3 ms·

You say you don't mean to be inflammatory. This is bizarre, because you have written a confused set of paragraphs taken out of the playbook of Holocaust denier

by mturmon 12y ago

You say you don't mean to be inflammatory. This is bizarre, because you have written a confused set of paragraphs taken out of the playbook of Holocaust deniers. You have quoted a small piece of an article from Le Monde (out of context). The context was the need to debunk claims by Robert Faurisson, who was and is a notorious Holocaust denier. You have also made truly outrageous claims about gas chambers, with justification, amazingly, from a television interview (unsourced) and a noted historian (unsourced). I am unconvinced. The only way I can make sense of what you have written is as an ironic gesture -- an unhinged collage of junk from one of the oldest conspiracy theories, the one that believes in a Jewish cabal.

stifledissent 12y ago
Indeed the published Le Monde statement was in response to Faurisson. I don't see how this is important. What's important is the attitude of the historians and academics that made that statement. The statement is very clear in that it seeks to supress certain questions from being asked. I don't understand your accusation that the quote is "out of context". The context is that someone questioned something, and 34 scholars published a statement saying that they, as scholars, think that question should not be raised. I have no problem sourcing the statements I made here. For the BBC interview, see here (timestamp: 3:33): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g which I quote below: David: "The judge says 'I always assumed that there was the evidence that Auschwitz had gas chambers, I was surprised to find that there wasn't until this case came along" Tim: "There wasn't documentary evidence, is what he said, he doesn't say there wasn't any evidence, he said there wasn't documentary evidence" David: "There were eyewitnesses and he relies on half a dozen eyewitnesses" The transcripts for the trial are available for you to investigate for yourself, but the BBC acknowledging in public there's no documentary evidence for it, and quoting from the trial itself, should be enough for you to investigate for yourself from now on, and should be convincing enough. I do not believe in the racial conspiracy theories you're trying to accuse me of. Nor do I need to. I do not need to believe in any conspiracy theory in order to be interested in the facts about WW2, and in order to understand that in the reality we live in, there is no documentary evidence for an event that is heavily glorified and propagandized in the mainstream education system and media.
- mturmon 12y ago
  You're quoting from a TV interview focused on a very narrow question (specific kind of evidence, specific location, specific killing mechanism, etc.) -- and treating an offhand interjection from an interviewer as some kind of BBC statement. Neither of us is qualified to judge this, and certainly NOT from such a third-hand source. The gap between the Le Monde excerpt you quote and your claim about what it shows is similarly large. You are not arguing honestly, so I'm done.
  - stifledissent 12y ago
    I don't understand your complaint about the narrow focus here. This is on purpose. No one says Jews didn't suffer. They were round up and uprooted and shoved into trains and drained of their wealth and they suffered immense and undeniable horrors along with all sorts of other victim groups. The narrow focus here is on the question of gas chambers. This specific alleged killing mechanism never existed. It is a conspiracy theory to think they did. A conspiracy theory that 99% of people firmly believe in, without evidence. That is all that is being argued. In the same way that all historians deny the existence of steam chambers, electrocution schemes, head shrinking procedures, killing machines powered by pedaling, some more brave historians also deny the existence of gas chambers, because there's as much evidence for it (none) as there is for those other wartime rumors. Why are you not overly analytical like that with regards to the claims that there were gas chambers? If you are in possession of any documentary evidence for them, which seems to be the case since you dispute what two people on opposite sides of an interview take for granted, then you should just show it and the discussion would be over. I'm giving you a shortcut into this. Look up the trial of Ernst Zundel and you can read the transcript of when Raul Hilberg declares that, from the (literally) tons of records that the Nazis left, there is no document that can serve as evidence for there being gas chambers, or for gas chambers being used as an extermination method. Also look into the work of David Cole who was responsible for unearthing the now mainstream fact that the supposed gas chambers in Auschwitz are post-war reconstructions. If you want more information on the Le Monde publication, you can go and read or watch what Sylvia Stolz has to say. She is a lawyer who was arrested while doing her job of arguing for her client. I am 100% arguing honestly. I have no agenda but to show people that everyone falls for conspiracy theories, and that they should get out of their high horses with all of this armchair psychiatry of judging other people's characters by what they believe in. Please show me where I'm wrong.

