Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election are now open!

Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 16 August 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, (new)(back)


Here we go again with the bias. Nikzor is a Jewish site run by Jewish people. If we had a discussion on the Hutu and Tutsi Genocide obviously each side would be biased and very little of their information could be of use.

But Nikzor is credible, how? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

First, a publication on a historical event is not necessarily biased just because of the authors' ethnic origins. Would a book on German history be biased, just because the author is German?
Second, most footnotes to Nizkor are reference to claims from Holocaust deniers. Claims from Nizkor themselves are either referenced by Nizkor, or too trivial to need reference.
Third, the Holocaust (or Nizkor's description thereof) is not just about Jewish victims, but also about homosexuals, Slavic people, Roma people and so on. / Strom (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


"...that the gas chambers used by the Nazis were actually hair care facilities."

Damn, they're even more creative than YEC's! MiddleMan 12:37, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Might wanna start a section on famous deniers, like that crazy british scholar, whatshisname.--PalMD-yada yada 13:19, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

"Dr." (as in Dr. Evil) Rath? MiddleMan 15:43, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

There's that German-Canadian expat, too, Ernst Zündel. Wasn't he working with British neo-Nazis or something? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:51, 5 July 2007 (CDT)


I have removed the following from the end of the article as- frankly - I'm not sure what it's getting at.--Bobbing for apples 12:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

blockquote>…Jessica is turning into a fine little lady. She sits very upright on an ordinary chair – her strong back muscles a product of our regular walks in my arms to the bank, etc., I am sure. On those walks we sing the Binkety-bankety-bonk Song. There are two other poems in which she stars: My name is Baby Jessica/ I’ve got a pretty dress-ica / But now it’s in a mess-ica. And more scurrilously, when half-breed children are wheeled past:

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry-an
Ape or Rastafarian </blockquote>

It's something that David Irving wrote in his diary about his daughter. I think it was used as evidence in the libel suit against Lipstedt. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:38, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Do you think it makes sense at the end of the article? To be honest, the whole Irving quote looks over-long to me. Maybe a separate article for him?--Bobbing for apples 12:44, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, it looks like all quotes from the trial transcript. I'd suggest fleshing the whole thing out in a separate article, and just a brief summary here. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:54, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Holcoaust denial is CONSERVATIVE[edit]

Holcoaust deniers are EXTREME RIGHTWING CONSERVATIVES. They are not liberal IN THE LEAST IN ANY WAY. They are ULTRACONSERVATIVE, as are all white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. ANyone who disagrees is SHIT, theya re all SO CONSEVRTAIVE ITS UNBELIEVEABLE. Lulzno 22:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)

The article clearly states that there are occasional Holocaust deniers within most modern ideologies, though there seems to be a correlation with Neo-Nazis, and authoritarian movements in the Arab world. /Strom (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But the holocat is fake and hitler was not even a real man he from a tv movie idiots fak u — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"The Nazi party clearly had the will and the technical ability to exterminate the Jews. Why wouldn't they? "[edit]

This argument is kind of lame in that it's begging the question and asking the respondent to prove a negative. There could, conceivably, have been any number of reasons why a particular course of action was not followed. Amin7b5 01:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. - π 02:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"they imply that the Allied atrocities have been denied or censored after the world..."[edit]

What, exactly, does this sentence mean? Amin7b5 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were to guess it should read "...denied or censored after the world war", i.e. WWII. Secret Squirrel 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"according to Nizkor"[edit]

Who the hell is Nikzor, and why should we believe him/her? If you're going to rely on someone as an authority, you need to introduce that person and establish their bona fides...Amin7b5 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nizkor Project is an internet project documenting and refuting Holocaust denial. Their reputation is similar to that of Snopes in terms of reputability. Secret Squirrel 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. added to the article. Amin7b5 00:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Nizkor was specifically set up to counter denial/revisionism. While this does not, of course, invalidate what it says, it does mean it must be treated with caution as a source, and not be used as a primary source, other than a source of counter-arguments. I don't think the analogy with Snopes is at all valid. Qwertyuiop 12:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Israeli atrocities as a red herring[edit]

As far as I know, the Israeli atrocities against Palestinians are commonly used by Holocaust deniers as a red herring. Therefore, their irrelevance to the Holocaust should be mentioned in the chapter about red herrings. /Strom 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but your edit seemed to fail at saying that, in my reading. It could almost have been read as a denialist point. Perhaps remove the attempt at sarcasm and make the point clearly? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that works a lot better. Sorry if I jumped at you, but you'll agree, I'm sure, that it is a sensitive topic. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference error?[edit]

For some reason, when clicking the [1] reference, it fails, it tries to refresh as #cite-0 rather than #cite-1. As a result, all the refences are now one out of sync. [2] links to 1, [3] links to 2 and so on. If anyone can think of an obvious reason, please go ahead and fix it, if not, I'll go over the entire page and may blank it once or twice in the process. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing the denialism template seems to fix it. Not sure what's up there. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh CUR, how we don't miss you (cover story)[edit]

Please do not archive this section

This article was subject to a drive by cover story nomination by CUR, but it looks pretty good as is. What say we finish promoting it? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

At a glance it looks pretty good to me, but I don't have the fortitude to do the basics (proofread the whole thing). Kan we haz volunteer? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I say we start the process. Do we have a list of things that need doing? First off I noticed about 10 redlinks that will need removing or articles created. - π 02:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to help. I note is still being edited by its main creator... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unilaterally cover storied[edit]

After proof reading and fixing a couple of awkward bits of phraseology, I've taken the unilateral decision to cover story this article. It seems fairly accurate to me, and of a decent quality. If anyone has any objections, speak now or forever hold thy peace. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... I changed the header level so this is part of the discussion above. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover story status[edit]

Is this actual at cover story level? Strom still seems to want to add material. Weaseloid is raising objections about red herrings, I think it needs citing in general, and it is still full of red links. Was it being approved premature given that there was little discussion? - π 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Whatever happened to CUR? -- =w= 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent him an email the other day, he gave me a list of things he wants changed about RationalWiki and was his usual melodramatic self. I don't think he is coming back. - π 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Mei was going to demand drinking fountains but she's a pushover really. -- =w= 21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Appalling article[edit]

This article is nothing but a hatchet job and has no place in any site with a pretence to rationality. It makes no attempt to address the arguments brought by critics of the established holocaust story and merely attempts to brand them all as knuckle-dragging neo-nazis. Such knuckle draggers obviously will latch on to revisionist arguments, but the actual revisionist scholars generally make their arguments somewhat more calmly and with better evidence than many of those who oppose them. While they tend to come from right-wing nationalist circles they also include communists, socialists and liberals and even some Jews. Some indeed do exhibit unpleasant anti-semitism, but some allowance has to be made for the way Jewish organisations have treated them: beating them up, destroying their careers, and in some countries getting them sent to jail or forced into exile. But all that is ad hominem. Address the argument, not the person.

What follows below is a description of their position. I am not advocating it.

They accept that:

- Jews were confined to ghettos.

- They were transported to camps.

- The conditions in the camps were brutal.

- A large number died from a mixture of malnutrition, overwork, disease, brutality, deliberate murder, etc.

- All this was unjust.

They say that:

- The figure of six million is not based on any solid evidence. Since floated at Nuremberg it has become an article of quasi-religious faith. It appears to include any Jew who died during the war from whatever cause and makes no attempt to account for those who survived but for whatever reason did not return to their prewar place of residence.

- There is little or no material or documentary evidence for gas chambers. The belief is based on a remarkably small amount of unreliable eye-witness testimony (Eye-witness testimony, especially of interested parties, has low credibility in courts of law) and on SS confessions obtained under duress. Before gas chambers were decided on, steam, electricity and fire-pits were all cited by "eye witnesses" but are not believed today.

- There is no evidence of a policy of extermination.

- Such a huge operation as the deliberate selection and murder of millions of people could not have taken place without leaving a clear documentary trail.

(In fact their arguments on numbers, intentionality and the lack of evidence for gas chambers are shared by several of the mainstream historians.)

They do not claim to possess a unique truth, but seek to open the holocaust to normal historical examination and debate. In demanding this they are indisputably right, even if every one of them is a Neo-Nazi and every one of their historical arguments can be proved to be false. — Unsigned, by: Qwertyuiop / talk / contribs

Troll Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not signing the above. It was an oversight, not intentional. I cannot now get back in with my user name. I don't know the reason for this. It may be because I attempted to edit my talk page. I didn't realise I was not supposed to do this. The reason I did it was to remove a couple of offensive messages. I can only suppose the persons who wrote them did not read what I wrote:

"What follows below is a description of their position. I am not advocating it."

