Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive2

Propaganda?
I've seen some rumours floating around the internet that Holocaust denial is something Neo-Nazis tell to their new "recruits", and that once they have been sufficiently indoctrinated, they tell them that yes, the Holocaust really happened, but at this point, they just celebrate the genocide rather than denying it. Is there any truth to this claim, or is this just another urban legend? MidnightBlue766 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be a "Neo-Nazi" according to some people of all races, religions and creeds who do not believe the narrative "to realize the Holocaust is an overblown exaggeration, forensic fraud, Psyop and that the homicidal gas chamber claims were a hoax" and that "the testimony of National Socialists were tortured confessions (where they killed them shortly after trial, so they couldn't repudiate them)". This is coming from someone of Jewish descent, some people of all races, religions and creeds believe "we were lied to and no amount of censorship, banning, name calling can undo the slow erosion of the mask hiding the hoax". SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous article

 * "That powerful Zionists secretly orchestrated the Holocaust in order to encourage Jewish migration to Eretz Israel" - Whoever is supposed to have claimed that?
 * "That the Jews just made everything up to gain the world's sympathy" - Straw man, the Allies, in particular the Soviets, are argued to have made most forgeries, and no revisionist is claiming that all persecutions and killings of Jews were invented.
 * Eisenhower quote. Eisenhower was responsible for killing many Jews by Allied bombings of power plants and food transports which caused sanitary problems, epidemics, and starvation in the concentration camps in Western Germany. Eisenhower was never in Poland where the alleged gas extermination camps where - not in Western Germany. He visited some prison camps in Western Germany and could see the results of his own orders - mass deaths due to diseases and starvation. Not good for his coming election campaign so he blamed the Nazis instead.
 * "Where did the Jews go?" - To where the Jews are today.
 * "Either these shoes were from the Holocaust victims or the Nazis were some serious foot fetishists. Take your pick." - False dichotomy, another alternative is a postwar fabrication, just like the fake gas chamber the Soviets built at Auschwitz.
 * "Why has not one of them testified in favour of the "revisionist" view? Not during the trials, not anonymously in an interview with any of these "revisionist scholars", not for any of the "revisionist" books, websites, or radio broadcasts, not on their deathbeds, not in their posthumously released wills - not at all. Those who were tried at court had the opportunity to cry out anything during trial, and those who were executed had the opportunity to say some last words. How come every one of these thousands of "innocent" guards has remained silent, or falsely confessed themselves guilty, for decades? And how come that deniers cannot produce one single testimony, supporting their idea?" - Ridiculous, taking a prominent example, Göring wrote before committing suicide that "Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me."
 * "Jean-Claude Pressac..." - Became de facto a revisionist late in his life.
 * And so on... UnrealName (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kaltenbrunner, who would have been more directly involved than Göring, denied all knowledge at Nuremberg. Qwertyuiop (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh look, we got an actual Holocaust denier here Kentuckyball (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer the questions instead of making personal attacks. SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When someone resorts to that level you can form your own judgement on the value of their (absence of) argument. Qwertyuiop (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The patchy, self-contradictiing and one-sided Holohoax narrative has become undisputed science just because this site has an article on it.82.161.30.183 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You weren't expecting a reasoned article that actually looked at the evidence from RationalWiki. were you? Qwertyuiop (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Qwertyuiop Quick question luv; are you implying that the RationalWiki article on holocaust denial isn't a reasoned article that actually looks at the evidence? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it in one, sugarpuff. Qwertyuiop (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's nothing compared to the assertions of their counter claims. I mean some are actually more than a sentence long.  Saying "To where the Jews are today" to where the Jews who died went in comparison to photos, documents, confessions from workers, and remains or "and so on..."; I am totally convinced with that.  /sarcasm  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's go through these

In conclusion the article DOES examine the evidence. Unrealname, that anon guy, and Qwerty are denying the evidence because they want to pretend it never happened.
 * A Surprisingly large number claimed the holocaust was to gain support for zionism
 * Except that there were so many records made the idea they were forged is ludicrous
 * Uh....no. Most of the major death camps were in the east. The Nazis deliberately starved the jews and forced them to work in hellish conditions in the western camps. Eisenhower did not cause those deaths
 * Except that there were no large influxes of Jews in countries like the US or Israel that would have accounted for all the missing numbers. The Jewish population today is still a pale shadow of what it was before the war.
 * Leuchter's arguments used bad science; there were other chambers the nazis failed to destroy, which did have gas. Not a fabrication; the Nazis destroyed the original chamber at Auchwitz
 * Very few actually recanted; most admitted it happened; thousands of guards and workers have confessed. Even former SS officers like Osker Groening have acknowledged the holocaust occurred
 * Kaltenbrunner had an interest in covering his own ass.
 * If anything it's not even remotely contradictory; the documents could not be forged so quickly.

