Jump to content

Talk:Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.226.9.75 (talk) at 14:30, 18 August 2009 (Criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stylistic concerns

Some of the article seems to be written in a factual, but non-encyclopedic way. Wikipedia doesn't usually start a section with "Argument: foo bar". Also, "However, as is typically the case," seems to be a conversation-like, even though it is true. Andjam 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid to be bold in your edits. I'm kind of on the fence about the "Argument" line. I think it's useful in that it gives a short summary of the claims so that a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic can understand it better. However, it's bothersome that those argument lines are not cited. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with andjam, particularly with reference to the "unreasonable burden of proof" section, I think this needs to be written in a more encyclopaedic fashion. Perhaps this section also does not meet NPOV guidelines?

Andy4226uk 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial

I just got in here because I actually wanted to see what Wikipedia had to offer on precisely that issue: criticism of criticism of holocaust denial. My suggestion would be to make Criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial simply refer to Freedom of speech. I would do that, if only I knew how. (If it is deemed appropriate to forbid expressions of denial of one kind of established historical fact, then why shouldn't this be generalized to denial of any kind of established historical fact? I can see - in a perverted way - a huge benefit from expressly forbidding denial of biological evolution, for example. Yet somehow, I have a feeling that banning the bible etc is a stillborn idea.) Please note, I am not trying to defend denial in any way, I am only saying that forbidding expressions of denial is absurd, even if it is actually the law in numerous countries. The attempt to make H.D. illegal EU-wide was blocked by Britain and the Nordic countries - presumably they had arguments for doing so, which could be cited as effectively being examples of criticism of criticism of H.D. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have the Holocaust article, which claims that it happened, but uniquely, does not have to defend its facts or logic. Then we have Holocaust denial and Criticism of Holocaust denial. So next I expect: Criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial. Etc. Fourtildas 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust article, not quite 'uniquely', has over 100 footnotes, so your comment about not defending its facts is untrue. Holocaust denial is altogether separate, being a form of antisemitic propaganda. The typical elements of this propaganda are described in 'Criticism of Holocaust denial'. That seems to be a logical structure for the content. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is it antisemetic propaganda to question the holocaust myth? why is it antisemetic when it wasnt just jews who died in the holocaust. only jews have profited from the hoax. if the holocaust is so true then why is it so imflamatory to question wether or not it happaned? why are there people in jail for saying it is a hoax? doing that is like jailing someone who says that the american revolution didnt start until 1964. why should a person who makes such an absurd claim be put in jail? Keltik31 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest always considering the source of a Talk: page comment before bothering to respond. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism of the criticism of Holocaust denial can be discussed in this article. This article isn't designed to be one-sided; the proponents of Denial/Revisionism can be represented here as well. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there are reliable sources making that criticism. I somehow doubt there are. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems hardly neutral to promote only one side of a debate. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. If you can find reliable sources making criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial, feel free to put it in the article. --GHcool 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll do some searching later. Although it seems to me that many sources are considered unreliable simply because they criticize the criticism of holocaust denial... .V. [Talk|Email] 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "debate". There's the historical truth, and there's a handful of loons. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has opinions, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia must reproduce your Aunt Millie's views on the subject. WP:ATT applies here as in every Wikipedia article. Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, guys. Let's not trash the guy before he gives us something to trash. I stand by my challenge to .V. If .V. can find a reliable source that criticises criticisms of Holocaust denial, I say it should and must be included in the article. Of course, it would have to comply with WP:RS and WP:ATT and also be relevent to the overall outline of the article. So, for example, Jayjg's hypothetical Aunt Millie would not cut the mustard and neither would Wendy Campbell. But if .V. can find a quote given by Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Yad Vashem, or any number of respected and established historians and philosophers specializing in the Holocaust that criticizes critics of Holocaust denial, wouldn't it be worth putting on Wikipedia? So I repeat my challenge to .V. and wish him good luck in his search. I expect that it will be fruitless, but obviously .V. is willing to accept the challenge despite the overwhelming odds of its not being met. Until the challenge is met, however, I would appreciate it if .V. would have enough sense not to respond about this topic, for nothing will convince us more than proof for his bold claims. --GHcool 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? At what point do I make a claim, let alone a bold claim? .V. [Talk|Email] 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was referring to .V.'s Aunt Millie. My Aunt Millie is quite notable. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assume that Jayjg's Aunt Millie wouldn't criticize critics of Holocaust denial. I'm not as sure about .V.'s Aunt Millie.  ;) --GHcool 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the criticism of Holocaust denial can be discussed in this article. This article isn't designed to be one-sided; the proponents of Denial/Revisionism can be represented here as well.

— .V. 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is very much designed to be one-sided and "Criticism of the criticism of Holocaust denial" would only be accepted ...