"[they] seek to open the holocaust to normal historical examination and debate. In demanding this they are indisputably right, even if every one of them is a Neo-Nazi and every one of their historical arguments can be proved to be false."''

I am an atheist and a freethinker. I do not see how anyone who advocates freedom of thought can wish to suppress it by force of law and threats of violence. If they seek to arouse hatred, attack them for that. But if they simply question some aspects of the accepted version of events, their right to do so should be defended by freethinkers, including those who disagree with them.

If my user name is unblocked, I will revert to using it. 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me Mr. Troll, if there is "No evidence of a policy of extermination" and "Lack of evidence of gas chambers," as you so claim, then explain Operation Reinhard. Also, I have visited the sites where the Dachau and Treblinka death camps were, so are these sites, which are still just as the Nazis left them, a myth then? Are these former death camps that I have personally visited made up? Do their gas chambers and the empty canisters of Zyklon B non-existant? Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 00:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Please try to respect talk policies and not to be abusive. I am not trolling, though I admit my initial title looked a bit that way and could have been different. Please read again what I wrote.
"What follows below is a description of their position. I am not advocating it."
Nevertheless I think you will find that no historian whatsoever today believes Dachau was a death camp. Wiki (the real one) says that more than 80% of the Dachau inmates survived, and that the deaths were "primarily from disease, malnutrition and suicide". [1]. If you have been to Treblinka you know that the Nazis destroyed it completely and that there is nothing left today.
Do you see now why I am saying the debate should be open? There is nothing else in history subject to such an embargo. This is supposed to be a site in defence of free thought, isn't it?
There is no reason why I should be trying to "explain Operation Reinhardt". I have not claimed any special knowledge of it. I have certainly not asserted anything in relation to it.
On the issue of Zyklon B, it may well have been used to murder people. Revisionists say it wasn't, but I don't know. All historians agree that it was widely used in all the camps as a de-lousing agent and a mainstream historian (Pressac? I'm not sure) says no more than 5% was used to kill people. So the canisters, which were found in many camps not today believed to have been death camps, don't prove anything one way or the other. As for gas chambers, well I am not aware of any existent one. The Director of the Auschwitz museum said that the one there was a "reconstruction" made by the Polish Communists in 1948. They say it was converted into an air raid shelter and converted back after the war. Historians have differing views on where gas chambers were in Auschwitz, but they mainly refer to another area entirely.
This supports my point that not all perceived notions about the holocaust are true and that debate should not be suppressed. I don't know what is true and what isn't, and neither do you.
You are the person who posted offensively on my talk page. 02:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The "they" you apologize for are simply wrong QWERTYUIOP. So the next question is, why do you apologize for them, and try to present their "arguments"? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see someone who has mastered the art of JAQing off. - π 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. I apologised for not signing. That's all.
BTW Human we are in the same quarter of the Political compass. I'm a bit closer to the centre. near Ghandi and Mandela. 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are asking questions without looking for answers yourself. Are you actually presenting an argument or are you waxing lyrically about nothing? - π 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't a clue what you are talking about. I have set out at some length that this article doesn't meet the standards I'd expect of what claims to be a Rationalist group. I have put forward arguments as to why the idea (shared it seems by this group) that no debate of the holocaust should be allowed conflicts with free thought. That's all. I haven't expressed personal opinions. But as it seems that thought and discussion are not what the group is about I'll leave you to your little private wankfest. Goodbye.
No loss then. - π 03:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You are a moron, QWERTYUIOP. The article addresses all the "issues" you are so concerned about. Did you even read it? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Since when is "free thought" inherently a good thing? Free thought can lead to the Mona Lisa or to quantum mechanics, but it can also lead to Stalin's purges or young earth creationism. You are not a special snowflake, and your opinions aren't worth any more than anybody else's. Less if they're stupid. --4perf 04:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
God's help me, I don't know why I'm wading into this, but here goes. Actually, no, "free thought" does NOT lead to Stalin's purges or YEC. Those are both the products of being forced to accept a given orthodoxy (Stalinism, biblical literalism). Free thought, if it has any meaning at all, is the freedom to question established orthodoxies in a logical way. Now, that being said, none of the problems QWERTYUIOP brings up count as "free thought." They count as PRATT. There is, in fact, a great deal of technical evidence and quite the paper trail (including diary entries of high ranking German officials). The honest truth is that there has been quite a lot of real scholarship on the Holocaust, which has repeatedly proven that it happened. People questioning the Holocaust are not doing so to fight against an entrenched, unthinking authority, but are instead trying to push a political agenda by "just asking questions". It is the opposite of what the "free thought" movement stood for. Researcher 05:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI)Thank you, R., for expressing what I was thinking, or trying to think. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think Qwertyuiop was treated particularly badly. We're supposed to engage persons with opposing viewpoints in challenging debate, not scorn them with unfriendly templates, ideological blocks & personal attacks. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
He got a rather rough ride. On the other hand I think all the points he raised are covered in the article. The only one I couldn't immediately see is the suggestion that the facilities didn't/don't actually exist. However, given the fact that in some cases one can go and walk around them, the claim would seem to be pretty stupid.
So if he had perhaps made a point about what is actually in the article he would have received a better reception.--BobNot Jim 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It's the blocking that troubles me more than anything else. Yes keyboard man seems to struggle to present an articulate and on-topic argument, but blocking him seems kind of against how RW claims to operate. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 10:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you there. I think the same thing happened to Tolerance yesterday.--BobNot Jim 10:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, last night I lost my temper and I apologise for that, though I think you can see some justification if you take the trouble to contrast what I had said with what I was accused of saying, and see the unjustified personal abuse. Thank you to those later posters who took that trouble.

Nowhere did I argue that the holocaust deniers/revisonists (I use both terms because this is one of those Falklands/Malvinas issues) are right. What I did say is that if they are wrong you demonstrate it with rational argument and evidence. "Free thought leads to Stalin". My (atheist) God! I am not even "a person with an opposing viewpoint". I have not expressed a viewpoint. What I have said is that opposing viewpoints need to be addressed and you should not make this one exception.

(My personal viewpoint is not really relevant here, but in view of the insults I would like to clarify it. I am quite close to Norman Finkelstein -- a Jewish professor whose parents were both camp survivors. He does not question the holocaust but he believes he has identified a "Holocaust Industry" that has developed since about 1980 and exploits real suffering for political and financial gain. He is a sceptical non-denier who alleges that the Holocaust has become the new religion, complete with dogma, shrines and pilgrimages. I find Finkelstein petulant and combative, but, given the abuse and the damage to his academic career this is understandable. I don't have a firm position. I am open to evidence from all sides.)

How does this relate to the article? I find the quality of the arguments against the deniers/revisionists to be poor, frequently little more than bald statements that they are wrong or mere insult. I don't mind identifying those parts of the article I find weak and helping to improve them. But it is a big job. Somebody above raised the question of documentary evidence. I don't know how much exists, but if you do, please cite it. Refusal to do so hands the game to your opponents. The limited amount I have seen clearly shows attitudes on the part of Hitler and Himmler that are consistent with a desire to exterminate, provided the provenance of the documents is sound.

Someone cited Creationism. It is a valid comparison. Their arguments are demonstrable codswallop and potentially dangerous, but no one seeks to jail them. Another analogy would be the Slave Trade. No one in their right mind would seek to justify it, but we don't ban, or even discourage, attempts to clarify what actually happened and what caused it. Understanding the dark periods of history makes them less, not more, likely to recur.

