Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 2

message: ::Dear Holocaust Denial Writers, I keep adding the following links to the Holocaust Denial External Link and someone keeps deleting them. 
Jpgordon, Why do you keep deleting the links I add to Holocaust Denial? Why are you abusing your administrator powers? Its time to bring a movement against abuse administrators to have you lose your admin status. 
-	* Historical Revisionism by Vrij Historisch Onderzoek 	 
-	* Air Photo Evidence of Holocaust Denial Allied Photos of Concentration Camps	 
-	* American Engineer Friedrich Paul Berg Holocaust Denial with a focus on the problem of Diesel mass gassing claims	 
-	* The Web site of Greg Raven Denail by the once co-editor of the Journal of Historical Review.	 
-	* Campaign for Radical Truth in History By Michael Hoffmann II	 
-	* Holocaust Denier Carlos W. Porter Holocaust Made in Russia	 
-	* Fredrick Toben / Adelaide Institute Australian Holocaust Denial	 
-	* The Hoax of the Twentieth Century By Dr. Arthur R. Butz
Why are these links removed by jpgordon? These are legitimate links which belong to expose sites which are dedicated to holocaust denial. This is an abuse of admin privileges by jpgordon.
Dnagod 16:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep adding external links which are valid sources of information on holocaust denial and both Jayjg and jpgordon keep deleting them, we need to bring a movement against these abusive administrators to have their privileges taken away. This is unacceptable. Has anyone else had their links removed by these two admins?
Dnagod 16:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't deleted any of your links from this article; what are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It is jpgordon who keeps deleting the links I add, it is you who Jayjg are not letting this section have a fair and balanced content, by making statements which are biased and removing content from holocaust denial section. This is going to take a lot of hard work to achieve this, but I am going to see about recruiting a group of people to go to the highest levels of arbitration to have the magnifying glass and microscope of scrutiny applied to you and jpgordon from here on out for abusing your priviliges on here. I keep adding links and theyre getting deleted when they are valid. 
Dnagod 17:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article looks pretty NPOV right now, though further NPOVing is always valuable.  Have fun with the arbitration. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jayjg, can you explain to me how jpgordon deleting legit and unique links to holocaust denial web sites is NPOV? The problem with holocaust denial is that its a touchy subject and those individuals like yourself and jpgordon might not want too many links to holocaust denial sites, because then people might be forced to make up their own minds on the subject after reviewing these sites? Or do you have an other disgressing comments to distract the reader to the fact that you are emotionally involved with judaism and thus are very biased and do not want this section of wikipedia to be fair and balanced? I have brought the issue of the external links I have added to arbitration and hope their are some fair and unbiased committee members who will remove the admin rights of individuals who have abused them. You know if wikipedia becomes too kosher, hundreds of new ones will pop up and you wont be able to control them. What do you think of them apples?
Dnagod 00:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for jpgordon; why would you imagine I could?  And I'm not sure what you mean by an "individual like yourself", but I haven't objected to the links in this article.  To me they seem reasonably on topic, though others might disagree.  Also, I tend to think a small exposure to these kinds of links is valuable; like a vaccine, it can innoculate people against the disease.  Feel free to create as many versions of Wikipeda as you like; dozens already exist, and, contrary to neo-Nazi fantasies, neither Wikipedia, nor America, nor the rest of the world, are controlled by Jews - good luck with your efforts.  However, I do suggest you note the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy while you're here.  And also, if you're alleging that I have biases, you might be better served by admitting your own biases up front as well.  You wouldn't happen to have any, would you? Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  SLimvirgin, jpgordon, jayjg, 
Lets take a step back and stop these childish insults. I agree with your statement jayjq about these sites being valuable and providing a a possible vaccine, so why do your fellow biased admins feel that this valuable information be censored? I am asking that legitimate holocaust denial links be allowed to added to the external link section on a holocaust denial article on wikipedia. If the view points and research on these sites is not sound, then let people draw those conclusions on their own. Jayjg says america like wikipedia is not controlled by Jews, however there seems to be a very strong bias against sites or comments in articles which might be seen as critical or insensitive or provide genuine criticism of Jews, jewish advocacy groups, israel and zionism. I ask that we put aside the childish insults and allow a fair and balanced spectrum of view points, so that the reader can decide for themselves. Can you please stop this kind censorship which tends people to call it jewish bias and jewish censorship. We need to have an open, fair, balanced and full spectrum of views on holocaust denial. I ask that you folks put aside your own emotional biases towards judaism and allow neutrality here by not censoring these links. Im sorry but a dozen or so links in the external links section does not qualify as turning wikipedia or this article into a directory. Can we please put our biases aside and work towards neutrality? Please?
Dnagod 02:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear SlimVirgin,