... if there are reliable sources making that criticism. I somehow doubt there are.

— Jayjg 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And he rightfully doubts as the accepted "reliable sources" would have to be ...

... Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Yad Vashem [...]

— GHcool 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Which are the very proponents of the orthodox Holocaust story as well as of the "Criticism of Holocaust denial". And everyone not agreeing with those people in certain points would soon cease to be one of ...

... any number of respected and established historians and philosophers specializing in the Holocaust that criticizes critics of Holocaust denial

— GHcool 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above as well as the article itself is actually enough to convince everybody but the most naive of the "pseudo-scientific" nature and methods of the "Critisism of Holocaust denial". Everybody interested in what someone says should actually read something written by this person, and not something written about them. In the matter at hand this could be something by Robert Faurisson or something by Paul Rassinier. And people that make up their own mind instead of letting others tell them what to think and what to believe probably will come to the conclusion that things are not as simple as they are made to appear. One might discover that in fact most Holocaust-revisionist are not neo-nazis or even anti-semites (unless of course Holocaust revisionism is deemed antisemitic per se). Or that some are or were in fact Jews themselves as J.G. Burg or David Cole or were founders of resistance groups and incarcerated in a KZ by the Nazis as Paul Rassinier. Interestingly in this context is to note that all of the above mentioned had to endure several sorts of legal, verbal and even physical harassments which in my opinion has more to do with the rise of Nazism or Nazi-like behaviour than anything these people wrote, said or did.

62.226.5.93 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned David Cole in my last post and just realized that in the article a letter he wrote after his recantation was quoted, I think it is important to note that his "change of mind" was preceded by a quite threatening and hateful open letter by the JDL, an Jewish organization which is referred to as violent, extremist and terrorist by the FBI and a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Everyone reading this letter, in which he is called a "monstrous traiter" and which asks: "don't you think it's time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society", can see why the FBI comes to this conclusion and should decide if his recantation might have anything to do with this letter and possible other similar incidents. 62.226.5.165 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a text that discusses the use of irrational vocabulary in regard to criticism of holocaust denial.62.226.39.92 (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a text that criticizes Nizkor's criticism of holocaust denial. 62.226.14.149 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that neither of those are reliable sources, such as those from academic, peer-reviewed publications/journals.

Of course they are not "reliable sources", I have already shown above how this works. But guess what? It doesn't matter what you or anybody else claim to be reliable or unreliable. Either arguments are sound or they are not. It's as simple as that. See Argumentum_ad_verecundiam (appeal from authority], Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to the majority), Poisoning_the_well and fallacies in general.62.226.9.75 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the photo of the guy with a gun to his head

i have heard that this is a faked photo because the soldier with the gun is actually wearing a soviet uniform and is not a german nor is he using a german pistol. help? Keltik31 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can cite a reliable source backing up what you heard, you're out of luck. Andjam 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm working on it because i know its out there somewhere. Keltik31 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stared at that thing for a good long time and came to the conclusion that the photo didn't have enough detail to determine any insignia on the uniform. I'm sure that someone with extensive knowledge of WWII-era uniforms would be able to determine something. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I FOUND THIS ON THE TALK PAGE for the Einsatzgruppen CONCERNING THIS PHOTO.

Its sad indeed to see how misrepresented the articles on Nazi Germany are in Wikipedia, but this page bar far takes the cake. The ignorance of the author who in his almost stunning lack of knowledge of the subject matter, most of which is taken from holocaust websites and reworded, even makes the mistake of copying images from such websites of alleged Einsatzgruppen soldiers apparently executing a man. Take a close look at the picture on the main page. Those arent German uniforms and that is not a German pistol in the soldier's hand. The soldier in the image is wearing a Soviet M35 uniform and is holding a Tokerev TT33 pistol. The boy right behind the arm of the soldier wielding the pistol (he looks no more than 16-17 years old perhaps younger) is wearing a Soviet M35 airforce uniform. You can distinctly see everything the soldiers are wearing are Soviet issue, and and non corrospond to German uniforms or equipment. For all any of you know, the guy who apparently is about to be shot is a German POW. Perhaps the Soviets thought it would be funny to dress him up and then shoot him, or more likely it is just a staged event in order to send pictures home (the red army was notorious for staging photos for propaganda purposes back home) This makes sense since the bodies in the pit below appear to have been decomposing for a fair period of time and the grave does not appear fresh.

