Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 1

message: This paragraph is a recounting of historical fact: "Due to the extremely rapid collapse of the Nazi forces at the end of the war, attempts to destroy evidence were for the most part unsuccessful. After their defeat, many tons of documents were recovered, and many thousands of bodies were found not yet completely decomposed, in mass graves near many concentration camps. The physical evidence and the documentary proof included records of train shipments of Jews to the camps, orders for tons of cyanide and other poisons, and the remaining concentration camp structures. Interviews with survivors completed the picture. Therefore, these revisionist views are rejected by virtually all serious historians of the period. "
First of all, it is not a statement of opinion, it is something that actually happened.  Bodies were found, documents were uncovered, survivors told their stories.  Edward R. Murrow gave a radio account that was famous in itself when he said, "Murder was done at Buchenwald."  It is also a fact that revisionist views are almost universally rejected.
I will repeat this: It is not an opinion, it is a fact.  It is also something that Holocaust revisionists have repeatedly tried to deny, disprove (with no success), and discount.  In fact, the historical evidence is so strong that the revisionists have proactically given up trying to argue against it.  This very article on Holocaust revisionism includes two major instances where, instead of trying to disprove historical evidence, the revisionists have reverted to libel, slander, and abuse of the legal system to attack their perceived enemies -- the alt.revisionism newsgroup affair and the Lipstadt lawsuit.
The evidence debunking Holocaust revisionism is important and relevant, because it shows that Holocaust revisionism is made up of little more than lies and conspiracy theories.  It is therefore necessary, if not essential, in this encyclopedia entry.  And this is furthermore used to support the article with this statement: Therefore, these revisionist views are rejected by virtually all serious historians of the period. -- Modemac
:The facts that you present are excellent material for debunking the Holocaust Deniers.  However those particular facts don't get at the heart of the revisionist argument at all.  They are great at SOUNDING like they debunk the revisionists, but they don't.  Come on, I know you can do a better job of debunking than that.  The facts you present as debunking the revisionists are in fact items that the revisionists themselves do not deny or take issue with.  When you just wave your hands around instead of presenting real debunking evidence, you just lend credibility to what the revisionists say.  I can't let you lend them that credibility. --Clutch
::Rather than taking this personally, Clutch, perhaps you can show us what a "better job of debunking"; is supposed to be. Quite frankly, there is no better way to debunk a bad argument (such as Holocaust revisionism) than by using the truth. This is hardly lending credibility to revisionism; indeed, it shows revisionism to be little more than lies and propaganda (as I have already said).   Oh, and how about stating your opinion here on talk before wiping out things you don't agree with, instead of after? - -- Modemac
:::I don't know what the best approach is to debunk the revisionists, except on a point by point basis.  But I don't like seeing a debunking being done wrong, and lowering the tone of the Wikipedia. I could be at a party and say afterward "Fred wore a green lampshade".  The facts you presented are equivalent to a debunker coming along and saying "There were a hundred people at that party, and they drank all the punch, therefore what you say happened is wrong!" --Clutch
:By the way, kudos go to 217.158.106.127 for trying to present a balanced view of the matter. -- Modemac
:I have added a framework for point-by-point debunking, which is important here. We know these claims are nonsense, but this does not mean we need not present an argument against them.
:This entire entry is a joke, no?  At least you are honest that your goal is to "debunk" the revisionists, but can someone explain to me how trying to "debunk" what you are explaining satisfies the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view principle?  This entry is nothing but one-sided, ignorant propaganda and as such is a disgrace to intellectualism and those who truly care about the truth or knowledge (for example, someone coming to read this entry to find out what in fact Holocaust revisionism is, will be completely misled and otherwise thoroughly disappointed).  If this entry were to have any non-propaganda (i.e., truth value), then it would try to *explain* Holocaust revisionism, not *debunk* it.  After all, just to pick one example, the entry for Wikipedia:Virgin Birth does not try to disprove a virgin birth, but rather simply sets forth the doctrine, without "debunking" it.  Why is such (properly) neutral treatment not afforded here? -- Sage
I would say it should be the other way round: virgin birth should include facts about the likelihood of such an event. -- Tarquin 18:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts that holocaust deniers try to remove 

