all. But, the majority would never take the historians evidence seriously due to the fact that thier immediate reaction would be to label him another Holocaust denier.

Just to clarify. The Bishop did not believe that Jews had been gassed as part of the Holocaust. Therefore, he did not feel the gassing of the Jews was legitimate. Hence my use of the term "legitimate gassing". To further prevent anyone's anger. And thank you urqh for your benevolence.

 

If I may put my 1/50th of a dollar here, I believe the OP has for some reason substituted the word "legitimate" for "deliberate" from the story in the other thread.

Far different words with vastly different meanings, particularly in the context of this debate.

 

I think this legitimate debate has gone on long enough. Perhaps a dictionary is in order for some. Next time I will consult a thesaurus, or post a poll where members can vote on word choice in upcoming threads. Since it has no real bearing on the subject at hand I recommend that further readers and contributors to this thread disregard my use of the word "legitimate" completely. Again, I apologize for any lack of clarity.