If you want further proof go to the link at the bottom and view this site that sells authentic reproductions of Soviet and other WW2 uniforms and regaelia. Check out the tunics, belts, headwear, pistols ect. They are all identical to the ones being worn by the soldier and onlookers in this misrepresented photo. Keltik31 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say i agree with you. however the holocost did happen and this was probably a mistake. Saying the holocaust didn't happen is dishonorable to the victims and the survivors. What is someone said 9/11 didn't happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of cherry picking, you could link to the Whole discussion? While it was truly a piece of Original Research to behold, the argument wasn't compelling and consensus there was that the photo was indeed genuine. Cantankrus 04:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Keltik31's talk page: he's made numerous racist edits. --DrBat 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo is a mistake, it should be fixed. Have we no Photoshop? Have we no scissors and paste? The photo itself and its placement on this page exemplifies the necessity for open discussion of the Holocaust. Error progresses to neglect, neglect to willful neglect, and from there a short hop to deception and fraud. Well more than a year after the error was found and brought to the attention of the community, the photo is still on the page, captioned as fact. And here in this discussion, use of the photo is defended as proof of the Holocaust.
If the uniform is identifiable as Soviet, the photo should be removed. If the photo is too indistinct to identify the uniform, it is not self-authenticating and should be removed or presented with an "alleged" caveat. A fact is a fact, regardless of who notices it, and the world is round, even if a lunatic says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slade Farney (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the fear of being labeled an anti-semite, I doubt any scholar would conduct research on such matters. It's a shame original research is not popular, since he has a valid point, and I did check the uniforms and his claim is tottaly correct. It's common sense his not a german soldier. I think common sense should be allowed on wikipedia. I mean, its like putting a red circle and labeling it green, Do we need a scholar to tell us that the circle is Red just to be able to put the facts on wikipedia? No. --87.194.3.52 14:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the original Russian uniform. http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-photos16/safom35b.jpg Anyone who has eyes can see that they are russian soldiers in the picture. Please remove the picture as it is common sense and not original research. If this fails, we would have to mediate or take further actions for wikipedia to do this. It's like putting pictures up of a camel and claiming it is Ariel Sharon.
All the soldiers in the article picture have tunic pockets below the belt. The tunic in the picture you link to has no pockets below the belt. Nor do the soldiers have Sam Browne belts, whereas your picture does. In fact, they are different uniforms. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link I put is the 1950's version of the Soviet uniform, sorry for not mentioning. Also if you look behind the main guy in the pictures, there are different types of uniform some with different markings, different colours, styles, for different ranks and different elements of the Russian military (paratroopers etc.). One thing is for sure, not many German soldiers wore that type of hat except the African corps and even that had the german eagle with the swastika circle in the middle which are not present in the photo. But it will be good to once and for all prove the identity of the soldiers in the picture by finding a credible, non biased source that will show who the uniforms belong to. --87.194.3.52 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a 1950s Soviet uniform. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have realized. But I can't find an german replica neither. Thank You --87.194.3.52 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert, but i believe that the pistol is a Walter PP. Looked and found google image. http://burnfan0.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/walther_pp_final1.jpg.w560h361.jpg Not sure if one pistol can be determined from another in a grainy picture from 1945. However, I expect a lot of the confusion is that the Walter PP doesn't look anything like very distinct, infamous Luger or Mauser pistols that were highly prized by Allied troops, even though Walters were a common pistol at the time. The Walter looks much more like a "generic" semiauto, the same as the Tokarev TT33.

Did some more looking. The photo caption states that the german soldiers are in fact hitler youth members, hence their uniforms do not match up with any Waffen SS or Wermacht uni's. This is a pretty decent pic here. http://www.afno-is.eu.dodea.edu/history10/hyouth.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.216.85 (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, that doesn't really check out with this link

