The Holocaust and revisionists.

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by KGB_resident, Feb 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In context of conviction of mr.Irving it would be interesting to look at so callled Holocaust revisionists. Who are they? What is their agenda? Is there anything rational in their considerations?

    However, I see this very doubful 'fact'

    I simply don't believe that it happened.

    Why should I believe this Canadian 'historian'? I don't accept this 'argument'



    But number of Jews - victims of the Holocaust was not corrected. It remained unchanged - 6 mln.

    So where is the truth?
  2. I think that the evidence speaks for itself - the thousands of allied troops from Russia, the UK & US that witnessed the camps at first hand when they liberated them. The incinerators were still warm and bodies were partially burned. Doesn't sound like a dose of flu to me.
  3. As long as this thread remains sensible, it could make for quite interesting debate.
  4. Pinched from the WW2 in Colour website

    If you want the context of this quote, find it here

    WW2 In Colour

    This was posted as part of a response to someone who turned out to be a white supremacist and c0ck of the first water.
  5. Quote from a former SS man...

    O yeah, Sergey, Auschwitz wasn't the only place the Rassenkampf happened and Jews, while the primary target, weren't the only victims. Something you, as a Russian, should be well aware of.

    What is the point of your attempt to conflate the number of people who suffered at Auschwitz with the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust?
  6. :( :( :(

    Mr Irving is very probably wrong in his statements of 18 years ago in which he denied the holocaust. I do find it strange that a democracies such as Germany and Austria can declare that denial of the holocaust is a criminal act. What sort of democracy imprisons someone for stating a belief.

    Next thing you know people will get criminal records for peacefully reciting the names of service peolpe kiled in Iraq.

    Yes democracy is a wonderful thing - as long as you don't cross the leadership!
  7. BINGO!

    My parents were born in Siberia and more than half of their (male) close relatives were killed during WW2. Ethnically they were Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. My grandfather was killed on the last day of Stalingrad battle. Alas 27mln. (according to recent researches) killed Soviet citizens were almost forgotten.

    6 mln. killed Jews became a sacred number. Anybody who doubt is declared as a Holocaust-denier.

    I'm mathematician. If I see a contradiction then I try to resolve it (especialy if question is highly politically motivated).

    According to

    So even number of missed Jews is lower than 6 mln. As we see from the table 3,271,000 Polish Jews missed during WW2 (57% of all missed).

    But according to (look at animated map)

    only 3,000,000 Jews lived in Polland.

    Take into account that

    Were they counted? Only 1/3 of German Jews missed (many I suspect fled). So it would be logical to suggest similar situation in Polland.

    Yes, of course, sufferings of Jewish people were enormous but it is not a sufficient cause for me to believe that 2+2=5. If I feel myself fooled with numbers then I can suspect falsehood in other matters.
  8. I think that the revisionist argument, whilst ridiculous, is as ludicrous as the Israeli Govt using the holocaust as a shield to its activities in Palestine.
  9. I think the word revisionist gives them too much credit. History is revised all the time, but refuting the already well-established scale and process of an event is simple denial and, in the case of the holocaust, an abominable one at that.
  10. Check the link.

    There seem to be several people all tarred with the same brush as "revisionists

    1. Real nazis or neonazis. Not sure which is worse, those that claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and whatever happened to the jews wsn't anythign to do with the Fuhrer or those that claim that it did happen and was a good thing.

    2. Historians who take an extreme stance from an academic point of view. Irving and others are right to challenge the evidence for written orders or the gas ovens or the numbers. Thats part of the discipline of history. However, their abscence may just as well indicate the desire to cover tracks of a monstrerous activity. Irving looked to be in this camp until it became clear that his motive for challanging assumptions was to prove that Hitler was a good guy and the holocaust was a Good Thing.....

    3. Someone who questions the prominance given, post war, to the extermination of the Jews in "the Holocaust" compared to other horrific acts of genocide. Thats not the same as denyiong that Hitler and the Nazis attempted to wipe out the Jews nor is it the same as agreeign with the Nazis. Why should the Holocaust be seen as more hoirrible than , say, the etermination of various ethnic and social groups by Stalin, the Kymer Rouge hooror or various acts of African genocide? Why should "The Holocaust" legitimise Israeli foreign and domestic polcy?
  11. Sergey, what's your point? That if one figure comes to 6,000,000 and the next comes to 6,000,001 then there's something wrong?

    I spent far too many years of my life working with statistics the numbers are all within reasonable tolerances. Besides, how do you know that the different sources are talking about the same area? German occupied 'Poland' isn't the same as pre-war 'Poland' is it?

    BTW you are aware that the 27mln soviet citizens killed in the war (including 2 million Jews incidentally) is a figure that's been arrived at after a lot of flexing. e.g. It wasn't that many years ago the USSR claimed there were only 5 million military deaths but now, thanks to Col Krivosheev, we know that figure should have been 8.6 million all along.

    You'll have to do better than that if you want to throw doubt on figures that better brains than you & I have spent 60 years working over.

    I still want to know why you're interested though, you still haven't explained why you're trying to cast doubt on the numbers?
  12. BINGO!

    In Soviet times abilities of historians were bounded by political considerations. Now (after collaps of Soviet Union and communist rule) historians are free to seek pure truth. Russia doesn't plan any demands for additional compensations to Germany. Russia doesn't play role of super-victim.