by mturmon 12y ago

stifledissent 12y ago

Indeed the published Le Monde statement was in response to Faurisson. I don't see how this is important. What's important is the attitude of the historians and academics that made that statement. The statement is very clear in that it seeks to supress certain questions from being asked. I don't understand your accusation that the quote is "out of context". The context is that someone questioned something, and 34 scholars published a statement saying that they, as scholars, think that question should not be raised. I have no problem sourcing the statements I made here. For the BBC interview, see here (timestamp: 3:33): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g which I quote below: David: "The judge says 'I always assumed that there was the evidence that Auschwitz had gas chambers, I was surprised to find that there wasn't until this case came along" Tim: "There wasn't documentary evidence, is what he said, he doesn't say there wasn't any evidence, he said there wasn't documentary evidence" David: "There were eyewitnesses and he relies on half a dozen eyewitnesses" The transcripts for the trial are available for you to investigate for yourself, but the BBC acknowledging in public there's no documentary evidence for it, and quoting from the trial itself, should be enough for you to investigate for yourself from now on, and should be convincing enough. I do not believe in the racial conspiracy theories you're trying to accuse me of. Nor do I need to. I do not need to believe in any conspiracy theory in order to be interested in the facts about WW2, and in order to understand that in the reality we live in, there is no documentary evidence for an event that is heavily glorified and propagandized in the mainstream education system and media.

mturmon 12y ago
You're quoting from a TV interview focused on a very narrow question (specific kind of evidence, specific location, specific killing mechanism, etc.) -- and treating an offhand interjection from an interviewer as some kind of BBC statement. Neither of us is qualified to judge this, and certainly NOT from such a third-hand source. The gap between the Le Monde excerpt you quote and your claim about what it shows is similarly large. You are not arguing honestly, so I'm done.
- stifledissent 12y ago
  I don't understand your complaint about the narrow focus here. This is on purpose. No one says Jews didn't suffer. They were round up and uprooted and shoved into trains and drained of their wealth and they suffered immense and undeniable horrors along with all sorts of other victim groups. The narrow focus here is on the question of gas chambers. This specific alleged killing mechanism never existed. It is a conspiracy theory to think they did. A conspiracy theory that 99% of people firmly believe in, without evidence. That is all that is being argued. In the same way that all historians deny the existence of steam chambers, electrocution schemes, head shrinking procedures, killing machines powered by pedaling, some more brave historians also deny the existence of gas chambers, because there's as much evidence for it (none) as there is for those other wartime rumors. Why are you not overly analytical like that with regards to the claims that there were gas chambers? If you are in possession of any documentary evidence for them, which seems to be the case since you dispute what two people on opposite sides of an interview take for granted, then you should just show it and the discussion would be over. I'm giving you a shortcut into this. Look up the trial of Ernst Zundel and you can read the transcript of when Raul Hilberg declares that, from the (literally) tons of records that the Nazis left, there is no document that can serve as evidence for there being gas chambers, or for gas chambers being used as an extermination method. Also look into the work of David Cole who was responsible for unearthing the now mainstream fact that the supposed gas chambers in Auschwitz are post-war reconstructions. If you want more information on the Le Monde publication, you can go and read or watch what Sylvia Stolz has to say. She is a lawyer who was arrested while doing her job of arguing for her client. I am 100% arguing honestly. I have no agenda but to show people that everyone falls for conspiracy theories, and that they should get out of their high horses with all of this armchair psychiatry of judging other people's characters by what they believe in. Please show me where I'm wrong.