Sorry if this is a bit long, but I can't see how to shorten it and still say what I need to say. 11:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very emotive subject, and one that has seen a lot of "quibbling" over details. It would actually be very cool if you could identify sections or claims that seem dubious. Either we can fix them, or at least find decent citations to demonstate the validity of the claims being made. It's probably easiest to do this in stages, so we're not tackling too much in one go. I agree that we should approach the holocaust in the same way we would any other subject. Snark aside, it's reasonable to expect that there's a reasonable level of evidence to back-up any claims being made. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 12:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Querty; glad you came back. (You can use your account again btw, there are no blocks). Really, I think that most of the points you raised are already covered in the article. E.g. non-racist historical revisionists (including Finkelstein) who question the accepted account are mentioned - currently in a footnote; perhaps this should be added into the body text. Having reread the article, I can see a few problems with it - see my comments below - so it could probably use a bit of a clean-up, but it isn't going to be NPOV. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad the article is going to get a cleanup, but I don't think I'll get involved in it. Number of reasons, but mainly because I don't accept the premise that all holocaust denial/revisionism is necessarily wrong. I came to the subject (from a liberal left-of-centre viewpoint) with the same assumptions as most people that it was a lunatic white-washing of the Nazis only embraced by mindless thugs. I'm still unhappy with the political position of the majority of them but I have found some merit in their arguments that I think needs to be engaged with. When David Irving was asked on BBC Radio 4 by John Humphrys: "Do you deny that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust?", he answered: "I don't accept a package. I reserve the right to open it and look inside." That's my position too (even though I'm politically miles away from Irving -- btw Irving is far from a full-fledged Revisionist). I don't think that is going to be accepted here, where the presumption is that all questioning of the holocaust is evil.
On denial generally, I accept a lot of your premises. There is definitely a denialist mindset that is infuriatingly negative. But I can't help wondering whether in earlier incarnations you might not have been attacking Deniers of Christ, or Witchcraft Deniers or Earth-centred Universe Deniers.  ;) I'm a sceptic. Never believe anything absolutely; accept that your opponents might be right; be prepared to change your opinion in the light of new evidence. Carl Sagan for God! Eppur si muove! Qwertyuiop 10:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's about evidence and accepting it or trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Denialists of whatever stripe deny evidence. A typical example might be your statement above (quoting denialists) "There is no evidence of a policy of extermination". I have no idea what opinions I might have hypothetically have held if I had been born in another time but science is always about evidence.--BobNot Jim 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As you say, I was quoting, not advocating, so I'm not getting into that argument :). But there is masses of evidence for witchcraft: court testimonies, eye-witness accounts and confessions by the thousand.Qwertyuiop 13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking about solid evidence along the lines of buildings one could go and look at and documents from the Germans that one can read. Presumably you would agree this evidence is a little more solid than your proposed "masses of evidence" for witchcraft? --BobNot Jim 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I already said I wasn't getting into that one.Qwertyuiop 14:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Then, as I said, it's a question of evidence. Or if you prefer the quality of the evidence. The evidence for the Holocaust is pretty solid. The evidence for witchcraft is not. As rationalists we are convinced by the evidence.--BobNot Jim 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll say this a third time and then that's it: I am not interested in getting into this one, because I was citing a view, not advocating it. The witchcraft comment was not specific; it referred to the concept of "denial" in general. A concept, btw, on which I said I accepted a lot of your premises. If you come back on the same topic I'll ignore you.Qwertyuiop 14:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As usual we will go where the evidence leads. If it had led to witchcraft we would have gone there, if it had let to holocaust denial then we would have gone there. Given that the evidence leads to neither of these places then we have not gone there.--BobNot Jim 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Where did the Jews go?"[edit]

I nominate this section for deletion. All of its points start with "Holocaust deniers might claim --" and present arguments that just look like straw men. Unless these can be cited as arguments genuinely used by holocaust deniers, then this whole section is a red herring. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is only 10 cites for the whole article, I think the whole thing needs citations. - π 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)::
I think it should stay. It's one of the most important questions. It's pretty much what is posited in the present section. It shouldn't be difficult to find citations from Butz or Rudolf on this. Probably Rudolf as his stuff is much more recent. I'll look into it. Qwertyuiop 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That the gas chambers used by the Nazis were actually [...] hair care facilities.[edit]

Interesting to see this quoted. In the film Shoah (Claude Lanzmann 1985) a hairdresser called Abraham Bomba (videos) [2] [3] explains that the German war effort was severely hampered by a shortage not of oil or rubber, but of human hair. (Needed according to some authorities for the manufacture of socks for submariners and by others for insulating buildings or "mattresses for German women" [sic]. Somehow the Allied side managed without.) Now, this being the case, you would expect the order to go out to every barber's shop and salon de coiffure from Biarritz to Stalingrad to keep their floor sweepings, or, if these were not long enough, for the flower of Teutonic womanhood to sacrifice their flowing tresses for the security of the Reich.

But, as we know from POW movies, where devilishly clever Brits and tough Americans always outwit their dumb guards, the Nazis were not very bright. So instead they sent teams of barbers into the most secret installations of the Nazi empire, more secret than Los Alamos, so secret that no one could come out alive – no one, that is, except Abraham Bomba – to create bottlenecks in the mass murder programme while they gave the victims “a nice haircut” inside the gas chamber. These same unsuspecting victims that had, according to other sources, been driven into those buildings by guards wielding whips and bayonets – including that notorious sadist, Ivan the Terrible, who would tear off women's breasts with his bare hands.

Lanzmann and Bomba are one of the best double acts since Laurel and Hardy. Their shtick is that Lanzmann is the straight man, but Bomba, the comedian, wants to make you think that he is really the straight man. So, poker-faced, he piles impossibility upon impossibility.

Inside these rooms, just 12 feet by 12, Bomba explains, are sixteen or seventeen barbers and a number of benches. Into the rooms enter calmly (despite the whips, bayonets and Ivan the Terrible) some sixty to seventy naked women, who sit down on the benches while Bomba and his mates do their stuff. (If the Nazis were so concerned that the naked women should stay calm, why didn't they use female hairdressers?) When they have finished, these women do not leave but another sixty or seventy come in and have their hair done in turn. All this in 144 square feet.

He then waits outside for five minutes while the gassing takes place. The 130 corpses are removed “in just one minute” and the place is clean so they can start off all over again. No screams. No urine, faeces or vomit on the floor. No time to open and close the large external door. And seven tons of corpses cleared out at a rate of two per second.

Then to make sure you don't get too critical, he piles on a sob story about people he knew coming in. It might be true, but it has the stamp of Hollywood on it.

This guy is completely out to lunch. Why the hell cut hair of people who are going to be killed and cremated immediately afterwards? Either he was sent to a prison camp somewhere (maybe Treblinka) and was employed to cut hair short as a hygiene measure, which was routine in such camps – you only have to look at the pictures of the prisoners liberated at Dachau, for example, or he spent the war in his barber's shop, and now is enjoying the attention (and the money). He is the main source of testimony for a camp where it is officially believed that the equivalent of the population of San Francisco, Greater Leeds, or Bordeaux with all its suburbs were killed, most of them buried and then dug up again, and all of them burnt on open pyres, in the space of one year.

I don't know what happened at Treblinka. But it certainly wasn't the bizarre story recounted by Bomba. Qwertyuiop 13:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies in academic death toll estimates[edit]

"Many of them don't even estimate the total death toll."

I don't see this as a criticism. It's a position I would actually advocate. Estimates of losses in war generally vary hugely. Look at Iraq, for example. Yet we have much more access to information about what is happening there than in Europe during World War 2. How many civilians died in the post-war expulsions from the German East? Or in the bombing of Dresden? I think you'll find very wide variations for both, often politically motivated.

Even the question is difficult to define, even if you had all the information. Who do you include? The old and sick who would have died anyway? The old and sick who died earlier than otherwise because their resistance to harsh wartime conditions was lower? Others who were direct casualties of war? Indirect casualties who died of exposure or starvation due to the harsh conditions, largely brought on by scorched earth policies of both sides? Those who died in camps from disease? From starvation? From brutal treatment short of actual murder? Those who died in combat, both regular and partisan? Do you allow for the population reduction due to reduced birth rate?

I find the attachment to the 6 million figure strange, for those reasons. But so much emotional, political and financial capital is invested in it that it's not going to be let go of. Qwertyuiop 15:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are estimates, Wikipedia has the full blown break down and sources for it: Or are you concerned whether the figure is 6.05 million or 6.06 million? Either way, these are large numbers that get rounded off and the 6 million figure is just the one that's in the popular conciousness. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
(We both missed the point here. It's Revisionists who are being accused of not providing estimates. Qwertyuiop 09:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC) )
OK, the topic here is what Holocaust denier/revisionists say, rather than my views, and they point to the rather wide range of figures starting chronologically with Reitlinger's 4.5 million, which is a significant drop on the Nuremberg 6m. They point up that calculations usually add up to around 6 million, but that that the figure is reached in masses of different ways. On Majdanek Hilberg gives 50K deaths but Dawidovicz gives 2 1.35 million! A factor of 40 27. The present day view is that Hilberg was about right. They also criticise the fact that though the numbers for individual places is changed it still comes back to the same pre-ordained 6 million total. Their answers to "Where did all the Jews go?" are covered on this page, but without references. It's something I could try to look into. I think Rudolf lists the contrasting figures all adding up to the same total somewhere in Lectures on the Holocaust. I might be able to list their criticisms of the methods of calculation you point to in Wiki. I can more or less summarise them in my own words, but it would take quite a bit of time to find the sources. It's perhaps something that should be done in the article, though. I'm not going to attempt it here now. It would probably generate more heat than light. Cheers.
I guess you were querying my personal view though. It's pretty much as above. That most of the figures on this subject have a bogus accuracy, when there is almost no hard evidence. In which respect it's no different from most wartime situations: lack of information and differing answers anyway depending on how you phrase the question. See again Iraq. I don't trust the subtractive methods, because there were such massive population movements, shifting borders, changes in identification as Jewish for immigration or census purposes, willingness to self-identify as Jewish. If you were a refugee Jew in the Soviet Union, after your experiences under Hitler, and with Stalin turning against Jews, you might prefer to identify yourself differently. Let's not take it further though. The last thing I'd want to do is get adversarial. Qwertyuiop 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No snarkiness this time: serious tone for serious subject[edit]

I'm leaving RW, because I'm being treated as a troll which I'm not, though I have hogged this page a bit, I admit.