Lets not digress, use childish language the way jpgordon (read jpgordons talk section) does when he uses swear words and foul epithets. Please don't answer my question with a question. Please address the questions I have asked. Lets try to be mature adults here and work towards over coming the personal biases of people here who feel the need to censor legitimate content. 
Now can we put aside the personal insults and have you answer my question. 
Thanks, 
Dnagod 02:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear SlimVirgin, 
Again, please don't answer my question with a question. Please address the questions I have asked. Lets try to be mature adults here and work towards over coming the personal biases of people here who feel the need to censor legitimate content. 
Question #1: explain to me why these holocaust denial web sites
-	* Historical Revisionism by Vrij Historisch Onderzoek 	 
-	* Air Photo Evidence of Holocaust Denial Allied Photos of Concentration Camps	 
-	* American Engineer Friedrich Paul Berg Holocaust Denial with a focus on the problem of Diesel mass gassing claims	 
-	* The Web site of Greg Raven Denail by the once co-editor of the Journal of Historical Review.	 
-	* Campaign for Radical Truth in History By Michael Hoffmann II	 
-	* Holocaust Denier Carlos W. Porter Holocaust Made in Russia	 
-	* <nowiki>Fredrick Toben / Adelaide Institute Australian Holocaust Denial	 
-	* The Hoax of the Twentieth Century By Dr. Arthur R. Butz
are not worthy of being listed in the external links section of this site.
Now can we put aside the personal insults and have you answer my question. Why will you not answer my questions? This is becoming a broken record with me asking you legit questions and you responding with questions. Please don't make this into a situation where we get no where. I dont want to waste the rest of my life asking you the same questions over and over. So answer my question. 
Thanks, 
Dnagod 04:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: As usual, you and other Jewish Supremacists who are biased, have a jewish agenda and are emotionally biased towards Judaism and jewish oriented topics have failed to answer my questions. This issue is now in arbitration and I hope this will bring more people to closely watch you, as you clearly have a jewish supremacist agenda. You are biased, unfair, unbalanced and lack neutrality when it comes to jewish issues, you also censor and use pathetic and childish name calling. You do not deserve admin privileges and they should be revoked, along with all your fellow travellors who do the same thing as you. Censorship is destroying wikipedia, and you are part of this problem. 
Dnagod 14:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Now that's funny.  :) --Modemac 18:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm sure a couple could be deleted, but I wasn't comfortable seeing all of them go. Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Mirv, if you don't want people blindly to revert, you shouldn't do it yourself. SlimVirgin 07:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have seen this issue of deleting links excused with the statement that wikipedia is not a directory. Regarding a specific article, How many links numerically speaking is safe? Regarding a specific article, when does the number of links cross the line and become advertising or turning wikipedia into a directory? This might be something wikipedia guild should make more commonly known throughout. Dariodario 13:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: New Question
When I was at school we were taught that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews, including 4 million at Auschwitz. In the early 1990's Lech Walesa, the Polish Prime Minister, had this figured lowered to 1.5 million and the memorial at Auschwitz was altered accordingly.  
Does this mean that the total figure of 6 million murdered Jewish people should likewise be reduced to 3.5 million, or would this be an act of holocaust revisionism/denial?
:This issue is examined in the companion article, Holocaust denial examined.  Quoting the article:
:"A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document," (actually a paper by Aaron Brietbart) [2] (http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/education/revision/) which 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. Holocaust Deniers seize on this discrepancy and insist that the number of Jews killed must be immediately brought down at least 2.5 million. However, they ignore the facts that
:* the 4 million figure of the Soviets included almost 2 million non-Jews, and
:* historians in any event did not use the 4 million figure in calculating the total number of Jews killed."
:--Modemac 17:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's more like this: Say, for the sake of simplicity, that 1 million Jews and 100,000 other Poles were killed at Auschwitz. With this 10:1 ratio, it's clear that Auschwitz was primarily about the Jews. Now say that the Polish government felt the need to diminish the the primarily Jewish aspect of the what happened at Auschwitz, and increase the significance to Poles. They did this by inflating the numbers of non-Jews killed there, to (say) 1.8 million, and then increasing the number of Jews to 2 million, so Jews would still be the slight majority. Then the ratio of Jews to non-Jews is just 20:18, and thus Auschwitz is more generally of Polish concern, particularly as 1.8 million (not 100,000) non-Jewish Poles are now claimed to have been killed there. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: They play on those figures anyways, regardless of what any government or authority says. Not that it really matters; it's been shown that most of the arguments presented in favor of Holocaust revisionism or denials are lies, hot air, and racist sentiments, so we can expect many misstatements and outright falsehoods from that camp anyway.--Modemac 12:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New question

