Talk:Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would suggest always considering the source of a Talk: page comment before bothering to respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

Only if there are reliable sources making that criticism. I somehow doubt there are. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems hardly neutral to promote only one side of a debate. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

There's no "debate". There's the historical truth, and there's a handful of loons. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Eh? At what point do I make a claim, let alone a bold claim? .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to .V.'s Aunt Millie. My Aunt Millie is quite notable. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• Here is an enlarged version of this image. You may see the Nazi piping on the lapels and collars, as well as the Nazi eagle on the right breast. Most definitely German. Case closed. WilliamH (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This is not a 1950s Soviet uniform. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have realized. But I can't find an german replica neither. Thank You --87.194.3.52 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The entire controversy is bogus

I have just completed an examination of all the Almanacs from 1940 through 1951. Although the original Nizkor article is evidently sincere, BOTH its author AND the author of the question it complains about are correct. From 1941 through 1949, the World Almanac presented TWO SEPARATE tabulations of the world Jewish population. They happened to diverge very little until 1949. One was the Jews-only tabulation provided by the American Jewish Committee (so marked), and is the one Nizkor's author found. The other is an unsourced tabulation of world populations of all major religions. They appeared on widely separated pages and made no reference to each other. Each had its own separate pointers in the Index. After 1949, the Almanac discontinued its tabulation of world religious populations but continued carrying the Jews-only tabulation from the AJC, so the disparity is not found in later years.

The issue is bogus. Both sides are honest and accurate as far as the contents of the Almanac are concerned, although the attack on the "denier" is unfounded. Because of this, I plan soon to remove this part of the article entirely. When I do so, I will enter complete documentation of the entire issue. I do not know whether to enter it on my own Talk page, or on this page.--Joe (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Joe, that would be original research. We go with what reliable secondary sources say, we aren't supposed to construct arguments based on our own research of primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I think of it as a sub-article rather than a fork. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ...which is covered under Wikipedia:Splitting. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • that answers my question, thanks.  :-) --Ludwigs2 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Consider the following trial held by the Nazis just 2 years prior to the Nürnberg Trials:

According to the Berlin police, Van der Lubbe claimed to have set the Reichstag building on fire as a protest against the rising power of the Nazis. Under torture, he confessed again and was brought to trial along with the leaders of the opposition Communist Party. At his trial Van der Lubbe was sentenced to death for the Reichstag fire. The other four defendants (Ernst Torgler, Georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popov, and Vassili Tanev) at the trial were cleared. He was guillotined in a Leipzig prison yard on 10 January 1934, three days before his 25th birthday. He was buried in an unmarked grave on the Südfriedhof (South Cemetery) in Leipzig.

— Marinus_van_der_Lubbe

At that time, the official version was: Marinus van der Lubbe confessed to set the Reichstag on fire, four defendants were aquitted. Would you have lived then, you probably would have assumed the trial was fair and the confession made freely as four defendants were acquitted. But the contemporary (revisionists!) version is: Marinus van der Lubbe was tortured into confession, the trial was not fair, he was innocent and the Nazis set the fire themselves. 62.226.9.75 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case it is unclear if Marinus van der Lubbe made his first confession before or during torture. However, my main question is: are there any empirical evidence of any wittness being tortured during the Nürnberg Trials?

2009-08-23 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.155.69 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are no video tapes, only claims by people. And I am not aware of any independent medical examination of any of the prisoners. But even if there were, there are plenty of torture techniques that do not leave traces. Just ask the CIA, which, incidently, was also involved with the psychological warfare operations during and after WW2 (named OSS at this time).

In the end it's up to you what you want to believe. But it actually is quite simple: WW2 was the triumph of the army of light over the army of darkness, just like in The Lord of the Rings, which, incidently, was written during and after the war. There is no reason to believe the claims of evil Germans and many to believe the claims of the angelic Allies. And the fact that history is written by the victors doesn't mean that it is not true. 62.226.12.132 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Thanks for the link to Poison gas in World War I. It is an interesting observation to note that Hitler staunchly opposed using gas on the battlefield, but openly advocated the use of it against thousands of Jews. WilliamH (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

this crappy atricle clearly has an agenda

this isnt a fair and open-minded article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.155.123 (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

:) You must be new to Wikipedia and/or this topic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.9.79 (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Section order

The first full section of the article is "Denial as antisemitism"—thus the article starts of with name-calling, the gist being: "all those Holocaust deniers are nasty anti-Semites and neo-Nazis!" Even if true, this hardly seems judicious section placement. In effect, the article opens by seemingly validating a favorite point of the deniers,—that their opponents resort to ad hominem attacks and smears rather than disputing their claims with historical evidence.