The concept of "denial" as used here is a rejection of the rational scientific method this site claims to embrace. It offers false alternatives of full acceptance and total rejection, with no possibility in between. If I want to enquire objectively, to weigh the evidence and to assign probabilities, then I am a neo-Nazi Denier, conflated with Stormfront or David Duke, and the full force of the Inquisition will descend on me, morally in the US and UK and by force of law in Germany, France or Austria.

You should be exposing this, not defending it. It is understandable that Jewish people will have strong feelings; even on the most minimal revisionist position their kinsfolk suffered horribly. But this does not give self-appointed representatives and their non-Jewish supporters the right to impose a quasi-religious cult by actual or moral force. If the price is that you have to tolerate wingnuts, so be it. Demonstrate that they are wingnuts. Keep the "hate" accusations for real manifestations of hatred.

It is anti-scientific. An essential part of the scientific method is reproducibility. If the scientific experiments of the revisionists/deniers -- e.g. chemical analysis of the walls of gas chambers, or ground radar scans and core samples at Treblinka -- are bogus, then reproducing them under controlled conditions will demonstrate that they are bogus. But it won't happen.

So, if there are any responses, please address this issue and not just variations on "Good riddance". — Unsigned, by: qwertyuiop / talk / contribs

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. TheoryOfPractice 15:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye then.--BobNot Jim 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what I meant. If it's the best you can manage, don't bother.Qwertyuiop 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Querty, if you want to go, so be it. But I think the being-treated-as-a-troll stopped a few days ago: even Gooniepunk has retracted calling you that. I think some of the points you've made are reasonable, & some of them aren't. You accuse us of forcing false dichotomies on this issue, but you've been doing that as much as anyone. Repeatedly calling the conventional account of the holocaust a "quasi-religious cult" doesn't necessarily make it so. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel, what I meant by a "quasi-religious cult" was not the conventional account but the Holocaust Industry (Norman Finkelstein's term) which has grown up over the last 30 years. It is this which has suppressed debate and promoted a sort of religious awe. I am old enough to remember a time before this, when the account was never challenged -- we even believed in the soap and lampshades -- but the term Holocaust was unused, even without the capital H. Qwertyuiop 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One could rate it as a "quasi-religious cult" that venerates a perfectly true account of events. Rather like the "Cult of Reason" in revolutionary France: getting very heavy-handed in support of a credible position. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What you describe, Listener, is close to the position of Norman Finkelstein. The Revolution is the founding myth of the French Republic. "Myth" does not imply that the Revolution didn't happen. Rather that a narrative has been imposed on it to mould national solidarity. In the same way you could say that the Holocaust is the founding myth of Israel, while still accepting the conventional account.

In the 90s, Michael Howard, the British Home Secretary at that time, exercised the UK's veto on a move to make Holocaust Denial a crime throughout the EU. Michael Howard is Jewish. In this he was supported by EU Commissioner and former British Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, who is also Jewish.
Brittan made a very fine speech, in the spirit of George Orwell and Voltaire:
"If we have a law to stop people saying things, even though they are palpably untrue, then God help us.
It is one thing to incite hatred and another to express views, however disagreeable, on historical events. [my bold]
If the freedom of speech means anything at all, it includes the right to be wrong and tendentious, and the right even to cause offense. And if we, as Jews, now live in comparative security, it is largely because we have the good fortune to live in societies where such freedom is taken for granted.
The whole process of historiography is one of revision, not only because new facts and documents come to light, but also because even established facts can be reassessed and reinterpreted, for one generation rarely sees events through the perspective of another.
To demand laws that the received wisdom surrounding the Holocaust should forever be insulated from the process goes against every dictate of reason. Such laws are wrong in principle and are ineffective and possibly harmful in practice . [...]
Any attempt to stifle their [Revisionists'] work, however, will always lay one open to the suspicion that one has something to hide. And nothing such people can say is quite as damaging as the suppression of their right to say it."
I couldn't have come within a million miles of expressing it so well myself, though he was wrong on one point: they are effective.
Google found this on a revisionist/denier site, but it was referenced to the Jewish Chronicle May 10, 1996, page 9. — Unsigned, by: qwertyuiop / talk / contribs
Querty, will you please learn how to sign your posts with four tildes? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from the article: "a dissenting view"[edit]

[Removed and will shortly be reposted as an essay.] Qwertyuiop (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


The above reads like an essay, & probably should be one. I think putting it up as a personal essay & linking to it as a see-also in the article would be appropriate. Possibly some of the info could go into articles on Irving & Finkelstein. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This essay is posted at Qwertyuiop (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Where would be an appropriate place to put it Weasel, and where and how do you think it should be linked, while still retaining the degree of prominence I think it should have?Qwertyuiop (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The best place would probably be to make an essay called "Essay:A dissenting view of Holocaust denial". Then we could link to it from the article. Tetronian you're clueless 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree.--BobBring back the hat! 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Where should such an essay be placed?Qwertyuiop (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be in essay space. Would you like me to move it there on your behalf? Alternately, you may do it yourself by entering:
  • Essay:A dissenting view of Holocaust denial
in the search box and pasting your work into the red link thus created.--BobBring back the hat! 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Bob. But leave it for now. I want to think about it and maybe edit it first.Qwertyuiop (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I would strongly encourage you to move it to essay space and edit it there. Talk pages are really not supposed to be edited - but if you update it here you will be editing a talk page. It will also confuse people when they see "recent changes". If you move it (or somebody else moves it) to essay space then it will be totally protected from editing by editors other than yourself - that really is the purpose of "essay space".--BobBring back the hat! 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much Straw[edit]

I started adding {{fact}} tags to this but there are just too many necessary. Most of the article could be seen as nothing but strawman arguments "Holocaust deniers might claim" - and I see from earlier posts on this page that I'm not the only one who thinks this. Any section starting with those weasel words needs references, and I suggest that this article be downgraded from "Gold" until the problem is fixed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, this is a cover story article. Better than adding lazy fact tags, how about either finding the source or disputing the claim here? I note in your fact-tagging escapade you read right past gorrible grammatical errors. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SuspectedRep. Ctrl+F "might" & you'll see it appears over twenty times, each time in phrases like "Holocaust deniers might claim that --". Any intelligent reader is likely to wonder why, since Holocaust denial undoubtedly exists as a real phenomenon, almost everything we've written about it is purely hypothetical. & Some of the examples really are a long way out in the straw (e.g. "Let us hypothetize that the Allies would have bombed several concentration camps, trying to kill as many Jewish prisoners as possible"). These strawman assertions should just be deleted, & the arguments which are actually used by Holocaust deniers should be citable with examples. It's fixable but it will take a lot of work, & probably by at least one person who knows this subject area well, so it's not just a matter of laziness. As it is now, I don't think it meets cover article standards (or at least large parts of it don't) & don't think it would be a bad idea to notch it down to silver or bronze till it's in better shape. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, sure. Most importantly, though, if it is degolded, someone has to remove the suppository (wrong word!) from the cover story random list of synopses, since that is what feeds the main page. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There are serious weaknesses in this article. Holocaust deniers discredit themselves, we don't need to help the process along by inserting hyperbole and exaggeration. It just looks tacky and rather cheap. MarcusCicero (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit undone pasted here[edit]

