Skeptic Project

"From the way the "Company" worked in Prison Break, I believe you can. Debt of lives."

That guy also loves sourcing TV shows as proof.

Those two points are answered here:

http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi</p>

#1 and #37

Any holocaust denier that isn't also an anti-Semite is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.

@Sil

That guy also loves sourcing TV shows as proof.

Well ok, it seems sensible to me what they show. Of course that can't be brought up as the way it would be.

Those two points are answered here:

http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi</p>

#1 and #37

At least some reference. Thanks, I'll read all the page. If I was fanatical anti-Semite I wouldn't even consider this.

(or) is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaa... (saliva dropping from mouth)

@Matt

It takes a special kind of scumbag to be a holocaust denier.

A neo-nazi said to me that no one was gassed(on the net). I laughed at such a ridiculous claim, but the questions raised dropped my smile. Maybe I will finally find out the answers.

> Holocaust deniers

Is there a term for people who think there was some Holocaust fibbing on the facts ?

(Kinda reminds me of the 400,000+ TZM membership figures..)

Is there a term for people who think there was some Holocaust fibbing on the facts ?

"Racist," "Nazi" and "anti-Semite" spring immediately to mind.

Are the exact historical facts of that event really so important?

Yes, they are. An occurrence as horrible and broad-reaching as the Holocaust must be understood as closely and accurately as possible. All facts regarding it are important to document, however small or detail-oriented they may seem.

Does it really matter whether 6 million people or 16 million people died?

Yes, it does, but I agree that whether Hitler killed 6 million or 16 million doesn't alter his moral culpability. I think it's important, though, from a historical standpoint to understand how many people died, where they died, how, who gave the orders and how the system was carried on. All of those questions are answered very well in the historical record (I realize you, Omni-Science, are not a Holocaust denier, I'm just stating that I think the details are very much worth study).

The exact amount of people who died is irrelevant.

I couldn't disagree more. Holocaust deniers say "Oh, it wasn't so bad, only a few thousand died," and somehow this is supposed to be less bad than agreeing 6 million died, so from the standpoint of denying Holocaust revisionists any sort of quarter or respect, I don't think it's good to concede the point that it shouldn't matter how many victims there were.

> Scumbag.

So, one is either for or against the subject, and no inbetween ?

Either your with PJ 100%, or your against him 100%... no 50/50 or 60/40..

> Are the exact historical facts of that event really so important?

Not especially, which is why it rarely comes up in conversations I find myself in, but it does irk me a little that like PJ being in charge, its a subject your not allowed to talk about for fear of prison (Just ask Peter Irving..) and even talking about it in just about any format, to any degree gets people labelling you this and that, when all I'm after is the facts.

I was perfectly willing to believe well enough what the history books told me until I saw for myself historial documents in the flesh which did not match 100% what I had read.

> Does it really matter whether 6 million people or 16 million people died?

A little, as the bigger the number, the more importance it has, and the more right one group has over another to say they deserve a little more than they would otherwise be entitled to.

> isn't it enough to know that millions of innocent Jews, gays, cripples
> (physical and mental), Gypsies, and Jehovah's Witnesses died to advance a
> cause based on mysticism, racism, ethnocentrism, and hate?

And also plain economics, eg. it benefited the country not having say cripples to look after.

It interests me to understand the reasoning behind why some groups was chosen over others to be reduced in number. (I can understand why, but sadly cannot talk about my evidence as its against the law here to do so.)

My aim would be to find solutions that do not involve the death of people, and to understand how to prevent people from getting out of hand and killing others in the name of good.

I have looked at other historical events in history and noticed a similar level of fibbing on the facts, which can at times alter the truth of what happened, such that lessons apparently learnt after the fact are in fact false. (Is another reason why I enjoy talking with old people so much, as they can give you information not written down on offical documentation..)

I do this to better understand how people think, why, and what might be done to prevent bad things happening.

Omni-Science: I believe that most Holocaust Deniers don't actually deny the event of the Holocaust. Rather, they 'deny' several central points. I think their main 3 arguments are:

1. The number of Jews killed would at it's highest estimate be around 2 million.

2. There was no "Final Solution" from the higher-ups, and most of the deaths were caused by the Allies bombing supply trains and stuff like that.

3. The gas chambers and crematoria were not used to exterminate prisoners, but only to delouse prisoners and burn the bodies of those who had died of natural causes.

None of which is supported by any corroborating evidence. One piece of evidence alone doesn't paint the whole picture of the Holocaust, but put it all together and it pretty much resembles the 'official story'. I've noticed that Holocaust Deniers use the testimony of those on trial during the Nuremberg trials, but VERY selectively. Those Nazi's who admit to the events of the Holocaust as we know it are then accused of deniers as being coerced, or tortured, or paid to lie or something like that. But on that same note, those who deny the Holocaust, or features of it are said to be telling the truth. Ridiculous.

I believe it's possible to be a Holocaust denier without being anti-semetic, but it takes a true moron to not see the underlying connotations and the anti-semetic ideology associated with Holocaust denial-ism.

"I've mainly met/worked with the kind of people like David Irving, who are more of a historian type and into finding out the facts, whatever they are. "

Hah, finding the facts! Were you aware that he has no professional training in history? He uses semantics to try and prove there was no official program of extermination in Nazi Germany.

UK.

Many historians have no professional training, they are old folk who learnt themselves how to do the job. (Often working with other people of greater experience who help them learn.)

Its a modern thing to expect someone to have a university degree, as if that magically makes them less of an idiot :-)

Having hung around with the top historians on the entire planet, listened to their advice, their input, I think I'll take their advice and my own eyes on evidence as to what the truth is likely to be.

Nanos, you really have an undeserved hyper-inflated opinion of yourself. I don't know much about UK law, but your statement makes me think of those laws in other countries that prohibit Holocaust Denialism. As far as I know, the UK (and the US) do not have such laws.

"Many historians have no professional training, they are old folk who learnt themselves how to do the job. (Often working with other people of greater experience who help them learn.)"

Just being old and living through a time period, does not make someone a historian.

"I suppose that is one of the problems, having hung around with top people in various fields, my understanding of how things work is not necessarly going to match that of the common man who hasn't had the oppertunities I have had. "

I highly hope that you don't count your David Irving among these "top people". But I agree, your understanding of things is certainly not going to match that of the common man. I still can't comprehend your solar vehicle bike horn!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial</p>

...

having hung around with top people in various fields

Who are all these leet historians and academics you have hung around with Nanos?

Names:

Fields:

Credentials:

Having hung around with the top historians on the entire planet...

Oh, so then you've met David McCulloch? Gordon Wood? Robert Massie? Joseph Ellis? David Halberstam? Michael Beschloss? Doris Kearns Goodwin?

I call bullshit.

I'm pretty sure Nanos is either a colossal liar or completely insane.