German granny, nothing to lose, speaks up on public TV.
She don't give a stuff about the gag-law 'cos she's not going to be around much longer. Ursula Haverbeck: The Panorama Interview, with English Subtitles
 * Which doesn't make the stuff she said any less brainless.--Arisboch (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On minute 17:00 she addresses your predictable dribble concerns. 82.161.30.183 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick search on this woman shows that she thinks Hitler was on a divine mission, she has threatened Jews with future pogroms and she says the Holocaust happened but it was only half a million people (and therefore fine?). Why should anyone care what she says, exactly?--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What you claim she says has nothing to do with what she actually says (and everyone can see for themselves in the video). If you throw enough mud some sticks, isn't it, pig? 82.161.30.183 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, why should I care what she says?--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You tell us. For "not caring" you're wasting too much of your worthless valuable time "protecting" us from her? People should care what she says because:
 * 1.- She was forced labor in Nazi Germany and therefore has more clue than you and I of what was going on.
 * 2.- She's defying a gag-law that can land her behind bars, therefore she's likely to be driven by conscience rather than by a petty miserable political agenda like you are. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Her being a conscripted into forced labor in Nazi Germany doesn't make the motherfucktons of contradicting evidence go away.
 * 2) Defying the so-called "gag law" doesn't mean, that she does it out of conscience or that she's right and also, there is no evil deed ever, that wasn't done in good conscience by someone. Conscience is awfully subjective.--Arisboch (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * motherfucktons of evidence bla bla.... But the physical evidence section remains void despite your desperate incestuous mother calls. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Like any woo promoter, you want people to people carefully cherry-picked personal stories over the preponderance of evidence. Also like most woo promoters, you pretend you know what the motivations of all of your critics are. And not only is doing something for reasons of "conscience" subjective, it doesn't mean that she has a factual basis for her decision of conscience.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The video proves she has tons of factual basis for her decision. You're the dumb waif, not her. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet you still won't defend your own point, yourself. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand "proof" and "fact". Or "waif".--SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And why can't you argue your own stupid points? It's not like people don't recognize you as the pro-genocide racist fuck you are when you're hiding behind a youtube video.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial Websites
There are a number of very high quality and informative Holocaust denial websites that I think would be worth adding to the external links section of the article.

For instance: http://www.Codoh.com http://www.holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com

Are web sites presenting the Holocaust revisionist side of WW2 allowed in the links section? SissyMendelstein (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "very high quality and informative Holocaust denial websites" That's a contradiction in terms. Did you actually read out article? Queexchthonic murmurings 08:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To the surprise of (probably) no one, SM has now moved on from circumspect and veiled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Leo Frank being guilty and all the arguments to the contrary, then and now, being examples of hoaxes and conspiracies to out-and-out Holocaust denial promotion, using the same teach the controversy lines of argument (see also: balance fallacy). Well done. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Queex the arguments of these websites and others related to Jewish Holocaust denial revisionism (not suggesting all revisionists are Jewish, I'm referring to the Jewish Holocaust, as there were many Holocausts in history suffered by many different groups), don't seem to be saying that Jews did not die during world war 2 or that people weren't mistreated, abused and killed. I think it's pretty obvious there was a great amount of suffering by Jews during, and the years before, WW2 in Germany and definitely a great deal of suffering by the Germans after the conflagration had ended (see: documentary Hellstorm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkQ6J5F01Do if this gets deleted by YouTube a copy is at the Internet Archive), so this is not in dispute by Jewish holocaust revisionists (the issue of atrocities, human rights violations and so forth). I think one of the central themes of Jewish Holocaust Revisionists is that the homicidal gas chamber claims are a hoax, and the number of Jews who died during the early 1940s is grossly exaggerated.

A number of very impressively produced videos of high production value are quite convincing about the homicidal gas chambers being a hoax and the 6 million Jewish deaths during the late 1930s and first half of the 1940s being an exaggeration.

1. This video called Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of The Big Lie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GgRWuXcO8 is pretty convincing that showers were in fact showers, and not secretly disguised homicidal gas chambers.

2. The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax (2014) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47rbRNSGQUs is also pretty convincing given it is using the latest technologies of drones and ground analyzing radar.

3. The Majdanek Gas Chamber Myth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R6mTTrOlzE discussing the shower / homicidal gas chamber rumors.

