Debating with deniers

Subject: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:40 PM

A very inflammatory conference is being organised in
Iran to deny that the Holocaust or Shoah ever happened,
apparently as a way of testing Western ideas of free speech.


   Is there anywhere where one can safely debate the denial
with deniers? safely in the sense of being able to debate
without having to fear for oneself.

   I realise,of course, that doing so could well be a total
waste of time and effort (even more than contributing to
our very own 'closed threads' - er - thread.)

It is worrying, as well, that there are so many in the
world who know nothing about what happened in Germany,
and ignorance is fertile ground onto which denials and
conspiracy theories fall and flourish






      Ivor.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:43 PM

Sorry, forgot to prefix with BS - hopefully this'll soon go to the right place, I don't know how to do that.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:49 PM

The deniers can't be argued with, since they start out with a predetermined conclusion, which they consider to overrule any factual data that may be given. No matter what facts you give them, they will take the position that you are deluded. Give it up.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM

There is a dilemma here.

On the one hand entering into a debate with people who deny that the holocaust took place can be taken as implying that the deniers have a case worth debating.   

On the other hand refusing to enter into a debate, and setting up laws against holocaust denial, can also be seen as implying that they have a case, which has to be suppressed, because it might win in a debate.

A further complication enters into it, when the matter of the reality of the holocaust of Jews gets elided with other issues, such as the fate of other groups of victims and the question whether this is sometimes marginalised; and also the impact awareness of the holocaust continues to have on the way actions of Israel in relation to Palestine and on Palestinians have been interpreted.

These are very different issues. Unlike the matter of the reality of the holocaust, there are genuine questions to be explored and debated.

However it is evident that holocaust deniers are liable to seek to associate such questions with their own perverse enterprise, as a way of getting some credibility. And sometimes it seems that other people, who would sooner avoid these issues, prefer to see them associated with holocaust denial, as a way of avoiding them.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 03:34 PM

A private debate is of course a waste of time, but making it public certainly isn't.

Your target audience isn't those who have made up their minds one way or the other, but those who, through some travesty of education, are ignorant of the truth.

The danger of the debate being repressed is that there are potentially more people who are ignorant of the truth, and therefore there are more people to recruit from.

In a public forum like this one, it is therefore essential to explain yourself fully, carefully and politely, lest you alienate someone who might otherwise have been swayed by your argument.

BBC world service, CNN etc have a responsibility to ensure that this information never dies.

The big mistake is to take for granted peoples knowledge, understanding, understanding and agreement.

The next mistake is to get upset when you are surprised to discover that you have made the first mistake.

Knowledge is like anything else. It decays and dies unless it is nurtured.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Adrianel
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 08:47 PM

These people have FAITH, and no amount of (logical) argument or evidence will convince them to change their minds. In the same way, I've found it useless to try to argue religion with someone who has FAITH. Because of the FAITH, they know they are right, and will not be swayed. As Chesterton (?) said of the two women having a discussion across the street, each from her own front door, "They're arguing from different premises, they'll never agree".

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denier_%28measure%29

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:07 PM

It depends how much patience you have, I guess...

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:18 AM

The Iranian fundies are being provocative, and they are succeeding in provoking. Give the whole thing the attention it deserves.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:21 AM

And I thought this was about Tights and the thickness thereof !

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:00 AM

I listened to an interview on CBC with a gentleman in my home town who survived Auschwitz; who previously had never made it public knowledge that he was a survivor of the concentration camp. One of his customers was talking to him about his daughters school running a project on WW2. When he mentioned he was at Auschwitz, the customer persuaded him to talk to her class, he reluctantly did; something which for him raised so many memories of pain and suffering he never wants to do it again. He reluctantly gave the short interview to CBC to explain why he does not care to recall his experiences. Living proof, but what a hell of a way to live, non of his family survived, only him, and he wonders why every day of his life. I read the letters and reports of so called Doctors Finke and Rascher at Dachau who conducted the most horrific experiments on live human beings. There is a duty to debate with deniers everywhere, Lest We Forget and are forced to relive this history.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:38 AM

"Knowledge is like anything else. It decays and dies unless it is nurtured."
The burning of Witches gradually dissipated during the Age of Enlightenment, as people began to question the reality of many long-held religious beliefs. Estimates on the number of victims range from 3,000 (from a Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000.

Christian invaders systematically murdered tens of millions of Aboriginal people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. The exact number is unknown. Natives were murdered by warfare, forced death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, intentional and accidental spread of disease, poisoning, the promotion of suicide through the destruction of their cultural and religious heritage, etc. Even today, Canadian Natives have the highest suicide of any population group in the world.

Let's not forget the Aboriginals of Australia, or the Congolese, or the Hereros(Animists)or the Armenians or the Russians!

Holocausts are not exclusive to the Jews.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 12:53 PM

I appreciate your first responses,and,as a Jew,I
quite agree with 3refs that there have been other
exx. of genocide,also too terrible.

I still look forward to hearing from anyone who
can answer my question about where it might be possible
to have the debate safely. I don't want to show my
hand in advance, but I have the start of an approach
where I won't be offering facts,evidence or logical argument.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 01:19 PM

No point debating with 10 deniers. One cross word and they ladder up to your knickers.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM

"I don't want to show my hand in advance, but I have the start of an approach where I won't be offering facts, evidence or logical argument."

Well if your going to offer up yourself, you might want to think about what happened to the guy who tried it a couple of thousand years ago.(arrh)

If you aren't going to offer up proof, what is left, Faith?

I think all you could debate is the number of lives that were taken, and we'll never really know the extent of any of history's genocides.
Is there anywhere on the planet, at any given time in our history, where man has not tryed to wipe out entire races or enslaved them?

The question shouldn't be "if" it happened it should be "why" it happened!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM

Thousands died in front of our eyes

English translation of an interview with an Auschwitz survivor (more interviews with eye witnesses in the links at the end of this interview)

You should realise that you can't debate and win with the deniers. They have responses to each document or argument. They are (what in science is called) paradoxers. Whatever for you is proof isn't for them. They do not debate the way you are used to debate, so you will only be frustrated, unless...