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3036 however, it does have quite a bit in common with the m35, most notably the knee-high boots, breast pockets and cap (especially). Also, note the man pictured behind the gunman's hand. There is clearly some sort of insiginia on the center of his cap, which is shown here on a replica of a M35 here: http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-photos16/safom35b.jpg--68.144.14.32 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are German uniforms. The reason I know this?
A - No russian uniforms had pockets below the belt until the Telogreika padded winter jacket. Here for instance is the M35 the first person quotes and is (patently) wrong about [1]
B - the next most obvious thing (from a glance) is the piping on the lapels and collars.[2] and of course the presence (on several uniformed persons) the Nazi eagle[3] on the right breast[4] of which (again) there is no Russian match I can think of or have ever seen.
C - The belts are all obviously German issue. No other armed force supplied (on mass) full metal belt buckles[5]. See others here[6] [7]
D - the cloth caps are generic, they could be German M38 but it's impossible to see a true insignia on them apart from the 'target' circle on a few commonly used by a few nations, but few more so than the germans[8][9]. The 'pleat' is a bit of a give away that it isn't the generic Russian cap however.
E - third from the left is an obvious German trooper with shoulder pauldrons. I can't remember what they signified, but no other army issued anything like them.
F as for the pistol - The Germans produced a number of pistols, including imitation Brownings. It could well be a Tokarev, but pistols were not issued to foot troops as standard so any hand gun like that would be unofficial unless granted to them by an officer. There are signs he is wearing a holster, but nothing conclusive to even prove it is his own sidearm.
Any argument otherwise regarding the entire force here is misleading really.--Koncorde (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviets massacred Jews, as well, did they not? The photo description may be inaccurate (I'm not suggesting that it is inaccurate) but the photo itself looks to be fair evidence of a massacre (of what group, I can't say). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.165.15.131 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC) It actually seems quite irrelevant what kind of uniforms are worn since a uniform can be put on by everybody. False flag operations are quite common and apparently have been conducted by all sides in all wars. Besides, this photo is not at all "fair evidence of a massacre" as all it shows is a guy in a uniform putting a gun to the head of another guy kneeing in front of a pit with bodies surrounded by at least 18 other people. One interpretation of the scene certainly is: "Oh, you see that? The evil Germans shoot the poor Jew as they have already shoot the others lying in the pit. And all the others standing there viciously enjoy watching it and making photos for their albums." Another one could be: "Oh, you see that? The Jews/Russians/Partisans/whoever try to make the Germans look evil by putting on German uniforms and posing in front of a pit with bodies for a photo that is supposed to show an execution of a helpless victim by a ruthless Nazi". Not that it matters or that it means that no massacres have been committed by Germans, but in my opinion this is a black propaganda stunt since I somehow find it hard to believe that the alleged German effectiveness of killing people and invading countries etc. could have been reached if at least 20 people were involved in killing one person. Unless of course this was only an exception for this particular execution. Maybe in order to make a nice photo as a souvenir for the executioners mom or girlfriend at home? Or for the "Fuerhrer"? 62.226.5.93 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images within

Why hello, my comment comes in the form of a suggestion. Much of this article takes the form of refuting Holocaust Denial, for example the photos taken at death camps, man being, pictures of documentation of the holocaust; however none of the images seem to convincing at all. For example, the detail of a photograph taken at Auschwitz is of really poor quality. If I was show that detail while not reading about Auschwitz, there would be nothing to lead me to believe that it was Auschwitz.

Now obviously I'm unregistered, and am not going to be the person who digs up these images, but I think it would go a long way to further this refutation if there were some more definitive images present. Obviously you'll still get people saying things like "Well how do you know they were Jewish? That could by anyone in that mass grave", but given that better images are out there, I think the editors of this article can do better. Thanks. 142.167.151.52 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that photo technology of the time wasn't that great. I'll see if I can find better photos though. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm well aware, but I also know that higher quality photos exist as well as videos from that era. In addition modern photography exists of the preserved structures of the concentration camps. Thanks for taking my suggestion seriously. 142.167.138.104 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropiate document about "execution of prisoners"

The "Report to Hitler detailing the executions of prisoners" is pretty misleading. First, the proper image is labeled "Himmler_repor.jpg" (???); then the report itself does not have anything to do with the Holocaust. As far as I could translate it with google it's about the number of killed in encounters Soviet partisans (called "Russians" but obviously partisans weren't monoethnic), not prisoniers but combatants. Could someone with good Deutch knowledge have a closer look at it?

If my suspicion is correct, putting such a document in such a sensible article is a pretty wrong argument as it could consolidate someone's suspections rather than disclaiming them. --80.70.233.14 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why work to disclaim suspicions? Why not just present facts? Wikipedia is neutral, remember. 68.144.14.32 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just missed the translation of the document that was just under the photo, because I immediately clicked on the photo to see it at a higher resolution :-) It lists 363000 jews murdered in just 4 months! omg. Taking all my words back, the image is quite ok for the article. --80.70.233.14 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish population figures

The part about "Jewish population" lists the 1949 World Almanac as giving two different figures for the world Jewish population, one around 11 million and one around 16 million. Which is right? TribeCalledQuest 19:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 11 million estimate is the 1949 estimate. The 16 million estimate is a revised 1939 estimate that appeared in the 1949 Almanac. --4.129.81.180 02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the same mistake. Perhaps somebody could reword it to make that more clear. BCapp 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talk • contribs)

Density

The article states German documentation mentions that danger of explosion occurs with a consentration of 75 g/cubic meter. This statement isn't sourced (it'd be nice if it could, but for all practical purposes I have no reason to doubt it's authenticity) and there isn't enough data available for readers to assess the veracity of this claim (and the 56,000 ppm claim either). My question is the following: what is the density of the Zyklon-B compound? Wikipedia gives the density of HCN in the liquid state, but I couldn't find anything related to its gaseous form. To put the matter briefly, what are the exact figured Nizkor used to calculate the concentration at which Zyklon-B became explosive? -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Nizkor, not here. This talk page is meant specifically to discuss the article, not to discuss the Holocaust in general (and all the niggling little details that Holocaust deniers love to discuss). --Modemac (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial as antisemitism

