Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 19 March 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Propaganda?

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

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

Ridiculous article

• "That powerful Zionists secretly orchestrated the Holocaust in order to encourage Jewish migration to Eretz Israel" - Whoever is supposed to have claimed that?
• "That the Jews just made everything up to gain the world's sympathy" - Straw man, the Allies, in particular the Soviets, are argued to have made most forgeries, and no revisionist is claiming that all persecutions and killings of Jews were invented.
• Eisenhower quote. Eisenhower was responsible for killing many Jews by Allied bombings of power plants and food transports which caused sanitary problems, epidemics, and starvation in the concentration camps in Western Germany. Eisenhower was never in Poland where the alleged gas extermination camps where - not in Western Germany. He visited some prison camps in Western Germany and could see the results of his own orders - mass deaths due to diseases and starvation. Not good for his coming election campaign so he blamed the Nazis instead.
• "Where did the Jews go?" - To where the Jews are today.
• "Either these shoes were from the Holocaust victims or the Nazis were some serious foot fetishists. Take your pick." - False dichotomy, another alternative is a postwar fabrication, just like the fake gas chamber the Soviets built at Auschwitz.
• "Why has not one of them testified in favour of the "revisionist" view? Not during the trials, not anonymously in an interview with any of these "revisionist scholars", not for any of the "revisionist" books, websites, or radio broadcasts, not on their deathbeds, not in their posthumously released wills - not at all. Those who were tried at court had the opportunity to cry out anything during trial, and those who were executed had the opportunity to say some last words. How come every one of these thousands of "innocent" guards has remained silent, or falsely confessed themselves guilty, for decades? And how come that deniers cannot produce one single testimony, supporting their idea?" - Ridiculous, taking a prominent example, Göring wrote before committing suicide that "Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me."
• "Jean-Claude Pressac..." - Became de facto a revisionist late in his life.
• And so on... UnrealName (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Kaltenbrunner, who would have been more directly involved than Göring, denied all knowledge at Nuremberg. Qwertyuiop (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, we got an actual Holocaust denier here Kentuckyball (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Answer the questions instead of making personal attacks. SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

When someone resorts to that level you can form your own judgement on the value of their (absence of) argument. Qwertyuiop (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The patchy, self-contradictiing and one-sided Holohoax narrative has become undisputed science just because this site has an article on it.82.161.30.183 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You weren't expecting a reasoned article that actually looked at the evidence from RationalWiki. were you? Qwertyuiop (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qwertyuiop Quick question luv; are you implying that the RationalWiki article on holocaust denial isn't a reasoned article that actually looks at the evidence? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it in one, sugarpuff. Qwertyuiop (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing compared to the assertions of their counter claims. I mean some are actually more than a sentence long. Saying "To where the Jews are today" to where the Jews who died went in comparison to photos, documents, confessions from workers, and remains or "and so on..."; I am totally convinced with that. /sarcasm -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's go through these

• A Surprisingly large number claimed the holocaust was to gain support for zionism
• Except that there were so many records made the idea they were forged is ludicrous
• Uh....no. Most of the major death camps were in the east. The Nazis deliberately starved the jews and forced them to work in hellish conditions in the western camps. Eisenhower did not cause those deaths
• Except that there were no large influxes of Jews in countries like the US or Israel that would have accounted for all the missing numbers. The Jewish population today is still a pale shadow of what it was before the war.
• Leuchter's arguments used bad science; there were other chambers the nazis failed to destroy, which did have gas. Not a fabrication; the Nazis destroyed the original chamber at Auchwitz
• Very few actually recanted; most admitted it happened; thousands of guards and workers have confessed. Even former SS officers like Osker Groening have acknowledged the holocaust occurred
• Kaltenbrunner had an interest in covering his own ass.
• If anything it's not even remotely contradictory; the documents could not be forged so quickly.

In conclusion the article DOES examine the evidence. Unrealname, that anon guy, and Qwerty are denying the evidence because they want to pretend it never happened.

How is fining and arresting neonazis an "affront to free speech"?