...you realise that those who listen to such a debate are your target group. Those who want to be convinced before believing what they have learned. Those who have made the experience that sometimes they have not been told the truth. Those who rather believe the minority. In your debates with deniers these basically good people are the group you are really talking to. The deniers will not be convinced by any argument. But if you convince only 10% of those who listen to the debate you have done a great job.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM

"Holocausts are not exclusive to the Jews."

mmm hmmm

"Is there anywhere on the planet, at any given time in our history, where man has not tryed to wipe out entire races or enslaved them?"

mmmm hmmm


All very interesting, but how does it help us to come to a conclusion about whether it is worth arguing with holocaust deniers?

Are you saying that because these things are true that therefore we should not make a fuss when a nation/state sanctions a bogus investigation into whether the holocaust happened or not?

We aren't talking about a playground prank here, we are talking about a politically significant statement of ideology. I am not a jew, but I am insulted by the crass nature of such a stunt since I am a human and it was a crime by humans against humans and serves as evidence of what we are capable of given the right brainwashing.

What is your point?

Why say what you said?

Read the fucking question and the original post and try to give an intelligent answer and not just a "clever" one!

And as for you "ignore them and they'll go away" advocates, I presume you are aware that that is precise;ly the attitude that allowed the original holocaust to happen.

What about young angry muslims in Indonesia, Pakistan, the UK, USA, North Africa, Central Asia from Chechnya through to China etc etc etc ... Intelligent, and subject to persuasion (just like young people everywhere).

If they here only one side of the debate, what point of view do you think they are likely to form.

Now I don't believe in Panic and this information doesn't inspire it in me. What does freak me out is the glib, smug, dissociated, arrogant and offhand way that people are willing to accept emanations such as that one from Iran.

If you don't care then fine, but if your response is "bloody whinging Jews complaining again" then you need to buck your ideas up pronto.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM

Well said lox.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM

Leadfingers - yeah, I thought it was about the thickness of tights too, when I saw the title thread, but then I opened the thread and realised it was about why I never knew my grandparents.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Peace
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM

Game, set, match!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 03:09 AM

3refs - what is left? The answer is questions.

    I have at least one question, maybe two, that ought to
give deniers a huge problem.


    While in no way wishing to compare, I leart a bit from
the broadcasting of some Platonic dialogues by the Beeb
(BBC) in the 60s.

    The beauty of Socrates' approach was to test to
destruction the arguments of his students by questions.
Mind you, his students are made to answer honestly and
directly, not much like real people today.


    I quite agree,Wolfgang that if spectators learn summat,
that would make it alll worthwhile. The evidence of the
film Twelve Angry Men gives me hope in any discussion.
Dealing with some people in real life does make me give
up, too.


    I think I take it that no-one knows anywhere online
where debating with deniers is available ?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:30 AM

Can't speak about elsewhere but Witches were not burned at the stake in England or in Scotland, they were tried for the crime they had committed and sentenced accordingly, normal sentence was death by hanging. Burning at the Stake was reserved only for heretics.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:19 AM

As opposed to be being tried for the crime they have been accused of committing.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:23 AM

Holocaust Denial

The link list at the end of the article gives several sources. The Frank Miele link goes to a post at a website, where this discussion seems to be held sometimes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: jacqui.c
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM

Kevin - unfortunately the Whitechapel Murders have become something that some people are enthusiastic about. Probably because they were never solved and were played up by the press of the day. Anyawy, there are gided tours of the area nowadays in addition to the regular rehashes by the press and the books and the films.......

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: jacqui.c
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM

Sorry - put the above post on the wrong thread - senior moment!!!!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 AM

Deja vu!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:19 AM

No, I guess you can't debate the deniers!

Perhaps the revisionists?

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 01:02 PM

All history is largely a matter of revising previous history, as further information emerges or existing information gets examined in new ways.

The suggestion that a final account of any historical event is possible, so that any fresh look at it is heretical is not compatible with the study of history.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:05 PM

Depends wat you mean by a debate.

Ideally, a debate is an intelligent and constructive exchange of arguments intended to establish a clearer understanding of an isue.

Sometimes though, debating is about making your opponent look like a donkey.

Anyone who insists on holding onto an untenable point of view in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, is asking for a bruising intellectually.

Again, the point isn't to change their minds, but to convince neutral observers that deniers have no leg to stand on and that they and their weak position are laughable and not worthy of the space they occupy.

Invite them onto the radio and assist them to make fools of themselves.

It's all about who's listening.

PS

A revisionist historian is one who argues that the established view of history is wrong and that a different version is right.

Someone who denies the holocaust is doing just that.

The distinction is false.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:13 PM

A carnivore is an animal who eats other animals.

A lion is an animal who eats other animals.

A hedgehog is an animal who eats other animals.

Therefore the distinction between lions and hedgehogs is false.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:24 PM

in the context that they are all carnivores, yes.

In the context of people who deny the holocaust, whether they are "revisionist" or "deniers", also yes.

The deniers wear red underpants, the revisionists wear french negligee.

That distinction is irrelevant.

So your example above falsely portrays my logic and falsely defends 3refs

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM

McGrath

In fact, my point was in fact that a holocaust denier IS revising the established view and IS therefore revisionist.

So unlike your example, there aren't two seperate entities to compare in the way that you have compared Lions and Hedgehogs.

To use your way of looking at things, a better analogy would be to look for a distinction between Lions and Cats.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:07 PM

The point is, people who deny the holocaust are liars, not real historians.

The fact that enormous numbers of people were systematically murdered as a deliberate act of policy by the Nazi regime, and that Jews were a particular target selected in this process - that is not open to genuine question. And that is where Holocaust Denial fits in.

But real historians do have to be open to the process of revising existing understandings of history to take account of information that was not previously available or was not taken into account. "Revisionism" is a reasonable label for this process.

This means that holocaust deniers have a motive to try to disguise their lies as "revisionism", and they do this.

This kind of thing has an effect of blurring the distinction between genuine historians who are honestly re-examining historical data and people such as holocaust deniers who have completely different motivations. "Revisionism" gets used as a dirty word for a dirty enterprise.

However there is still a place for investigating the Holocaust - how it came about, what exactly happened, what were its consequences, and how has the narrative that emerged about it affected subsequent events. And all these are topics where a kind of "revisionism" can be appropriate - and it would be wrong to use that term as a way of excluding this kind of investigation.

The same kinds of issues arise in relation to other historic crimes and disasters, which have rightly taken on a major role in the way descendants of survivors have interpreted the world and have acted, such as the Slave Trade or the Irish Famine.