This section seems a little mis-representative, the quote basically says that to deny anti-semitism, or to deny the holocaust, makes you a neo-nazi. Not only does this misrepresent the point of the article, it is far too emotive- ideally it needs changing. (the section, not the quote) Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICRC claims

The section about ICRC is wrong. There are several kinds of holocaust denier ICRC claims, and while the 300,000 claim is usually given without any source, other similar numbers are based on scans of (purported) letters form the ICRC, and so have nothing to do with the Die Tat article. For example Hal Turner's 271000 claim is based on this document, and the Was there really a Holocaust tract gives the number 282,077 based on another :one.

Beyond the obvious reliability issues, two things might be worth noting here:

  1. the letters give the number of "documented deaths" (beurkundeten Sterbefalle), whatever that means. (Maybe the number of those for whom they got a tracing request, and could ascertain that they are dead? Would make sense, since the letters came from ICRC's holocaust victim tracing service in Arolsen.)
  2. only the some of the labour and concentration camps are listed, not a single extermination camp (except for Majdanek in one of the letters).

--Tgr (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It isn't wrong - they have everything to do with the Die Tat article.
The original 300000 claim comes from Richard Harwood's Did 6 Million Really Die pamphlet, chapter 9 page 28. If you look at the response from the ICRC, you will see that it is this they are referring to.
Unfortunately the article Turner put together is no longer available on his website, but there have been copy and paste jobs elsewhere, such as here: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/130513 I couldn't tell you whether the image is a scan of Harwood's pamphlet or the Die Tat article itself, but accordingly, it is this material which Turner bases his material on as he cites Chapter 9 of Harwood's pamphlet in his article.
The 282,077 figure - well that second image is actually another instance of Harwood's scholarship (and i use that word very loosely). It's an article from the June 13, 1946 edition of Basler Nachrichten, another Swiss newspaper. It reports that the number of Jewish casualties was 1.5 million maximum. Harwood failed to mention that a later article in the same newspaper acknowledges that this figure was incorrect, and 5.8 million was an accurate number.
As death tolls, these figures certainly did not come from the ICRC, since they have "never published or even compiled statistics" like that. Their job is to "help war victims not to count them". They are simply the number of deaths recorded by the tracing service and obviously despite such misrepresentation, this has absolutely no relation to actual death tolls, since as we know, those marked for extermination were never registered, and since the ICRC only had access to camps in the final days of the war, it is no surprise that camps like Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec aren't mentioned, as they had already served their purpose.
But thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have the sources available and will rework this prose so the roots of this claim are clearer. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's much better now. --Tgr (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Iranian president's call for discussion?

Didn't Ahmad... claim he wanted to host a discussion and only saw anger at the consideration?Johnshoemaker (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that critics' response to Ahmadinejad should be included in this article? WilliamH (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

"Rebuttal of Holocaust denial" is problematic. Notable criticisms of Holocaust denial from reliable sources may indeed be presented on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should document the criticisms and present them neutrally, but "rebuttal" implicitly suggests a POV, that the article veritably sets out to dismantle Holocaust denial, which is not the case - it just lists notable criticisms. WilliamH (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would think that title no more "sets out to dismantle Holocaust denial" then the current title sets out to criticize Holocaust denial. It';s simply that the "critics" are largely not offering criticisms but rebuttals, and it seems reasonable that a title should reflect that. (In fact, what seems POV is watering down rebuttals and calling them "criticisms." Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may not offer as many criticisms here because they haven't been added yet. I understand your sentiment though. Remember it's not just the facts of Holocaust deniers that are refuted, but criticism, i.e., criticism that doesn't seek to refute claims, such as criticism of Holocaust denial from people who were actually involved in the Holocaust, e.g. members of the SS, criticism of denial as antisemitism, etc, etc. Rebuttal doesn't cover those sorts of commentary. WilliamH (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubble

For the second time, the rubble section has been removed (this time not by me), though I have worked its main contention into the article. Apart from the bit about the shovels being left in the remains of Crema 2, I don't see where in that Rudolf page the reduce rubble is mentioned, but it is now inconsequential anyway, as the claim and response can now both be attributed to a source, and a reliable one at that. WilliamH (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Forking and notability

This question has probably been raised and answered before, so please forgive me for asking for a re-explanation, but I'm not sure this article qualifies under Notability for an article of its own. this strikes me as a POV fork (please don't take offense at that word; I mean it clinically) of the holocaust denial article, and the two should really be merged. or is there something I'm missing that speaks to two separate articles? --Ludwigs2 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions February 1