Who the hell wrote this? Does anyone seriously think that neonazis should have the right to free speech? Neonazis' "free speech" is not above other's people right to live in a tolerant and inclusive society. That line is a joke. Redsjw (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Because it is an affront to free speech. Free speech includes speech you do not agree with. based on your username, this is probably just concern trolling. Back to the sewers with you. Petey Plane (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Way to go with ad hominem and "muh, it's someone's opinion". This wiki is getting worse everyday. Redsjw (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You know, I don't think your logic is tortured the way the responses you're getting imply. But... it's not as easy to say "X speech isn't free speech" as you're hoping. To really go too far, it has to have real, direct consequences. That's a tougher sell with bigotry than it is with slander or threats. Not a bridge so far that I can't see it, but enough that it's... tricky? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So long as they don't instigate to criminal acts, why should anyone give a damn? Many countries passed laws against holocaust denial and/or the display of Nazi (and/or Soviet) symbols out of historic sensibilities in these countries (especially European countries or Israel).--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you want real consequences? Here they are:

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

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

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

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

But what else to expect from white straight males who don't acknowledge their privilege? It's easy to think that everything is an opinion when such opinions don't affect you. But you know, opinions kill oppressed minorities. And our right to life is more important than bigots' right to "muh, freeze peaches". (ir)RationalWiki is a joke. Redsjw (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Smells of concern trolling, but OK: how would've laws against hate speech prevent these aforementioned shootings / problems?--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Red: Uh, you know Orlando was done by a Muslim, aye? Not a neo-Nazi fanatic, just a religious fanatic? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fuzzy I am pretty sure he did it because he was a self hating gay person. That self hetred came from his fundamentalist father but he himself wasn't a fundamentalist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

FBI said there was no evidence that he was gay. The Gridr and other gay dating site accounts were fake, and "casing the joint" could just as likely be the explanation for why he was seen at the club prior to the shooting. Petey Plane (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Removed question

Very few Holocaust deniers/revisionists possess degrees in history.<ref>Several of them are academics in other fields, but not in history.</ref> Why not first pursue an academic career in 20th-century history at any university in the Western world (without mentioning "revisionist" views), and ''then'' write a paper on the Holocaust? "Revisionists" would claim that such a paper would effectively end the scholar's promotion. But being the first Ph.D. with a degree in history to take this position would surely allow for a career as a "revisionist" writer and lecturer, wouldn't it?

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

Removed section on Nuremberg trials

Many lived west of the Iron Curtain (Münch, Suchomel, Stark etc), many east of it, many in exile outside Europe (Josef Mengele).^{[citation needed]} Most of them lived in freedom for many years (Münch, Suchomel, Stark, Mengele, etc). Very few are still alive. Why has not one of them testified in favour of the "revisionist" view? ^{[citation needed]} Not during the trials, not anonymously in an interview with any of these "revisionist scholars", not for any of the "revisionist" books, websites, or radio broadcasts, not on their deathbeds, not in their posthumously released wills - not at all. Those who were tried at court had the opportunity to cry out anything during trial and those who were executed had the opportunity to say some last words. How come every one of these thousands of "innocent" guards has remained silent, or falsely confessed themselves guilty, for decades? And how come that deniers cannot produce one single testimony, supporting their idea?

I bet that a Google will easily turn up hundreds of pro-revision German guard testimonies. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to Google for one of these apparently super-easily-available testimonies, than delete a section of the article? Annquin (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Worth inclusion

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/the-world-is-full-of-holocaust-deniers/370870/ 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/05/23/did-the-holocaust-exist-scary-number-of-people-say-no-or-not-even-aware FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Great links. And dude, speaking of worthy of inclusion... So is this. (By which I mean; the parts about holocaust denial). What's your impression on the results of that poll? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Initial quote

IMO it's too blocky and not witty/cutting enough. I liked the Ike quotes because they were too the point and insulted the deniers as bastards and insinuated that they have no idea what's going on. This merely calls them Nazis, which I'm sure isn't a problem for a good third of the deniers themselves. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not saying that that particular quote has to be the opener (even though I actually think it sums up things decently well), I must say I found the two Ike quotes confusing as the opener quotes. They seem to have their own point going on about how one of the quotes is real and one isn't — to me, they just don't sit well as opening quotes. Besides, I think they found an excellent placement under the "Evidence" segment, as placing them there elucidates their point perfectly. You're free to move the current opener quote to somewhere else in the article you see fit, though I don't support moving the Ike quotes back to the top. Besides, worst case — there has to be plenty of good quotes we haven't even added to the article yet anyways. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Leuchter Report