message: :The "Unique" Intentionality of the Holocaust, in Post-Holocaust Dialogues, Steven T. Katz, New York University Press,  1983
:
:Quantity and Interpretation - Issues in the Comparative Historical Analysis of the Holocaust, in Historicism, The Holocaust and Zionism, Steven T. Katz, New York University Press, 1992
Some responses: 
RK: There were plans by the Americans themselves to eradicate complete peoples. As for European nations, Bartolomeo de las Casas gives a chilling contemporary account at the time of Spanish conquest. And genocide, no matter the scale, remains genocide, even if only 10 percent are left. Deloria and Stannard both provide detailed accounts of genocide against Native American peoples (they are not a homogeneous group), but these are generally glossed over in American textbooks, if not entirely ignored.
::True, but I am stressing a finer point: European Americans did not plan to eradicate the original Native Americans Indians of North America. It was just impossible, as the vast majority of them were already dead long before the United States ever existed. (This fact wasn't known until the 1970s, but it is well established now.)  No nation, European, let alone the USA, attempted genocide on the combined Native American Indian tribes.  However, as I said before, the USA did engage in horrible policies against the remaining Native Americans, but this was over a century, in some cases two centuries, after most Native Americans were dead. Also, I agree with you that the Europeans did horrible things and killed many, many Native Americans. It certainly belongs in the topic being discussed here. Further, I certainly have never imagined that the Native Americans were homogenous. Finally, I also agree with you that most American high school history textbooks shamefully gloss over this subject. I think we are in agreement on these issues. I just want to avoid the common historical anachronism. RK 01:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin: I do not understand your comment. 
Meanwhile, Turkish denial of genocide resulted in the refusal in Hollywood to film Werfel's Musa Dagh. President Tudjeman of Croatia wrote books denying Croat complicity in the massacre of Serbs. The question is, then, why are people so hesitant to accept genocide as a historical phenomenon? Are there common features in each instance, beside a need to defend one's own nation against charges of a horrific crime? It can be a fascinating, if also a disturbing topic. Danny 01:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: The Negationism article purports to be on "the denial of historic crimes", including genocide. But, as far as I can tell, it's junk. However, if you write a decent article on genocide denial, you might want to redirect that article to it. Also, you might care to skim through it to check whether or not it is in fact junk, since I'm no expert. Martin 01:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: All fine points worth discussing, especially since American high school history books gloss over this. I look forward to seeing an article on all this.  RK 22:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested readings on this new topic 

message: :Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his revisionist viewpoint.  In response, the German government blocked off access his site for all German citizens.
This seems to be wrong. Access to the site is available in Germany. -- JeLuF 09:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)
: Based on JeLuF's comment, I removed this sentence. Martin 11:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zundel 

message: Should this article also mention that the Soviet post-WWII policy was not to acknowledge the Shoah was directed against the Jews, as this word has been avoided until the mid-1980s. See the Black book, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and related. Humus sapiens|Talk 02:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soviet policy of denial 

message: In the section "Revisionists beliefs" why are their arguments not listed? There are perhaps three main arguments, but someone keeps taking them out when changes are made. Example, see  changes made 10:31, 22 Sep 2004 by 142.161.91.56. Wikipedia is to inform of the full truth, not push the status quo.
:The article lists 9 of the claims make by deniers.  One of the claims made by 142.161.91.56 was incorporated into them.  Wikipedia is not a venue for individuals to list their own favorite denial arguments, but rather lists the most common ones.  If you think your shoe argument is a critical plank in the denial platform, please explain why. Jayjg 19:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Zundel appears to be one of the central figures in the revisionist movement and from a perusal of his web page, those seemed to be his main arguments. And I might add, others who know better could have added to that list or culled it down if they saw errors. But Jayig, your actions are defeating the purpose of a Wiki! Wikipedia is not about one person enforcing their views and guarding a wiki page! Wikipedia is about many people adding small changes to the page, and having small edits gradually refine the page. You seem intent on locking one static version for all time. Unless you see outright vandalism, you should be doing nothing more than minor corrections. And rarely at that. Let others have a turn. When changes are made have a look a week later to see what became of them. Let others build on those ideas, or erase them. Wikipedia is survival of the fittest memes, and you are short circuiting that process by playing goalkeeper. Sept. 27, 2004
"Another point of great debate by Revisionists is, "What happened to the ash after the bodies were cremated?" Some speculate that some ash could have been used in fertilization experiments in crop fields, by the Germans."
I have never heard of this speculation. Any evidence, any literature for the "fertilization experiments"? In Auschwitz e.g. the ashes simply were thrown into a nearby river (see http://www.hagalil.com/shoah/holocaust/greif-0.htm ). Captain-c 13:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionist's arguments