Basically, there is a revisionism that seeks to reveal the truth, and a revisionism that seeks to conceal the truth - and the distinction between these two matters.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:28 PM

The Iran conference, of course, was designed to tweak America's nose.
Israeli Jews are present (although that means little). A commission has been appointed to study the holocaust, but my guess is that it will die in the months to come.
Almadinejad has somewhat moderated his statements; his latest- "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soom the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."

Aside from the rhetoric, the moderate Muslim press supports the existence of the holocaust. 'Al Jazeera' quotes German historians, who believe some 6 million were killed, quoting from original Nazi documents.

http://english.aljazeera.net/News is a good source of Middle Eastern Muslim news and opinions.

A poll currently running shows that 44% believe the Hezbollah will topple the Lebanon government.
53% believe Pakistan is equipping the Taliban.
65% believe that reforms by Turkey, aimed at EU membership, will continue.
The polls may be unrepresentative, but they are not designed to lead to a desired answer (think Lou Dobbs, CNN).

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:54 PM

In the faux holocaust "did it or didn't it happen" debate, their are two camps.

Those who say it didn't are and have been known for a while as "the revisionists"

Perhaps that is the distinction you wish to draw attention to, or would you rather assert your right to be a pedant despite the risk of becoming facetious.

I Think you are sincere McGrath, but I think you are slightly irritated by me and you are quick to engage me sometimes on points that you otherwise might overlook.

This side argument has already taken up too much of our time.

Let's check out wolfgangs links and get our teeth stuck in where we can bite some really meaty chunks outof a few genuine arseholes

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:58 PM

A revisionist historian is one who argues that the established view of history is wrong and that a different version is right.

Simplistic, and absolutely wrong. Shows an absolute ignorance of historians and historiography.

ALL history is 'revisionist' in the sense that points of view change as time advances and additional primary documentation continues to be made available. Question is, can the conclusions drawn be supported by believable evidence & historical fact.

As has been stated elsewhere, you don't hear people complaining much about "revisionist dentistry".

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM

I refer you to the post just before yours

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:10 PM

greg,

So does that mean you agree with 3refs that we should debate the revisionists or not?

Context is very important you know.

Especially for a historian.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:19 PM

You cannot debate the deniers because their entire point is to use a debate with you to further advance their ideas.
A better strategy would be to meet them with Ridicule and Mockery.

EG

David Duke is saying these things in order to deflect attention to the fact that he molests mountain goats. (or something equally outrageous.)

Etc

Now it is he who is on the defensive, and he will never be able to advance a denier argument without putting a companion idea (accusation of mountain goat molestation) into the head of his audience members.

These people will go away faster in the face of laughter then in the face of indignation.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:29 PM

Absolutely.

Just look at Nick Griffen!

Remember the BNP broadcast where he was standing next to the spitfire?

The nervous ticks in his face?

Not so much mountain goats as mounting goats.

The BNP will never be a force in the UK as long as they remain a laughing stock.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:41 PM

Those who say it didn't are, and have been known for a while as "the revisionists"

And that is precisely what I see as dangerous. Because assimilating the terms "Holocaust denial" and "revisionism" plays into the hands of the Holocaust deniers.

The danger is that every time some historical investigation throws up evidence that some aspect of the accepted narrative is wrong - even relatively minor details - this will be presented as somehow strengthening the case of the Holocaust deniers. The logic being that in this instance "revisionism" has been demonstrated to be correct - and "revisionism" has been identified as equivalent to Holocaust denial.

Sorry if I annoy you with this, lox. I don't think the distinction I am making here is in fact pedantic.
......................................

One example of a situation where a kind of revisionism has been relevant is the one which has insisted that more attention be given to the genocide of Roma (gypsies) in the Holocaust.

I remember talking to someone who had told me how, on a visit to a Holocaust memorial, he came across someone weeping with indignation at the fact that this genocide was mentioned alongside the Holocaust of Jews, because she felt that somehow this was an intrusion and an insult.

The point is, there is scholarly history, and there is popular history, and sometimes the popular history fails to take into account aspects of the scholarly history - and the popular history is the one that can shape the world.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:49 PM

And there is great importance attached to that kind of pursuit.

In fact if you check out the "post holocaust Germany" thread, you will see that it is currently happening right under our very noses.

And very grateful too we are to both Azizi and Peter Schaum I have no doubt.

Please read 3refs post earlier, to which I had initially responded, to understand where my initial "false distinction" problem arose from.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:50 PM

Today in Tehran Iran, the only ambassador of the USA was David Duke. He shared the podium with President Amadijad.

Their Jew hating rhetoric has calmed down a bit. Instead of calling for the death of all Jews in Isreal they actually suggested moving Isreal to Alaska. (yes they actually said that)

Having lost innumerable aunts and uncles in the holocaust I share none of the antisemetic attitudes of these extremist whackos...or even the minor subconcious antisemites like Mel Gibson.

HOWEVER I did say more than once that if it came down to a massive nuclear war or moving moving Isreal to South Carolina, I would be in favor of Fort Sumner guarding the port of New Haifa.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:52 PM

The land of ... erm ... snow?

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM

Sorry,

Sould have writen Wilfried Schaum.

Please accept apologies

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:49 PM

minor subconcious antisemites like Mel Gibson

What's a SUBCONSCIOUS antisemite, please? For that matter, what's a semite?

Thank you

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:32 PM

McGrath said "The point is, people who deny the holocaust are liars, not real historians."

Well, I don't think you oppose a point of view by immediately denouncing your opponents as liars. These people are very likely deluded, but they may fully believe what they're saying.

There is in fact a body of work that supports the revisionist view of the Holocaust. A search online will reveal numerous references to the "holocaust Myth", including one from Pravda, the official Russian periodical.

The crux of the revisionist argument boils down to the following, as far as I can tell:
1) The wholesale murder of Jews in German camps was never state policy, and there is no written and signed command by Hitler which states this.
2) It is true that Jews were unwanted in Germany, but the program was one of deportation, not slaughter, with many Jews being sent to the USSR, etc
3) The gas chambers were never used for execution. Zyklon B found in the camps was a standard pesticide used in the German Army for delousing.
4) The figure of 6 million deaths is grossly exaggerated. An example is shown with Auschwitz. Initial estimates of dead were in the 1-1 1/2 million at Aushwitz, but were later revised to 300-400,000, but without any corresponding adjustment in the total 6 million figure.