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

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

Unknown War

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

Nuremberg Diary

Here is probably the first recorded instance of holocaust denial, in G.M. Gilbert's Nuermberg Diary [1] using the search terms "technically possible". Gilbert was an Army chaplain assigned to the prisoners, and Goering asked how it was "technically possible", claiming he had only heard "Allied propaganda" during war. These exchanges between Goering and others recorded by Gilbert, are the basis Arthur Butz and others have used. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 20:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Image worth adding, so much

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/55cqd4/oberleutnant_f_hosler_an_ss_officer_at_the_bergen/ source in cmts Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it, but I have seen more gruesome images if that is what you are going for.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

More deniers

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

Continuing the push to gold

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

Support. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Sort by "controversial" for fun-times! FuzzyCatPotato of the Abnormal Poodles (talk/stalk) 12:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes denial?

OK, so BoN 82.161.30.183 thinks that Netanyahu is a Holocaust denier because he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem gave Hitler the idea. This is hardly denial of the Holocaust even though it is contrary to the historical consensus. Benjamin Netanyahu might be worth a mention, but not as a full-scale denier. Would anyone else care to weigh in on this? Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Weigh in the fact that the article states that only fringe holocaust "scholars" share Netanyahu's view, and that he went as far as saying the Mufti was "one of the lead architects of the holocaust" in 2012. It's pseudohistory, it's propaganda, it's certainly crankery... But is it denialism? I doubt it. It deserves mention somewhere — either in this article, or some other article. Though, what might make it denialist is the fact that he insists that Hitler never "really" wanted the holocaust, at least not to begin with. Hm... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Another one to do

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/news/holocaust-jewish-population-numbers-1933-1948/#.WGQsNfkrI6R oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

WP has a reasonable summary of them: Most Holy Family Monastery, a SPLC-listed hate group. Bongolian (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of cremation expenditures

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

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

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

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

Well, okay, maybe they have a point. L's Ideology (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious or is this a bad taste joke? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's do the math.

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, what? I'm starting to think that these funeral homes are overcharging for cremations that don't actually require an expenditure of anywhere near $3,000 worth of energy. That's really fucked up. L's Ideology (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Stay classy...dick. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the point of all this? CorruptUser (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't link this to money, but instead linked it to Germany's coal production or similar, this would be a good way to resolve the "you couldn't have burned 6 million Jews" gotcha. Next time, try the energy calculations sans "Kill-a-Jewle". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Or try starting with "Guys, it's time for some game theory". Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Impossible?

Have recently started seeing people saying that it was 'logistically impossible' to kill that many people. Is this worth commenting on? ^{— Unsigned, by: Merlin's uber driver / talk / contribs}

I've heard that argument in the past, that given the resources of the death camps, there was simply no way so many could have been killed. The advocates of this conveniently forget about the millions killed outside of death camps, through various pogroms by local governments in Nazi occupied areas, the SS death squads, rail car execution chambers, ghetto exterminations, etc... Petey Plane (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Mainly asking whether this is widespread enough to warrant a rebuttal of this in the page. Cheers. Merlin's uber driver (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. You'd probably want to start by expanding and/or rewriting the "Hitler didn't gas 6 million Jews!" section. It could definitely use more sources. Petey Plane (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A table like this

Would be pretty neat. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Marine Le Pen

Does Marine Le Pen now count as a denier? She doesn't deny the Holocaust but denies French responsibility.[2] Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Denier, perhaps... Time will tell. But fringe revisionist? Certainly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, so is Jean-Marie Le Pen a denialist because he called the Holocaust a detail of history? CNN seems to think so,[3] but their BBC citation did not go that far.[4] It's looking like Marine had her father expelled for political expediency because the Front National still has denialists in their camp. Bongolian (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Voat is triggered by this article, has no arguments against it

https://voat.co/v/whatever/2140309 FuzzyCatPotato of the Fleeting Octahedrons (talk/stalk) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec?

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

Potential Fake Photograph

One of the photos from the article is constantly thrown around the "Holocaust questioner scene", I think it's a possible fake, and shouldn't be used in the article: http://beam-truth.livejournal.com/5848394.html . I'm refering to the image: "Sonderkommandos burning corpses in a pit at Auschwitz-Birkenau, August 1944". Even if it is real, probably not the best image to have on a page meant to debunk Holocaust deniers. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bolt / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The photo is real.