message: A request for commentary has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment.  Ezra, this seems to be my opinion versus yours, and I am not happy with that.  But I also don't appreciate being called a censor in your insistence that the article is not NPOV.  --Modemac 00:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for commentary 

message: I modified the following sentence, by inserting "mainstream historians say": The figure "six million" (which is actually closer to eleven million, when counting the other ethnic, religious, and minority groups targeted for extinction).
My change was reverted with the comment "please don't weasal the facts". My intention was to move away from unsupported assertions in the article, toward information about what people believe. In this case, wouldn't it be better to attribute the belief that 11 million people were executed to particular (probably numerous and well respected) historians? Wmahan.
The problem is that it legitematizes the debate to say "Mainstream historians say x" "Deniers say y"  X is the facts, not just someone's opinions.  If you want you could write "X.  Attested to by mainstream historians."--Samuel J. Howard 18:12, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
:While I understand why Wmahan wants specify that this is a belief by mainstream historians, I think that that is understood simply because it is stated as a fact.  It isn't necessary to say that this is the mainstream belief; if it wasn't, then it would be the subject of the denial article.  --Caliper 18:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stating death toll as a fact?

message: Recent edits by 80.222.10.216 and 80.222.77.37 have contended that Mel Mermelstein never actually provided evidence to the Institute for Historical Review. I hope that by writing that his evidence was never released is a good enough compromise, although I do not know if this is true. I would, however, like to respond to the following quote by 80.222.10.216:
:The American way of directing someone to the right patch is showing the man that he is wrong, not by suing him. Why aren't the deniers proved wrong with facts if there are facts?
This is an interesting statement. First off, while it would be wonderful if that were in fact the American way, these days it is becoming more and more common for people everywhere, but especially in the United States to sue each other over nothings. Putting that aside, this is not even a nothing. The man was promised $50,000 for a service which he provided, and he was not paid. So he sued. Thank god we live in a society where you can't rip someone off like that.
As for the second part, why aren't deniers proved wrong with facts if there are facts? This is a very good question, and is one that this article tries to examine. It is difficult to understand how pieces like the report from Himmler to Hitler, shown here, do not prove to deniers that the Holocaust existed. What it comes down to is that there is enough proof for most of the world, and that the disbelievers almost unanimously either ignore evidence, or create false evidence to prove their points.  --Caliper 00:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Institute for Historical Review

message: :The "Breitbard Document" describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945.  In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning.  The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau", according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center (as printed in the Breitbard Document).
Most references to this "Breitbard Document" appear to be on revisionist websites, which refer to it as "The Breitbard Document, as published by the Simon
Wiesenthal Center". However, a search of the SWC website finds zero hits for the word "Breitbard". Until someone can give a cite for the "Breitbard Document", I'm removing the relevant text. -- The Anome 10:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Over to you. -- The Anome 10:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. After the usual bit of bungling. --Kizor 11:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Is it possible that both plaques are in fact correct?  Is it possible that while four million people "died and suffered", only 1.5 million were actively murdered?  The remaining 2.5 million would presumably have either died from malnutrition or survived. --Caliper 17:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "suffered and died" seems to denote one compound action (all suffered and then all died) rather than two discrete actions (some suffered, others died; or, all suffered and some (but not all) of those suffering then died).  Moreover, if you starve to death because your captors haven't gotten around to murdering you, that still qualifies as murder.  Regardless, I would still like to know the answer to Kizor's question: Did the plaque exist, what was its original wording, and what is the current wording?  JHCC 18:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from the article 

