Should Holocaust revision (NOT denial) be taken more seriously?

a reply to: stinkelbaum

Exactly! And how anyone can possibly take Faurisson seriously is beyond me.

a reply to: m1991

Are you really serious? I've tried to consider your post from an unbiased point of view which, I'll admit, has been a challenge. The Holocaust is an emotional topic for most people and when that's the case, it's hard to keep emotional and logical thinking from battling with one another. So instead of responding right away, I took some time to ponder your post and the thoughts/possibilities it raised. After careful consideration, I realized that I was giving it far more consideration than I believe it deserves. In my opinion, you have crafted a post to support your own mistrust and distaste for the state of Israel and it's importance in the current world arena. Period. Everything you say comes back around to Israel. There are so many conspiracy theories in here, I don't even know where to begin.

Why is it important for us to revise the number of people killed, be they Jew, Gypsy, the mentally ill or any other group of people who fell victim to Hitler's insanity? What is the difference if it was two or six million Jews? You're going to question the numbers reported by the PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE, victims and their liberators alike? The allied troops had nothing to gain by distorting these numbers. Oh, I forgot that they wanted to ensure that they went down in history as "the good guys" in order to absolve them from the many heinous acts they, themselves commited. And why do you think this is justified? Because "religious stats are very unreliable" and based on some other possibilities, one amongst them being the possibility that maybe some Christians were killed who might have been mistakenly "accused" of being Jews, thereby mucking up the numbers? Nothing too revealing in those words. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

I again ask you, what difference does it make, other than to support your hypothosis that the true reason for the Holocaust - which may have been funded by some Zionist conspiracy to use Hitler and the Nazi's as a vessel of destruction - was to bring about Biblical proficy pertaining to the state of Israel. This same conspiracy is also the mechanism by which we continue to justify our current Middle East foreign policy. Furthermore, as part of this conspiracy hatched by those Zionists, for the last 80 years or so, our children have been taught a distorted version of the Holocaust, from the second grade, in order to continue garnering sympathy for the Jewish people and to perpetuate our continued support for the state of Israel?

I'm sorry. I'm not a sheeple and I use my brain for intelligent thought. I don't believe everything our government tells us and I do believe that some conspiracy theories are spot on; however, with respect to the Holocaust, there is too much empirical proof in the way of witnesses and tangible data to give this much credence. This is what I believe. Hitler and his Nazi regime killed millions of innocent people. They perpetrated the largest genocide ever known to mankind and they were allowed to continue their campaign of death and destruction for far too to long. Were there more Jews killed than any other population? Yes and this is not so hard to understand considering the pre-war Jewish population in Europe and Hitler's open hatred of them. Does this make any difference in the grand scheme of things? No. Millions of innocent people were killed and it changed the world's demographic footprint for all time. I believe that our government knew what was going on in the concentration camps long before our history books state. That is shameful.

All this being said, in order to justify your proposition that we reconsider the Holocaust with respect to who and how many were killed, I would have to believe that your other theories are possible, thereby creating a need for a distortion of history. Absent this belief, I'm left with the question, what difference does it really make?

originally posted by: m1991
Is it merely propaganda so that we support Israel?

what a patently absurd conclusion

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Look ! This guy too has a tatoo on his arm :

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So, once again, no single refutable Faurisson statement ...

I'm not saying it's good or bad, just embarrassing.

FYI :
Why Netanyahu’s Use of the Holocaust Is a Vile Form of Propaganda

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Sure there are holocaust survivors with tattoos out there that are anti zionist. It doesn't make any difference to the fact that Ashkenaz Jews were exterminated from eastern Europe to the point where hardly any remain. Same said for Germans who were also exterminated from eastern Europe. Both Jews and Germans can still be found in large numbers within Russia, but both were almost totally wiped out in the rest of eastern Europe and replaced by Slavs. The two economic power controllers in pre 1939 eastern Europe, German and Jew both replaced by Slavs.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

If you actually care to look, he has been fairly well discredited elsewhere other then in this thread. Certainly by writers and historians far more capable than I.

Try any of Deborah Lipstadt's writings on the topic of Holocaust denial as a start.

I'll put her credentials up against Faurisson's any day.

I'm with some of the others on this thread with the main question. Why does it matter if it was a number less than 6 million? I've studied some of the methodology a little bit and the 6 million number, appeared to me, to be a good number? But what if it was 4 million? Who cares? It was atrocious. There was tremendous anti Jewish sentiment before the war and the final solution.

I'm not sure what the point of the thread is. I think it's anti Zionism, and I myself dislike the Israeli Government and how they treat the Palestinians. I'm a big supporter of BDS.

However, instead of discounting how bad the Jewish people had it in WW2 and the Holocaust, and they had it really, really bad, we should instead focus on bringing to light the other atrocities. The OP and some other replies touched on this.

You can talk about another genocide and horror without discounting the holocaust. For the record, I've also visited the concentration camps years ago.