"Even if it is real, probably not the best image to have on a page meant to debunk Holocaust deniers." I strongly disagree. Not only should it be on the page but, ideally, we should debunk the claim that it's fake. CowHouse (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably not the right place to post this but whatever

I'm debating with a Holocaust denier. He's made some outrageous claims such as "only 300,000 if not less Jews died in the camps" and has inflated the Dresden death toll to 100,000+. He then spoke about how the German camps were "the most humane" out of all the fighting countries of WW2, and "people were getting paid for their work and they were well treated for the most part". He then said that a lot of Holocaust survivors keep changing their story over the years as evidence of them being liars. THEN he links this video where a survivor says that they were paid in the camps and purchased food at a canteen. (https://youtu.be/AGrNxIWxdvs?t=304) How do I debunk his arguments? For the sake of actually getting a point across to his head, "non-Jewish" sources would be preferred 😂😂😂 ^{— Unsigned, by: 118.208.153.219 / talk}

Doesn't the article provide information on why those claims are inaccurate? I thought that was the point. If not, then I guess the article needs editing. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I request one simple, but conclusive evidence of the Holocaust.

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

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

Contents are broken

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

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

One small tone gripe

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

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

I felt kinda gross reading that. And I say that as someone who would admittedly be the first guy on the lifeboat to resort to cannibalism. Gringodemaio (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Pulled. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)

What does this need to be a cover story? I've pasted the editorial comments:

• Documentary and physical evidence for gas chambers

  Seems done; we have 4 sections and 6 references on it.

• Denier arguments concerning gas chambers - Prussian blue, ash disposal etc, and response

  Prussian blue is mentioned; ash disposal is mentioned

• Deniers' disapproval of some survivor testimonies, and response

  We have 5 sections and 10 references on it.

• Deniers' illicit comparisons of Nazi Germany and Israel, and response Strom 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  We have this on Red herrings in Holocaust denial

• Remove, redirect or "fill-in" redlinks

  Don't see (m)any.

• Copy-edit π 03:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  Seems mostly grammatical.

• Article needs minor cleanup, e.g. removing all of the red links, perhaps a couple more images(?), and a review of major supporting articles to reach gold. A few more external links wouldn't hurt, either. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• This we need. Maybe other articles could do some SBS of denier articles?

But overall it seems read for the limelight. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

See here for why it was removed from cover status in 2010. This hasn't been fixed - check how many times this article & the 'red herrings' appendix say "Holocaust deniers might _____". The article should be about Holocaust denial as observed, not as hypothesised in the abstract. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who triggered the discussion that got it removed from cover status in 2010. Since then it doesn't seem to have improved much, just got longer and more convoluted. It's still a collection of strawmen, false dichotomies, poisoning the well: think of a logical fallacy and it's there, supported by sarcasm more than any attempt at rational discussion. Anyone interested in the debate back then can start here: Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive1#Appalling_article. Feel free to skip my own overlong contributions if you wish to and don't raise them for discussion here now as that would be both OT and too far back, and I won't reply. Qwertyuiop (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If it took you this long to get back to the discussion you walked away from after your assertions got debunked repeatedly, which is on the archives and your talk page, it doesn't seem like it was that important or had the weight of the evidence on your side. It's easy to start things or throw around unfounded assertions, which is still all you still seem to be doing, but it's harder to prove yourself right. I thought this was pretty obvious but even after this long it seems like it is not. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No interest in personal attacks,sorry. Plenty of others have pointed out those logical fallacies so I'm not going to waste time and space doing it all over again. I said I wouldn't discuss anything from back then on this page. I did eventually write an essay explaining my objections to the page, not in terms of a detailed analysis of the page but setting out what I thought was missing from it in terms of balance. It's here: Essay:A_critical_view_of_the_article_on_Holocaust_Denial. If you want to comment on it the place to do so is the article's comment page, not here Qwertyuiop (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Assertions and rhetorical tricks like portraying the burden of proof as a personal attack is non-starter for anyone with a lick of sense. You haven't changed your MO in the last 5+ years. What a waste of time then and now. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the article is not as I describe it: "a collection of strawmen, false dichotomies, poisoning the well...supported by sarcasm"? Qwertyuiop (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The real question is why I am wasting my life debating someone that has no evidence against something that does. You have been asked for evidence and provided none, just rhetorical BS, for 5 years through now. That's literally it and you failed so badly. That's why you and your point have been repeated failures that I will be happy to ignore instead of giving you the attention that you seem to crave. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The answer to a straightforward question is not "The real question is...". You should have gone into politics. I'll repeat the question once only. If you ignore it a third time you're on " ignore". In fact you're on ignore anyway as a complete timewaster more interested in provoking petty squabbles than discussing the issue. Are you asserting that the article is not as I describe it: "a collection of strawmen, false dichotomies, poisoning the well...supported by sarcasm"? Goodbye. Qwertyuiop (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no ignore function on a wiki.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There's one in my head. ;) Qwertyuiop (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mm. Should we get quotes from deniers, then? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It sure as heck would help, yes. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Most claims in the "red herrings" sections are in IHR:s 66 questions. The IHR is representative of hard-core Holocaust denial. /Strom (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind citing it as such? FuzzyCatPotato of the Spontaneous Anvils (talk/stalk) 03:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cover story soon?

