Holocaust Denial: Rhetoric or Actual Belief?

I don’t understand any of the “conspiracy therorists.” Like, Elvis is still alive, we didn’t really go to the moon, the government had President Kenndy shot, we blew up the trade center ourselves. Any act that would require many people to keep a secret can be dismissed as untrue. Just by human nature, you know darn well that someone is going to blab, give an exclusive interview, release a tell-all book or give a death-bed confession. I think what the psychiatrists say is true – people just want to believe that they know something that no one else knows.

My Grandma’s dingbat of a sister (who is still alive and is in her late 80’s) denies that Holocaust happened.

We don’t associate with her.

I always just think either political motivation (in a broad sense) or ignorance.

… or there is a third possibility: These people are just ignorant idiots.

People still believe in religion, astrology, homeopathy etc. This isn’t different.

I think it works the same way as other conspiracy theories and, more broadly, a lot of religious/cultish beliefs.

By denying the “mainstream” Holocaust, you cast yourself as prone to a special kind of knowledge that sheep/unbelievers lack, which makes you feel special.

These kind of beliefs also, in one way or another, support an authoritarian view of the world. Conspiracy theorists believe in a world controlled completely by a small cabal of elites with godlike powers. It is inconceivable to conspiracy theorists that bad things can just happen, emerging on their own (the holocaust, 9/11) without someone pulling the strings. Likewise, it’s inconceivable to religious people that life can just pop into existence; someone (God) must be pulling the strings.

Obviously there are tremendous differences between conspiracy theorists and religious people (most importantly—conspiracy theorists believe the authority is evil, religious people believe it’s worth worshiping). There are tremendous differences between Holocaust deniers and other conspiracy theorists. I don’t mean to say that they are morally the same. But I think the thought processes are very similar, and appear to be pretty common amongst us humans actually.

Not that I subscribe to the belief that the holocaust never happened, but since I’m open-minded enough to investigate alternate viewpoints instead of dismissing them if I haven’t heard them before, I watched this video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_pD4yk0gXs. What it’s about is a historian who merely says that SO FAR the evidence doesn’t support the popular version of the holocaust, NOT that it didn’t happen, and that if the evidence does show up, then he’ll say ‘well, I guess that’s that’. All he’s doing is reporting on what he’s been able to find so far. He’s been called anti-semitic for doing just that, but if what he says about there not being sufficient evidence so far is true, then there’s nothing anti-semitic about saying so.
After that video, I looked for more specifics on this viewpoint, because my mind hadn’t (and still hasn’t) been changed. What I found (in the multiple parts of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmNTIfoWNog and this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWCOjOj4RAU) was that there’s even more information that CASTS DOUBT on (not disproves) the official version of events, believe it or not.
I guess the obvious question is why would we all think the Holocaust happened one way if it might not have. Did someone lead us to do so on purpose, or was it a mistake? It sounds impossible for it to have been done on purpose, so massive would the hoax have to be, but when one employs critical thinking (and for those of you that don’t know what critical thinking is, I strongly urge you to watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg), it becomes obvious that we can’t prove that it was or wasn’t done on purpose. You might find the documentary Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land (about Israel) informative on the subject of how what information gets to us can be controlled and is demonstrably BEING controlled, and what motivation (namely, the license to claim Palestine) would be a possible guess at the motivation for anyone who knowingly misrepresented the facts about the Holocaust (remember, the formation of Israel was a direct result of the Holocaust. Again, not that I endorse the theory that the Holocaust didn’t happen). And no, this documentary is not anti-semitic and does not discuss the Holocaust, so you can safely watch it. It’s not ‘the jews’ pulling the strings with regard to the control of information. Clearly there is nothing in Jewish DNA that makes them genitically predisposed to behaving in a way that the rest of us wouldn’t.
Some people out there obviously will deny the Holocaust just because they’re racist, but as far as is evident, none of these videos that I’ve listed contain anyone who is doing that. What they contain is Holocaust revisionists, not Holocaust deniers. Employing critical thinking is not racist.

There’s another thing conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common: the idea that you can disprove a mainstream theory by finding little pinpricks of holes that “cast doubt” on it—rather than by supporting an alternate explanation.

So we have this guy, and we have 9/11 truthers who say that it must have been a setup because there’s “doubt” that the WTC could have fallen just by a plane collision, and we have creationists who say that evolution must be false because there’s “doubt” that the flagellum motor is reduceably complex.

Nevermind the mountains and mountains of evidence that support the mainstream explanation—if you can poke a few little holes (even if you miss!) and “keep an open mind,” why, suddenly everything looks suspect and maybe They really are trying to cover something up.