I think it would be helpful for the reader to see both sides of claims as to what Holocaust denial really is, not just the biased perspective of people who say anti-Semitism / anti-Semite when someone disagrees with their orthodox narrative. It's not in dispute that the number of deaths purported at these camps continues to decline (watch the videos, read Jewish sources about the decline). I think it would help the reader to look at some of the best works by Jewish Holocaust revisionists that clearly debunk a lot of the claims against them.

ScepticWombat, I'm a Jew, not a half Jew, but full-blooded, both of my parents are Jews, and all of their parents were Jews (my grandparents), so it's kinda challenging to take you seriously, when you so often resort to red herrings, infantalizing pejoratives and emotionally laden epithets like anti-Semite / anti-Semitism. What I'm saying if you need a little help getting it, is that these ad hominems don't prove or disprove facts, they just let people know that you might be intellectually bankrupt or have low intelligence. As a Jew I am used to low brow types who use empty words to prove they can't handle that many people don't buy or believe in orthodox narratives. If you have to prove your position is right about historical, social or political issues using such tactics they're probably false.

We live in the 21st century, no one takes the words anti-Semite / anti-Semitism seriously anymore because they are used to often by people who lose arguments. I want to take you seriously, but it's difficult. You and others have proven some of my main points about empty insult words repeatedly at the Leo Frank talk page by needing to use variations of name calling. Name calling doesn't really argue for facts or argue against them, it just suggests you're not logical or rational. It also can give an impression that you're not familiar with the subjects, like in the case of Leo Frank. I don't get offended by personal attacks, it just causes me to think that you're by nature weak minded and defeatist. Try to control yourself and stay on topic. I'm only bringing up the Leo Frank case because you mentioned it, but in the future keep the conversation there and not cross contaminate everywhere you go. SissyMendelstein (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you square away the 'exaggeration' of the numbers killed when we have the actual Nazi paperwork to back them up (see in this very article)?
 * How can you claim that a video is scholarly and trustworthy when it leads with 'Hoax' or 'Myth' right in the title? These aren't reliable scholarly or pop-history videos. They're reinforcement for people who already have at least one foot in the history-denial camp.
 * For all we know these 'hoax gas chambers' (assuming they show any, not wading through all that tripe to see if they actually attempt any research or just bleat the whole time. 2 hours? Bloody hell, why are idiot racists incapable of being brief?) are just the ordinary showers they had on site (for prisoners and for guards), misrepresented as supposed gas chambers. When the makers of these videos wear their ahistorical conclusions on their sleeves so openly, they can't be considered reliable. You only have to browse the comments to see the audience they're made for. 'Best' example I saw was someone who was convinced that a person putting their hand to their lips meant they were smirking and telling a lie. Wat.
 * And as for objection to the 'anti-Semite', well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. And you've been quacking to the tune of anti-Semitism in every edit you've made here. If you object to the appellation, perhaps you should stop talking like one. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, responses to SM have been surprisingly mild, or even bland, considering that several editors have expressed suspicions about an anti-Semitic agenda from the get-go. The amount of ad hominem has been minimal, as the main criticism has been at your claims, sources and what various editors have considered flaws in your arguments, incl. various fallacies.
 * SM's edits follow a pattern in that so far they have all dealt with typical talking points of anti-Semites, to wit:
 * Leo Frank was guilty and the general consensus of his innocence is a conspiracy/fraud cooked up by shady intellectuals.
 * Edits to Talk:Biological determinism that at least verges on just asking questions.
 * A post in RationalWiki:Saloon_bar tying Zionists with Nazis.
 * The edits here promoting Holocaust denial (under the more circumspect banner of "revisionism"), using the same teach the controversy approach as in the arguments for the Leo Frank article.
 * Edits to Francis Parker Yockey and William Luther Pierce, both well-known anti-Semites, linking to their works (pretty much the only worthwhile edits as far as I'm concerned, since I like primary sources, even when unsavoury), and a linkfix to The Turner Diaries, Pierce's main (and anti-Semitic) work.
 * Hmmmmm... Yeah, with such a track record, why would anyone suspect SM of being an anti-Semite...? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, anyone can claim to be anything on the Internet. Including Jewish. Moreover, there are some antisemitic Jews: Gilad Atzmon says some true things, but the bulk is deeply depraved antisemitic bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

-Mona-, ScepticWombat, and Queex, There are very calm and rational Holocaust revisionist videos out there (do a search on youtube), for instance 'One Third of the Holocaust' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj94b8DFwPg is pretty logical. Something isn't anti-Gentile (Jewish irrational hatred, subversion or fear of non-Jews) if it criticizes or is unfavorable to non-Jews. Something isn't anti-Semitic (irrational malicious hatred of Jews) if it disagrees with orthodox positions that aren't necessarily favorable to Jews or Jewish intentions. Godwin's law says it best, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law consider brushing up on it and not being so attached to its exact meaning, but see it in more of a nebulous concept paradigm. People used to call people commies, or heretics or other pejoratives when they disagreed with them and today its nazi, racist or anti-Semitic, but it has no place in rational debate today, because name calling doesn't prove or disprove facts or evidence. History and science are always revising themselves, and it's people who make this possible.