"Furthermore, the Holocaust was the climax of millennial hatred of Jews, which killed millions upon millions more Jews." This was in the, um, "holocaust gets more attention" section I think. I don't think it really says anything, let alone helps the article, which seems to have a warning about being on the main page. Burlap bags (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatred of Jews is not something Hitler invented. This needs a citation regarding the millions more killed, but I think it's relevant. -- Nx / talk 05:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but it should assert facts and include references for them, shouldn't it? That "gold" thing means this supposed to be an especially good article, right? What does "millennial" even mean? Burlap bags (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I just said it needs a ref. Millenial means thousands of years. Jews were regarded as the murderers of Jesus in medieval Europe, and were similarly discriminated, although I don't know of any attrocities committed that can be compared to the holocaust. -- Nx / talk 05:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, see, I thought "millennial" meant about the year 1000 (or 2000?), as in millennialism. Or maybe I don't follow because I don't understand... hence why links and/or refs would help a lot. Especially the "millions upon millions more" thing. Didn't the Holocaust kill almost half the Jews alive at the time? There were never that many to kill, again, hence my confusion and concern for some factual statements with supporting evidence. Burlap bags (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, one of the "holy" crusades ended up killing a lot of jews in Europe instead of trying to liberate the holy land. But probably not comparable to the holocaust. -- Nx / talk 06:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong to claim that all holocaust deniers are neo nazis.[edit]

I have researched this topic extensively and I know for a fact that the holocaust did not happen. I am not a neo nazi or white supremacist. I was only interested in researching and opening my mind to what actually happened in the WW2 era because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that major news media often fails to report and because I have friends who are Palestinian and have actually been to what is left of their parent's and grandparent's land. I am not a racist in any way but I do have a problem with the overpowering presence of religion in the world which is what it all boils down to for me. Please realize that there are other people besides close-minded bigots who do not believe in the holocaust.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Sillyer the idea, the more likely the person advocating it, is to use the phrase " open your mind ". Timppeli 03:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is possible, indeed probable, that not everybody who is a holocaust denier is a neo nazi. After all neo nazis have no monopoly on being wrong. It is also possible that not everybody who believes the earth is 6,000 years old is a fundamentalist Christian.
But these sorts of weird ideas do tend to be associated with specific groups, though it is possible that we should mention in the article that some other weirdos exist.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I know people who are not neo-Nazis, but "doubt" the Holocaust and/or believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real. All of them are Palestine sympathizers, so, yeah, Holocaust denial is not limited to neo-Nazis - it's strongly correlated with Jew-bashing, and the neo-Nazis are the most notorious (but not the only) Jew-bashers. And buying into Holocaust denial and "Jews are evil" because of Israeli/Palestinian conflict is idiotic. Two wrongs don't make a right.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the BoN decided to post here anyway. The article identifies three general groups of deniers, and it looks like he or she fits into #2 rather than #1. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's also possible that there are neo-Nazi's who don't doubt the Holocaust. You know, the real scary ones that would say "get us into power and we'll damn well finish the job". Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly Armondikov. To the IP, you might not be a neo-Nazi; you could just be incredibly stupid and gullible. --Leotardo (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Actually that's true Armondikov. I used to know one a long time ago. He was an ex German POW who had stayed on the UK after the war. I was in my late teens at the time and I remember him saying. "Everybody complains about the Jews but at least Hitler did something about them."
He'd had a few drinks at the time but his statement produced a sort of, not exactly "silence" around him - more a sort of negative sound bubble probably caused by everyone in the vicinity taking a sharp intake of breath while thinking, "Did I really just hear that?"--BobSpring is sprung! 18:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, a situation that probably calls for someone to shout "AAWWWKWARD!!!" Scarlet A.pngpathetic 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Section 3.1: How do we define Holocaust denial?[edit]

In the section on defining the Holocaust, we list the three claims of the establishment regarding the holocaust, and then proceed to state that denial of any of these three statements, even while accepting the other two, is holocaust denial. My minor issue is with the third one: Surely if somebody accepts 'the planned murder of five to seven million jews,' but questions the method; then we're calling them a holocaust denier? I'm not sure that's strictly correct, is it? DalekEXTERMINATE 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. They all are, just to different degrees. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 01:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it right that holocaust denial is illegal in some countries?[edit]

Just wondering what you think. Personally I think its a terrifying precedent. A form of thought regulation, if you will. MarcusCicero (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's called democracy, you fascist. -- (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Lol! Love it. MarcusCicero (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 :D -- (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A "terrifying precedent" is a pretty good way of putting it. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 17:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Side note, Iran should make holocaust acknowledgement illegal. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If you believe in unconditional freedom of speech, I suppose it could be "a terrifying precedent." If you believe that speech acts have the potential to cause real world harm to real world people, it makes sense. I think we can all agree that making verbal threats and other similar exclamations is not protected speech--try telling your boss that you're going to kill him/walking up to a stranger and describe the sex acts you'd like to perform on them/yelling "I have a bomb" at the airport and see how problematic totally unrestricted free speech would be. Okay, now that we acknowledge that "free speech" is a canard and that to function as a society we need to limit what people can say, does Holocaust denial pass the stink test? If you acknowledge that hate speech ("All the (insert group here) should be (insert horrible fate here)) should be limited because it targets specific people for bad treatment, it's probably not too hard to make the leap that denying the factuality of an attempt to eliminate a people as such could be construed as a first step on a slippery slope to something less-than-savoury, and as such, should be limited. Stop being a troll, Marcus. P-Foster (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Disappointed you'd take that line to be honest Foster. I haven't got the time to write a response to this but I might compose an essay to outline my thoughts in greater detail. Then we shall have a proper debate. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
So basically, it's a fairly blunt anti-propaganda tool. Which, in some recent cases, is being used as a weapon against valid critics, but has been overall useful. --Kels (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I can't imagine what it must be like to be German and have to contend with virtually everyone's perceptions of my country filtered through the Nazi lens (and to hear the Nazis grossly overused, incessantly, must compound it). I think unless someone is German--nay, European--it's difficult to understand why Holocaust denial is made illegal but we more than understand why, in America, you can't publicly write or say "I want to shoot the President" without getting into some trouble. --Leotardo (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe the Secret Service would like a word with you, sir. --Kels (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deny Rwanda genocide. Don't get locked up. Expose liberal bias. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Denial of the Rwandan genocide is a crime. P-Foster (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, damn. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original topic at hand, I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. If holocaust denial is a thoughtcrime, then why not homeopathy? Why not being an atheist? I think that laws which create thoughtcrime, such as outlawing holocaust denial, are stupid simply because they make such things, essentially, thoughtcrime. If someone wants to be a fucking moron and deny an horrific part of world history, then they can do sso at their own peril, in my opinion. I certainly don't think they are correct in any sense, but they are more than welcome to be ignorant and stupid, too. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why some people think it is right to criminalise things like Holocaust denial but it is an affront to the liberal principles of freedom of thought and speech which are ultimately more important. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want an added complication, should we outlaw racism, discrimination and homophobia as similar thoughtcrimes? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 21:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


This article is absolutely shit. I've said before that it needed fixing and was accused of being "lazy" by Human, who obviously feels that statements such as "some say" and "People say" are less lazy than suggesting that an important article like this be properly cited.

Before anybody accuses me of being anti-semitic or pro-nazi for my hatchet-job on this article, let me preemptively tell them to fuck off. This article is shocking, lazy and generally awful. Find some fucking citations. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazi!!! But seriously, I do agree, although for some different reasons. The article is extremely long and shoots almost randomly from point to point. It requires better structure and perhaps breaking into smaller articles. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Also true. Gee, I was pretty angry last night for some reason... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

these recent additions[edit]

Could use some citations. This is a serious issue and if we want to crush it we need to back up our assertions. I'll try and put a few in.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"How do we define Holocaust denial?"[edit]

In this section, the article claims the following is a form of Holocaust denial:

The claim that the attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe was not planned is Holocaust denial, even while agreeing with modern scholarship upon the number and the method.