We should start other threads discussing...the 7 million Russians killed, Polish civilians killed- 1.9 Million non jewish deaths...250,000 Gypsies killed....or discussing the other Genocides mentioned in other posts.

a reply to: seagull

Letter to Mrs Deborah Lipstadt

Dear Mrs Lipstadt,

I received you yesterday from noon to 6 pm. I am afraid it was not worth the while.

On my table, right in front of you, I had (in your dossier, which I did not open in your presence) the paper that you presented at the Oxford Conference in July 1988. In this paper you clearly say that the revisionists are liars, denying established facts by antisemitism. For you, revisionism is a subtle form of antisemitism. In California, you teach the history of antisemitism and, for you, Faurisson as well as Butz and others are some sort of antisemite that a good teacher of your kind cannot ignore. Those views are perhaps rather simple but I think that they inspired most of the questions that you put to me. You spoke very little, but enough anyway to show what you had in mind.

What you had (and have) in mind is this:
1. The genocide and the gas chambers are established facts;
2. The revisionists deny those established facts;
3. I have to find the motives of those revisionists for behaving in such a way.

And you are normally prone to believe, as many people do, that the motives are essentially those of antisemitism.

I agree with you that, when a person denies an established fact, there is something wrong with that person but, precisely in the case of the genocide and the gas chambers, are we facing "established facts"?
Let us suppose for one minute that they are NOT established facts but only, as I kept repeating to you, religious beliefs. In that case, don't you think that the motive of those revisionists might be the most simple one that you can imagine, which is to say spontaneously: "The King is naked!"? Is it not normal, when you see that something is wrong, to say that it is wrong? As we say in French, why are you "looking for the midday sun at two o'clock"?

Now, don't get me wrong! I know that in the mind of the man who shouts "The King is naked!" there might be ALSO some other feelings, impulses, passions, etc. Maybe he does not like the King, maybe he hates the courtiers, maybe he is pleased to find himself as a trouble maker but all those things are peripheral since the first, the essential and the central motive is the FACT that the king was naked.
You must begin at the beginning. When Arno J. Mayer writes: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable", should you not wonder if this is not true before deciding that it is untrue and before looking for the "why" of this "untruthfulness"?

I noticed that you did not seem to know very much about the layout of the concentration camps and their gas chambers. As I told you, this is sadly the case of nearly all the exterminationists and of too many of the revisionists. Most of them are what I call "paper historians". They have been at school all their life and they are used to thinking that papers are more than material items. A man like Ditlieb Felderer, knowing Auschwitz better than I know Vichy, is superior to any historian as far as Auschwitz, center of the "Holocaust" question, is concerned. You should go and visit carefully those camps and those so-called gas chambers. You need one second to see in the "gas chamber" of Krema-I the ridiculous little door with its window; you need two seconds to see the ridiculous "openings" in the roof which are not at all air-tight; you need one more second to notice that the space is so limited; one second to realise that there is no heating system, no evacuation system and no trace whatsoever of it; a few seconds to see that the doors are inward-opening (!) which means that, if bodies were there, you could not even open those doors; a few seconds to see that walls had been removed in order to make the place look more important, etc. I know of nothing so stupid as those alleged gas chambers that you can visit everywhere, including Struthof-Natzweiler which you visited and Sachsenhausen which you did not visit and where you can find exactly the same type of Leichenkeller which in Birkenau is called Gas Chamber! Excuse me, I know something more stupid: it is Treblinka.

I told you that my worst enemies were the Jewish organisations and I gave you many proofs of their impudent activities which aim to protect what I consider, after so much research, as a historical lie. You looked surprised. In your opinion, it seems that the Jewish organisations are not in the forefront of the repression of revisionism! Let me tell you that your surprise is surprising. Those organisations consider the problem of revisionism exactly as you consider it. For them, as well as for you, revisionism is a perverted form of antisemitism and, therefore, they fight against that form of antisemitism. What do you expect? That they would stop fighting antisemitism?

I asked you: "Did you ever ask yourself or your students if the Jews had some responsibility in antisemitism, as Bernard Lazare dared to say?" And your answer was: "No"!!! Is it wise or scientific not to ask that kind of question?

I wish FOR YOUR SAKE that the revisionists were antisemites. That would mean that they were inspired by passion. As you know, passion makes you say silly things.
When you asked to come and visit me in Vichy, I immediately accepted because I believe in human contacts. But I am afraid I was wrong.


Best wishes, 
R. Faurisson


June 28, 1989

P.S. : I told you something like three times that I do not believe in the " conspiracy theory" or, as you put it, in the "sinister conspiratorial forces" theory. I gave you my reasons and I called this theory "childish". As a matter of fact, Jews are prone to believe in that theory, which they find satisfactory when it applies to antisemitism and absurd when it is invoked by antisemites.

a reply to: m1991

it should - but one any discussion starts the denialist mongers turn up - and game over

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You keep playing the Robert Faurisson card and ignoring the fact that he's been a busted flush for years. No-one outside the IHR takes him even remotely seriously. He is, in other words, the French version of David Irving.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You haven't even bothered reading any of her works on the subject, have you?