The fact is I visited the Nazi labor camps with a Jewish-Israeli contingent of students and the tour guide (when pressed) flat out told a lot of the stuff was manufactured by the Soviets after the war ended. We got to see with our own eyes that the unused chimney of one of the alleged homicidal gas chambers wasn't even attached to the building. Ho hum, I mean seriously, they couldn't even attach the post-war thing to the alleged place where people were supposedly killed by gassing. Can you see us all looking at each other and scratching our heads, while we repressed and blocked out the significance of it.

No one is denying that Jews and other groups of people weren't severely persecuted, but lets face it the murder toll of Auschwitz was at one point 4 million and the labor camp museum officially lowered it to about 1 million. Moreover, the videos I posted above have not been deleted under youtube's hate speech rules, so obviously there must be something worth being open minded about since hundreds of thousands of people have watched them and keep spreading them on social media to great fanfare. If the videos I posted above are anti-Semitic, then they would be deleted. It's really easy to get anti-Semitic stuff deleted on YouTube.

Pointing out flaws in the orthodox Holocaust narrative is not anti-Semitic. If those videos are false, why has no one attempted to seriously debunk them? Why are more people realizing the Holocaust is not what it has been claimed to be? Why must their be Holocaust denial laws if the Holocaust can stand on its own forensically? Anything requiring censorship to maintain itself or sustain its "truth" or worth isn't worth anything and is not truthful, sorry to say, but if they need blasphemy style or dogma laws to preserve the Holocaust narrative, its obviously a replacement for the backwardness of religious dogma and religions (yes I became an atheist Jew, which is very common).

Sorry but being open minded doesn't make someone anti-Semitic. And the more people watch the growing number of logical Holocaust revisionist videos its time we revisit the subject. This wiki is supposed to be rationalwiki, not maintain the dogma wiki.

Usually when someone wants to insult a Jew, they don't call them an "anti-Semite", they call them a "self-hating" Jew. I've never hated myself, except for that one time I woke up after a night of heavy drinking with Bertha "the whale" Goldstein laying on my arm, then I had to decide whether to gnaw it off to get away or not, fortunately she rolled over broke wind and I could nip away, but other than that I've never really hated myself or Jews. Sorry in advance, Bertha. SissyMendelstein (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Prattle all you like on the talk pages in the same vein you have been. But I told you at your user talk page what will happen if you again edit any articles touching on Jews outside of the protocols I stated. That all stands.---Mona- (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And so, we can tick the boxes marked open mind, just asking questions (again), and pseudoskepticism. Well done SM. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't there be allowed to have Holocaust denial videos on a page about Holocaust denial? Why wouldn't we show examples of their research and arguments? If there was a page about Satanism, would we only have links to articles debunking Satanism by Xtians? I'm not following why there is censorship here for this topic. Would we censor a link to the turner diaries book on the turner diaries page? Would we censor a link to Imperium on the Francis Parker Yockey page because it hurt some peoples feelings or we disagreed with the content? SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherently wrong with linking the denial videos, but just linking to them with no commentary or criticism isn't really how you go about combating the views of a video. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 08:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What would be the best way to put the links on the Holocaust denial page. What if we presented the links by describing how they are false.... see below...

Videos by Holocaust Deniers

 * Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of The Big Lie. The pseudo-scientific and anti-Semitic "Debunking" of Academy Award winning "Holocaust" documentary The Last Days by pseudo-historian Neo Nazis.


 * The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax (2014). Pseudo-scientific propaganda video allegedly debunking the Treblinka Archaeology documentary.


 * The Majdanek Gas Chamber Myth. Pseudo-scientific propaganda video allegedly debunking that there were Gas Chambers at Majdanek by Pseudo-historian neo nazi anti-Semites.