message: :Holocaust denial is a per se criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences.
I'd appreciate a source for this assertion.  I have sources for Austria, France, Germany, Israel, and Lithuania but not Belgium, Czech Rep., Poland, or Switzerland.  Also, the article should be updated to include Slovakia:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1107864138211
Edit: never mind, I've confirmed all the rest via Google.  I'll edit Slovakia into the paragraph myself.  Viva la free speech!
--------------
Don't you just find it strange that this holocaust, out of the many (some of which are larger and more brutal than the 1940's holocaust)is the only holocaust which you cannot question... :) Not that I fully deny the holocaust (there certainly were a couple of hundred thousand people killed), but its scale, I do deny.
Has anyone ever questioned any of the other genocides?
why the hell would they try and silence demial
maybee it's true that no one was killed at those camps
why give a person a fine because they are expressing their ideas of the matter
don't fine them
if people were killed at those camps don't fine people
just point at them and say they're crazy
Dudtz 7/30/05 12:50 PM EST
:Here's the thing about "Holocaust denial":  Over a hundred movies with the Holocaust as a central theme have been made.  To my knowledge there has been one movie made about the Holodomor which killed more Ukranians than were Jews killed by the Holocaust but let's say they killed the same number of each nationality just to be ultra philo-semitic:  The conclusion is that by virtue of their disproportinate influence on the media Jews have succeeded in Holodomor denial by malign neglect. Jim Bowery 23:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it seems like the Holocaust is used as a moral tool moreso than a depiction of history. It serves the agenda that apathy kills (which of course justifies, for example, USA's current foreign policies). I think that "revisionists" or "deniers", or however we choose to call them, will never have a chance to expose errors or overturn facts (if in fact the truth about history calls for it, a fact which I haven't been swayed to), since the Holocaust's role as moral tool is served best with the violent depictions and horrific figures we are subjected to in school. It's easy to label all "revisionists" as anti-semetic, neo-nazi, etc, and therefore undermine any legitamacy in their work. It's no different than labelling intelligent design as a neo-Creationist Christian movement... just because its propents are Christian, does it mean they have nothing scientific to contribute? I suppose this opens up a completely new can of worms but I hope I'm getting my point across...--Graatz 12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, Graatz, scientists are adopting the tactics of opponent of holocaust denial by refusing to debate advocates of creationism. The argument is that by debating these people you give them legitimacy, which is what they most want, and in the case of intelligent design, which they would argue has nothing to contribute to science and will only undermine legitimate science giving legitimacy to proponent of ID is a very negative thing. GabrielF 13:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: holocaust denial law

message: Numerous accounts have been given (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, and even deliberately falsified evidence.
This is real awkward. The word "evidence" shows up three times and the sneer quotes around "facts" and "evidence" (as they do whenever used) cheapen the discourse. Accounts of claimed facts? Doesn't scan. Let's try to improve this a tad... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; I have a very low tolerance for edits by Holocaust Deniers, which is why I tend to revert them. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you admit you are prejudiced, you should refrain from editing an article in which you cannot maintain neutrality.  Please re-read the NPOV guidelines that govern this site. Spinosaurus 14:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clumsy sentence 

message: Isn't it noteworthy that Germany was the first country to outlaw Holocaust denial (if indeed that is true)? -Lethe | Talk 07:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Sure. But look at that sentence: Starting with Germany, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in a number of European countries punishable by jail.. To make that point in a grammatically sensible way, it would need to say something like "Following a policy started by Germany in 19xx, ..." -- but then we start getting the sorts of details that aren't necessary or desirable in the introduction to the article. What's most important is that it's a crime (and I just changed "criminal offence" to "crime" in the name of conciseness); a section on the criminalizing of some political speech could expand upon this in the article, and would be quite welcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  starting with Germany 