I rewrote the opening section, and did some other cleanup, and tagged unreferenced sections, I made one edit wrongly stated as minor, my apologies. Casus belli section deleted, not directly relevant and entire issue is covered in and generating controversy at Bloody Sunday (1939). I also modified the section on the Posen speech and ausrotten, with the objective of making it clearer and of setting the language in a more neutral tone. Mtsmallwood (talk)

  • The casus belli section is relevant, but since the claim itself stems from an obscure video, I agree with its removal. However, I have had to revert most of the changes you made as your basis for many of them appears to be what you consider is bias. This is misplaced. For instance, the problem with critics argue is that it implies that it is a matter of argument, when it isn't - there are the daft things that daft people say, and then there is the explanation as to why what they say is wrong. It is not a matter of viewpoint.
Remember Holocaust denial is a fringe theory and Wikipedia must present it as such. I highly recommend you review WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Best, WilliamH (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the article

The "Six million" section starts by criticizing claims of less than six million deaths, then says varying accounts of the death toll exist, then spends a large paragraph debunking the "4 million plaque" claim. Simply debunking one claim doesn't resolve the issue, it just shows one example of a faulty claim and attempts to support the preceding argument with it. A more effective argument would have more citations on population counts and use that to support the argument that "anything less than six million cannot be true."

That is very true ArisMUC (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay

"They'll cite a historical text: 'K.K. Campbell says on page 82 of his famous book that nobody died at Auschwitz.' Then you go to the Library of Congress

This is just hearsay and does not count as evidence of anything. There are multiple examples of orthodox historians falsely misquoting documents (e.g. the Gerstein "testimony"). The comment as given here lacks any source of attribution to what did someone say about "K.K. Campbell" and so it's impossible to know if any revisionist ever even mentioned such a person. Argument-by-rumor-mongering is all that this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not followed at Nuremberg

"The merits of this evidence, and the conclusion it can support, will depend on its nature; for example, hearsay would not normally be considered good evidence, but an eyewitness account would be."

This comment should be properly qualified with the fact that the trials at Nuremberg did indeed rely on hearsay evidence very frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid example

Using Harold Covington as a case example of a comment by revisionists is not valid. If similar comments can be found by Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno or any other notable revisionist, then these would be valid to include. Covington has not produced anything relating to revisionism apart from this one passing comment which makes no attempt to develop argumentation. Taking a comment from Covington as representative of revisionists is worse than citing quotes from Menachem Begin or Ariel Sharon as evidence of what orthodox historians claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think s/he is right. The problem with such "case examples", which are quite often used by several anti-holocaust-denial authors is that they might work in the beginning, but as soon as one discovers that they are not important at all in "revisionism", one feels betrayed. Rightfully, I might add. It's somehow like if a denier would try to convince someone that the Holocaust is a hoax by telling them of the known frauds, like Binjamin_Wilkomirski.

This whole article is full of fallacies and things the Deniers are accused of. I honestly do not have a solution to this problem, but to try to cover the vast amount of works of Deniers by crude generalizations and cherry-picking has a counter-effect as soon as one dives a bit deeper into the matter. The same goes for the link to the online article of Deborah Lipstadt. I haven't read her book, but I hope it is better as I really was shocked to see that the article is not what one would call scholar work.62.226.8.199 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unreasonable Burdon of Proof"

What is wrong with the editor that wrote that? That's like saying the AGW theory has an unreasonable burdon of proof.--114.77.203.166 (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traces of poison gas found at the site of gas chambers

The article states “cyanide residue was found in high concentrations in the delousing chambers, and lower concentrations in the homicidal gas chambers”. Should it not be the opposite?

2009-07-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

  • No, it shouldn't. It takes cyanide up to 16,000ppm (parts per million) and an exposure time of more than 20 hours to kill insects, but human beings will succumb to 300ppm in just a matter of minutes. The small amounts of cyanide detected in the homicidal gas chambers and the larger amounts detected in the disinfestation chambers correspond to this. WilliamH (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I think the length of exposure should be mentioned in the text in question.

2009-07-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.155.69 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation against the Nürnberg Trials

Holocaust deniers accuse the Nürnberg Trials for using torture against wittnesses. I think it should be debunked too.

2009-07-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I am afraid it is not possible to debunk the use of torture by at least British interrogators in Nuernberg, since in 1983 a (anti-nazi and pro-holocaust) book called "Legions of Death" written by Rupert Butler confirmed this by quoting the torturers.
Personally I would be surprised if no abuse occurred since even today, after the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" etc., the former allies use torture in their fight against the evil.62.226.5.93 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think any text written with such an agenda should be used as a source. Is there any evidence that any wittness at the Nürnberg Trials was tortured? Please note that written or recorded testimony may turn out to be false or misrepresented and that physical evidence may be misinterperated. So if I am to belive any evidence of torture you have to explain to me why it would be authentic.