How about actually watching the videos I linked to and THEN posting a comment? And how about paying attention to the fact that I said I don’t disbelieve the official Holocaust story? You’re thinking of things in black and white: If I didn’t say I absolutely believe every single thing about it, that must mean that I’m saying I deisbeilieve it. Of course, if you had actually read what I wrote, you would realize that that’s not true. All I said is that the logical thing to do is: if you don’t have enough information to make a decision, just remain in the middle, and suspend judgement until a time when you DO have enough information. And I never said ‘if you keep an open mind everything looks suspect’, because obviously if I see a flimsy piece of evidence, I’m not going to give it any weight. If you actually knew what I was talking about, you wouldn’t have said that, because you would have to give me a specific example of what in those videos was flimsy. You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself if your first reaction to new information is that you’re so much smarter than whoever said it that you don’t need to investigate it at all to knowthat there’s nothing to it. And if that’s not how you think of yourself, then you’re unwittingly acting like it.

It’s coming up for Burns Night so I’ll give you a quote from the bard. “Facts are chiels that winna ding”

@guywithanaccountnow, I have a policy of not watching videos that people on Fluther link to in place of making arguments of their own.

As for your fence-sitting position, I’m sure you relish the thought that you’re “above the fray” and being skeptical as opposed to blindly believing one side or the other.

Can you explain, without linking to a Youtube video, what evidence leads you to believe that “we can’t prove that (the Holocaust) was or wasn’t done on purpose”?

Also, @guywithanaccountnow — just out of curiosity, do you believe that 9/11 was planned and executed by al-Qaeda?

I can explain what’s in the videos, but the reason I linked to videos is because it would take a long time to explain. And it’s not ‘my beliefs’ that the videos contain, it’s that of others, which is why the only way I was able to come across this information was by watching them. The info didn’t come from me. Therefore, you can safely watch them, and it won’t be ‘against your policy’. I told you, I don’t HAVE a position on this yet. If the people in the videos can be proven not to be credible, then I’ll have no problem with that.
By the way, what I meant to say on my post was not that we can’t prove the HOLOCAUST wasn’t done on purpose, I said if it turned out we were not being told the truth about it that we can’t prove that THAT would be being done on purpose or just be an honest mistake. Sorry about the confusion.

I think they actually believe it. It is completely ridiculous, the Germans themselves have meticulous records of much of the horrific homocidal crimes, and torturous experiments, and blatant theft that was committed. People who don’t believe the holocaust happened don’t care about proof or facts about anything. They want to believe it never happened because they are hateful sons of bitches.

Excuse my anger, but this topic just really gets me, it is so unbelievable.

Here is MattBrowne’s, who is a German citizen, recent post on a Q of mine:

If I remember correctly, I was in 8th grade when the Holocaust was part of our history classes. And again in 10th, 11th and 12th grade. Almost every senior of a German high school makes a field trip to one of the former concentration camps. In my case it was Dachau near Munich. When I was in the German army our company also visited Bergen-Belsen near Hannover. I also remember when our kids first talked about it at school and when we discussed it at home. Again and again it was about why, why, why did this happen. And whether Germans will ever be allowed to love their country again. I told my kids that they can be proud of today’s Germany if they help sustaining and improving a Germany that is totally different from the Germany of 1933–1945. I also told them that there are still many countries out there which glorify their past and hide their crimes, whether that is Japan or Russia or Turkey or Spain. Even today there are street names in Spain named after Franco, the fascist. Turkey suspended diplomatic relations with France just recently, because Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide and France is very outspoken about it.

Here’s a good overview of the Holocaust education in Germany. You might want to compare it with the slavery and segregation education in the US.
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/germanEducation.html
The concluding statement is this:
“The German government has in the past established bilateral textbook commissions in cooperation with education specialists from a number of foreign countries (including the U.S. and Israel). These joint commissions examine the school textbooks of both countries with reference to the treatment of the other country, and issue recommendations. The German-Israeli textbook commission, whose findings were published in 1985, has had a considerable influence on the treatment of Jewish life and Jewish history, including the Holocaust, in school textbooks in Germany. Recently, the Israeli education expert, Chaim Schatzker, who has examined German textbooks since the early 1960s, stated that although he was not entirely satisfied with everything he had read, the treatment of antisemitism as part of German history was adequate in general, and exemplary in some textbooks. He also noted that the Holocaust is treated extensively and in an uncompromising way in all textbooks. He added that the large majority of textbooks addressed the issue of responsibility and co-responsibility of German citizens during the Third Reich seriously and in detail.