message: "While historical revisionism is the reexamination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, "deniers" typically seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial fact."
This sounds a lot like an encyclopaedia article where only one point-of-view is tolerated, where the personal prejudice of administrators allows the article to be non-neutral -- in direct violation of the terms of this website -- and which is a bully pulpit for bigots to tar dissenters as "anti-semites,""loons" and worse.  I believe that Gordon and his jackbooted ilk should excuse themselves from touching this article or this talk page as their heavy-handed interference is an obstacle to reasoned discussion and the presentation of a balanced article.
Guess what?  Critical re-examination of the "six million" figure is a perfectly valid historical undertaking, particularly given the haste with which it was derived and its being promulgated under the fog of war.  
There is nothing "anti-Semitic" about such inquiries. Spinosaurus 14:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your complaint. And why did't you provide references to dispute the "six million" figure?  What do you know "SPIN"osaurus?--AI 22:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked references? What about the following?! 
websites :
*Intstitute for Historical Review
*VHO.org
*Holocaust Historiography project
books : 
* Holocaust Affirmers (Alexander Baron)
*The Hoax Of The 20th Century (Arthur Butz)
* The Rumor of Auschwitz (Robert Faurisson)
* The Giant With Feet Of Clay : Raul Hilber and his standard work on the "holocaust" (Jürgen Graf)
*Holocaust or Hoax? (Jürgen Graf)
*The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One (Don Heddesheimer)
*The Myth of the Six Million (David Hoggan)
*Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (Carlo Mattogno)
*Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Carlo Mattogno
*Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
*Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
*Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
* The Drama of the European Jews (Paul Rassinier)
* The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein (Henri Roques)
*Dissecting the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf)
*The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Germar Rudolf)
*The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (Paul Rassinier)
* The origins of the Second World War (AJP Taylor)--IlluSionS667 18:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What absurd bias. 

message: Why is Category:Holocaust denial categorized in Category:Pseudoscience when the article Holocaust denial isn't categorized in Category:Pseudoscience?--AI 22:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudohistory 

message: Is that there are obviously two sides on this issue. Two very polarised sides. Not many people whose opinion falls in the middle, based on research or not, wants to put it out there, because they either don't care enough, or don't want to be attacked by one side or both. --Edward Wakelin 23:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You ought to start exposing some of the holocaust deniers, Willis Carto in the article.--AI 02:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem here 

message: First of all this is not a neautral page. How about a seperate page for revisionism? Since denial is outright saying it never happened, and revisionism, is to update the original record with further evidence etc.
Also worth noting there is a Jewish revisionist called David Cole. He had the curator of Auschwitz flip-flopping on the offical record of the Holocaust.
*Everyone calling themselves a "Holocaust revisionist" is essentially a Holocaust denier. The people concerned with updating the historical records call themselves "historians". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another page for revisionism

message: I had added a line here on the denial of the genocide against the Ukrainian peasantry. This was removed. Now my question is this: was it removed because that 'denial' is too marginal to be mentioned, or because whovere removed it does not think that genocide took place? 
The former rationale would actually make sense, the latter would be rather offensive and on par with run-of-the-mill holocaust denial a la 'did six million really die'. 
--80.228.154.115 13:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who denies that Stalin's collectivization scheme ended up causing famines which killed millions of kulaks? Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen several Holocaust movies this year without really trying as I tend to go to art houses quite a bit.  I've never seen a single movie about the Holodomor -- and I've looked for one.  I hear one was made some time ago.  A similar search for Holocaust movies yielded over a hundred -- quite accessible -- movies.  As far as the Holodomor goes, there's nothing to deny because from the stand-point of the Zeigeist, it is a non-event -- made so by Jewish dominance of Hollywood and western politics.  One could call it Holodomor Denial by Ethnocentric Malign Neglect.  Jim Bowery 19:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious; is there anything you Stormfront denizens can't blame on the Jews? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your explanation of why there would be a 100 to 1 ratio of Holocaust movies to Holodomor movies when the death ratio of Jews to Ukranians in those events was less than 1?  PS:  It must be obvious to you that Albert Einstein must have been a "Stormfront denizen" since he said "anti-Semitisim is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jews by the Jewish group". Jim Bowery 06:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're more than just an anonymous IP -- you're an anonymous IP who has made my case for me.  Jews should not be allowed to occupy positions of trust and authority, either in the public or private spheres, among other peoples due to their ethnocentrism, which produces such moral grotesqueries as the bias in public awareness toward the Holocaust and away from the Holodomor.  The fact that people call such a statement "conspiracy theorizing" and nod their heads in stupid agreement, as you called my prior similar statements, merely demonstrates the damage to the mental faculties Jews have caused to the population. Jim Bowery 06:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Holocaust Denials