2009-08-08 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book's agenda is not to deny the holocaust, if that's what you mean. Rather the opposite. Besides, it only confirms what Rudolf Höß wrote in his highly valued memories:

At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife's luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.

After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation centre in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.

The conditions in the prison accorded with this behaviour.

62.226.27.244 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far I know Höß is the only witness who has been tortured. Could we not state that holocaust deniers use Höß specific case for making untue generalisations. This should however be based on reliable sources. --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Höß's initial rough treatment is due to the fact that some sergeants in the arresting party were Jews whose parents had been killed at Auschwitz following an order signed by, um, Höß. Höß was then turned over to the IMT because the defense of Ernst Kaltenbrunner wanted him as a witness. Höß described this:

"...imprisonment with the IMT was like staying in a health spa."

He was then handed over to stand trial in Krakow, where he described his first weeks in prison there as "quite tolerable". But later it turned sour, and he and other prisoners were mistreated. However, the prosecutor's office intervened, which Höß commented on:

"I have to openly confess that I never would have expected to be treated so decently and so kindly in a Polish prison as I have been since the intervention of the prosecutor's office.

Note that all of the above is from the same book previously mentioned - Legions of Death by Rupert Butler. This discussion essentially confirms the denier mindset - take a source; bring it forward when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.WilliamH (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion essentially confirms the denier mindset - take a source; bring it forward when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

Did you learn of the denier mindset by thoroughly studying their works, or by reading something about them?

The topic at hand was torture, and it is clearly established that he was tortured to extract an testimony, but in spite of that, many people always try to dodge the issue, either by simply denying the torture, or as in your case justifying it by mentioning that Höß allegedly gave an order to kill the sergeants parents. It doesn't matter why he was tortured or by whom: He was tortured to extract his testimony!

As to your quote of Höß in which he describes being "treated so decently and so kindly in a Polish prison", one should keep in mind that he wrote that, um, in a Polish prison.62.226.9.228 (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, funnily enough. Reading their works and observing their methods that culminate in discussions like is exactly how I learnt about Holocaust denial. You are citing the book in question as proof that Höß was initially treated unacceptably (treatment which I personally find unacceptable). Yet in the same paragraph, you write that Höß's order - which sheds light on why the arresting sergeants may not have been inclined to restrain themselves - is merely an "allegation". Typical Holocaust denial "scholarship" - 1. take a source, 2. bring it forward when it matches your view point, 3. scorn it/ignore it when it doesn't.
It is obvious that if Höß's Polish captors had actually conspired and tortured him with intention of forging his memoirs in their entirety, they would not have let him reference any sort of mistreatment in them. It would appear that such logic hasn't deterred certain individuals from making untenable propositions, then again, neither has the disappearance of 1.1 million of the 1.3 million people deported to Auschwitz. WilliamH (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, funnily enough. Reading their works and observing their methods that culminate in discussions like is exactly how I learnt about Holocaust denial.

Funnily enough, I do not believe you. Maybe you read revisionist works, but then only to disprove them. Otherwise you wouldn't talk like this and realize that the Holocaust believers' actually do a lot of the stuff they accuse the Holocaust deniers of. See below for example... And, by the way, it is you who sparked this discussion, because... yeah why exactly? Someone asked to debunk the use of torture, I said it is not possible because he actually was tortured and then you started to explain it away. Face it: He was tortured. That's all I am saying here.

You are citing the book in question as proof that Höß was initially treated unacceptably (treatment which I personally find unacceptable). Yet in the same paragraph, you write that Höß's order - which sheds light on why the arresting sergeants may not have been inclined to restrain themselves - is merely an "allegation".

I didn't cite any book as proof in this paragraph but wrote that the torture "was clearly established" by which I meant that Höß as well as Butler mention it, that is, two independent? sources confirm it. The allegation of the Höß order is not confirmed by any other sources. If it is true, where is the signed order? I do not know of any such order, and until I do, it is only alleged by Clarke. Besides, I never said that any of the statements or books is proof of anything. But if one accepts them as such, one is inevitably confronted with some contradictions and other rather uncomfortable facts. Like: HE WAS TORTURED INTO CONFESSION.

It is obvious that if Höß's Polish captors had actually conspired and tortured him with intention of forging his memoirs in their entirety, they would not have let him reference any sort of mistreatment in them. It would appear that such logic hasn't deterred certain individuals from making untenable propositions, then again, neither has the disappearance of 1.1 million of the 1.3 million people deported to Auschwitz.