On and on, and, well, you get the picture. My point is, these people are not just denying that anything happened. They are fairly specific, with points that I believe need to be addressed in argument. We can never assume that Truth can be defended by simply shouting "Lies!" We sometimes must do battle on the field of rational discussion.
On CNN, Glen Beck said "the Iranian President is trying to figure out if the Holcaust happened? Here's a clue...rent Schindler's List."
That kind of argument is idiotic. A movie can be many things, moving, transcendent, revelatory...but it isn't necessarily true. Watch "Triumph of the Will."

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 PM

Pravda on the "Holocaust Myth"

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:27 PM

Not only is there living proof, there are meticulous detailed documents supporting evidence wcjich is available.

The death register from the Mauthausen concentration camp contains rows of neatly printed names. The times of execution are each two minutes apart. The date is April 20, 1942 -- Adolf Hitler's 53rd birthday.

"Every second minute there is another prisoner and this goes on for pages," says Udo Jost, an archivist at the International Tracing Service (ITS) which looks after the world's biggest collection of documents from World War Two.

"They shot 300 prisoners for Hitler's birthday present: not just shot but then registered them by name."

Millions of documents, like this register from the camp near Linz in Austria, sit in the cellars of a converted hotel in the central German town of Bad Arolsen, testament to the chillingly efficient bureaucracy of the Nazi regime.

Some 17 million people are named in the documents -- those who were murdered, those who survived the concentration camps and then the millions who were forced to work on farms and in factories under Hitler's employment policies.

The ITS, under the management of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has been administering the archive and answering queries for around 60 years. Until now, Germany had staunchly opposed opening the archive to a wider public.

But under pressure from Holocaust groups, authorities said last month they would allow historians to use the archive, and also give a digital copy of the 47 million documents it contains to each of the 11 nations which oversee the work of the ITS.

The 11-country board is to meet starting on Tuesday to alter the ITS' mandate, the first step in the process of unlocking the store. Changing the mandate requires unanimous approval.

Much of the archive's material is highly sensitive.

"Believe me," Jost says pointing to drawer after drawer of workers' documents in the basement of the ITS building, "there was no firm of any size which did not use slave laborers."
Mind-numbing bureaucracy

The racks of green movable shelves on the second floor of the archive look like those one might expect to find in a tax office or a library.

The contents, gathered since the end of World War Two from archives across Germany, Russia and the former communist eastern European bloc, have never been seen by the public.

A pink "imprisonment order" details how a Pole ended up in a concentration camp for his affair with a German woman; a sheaf of papers neatly typed by a Gestapo officer records a woman's protest at the sterilization of her mixed-race son, Gregor.

The detail is often absurd.

A lined page with neat handwriting tells how prisoners at the Gross-Rosen concentration camp in modern Poland, were obliged to search each other for lice.

"Block 8, 14 January 1945, 784-strong. 37 lice found in 13 prisoners," the note reads, listing the affected inmates.

"One laughs but in this case, this individual was recorded as having one louse on this day in this camp," Jost says, pointing to a name on the list.

"At least we can confirm that on this day he was in Gross-Rosen and for that fact alone then he would have got 7,500 euros ($9,539) from the forced labor fund."

The German government and industry started paying compensation to slave workers and other Holocaust survivors around five years ago.

Not only does the archive contain information on concentration camps like Auschwitz and Belsen, as well as the fates of millions of Jews, Roma and other victims of Hitler's regime, it also contains lists of postwar displaced persons.

Arthur Berger, an adviser at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, said this area had yet to be researched.

"The basic outlines of history are not going to be changed by this," he told Reuters. "But it is the details, the human interest in these stories which is so important. There is a new richness that is added and that is something that was missing."
Painstaking work

Trucks full of paperwork arrived at the center from across the Allied zones after the war and a team of over 1,000 sifted through them to create a complex card register of all the names.

Three rooms alone are stacked full of cardboard drawers, each containing hundreds of cards marked with name after name.

Among these are former chancellors Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt, listed under his given name Herbert Frahm. Both men opposed Hitler.

Archivists believe Bad Arolsen serves to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive.

"Working here you get a different sense of this period in history and also of the responsibility which we have as the children born in the postwar period ... to keep memories alive of these people, these victims," 52-year-old Jost said.

Decades after the end of the war, the requests for information continue to pour in. This has created a backlog at Bad Arolsen and added to the calls for the archive to be opened up to other organizations.

"They are three years behind in giving answers," Berger said. "The survivors are elderly now and in their 80s and 90s and so they deserve answers quickly.

"We owe a moral debt to the families and every country has to try to help them find out finally what happened to their relatives."

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM

Stuff like "there is no written and signed command by Hitler" is really pretty insignificant either way. Neither is the question of precise numbers.

The core fact, proven to the hilt, is that there was a sustained and policy of genocide of Jews, Roma and other people seen as undesirable by the Nazi state. That is the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial is about seeking to deny that.

When the term is used in a much wider sense, to include any kind of speculation or investigation into the details of what happened and how it happened, that plays into the hands of Holocaust deniers.
............................

The evident self-defeating motive behind the Iran conference is apparently a belief that, if it is accepted the Holocaust happened, this somehow implies an acceptance of the way in which the state of Israel was established, and of the fate of the Palestinians. So Holocaust denial is seen as a way of challenging the right to exist of Israel.

In reality it is the other way round. By linking the Palestinian cause to Holocaust denial the organisers weaken it. It implies accepting the logic by which the Holocaust justifies what happened to the Palestinians.

The truth is the Palestinians were knock-on victims of the Holocaust, rather like driver caught up in a motorway pileup, injured by a vehicle propelled into theirs by another vehicle. No point in denying the existence of the pile-up, and imagining that the primary responsibility for the crash was the person driving the car that actually crashed into theirs.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:28 PM

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/fi_fset.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143&ArticleId=44&MediaId=183

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 03:48 PM

Well, I don't think you oppose a point of view by immediately denouncing your opponents as liars.

You do if their "point of view"[sic] is in reality nothing but a tissue of lies & propaganda.

Engaging them in debate- a supposedly rational, fact-based discussion- is absolutely pointless.