message: I previously added the following statement because most people don't realize
Holocaust deniers stress these things:
Holocaust deniers also stress that, contrary to popular belief: 
#they do not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich; 
#they do not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights; 
#they do not deny that Jews were deported; 
#they do not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos; 
#they do not deny the existence of concentration camps; 
#they do not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps; 
#they do not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons, although they claim there were no mass murders; 
#they do not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters; 
#and finally, they do not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust. 
It was changed to "revisionists stress" with the comment that "deniers stress no such thing".  By making this comment, you've just proven exactly the point I was trying to make, and why I believe this point absolutely needs to be made.
Don't take my word for it.  Here is what every one of the leading denier websites has to say:
#From VHO - This link was the source of the above information.
#From CODOH - "REVISIONISTS AGREE with establishment historians that the German National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment" and "Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, deported from the country of their birth and otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom."  This website also links to the VHO website when you click "Introduction" on their main page.
#From IHR - "They do not dispute the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during the Second World War."
If you revert back again, please site your denier sources, and compare the weight of those sources to the combined weight of the above three very popular hardcore denier websites that I've listed above.  In case you happen to know a denier that doesn't agree with the above list, I've added the word "most" in front of "deniers also stress" as a compromise.
Again, the fact that you don't believe these things about deniers makes it that much more important to list.
:I need to point out that vho.org's home page's title is "Historical Revisionism".  Indeed, your codoh.com quote begins with "REVISIONISTS AGREE..."  And ihr stands for the "Institute for Historical Review".  These are not denier websites, but revisionist websites.  I think we should therefor be able to agree that the list you have found is based on what revisionists think, not what deniers think.  I intend to change it back shortly after midnight EST, unless you have further concerns.  --Caliper 19:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say that deniers prefer to call themselves revisionists, so that's the term you'll probably find on any denier website.  Is it your position then that the VHO and CODAH websites are "revisionist," as they claim, and not "denial"?  If so, that's fine, but then I think we need to start a separate article for "Holocaust Revisionism" to express the VHO/CODAH/IHR point of view, because those are the ones receiving the most attention.  By the way, if you do feel that the VHO/CODAH/IHR websites are revisionist, are you aware of any "denier" websites? Falcon91Wolvrn03 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Caliper, you are just plain wrong. The IHR is an anti-Semitic Holocuast denial group that is a front from Neo-Nazism.  Please stop suuporting their propaganda. RK 13:28, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to be off the computer for up to a week, but my feeling is this:
*when presenting the revisionist/denier viewpoint, it's only fair to write about what they say their own opinions are (verifiable), not what others say their opinions are.  I got the above the above list from several of their websites.  Do you have any verifiable denier sources that disagree with the list above? Falcon91Wolvrn03 00:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

text: This is rather unfortunate, since I'm feeling like we just got to a point where we agree with each other.  By the time you get back, I'll be gone, pretty much for the summer.  I'm going to look around for some hardcore denier websites (although I hate to give them the traffic) and post them here soon, although it's shaping up to be a busy weekend.  As for making a seperate revisionist page, I was very much in favour of it, but didn't have the time to write it before it got deleted.  There had been a revert war, and people pretty much decided that it would be better just to cover both here.  I would encourage you to write one on your user page and getting approval before posting it, otherwise some of the hardliners are likely to get all angsty on you.  Good luck!  --Caliper 18:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Deniers DON'T Believe 

message: * Object. The current sections of the article are good, but I find the article as a whole to be somewhat incoherent. Also, it is lacking quite a lot of information vital to the topic (see list below). I really hope somebody (I don't have the right information) tries to make these improvements, because I thikn this topic deserves a good article. Jeronimo 10:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to featured article

message: "Holocaust denial is a per se criminal offense in Austria, France, Germany, Israel, and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences."
More precisely, in France, the criminal offense is to contest in a public medium  the existence of crimes against humanity as defined by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg.
Research denying the holocaust, or private conversations or writings denying the holocaust, are legal. David.Monniaux 15:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status