Teaching social values and imparting the knowledge of the achievements and crimes that human beings are capable of are essential for nourishing a commitment to tolerance and democracy in young people. Holocaust education alone, however, like any ethics teaching, is not enough to eliminate the crime and intolerance that are bred by social dislocation. If the teaching of ethics were a panacea, there would be no thefts, no homicides, and no bias-related crimes—because all perpetrators were once taught not to steal, not to kill, and not to hate.”

Source

” They want to believe it never happened because they are hateful sons of bitches.”

I agree %100.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was tons of information that disproved Holocaust denial, that’s always what I thought. Anyone who denies the Holocaust is probably racist. I have heard certain information (that could itself be found to be untrue, who knows) that merely suggests that details of the Holocaust that most hold to be true may be misconceptions. I’m going to link to those videos, not explain their information, because I’m afraid that otherwise someone will think that the beliefs held by the people in these videos are my own. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_pD4yk0gXs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmNTIfoWNog, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWCOjOj4RAU

@guywithanaccountnow, I think you misunderstand the reasoning behind my “policy.”

You are not the only person to “outsource” your argument to an external site. It happens a lot. And I’ve noticed a trend—people who do this typically are conspiracy theorists are cultists. They are unable to support their position in their own words, so instead they tell me to “go read this website” or “go watch this Youtube video.”

If the author of a website or the creator of those Youtube videos would like to come on Fluther and have a debate with me, they are welcome to. In the meantime, I try to encourage people to make arguments in their own words. You should cite sources, of course. But if you are incapable of actually making your own arguments—or summarizing arguments you find interesting—then I don’t know why I should be expected to waste my (considerable) time reading or listening to people you claim are worth listening to.

Also, can you please answer my question on 9/11?

Number one, you’ll never know if they’re worth listening to if you don’t listen to them. Number two, I don’t even know that they are, I’m just saying that it’s important not to automatically reject information, because doing that is illogical. Number three, if you really want me to go over all the information, that’s going to take alot of time. I only have two hours a day on the internet, and that’s on MOST days. On Sunday and Monday I won’t at all, so writing all this down myself will get done at the end of the next few days. I’m also afraid that if I post these things myself I’ll be attacked by people who think that I’m expressing my own viewepoint, when I’m not, just that of others. If you really want me to write it all down, I would prefer to send you some sort of private message if at all possible.
And I haven’t looked into 9/11.
And just so you know, my internet time from now until Tuesday ends in 17 minutes.

@Qingu I don’t understand why you are being so harsh, @guywithanaccountnow was just posting some links to represent the nay sayers. No one has to read them if they aren’t interested in those opinions.

I can see Qingu crafting a respose, but if it’s to me, Qingu should know that I only have two minutes left before I’m automatically logged off, so I might not be able to respond until Tuesday.

@JLeslie, as you probably know by now, I do tend to be harsh with people like @guywithanaccountnow because they misrepresent a stance (skepticism) that is close to my heart.

I consider myself a skeptic, but that doesn’t mean I’m on the fence about every single historical claim from the moon landing to 9/11 to the Holocaust. Being a skeptic means you know what not to believe. It doesn’t mean you don’t believe anything for sure.

@Qingu I know. Usually I get a kick out of it. But it seems @guywithanaccountnow is a new jelly, low points, so I didn’t want you to scare him off too fast.

I’m sorry if the two of you don’t understand logic to a fuller extent. 99% of everything we think we know is taken on faith, so it’s only logical for us to think of ourselves as beginners on 99% of subjects. Socrates is generally held to have been a pretty cool guy, and that’s all he ever said. He had to drink poison over that. Was that fair?

All I see from you is the impression that you have some sort of logical or other high ground, but you never will have it if you don’t look into alternate viewpoints before defending your own. That’s the only way you can be sure your position is worthy of defending, or if it’s logical to present the issue as even having any definitive answers. If you won’t even do that, all you’re showing is arrogance. I would like to know whether Qingu’s statement, ‘skeptic means you know what not to believe’ takes into consideration the fact that you have to do RESEARCH first in order to KNOW anything, including what not to believe.

You’re also ignoring the fact that I was talking about SUSPENDING judgement until your research is done, not just never being sure. Of course, there probably will be subjects sometimes where you really can’t find sufficient evidence. But all that means is that you should still take to heart the lessons the subject in question would teach if true, even without yet knowing of its historical or other accuracy.

You act like the only reason anyone could speak of suspending judgement at all is that they must be DISbelievers, but I already said that that’s not what I’m doing. Were you listening? Sorry, but you seem to be seeing this in black and white, and there’s more than two sides to every story.