As said elsewhere by others it merely legitimizes their lies.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: KateG
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM

"The truth is the Palestinians were knock-on victims of the Holocaust, rather like driver caught up in a motorway pileup, injured by a vehicle propelled into theirs by another vehicle. No point in denying the existence of the pile-up, and imagining that the primary responsibility for the crash was the person driving the car that actually crashed into theirs. "

McGrath, that's a excellent analogy.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 05:33 PM

Debating with deniers is a good thing to do if you want to waste enormous amounts of your personal time and energy for the sake of appeasing your own flaming ego...which is what the deniers are doing too.

It's a behavioral addiction. It's as easy to do it as it is to fall off a tightrope too, specially if you post on an internet forum like this one on a daily basis.

There should be a 12-step program out there to save people from this useless habit.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 06:41 PM

Dave (mariner)

Great post, very interesting.


GregF

Maybe not debate them, but expose their lies to the wider jury ie the rest of the world and, more importantly, future generations.

You still have to argue and prove your case, whether in court or on the floor of a debating chamber.

In this case it's a kind of historical and political truth court.


Little hawk,

I think you've been a bit hasty.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 07:07 PM

There's a distinction between debating with people, and addressing false claims and correcting misinformation.

It's possible to do the latter without even acknowledgeing the existance of a person who may have made the false claims and peddled the misinformation.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:42 AM

"The truth is the Palestinians were knock-on victims of the Holocaust, rather like driver caught up in a motorway pileup, injured by a vehicle propelled into theirs by another vehicle. No point in denying the existence of the pile-up, and imagining that the primary responsibility for the crash was the person driving the car that actually crashed into theirs."

Disagree, the Palestinians have always been the victims of a complete and utter lack of Palestinian leadership.

The creation of the State of Israel has got absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. Friction between Jew and Arab in Palestine was deliberately orchestrated by the lies of Yasser Arafat's Uncle during the 1920' and 1930's during the period of Britain's League of Nations Mandate.

Palestinian Arab leadership rejected every proposal laid before them. In 1947/48 when the British Mandate expired, the UN proposed a settlement which the Arabs again rejected. The armed forces of the Arab League attacked the Jews in Palestine, the Jews successfully defended themselves and THEN declared the State of Israel, which was immediately recognised by the United Nations.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 09:46 AM

The DENIERS are in good company. The Swiss banks that holds billions in jewish gold and diamonds taken by the Third Reich as well as lowly concentration camp guards, REFUSE to release the money.
Germany will not provide Swizerland with a complete list of the holocaust victims, so what are the poor Swill Banks to do?

it will continue to be a vicious circle until the last teetering 90 year old holocaust survivor dies, thus leaving the Swiss accounts free and clear.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Scoville
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 10:24 AM

I always thought Holocaust deniers were irrational in the first place (at least, that seemed like about the only way somebody could deny the Holocaust and keep a straight face; if they were off-balance in the first place).

I don't know about a safe place, but I'm not sure I see the point. I agree with LH that they basically do it to hear themselves talk and get attention. Know your facts, but don't encourage them. They're squeaky wheels and the more they squeak, the more likely that somebody is going to hear them and latch onto their ideas even if you're arguing rationally against them at the same time.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:07 PM

I AM NOT A DENIER!!!!

When I was a kid and played "Cowboys and Indians", somebody inevitably was "Billy The Kid"! Why? Because we were lead to believe, via books, movies and lore, that Billy was a "Wild West Legend" of epic proportions. It wasn't until many years later that I was made aware of more of the facts. "Billy The Kid" was more attuned to "Dirty Little Billy" and was certainly no hero to emulate!
If you had asked me 30 years ago what the Holocaust was, my answer would have been "that's when 6 million European Jews were executed by lethal gas in Germany by Hitler". 6 Million Jews, lethal gas and Germany have all been adjusted somewhat in the last 60 years. As I have learned, through immersing myself as much as possible since my first response to this thread, I now know that some of what I believed was true, while some was not. I have read Deborah Lipstadt, The Weber-Shermer Clash,Robert Faurisson and Simon Wiesenthal among others. My overall view has changed somewhat as to what I believed was fact and what I now know is fiction. If not for dialogue of some kind how would I have learned what I now know? Is it important, for me as an individual, to know the truth as best as it can be told? Yes!
Call me what you will, but a denier, no!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 01:53 PM

Good post, 3refs.

The danger here is in establishing any history as sacred, unquestionable truth. If any of the traditional facts about the Holocaust, ie the 6 million figure, is found to be innaccurate, does that jeopardize the entire truth of what happened? I think not. Let's suppose that this figure is wrong by a factor of 1 million, and that the proof is apparent and substantial. Would a Holocaust Defender be better served by sticking to the 6 million figure and denouncing the challenger as a liar, or by admitting the fact and moving on to more undeniable truths? The first argument would in fact lend credence to all other challenges, no matter how absurd.

I also share some of your reluctance to even make this argument in the forum. By saying that the Holocaust should be open to re-examination in the light of 60 years having passed, am I likely to be lumped into the freak fringe of Deniers? I certainly hope not. I just would hope that anyone defending the Holocaust as a real event is armed with factual information to support his point of view, and enough information to refute the other side. The tendency toward anger, indignation, and insult when confronted with arguments that re-define or deny the Holocaust, no matter one's personal opinion of his opponent, is in my view extremely counter-productive. And there is a huge difference between someone who disagrees with certain accepted facts, and one who denys the entire event.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 03:13 PM

"Their Jew hating rhetoric has calmed down a bit. Instead of calling for the death of all Jews in Isreal they actually suggested moving Isreal to Alaska. (yes they actually said that)" Donuel

They'd be welcome- they would make Alaska bloom.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:50 PM

3refs

"Is it important, for me as an individual, to know the truth as best as it can be told? Yes!"

Nice post - I agree.

To add to that, perhaps a better way of looking at the situation is to talk about the "discussion" or "search" for the truth as a wide field of study that includes many conflicting points of view on many topics within the overall subject area of the holocaust.

Sharing information and increasing understanding and knowledge is all part of this process, and at times someone will raise their head and say "it's a lie it never happened."

If the discussion is already out there and keeping itself in the limelight, through the efforts of people such as us on forums such as this and wider, then the deniers will quckly look out of depth to those who are keeping track of it.

Debates about the detail should be encouraged as much as possible to highlight just what a bunch of outlandish loonies the deniers are when they try to butt in.