Would something like this help to frame the information better for the public?SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't look at those videos since I'm using my University computer. But anyway, aHistorians have a similar predicament that Creationists face - that being that a vast majority modern scholars have information which leads to the "wrong" conclusion. To become credible, you can't just make a movie where a bunch of non-scholars talk about how they're being censored by Orthodoxy or that a bunch of scholars (who don't have credentials in the right field) agree. Instead, you have to go out there and find information which will shift the currently-accepted conclusion into another direction. There's a HUGE amount of documents that have yet to be read (I met a senior Irish Historian yesterday, in fact, who was part of a recent study which found that Ireland's 1930s ambassador to Germany was writing false cables back home to protect the Nazi image). Look for diaries and interdepartmental faxes which contradict the current understanding of the 1942 Wannsee Conference, for example.-- Forerunner (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Forerunner firstly install Tor Browser, it will allow you to surf the Internet behind an encrypted proxy. Secondly, Your whole response started to go through a bit of a swirly convolution about not being able to look at the videos in your university campus and then something about the pseudo-science of creationists that was sort of vague and ambiguous. Thricely, you went into something about Ireland's ambassador in the 1930s when we are talking about "Holocaust Denial". Please stay on topic.


 * Paravant, What is needed to include these links in the article? How do I frame the links so they can be included in the page? What words should I use to describe the links in a disparaging way so they can be included in the article? Also What I am asking is that if I put warning disclaimers with the descriptions of the videos on the Holocaust denial page, would it help to let people know that these are excellent examples of Holocaust denier videos showing why they believe what they believe. Instead of promoting these videos as fact, I present them as pseudo-science and pseudo-history. There seemed to be some issue with the way I added the links to the article as if it was promoting them as truth and factual science. So I would like to put these links there in a way that lets everyone now we are not promoting their pseudo-science, but presenting it as pseudo-history.


 * Paravant, In other words, we have links to the anti-Semitic book Imperium on the Francis Parker Yockey page. We have links to the Turner Diaries on the Turner Diaries page. We have links to Stormfront articles on the Don Black Page. We have links to David Dukes stuff on the David Duke page. But We don't have links to Holocaust denial videos on the Holocaust denial page which seems odd and I would like to rectify it. Can you please provide some clarity in these regards. SissyMendelstein (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Conveniently forgetting it was you who added a bunch of those links. Also, please go back to Metapedia. Dendlai (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not from metapedia. I'm asking what the proper method is for putting pseudo-scientific and pseudo-historical videos about Holocaust Denial in the article, to show examples. Please stop being evasive. SissyMendelstein (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think we can't see your previous edits? Where you said things like "very high quality and informative Holocaust denial websites" and plenty more just as obvious crap? Dendlai (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nuremberg witnesses claiming they were tortured and forced to confess
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Weberb.html

Also proof that there are a million holocaust survivors today

http://www.rense.com/general79/hoilsurv.htm

Please add this to the article. 13:41 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Holocaust is a conspiracy theory
A conspiracy theory is a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event. The holocaust meets this definition. Please stop referring to it as otherwise. 12:37, 10 March 2016 (edit) (undo)

Rationalwiki! *facepalm* 193.62.111.31 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How is fining and arresting neonazis an "affront to free speech"?
Who the hell wrote this? Does anyone seriously think that neonazis should have the right to free speech? Neonazis' "free speech" is not above other's people right to live in a tolerant and inclusive society. That line is a joke. Redsjw (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it is an affront to free speech. Free speech includes speech you do not agree with. based on your username, this is probably just concern trolling.  Back to the sewers with you.  Petey Plane (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Way to go with ad hominem and "muh, it's someone's opinion". This wiki is getting worse everyday. Redsjw (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't think your logic is tortured the way the responses you're getting imply. But... it's not as easy to say "X speech isn't free speech" as you're hoping.  To really go too far, it has to have real, direct consequences.  That's a tougher sell with bigotry than it is with slander or threats.   Not a bridge so far that I can't see it, but enough that it's... tricky? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So long as they don't instigate to criminal acts, why should anyone give a damn? Many countries passed laws against holocaust denial and/or the display of Nazi (and/or Soviet) symbols out of historic sensibilities in these countries (especially European countries or Israel).--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you want real consequences? Here they are:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-stats-spike-police-england-wales-eu-referendum-a7126706.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/20/after-north-carolina-s-law-trans-suicide-hotline-calls-double.html