But there is a respectable argument in history (Functionalism versus intentionalism) about whether the Holocaust was planned from the top-down, or evolved from the bottom-up. Historians who disagree with the claim that the Holocaust was part of some centralised top-down plan are not Holocaust deniers. (((Zack Martin))) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Top down or bottom up, it's still planned. "not planned" means you attacked warsaw and went "oh shit, there's tons of jews here that just died. oh, well, that's good in the end, cause we hate them". Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no actual need to define it, so long as we add relevant information from which details of the Holocaust can be deduced. Each detail probably has its own deniers, so trying to find a self-consistent organized body of Holocaust deniers will be like grabbing a handful of air. It's paranoid to believe that paranoid people conspired to choose what to be paranoid about for dark reasons. (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


An IP editor is busily making sure that every entry in respect of camps in Poland is changed to "Nazi camps in Poland" or some such. This may be perfectly valid, but hopefully somebody who is more up to date on the issue than I will review these changes.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 15:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah. This s WP's take on it. Guess the changes are not an issue.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been watching it. Aside from the fact that it's "Nazi camps in Poland" and not "Nazi concentration camps in Poland" (Nazis had camps where they trained soldiers and indoctrinated children), I think this makes sense, so as to not suggest that the camps were Polish in nature--assign blame for atrocities where blame is due, I say. You also wouldn't call it a "Jewish concentration camp" because that could suggest that the Jews owned them. But it does put an interesting question to the term "Japanese-American internment camp". I think that in English we recognize the subtle difference between a possessive adjective and a descriptive adjective, but for someone who is translating from English, it's not as obvious. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think "Reasonable arguments against the facts of the Holocaust" section should be removed or arguments should be discussed there.[edit]

This is the only web page on the internet I have found that, for the most part, sticks to facts only when talking about the holocaust and denial. If there are no arguments against the holocaust then remove this section. If there are any include them. Insulting sections like this severely detract from the article and don't benefit anyone who wants to educate themselves.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Now if you thought of a rational reason would you add it in? I bet you wouldn't dare because everyone will think you're Hitler's grandson or something... hell, I wouldn't add anything in either, I don't care if it isn't rational, it's not irrational because no one would add something if they thought of something.
At least I don't deny that I wouldn't add a reason if I did think of one. (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


The tone of the article is extremely biased; I believe the Holocaust did, in fact, happen, but this article still made me wince. You may want to revise it to be less heavy-handed. Strangely, this detail caught me off-guard: “The Holocaust gave birth to many rumors about atrocities. Some of these turned out to be true, while others were false. Examples include allegations that the Nazis manufactured soap and lampshades out of their victims' remains on an industrial scale. The fact that these allegations have been disproved is supposed to imply that revisionists have been successful changing the minds of historians, and that the main facts of the Holocaust are also in question. However, it has no relevance to the big picture of the Holocaust.” In fact, there was at least one such lampshade (detailed in a US Army documentary, “Why We Fight”), and to the lack of soap it is usually argued that the inventory was either used up or destroyed as the Allies closed in on the camps. (The former argument is usually tied to claims the soap was only used in the early stages of the camps, and that later on was discontinued; often, this is tied to claims it wasn’t cost effective, and that it was cheaper just to let the filth pile up.) (talk)A REDDSON, truth seeker (aka, notorious troublemaker).

The Details about the Holocaust contains arguments where there has been some confusion among scholars. The article could clarify that inconsistencies in these details does not disprove the big picture. /Strom (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ike quote[edit]

I think that Ike quote should be removed because it has no relevance. Many holocaust deniers begin their arguments by pointing how that people will use that quote and make it seem like he was talking about extermination camps in Poland when he was actually talking about concentration camps in Germany which is not where the systematic killings took place(but where conditions were horrible and many prisoners died anyway). They will say that this is proof that that historians are not interested in presenting facts and instead will use anything to convince you that the holocaust happened. (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentally ill[edit]

Particularly when it focuses on "how the Jews faked it all," Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism often embraced by bigots who are too cowardly to admit that they wished that Hitler finished the job.

This sentence is proof enough that the author of this article is mentally ill.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 15:28, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Cover story?[edit]

This is listed in Category:Cover story articles, but there's no Template:Cover abstract/Holocaust denial and the talk page is missing Template:Cover. What's going on here?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, I bet the Jews are behind it. --Ymir (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What happened? RecklessNoiseSymphony added gold to the page and to the talkpage without discussion. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 14:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It was in gold/cover status previously but downgraded circa 2010 due to quality issues (see archive). €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Polish Concentration Camps[edit]

I'd just like to point out a bit of a different sort of denialism. It's about foreign media frequently using the phrase 'Polish Concentration Camps' which suggests the camps were build and ran by Poles. While it is no secret a lot of people joined the Jerries side to avoid, you know, horrible death, using the aforementioned phrase shifts responsibility and 'whiten' German history (mostly because Polish government is unlikely to fight it). For a comparison, it's like saying 'Austrian leader Adolph Hitler'. Technically of Austrian descent, he was hardly an 'Austrian leader'. More info: (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the 'Polish' just meant to point out that the camps in question were located in Poland? (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It is, but I think the point they're trying to make is that people may take it out of context somehow or they may have taken it out of context themselves, as calling them 'Polish Conentration Camps' removes Germany from the equation grammatically, since it is no longer mentioned. People who are aware of the holocaust would (probably) know that there were concentration camps in Poland, but to the unlearned, it could be meant to mean that Poland also had concentration camps free of German control. Seems like just a grammar flub to me, though it would be more precise to say "German-operated concentration camps within Poland" just to clear any confusion. The Cautiously Capricious Crowley Alliteration is Always Appreciated 09:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any examples where 'Polish concentration camps' omitted references to Nazis/Germans. It's like discussing U.S. military bases worldwide and referring to the 'Japanese bases' and then worry that the audience might think you're discussing bases of the Japanese military and not U.S. bases in Japan. The only ones likely to make such a "mistake" vis-a-vis the KZ and death camps are probably Nazi apologists and they don't do it accidentally anyway. The Nazi camps in Poland tend to be single out because most of the death campsWikipedia's W.svg (unlike the KZ camps such as DachauWikipedia's W.svg) and the most "industrialised" ones (and thus those with the highest number of deaths) were located in Nazi-run Poland (whether the annexed partsWikipedia's W.svg or the Reichskommissariat OstlandWikipedia's W.svg). Contrast with Nazi or Nazi-puppet camps elsewhere, such as JasenovacWikipedia's W.svg, TheresienstadtWikipedia's W.svg, or BuchenwaldWikipedia's W.svg to name but a few. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason I brought it up is because a lot of people already believe the camps were ran by Polish people. As you have described above, ScepticWombat, the articles themselves do quote the German origin of the camps, but just as there are people saying 'if we came from monkeys how come there's still monkeys out there?' there will be people one day (50-100 years from now) saying 'if those camps were ran by Germans, why are they called Polish concentration camps?'. Poland is particularly vulnerable to such attacks as you can see by the 2010 plane crash that killed Polish president - let me remind you that the wreckage is still on Russian soil (or was recently retrieved - 5 years after incident). Another thing is that from your perspective, it's just some random error someone might blow out of proportion to falsification of history, but if you read this article: you will see actual Holocaust survivors describing the use of the term as 'insulting' and ' intentionally or unintentionally – it shifted the responsibility', which in my opinion, cements the controversy's position on Holocaust denialism page. (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

4chan's /pol/[edit]

A link to here, we'll see if any interesting editting happens. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Physical evidence[edit]