I am not suggesting the section be deleted; I am merely suggesting that it should follow the sections containing historical criticism. This is the logical order: first present the historical criticisms of Holocaust denial, then the non-historical criticism which offers an explanation why (at least some) deniers maintain their position despite this historical criticism.

I have not yet edited the article to correct this defect, as,—given the sensitive nature of this topic,—I felt it prudent to first offer an explanation and provide time for comment before making such an alteration. --darolew (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

An edit carrying into effect the above proposal has now been made. --darolew (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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. --

Criticism of Criticism of Holocaust Denial

The following are some inaccurate or misleading statements I came along while reading the article. I trust that one wants to avoid these, especially when the article rejects the opponents "claims as being based upon flawed research, biased statements, and deliberately falsified evidence."

Hitler's involvement

The article states:

In a letter dated 1919 Hitler mentions that part of the ultimate aim of a strong national government must "unshakably be the removal of the Jews"

but - apart from that Hitler actually did not say that "the removal of Jews" is "the ultimate aim of a strong national government", but that it is the aim of the "antisemitsm of reason" of which only a strong national government is capable - I can't see why this statement is used in an article that attempts to criticize Holocaust denial, since, AFAIK, nobody denies that the Nazis wanted to remove the Jews nor that Hitler was involved in this. Unless "to remove" should here be taken as meaning "to kill", in which case the statement would be misleading since in this essay Hitler rather spoke of the exact opposite as he opposed what he called "antisemitism of reason" to one which is based on merely emotional grounds and which, as he says, inevitably leads to progroms. Here is what he actually wrote:

Und daraus ergibt sich folgendes: Der Antisemitismus aus rein gefühlsmäßigen Gründen wird seinen letzten Ausdruck finden in der Form von Progromen. Der Antisemitismus der Vernunft jedoch muss führen zur planmässigen gesetzlichen Bekämpfung und Beseitigung der Vorrechte des Juden die er zum Unterschied der anderen zwischen uns lebenden Fremden besitzt. (Fremdengesetzgebung). Sein letztes Ziel aber muss unverrückbar die Entfernung der Juden überhaupt sein. Zu Beidem ist nur fähig eine Regierung nationaler Kraft und niemals eine Regierung nationaler Ohnmacht. Source: Hitler's expertise

Tranlsation:

And this results in the following: The Anti-Semitism on pure emotional grounds will have its last expression in the form of progroms. But the Anti-Semitism of reason has to lead to the methodical legal combat and removal of the privileges of the Jew that he possesses in contrast to other aliens living in our midst. But its ultimate goal must unshakably be the removal of the Jews in general. Of both only a government of national strength and never one of national powerlessness is capable.

The statement:

On 30 January at the Sports Palace in Berlin, Hitler told the crowd:

And we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews.

is inaccurate, since, among other things, Hitler does not speak of "the complete annhiliation of the Jews (German: "totale Vernichtung der Juden")" but of "the annihiliation of Jewry (German: "Vernichtung des Judentums", whereas "Judentum" can be translated with either "Jewry" or "Judaism")". Here is what Hitler actually said:

Ich habe am 1. September 1939 im Deutschen Reichstag es schon ausgesprochen - und ich hüte mich vor voreiligen Prophezeiungen - daß dieser Krieg nicht so ausgehen wird, wie die Juden sich es vorstellen, nämlich daß die europäischen arischen Völker ausgerottet werden, sondern daß das Ergebnis dieses Krieges die Vernichtung des Judentums ist. Source: Hitler Speech, 1942-01-30

Translation:

"I've already said in front of the German Reichstag on the 1 September 1939 - and I avoid premature prophecies - that this war is not going to end as the Jews imagine it, namely with the uprooting of the European Aryan peoples, but the the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry.