message: Holocaust denial refers to the claims of a small number of amateur historians who argue that the Holocaust
What about the historians who are not amateurs, and what about all the Ph.D. scientists who also claim there is little scientific evidence to support the holocaust? Why amateur historians? and not the mention of scientists?
::::I don't know of them please give names... Ericd 03:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please name the professional historians and Ph.D. scientists who deny the Holocaust. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Language

message: lets not worry about people who supposedly died 60 some years ago,let's worry about people who get arrested for saying the holocaust didn't happen.
people getting a fine or being arrested just for saing somthing "wrong" violates civil liberties.
Dudtz 9/20/05 5:53 PM EST
*Sure does. Why not expand the section in the article discussing such laws? You're not the only one with this opinion; an NPOV description of the issues surrounding banning Holocaust denial might be both interesting and useful. On the other hand, the tiny number of people who have actually (not supposedly) been prosecuted under such laws certainly don't cause as much worry for most people as the millions actually (not supposedly) killed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Liberties 

message: After the last typical, and boring, vandal wandered in (and got reverted), I noticed what might be an odd POV in stating what the deniers "believe", where their beliefs are assumed to be that only a "few" natural deaths would require the presence of Crema. According to my grandfather (oddly something of a denier), who was in 4 different camps during the war, the crema were often used for waves of disease or large numbers of death due to freezing, elderly people not able to handle the stress, overwork, etc. I started looking through the IHR and similar sites, and sure enough, they do not characterize death from "natural causes" as something rare. It seems to hinge on how one is defining "natural causes", or rather something like  "expected deaths" vs. "intentionally inflicted deaths". Any suggestions on improvement?  Ronabop 08:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crema Purposes 

message: There are some serious problems with the "deniers' and revisionists' claims" section.
:1. There was no specific order by Adolf Hitler or other top Nazi officials to exterminate the Jews.
Actually no such "specific order" by Hitler was ever found, and the distribution of responsibility for the killings is subject of serious historical debate, see functionalism versus intentionalism. This claim should be weakened.
:4. The figure of 5-6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and many Jews who actually emigrated to Russia, Britain, Palestine and the United States are included in the number.
5-6 million died in extermination camps, in all camps, or as a result of all Nazi anti-Jewish activities ? Nazi extermination camp suggests that 3.2M-3.8M people died in the extermination camps, not all of them Jews. The death toll should be qualified.
:5. Many photos and lots of film footage shown after World War II was specially manufactured as propaganda against the Nazis by the Allied forces. For example, one film, shown to Germans after the war, of supposed Holocaust victims were in fact German civilians being treated after Allied bombing of Dresden. Pictures we commonly see show victims of starvation or typhus, not of gassing.
Some certainly did, doh. Widespread manufacturing of propaganda materials during the war is no secret, even one of the most famous war shots - the German September 1st's toll gate movie (I don't know if it's as well known outside of the Central Europe), is known to be a fabrication. On the other hand it would require a much stronger claim - one that almost all such material was fabricated for the claim to have any strength as an arguement for denial.
:6. Claims of what the Nazis supposedly did to the Jews were all intended to facilitate the Allies in their intention to enable the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and are currently used to garner support for the policies of the state of Israel, especially in its dealings with the Palestinians.
There are two separate claims here - one about moving Jews to Palestine, which is just weird, and another that Israel uses Holocaust for its own purposes, which is, well, simply true and has little relation to Holocaust as such.
:7. Although crimes were committed, they were not centrally orchestrated and thus the Nazi leadership bore no responsibility for the implementation of such a policy.
Functionalism versus intentionalism is a valid research subject.
:8. There is an American, British or Jewish conspiracy to make Jews look like victims and to demonize Germans. Also, it was in the Soviet interest to propagate wild stories about Germany in order to frighten related nations into accepting Soviet rule (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.). The amount of money pumped into Israel and reparations from Germany alone give Israel a strong incentive to maintain this conspiracy.
Conspiracy or not, inequal treatment of German and Soviet atrocities is well documented. Katyń massacre anyone ?
:11. In any event, the Holocaust pales in comparison to the number of dissidents and Christians killed in Soviet gulags, which Holocaust deniers usually attribute to Jews.
The most common estimates for number of people killed by the Soviet camp system are higher than for the Nazi camp system. As the Soviet number is much less certain, this statement has more to do with one's opinion on Gulag, than on the Nazi camps. Taw 15:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand the issue you are raising. These are the arguments they make; are you saying they're not good arguments? Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs of Holocaust deniers and revisionists