    I take from a shelf a historical book - "Russian history" (Zuyev and others, 2004). After 1991, archives were searched and at last true number of military deaths established - 11 millions (including about 1 mln. officers). There were 29mln. in Red Army in 1941-1945. (btw, where did you see 5mln. figure?)

    Note. There are no 'revisionists' that try to diminish number of victims.

    By contrast, number of killed Jews during the Holocaust, existence of gas chambers are still a subject of a bitter contest. Why? Anti-Semitism? Too simple explanation.

    I read the report too and frankly speaking was impressed. Previously I believed in gas-chambers allegations. Now it is not so obvious for me. At least I think that this (very important) question should be carefully investigated (and not in the court).

    I'm sure that even without gas-chambers we can speak about Jewish genocide. Romanian government ordered killing of hundreds thousands of Jews and it was a genocide (even without gas-chambers).

    You ask what's my point. OK. I would like to discuss all (absolutely all) aspects of the Holocaust without any artificial restrictions, to hear all arguments (pro and contra).

    I reject arguments like:

    - Revisionists are anti-Semites (it is irrelevant if their argumens are reasonable).
    - Further investigations could revive fascism.
    - All was investigated and you must accept it without any questions.
    - Even death of one innocent child is an atrocity, so don't ask questions.
    - The question is too sensible to Jews, their feeling must be respected (as in the case with mr.Finegold).

    More than 60 years passed. How much history must wait?
  13. There is plenty of oral evidenmce from survivors and other witnesses for the existance of gas chambers. Sure, it would be interesting to identify the preciose archeoloical remains. However the nazis demolished the camp as they left. In any event, proving the METHOD of eecution isn;t as important as the scale and fact of the murders. We know from "Ordinary men" the Study of a Special Police Batallion in Russia that the Germans ordered the mass eexecution of Jews. We can piece together roughly how many people died -within bounbds.

    The study of Holocaust minutae has become a Cult like the death of Diana Princess of Wales or Rockwell's ET. In order to deny its existance, scale and methiods requiores accempting some mass conspiricy theory. In this case a Jewish conspiricy of Holocaust survivors.
  14. I think if you read this

    Body Disposal

    you will find it casts some doubt over the Leuchter report, the credibility of the Faurisson report on which the Leuchter report was based, and thus the ideas of Mr Irving if he was indeed influenced by the Leuchter report.

    It features such interesting questions as:

    a. Why did they have a set of crematorium ovens that could have disposed of the entire camp population in a month unless they were involved in murder on a mass scale?

    b. Were the aerial phtos of the burial/cremation pits "doctored", as alleged by John Ball 9the answer seems to be a resounding "no")

    c. What happened to the 390,000 Hungarian Jews unaccounted for in the official German records?
  15. The problem in this argument is encapsulated in the thread title; 'Holocaust and revisionists', the biggest problem that academics have is that any form of revisionism is jumped on by the US jewish lobby and accused of anti-semitism. Dr Finklestein pointed out a few years back that the holocaust is a massively emotive subject that can be mobilised for immense financial gain and indeed political and international leverage. He went onto claim that the only group with sufficient cohesion to exploit this western cultural guilt is the jewish lobby in America and Europe, thats why we keep hearing, '6 million jews' and 'rarely hear, 'up to 20 million slavic victims of the einzatsgrupen'. Hear the official Isreali version of the formation of the state of Israel and then read around the subject, pay particular attention to the David and Goliath myth, the claim that seven arab states attempted to push Israel back into the sea, and the claim that the Yushiv didn't expell the Palestinean dispora. This version of 'history' is taught and believed in Synogues around the world, Edward Said attempted to refute this and was branded anti-semetic (he is a semite). Synogue youth groups from the UK often go on Israel tours in the summer holiday after their sixteenth birthday, the final week of which is often spent on attachment to the Israeli army, and all of this in the name of education?
    After the war, the allies were left with a problem, how do we rebuild Germany? Obviously they wanted to get Germans back into positions of government as soon as possible, unfortunatly any German with experience of government was by definition tainted by the events of the previous twelve years. So what they did during the 1950s is produce a campaign that was quite simply propoganda at best and fictional at worst. They produced a series of films (during which the word holocaust was used for the first time in conjunction with what Irving calls the Jewish Tragedy) which emphasised the horror of the holocaust but separated its perpertrators away from Germany as a people, this way the Americans could say, "Don't worry about this stuff, it wasn't you guys, it was a few very bad guys". They called this the de-nazification process.

    So what do all these seemingly random peices of information have to do with each other? The point is that thanks to the Allied need to rewrite bits of recent history, the truth is buried deep under quite alot of fiction. Secondly the way in which religious groups have adopted their own version of events to satisfy political needs, and the emotive nature of the subject matter makes it impossible for rational debate and the fact that some groups have sought to mobilise the memory of the holocaust for their own gain has made it even more difficult to investigate one of history's murkiest episodes. The final point is this, Irving whilst he is obviously pushing his own sociological agenda, is infact an excellant archivist, his sources are impecable and raise some very important areas of doubt, his down falling is that he doesn't pay attention to the broad range of sources that often contradict the view point that he desparately wants to believe. Irving stirs up a lot of bad feeling and critisism, but how many people actually read his work or feel that to do so is unacceptable? Reading is not believing.