This section is uncited. What specifically is the physical evidence? (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Harr harr, aren't we the funny one. (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not use your Rationalpowers on this one:
"Sturdy Colls said: 'All the history books state that Treblinka was destroyed by the Nazis but the survey has demonstrated that simply isn’t the case. 'I’ve identified a number of buried pits using geophysical techniques. These are considerable in size, and very deep, one in particular is 26 by 17 metres.' The programme’s presenter says that the pits contain the burnt remains of thousands of bodies. The forensic archaeologist, who has now presented her findings to the authorities responsible for the memorial at Treblinka, added: 'I really hope this is the first stage in a long-term programme to seek out those hidden graves of the Holocaust.'
Any problems here? (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not ask the good forensic Doctor about it directly. (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Since you're obviously able to find (additional examples of) the evidence yourself, what was the point of ref-tagging the article and your earlier "just asking questions"-stick? This is a wiki, so if you like some references just add them. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I would question a pile of shoes constitutes physical evidence. I would question all of the "evidence" I have seen presented, especially this GPR ash and bone pit. Can I write that? Of course I am not going to add questionable evidence unqualified by skepticism. Unlike some I have no a priori agenda. (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're the same BoN that posted the Mail article and the OP, I'm rather confused:
  1. First you ask for evidence.
  2. Then you ridicule those saying that the evidence is so overwhelming that demanding specific citations is rather pointless.
  3. Then you cite a news story providing evidence and specifically countering Holocaust denialist crap pertaining to Treblinka (okay, it's from the Daily Mail, but still).
  4. Then you write that you "would question all of the "evidence" I have seen presented, especially this GPR ash and bone pit" and ask whether you can put this in the article.
WTF? You ask for evidence, find and post an example of said evidence, and then claim that it's not evidence?!?! Even for Holocaust denial that's pretty weird. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What are you so surprised about? Everyone knows the "evidence" is just planted by the Zionist World Government, so the existence of evidence of the Holocaust is proof the Holocaust was made up. You're really underestimating how loopy conspiracy theorists can get. --Ymir (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but what surprised me was a Holocaust denier citing an article specifically debunking denialist arguments vis-a-vis Treblinka as if it somehow supported denialism, and then subsequently disavowed the article altogether - that's really odd.
I think the problem was that the BoN cited the specific paragraph above in an attempt to quote mine (I only realised that later). Once I reread the paragraph with my "Holocaust denialist-coloured glasses" on, I think our denialist BoN (Mikemikev?) latched onto the final sentence: "I really hope this is the first stage in a long-term programme to seek out those hidden graves of the Holocaust" and interpreted it as if it meant that no one have found any Holocaust graves until now. This is clearly bunk, and only a staunch denialist would even read it that way, whereas the saner section of humanity can easily identify the intended meaning: That some Holocaust graves remain hidden. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The article explains the "Holocaust graves" this way: "As Jewish religious law forbids disturbing burial sites, she and her team...have used ground-penetrating radar". What technology allowed them to remotely determine the jewishness of the contents of the pits? was it Dowsing? Typical of Holocaust "investigations" is unidentified remains and belongings being jewish by decree. (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. Someone IS down there.
  2. Based on masses of other evidence, some are likely Jewish.
  3. Therefore, it was decided not to use the old-fashioned shovel.
Which part of this discredits the investigation? A grave is a grave, excavated or not. PacWalker 15:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Avoiding the very piece of evidence that could prove your assumptions wrong is not what "scientific investigation" is about. Doing it on religious grounds is the cherry on the turd. (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but real science has shown radar to be real and fairly reliable repeatedly. It's not ignorance of evidence at all; it's looking without touching. PacWalker 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Radar has many uses indeed, and telling the jewishness of a bone under 17m of dirt is the latest application discovered by the G-d's chosen. (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, radar cannot by itself show that the decedent was Jewish, but when results from radar scans match up very nicely with accounts that label the deceased there buried Jewish, well... Conclusion obvious, yes? PacWalker 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So how does the radar signature of a jew better match the "accounts" than the radar signature of a non-jew? (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
IT DOESN'T. You're missing the point. Is there a reliable historical record of wholesale slaughter by the Nazis that DIDN'T involve any Jews at all? PacWalker 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
History is ureliable, it isn't Science. Is there any reliable PHYSICAL record confirming the accounts by the victors? Corpses deemed "jewish" on those same accounts, rather than on physical evidence, don't count. (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(ignoring the errors inherent in distinction b/w observational science and experimental) How about the Jews (and others, but certainly many Jews) found in these weird camps that *just happened* to generate piles of bodies when said camps were removed from Nazi control? PacWalker 17:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, if WHOIS returned accurate information, what you are doing is illegal in your country. Just a thought. I don't condone that law necessarily, but thought you ought be aware. PacWalker 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC) (overwrite of this comment below)
Removal from Nazi control was achieved, among other things, by cutting the camps from their supplies. The starvation visible in those bodies fits the effects of a siege. It was intentional, yes, the Americans did it. (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
MAJOR discrepancy: many camps were abandoned in a retreat, which is not the same as a breakthrough of an encirclement. PacWalker 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)t
I thought YOU were the one not aware, judging by your "reference needed" below regarding jail time for exposing inconsistencies in the Holocaust narrative. You were just feigning ignorance I see. (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
From the horse's mouth: "“The physical evidence hasn’t really been looked at,” said Sturdy Colls, who is frequently asked to justify the relevancy of documenting new evidence about “a period of history we know so much about,” she said.". Knowing "so much" without any physical evidence is a common trait of creationists and holocaustist. (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There's amper evidence of false testimonies, false survivors and so on. See Enric Marco, RoseMarie Pence, Herman and Roma Rosenblat, Misha Defonseca ... also the "reduced head" of a purported jew was a piece from a pice from a museum, the "jew skin lamps" were made of paper, and so on and so forth. This is what happens when the victors write history and truth-finding is forbidden by law. (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly 1 ampere? I thought we measured bullshit in volt-metres. PacWalker 10:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In Holocaust narrative, bullshit is measured in jail years for exposing it. (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] PacWalker 13:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Consider that I have transcluded [citation needed] all over that and respond appropriately. PacWalker 10:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Lovely to see a(nother) BoN posting (more) denialist crap on the 75-year anniversary of the Wehrmacht's invasion of my home country... ScepticWombat (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Typical denialist/conspiracy logic: Because some Holocaust impostors exist, all Holocaust survivors are impostors. Seriously, with such analytical skills, how do you even manage to finish grade school? Let's try some similar examples:
  • Because some prisoners turn out to have been wrongfully convicted, all prisoners are innocent.
  • Because some people lie about some things some of the time, all people lie about everything all the time.
It's essentially the science was wrong before argument applied to the Holocaust.
Likewise, the lamp story has never been a central piece of evidence for the Holocaust, so it goes into the same bin as the impostor argument (both are red herrings). As for the supposed existence of a shrunken headWikipedia's W.svg (or that's what I assume is meant) of a Holocaust victim, I've never heard of it before, but that also goes into the bucket of red herrings, since no one but our BoN is claiming that it is a central piece of evidence for the Holocaust. Two phrases favoured by PacWalker are applicable to our BoN Holocaust denier(s): [citation needed] and try harder. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The central piece of evidence of the Holocaust is ash and smoke, which is precisely what people do to any evidence they want destroyed. (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Define central. You seem to be using it far differently than most English speakers. PacWalker 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Define Holocaust. You seem to be using it far differently than most English speakers (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"). (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
>differently than English speakers
>Greek definition
>is of teh failingz
PacWalker 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to confess that I'm not a great expert on this but can't you still visit the camps and view the gas chambers and the ovens? Apart from everything else - isn't this physical evidence?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can take a goddamn tour at all of the major camps. You can look at well substantiated physical evidence in the US by visiting the national holocaust memorial museum. You can visit their web page and look at images if you're that lazy. The trivial ease of answering this question is why these users should be banned. They know what they're saying is bullshit. They know how they could check. They're not interested in checking. Just trolling. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I still remember back when I was around 16 years old and visited one of the camps, though it wasn't even one of the death camps, but the Nazi "exhibition camp", Theresienstadt.Wikipedia's W.svg Holocaust denialists aren't just ill-informed, there deliberately and wilfully ignorant in that they can't simply have missed the information, but have actively chosen to dismiss the literal and literally mountains of evidence. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So ... the deniers claim the Jews were there on holiday or something?(I'm sorry if this sounds flippant, I'm just trying to understand the mindset.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all abd in the absence of extraordinary evidence, things are deemed to be what they appear to be: a shower is a shower and a work camp is a work camp. Not being on a holiday doesn't imply being the object of genocide (false alternative fallacy). The camps were populated mostly by non-jews, by the way. (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You can visit, yes, and as you enter the showers a hypnotical voiceover says "it's really a gas chamber", as you look at a pile of old shoes the voiceover further directs your thinking: "their owners were gassed", and so on and so forth. If you take those voiceovers to your local swimming pool you'll "open your eyes" to the genocide that's being commited right under your nose, too. Pathetic. (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Bob, as you can see from the two comments above it's denialism and conspiracy theory all over again as well as red herrings by the ton. Note how none of them actually even attempt to answer the simple question of what happened to the millions of Jews (and others) who "just disappeared" (according to the denialist version). But perhaps they're really hiding on the dark side of the moonWikipedia's W.svg or something... Seriously, this thread is depressing, but that's denialism for you. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Millions of Jews... how do you know they weren't billions? Your question amounts to pushing unproven assumptions and therefore deserves contempt. The vague terms of it just shows how little support the story has. (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you are a moron and you've just proved it by just asking questions especially this one: "how do you know they weren't billions?", because the answer is simple: There has never been even one billion Jews on the entire planet you twat. I used millions simply to indicate the scale (though I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the stuff you prefer to deny), i.e. that it wasn't just a few families here and there - what you might term "loose change" on a demographic scale. I assume you've heard of such a thing as censuses? They were and are quite popular in Europe (and in pretty much every advanced state) and they included questions addressing religious and ethnic affiliations - that's how we can get a fairly good approximation of the number of Holocaust victims. Also, the question: "Where did the Jews go?" is not vague at all - the only ones being vague and evasive so far in this thread are the denialist BoNs. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the censuses produced by the jews themselves (American Jewish Commitee), their population increased! from 15,748,091 in 1933 to 15,763,638 in 1948. That's the scale of the Holohoax as reported by the "victims" themselves. (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Surprisingly Unsurprisingly, this very RW article already has a rebuttal to your canard.
The alleged rebuttal ends up at an obscure "" which pretends to correct the 1949 figure of the World Almanac without providing any documental evidence of it. At least the "denialists" care to scan the originals and show them to the public. It's quite odd that the jewish only noticed their decline 4 years after the end of WW2... it seems someone finally decided to educate them about their own "genocide", so they could revise history accordingly. Better late than never, huh? (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Even taking your dubious numbers ([citation needed] beyond a random scan from the Interwebz), a minimal increase tantamount to a standstill during a 15 year period which fell within a 20-year era in which world population (despite WWII) grew by around 20% (from an estimated 2.07 billion in 1930 to 2.52 in 1950) still suggests a lot of missing Jews. In fact this missing increase of approximately a fifth of 15 million, amounts to... 3 million... Or perhaps Jews suddenly started having children only at about replacement rate (ca. 2.1 children per couple) unlike the rest of the world?
Try harder or, even better, try non-denialism aka real history, rather than pseudohistorical PRATTs. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You got the nerve to dismiss data with a source - that also happens to be jewish - as "dubious" after your previous appeal to "censuses" that you couldn't substantiate? What a fallacious turd. Your arguments ad hoc, your improvisation draws fom beliefs and outdated post-war propaganda. You can't provide the very "censuses" you tried to boast about but that doesn't stop you from denying the actual data when confronted to them.
Since Europe saw the highest mortality during WW2, your appeal to the growth of the "world population" is another stupid red herring. The only rational conclusion is that the jewish were among the least affected by WW2. The Polish, the Russians, the Germans and the French suffered much higher loses both in absulute numbers and in terms of percent. Somehow minority succedded in monopolizing WW2 suffering for themselves and in drawing huge political and fiancial benefit from it. Time to call the bluff, time to put forward the HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE or shut the fk up. (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ah the wonderful (im)moral outrage of Holocaust denialists... I'm so sorry that I'm not overly worried or moved by it. And yes, I put in [citation needed] because I only have your word as to its origin and a weblink which I can't tie to the actual publication. You also continue to ignore that your objection is already addressed in the article, but it's nice to see that you've now at least dropped all pretences about just asking questions and have gone full Anti-Semitic international Jewish conspiracy. Please do continue to pwn yourself. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can't tie a scan of the actual publication to the actual publication you're more stupid that I previously thought. If providing HARD evidence of the manipulation of history is "anti-smetic" then what else can I say than 'fuk the jews!'. Are you happy now?
Tell the author of the "rebuttal" at that he "forgot" to scan the revised numbers as proof of his point. It's conspicuous how the standard of acceptable evidence starts sinking and stinking real hard when the argument favours the Holohoax. (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you try trolling Nizkor instead, I'm sure they're just as appreciative of anti-Semitic conspiracy BS as RW. Have fun Troll. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I'm back in these parts anyway, I'll just clear up the BoN's misconception: I can't tie the page scan to a publication when there's no link to the colophon,Wikipedia's W.svg any watermarks, header/footer text, link to the rest of the book, or similar indication of the work from which the page scan originated. Even if the source is genuine, it also looks suspiciously like one of the examples this very RW article has already debunked. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, a drive-by BoN denialist posts a vaguely concern troll'ish comment[edit]