So called gas-chambers? Do you really need to hear anything further? The man is, quite simply, a Holocaust denier. He is not a historian of any use what so ever. Were he to tell me water is wet, I'd want a second opinion.

As for his pet historian Ditlieb Felderer...? Read this.

These "researchers" have their pet theory, and find things to support, while ignoring those that contradict or even, dare I say, deny it.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

He is, in other words, the French version of David Irving.

David Irving, at least, has the credit of some well received histories on other subjects. Faurrison doesn't. Fraud doesn't begin to describe Faurrison...liar comes a bit closer to the truth.

a reply to: seagull

If you can find work of her that contradicts Faurisson's work as a historian, please show me, I didn't found any.
Bashing him or placing a moral judgement on his motives is within everyone reach. But answering the legitimate question he raises is another point.

Faurisson has never been charged for forgery or falsification. He has been accused of antisemitism or denial because if someone dares to question a single point of what is the official version, you threaten the integrity of it. I don't want to defend Faurisson when he expresses his personal views on geopolitics, I don't even want to argue about them. What is worth considering is his work as a historian.

Calling Faurisson a liar when he has never been accused of forgery is defamation. A that's typical when someone don't want to consider his arguments. When Rudolph Vrba conceeds in 1985 at the Toronto trial that he used "poetic license" to describe the gas chambers ... I wonder who is lying.

Jean-Marie LePen got (once again) convicted in France recently for saying that 'the gas chambers were a detail of history'. If it's not a detail, than we can pay double-attention to it, isn't it ?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Faurisson is not a historian. He is a Holocaust denier. He denies the existence of the gas chambers (as he has written many times) and has even claimed that the Diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.
He has not forged anything - but he twists the truth. That does not make him a historian. That makes him a liar.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I don't need to read Dr. Lipstadt's writings to contradict him. My own readings, and thoughts, do that more than sufficiently, the pictures of the camps, the records the Nazi's kept, the stories of survivors, are all sufficient evidence to judge him.

He is a liar and a fraud. I pointed you at sources where you can begin your own research into it, but you choose, apparently, not to. That is your business, and you're welcome to it.

a reply to: amazing

The actual numbers do matter, but the fact that a number of countries attempted, and came damned close, to wiping out entire populations of their own citizens matters more.

It was, and will remain, a sickening episode in human history...one of many. No amount of denial will change that.

A lot of this reminds me of some Christian's complaining that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians as if they're the only ones that matter and it's they who are targeted specifically. Give them a chance to write the history books we'd hear nothing but how Isis persecuted Christian's committing genocide against them, with everyone else getting a token foot note.

Isis targets any non Wahabi Muslims, meaning any other Muslim sect, any other religion, gays, athiests, etc.

Many Jews and Christians share this persecution complex, and whenever they can, they're both very happy to make everything about how badly they have it, while ignoring everyone else in the same boat.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So no single ambition yet to tackle him on his historian work ... any timestamp of the video when the truth is twisted as of you ? A particular quote related to his work and not his considerations ?

I can't help but I can't just satisfy myself from what someone says about an individual. I need to pay attention to what the individual says. And when it comes to Faurisson, I can't dismiss the arguments he presents. I find that embarrassing. I'm not happy to 'have a point' with that.

Born in the 70's, I have no personal responsability in the holocaust and I always been taught about the gas chambers. But when considering the historian work of Faurisson, and the scientific work of Germar Rudolf the gas chambers may well be to the Holocaust what the magic bullet is to the assassination of JFK : a questionable point of the official version.

Is it a good thing to consider that the people deported have not been gassed ? No, on the contrary : this mean they probably must have suffered even more being turned into living skeleton’s like your grandfather found them and being exploited and kept as slaves for a longer period of time.

You dismiss the points through obfuscation, defamation and moral judgement against the author of the claims. That's what everybody always do and that just another proof that the Faurisson needs to be silenced by all means. I wish someone could disprove the historical points he advances, I tried, objectively, I couldn't.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I don't need to read Dr. Lipstadt's writings to contradict him. My own readings, and thoughts, do that more than sufficiently, the pictures of the camps, the records the Nazi's kept, the stories of survivors, are all sufficient evidence to judge him.

Do you realise that Faurisson base his work on Nazi records, witnesses, pictures, onsite visits ... as well ?

originally posted by: seagull
He is a liar and a fraud. I pointed you at sources where you can begin your own research into it, but you choose, apparently, not to. That is your business, and you're welcome to it.

Lipstadt ? You just said you don't need her.
Tell me where he lies - AS A HISTORIAN - on the basis of the points he raises. I posted 80 minutes of Faurisson interview with subtitles, there must something about his historian work.