Azizi and Wilfried for example in the "growing up in post holocaust Germany" thread have given our souls but a taste of great riches.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 05:56 AM

I am so grateful for a wonderful discussion (not an attempt
to end it,obviously).

   Whether to debate or not may depend on how dangerous the
deniers might look. I'm thinking of Gentleman's Agreement
(novel and film). Agentile journalist 'becomes' a Jew, and
notices
much anti-Jewish stuff. He later realises nthat by saying
nothing
when hearing such stuff, he is enabling it to survive. So
it's difficult to judge how best to proceed.

   Since opening this thread,I've realised the bleedin'
obvious point that asking my questions online is self-defeating insofar as a point of them is to surprise the deniers.

   The price of liberty etc.etc.,and vigilance isn't the
same as arguing at evry last opportunity. It sounds like
the opening of those archives that Dave (the ancient
mariner) introduced me to (can only speak for myself) will
be more nails in the deniers coffin.


   And the discussion has reminded me of one point about
history I hit on this year. Always wonder what they're
talking about whenever you hear (or read) anyone ask what
the verdict of history will be. As McGrath of Harlow implies,
such a question is close to void of meaning.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 06:31 AM

"The price of liberty etc.etc.,and vigilance isn't the
same as arguing at evry last opportunity. It sounds like
the opening of those archives that Dave (the ancient
mariner) introduced me to (can only speak for myself) will
be more nails in the deniers coffin."

Absolutely!!!

A few inconsistencies does not make the whole story a lie.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 07:26 AM

and let's not forget about the Irish and the Scots.

the Irish famine and the highland clearences and Scottish Famine as well.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 04:09 PM

In all those cases further historical research has led to fresh understandings, and controversy about fresh understandings, of what happened and why it happened, and the term "revisionist" has been thrown about as an insult.

The point is, there not one single revision, there's a continuing sequence of revisions, and they don't all go the same way.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 07:15 PM

Though it strikes me that if the study of history is a constantly revisionist process by nature, then to describe any particular form of it as "revisionist" to the exclusion of another form is a fallacy ...

... Unless ...

... there is be a seperate meaning to this word, when used in the context of the study of history.

If we use it correctly, we are committing a fallacy as it is unnecessary, since all history research is revisionist. So if we use it at all we must be using it according to a different meaning.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 07:19 PM

I'm going to go read up on grammer.

If that last post made sense, then alphabet judging pruriently sideways ... eleven!

Know what I mean?

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 08:06 PM

Or we avoid using the term. Or maybe qualify it when we do use it. For example "unhistorical revisionism", "revisionism with a Nazi agenda", or "responsible revisionism" - terms like that.

There'd still be room for arguing about the terms, but I think there'd be less likelihood of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 05:39 AM

Surely whether history and historical research are revisionist or not depends on whether or not an alteration in a standard view is involved.

   As I understand it, some history books are written simply to produce a freshly-written account of a (the?) standard view, the kind of stuff that 'revisionists' are revising.

   And we musn't forget that all history is written from a point of view (see E.H.Carr's What Is History?). Thus we get a conservative view of history, a socialist view, a conspiratorial view etc. ad nauseum.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:58 AM

Here's what the dictionary says

blicky


Perhaps I'm not as ignorant as GregF suggests, since by his logic (as described in my earlier highlighted paradox), his own use of the word wouldbe redundant.

Leaving us with the definitions given at the above link.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:59 AM

That last guest was me

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,Meg
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 08:45 PM

Ivor, you sound eager to debate, and "debate" is not what happens in relation to deniers. They have a closed opinion, and it is not given to you to open it. You say you wish not to show your hand, but as soon as they notice that you're a Jewish person, that will have happened.

I'm on your side in the argument, but I feel a though you're expecting to "win" something. If you don't look closely at the playing field of the "debate", you won't notice that there's no win possible, except to deny the deniers the attention that they crave. Engaging on their terms is to have lost what you wish to win.

Perhaps you're asking something about how to address the issue effectively?

Sincerely

Meg

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:49 AM

"Debate" implies opponents, with fixed positions squaring up to each other, with the expectation that one side is going to win and the other lose. It's a kind of game. It's perfectly possible to have a debate in which neither side is right.

"Discussion" implies an exploration of a topic in the hope of getting a clearer understanding of the truth.

Clearly anyone who denies that there was a sustained attempt by the Nazis at genocide of Jews and Roma, and mass killings of other categories of "undesirables" is not merely mistaken, but perversely mistaken. The right approach to that kind of thing is not to "debate with the deniers", but to present the evidence that disproves the assertion. The aim is not to convince the people making the assertions, but to make it harder for anyone to be taken in by them.

However that shouldn't mean that a particular account of what happened should be seen as set in marble, not open to review in the light of subsequent information. Nor should it mean that the way in which the Holocaust and accounts of the Holocaust have been used subsequently should be a no go area.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:33 AM

McGrath, I agree, but would just like to say that I perceive it as possible that a debate needn't always be about one point of view versus another.

Sure, all debates involve conflicting viewpoints and there is an element of competition that is inevitable, but the end goal of a debate needn't be that one view prevails intact at the expense of it's rival.

For example, a debate in parliament. paticularly, say, the european parliament, where there is less of a confrontational edge to what there is in the UK parliament.

Though in the UK it is fair to say that the process of debate is less about being stubbornly partisan and more about subjecting ideas to the type of ruthless scrutiny that serious debate necessitates.

Often the end result of debate in this context is that essential changes are made to policy, rather than that it simply wins or loses.

Of course the above scenario is idealised to a certain extent, but it serves to show the debating takes many forms including direct confrontation.

And if "revisionism" is about doctrines as much as it is about interpretation, then it is essential that a perverse doctrine not be allowed to dominate "the debate" generally simply as a consequence of the absence of an opposing doctrine, and the ruthless scrutiny that its advocate might offer.

Ruthless scrutiny rocks!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Rowan
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 05:20 PM

Some observations of the postings on the thread so far.

McGrath of Harlow has presented an excellent analogy to the worth of the discussion/debate on the motives of denying the Holocaust. In Australia we've been exposed to similar discussion/debate over whether white settlers did/didn't massacre Aboriginal people in vast numbers and whether or not there was 'official' sanction to the murders. The context of the Australian debate/discussion is known as "The History Wars" and the attempted revisionism is mostly pushed by (what in Australia is called) the conservative ("reactionary"?) Right. Relative to the European Holocaust, they could be lumped as "deniers".