The following is an especially misleading and often used citation which apparently is supposed to show that Hitler openly "confessed" his plans of killing the Jews:

In the following widely cited speech made on January 30, 1939, Hitler says to the Reichstag:

Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

Apart from that Hitler "confessing" a planned genocide in public would contradict the claim of the "current scholarship" of the secrecy of this genocide (see HDOT for example), it would become clear that, if the citation would be given in it's context, expecially in the context of its following two paragraphs, Hitler apparently did not speak of annihilation or extermination in the sense of killing but in the sense of destroying by means of enlightenment. Here are the regularly omitted paragraphs:

Denn die Zeit der propagandistischen Wehrlosigkeit der nicht-jüdischen Völker ist zu Ende. Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland und das faschistische Italien besitzen jene Einrichtungen, die es gestatten, wenn notwendig, die Welt über das Wesen einer Frage aufzuklären, die vielen Völkern instinktiv bewußt und nur wissenschaftlich unklar ist. Augenblicklich mag das Judentum in gewissen Staaten seine Hetze betreiben unter dem Schutz einer dort in seinen Händen befindlichen Presse, des Films, der Rundfunkpropaganda, der Theater, der Literatur usw. Wenn es diesem Volke aber noch einmal gelingen sollte, die Millionenmassen der Völker in einen für diese gänzlich sinnlosen und nur jüdischen Interessen dienenden Kampf zu hetzen, dann wird sich die Wirksamkeit einer Aufklärung äußern, der in Deutschland allein schon in wenigen Jahren das Judentum restlos erlegen ist. Source: Hitler Speech, 1939-01-30

Translation:

Because the time of propagandistic defenselessness of the Non-Jewish peoples is over. The national-socialistic Germany and the faschistic Italy possess those institutions that permit, if neccessary, to enlighten the world about a question that many peoples are instinctively aware of but which is only scientifically unclear. Momentarily Jewry might carry on its chivy in certain states under the shelter of the press, the cinema, the radio propaganda, the theater, the literature, etc. which are in its hands there. But if these people will once again succeed in hustling the masses of millions of the peoples in a war which is completely senseless for them and only serves Jewish interests, then the efficiency of an enlightenment will utter itself, under which in Germany alone Jewry will succumbed in a few years.

Nazi documentation

The statements

The Höfle Telegram was sent by SS-Sturmbannführer Hermann Höfle on January 11, 1943 to SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann in Berlin and detailed the number of deaths of Jews in the concentration camps. In the year 1942 alone, the telegram lists 1,274,166 Jews were exterminated in the four camps of Aktion Reinhard.

made in the article are wrong (or, if one wants to be mean, are "flawed research" or "falsified evidence") since the Telegram does not detail the number of deaths of Jews but is

[...] listing number of arrivals [...] Source: Hoefle Telegram

Also wrong is the statement:

Further, surviving Nazi documentation spells out their plans to murder the Jews of Europe (see the Wannsee Conference), [...]

since the Wannsee Conference protocols do not spell out any plans to murder the Jews of Europe, as anybody can verify by reading the documents, nor does any other "Nazi document" mention any "plans to murder the Jews".

Testimonies

The sentence

There are voluminous amounts of testimony from thousands of survivors of the Holocaust [...]

is misleading in an article about Holocaust denial, which is the denial of mass exterminations in gas chambers following a governmental program, since there are not thousands of surviviors that testified to have personally wittnessed these said mass exterminations.

Misleading is also the following sentence:

Holocaust deniers discount the testimony of officers claiming that these witnesses were tortured,[...]

since testimonies, as far as I know, are not discounted as being based on torture on a general but on a case to case base, and, even though Hoess memoirs are mentioned later on, it is omitted that in them he reports of his torture at the hands of the British and even explicitly states that his testimony was extracted under torture, therefore making the charge of torture of at least Hoess more than a claim of Holocaust deniers.

The statement:

[...] or that Rudolf Hoess allegedly signed a confession written in a language he did not understand (English)

confuses the issue, since, as far as I know the problem here is not that Hoess did not understand English (which he did), but that his confession is written a) not in his own handwriting and b) not in his native language. Apart from that, "Holocaust deniers" consider several other things problematic about the Hoess confession(s), as for example that they contradict each other.