Wasn't sure where to send this, but I'll try here. Your holocaust denial article actually converted me to a "denialist", or further reinforced the idea. I can't point to one specific area, but the way it's written currently, may not be having it's intended effect. Just saying... — Unsigned, by: / talk 09:03, 26 April 2015

This suggests one or more of the following:
  1. BoN is simply a moron, but the comment is in good faith (or at least not being deliberately deceptive in its depiction of the BoN's opinions).
  2. BoN is attempting a little reverse psychology with aspects of concern trolling to rile RW editors.
  3. BoN is actually a Poe.
Well, I guess it could be expected that trolls would tend to go to either this page or to Gamergate... ScepticWombat (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Denialism in Thailand?[edit]

Holy shit, I was going through Facebook when I saw this. It's a Thai informational post about Hitler, written on Hitler's birthday. The person is a member of the royal family, which is really weird, since none of the royal family speaks out much on foreign issues ever. This guy has an honorary term, too. Go figure.

The paraphrased translation is thus:

The words on top of the picture is apparently a quote Hitler made. Below, it says The Truth About Adolf Hitler: The hero who was destroyed by the Zionist Jews and blamed as an antagonist

Then, in the description, he goes to great lengths to explain how Hitler revived Germany's economy, rebuilt the country, and industrialized much of the cities that were destroyed by war. Then, he explains that all of his dreams were destroyed because of the Jewish bankers. He calls Hitler 'a father of Germany' and 'a man who proved us that the world doesn't need Jewish businessmen's system'

Then, in the last part (the stuff after 2558/04/20), he says that he is 'introducing the real truth about Hitler' and 'though Hitler was wrong in a few ways, he was a genius who loved his country very much, a man who is worth studying'. He continues by saying that we can use him as an example the next time our country's currency is shattered, it won't be like the Germany of their time.

After the line break, he says 'The history that we know today was written by the winners', and the 'Allies, who were backed by the Jewish banks, who are the real villains', along with 'the genocidal Holocaust was a fake story that never happened' and that the truth is "the Rothschilds family made a deal with the British government to enter the war [he doesn't specify why the war happened and how it was related to the Jews] and give over Palestine, a Jewish state, as an offer". He says 'all the information about the Holocaust is propaganda propagated so that the Jews can have a state to live in and destroy the image of Hitler's ingenuity.'

Yup. So apparently this has happened. I'm sorry on behalf of my country. The good news is that the Isreal embassy in Thailand got pissed enough to write this (English version here) scathing letter to him about how his high education and position has not helped him broaden his scope of information and discern facts from propaganda. So yay.

Nazi-Chic is very common in Southeast Asia. Since the Nazis had virtually no presence there, it's not culturally necessary to describe Nazi atrocities in schools. Instead they're looked upon as some failed state which happened to have an amazing dress sense. As a result it's not uncommon to see Nazi-themed weddings with the groom wearing an SS uniform. It might be because of this cultural unfamiliarity and pop cultural appeal that Denialists can thrive (If you were raised to think Churchill was this really wise thinker and war leader, you might disregard evidence of his bigotry as Liberal whining).-- Forerunner (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Conversely, how much space do Imperial Japanese atrocities get in Euro-American books on WWII? I mean sure, they might be mentioned, but unlike the Holocaust they're unlikely to get their own chapter. And I doubt that this guyWikipedia's W.svg would have received such leniency had he been spying for the Nazis (and not been a Lord, probably). ScepticWombat (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That's more due to the bombs. So we pretend that the Imperial Japanese were anything other than the savage rapists they were. Also we agreed to pretend Unit 731 never happened if they shared their notes. CorruptUser (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I recently watched the beginning of the documentary Japanese DevilsWikipedia's W.svg and even that brief snippet was rather disturbing due to the interviewee's complete lack of emotional display, though that may be a "lost in translation"-thing, judging from some of the director's statements. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In all fairness, the American occupation of Japan gave rise to a new phrase, "shikata ga nei" (nothing can be done), in reference to the post-war orgy. CorruptUser (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
When you write "post-war orgy", what are you referring to, exactly? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Recreation and Amusement AssociationWikipedia's W.svg CorruptUser (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference being that this form of government sponsored prostitution was set up based on moral panic scenarios of mass rapes by GIs (possibly due to a wee bit of psychological projection), not to mention that France only stopped having military brothels in 1946 (in France, but left in place in Indochina). So, I'll hardly lay (all of) the blame on the U.S. here and also point to different attitudes towards prostitution in the past when it tended to be legal and involve some level of public scrutiny to limit the spread of venereal disease. The legal ban on prostitution (or of brothels and pimping) in Europe seems to be a mid-20th century phenomenon, though the U.S. seems to have begun the process in the 1910s. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm gonna say that Japan was worried that US troops would do to Japan what Japanese troops had done to the mainland. They set up brothels when they were afraid, and they set up brothels on the mainland when they were victorious. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)