Many conservatives are quite content with what they see as the status quo and wish to avoid scrutiny of the history that lead to their current (and comfortable) positions, although many Jewish Israelis (as distinct from the Palestinian Israelis, who may be Christian or Muslim) may not regard their current position as particularly "comfortable". Limiting the time-depth of their examination (as has been done in one post above) can only lend support to a lack of understanding of the issues involved, which is used by reactionaries to justify the status quo.

While Alaska has been recently mentioned as a possible destination for Zionists, there were other places considered in the past; Kenya, the Kimberley (NW Australia) and SW Tasmania are three that come to mind. I think it no coincidence that all were, at the time, considered parts of the British Empire. And I can't recall anybody being taken seriously as Holocaust Deniers before the (very) anglosaxons started the process.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:12 PM

Yes,GUEST Meg,I do want to enter some kind of encounter with deniers, have realised that online is not the place,don't think my hand is at all fully revealed by my Jewishness being known.

   That last point is because my questions belong to a pretty objective realm.

   i had originally asked where I might encounter deniers safely, and as McGrath has indicated,I don't think the deniers have a leg to stand on objectively. Thus,I'm in no hurry and feel no need to worry, to get into abuse (I'm in no way suggesting,Meg, that you or anyone has suggested any such thing - it's my very own invention), or feel any need to respond in the slightest to anything other than reasoned argument. Certainly not to anger or insult.


   Probably correct that discussion is more appropriate than debate. The idealist in me would say that it must be possible for changes of opinion through debate, otherwise it wouldn't look like real debate (to me), merely assertions and reassertions of immovable positions.

   "When I'm wrong,I change my mind. What do you do?" (Keynes)






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM

It might be like trying to argue with Jade Goody or Vicky Pollard, but just think how they end up looking. Nobody takes people like that seriously.

They put up their fortifications and you undermine the foundations.

The wall comes tumbling down and you say "look your walls have fallen down" and they respond "oh no they haven't" or more pertinently "... yer but no but yer but no but ...", convince themselves that they're doing fine and soldier on.

Oh why oh why can't people just ... well ... you know ...

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,Owlkat
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

To heck with the Holocaust deniers, I want to have a crack at the Flat Earth Society!!!!

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 08:24 AM

Let's suppose that this figure is wrong by a factor of 1 million

Pedant alert: That would make 6 murdered Jews. Obviously not what you mean.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lox
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 09:16 AM

LOL

The rest simply died of unnatural causes right?

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Cluin
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 03:51 PM

Oh look, this isn't an argument.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

It is!

It is not.

Look, you just contradicted me.

I did not.

Oh you did!

No, no, no.

You did just then.

Nonsense!

Oh, this is futile!

No it isn't.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 09:59 PM

Here's a link to a BBC story (accompanied here by a bunch of posts from members of the public arguing back and forth) about an aspect of that Iran conference that hasn't got that much attention - Why are Jews at the 'Holocaust denial' conference?:

A handful of Orthodox Jews have attended Iran's controversial conference questioning the Nazi genocide of the Jews - not because they deny the Holocaust but because they object to using it as justification for the existence of Israel...
...A representative, UK-based Rabbi Aharon Cohen, told the conference he prayed "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved".
In its place, Rabbi Cohen said, should be "a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians when Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries".

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 07:26 AM

McGrath, you bring Joy to my heart.

(oh God what am I saying!)

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 08:36 AM

Each religion has its crazy fringe nutcases.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dazbo
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 10:30 AM

Seems to me the problem is that one man's evidence is another man's conspiracy.

Who can really prove one way and another that, for example a document is not a really good fake? That an eye witness hasn't got an ulterior motive for what they're saying? That film or tv evidence wasn't manufactured in Shepherd's Bush or Hollywood?

Theres none so blind as those that will not see.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 11:04 AM

True enough, the Neturei Karta are a fringe type of Judaism, but then the Amish are a fringe type of Christian. I don't think calling them nutcases helps any - in neither case do they go round killing people in the name of their version of their religion.

And they aren't the only fringe religion involved in this affair, on both sides. There are powerful voices on the Zionist side with some extremely strange and extreme religious views. There is the type of Christian Fundamentalism which sees support of Israel as a way of bringing about an End Time in which all Jews who do not accept Jesus will be wiped away. There is a variety of Jewish Fundamentalism which is dedicated to bringing about an Eretz Israel in which followers of other religions will have no place.

The reason I put that link was as a reminder that it's all a bit more complicated than it often get presented as being. And that discussion over on that link is quite interesting in itself, and some people from here might like to join in it.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 03:37 PM

Thanks for that,McGrath.

Did you Google that to find it?

Otherwise,I think those posters who said in effect, engaging
with them is a waste of effort, are right.

An interesting spin-off, for me, is the question of the human
habit of being immovable about something in one's world or
one's thinking, other than something like 1+1=2 (and I'm not sure
how many of THOSE there are.) A lot to do with the objective/subjective conundrum,I suspecy. There's a good picture
of it in the last juror to hold out in the film 12 Angry Men.
There were two people in a minority of one in the film, him, and Fonda soon after the beginning.

Perhaps we can rely on the truth that "truth will out."

Still, mental or psychological immovability is an interesting matter to consider.

(Oviously a book here. But surely it's been written.)






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 04:04 PM

When two people have an argument, they can't both be right. But they can both be wrong.

That's what I meant about the difference between a debate and a discussion.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 05:21 PM

How I found that page, Ivor?

An odd way really - I was trying to find out something about a guitar I had, so I googled for that, and about the only mention of it (apart from, one on the Mudcat by me sometime back) was at a site called Harmony Central Guitar Base.

When I'd read what it had about my guitar, I noticed, up the top of the page there was a menu, including "Forums". So I opened that up, and saw it had a section "The Political Party - A place for musicians to share their thoughts on political and social issues. 18 and over recommended. May contain objectionable language."

And in there I found a thread labelled as "Jews went to Tehran's holocaust denial conference". And in there was the link I gave. Together with a "discussion" thread which made me appreciate the level of discussion we have at the Mudcat, even when it slips. Even the slanging matches that sometimes flare up here.