Another point you seem to be missing (and maybe that’s my fault) is that I’m not applying this attitude toward only certain historical events, but to everything. The subject I’m applying it to now is just one of the many logical extensions of that kind of philosophy. I wish you wouldn’t scoff at ideas simply on the basis of whether you already agree or not. I can certainly understand how something you haven’t investigated could SEEM faulty, but I would at least be humble enough to look into it to make sure.

It also occurs to me that you may need to experience an example of how this way of thinking can be useful. If you had something in your life happen like that, maybe you would understand better. I’ll give you an example from mine:

I first realized the importance of reserving judgement when I had someone in my life who wouldn’t even let me finish any of my sentences before explaining why I was wrong. What he didn’t know, of course, was that if he had heard my entire sentence, it would have completely taken apart his supposed debunking of my point.
These were things from MY life, that only I would know. He was so arrogant that he actually thought that he would somehow magically know these things better than me, though. It wasn’t an honest difference of opinion, he was just trying to rub stupid peoples’ faces in how much greater than them he was. It was completely insensitive, completely undesreved, and downright stupid.
This is why I know that no matter how good it may make you feel to tear someone down who says something different than what you want to believe, it’s always too much of a risk not to give someone the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t prove where they’re coming from, you have no right to assume that it must be somewhere bad. It’s not fair to how they really might be to not give them a chance to show it. You might imagine yourself as being on the side of what’s right, but deliberately hurting people’s feelings is wrong no matter what. If you don’t realize that’s what you’re doing, well, that’s what I’m saying: you need to put much more thought into things.

You might be surprised at the kind of things you find if you do. And you’ll never know you won’t be surprised unless you actually try. You may have heard the perspective that you won’t be surprised, but you have to realize that there may be bias or misinformation behind what you’ve heard, and that it can’t automatically be trusted, no matter how many times you may have heard it repeated. The only way to find out if there is bias or misinformation behind it is…you guessed it, to see for yourself.

@guywithanaccountnow Ok, now I’ll do it instead of @Qingu…I don’t know what the hell you are talking about with your last post. There are teams and teams of people who tell incredibly horrific stories about Nazi occupation, the murders, the scientific experimentation, the seizing of personal property? I personally know a man, Tony Cardinale, who was an American soldier during WWII, he is not Jewish, who was there when camps were finally opened up to free the Jews imprisoned there, and they moved across Germany freeing Jews held in various places or in transport. I have a letter from my great uncle who fought with the American Army on the European front. I have seen the numbered stamps burned into the arms of parents and grandparents of friends of mine. I have heard the personal stories of people who as children were given away by their parents, hoping they would not be captured. And, again, even the Germans agree to all of these things. There is no denying what happened.

@JLeslie: So I have heart my grandparents talk about their feelings and their history in that dark years in Germany and in Europe. They had remebered the disappearing jewish shops… jewish neighbours… the violence against believers of that religion.

@ml3269 Are you agreeing with me? I don’t think I am sure I understand your point.

@guywithanaccountnow, I get that you are not singling out the Holocaust but are simply applying hyper-skepticism to everything you hear (that’s why I asked what you thought about 9/11).

The question you need to answer is, when do I do enough research to reach some sort of conclusion on a given subject? I agree that the amount should be non-trivial, but you are setting the bar so high that it has resulted in what appears to be intellectual paralysis. You claim to not know anything for sure, 99% of what you believe is taken on faith; you are not willing to say whether you believe major historical events actually happened or are conspiratorial figments.

You seem to think your “open-mindedness” is something to be proud of; I just see it as another kind of willful ignorance. We have tools to figure out what is true, what is not true, and what we probably won’t ever know, and I think you should use them.

A criminal offense.

You may not recall the part where I said we should take to heart the lessons an event would teach us if it was true even if we can’t prove it is or not, but that’s what I would do. So, it doesn’t result in intellectual paralysis, unless I don’t get what you mean by that. That seems to answer your questions about the sense in using this kind of thinking. An answer that simple may seem hard to apply to an issue as seemingly complicated as the matter of how we know what’s true, but like I said, the sense in it is much more apparent to someone who has experience using that kind of thinking. I wouldn’t discourage you from giving it a try and seeing the results yourself. When you do that, it becomes apparent that the very nature of reality is so far from being proven understood that the only appropriate response by someone as new at it as us is to acknowledge that there’s much to be learned. We’re all on a journey, and it’s far from over. Life itself continues to be a scientific endeavor. That’s what I’m talking about, not just historical events.

If that does result in an intellectual paralysis of sorts, the idea is for it to be temporary. We have everything to gain, so there’s no sense in not starting down the road to what may be enlightenment.