But what else to expect from white straight males who don't acknowledge their privilege? It's easy to think that everything is an opinion when such opinions don't affect you. But you know, opinions kill oppressed minorities. And our right to life is more important than bigots' right to "muh, freeze peaches". (ir)RationalWiki is a joke. Redsjw (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Smells of concern trolling, but OK: how would've laws against hate speech prevent these aforementioned shootings / problems?--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Red: Uh, you know Orlando was done by a Muslim, aye? Not a neo-Nazi fanatic, just a religious fanatic? 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Fuzzy I am pretty sure he did it because he was a self hating gay person. That self hetred came from his fundamentalist father but he himself wasn't a fundamentalist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FBI said there was no evidence that he was gay. The Gridr and other gay dating site accounts were fake, and "casing the joint" could just as likely be the explanation for why he was seen at the club prior to the shooting.  Petey Plane (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Moreover: the right to free speech is considered unrelated to the content of the speech, so long as the speech doesn't advocate for criminal action. (Meaning, neoNazis can say whatever they want about the Jew-Controlled (((Media)), but they can't say that Jews should be hung.) If you don't accept this, then you would be saying that free speech has an ideological component -- the right to free speech is only valid for people who don't have views [X:Y]. And the problem with that is that it's unclear what the dividing line for acceptable and banned views is -- are all racist views banned? all sexist views? what about revolutionary Communistic views, which try to incite class war and necessarily are hurting an accepting pluralistic society? are religious views unacceptable, for they also preach that some are saved and others are not? and so on. 17:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Petey Plane (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Opinion http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

"It there's a 70 mph speed limit, then they'll lower it to 65 mph. And then they'll lower it to 60 mph and eventually we won't be able to drive!" "If the age of consent is raised to 16, then they'll raise to 18 and then to 20 and then sex will be forbidden!"

That's your logic. Hello, ancaps! And it's really rational from all of you to talk someone a troll just because you're criticized from the left and you don't know how to reason, right? It really must hurt your ego. Who cares about black people receiving threats from KKK? Who cares about LGBT kids having to hear hate speech from their parents? You are the real victims! Redsjw (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed question
Maybe because most Holocaust deniers don't want to pursue a career in history? This is like telling creationists to *just* get an evolutionary science PhD, gosh! 21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed section on Nuremberg trials
I bet that a Google will easily turn up hundreds of pro-revision German guard testimonies. 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to Google for one of these apparently super-easily-available testimonies, than delete a section of the article? Annquin (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Worth inclusion
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/the-world-is-full-of-holocaust-deniers/370870/ 01:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/05/23/did-the-holocaust-exist-scary-number-of-people-say-no-or-not-even-aware 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great links. And dude, speaking of worthy of inclusion... So is this. (By which I mean; the parts about holocaust denial). What's your impression on the results of that poll? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Initial quote
IMO it's too blocky and not witty/cutting enough. I liked the Ike quotes because they were too the point and insulted the deniers as bastards and insinuated that they have no idea what's going on. This merely calls them Nazis, which I'm sure isn't a problem for a good third of the deniers themselves. 00:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm not saying that that particular quote has to be the opener (even though I actually think it sums up things decently well), I must say I found the two Ike quotes confusing as the opener quotes. They seem to have their own point going on about how one of the quotes is real and one isn't — to me, they just don't sit well as opening quotes. Besides, I think they found an excellent placement under the "Evidence" segment, as placing them there elucidates their point perfectly. You're free to move the current opener quote to somewhere else in the article you see fit, though I don't support moving the Ike quotes back to the top. Besides, worst case — there has to be plenty of good quotes we haven't even added to the article yet anyways. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Leuchter Report
The Leuchter Report section refers to "potassium cyanide", not "hydrogen cyanide" in one place. Is this correct? Seems odd to me. Bongolian (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is no reference for this section (just one explaining a joke). There should be at least one. An institute is referred to, but which one? Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Unknown War
After many years of searching, I finally found a Soviet film. I don't know if it's useful here, but the sequence begining at about 23:05 in is one of the most powerful you'll ever see in documentary film making (I think the the music is Shostokovich).nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 21:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Nuremberg Diary
Here is probably the first recorded instance of holocaust denial, in G.M. Gilbert's Nuermberg Diary  using the search terms "technically possible". Gilbert was an Army chaplain assigned to the prisoners, and Goering asked how it was "technically possible", claiming he had only heard "Allied propaganda" during war. These exchanges between Goering and others recorded by Gilbert, are the basis Arthur Butz and others have used. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Image worth adding, so much
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/55cqd4/oberleutnant_f_hosler_an_ss_officer_at_the_bergen/ source in cmts 23:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with it, but I have seen more gruesome images if that is what you are going for.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

More deniers
Any opinion on adding more deniers, who might be well-known within country but not well-known outside of country? A start for adding these can be found here:. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Continuing the push to gold
I have added a cover abstract. Feel free to edit, and give your support or opposition to making this article gold. Bongolian (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. 14:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

== Reddit: TIL that a holocaust denial group offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that gas chambers were used to intentionally kill people at Auschwitz. They were forced by a judge to pay that money. ==