How close are we to certifying this article as a cover story? I think the latest additions by FCP that restructured the intro did a lot to bring it closer to Gold quality. I'd already vote to accept it as a front page article myself, though I'm not debating that improvements can and should be performed on it. Thoughts on this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I just added a sourced segment myself to help bring the article closer to front page quality. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Renewed push

Article has been reorganized into 4 main sections -- I think it's better for it. Article has had tons of images added. What more does this need? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done a first pass on the article, mainly adding links and images. There are still places with "citation needed", and there are failed links from references that need to be fixed. Once these are fixed, I would support it for a cover article. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've now completed a second pass on the article, cleaning up the references. I would now support gold. Bongolian (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff as always, Bongolian! Thank you so much. I also support Gold now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Percy! Bongolian (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

2017, CAN WE COVER STORY THIS

Looks like the cover nom got mistakenly archived. I think this should be on the cover. Any objections? - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(No idea how protocol goes) No objections from this happy camper! Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! ^{There's a roach on my Wall!} 15:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, let's step on the gas! Er... By which I mean, I support covering! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to go gold. Bongolian (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Golding at long frickin' last - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

2nd to last paragraph in intro

The numbers in that get mixed around a bit unless I'm completely misreading it. 1 jumps from being Fake to being "it wasn't bad"

Addition regarding the Nuremberg trials

A valid complaint would be how the war crime trials were deliberately set up so that only war crimes commited by the Axis powers but were not commited by the Allied powers were considered worthy of trial and conviction. Freda Utley states:

“”Few Americans at home may be aware of it, but their representatives at Nuremberg have expressly stated that the victors are not bound by the same laws as the vanquished. When the German defense counsel argued that if it was a crime against international law for the Germans in occupied Poland and Russia to confiscate private property, use civilians and prisoners of war as forced laborers, and starve the people in the occupied territories, then why is it not also a crime for American, British, French or Russian Military Government to do the same thing, they were told: “The Allied Powers are not subject to the limitations of the Hague Convention and rules of land warfare.”

Some examples of this include Karl Dönitz, who was found not guilty as the Allied force commited the same war crimes as he did:

“”"In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare."

This inevitably means that it isn't that German war criminals were somehow not war criminals, but rather that many of them such were found not guilty. Thus, the unfairness of the trial does not serve to defend war criminals of Nazi Germany, but rather to show how many of them were not deemed guilty by the Tribunal despite them having commited atrocities, simply because the Allied force did the same. This also of course means many Allied war criminals were not convicted, however that is a different discussion than the one at hand.

I added this and twice it has been reverted. The first reverter claims that citing Chomsky is not valid, despite Chomsky's works regarding history and politics to be tremendously important and there is little to criticize about the claims put forth here. The second claims that Freda Utley is not valid as a citation simply because Holocaust deniers cite her apparently, which is nowhere near a valid criticism of the source. Neither addressed the example put forth regarding Karl Donitz as a prime example of "war crimes" really being "Axis War Crimes" and Allied war crimes being ignored.

I will post this again in a day or two if there are no responses. Codefuser (talk) 30 Sept 2018 (UTC)

References

This Article is not about Holocaust Denial

As I read this article, it becomes evident, it does not center on holocaust denialisms, or present any cases or fair examples of it. It's only focuses on denial of Holocaust denial. You should change the headline. It is misleading. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a02:810b:c100:57:6173:4cab:f507:ecba / talk / contribs}

The article title is fine. — Dysk (contribs) 23:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)