It's odd how the Internet gets us places we hadn't planned to go.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 06:02 PM

"When two people have an argument, they can't both be right. But they can both be wrong."

Sometimes they can both be right, they just don't realise that their views are compatible and don't understand the wider issue enougto see thhat their argument is a false one.

So they're not exactly wrong ... yet ...



And on a completely different tack, (to add to the 'weird' religions thing) there are the Yezidi's, christians from the Middle east, (I've forgotten exactly from where) who consider that God (being all forgiving) reinstated Lucifer as top angel after he had been condemned, thus rendering him worthy once again of the worship of virtuous faithful christian men and women.

Christians worshipping lucifer - yet not in a way that contradicts any of their christian ideals.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 08:27 PM

I looked up Yezidis, and there's an interesting account of them in Wikipedia. Interesting lot. They aren't Christians - they sound more like an Islamified version of Mithraism than anything, with a distinctly different spin on some things:

"Then God gave life to Adam from his own breath and instructed all archangels to bow to Adam. All archangels obeyed except Melek Ta'us. As God inquired, Malak Ta'us replied, "How can I submit to another being! I am from your illumination while Adam is made of dust." Then God praised him and made him the leader of all angels and his deputy on the Earth.
.......................
I take your point about both being right, if they are looking from different points of view.

If I say New York is in the direction where the Sun sets, and someone else on the Mudcat, in San Francisco says, no it's in the direction where the Sun rises we'd both be right. But we'd also both be wrong in thinking the other person was wrong.

In the context of the topic the thread the analogy with that is the way that you have two sets of people who see each other as the source of terrible events in the Holy Land - and are all too often unable to recognise the true source of the events in a third set of people, outside the Middle East.

The Palestinians identify the Israelis (and their backers) as the ultimate cause of their suffering, and the Jewish Israelis identify the Palestinians (and their backers) as the cause of the continuing agony. And both should recognise the true cause as the persecution of Jews in Europe over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 01:20 AM

And, as well, all the Israelis (Jewish and Palestinian, whether Christian or Muslim) that can trace their ancestry completely in the area east of the Mediterranean are Semitic. I mention this because of a much earlier post making mention of antisemitism. I forget the name of the investigator (it might or might not have been associated with the collection of peoples' DNA from populations spread across the globe) but the DNA analysis of all those whose ancestry was limited to that part of the world variously known as Israel or Palestine showed they were all Semites, irrespective of religion. Arabs and Bedouins were not Semites, so all the nonsense about Muslim Palestinians being "Arabs" is just yet another example of fraternal conflicts being the most vicious of all conflicts.

Which means the pressure on us all to help resolve them rather than exacerbate them is that much more exquisite.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Slag
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 04:24 AM

All any living organism has is stimulus, response, memory and anticipation based upon that memory. Memory is the key element here. Facts are the things remembered and it is our understanding of the facts, how the facts relate to each other and their significance for our future actions that is all-important. On a societal level, our history is our memory and it has a direct bearing on our future. To deny historical facts is to lobotomize the foundational element from the collective consciousness. If it is allowed to happen it takes away the necessary tools for making intelligent and informed decisions and dooms us to repeat mistakes madein the past.

I have made this observation in other threads but it is germane to this discussion and so I will also repeat: a curse and a pox upon any who attempt to rewrite factual history.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 12:59 PM

"Semitic" is a linguistic term, applying to a whole range of langauges across the Middle East, Arabic being the most widely spoken. It's got nothing particularly to do with Palestine or what is now Israel, except that one of the languages in the linguistic group was Hebrew and another was Aramaic, used by the Jewish inhabitants if that area in ancient time.

So "Semite" means people who speak Semitic languages, or whose ancestors spoke them. And most people who fall into that categorey are Arabs, all the way from Morocco to Iraq. "Arabs and Bedouins were not Semites" is in fact completely wrong.

I think the research Rowan would be referring to may have come up with evidence indicating that Palestinian Arabs are to a very large extent descended from those Jews of ancient Palestine who were able to remain there at the time when many others were compelled to leave in the First Century.

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 01:34 PM

I certainly didn't mean to imply that 6 Jews died. Thanks to Wolfgang for pointing out the "factor of a million" phrase. English literature majors should always tread carefully when talking numbers! ;>}

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 03:22 PM

Here's a piece in todays's Guardian by a Muslim vice-chair of Respect which bears on this - Muslims need to take part - Palestinian dispossession is a reason to participate in Holocaust Memorial Day, not boycott it :

Participation in this national event in no way legitimises or justifies the dispossession of the Palestinian people - in fact, remembering the lessons of the Holocaust does the very opposite.

We should be part of it because there are lessons from history which relate very closely to our experience today. We should be part of it because our refusal merely gives succour to those who peddle prejudice and lies about the Holocaust.
..........................

I wonder who is going to jump in with "100 - look at me"

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Rowan
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 04:15 PM

Thanks McGrath. Your correction made my point (about relatedness) much more effectively than I had. And better addresses the nonsense.

I'm reminded that the birth certificates of Jews born in Palestine before 1947 have the descriptor 'Palestinian Jew' (or words to that effect) rather than "Israeli", and that some of these people (who have Israeli passports) are not very pleased with the similarities between the "Israeli" policies towards non-Jewish residents in the area and South African policies towards non-whites before 1990.

There's quite a lot of factual history that gets 'overlooked', if not actually denied, in various history wars.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 06:00 PM

The discussion about 'semite' shows exactly why i use
the phrase "anti-Jewish" in preference to "anti-Semitic"
as more accurate.

It's worth reading a book I may have mentioned here,E.H.
Carr's What is History? on some of the problems of writing
history. One that he raises is about how we decide what a
fact is. Another about just how filtered and a matter of
choice is what we call History.


   And 'what really happened' was shown to be capable of
being made problematic not only by the great divergence of
evidence common in trials but by a famous incident. (This
point is NOT meant in any way as anti-American but about
difficulties in seeking agreement about historical facts.)
That was the Rodney King incident. Tho' we also get it
every day over some sporting incident or another.

So little wonder there are ongoing disputes about historical
facts.

And there are surely innumerable events that are surely
beyond dispute.

So history is full of pitfalls.

And its frustrating to discover that writers produce books explaining what really happened about some event or other
after having done some years of research. How on earth we
layman are supposed to know, without the benefit or possibility
of sufficient research, what really happened,.................






      Ivor