Sort by "controversial" for fun-times! 12:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes denial?
OK, so BoN 82.161.30.183 thinks that Netanyahu is a Holocaust denier because he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem gave Hitler the idea. This is hardly denial of the Holocaust even though it is contrary to the historical consensus. Benjamin Netanyahu might be worth a mention, but not as a full-scale denier. Would anyone else care to weigh in on this? Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weigh in the fact that the article states that only fringe holocaust "scholars" share Netanyahu's view, and that he went as far as saying the Mufti was "one of the lead architects of the holocaust" in 2012. It's pseudohistory, it's propaganda, it's certainly crankery... But is it denialism? I doubt it. It deserves mention somewhere — either in this article, or some other article. Though, what might make it denialist is the fact that he insists that Hitler never "really" wanted the holocaust, at least not to begin with. Hm... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Another one to do
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/news/holocaust-jewish-population-numbers-1933-1948/#.WGQsNfkrI6R 21:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP has a reasonable summary of them: a SPLC-listed hate group. Bongolian (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of cremation expenditures
When my grandmother died, it cost $3,000 to cremate her. This led me to wonder, "Given that it costs about $3,000 to cremate someone, how was Hitler able to send 6 million Jews to the ovens without bankrupting Germany? Show me the evidence; where is the $18 billion in cremation expenditures in the Reichsminister der Finanzen's accounting records?"

Someone remarked, "When you pay $3000 to cremate someone, you pay a crematorium which does it for profit. When Hitler killed 11 million people (including 6 million Jews) he was able to do so without bankrupting Germany, because they weren’t doing it for profit, were not taking much care over the bodies, used industrial sized ovens and benefited from economies of scale and slave labour."

I don't buy it. How much care do you have to take over a body that you're about to cremate anyway?

Someone else remarked, "It costs $3000 to cremate someone today, in an environment where the deceased’s remains are treated with respect (separated from other remains, carefully stored for the family, etc). It doesn’t cost $3000 to cremate someone in 1944 when you’re shoving their body into an oven with three other bodies and dumping the ashes in a pit. It also doesn’t cost $3000 to simply dig a big hole and shoot someone in the head next to that hole (which is how many Jews murdered in the Holocaust died - not all of the six million were sent to death camps to be gassed and cremated, as about half were murdered entirely outside of the concentration camp system)."

Well, okay, maybe they have a point. L&#39;s Ideology (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious or is this a bad taste joke? 23:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let's do the math.


 * Assume each Jew weighed about 50 kilos (which may be a reasonable assumption, given the emaciated state they were probably in at the time of death, due to the rigors of concentration camp life). Cremation requires achieving a temperature of about 900°C. It takes one Calorie to heat a kilo of water by one degree Celsius. The human body is mostly water. This results in the following equation:


 * ( 50 kilos of water / Jew ) * ( 900°C temperature increase / incineration ) * ( 1 Calorie / 1°C temperature increase of 1 kilo of water ) = 45,000 Calories per Jew-incineration.


 * Another way of looking at it is that an average Jew-incineration normally requires an expenditure of maybe 2.4 million BTUs, but each oven held three Jews, so the cost per Jew-incineration was about 800,000 BTUs.


 * (For convenience, instead of saying "800,000 BTUs" all the time, we'll just establish a new unit of measurement, the Kill-a-Jewle.)


 * 6 million kill-a-Jewles equals a whopping 4.8 trillion BTUs, but of course, half of the Jews were simply shot, so the Holocaust actually only required 2.4 trillion BTUs. Assuming the ovens used Powder River Basin coal, which costs $0.56 per million BTU, that would be an energy cost of about $1.2 million.