Besides, the allegation

that the Nuremberg Trial did not follow proper judicial procedures

is not only made by Holocaust deniers but was and is also made by ordinary people (see Criticism of Nuremberg Trials for example)and, since the goal is to make Holocaust deniers look as bad and weird as possible, arguments which they share with good people should not be mentioned.

The next is a specially crude mistake (or is it "flawed research", a "biased statement" or even presenting "falsified evidence"?) which should be changed as soon as possible, lest Wikipedia becomes guilty of what it accuses others of:

Hearing about Holocaust denial compelled former SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröning to publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers, stating:

I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there.

I take it that this is actually the translation of the words uttered by Oskar Gröning that Rees gave in his book, though on (t)his webpage Gröning is quoted as having said:

I see it as my task, now at my age, to face up to these things that I experienced and to oppose the Holocaust deniers who claim that Auschwitz never happened. And that's why I am here today. Because I want to tell those deniers: I have seen the gas chambers, I have seen the crematoria, I have seen the burning pits - and I want you to believe me that these atrocities happened. I was there. Source: Transcript of Episode 6 of AUSCHWITZ: Inside The Nazi State

In any case, this is neither what Gröning, nor what the English translator said in the show, as anyone can easily verify by listening to the actual interview given by Gröning, where he said:

I see it as my task, now at my age, to face up to the things I experienced and to oppose the Holocaust deniers that claim that Auschwitz never happend. That's why I am here now today. Because I want to tell those deniers: I have seen the crematoria, I've seen the burning pits - and I want you to believe me that these atrocities happend. I was there. Source: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiuAM7zYhhs Video extract of Gröning interview on YouTube]

The actual statement of Gröning is hardly of any value to oppose Holocaust deniers, since Gröning neither mentions any gas chambers, nor does he seem to be familiar with their arguments (nobody I am aware of does "claim that Auschwitz never happend"), but does only speak of atrocities which is not the subject of "Holocaust denial".

That's it for now. I am not going to make any changes to the article myself, in part due to the delicate nature of the topic and in part because it won't be much of an article afterwards. 62.226.30.146 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Himmler's speeches and "ausrottung"

After reading the article again, I've realized that Wikipedia uses a wrong translation of the alleged Himmler speech:
Original:

Ich meine jetzt die "Judenevakuierung", die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. – ‚Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet’, sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse‚ 'ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir.'

Translation used by Wikipedia:

I am currently talking about the "evacuation" of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. 'The Jewish people is being exterminated,' every Party member will tell you, 'perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them.'

Apart from that "Judenevakuierung" ("evacuation" of the Jews) surely weren't quoted by Himmler, "steht in unserem Programm" is wrongly translated as "it's part of our plans". Since "Programm" is the party program, it must be translated as "it's written in our party program" or "it's part of our party program". The wrong translation is commonly used and is of particular importance because no such thing is written in the party program of the NSDAP. --62.226.16.134 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Concentration of cyanide

• "while cyanide residue was found in high concentrations in the delousing chambers, and lower concentrations in the homicidal gas chambers. This is consistent with the amounts required to kill lice and humans." Can anyone explain this? wjy would lower concenstrations kill humans while higher concentrations kill lice?--Myron Mumbles (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• I suppose ultimately the answer is evolution. Lice have a higher resistance to cyanide than humans do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely impossible. That's like saying that more rat poison would have to be injected into the bloodstream of a mouse to kill it than would a human. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• House mice and rats are closely related (both are in the subfamily Murinae) and their poison tolerances are to be expected to be similar. Man and insects are way way far apart in evolution and their last common ancestor lived way back in the Proterozoic and it is quite likely that their cyanide tolerances are different. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • 216's comment does provide a useful insight into the fact-deprived world of Holocaust deniers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It makes complete sense. It can take cyanide 16,000 ppm at exposures of 20 - 72 hours to kill lice, but it takes only 300 ppm a matter of minutes to kill human beings. WilliamH (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• The story alleges massive, one-after-the-other gassings. Even if the short time per alleged gassings was true as the Believers assert, that time would be multiplied by the number of gassings, thereby mandating extremely high cyanide residue....such residue does not exist. Remember, 500,000 people were allegedly gassed in Krema II alone, divide that by 2000 per gassing...and no massive residue? Forget about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.163.72 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Recycling discredited denialist talking-points? On the internet? Surely not. This issue is gone into in detail here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)