message: This artical on Holocaust Denial/Revisionism is most definitely not neutral, I was astonished after reading it that it didn't say at the beginning that the neutrality is disputed, I even reloaded the page twice to be sure, this is astonishing for me considering the page on Muhammed is disputed. 
And the fact that the artical dismisses Revisionism as Denial by another name is completely absurd. There is a school of thought and a serious Historical Holocaust Revisionist movement that does not deny mass murder but does dispute the numbers. This artical should have a warning at the beginning for new readers who are searching for information and not opinions. -Omar
:Sorry, Nazi, but we aren't buying your story. The IHR may call itself "revisionist", but they are Nazi holocaust deniers. We will not allow you and other Nazi holocaust deniers to vandalize our articles. RK 13:36, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
::What?! Your mindset is almost too unbelievable. Omar stated his position clearly and rationally, and you come back calling him a Nazi and saying it is "your" article?! Jesus, RK, you have no concept of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about many people making small changes to an article, revising the ideas and allowing survival of the fittest! If Wikipedia is about pushing the establishment media views, we might as well just have Encyclopedia Britannica up here instead. You sound like the one pushing a political view, not Omar. What he says about the difference between revisionists and deniers is absolutely 100% accurate.
:::Obviously, because it doesn't matter that these people believed that other groups should be completely eradicated, only how many they actually eradicate, right?  --brian0918™ 18:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding the specious casuistry and dissembling of Holocaust Deniers, there is no "serious Historical Holocaust Revisionist movement". Jayjg 16:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: There are a few points which I don't think quite fit, but, not being an "expert" on holocaust denial, I wanted to ask about them here first.
First off, under the heading Beliefs of Holocaust deniers and revisionists there is a statement There was no specific order by Adolf Hitler or other top Nazi officials to exterminate the Jews, although their incarceration in concentration camps and use as slave labor in factories had that effect.. While accurate, I am wondering if holocause deniers really belive that incarceration in concentration camps and use as slave labor in factories had that effect (of extermination). Since they deny that the extermination took place, it seems unlikely they would concede to the second part of the point. Again, I am not challenging its factuality, I just think that maybe it doesn't belong under the heading.
:Generally they seem to be inconsistent and use different arguments at different times.  When arguing with an intelligent and informed person, especially one over, say, 40 who will have met some eyewitnesses, the claim that almost no jews suffered or died is just too big a lie.  In every case, however, they attempt to move in that direction.  In this case, in an argument where the mistreatment and killing of jews in the war is a given, the point is to pretend that whilst lots of jews were mistreated and killed, this was what happens in prison camps and wasn't as bad as e.g. the Russian Gulags.  They are not totally stupid and realise that sometimes a smaller lie will be more effective than a bigger one.  Mozzerati 20:48, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
::So when pushed holocaust deniers will admit that jews (and gypsies and others) were incarcerated in concentration camps and that they were used as slave labour. Maybe we could add "they admit to incarceration in concentration camps and the use of slave labour in factories" to the beliefs section, and leave out that it had the effect of extermination. Again, I'm not denying this was the case, it just seems a little more logical for a section on Holocaust Deniers Beliefs.
Second, the statement: what they believe is a far-flung conspiracy. The conspiracy theory that some sort of global force is supressing holocaust deniers is certainly sketchy, but it is unlikely that holocaust deniers consider this so. I propose the removal of far-flung simply because it is unlikely to accurately reflect the beliefs of holocaust deniers, which the statement is describing.
:I think you are confusing "far-fetched" (unlikely) with "far-flung" (widespread / in many different distant locations), though, on second thoughts, the original author's intention may have been the other one Mozzerati 20:48, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
::I knew the difference, and reached the same conclusion (of the authors intention). Ok to leave it out?
These are just some suggestions to improve the flow of the article, I would appriciate any comments.
--Uncle Bungle 02:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid points which don't fit 

message: While I consider myself neither pro-Nazi nor pro-Jewish and am relatively uninterested in this topic, I believe this page should reside at Holocaust revisionism rather than Holocaust denial for the simple reason that Holocaust denial is a subset of Holocaust revisionism, while the reverse does not hold true.  An article purpoting to encompass both topics therefore can only be fairly and neutrally titled "Holocaust revisionism".  As such, I will be labeling this page with Template:TitleNPOV.  Zh 01:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Holocaust Denial is not a subset of Holocaust Revisionism, it is a synonym for it.  Holocaust Denial is not a claim that no Jews died during the Second World War; rather it is a denial that there was a "Holocaust", that is, a systematic program by Nazi Germany to kill millions of Jews. Jayjg 16:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Neither statement is accurate.  Holocaust revisionism is not historical revisionism, as the article itself explains.  And Holocaust denial is no more "extreme" than Holocaust revisionism, both deny the fundamental features of the Holocaust (deliberate murder of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany etc.).  If anything, the issue here is between different labels, not different groups or a spectrum of belief.  There aren't different groups among them proposing more or less radical forms of Holocaust revisionism, since the claims of all these groups are essentially identical; rather, opponents of Holocaust denial call its practitioners "Holocaust deniers", but Holocaust deniers call themselves "Holocaust revisionists". Jayjg 17:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What about someone who denies that Hitler ordered the Holocaust though believes in other aspects of the Holocaust? That is a defensible point of view, though I personally do not believe in it, because there is no known written order by Hitler. Isn't that ""holocaust revisionism"? And isn't it unfair and inaccurate to lump it together with Holocaust denial? Andries 21:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title