See, here again you are misleading and using Strawmen arguments. First, I did neither mention any conspiracy nor did I say somebody forged Höß's memoirs in their entirety. And then it is not obvious at all why Höß's Polish captors would not have let him reference mistreatment he suffered in English hands. And if the Polish prosecutors' office was involved with a forgery, it is not obvious why he shouldn't be allowed to mention the initial mistreatment in Polish captivity if he later praises the prosecutor's office. Unless you think you are more clever than the Polish prosecutors... But all this is speculation, and if you want to believe in the authenticity of his autobiography, you are free to do so. But then you at least have to admit that he was tortured by the British, and nothing more was said by me initially. This whole discussion is nothing more than a digression from that simple, single fact.

It would appear that such logic hasn't deterred certain individuals from making untenable propositions, then again, neither has the disappearance of 1.1 million of the 1.3 million people deported to Auschwitz.

Yeah, the use of ad hominem arguments is also rather widespread on the side of Holocaust believers. See the articles about Holocaust denial and Criticism of Holocaust denial for more examples of this.

Oh, by the way, who was talking of Auschwitz? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.30.93 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far I know Höß is the only witness who has been tortured. Could we not state that holocaust deniers use Höß specific case for making untue generalisations.

That would be an undue generalization as there were claims of torture by other defendants beside Höß, though his case is best documented, and the revisionist texts I am aware of talk about torture on a case to case basis and seldom in a generalized way.

You seem to be quite eager to have the revisionists proven wrong. May I ask why this is so? Is it because you already have a preconceived opinion of the whole issue? That would be another thing the deniers are often accused of but which can be found in believers at least as often. I wonder if and how much projection is at work in the criticizers of Holocaust denial... 62.226.30.93 (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the Nürnberg Trials did not use torture for two reasons. First, several people where acquitted by the Nürnberg Trials. In modern times people using torture typically presupposes the accused to be guilty meaning that he or she has no real chance of being acquitted. Second, the first I read making the claim of the Nürnberg Trials torturing witnesses was a pseudohistorian. I consider any claim about the past made by such a person suspect unless an honest historian makes the same claim. Now it seams like Rudolf Höß claimed to have been tortured. Is there any independent witness to this?

2009-08-18 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On deleting the Mein Kampf quote

I think you shouldn't cite something like this out of its context, because in this form this sentence is not true, and there is no such sentence in Mein Kampf:

"At the beginning of the Great War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas…then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain."


The original form is this:

"But in exact proportion as, in the course of the War, the German worker and the German soldier fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders, in exactly that proportion he was lost to the fatherland. If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, th sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

Hitler did not talk about future events, becasue in fact in WWI they used poison gas on the battlefields. After your quote of Ken McVay in this very sam article i find it very funny that you tried to use the same method.

I deleted the sentence and i don't think you should put it back.

Good Luck Editor 213.178.124.145 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.124.145 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody is stating that Hitler was talking about future events, rather, Hitler argues that a "preventitive" war against the Jews in 1914-1918 (by gassing them) would have saved Germany from defeat in World War 1. WilliamH (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think you should learn some more history, as in this case Hitler mentioned the chemical warfare the french used in WW1 against the German soliders. Also Hitler did NOT mention the Jews in general, rather the marxist communist leaders (see the word Marxist in the original sentence) who are mostly jewish, and about their attempt to make revolutions during WW1 in Germany after the revolution of 1917 in the Soviet Union. As you can see the "poison gas" in this sentence is a deceptive word, as this sentence has nothing to do with WW2 and gas chambers. Please find another sentence from Mein Kampf. You can find the full text as i did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_gas_in_World_War_I

213.178.124.145 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the quote verbatim with reliable sources, but for the second time, nobody is stating that Hitler was talking about a) future events and b) the gas chambers of WW2.
Note that you have made three reverts to this article in less than 24 hours. If you make another, you will have broken the three revert rule, and will almost certainly be blocked from editing. WilliamH (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence is still misleading, as i mentioned before Hitler did not talk about "Jews" but rather about mostly jewish "marxists" who they thought were responsible for the general unrest of Germany after WWI. But if you agree with me that this sentence has nothing to do with the Holocaust then i don't see the point why would anyone use this sentence in an articel about the Holocaust. In this form this sentence is better than it was, but it is still misleading, however i don't want to be banned just because i am right. I don't think Hitler mentioned anything about "gassing" them in this sentence, but of course you can use it out of its context just to provoe your opinion. But then again, it doesn't make it right.

Best Wishes 213.178.124.145 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Hitler "openly advocated the use of it [gas] against thousands of Jews"?62.226.5.165 (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that with "openly advocated" you probably meant what Hitler said in the above quote. But in fact he didn't advocate to use it against thousands of Jews. He spoke of the past. But this has already been mentioned.62.226.8.199 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC related to this article

For an RfC, that is obviously related to this subject, see: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: Should Holocaust denial be replaced by Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. --

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evidence_and_documentation_for_the_Holocaust&oldid=308690213"