 * Wait, what? I'm starting to think that these funeral homes are overcharging for cremations that don't actually require an expenditure of anywhere near $3,000 worth of energy. That's really fucked up. L&#39;s Ideology (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stay classy...dick. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the point of all this? CorruptUser (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you didn't link this to money, but instead linked it to Germany's coal production or similar, this would be a good way to resolve the "you couldn't have burned 6 million Jews" gotcha. Next time, try the energy calculations sans "Kill-a-Jewle". 01:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or try starting with "Guys, it's time for some game theory". 02:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Impossible?
Have recently started seeing people saying that it was 'logistically impossible' to kill that many people. Is this worth commenting on?
 * I've heard that argument in the past, that given the resources of the death camps, there was simply no way so many could have been killed. The advocates of this conveniently forget about the millions killed outside of death camps, through various pogroms by local governments in Nazi occupied areas, the SS death squads, rail car execution chambers, ghetto exterminations, etc...   Petey Plane (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Mainly asking whether this is widespread enough to warrant a rebuttal of this in the page. Cheers. Merlin&#39;s uber driver (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You'd probably want to start by expanding and/or rewriting the "Hitler didn't gas 6 million Jews!" section.  It could definitely use more sources.  Petey Plane (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A table like this
Would be pretty neat. 20:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Marine Le Pen
Does Marine Le Pen now count as a denier? She doesn't deny the Holocaust but denies French responsibility. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Denier, perhaps... Time will tell. But fringe revisionist? Certainly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so is Jean-Marie Le Pen a denialist because he called the Holocaust a detail of history? CNN seems to think so, but their BBC citation did not go that far. It's looking like Marine had her father expelled for political expediency because the Front National still has denialists in their camp. Bongolian (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Voat is triggered by this article, has no arguments against it
https://voat.co/v/whatever/2140309 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec?
Does Francis E. Dec really warrant inclusion as a "famous denier"? As far as I'm aware, his fame is due to the amusing nature of his rants, rather than any of his particular opinions. I seriously doubt Francis E. Dec has any sort of reputation among Holocaust deniers or any notability among those who report on them. Given his obvious schizophrenia, I think it's a little misleading and cruel to list him here for a delusional belief. His entry uses the words "delusional and paranoid" without reference to his mental state, which can be quite misleading given that these words are applied not only to the legitimately mentally ill but also often to people with disagreeable or strange opinions - an insinuation of character flaws or insanity that is not really a proper diagnosis is a common rhetorical tool, especially with regard to deviant political opinions. I Google "Terry Davis rationalwiki" out of fear that you guys might have made an article on his beliefs too. Beastmode (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential Fake Photograph
One of the photos from the article is constantly thrown around the "Holocaust questioner scene", I think it's a possible fake, and shouldn't be used in the article: http://beam-truth.livejournal.com/5848394.html. I'm refering to the image: "Sonderkommandos burning corpses in a pit at Auschwitz-Birkenau, August 1944". Even if it is real, probably not the best image to have on a page meant to debunk Holocaust deniers.
 * 22:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The photo is
 * "Even if it is real, probably not the best image to have on a page meant to debunk Holocaust deniers." I strongly disagree. Not only should it be on the page but, ideally, we should debunk the claim that it's fake. CowHouse (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably not the right place to post this but whatever
I'm debating with a Holocaust denier. He's made some outrageous claims such as "only 300,000 if not less Jews died in the camps" and has inflated the Dresden death toll to 100,000+. He then spoke about how the German camps were "the most humane" out of all the fighting countries of WW2, and "people were getting paid for their work and they were well treated for the most part". He then said that a lot of Holocaust survivors keep changing their story over the years as evidence of them being liars. THEN he links this video where a survivor says that they were paid in the camps and purchased food at a canteen. (https://youtu.be/AGrNxIWxdvs?t=304) How do I debunk his arguments? For the sake of actually getting a point across to his head, "non-Jewish" sources would be preferred 😂😂😂
 * Doesn't the article provide information on why those claims are inaccurate? I thought that was the point. If not, then I guess the article needs editing. —Kazitor, pending 11:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I request one simple, but conclusive evidence of the Holocaust.
Asking this out of historical illiteracy. NOT denialism. I've believed in the Holocaust ever since school has told me about it, but realized that I wouldn't be able to prove it happened if I had to. Belief in it is therefore dishonest. Again, not a Holocaust denier. Just ignorant. Iamapartofman (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not alone. Piper - in the article - is now excepted. A big problem was created by him - where was the difference to go. Treblinka became a possible site - even though it operated in a very small space for a short time period. Forensic research by pro-holocausters and deniers have not been able to find any evidence worthy of a large scale murder factory. Good luck finding evidence other than social pressure. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 75.68.248.198 / talk

Contents are broken
The TOC is overlapping with some of the quote from Ike, and makes quite a bit of it unreadable. I tried to fix it, but I don't know enough about editing to do so. Would somebody with more knowledge of wiki-fu either fix it or teach me how to fix it? &mdash; Unsigned, by: ApocalypseJimmy / talk / contribs


 * I fixed this by removing the pseudohistory navigation box. Apparently the two navigation boxes are conflicting with the table of contents macro. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

One small tone gripe
I love the snark and sarcasm on RationalWiki. But is the "yummy" in the section quoted below appropriate, given the subject matter?

"The officers at Auschwitz and other camps had many opportunities to dump it — in rivers, on farm fields (as a good fertilizer, yummy.)..."

I felt kinda gross reading that. And I say that as someone who would admittedly be the first guy on the lifeboat to resort to cannibalism. Gringodemaio (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Pulled.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)